Kruse Kronicle

Voice of ‘sage’ inspires, unsettles (Brian McLaren)

—

by

mwkruse
in

Atlanta Journal Constitution: Voice of 'sage' inspires, unsettles

Brian McLaren was about to speak at a church youth convention when his host asked the audience a provocative question.

How many considered themselves liberal Christians? A smattering of hands and a few cheers. Conservative? Louder claps and hoots. Then he asked: "How many of you wish there could be a third alternative?"

The room erupted with cheers. The host then introduced McLaren as a fellow pilgrim in search of the third alternative. The nondenominational evangelist —- labeled a "sage" for "emergent church," a growing theological movement aimed at a new generation —- was surprised by the response but says he understands it now.

"One of the reasons they cheered is their sense that the polarization between conservative and liberal, evangelical and mainline, left and right has gotten so extreme, it seems like a cartoon," he says. "People have this sense that we've lost our balance."

Atlanta has a chance Tuesday to see what the cheering is about. The man who also derisively has been called the "true son of Lucifer" will speak at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur during a three-day conference. …

Comments

13 responses to “Voice of ‘sage’ inspires, unsettles (Brian McLaren)”

  1. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I’m curious if the “emergent” conversation actually does move beyond the polarities at all. In cases it sounds like they are repackaging one of the poles for a new generation. (Yes . . . I know . . . the movement is not monolithic . . . er, I mean, the conversation . . .. And yes, I’m aware that many of the concerns that come out here are legitimate – but I’m still wondering exactly how much change from business as usual is really occurring – beyond different “cool” music, more comfortable furniture, and a service requirement for members – to avoid the supposed evil of consumerism (and replace it with a potentially equal evil of empty, frenetic activity.)

    Reply
  2. Quotidian Grace Avatar
    Quotidian Grace

    “a potentially equal evil of empty, frenetic activity”–kudos, Will. You are the master of the well-turned phrase. After sitting through a bunch of missional/emergent/postmodern church presentations, that is exactly what hits me.
    Whatever happened to simplicity and focus?

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I hear ya!
    The closer the connection to Emergent the more I think your observations ring true. McKnight in his paper about the the emerging church basically called these folks on their talk about being neither left nor right. McKnight says he is a Democrat and these folks that lead the Emergent conversations to varying degree left of center. There is need for more candor here.
    Yet I do find fellow travelers in the mix of the emerging church (which includes Emergent) conversation and I find others who really struggle with simplicity and focus.
    The big name headline grabbers hold less and less interest for me. To say you are neither left nor right but sign up tightly with Jim Wallis who is the poster boy for the Evangelical left just leaves me cold.

    Reply
  4. Unfinished Christianity Avatar
    Unfinished Christianity

    True son of Lucifer inspires, unsettles

    Many thanks to Michael Kruse for pointing out a new Atlanta Journal Constitution article on Brian McLaren. In some way I am disappointed that Brian appears as a contender to my already established…

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    QG – Thank you. That is high praise . . .
    Michael – “Yet I do find fellow travellers in the mix of the emerging church” So do I. I share some of their concerns, and I share their desire for genuineness. But I’m not sure that *some* of the lack of candor matches that desire. Obviously – though I’m not particularly political, I do tend toward one of the theological poles – so I might be biased. But I get a sense of something that bothers me that I can’t quite put into words. (And yes, it seems to be more pronounced among the ‘headline grabbers’.)

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “But I get a sense of something that bothers me that I can’t quite put into words.”
    Well when you find the words, let me know. I have some of the same reaction.

    Reply
  7. David M. Smith Avatar
    David M. Smith

    From my understanding of the emergent “discussion”, the good part is the reluctance to call anything a fact or label anything as truth without compelling evidence. Because of hope, Christians do seem to accept many myths without a proper measure of skepticism.
    However, the bad part about emergent is the inability to call a fact a fact and the unwillingness to label anything as truth that is controversial. Many of the truths of Christianity have stood the test of time, even though many truth’s remain unseen and are difficult to prove.
    Rarely is the truth found right in the middle between conservatism and liberalism. The truth is usually one or the other.
    I would prefer others to be ambivalent than wrong, however, I must conclude that emergent seems to be a synonym for immature.

