Wow… just, wow. Thank you, Brian.

28 Mar

This could have been done via Twitter, but I am so thankful for this post by Brian McLaren today on Red Letter Christians [which I think can possibly be the future platform for furthering a “prog-evangelical” consensus, i.e., a “generous orthodoxy,” that David Fitch and Scot McKnight seem to want. ]that I thought I’d give it a slightly more thorough endorsement (for what it’s worth….)


The post’s primary purpose was to address Al Mohler’s critique of…  you guessed it, the heretic of the hour, our friend Rob.  Which is fitting, considering the number of consecutive weeks McLaren has spent at the top of that hit list.   He does a great job of defending his friend:

*He addresses the difference between either framing Bell as choosing heresy over historic Christian beliefs, vs. someone trying to understand the real “gospel” over what the gospel has been reduced to in the modern West. 

*He addresses the hermeneutical questions in play and explains them in plain language.

*He frames Bell as one trying to reconcile God’s love and justice, as opposed to holding them apart as dual, opposing characteristics of God (God divided against himself?)….in contrast to how Bell is being framed as not taking God’s justice seriously at all.

*And (Thank God) he challenges those who have blatantly accused Rob of placating and of being controversial for the purpose of increasing book sales.  (That’s out of line, imho.)

But on a selfish level, based on what I have said here in recent weeks, and also based upon my own discoveries in recent years as a self-described “post-evangelical” who did not grow up in the mainline church but have since joined myself to it…. I really appreciated this from McLaren (emphasis mine):

From childhood I was taught this liberal-mainline-decline narrative (and its counterpart — the conservative-Evangelical-growth narrative). I’m ashamed to say I never questioned it for years. But the narrative, like all prejudices, turns out to be terribly vulnerable — especially if you actually meet many of the people it purports to describe. Consider these possible rebuttals (some of which are quite popular among mainliners, some not):

  • Perhaps it wasn’t liberalism that killed mainline Protestantism. Perhaps it was institutionalism.
  • Perhaps it was an excessive concern among many mainline Protestant leaders to protect their “mainline” status of privilege and power.
  • Perhaps it was complicity with nationalism, a complicity that was exposed as faulty in the 20th Century by two world wars and Vietnam.
  • Perhaps it was liturgical and organizational rigidity.
  • Perhaps the fall of mainline Protestantism had more to do with complacency and a lack of visionary leadership than it did with a willingness to question traditional interpretations of Scripture.
  • Perhaps mainline Protestantism isn’t dead or even dying: perhaps mainline Protestants have entered a latency period from which a new generation of Christian faith is trying to be born. (And perhaps conservative Protestantism is about to enter that latency period too.)
  • Perhaps mainline Protestantism isn’t failing at all, any more than the U.S. Postal Service is failing. (It’s actually doing more work than ever, with proportionately fewer resources than ever.) Perhaps it’s just that the times have changed, and First Class mail isn’t what it used to be, and mainline Protestants think they’re in the stamp-and-envelope business instead of the communication business.
  • Perhaps mainline Protestants are in decline primarily because they haven’t been as good marketers as Evangelicals. Perhaps mainliners haven’t “pandered” to customer demands as well as Evangelicals. They haven’t adopted new technologies — first radio, then TV, then the internet — as savvily as Evangelicals have.
  • Perhaps mainline decline is related to higher college attendance rates — rates that, by the way, Evangelicals are now catching up to. Perhaps conservative Christianity will fare no better in holding young adults who get a college education than mainline Protestants were. Perhaps the graphs will end up in the same place, with just a 30- or 40-year lag.
  • Perhaps mainline Protestants started to decline when they became prophetic — agreeing with Dr. King about the institutional evils of segregation and the Vietnam war. Perhaps being prophetic, which involves calling people forward to a better future, is inherently more costly and less popular than being conservative, which involves calling people back to a better past.
  • Perhaps Evangelicals started to grow when they filled in the same role mainline Protestants used to occupy: the civil religion of the United States.
  • Perhaps mainline Protestantism collapsed because of hypocrisy and disconnection from real-life issues, and perhaps Evangelicalism is edging ever-closer to a similar collapse.
  • Perhaps mainline Protestantism was the religion of the American countryside and small town, and it declined as rural and small-town populations declined. And perhaps Evangelicalism is the religion of the American suburbs, and its fate will rise and fall with suburban life.


These reasons (although he admits, as well as I, that only the future will tell us for sure) are precisely why I said what I said last week:  that the mainline church (should we even CALL it that anymore!?) is positioned to be a more desirable and stable future for the American church, and if they can embrace that role, they will outlast institutional Evangelicalism. 

I also appreciate him saying what professors began to show to me back during my Fuller days:  Contrary to how they portray themselves, the conservative evangelical church is actually quite secular/modern:

To more and more of us these days, conservative Evangelical/fundamentalist theology looks and sounds more and more like secular conservatism — economic and political — simply dressed up in religious language. If that’s the case, even if Dr. Mohler is right in every detail of his critique, he’d still be wise to apply the flip side of his warning to his own beloved community.

Yes, many of us are rejecting theologies that seem to dress up secular conservative ideology in “Sunday best.” But that doesn’t mean we want to put secular liberal ideology in robes and collars instead. Of course not. We’re seeking — imperfectly at every turn, no doubt — an incarnational theology, a theology that brings radical good news of great joy for all the people, good news that God loves the world and didn’t send Jesus to condemn it but to save it, good news that God’s wrath is not merely punitive but restorative, good news that the fire of God’s holiness is not bent on eternal torment but always works to purify and refine, good news that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more

Click on the button below to read the entire article: 

Red Letter Christians


Posted by on March 28, 2011 in future, theology


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 responses to “Wow… just, wow. Thank you, Brian.

