Brian McLaren – A New Kind of Christianity – Initial Thoughts

I am reading Brian’s new book – A New Kind of Christianity.

I am into question #2 and I am wondering WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS?

Really?  This is really that upsetting?

I have been following some of the blog banter and honestly find it fascinating that Brian’s book is shaking people up this much.

I have said of Brian in the past that he has a knack for “popularizing” stuff academic theologians have been saying for a long time.  Some say the church is 40 years behind the seminary.  It’s true.  And, the seminary is in the dark ages to start with.  Brian is popularizing thought that has been expressed elsewhere.  He’s not really breaking much new ground here.  His books are written for the church.  By that, I mean for the masses.  Therefore, as David Fitch said, to some of us, he is treading ground we are all getting tired of treading.  (A la the six line Greek narrative stuff.)

Granted, I have only made it through the “bible” chapters, but if you have read any NT Wright, especially his more academic works, Brian’s perspective on the bible will not throw you for a loop.  It’s very close to Wright’s New Perspective.  (Is justification about freedom from works righteousness or is it about covenant faithfulness?)   Actually, it feels a little like NT Wright and Richard Rohr mixed together.  Just my take.

This gets at an important point.  The folks that have a huge issue with McLaren are the same people that have a HUGE issue with NT Wright.  And, those people wouldn’t touch Richard Rohr with a ten foot pole.

So, I wondered why in the world Bill Kinnon was so offended by Brian’s opening chapters?  It surprises me that Mr. Kinnon sees himself in the camp Brian is poking.  I see the camp Brian is poking as more along the lines of the John MacArthurites and the Discernment Bloggers, or even the T4G’ers.  But, not the missional folks?  Am I off here?  I mean, I’ve spent the last several years questioning this stuff.  Especially questioning how much Christianity changed after it was legalized – that is, how much it is affected by Greco-Roman Philosophy.  This doesn’t catch me off guard.

Now, do I agree with all of Brian’s conclusions?  No.  Never have.  But, the guy is asking all the right questions.  We have to be open to investigating this stuff.  If I am not curious, I am blind, or worse fearful.  Which, ironically, is just what Brian says.

What Does a Post-Charismatic Theology Look Like?

Everyone is talking about the “transition” of the Vineyard.  One of the things necessary to transition, in my opinion, is the necessity of a Post-Charismatic Missional Theology.  (The Vineyard is such a mixed bag of ecclesiology, I wonder if it could ever have a central missional theology?)

Here are some elements I think are necessary for a post-charismatic theology:

1. An emphasis on competence and character (integrity) as primary.  Potentially over/against gifting.
   1. People who display gifting are put on the “platform” in the charismatic world.  This isn’t always bad, but in some cases causes deep hurt to the charismatic body of Christ when said leader does something wrong in public.  See Todd Bentley.
   2. It appears that people with “charisma” (gifting) get caught up in chasing fame and fortune more often than not.  The New Testament model is of Christ followers boasting in suffering, not gifting!
   3. Because of this, I think it is necessary for mentoring systems and structures to be built to test a person before they are released into ministry.  This will enhance missionality, b/c churches will always be in the process of mentoring missional leaders to be sent out.
2. A robust pneumatology that is not married to a truncated eschatology.
   1. Charismatic theologians have developed a robust theology of Spirit.  Both in thought and in practice.
   2. This pneumatology has been especially powerful in two areas:
      1. The equipping of the saints for the ministry of the church.
      2. Healing and deliverance and the value of “experiential” knowledge of God as measured against scripture.
   3. Often, especially in the late 20th century, this pneumatology was tied to eschatology.  The pouring out of the Spirit in the 20th century renewal movements was seen as proof that we were living in the last days.  It appears they were off a bit.
   4. We must rethink this.  Revival and renewal always displays signs and wonders, so marrying these signs and wonders to any particular eschatological perspective, which predicts the end of the world, is suspect.  Whether monastic movements pre-reformation or missionary movements post-reformation, signs and wonders accompany the spread of the Gospel into un-reached areas.
3. A dependence on the Spirit as primary to the risk-taking activity of missional living.
   1. As the Western world is (re)presented as a mission field, the always present motif in scripture of God’s presence invading a place he has not been, requiring response and repentance from the people in that place, and then instigating a diaspora of his newly converted people, begins in Genesis and continues through Revelation.  Why would it be any different now?
   2. The biblical picture is that the people that took this on were always uncomfortable, mostly unwilling, ill-equipped, etc.  God always says, “do not be afraid, I am with you.”  He is with us in the Spirit.  We must learn or re-learn to depend on the Spirit as we leave the church facility and take the Gospel outside.  It is the Spirit’s work!
4. This will most likely lead to “power” encounters.
   1. These power encounters will be present in new evangelistic efforts, or in healing and deliverance (which is all biblical).
   2. But in the new era, it appears it will not happen at conferences, outpourings, or in mega churches, although it might and probably will still happen there.
   3. There appears to be a new generation of apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers unwilling to go down that road.  These people also appear hellbent (no pun intended) on taking the Gospel out of the building or the conference center and into the streets, homes, coffee shops, marketplace, schools, political centers and any other context necessary to reach people unwilling to engage Christianity on its territory.

Some might say, how is this different from the renewal of the 20th century.  I think the “telos” is different.  In the 20th century it moved from Spirit activity to Church activity.  I think the missional generation is done with church growth and will find a way to take this thing to a new arena.  God’s Kingdom will come in the world, not inside the church building.

Society of Vineyard Scholars

By the way, I had a blast at SVS.

Caleb Maskell did an awesome job moderating and planning.  The staff at Sugar Land Vineyard was awesome and did a great job putting on a great event.

Jason Coker brought up some great points in the comments of my last post.  I think the future events will have a more pointed focus.

Jason Clark also posted a brief bit about Bert Waggoner’s intro, which I missed.

If you have seen others, send them to me in the comments.

Reflections on the Society of Vineyard Scholars Event

Here are a few reflections of my time in Houston at the Society of Vineyard Scholars (SVS).

1. There are a bunch of young, smart, vineyard folks. Wow… I have trouble imagining the Elm City Vineyard (a lot of Yale Divinity and Yale PhD Students) and Central Vineyard (Columbus, OH who had several attendees who are working on PhD’s at THE Ohio State University in other fields). I might be an intellectual, but I think it would be strange to be surrounded by so many in ministry. I see the Vineyard as a garden for pastor-theologians and it will be interesting to see where this SVS thing will go. I didn’t feel like we were getting theological reflection from the pastors of the Vineyard. Part of this, was the youth of the attendees I think (myself included).
2. There does not seem to be a bunch of folks interested in NT or OT studies. The exegetical work was lacking and most of the Vineyard Scholars seem to be reflecting on culture and theology.
3. The most provocative session was the Science and Faith session. The Vineyard is doing some interesting things here, but I think the focus needs to be on education and exposure. (Side note: I was listening to Sean Hannity yesterday and he was bantering with a caller about the “lie” of global warming. This is a political issue now, not a scientific one. This doesn’t help the religious community figure out how to participate.)
4. Kingdom Theology is obviously the center of the Vineyard Movement, but there was no real interaction with it in a progressive way. There was a presupposition that we all knew what Kingdom Theology is and how it informs our practice in the Vineyard. I don’t know that we are there. For example, there was an inside joke throughout the meetings that NT Wright is the most well read theologian in the Vineyard. He was foot-noted in many of the papers. But, I don’t think Wright’s vision of the Kingdom is “really” the Vineyard’s vision of the Kingdom. (Although, we might want it to be.)

On that last note, I would like to see some engagemetn with Kingdom Theology next year that doesn’t assume or presume we all understand it. I think, in particular, this would take shape in a few different categories.

First, eschatology. Or, what is our vision for the not yet? How do the implications of our eschatological assumptions inform our practice? There was some table talk about Brian McLaren and NT Wright and Dallas Willard. I think all those men have had an impact on eschatological perspectives in the Vineyard. If that is true, this is a shift away from G. E. Ladd’s eschatology. What are the implications of that?

Second, what is our vision of of the already? This has implications in social justice or social structures. How has the kingdom come already? What does that mean for the practice of the local church? What does it mean for missions? What does it mean for social action? What does it mean for evangelism? In what ways can the Vineyard continue to operate in power healing and power evangelism without being too pentecostal?

Vineyard USA – Are We Emerging? Part 3

In this post:

1. Ministry to the GLBT community is firstly a Justice Issue.
2. Ministry to the GLBT community is secondly a Reconciliation Issue.
3. Ministry to the GLBT community is secondly a Holiness and Purity Issue.
4. In reality, these things are happening all at once, or so close together, they are hard to decipher.
5. Vineyard values express a position which rightly realizes this trajectory.  But, the movement is probably not ready to do anything proactive about it.
6. Examples of this at work.

The Vineyard has Two Core Values that speak to several of the “characteristics” I brought up in my earlier post.

But here, I want to discuss the future of the church (Vineyard churches specifically) with reference to those struggling with sexual identity issues.   Namely, the GLBT community, but this must take into account the fact that many people are struggling with this issue , internally, and would not label themselves GLBT.

For me, this issue is first a JUSTICE issue.  The God of Scripture cares about the oppressed (read Isaiah) and wants them to receive his favor and healing.  The GLBT community is oppressed, primarily by God’s people.  The church of the future must realize this and adapt.  I personally don’t think the answer is putting 2000 years of church history concerning this issue in the can, but we will probably have to completely change the way we interact with this community for the Gospel to even have a chance. God’s Justice now is Jesus.  God’s offering or his solution is Jesus. Therefore…

This issue is secondly a RECONCILIATION issue.  The God of Scripture is reconciling creation unto himself.   Two things stick out to me.  First, Romans 3.   No one is righteous.  A common claim from God’s people is, “God says homosexuality is an abomination.”  Actually, God says that “WITHOUT CHRIST” I am an abomination.  I have no hope without Jesus.  The GLBT community has no hope without Jesus.  The church in the future must be committed to reconciling people to God through Jesus by the Spirit.  Period.  Therefore…

This issue is thirdly a Holiness and Purity issue.  God woos his elect into relationship.  He reconciles them unto himself and restores relationship between he and thee.  And then, the real work begins.  The working out of our salvation or sanctification is the process of God making His people holy.  Why do we, as sinning saints, who enjoy God’s grace in our messiness,  expect that this process would work different for anyone else?  Namely, the church expects the EXACT OPPOSITE TRAJECTORY.  Holiness first (renouncing the GLBT lifestyle), reconciliation second, and then justice.

I think this is why the Conservative Church and the rest of the world (liberal church and secular people) speak past each other.  I often hear Christians say, “we have to stand up for the truth” or, “we have to confront sin.” I would challenge these people to re-read the scriptures, especially the Gospels, to see how Jesus interacted with the oppressed.  Repent and believe is FIRST a call to Change your Mind and Ways concerning UNBELIEF. Jesus said this to the religious people too.  The presupposition being – the religious people don’t really believe God!

Ironically, the only people I have met that like being called sinners are Christians.  Christians get off on reveling in their depravity.  I think sometimes, simply because we are okay with being called sinners, we call others sinners too.  This path does not seem helpful.  It is much more helpful to allow Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and scripture to lead people to a revelation about their lives.  But, whether or not we call homosexuality sin, people who are gay need to be introduced to the just and reconciling God.  The God I know through Christ in the Spirit confronts and challenges the ungodliness in me – constantly.  I trust He will do the same for anyone else, including those struggling with their sexual identity.  Teaching people to hear and interpret the voice of God is much more difficult than just proclaiming my interpretation though.

What does this have to do with the Vineyard emerging?  The Vineyard Core Values –   Compassionate Ministry and Reconciling Community and Experiencing God- position VineyardUSA to be leaders in this contemporary endeavor:  taking God’s justice to the oppressed and displaying the path to reconciliation for the left out and overlooked.

I don’t think the universal church sees this as primarily a justice issue. Obviously.  And, the liberal or progressive church seems bent on throwing out church history and biblical interpretation for a more cultural interpretation.  That is, promoting the ordination of actively gay ministers and championing gay and lesbian marriage.  I think there is a third or middle way.

The conversation is forced into the “sin or not sin” discussion.  Again, Dave Schmelzer’s Stage 4 faith offers a way forward here.  It is not a one way or the other proposition, but a both/and one.  The question is not “out vs. in” but “toward Jesus or away from Jesus.” Stage 4 is primarily concerned with pointing people toward Jesus.  I don’t think a Stage 4 version of the faith minimizes or reduces sin to a back burner issue.  It just highlights the fact that God through Christ in the Spirit is the reveal-er of the truth.  He might use me, or you, to confront someone’s sinfulness, but I find that when I am in this type of circumstance, God has been making that person more and more aware of their sin than I ever could.

I recommend Andrew Marin’s book Love is an Orientation.  It needs to be required reading for the Vineyard as we move forward on this issue.

Andrew is also doing a long term empirical study with the GLBT community concerning issues of faith. It will be interesting to see some of that evidence.

A Long Obedience

These two verses have been highlighted for me this year:

2 Peter 1:10-11 (Jason Smith Translation):

For this very reason, my brothers and sisters, do not lack the diligence, moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perserverence, godliness, kindness, and love I just spoke of.  If you do, you are blind, short-sighted and forgetful concerning God washing away all of your previous sins and making you pure.  You are not living into what Christ has already accomplished for you.

Instead of taking this path of forgetfullness, my brothers and sisters, make haste to constantly verify the relationship God has called you into by choosing you as his own.  Then, live it out.  Live into the truth of it.  This requires a long obedience to the God who chose you and called you by name, but as long as you do this simple thing, you will never turn away from or leave the Him.

Al Mohler – Study Video on Vimeo

Al Mohler – Study Video on Vimeo on Vimeo

via Al Mohler – Study Video on Vimeo.