I Don't Think He Should Have Done That to That Guy

It weirds me out when people rally behind a guy who acts all smart and stuff, but also rejects the faith as it's been practiced for centuries.  People actually follow him, and adopt his ideas, and it's frightening. 

I think it would be a good idea to ignore people who identify with him, or quote him, approvingly!  It's scary how easily people can set aside hundreds of years of tradition, and try to fashion things their way.

Not only does he write revolutionary books, challenging long-cherished beliefs, he thinks he can re-think what the church itself should look like!  That takes arrogance.  And there exists an entire movement of "churches" centered around this guy's thinking!  It's scary. 

Is he really a God-ordained authority, from whom we should take our theological cues?  His personal life will tell you what you need to know:  This guy got in a "blog war" of sorts, with another writer, and he didn't handle disagreement very well.  I know this because he had the other guy killed.  Burned him at the stake.  I know it's a rough-and-tumble world of ideas out there, but, to me, that's rude.

Granted, he wanted to chop the other guy's head off, instead, which would have been more humane, but still.  Plus, after he took over a city, he had a couple dozen other people burned at the stake.  Again:  Red flag, folks!   You'd think that would be enough for people to write the guy off as a new theological authority, but noooooo.

Some call him a "theological humanist".  And a rumor:  He doesn't think Revelation should be in the canon! True?  Maybe not, but that's what happens when you decide to reject Truth as we've always known it:  Everything is up for grabs.  And people still follow this guy and read his stuff!

That John Calvin burns me up. 

Comments

[Shawn Bashor]

That my friend is funny. I wonder how many people are sitting there going "I knew Brian Mclaren had it all wrong, he is dangerous, see even Kommander Krusty says he...oh wait a second, it's not supposed to end like this..."

[Cheryl]

What a scream! I looked at the headline and photo and thought, "Here's the make it or break it post for me- what's he gonna say?".

Ya got me. I was bamboozled.
Well done!

[Bob Sacamento]

"The emergent orthodoxy is better than all other orthodoxies because all other orthodoxies claim to be better than all other orthodoxies, but the emergent orthodoxy doesn't."

--Brian MacLaren, quoted from "A Generous Orthodoxy"

OK, not quoted word for word. MacLaren is kind of long winded and his style kind of obscures his message, but if he had had a good editor to help him with his book, that's pretty much what he would have said.

And I know this post is supposed to be humorous, Brant, and it is, but you did put it here to make a point. (I think I've said elsewhere that your "points" tend to get in the way of your otherwise brilliant writing.) So, if I may respond to that point, speaking, by the way, as someone thoroughly non-Calvinist in outlook: MacLaren's attitude toward scripture is completely different from Calvin's and therefore the comparison here, albeit entertaining, is not particularly enlightnening. Calvin broke with the "dominant metanarrative" (sigh) of his day because he was convinced he had a better idea of what scripture said. MacLaren, with his ideas about "trajectories" and so on, has a much different idea, not only about what scripture says, but about how much we should actually care about it. I think some of us, then, are right to be worried.

And I know that at this point, someone will say, "You obviously didn't read his book at all. On pages 34, 57, and 129 he shows a great reverence for scripture and Jesus and all kinds of stuff." Please save it. For every quote you can throw at me, I can find one that says the exact opposite. As MacLaren himself says, his book is not exactly consistent, which comes in handy for him on several occasions.

And, more importantly, as president of the Jean Luc Picard men's hairstyle club, when these emergent types talk all the time about "authenticity" and then pert near worship a guy who won't ever show the top of his head in a photograph because some marketer told him he shouldn't show everyone how bald he is, that just ticks me off.

Anyway, still love your blog, Brant. This is one issue where we, I guess, disagree, and one issue I thought was important enough to risk mixing it up a bit. Hope that's OK. And if you take another break from your blog, maybe you could let us know first. I was wondering if you had the west nile thing or something.

[From Brant: For an analogy to work, it need only work in relevant respects. Certainly, there are innumerable respect in which they differ.

McLaren is bald. Calvin was a theocrat who had people burned at the stake. They differ. Calvin was deemed a HUGE threat to the established church at the time. Some thought he was setting up a second papacy. I don't think today's Vatican, for instance, thinks much about McLaren.

No one calls themselves, to my knowledge, McLarenists, but people are quite proud to call themselves Calvinists.

For my two cents: I couldn't care less about Emergent Whatever, and haven't read Brian McLaren or John Calvin. What I tire of is the guilt-by-association garbage that permeates critiques of people labeled "emergent" or whatever.

I have to ask the players of the Guilt-by-Association Game: And you're Catholic? Or Calvinist? You really want to do that?

I think an idea is an idea, and if it's trenchant and truthful, it's trenchant and truthful if it comes from heretic-burner Calvin, or bald McLaren, or Ernie and Bert, for that matter. Better to deal with the idea than to play GBA.]

[Shaun]

Umm... excuse me , er , is there a baby in that bath water?
Just wondering.

[Brendt]

Oops. ;-)

[Nathanael]

Boy, that John Calvin sure bears a striking resemblance to someone else...someone who's still alive...hmmmm...