  1. Brandon

    March 30, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I left a response comment to you on my blog. But then I thought, “I’m not sure that he’ll get notification of that….” So I came over here to let you know.

    Also, I started this post, but I’m too tired to finish it. I will later. For now, though, nap time.

    See you around, friend.

    • jlundewhitler

      March 31, 2011 at 4:11 am

      🙂 Same here, friend.

    • Amy L-W

      April 6, 2011 at 6:12 am

      Hey B!
      Is it a wholly loving wifely response to rub in the fact that I will see you first!!!


  2. Fred Garvin

    January 18, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Religion is boring; get a life.

    • jlundewhitler

      February 11, 2013 at 7:07 am

      Trolling random blogs is pathetic, get a life.

  3. Fred Garvin

    February 11, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    No, it’s just pointless; I can say in my defense that it doesn’t cost either myself anything nor do I ask for tax breaks, thereby costing the country billions every year in lost taxes.
    Mainline Protestantism is so pathetically Something (Only)White People Like.
    Guess that “Celebrate Diversity” memo’s taking a little longer than expected to get to the folks in the pews.

    • jlundewhitler

      February 11, 2013 at 5:00 pm

      Despite the fact that, judging by your tone and diction, you have no actual interest in real dialogue, I do sympathize with part of your sentiment. Bc while saying something that has meaning for other people is “pointless” is just dismissive, the church in general does have a serious identity problem. Even if its not always true, we sure look like we’re stuck , backwards, or simply navel-gazing, to those on the outside… And that’s if we’re not being exclusivist, hegemonic, pseudo-colonial (or actually colonial), etc. What isn’t seen on the news are those working for reform on the inside… We do exist. I don’t expect that this will change your mind on any significant way (this is more for the benefit of others who might stumble upon your comment)– but if you’re going to keep making jus comments, there are a few things you should bear in mind:
      A. Mainline Protestantism isn’t what you think it is… And for that matter, don’t disparage them altogether as if they’re a monolithic group. The UCC (an increasingly diverse denomination) is not the ELCA, who is not the PCUSA, who is not the Methodists. And are you including AME or other traditionally black denominations ?
      B. For that matter, why are you angry at mainline Protestants, when evangelical Protestants have exactly the same problems? And what about Catholics? They’re all struggling with diversity, with identity, with declining numbers… And are also all doing lots of good behind the scenes, worldwide and have learned/ are learning from their mistakes of the past .
      C. Churches are non profits. Many are rich and have vast storehouses, but others (like mine) barely get by year after year. And if you’re criticizing mainline churches , that describes most of them. The vast majority of pastors aren’t banking.
      D. Finally– the church has many imperfect, corruption-prone, nepotism-prone organizations holding it up. So does every organization, in every walk of life. Welcome to the real world . The way you change things in any arena, isn’t by sitting by yourself and complaining . It’s by working with others, challenging status quo, not running from the tough battles, but all along the way trying to point the way to reform.
      The church has unique potential to make people’s lives better, from the bottom up– to see our mission as being an agent of positive change in the world. That’s all that i and others ate trying to do. I don’t think that’s a waste of time, but if you do, I’m sorry that The Christianity you’ve experienced has made you cynical. (it’s certainly made me feel cynical at times, too.) Simply put, that’s not all the church is, and (thankfully) her story isn’t finished.

      • Fred Garvin

        February 12, 2013 at 11:49 am

        I couldn’t care less about the Fundiegelicals or the Popoids or the Orthodoxers; you’re all talking to someone who doesn’t exist and then you’re trying to change me based on nonsense.
        You cost the US government billions in lost taxes to support this; how is this not my problem? Are you suggesting that some street preacher in some ghetto storefront is seriously doing good to anyone by himself and his (probably obese) wife and children?
        The UCC ware barely 0.5% non-White 90 years ago; there’s no what that 90 years later it could be anything else but “increasingly diverse”. It’s mathematically impossible.
        The traditional Black churches are barely more “Progressive” than the Catholics or Orthodox on the openly gay or women’s ordination; they don’t get called on it because people are afraid to be called “racists”. Which is pretty cowardly and pathetic, but that’s par for the course for groups that are 99% old ladies of both sexes. These groups churn out edicts and “position papers” by the ream every few years but they themselves admit that 99% of their own members barely take any notice and that their headquarters and “Prophetic Ministries” are completely irrelevant.

      • jlundewhitler

        February 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm

        Yeesh. Such anger.

        And believe me, I’m not trying to change you. Even if I had that power, I wouldn’t try to– but obviously I don’t.

        (just a sidebar…the UCC didn’t exist 90 yrs ago….)

        So why so angry? Are you just as angry as pork barrel legislations, at soft money contributions? Those are pretty wasteful, and arguably serve no purpose. What about uncollected taxes because of off shore accounts, or widespread corporate tax fraud? What about massive defense spending? (Although I suppose you might think having the worlds largest military five times over is in fact “purposeful” . Whatever the example is, ( you can pick different ones )— so I’m wondering… R u leaving angry messages with other sources of “waste”? Ru going after every non- profit that doesn’t fit your definition of ” useful” or “meaningful”? Are you going after mosques and synagogues and temples? Or are you just angry at institutional churches ? And if so, why?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: