FutureChurch

In the same way one can, like Brian's critics, villify those who do not share a critical or hostile view of Islam, one also alienates the Muslim who might be engaging with less closed-minded believers. Dialogue and not argument is the way to build bridges across faiths, without having to compromise either message.

I both respect and shudder at what Brian is trying to do. He sails very close to the wind on this one, and as much as he can argue the point with his Christian contemporaries and critics he cannot explain it to the Muslims who might be aware of what he is doing. But then, he likes flying close to the sun, it turns up the heat and makes us look and ask the questions 'will it work?', 'will he burn up?' (no pun on Satan references!), 'what is he trying to prove?' etc etc

However, I applaud the sentiment as I have had occassion to openly 'walk' through a Ramadan through a Muslim colleague's eyes as he discussed the experience with me one year, and he was so open because he knew of (a) my faith base, and (b) that I understood prayer and (I confess) to a lesser extent, fasting.

My manager was also willing to share his Pilgrimage experience with me, actually stating that he new I understood 'this kind of thing'.

What a privilige, and a cautious 'well done' to Brian for taking this to the edge.

Hi Graeme,

You ask: "How is observing Ramadan the same as "following another way"? If that were true, then we're all going to hell for observing Christmas! (I am serious about that statement - think about it)".

Are you really saying that seeing as we celebrate Christmas we may as well celebrate Ramadan?

Also: For starkly obvious reasons I find it really, really hard to believe that Brian McLaren is observing Ramadan "for Evangelistic reasons". For one thing, for Evangelistic purposes McLaren would need more than a soapy sucking up to Islam- he would need the Evangel- something McLaren has long abandoned. Why do so many sound minds find it so hard to get themselves wrapped around that simple and obvious fact?

Regards,

Willem

P.S. How do you define "humble, wise and holy" when you apply the terms to a man who is spearheading one of the most subtle and decisive attacks on Christian orthodoxy since Pelagius?

Hi Graeme,

I do not just assume that McLaren is spearheading an attack on Evangelical Orthodoxy- I am convinced, as sincere, honest, kind, gentle, humble, cool, or whatever else we may take him to be, that he is (albeit possibly not deliberately) leading such an attack. Pelagius was known as one of the gentlest, irenic and spiritual bishops of his time. He was also wrong and heterodox.

If I remember correctly, the first time I read Generous Orthodoxy, it was your dad’s copy. He graciously lent it to me while I was waiting for my own to arrive. I was very pleased the other day to find 4 hardback copies at a bookshop in Pretoria for R35 each! I have given them to some young theologians. I have read all McLaren’s books. I am a regular visitor to his website. I think you know that I try not to speak on things about which I know little or nothing. When I do speak about others I try to keep in mind Titus 3:2: …speak evil of no one, …avoid quarreling, … be gentle, and … show perfect courtesy toward all people. In this I often fail, and am always convicted when I do. The Lord instructs us to (in all things) be wise and serpents and gentle as doves. Too often I get that the wrong way round- I get gentle as a serpent and wise as a dove and I end up with what I call the strike of a birdbrain. I am trying to get it right when I make my categorical statement about McLaren because I think it fair and true. I am also convinced that you know quite well why I say so, without my even telling you.

So, I agree with you that another long, drawn out debate between two people with their minds made up on opposite sides of this matter would not be useful. Such debates can be found all over the net.

With regard to your unquestioning application to McLaren of those beautiful definitions of humble wise and holy, I must point out that I do not have the honour that you have of knowing Brian McLaren personally. Others who know him personally and to whom I have spoken also describe him as humble, gentle, kind, honest and holy. I am quite certain that this is how he comes across in person. I have no desire to launch an ad hominem attack on someone I do not even know (or even on someone I do know, for that matter). I am working really hard at being careful here when I say that I do not find him coming across all that humble, however, in his unflinching “playing with the definitions” (Generous Orthodoxy p. 31) of orthodoxy, generosity and just about everything else. There is something in presenting oneself (even unconsciously) as the first guy in 2009 years to get orthodoxy really orthodox (by simply undoing THE orthodoxy) and generosity really generous, that strikes me as somewhat…well, arrogant. Even the way he mauls the poor little birdbrains (to my definition above) in the responses you pointed us to, while done with vintage McLarenic “softness”, strikes me as hard and vindictive. However softly done, it remains a mauling, and that of the very last people he should even have taken the time to respond to. Is he getting no better responses from more thoughtful and gracious people? Why not? That should worry him if all he is getting right is to put a cat among the birdbrains. If he is getting thoughtful responses from gracious people, why not rather give blog-space to that?

Now, with regard to the pagan nature of Christmas: Surely you know, that real as that is (though not to the extent that Ralph Woodrow, who later recanted, and Alexander Hislop would have it), we cannot let our purging Christianity of paganism end with killing Santa Claus and the Easter bunny? What about the pagan roots of the virgin birth and other fundamental tenets of our Faith? What do we make of pagan strands there? Surely you are aware of the many good answers that have been given to these challenges (especially from Catholic scholars? (See, for instance, Karl Keating’s chapter Fanciful Histories of Catholicism in Catholicism and Fundamentalism pp. 154-163). But be all this as it may, to imply that because we can point out what seem to be “pagan strands” in our Christianity, we may as well break down the walls and let everything pagan in, Ramadan and all, is absurd. Surely a call for a purging of the Faith from paganism would be more in order than using present pagan influences as a lever to wedge in Ramadan?

In closing: I have said before that the Emerging Church is little more than the Vatican II (or aspects of it) of Evangelicalism. McLaren is a kind of…O.K. “evangelical” Rahner, one could say (with certain reservation, of course). What he is preaching with regard to a more inclusive spirituality the Catholics have been preaching since the sixties. He would fit so well there! Bar the beard, he is even beginning to look a little bit like Merton! (I mean that kindly). I cannot, for the life of me, see why he so strenuously persists in regurgitating Nostra Aetate among non-Catholics.

I must admit that Willem raises some very good points here.

Personally, something about Mclaren's 'announcement' irks me. I don't like publically criticising guys and usually refrain from doing so, but since Mclaren himself has made this a public matter then I think it's ok to make a public critique - as long as it's fair, just, loving, christ-like and (hopefully) Spirit led.

What irks me isn't that Mclaren is going to do some prayer and fasting during Ramadan, in an effort to reach out to his "Muslim friends" (which, I am assuming, takes the form of personal friends he has and he is not using this term the same way Obama might use it) but that, making this a PUBLIC announcement gives the sense that this act is more politically motivated and that, in itself, then makes it merely a token act.

To be honest, making this a public announcement gives the general feeling that Mclaren's agenda is more to rub the noses of conservative evangelicals, evident by the obviously extreme letters he spoke about at his blog.

Willem is right - are these the only kind of letters he received? Why is he even publishing them for all the world to see? Why does he have to publically announce he's doing Ramadan? Does the Muslim world even care? I seriously doubt it. Most Christians I know haven't a clue who Brian Mclaren is, let alone the vast Muslim world.

Rather, if he, in an effort to reach out to Muslims he personally knows, privately observed the month of prayer and fasting to encourage conversation with those friends then he does well. But making a public announcement of it spoils the whole affair and makes the whole thing suspicious.

The other end of where it makes it suspicious is it almost feels as if he is trying to encourage the millions of people who 'follow' him to do the same. He is trying to publically say "here's how we reach out to our Muslim friends" instead of letting people find their own ways to do so.

Something just doesn't sit right with me.

To be honest, I really used to enjoy Mclaren when he just asked questions but he appears to have a real agenda these days.

While he often has done a great job on making us all realise the roots of Greek and Roman thinking in the Church, he seems to have become blinded to his own American/western paradigms as well. Democracy isn't everything, and individualism cannot be disguised no matter how much you TALK about 'community'.

Community requires real accountable loving relationships, not a place where everyone is 'accepted for who and what they are' but where everyone is loved despite what or even who they are at the moment. Love is sometimes hard, too, and requires people to change and honestly address their issues.

Furthermore, the Gospel is not just about talk but also about power (1 Cor 4). Man does not live on bread alone either. And those who do not love the church cannot say they love God. I'm saying all of these to talk about the clear social agenda which, although not wrong, cannot be our only focus. When it becomes our only focus it merely becomes political.

If I was Mclaren, I'd keep writing but also be a little more quiet about what it is I'm actually doing. Let people discover that for themselves. Once we start announcing all the wonderful things we're doing we're really dwelling in the realm of the pharisees.

Again, apologies if this has come on strong and apologies to Mclaren for making such a criticism public. Since you know him, Graeme, and I don't, and this has been a public thing, I feel ok in criticising him publically but I'll let you be the judge of my tone at your blog.