Scot McKnight (of Jesus Creed fame) has written an interesting piece on Brian McLaren for Christianity Today. I commend Scot on his even-handed, engaging, well-written interaction with Brian’s thoughts, as expressed most specifically in two of his recent books, the Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change.

I must say that It was refreshing to read a response to McLaren’s material from someone who is not the antithesis of everything Emergent/Emerging. Far from it. Scot McKnight is a pretty central figure in the larger conversation. That said, while he agrees with much that McLaren has to say, he certainly doesn’t sign over a blank check. More on that in a moment…

One thing I think is helpful to do in this kind of engagement - and that McKnight clearly does - is to distinguish Emergent from Emerging. Emergent really is a defined entity, expressed in the main players within Emergent Village- namely Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. The Emerging Church conversation, while discussing many of the same topics addressed by Emergent Village, is a much broader interaction – and, in reality, stretches to include many more people on what we might call the Right-side stream of contemporary American Christianity; at least the Center-Right :).

Before I write a little more about McKnight take on McLaren’s theology, it’d be prudent to comment a little on the reader responses to this article. I’d have to say that probably 80% of the responses were negative. Negative? To McKnight’s article or to McLaren’s theology, you might ask. Well, ironically, both. It’s very clear that not only do many of the readers of Christianity Today resent Brian McLaren, and Scot McKnight, but they even resent that CT would give print space, virtual and actual, to discuss such matters in the first place. They no doubt consider this just another manifestation of the vast Left-wing conspiracy to corrupt Christianity in America.

One reader bellowed: “The gospel is not to be lived out, it’s to be believed!” Oh man oh man, talk about your intellectual ascent passed off as Kingdom transformation! Not at all surprisingly, many of the people in the response section weren’t about to mince words. Many openly condemned McLaren as a "false teacher". It occurred to me that these people have read the gospels with one set of lenses for so long now, that they no longer see what's really there. Jesus was so Empire-subverting (in both word and deed) that it’s not… even… funny. Of course, at times you have to study the context of the period a little bit to see this, at least in its fullness. But to anyone who really knows their stuff, the Empire-subversion is clearly there – in spades. And yet, many of these posters would likely call this kind of idea "too political" or "too liberal" or too much "of this world".

Now while McKnight commends McLaren for expanding the discussion of “what is the gospel”, interestingly enough, he actually asks that McLaren do a little stretching himself. McKnight asks, ”What role does the Cross play (according to McLaren) in the emergent kingdom vision?”

McKnight then goes on to make note that while McLaren is right that the cross was a way in which (and here he quotes McLaren) “God identified with the victim and both unmasked and undid evil, systemic violence, and injustice,” that this - in itself - is not a robust, expansive enough understanding of what the cross-event was. McKnight writes,


McKnight then goes on to argue that a central pre-cursor to the Cross-event itself is the Last Supper. And here there is no mention of “violence and systematic injustice”. Rather, the constructions are of "covenant, forgiveness of sins, and blood "poured out for many'".

McKnight argues that


That’s an interesting question. I have often pondered that myself.

Another interesting point made by McKnight is his suggestion that if McLaren is to really embody the "generous Orthodoxy" he advocates, he should be more forthcoming in responding to critics; or more specifically, in responding to the questions of critics. Anyone familiar with McLaren's work knows he tends to be a little coy at times; preferring to pose questions rather than answer them. This is not surprising considering McLaren's stated aim is to provoke further discussion. But, McKnight argues, this tactic alone can sometimes come across as disingenuous. Now, to be clear, one of Brian's strongest contributions to contemporary Christianity is his ability to engage in dialogue without vilifying others or insulting their intelligence. But should a Christian writer - and provocateur - such as McLaren, be inclined to explain himself- because of the import of the subject matter itself? Interesting question... I'll leave you to ponder that one yourself.

Getting back to "the work of the Cross": let me say that it is my impression that some friends of mine, from mainline circles for example, do often seem intent on bringing the Kingdom in the here and now, via actions that aim for social justice. But, in reality, if we are honest, these actions are often (in fact, I would argue – always) found wanting. We alone just don’t have it in us to make this Kingdom vision a reality. Sure, these same friends will say that it is via God’s empowering Spirit that this can be accomplished. But, I often sense this is something of a ruse, almost like utterings of “theological correctness”.  For all intents and purposes, these friends do seem to think and act – and with an occasional slip of the tongue, say – that this is all up to us to achieve.

But ultimately, while we may be the agents of expression, we are not, ultimately, the agents of power. By that I mean that this really is not about us “getting it done”, no matter how hard we try and emulate Jesus. Yes the system is ripe with injustice, from within. But beyond this there is also a glitch in the system’s very fabric. And this is something that only someone from beyond can, as N.T. Wright would say, “put to rights”.

So, personally, I think McKnight is on to something here. And we should look at this question searchingly, and honestly, as emerging Christians. And we should certainly make sure that our theological constructions are not built upon some form of – and here I’ll use that term again – theological correctness. After all, this really is not just about following the way of Jesus, but actually relying on the empowering of Jesus. And, let us be clear, here I speak of spiritually-regenerative empowering, not mere inspiration for Jesus-like actions.