I'm not sure how to post this question. I'll do the best I can. My question is (and excuse my lack of history and theology in the past) what kind of "reformed" theology exists before the Reformation? I believe I've read somewhere that Augustine wrote similar things found in Calvinism. (correct me if I'm wrong here). It might help for you to know why I'm asking this. I am trying to write up my own critique of Brian McLaren and specifically from 2 of his books "A New Kind of Christian" and "More Ready Than You Realize". Here are a couple of quotes from the first book:
Quote
...how our whole approach to Christianity is so conditioned by modernity. What do we think of when we think of theology? We think of Latinate terms like omnipotence, omnipresence, and immutability. We think of an analytical outline, where theology is divided up into many other "ologies" "soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology and so on. It's a dissection of God - a "theosection". It strikes me how rare these kinds of words, outlines and dissective ways of thinking are in the Bible, which preoccupies itself with earthy stories rather than airy abstractions, wild poetry rather than tidy sytems, personal and contextual letters rather than timeless, absolute pronouncements or propositions."
(A brief personal comment here. I didn't know whether to cry or laugh when I read the part - 'It's a dissection of God - a 'theosection'.' A 'theosection' - ha!!. This just is so ridiculous and stupid it honestly just makes me laugh!!! I won't be sharing that in my critique with the associate. I don't think he'll get it.)
Quote
"I'm beginning to see them as an artifact of worship from the modern era, no less sincere or magnificent than medieval cathedrals - in fact you could call them modern conceptual cathedrals. Rather than condemning, I am simply noticing that our sytematic theologies are themselves a modern phenomenon."
Quote
"Modern people believed that they could create a nice framework that would pigeonhole everything. "Remember that the Pharisees were the great pigeonholers and that Jesus told them that many who came out last in their framework would come out first in his."
Obviously what you see here is that McLaren doesn't like systematic theology (and what I really see is he doesn't like Christianity, but wants to bring a new gospel). But what he's trying to present in the book is the idea that the "Modern" period (approx. the years 1500-2000) and the theology from this whole era has been culturally conditioned, etc. So in trying to write against this whole thing in my critique one of my thoughts is this - what about the good theology before the "Modern" period (as McLaren defines it)??? From my limited understanding there probably isn't volumes of "systematic" theology written before the Reformation period, but there has to have been something written between the time of the Apostles and the Reformation isn't there?? And of course the whole obvious point McLaren is missing is that the good systematic theology is based on the BIBLE!! That is one of my other arguments to this whole issue that I bring up. I already realize that. But as far as the question I've asked, I just don't have a lot of the Christian history behind my belt to put together the thoughts I have. Also McLaren likes to talk about the more "authetic" times of Christianity in the "pre-modern" times (this would mean before the years of the Reformation - the times of the early Church Fathers). He implies that this was a better time of Christianity that we should return to it. Here's a quote to try to explain it. He says we need to
Quote
"read the Bible as a pre-modern text, emerging from a people who believe that truth is best embodied in story and art and human flesh rather than abstraction or outline or moralism. We relieve the biblical writers of having to conform to modern expectations. ....According to the Bible, humans shall not live by systems and abstractions and principles alone but also by stories and poetry and proverbs and mystery."
Thanks for any help. It is going to take me forever to write up this critique, but I told our associate pastor I would do it because I think he's thinking my husband and I are nuts and he already asked my husband if we think that he's a heretic, etc. The situation is heating up. He is not happy about us bringing this up and wants it to resolve it. Well unfortunately it's not going to be resolved quickly like he wants. At least he seems to be honest with us and he doesn't understand why we think McLaren is preaching a different gospel (my husband thankfully sees this!!! Thank you for praying for this BTW). I was afraid the pastor might be two-faced and just give us an answer we want to hear. But he seems to be trying to understand where we're coming from so that's why I'm trying to write up something from myself for him (and our sr. pastor will read it too). Not sure if it'll really make a difference or not, but it seems to be the thing to do.
Thanks Wes!! Yes that looks good and should help. It's frustrating to not have a good background in Christian history. I just started realizing the importance of having even just a basic knowledge of this for myself after having conversations with my Mormon neighbor. She talked about some history with me and I found out she was in error after researching it myself. (big surprise since the Mormons are in error about a lot of things!!) But this is what I see with McLaren. He is writing things in such a way that those who don't know much about Christian history or just plain history in general will fall prey to his words. It's just preying upon the ignorance of the postmoderns. And not to mention the Biblical ignorance also.
I will agree that the Bible is not written as a theological textbook. One of the easiest forms of eisogesis is to take your favorite theological system's definitions and impose them upon every use of that word in the Bible. It's a common thing to see happen on debate forums. Consider terms like:
[*]Justification [*]Sanctification [*]Glorification [*]Word of God [*]Grace [*]Charisma
How many times have you seen a classic dispie assume "forgiveness" when he sees the word "grace", for example? We put our own interpretations of scripture at risk if we constrain Paul and other New Testament writers to our own personal definitions of these words (and others). The words Paul used had a normal meaning in language before they were appropriated by Christian theology. If I have any agreement with the author you've cited, this might be it.
But I digress..... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleep.gif" alt="" />
janean When you finish this undertaking, I would be interested in reading it. But I have to wonder if you are trying to reinvent the wheel. In other words I would be surprised if this undertaking hadn't already been done.
When I read this:
Quote
"Modern people believed that they could create a nice framework that would pigeonhole everything. "Remember that the Pharisees were the great pigeonholers and that Jesus told them that many who came out last in their framework would come out first in his."
I couldn't help but wonder why he would have a problem with a good systematic theology. Without a good systematic theology, we basically end up with the Bible conflicting with itself in many places. Taken as a whole, this problem is resolved. What does he think systematic theology is anyway? It is not abstract; it is taking the Bible as a whole and working out through context etc…, to determine doctrine. A good exegete is careful that they understand fully what the author is actually saying, before they embrace what they believe it to be saying. When we fail to do this we become guilty of esogesis.
Quote
"read the Bible as a pre-modern text, emerging from a people who believe that truth is best embodied in story and art and human flesh rather than abstraction or outline or moralism. We relieve the biblical writers of having to conform to modern expectations. ....According to the Bible, humans shall not live by systems and abstractions and principles alone but also by stories and poetry and proverbs and mystery."
Although there is SOME truth to this, in that the Bible is not a modern book, it is not true that the Bible is not systematic, nor is it true that we shouldn't read the Bible through a good systematic. If we fail to do so, all kinds of problems occur. In a way, even what he is asking us to do, is a systematic in itself. A wrong systematic, but a systematic nun the less. Although the Bible does have story, art, poetry and proverbs and is written with the personalities of each individual author. It seems to me that what McLaren is asking us to do is deny that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant. In case you don’t understand why I included that last sentence, I did so because reading the Bible the way McLaren asks us to read it, the Bible becomes errant. Many post moderns (don’t like that term) like McLaren, believe that the Bible can be inspired by God while at the same time be errant, because of the infallibility of the human author. (Please note many claim to believe the Bible is both inspired and inerrant, but in practice sometimes without even knowing it deny it.) This however, is denying that an omnipotent God is capable of using infallible humans to accomplish the writing of His Word. This is not to say that God didn’t allow the personalities of each individual author to accomplish this, which should be obvious when reading each book. But, if God allowed the authors to be errant, by necessity Scripture would not be trust worthy, thus it would not be inspired. What I am talking about is called verbal plenary inspiration, as opposed to verbal dictation inspiration (the belief that God used humans as human dictation machines).
That was helpful Tom. Thank you. Well my "critique" is actually just going to be a compilation of my notes and highlights of things from when I read the book. I just do not have the time to sit down and write something good. Writing is not my gift and it takes me a long time to do a good just at it. It's probably my lack of education somewhere along the line even though I graduated from college with honors (this was with a Nursing degree though that required some different education obviously). Your response and insight is very helpful because you have more of a background reading theology, etc. My background is reading Scripture which is of course the best thing anyone needs thankfully. The only "hard" theology books I've yet read is James Boice's Foundations of the Christian Faith (which I never completely read) and J.I. Packer's Knowing God. But I do know theology is important and there is a LOT of stuff ahead of my to read someday. I think it will be helpful to have the pastor's read something from me because then they will know more of where I stand. Although I already gave the associate some good reviews and they basically say what I would. Someone did the hard work of writing already for me!!!
If you have been to college, you have more education than me. My education consists of grade 12 graduation. Up until the last 7 years I didn't read very many theology books either. It was only after becoming Reformed, that I saw the need to read theology. That doesn't mean I hadn't read theology before, but I didn't see as much of a need until then. I really couldn't recommend a better book than Packer's 'Knowing God'. The book I am presently reading (in which I would highly recommend) is 'Scripture Alone' by James White. This book is quite scholarly, yet easy to read. Which is great for a person such as myself. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />
