In Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren is trying to make a case for a less stringent doctrinal center. In so doing, he engages in a number of inanities, which can be seen from simply reading the full title. Since I don’t want to take up too much bandwidth, I won’t repeat the title here.
In one chapter, he cites a story from author Diana Butler Ross about her daughter Emma and an encounter with a veiled Muslim woman. Emma asked why the woman was wearing a veil and Ross explained to her that “she dresses like that—and covers her head with a veil—because she loves God. That is how her people show they love God.” Ross continued her explanation by saying, “Christian ladies show love for God by going to church, eating the bread and wine, serving the poor, and giving to those in need.” She relates that after that, Emma would point to Muslim ladies and shout, “Look, mommy, she loves God!” Ross’s Muslim neighbor, upon hearing what she had taught Emma, hugged Ross and said, “I wish that all Americans would teach their children so. The world would be better. The world would be better” (pp. 265-66).
I relate that story here to point out one of the fundamental flaws in the emergent conversation. There seems a distinct unwillingness to actually think about the issues from a biblical, critical point of view. Scripture has taken a back seat to philosophy and sociology. The “conversation” allows all opinions to be given equal weight. It asks many questions (which is good) but gives few answers (which is bad). In this case, the answer given is even the wrong answer.
Does a Muslim woman wear a veil because she loves God? No, of course not. She wears a veil because she follows a religion that has rejected God. That doesn’t mean she ought to be spit on, or killed. That doesn’t mean she should be run out of town with tar and feathers. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk to her. It simply means that she doesn’t love God.
Christ made it clear in John 8 that people who reject Christ reject God. Since the Muslims have rejected Christ, we must conclude that they have rejected God. Orthodoxy, no matter how generous, can conclude nothing else. Once we accept that Muslims love God, we have left the bounds of orthodoxy and entered into heterodoxy.
What our children need to know is that Muslims are people created in the image of God, who deserve our love and respect. They have every right to practice their religion without interference. But our children also need to know that they don’t love God. If they loved God, they would be Christians for they would accept Christ who is God in human flesh, who died to give life to sinners who would come to him.
When McLaren cites this story approvingly, he demonstrates an unwillingness to be biblical. For him, people have become more important than God and his truth. And that is dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think Driscoll has a book coming out soon that is a criticism of emergent views of the cross. He's taken the entire quarter to flesh out the atonement in an effort to make sure our little piece of the emerging population has the cross straight. Isn't it interesting that in every generation, there is a new battle for the truth of the gospel? Christ is a dividing line and a stumblingblock.
I will be looking forward to that. I heard him say a few things at the Radical Reformission conference.
I asked him to clarify emerging vs. emergent again this week. At first, it was a movement to be missionaries to postmodern America. But it has diverged into two groups--Emergent Liberal or Emerging Evangelical. At least, that's how he distinguishes the two. I understand what he's communicating. There used to be just modernist liberalism and modernist evangelicalism. Now modernist thinking at either level is digressing, and postmodern liberalism and postmodern evangelicalism is dominating the conversation.
Interesting, Wendy. I haven't yet to seen that distinction being made in the mainstream, at least that I am reading. But that doesn't mean much. I regularly read a few emergent blogs, or at least scan them. I think the liberal/evangelical distinction is a clear one and certainly applicable. I can certainly see why Mark would want to distance himself from some of this nonsense that is going on.
PS, the removed comment was mine. I made some changes, but you can't edit.
You're right--those aren't mainstream dilineations. I think Mark is hoping to make a clear distinction, and he probably has enough influence on conversation to add new terms. It's an absolute necessity that the difference be spoken loudly and clearly. I count 3 books by him now that have dealt or will deal with this distinction.
Post a Comment