A few weeks ago a friend posed some question on one of my posts pimping (read: promoing!) my new book on Protestant liberalism and the Kingdom of God, called Reimagining the Kingdom. I thought I’d work through some of those questions as a way to work through some of the ideas I pose regarding what I call liberal Kingdom grammar. By Kingdom grammar I mean the whole package of ideas that make up the liberal “system” of the Kingdom, which includes their definition of our human problem, how the Kingdom solves for that problem, and the One who bore our problems solution.
So here are our first two questions posed by Jazz Salo from a post on the book’s introduction:
(1) In articulating this lineage, could you not be encouraging people not versed in theology to throw these theologians under the bus without actually engaging with their work first hand? In this introduction, you seem to be making the claim that there is a wrong way to do theology and their is a right way – and these four figures get it wrong and that is why the Emergent movement is wrong. I guess I am curious its as cut and dry as you make it.
Good question, Jazz. I think my work will offer an onramp into the theology of these important historical theologians. In a sense people will be able to engage these theologians’ primary works because that’s what I do. In examining Schleiermacher’s, Ritschl’s, Rauschenbusch’s, and Tillich’s Kingdom grammar I engage their primary works—hence over nearly 500 footnotes! So I think I do each of them justice and fairly establish their own positions, while analyzing them along the way. I guess the reader will have to judge if I’ve analyzed them well, but I don’t throw them under a bus and think people will be able to engage their work first hand, as that’s what I do.
To your second question, I guess implicit in my thesis is the critique that the Kingdom grammar of these theologians is contrary to historic Christian orthodoxy, and thus is false. My thesis isn’t arguing, however, that their dogma is wrong or false; my thesis argues that McLaren and Emergent continue four generations of historic theological liberalism. Along the way I certainly contrast liberal positions with historic Christian orthodoxy (i.e. for liberals Jesus is the moral, not metaphysical Son of God—meaning Jesus is divine by nature of his ethical deeds, not because by nature He is God.), but my intent was not to argue that liberalism is wrong or false doctrine.
With that said, I do caution mainstream evangelicals from adopting a definition and description of the Kingdom of God that mirrors liberals, because, in your words, I believe “there is a wrong way to do theology and their is a right way – and these four figures get it wrong.” Dismissing original sin is a problem, neglecting to hold to Jesus’ deity is a problem, dismissing Christ’s atoning death on the cross in favor of a modeling death is a problem, and the universalism implicit and explicit in liberal Kingdom-salvaiton is a problem. All four are liberal theological positions and all four are simply wrong. They aren’t wrong because I say they are wrong, but because the historic Christian faith says they are. (BTW that’s not to say I don’t believe there are problems with conservative, evangelical theology, too. I do. That’s for another time, another book, though!)
(2) Is a guilty by association critique really helpful to your cause? It seems an argument like this would only fuel the flames of those who already share your opinion of liberal Protestant theology. Whereas, someone who don’t necessarily see them as the root to all evil may not be swayed.
I understand what you’re saying, Jazz, but I’m not simply erecting a boogeyman and saying McLaren is the contemporary incarnation of that poltergeist. My goal was to see how McLaren is similar and different from historical theological liberals in his Kingdom grammar. McLaren and other Emergents have long claimed they were offering a “third way” through the liberal-conservative dichotomy. Well, as it turns out McLaren’s way isn’t a third way at all: it’s indeed a liberal way.
For some that will be no surprise, as they’ve sensed it all along that McLaren is a liberal posing as a generously orthodox Christian—this work will help those people see, understand, and show how he’s a poser. For others it will come as a surprise to learn that what McLaren et al are offering isn’t a new kind of Christianity at all, but rather a repackaged kind of Christianity; their version of Christianity is simply repackaged liberalism for a new day, though sold in a more popular manner. This book will help those people see how that’s true, and they will have to decide if that’s a good or bad thing.
As previously mentioned, my research establishes these liberals’ own positions using their own words. I then show how McLaren is basically saying what these historic theological liberals already said. I guess it will be up to the reader to decide if what McLaren is parroting is good or bad. From my perspective the connections between McLaren’s theology and historic liberal theology are uncanny; his Kingdom grammar is simply, unremarkably liberal, which certainly is not the so-called “generous orthodoxy” that McLaren and Emergent been trumpeting for nearly a decade.
In the next post we’ll look at how liberals—including Emergents—define sin and Jesus. And why I think their definitions are problematic.