    Reply
  8. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    David I think the big issue for many is that the truth is often bigger, more complex, and more paradoxical at times than our language and constructs allow for. Furthermore, our language and culture influence how we engage the world and process it. Many emerging church types are put off by the often simplistic and formulaic understandings they have experienced in their Evangelical background (and rest assured the great majority are post-evangelicals.) They also recoil at the stridency they have experienced.
    As to finding the truth at either end of a continuum, I think a great many problems are polarities that have to be managed. I often ask “Which is more important, inhaling or exhaling?” I think a great many things we get rigidly oppositional about are actually two poles in a polarity that are ever in need of balance for optimal performance. That does not mean being some milktoast centrist or moderate. The aim is not to be something in between inhaling and exhaling (i.e., dead) but to be able to do both really well in balance with each other. Not everything fits into this type of analogy but an awful lot does.
    There is immaturity in the emerging circles but having been Presbyterian I assure you they have not cornered the market. *grin* I think there is still a lot of effort (consciously or not) spent at being non-Evangelical and/or being post-Modern instead of affirmatively having a vision and pursing it. Behavior is driven by oppositional thinking. This is not universal but is substantial enough to be an irritant to me.

    Reply
  9. David M. Smith Avatar
    David M. Smith

    Hi Michael,
    “Many emerging church types are put off by the often simplistic and formulaic understandings they have experienced in their Evangelical background (and rest assured the great majority are post-evangelicals.) They also recoil at the stridency they have experienced.”
    I feel the same way. I am a post-evangelical who got tired of personal opinion being preached as Gospel. I have a lot of respect for the emergent leaders who allow for more diversity and grace regarding non-essentials. I include myself in this group.
    However, in California at least, the evangelical church has been replaced with 40-something-year-old pastors who frost the tip of their hair in an effort to be hip, rock bands that play two LOUD notes, lyrics about self, not God, and Christian service being defined as taking a turn as the parking lot attendant. At least evangelicals could park without being told where to park. : – )
    It seems from my California perspective, the replacement for “evangelical” is not a more mature evangelical but a less mature believer.
    I really like the way you defend truths that have stood the test of time and challenge beliefs that are based more on opinion than evidence. The world and the church could use a lot more of you’s.

    Reply
  10. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    It is great to hear more of your context. Much of what you describe is what would block my return to many Evangelical environments.
    You are too kind in your affirmations but I do appreciate it. It really is my aim to discern and discuss truth that goes beyond just the ideological wrangling of which I have grown deeply weary in recent years. I know I don’t always succeed but I glad to hear that desire comes through.

    Reply
  11. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    Michael – you have mentioned polarity on a few occasions. I think there is truth in this perspective – and some of the issues that we encounter as a nation (and as a denomination) do involve such polarities.
    It strikes me, however, that care must be taken to avoid labeling a thing a polarity when it is not – and thus falling into the trap of the ‘golden mean’. (Yeah, I fully know that this has nothing to do with the concept – but it is a typical reaction – try to avoid the ends, and go for the middle. That is, of course, not what you’re saying.)
    More to the point, however, is there are issues where people take opposite points of view where it is simply a matter of fact – rather than polarities to be managed. How do you differentiate?

    Reply
  12. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Will, I appreciate your concern about polarity management. I don’t think there is an easy formula.
    I look at the polarity management as one lens among several through which to look at a problem. We use a doctrinal lens. We use a rational lens. We use a relational lens. We use as pragmatic lens. Each of these gives insight into the nature of an issue in front of us. I am suggesting that the polarity lens must also be used to effectively get a handle on the nature of a given problem.
    What I see typically happening in any human organization is a host of polarities at work in the pursuit of a vision. When vision is clear, the polarities tend to find their proper balance. However, most of us are inclined toward one pole of any polarity more than the other. When the vision becomes muddled we tend to almost instinctively default into acting based on our proclivities and we begin to view the complementing pole as a threat. Protecting and perpetuating “our pole” becomes paramount and our pole is dis-integrated from the vision. We come to view behaving according to our pole as “the vision.” Returning to the vision and seeing the how the poles complement each other is usually the answer.
    However, there is a polarity challenge even here. I am a vision person, which means I tend to see large pictures and the complexity of polarities at work. I tend to tune into strategy well. But every institution has to make day-to-day decisions. In other words, tactics. People like me, if left to our own devices, will tend to create an elegantly designed organization with clear vision in which nothing happens because we are tactically challenged. On the other hand, tacticians will make stuff happen but they will also tend to make the tactics the thing itself, while losing the vision. Neither gift/weaknesses is better than the other but are rather another expression of the fact that God created us for community.
    I am rambling now but again I would suggest the polarity management is a lens to aid in discernment.

    Reply
  13. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    Michael – thanks for your thoughts on this. It clearly does provide a lens to view many situations.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Unfinished ChristianityCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading