Typical Misdiagnosis

Brian McLaren asks us to consider who we are marginalizing simply because they are reflective.  He appeals to church history:

The heroes we study in church history began as reflective Christians who doubted what everyone else took for granted, and as a result, were in almost every case marginalized.

When communities habitually marginalize or exclude their most reflective members—who ask tough questions about things that are completely normative for the majority—of course those who are stigmatized are wounded.

Here's why this appeal doesn't work for his point.  First, no one is stigmatized or lauded merely for being reflective.  What matters is what someone reflects on and the conclusions they come to.  And yes, reflection should lead to conclusions, though I would guess conclusions are too dogmatic for McLaren.  Reflection is supposed to lead somewhere.  It's where it leads that is helpful or harmful or meaningless.

Second, two of the primary figures of church history he refers to, Martin Luther and John Wesley, reflected on the objective authority and meaning of the Bible and called the church back to that objective standard. Their ministries were about returning to the boundaries of right teaching, so McLaren's deployment of these men is rather odd since his thesis is about obliterating boundaries.  This is significantly different from the general reflection of McLaren and Emergent Village who reflect on how Christianity should adjust to culture.  The former is reflecting on an objective standard, the later is reflecting on a constantly changing and moving standard.

McLaren and his colleagues aren't "excluded" or "stigmatized," they are disagreed with.  And the disagreement isn't over their reflection.  It's over the subjective standard they suggest we use to alter the nature of the Gospel.  It is their conclusions we disagree with, not that they reflect on questions.

People shouldn't be excluded or marginalized simply because the disagree with the majority.  McLaren is right about that.  But unique points of view and reflection aren't virtues and ends in themselves.  It matters what they lead to.  Typically, McLaren once again misrepresents or misunderstands the nature of the criticism he receives and misdiagnoses church history.

Comments

[Amy]

I regret that McLaren has decided to marginalize people's carefully considered criticism. He should consider the fact that he's only marginalizing his critics because they disagree with what the majority of his community believes. Then, after he stops marginalizing us, he'll of course embrace our ideas because the problem is only marginalization.

Sure, marginalizing is easier than responding, but if he continues to habitually marginalize and exclude those of us who ask tough questions about things that are completely normative for the majority of his peers, he'll be hurting his whole community because "the community that excludes...cuts off resources of growth and renewal. It builds resistance to exactly what it will soon need."

[Steve K.]

Hi Melinda,

Your statement that Brian McLaren and Emergent Village "reflect on how Christianity should adjust to culture" makes me think that you don't really know what you're talking about. I wonder what you're reading from Brian or Emergent Village that makes you think we're just trying to accommodate the current pop culture? I think maybe you're looking at the "relevant" stream of the emerging church, which is probably the most visible stream but (at least in my estimation) has very little to do with what Brian and Emergent are really advocating.

The fact that there are some loud voices trying to silence Brian and other Emergent voices really makes it clear to me that there is marginalization going on -- and that's always the case with the dominant culture. I just would encourage you to take a closer look at what McLaren is actually saying, because I think you've mischaracterized him pretty significantly here.

Shalom,
Steve K.

[Conway]

Thanks for reflecting on McLaren's piece.

I found his piece to be an important reminder about the prima facie goodness of having reflective Christians in our midst, but your analysis concerning McLaren's own agenda seems to me to be pretty accurate. It would be nice to claim the status of a Martin Luther or a Wesley, but McLaren has yet to convince the majority of equally thoughtful Christians who are theologically conservative and also engaged with the "emerging church" (e.g. the Acts 29 Network), and I doubt he ever will.

[Derek Cardwell]

Steve K: "The fact that there are some loud voices trying to silence Brian and other Emergent voices really makes it clear to me that there is marginalization going on -- and that's always the case with the dominant culture."

Oh, nonsense. Nobody is trying to silence McLaren. But if he's going to insist on saying stupid things, he needs to be able to deal with people calling him on it. It is in fact McLaren trying to silence his opposition, not his opposition trying to silence him. Get it straight.

[Tim]

Steve K.,

You said, "The fact that there are some loud voices trying to silence Brian and other Emergent voices..."

Who precisely has been trying to silence them? Can you provide any names? Can you be specific about how people are trying to silence them? That sounds like censorship--I'm not aware of any of that going on. Do you mean something else? Is "silence" actually the right word, or are you just using charged (but empty) language?

Derek,

You said, "It is in fact McLaren trying to silence his opposition, not his opposition trying to silence him."

*sigh*

Same question.

[Timbo]

To jump in, I seriously doubt that either "side" is trying to silence the other (though if pressed for an answer as to who is trying to silence McLaren, I'd have to say Tessio or Clemenza). What I think McLaren tends to do is label away his opposition (e.g., modernist, fundamentalist) without dealing directly with their responses/criticisms. There is, to be sure, a tendency in which critics of McLaren label him (e.g., postmodernist, liberal). However, when McLaren uses labels while at the same time protests their application to his position (see his recent post on God's Politics), my impression is that he is doing so in order define those critics away rather than engage their criticism of him.

[Tim]

Good point.

I think Melinda hit it on the head. "McLaren and his colleagues aren't 'excluded' or 'stigmatized,' [or 'silenced,'] they are disagreed with."

[Francis Beckwith]

If I could get the advances and book contracts from Zondervan like McLaren does, not to mention his speaking gigs, I would willingly embrace the silence. :-)

Silence is awfully talkative. ;-)