[scott]

So do you or don't you like McLaren?

Clever post by the way.

[scott shaffer]

Good point. New ideas aren't necessarily wrong. And, just because a notable thinker is insightful about some things doesn't mean he is right about everything.

So, in 100 years from now, will Christians still be reading McLaren or Calvin?

[Brant]

Exactly, Scott.

I'm not pro or anti McLaren, though from what I've read of his political takes, he's not terribly well-thought-out in that realm. Like I say, I haven't read his books.

I'm stunned by the willingness of people to play guilt-by-association with regard to McLaren, while proudly wearing the label of a guy who supervised the murder of people he disagreed with.

Of course, would Calvin do that if he were alive today? Not likely. But who knows? Would John MacArthur do what Calvin did if he lived four hundred years ago? Well...hmmmm...he'd have to boldly protect the church from these heresies. But surely not...?

[Donna W]

This is great! Thanks for the smile (and a bit of education too).

[Jon Reid]

I don't know who that is in the large photo (though I have benefitted from several of his books). But I followed the link at the bottom and saw the photo there, and am now more concerned about David Crowder than ever.

[Bob Sacamento]

OK, so the point of the post was not necessarily "openness to new ideas" but, rather, guilt by association games, and I guess I missed it. Which I don't think is entirely my fault since there was alot of other stuff in there, but what the heck. Yes, playing guilt by association is bad and yes, alot of evangelicals and (ay carumba!) fundamentalists are Olympic medal practicioners of the sport. Point taken. For my part, however important that may or may not be, I actually have made an effort to understand McLaren, and where I have succeeded, I find him very bothersome. And I don't label anyone as "emergent" unless they label themselves that way, which a growing number of people are wont to do. Hope that's fair enough. Also, I think Calvin was bald, too.

[Jim]

Like I said: genius.

[mr bob]

Brilliant!

[Da Bears Fan]

I know John Calvin, and you, Mr. McLaren, are no John Calvin! Maybe more like Martin Luther or....ah....maybe Huldrych Zwingli....ah....I don't.....could be more like...ah...William Farel......oh, crap, you are all the same!!!

[john dobbs]

I like it.

[Sam Jones]

Way to throw two provocative and controversial figures together to get us thinking! Clever post. I'm not sure I would have caught the guilt-by association target if I hadn't read the comments. I hopped on here all hot to say something about Calvin and McLaren and how one did what he did because he cared about what the Bible says, but I think Mr. Sacamento has that covered. So I'll say that yes, we do play guilt by association games. I play guilt by association games. I consider people guilty by association to teachers I consider heretical, whether I know anything about which parts of the heretical teacher's teachings they've been influenced by. Then I feel guilty by association to the part of me that wants to judge people without really knowing their position.

On the other hand, when there is a strong enough break from or perversion of The Truth of the Gospel of Christ, (I'm not talking forms here I'm talking The Truth and The Lie ala Romans 1) I think there's a legitimate place for guilt by association. There's room for dialog, but for those who lack the time, stamina, or necessary mental prowess, sometimes it's just easier, if not best to leave some teachings be. . . by association.

[Zach Nielsen]

John Piper has a good commentary about John Calvin and his involvement in killing people. You can find it here:

http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581348134

[chris, playing games in Kentucky]

One possible argument with you, Brant, regarding the GBA-thing. Sure, a great idea is a great idea, regardless of who is stating it. Truth is truth. We can also judge ideas by the fruit they produce.

I take ALL of Calvin's theology with a grain of salt because of the fruit that it produced in his life. What he believed about God led him to supervise the murder of those who disagreed with him. He didn't agree to the killing because of a disagreement over the scientific method, or revenge for a personal injury. It was because of theology. I have to be very careful before I adopt any of his major ideas regarding theology, I think.

I don't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, but it is possible that Hitler had some good ideas somewhere in Mein Kampf, too. I am still not interested in reading it, because of the fruit produced by the ideas in his life.

I'll study Calvin's theology after I'm done studying Jesus' stuff. That's complex enough for me. And I trust the fruit.

[Seaton]

Mr. Hansen openly calls himself an "accordionist" as does H. Ross Perot, Idi Amin, John Lennon, Mahatma Ghandi, and Al "Weird Al" Yankovic.

While I respect those with obviously deeply held convictions, I cannot, however, in good conscience, commend his views to others, as he represents a dangerous departure from all traditional good taste in music. He cannot be considered within the bounds of musical orthodoxy, and is therefore suspect on any number of subjects.

I hope and pray that he will one day return to the fold and we can live in communion with one another.,

[Grub]

And Godwin's Law once again rears its ugly head...

[Brant]

Zach, I appreciate the link, but given the book description, it seems Calvin kinda sticks out. Paraphrasing: These three are all great guys, it's just Augustine struggled with lust, Luther struggled with his tongue, and Calvin was a tremendous authority on scripture who, okay, occasionally killed people. Or something. But that's just the descrip.

Chris, I think your point is well-made. It's entirely likely that Calvin's little killing problem is related to his theological ideas, but there's also the personal lust for power, jealousy, desire to "win" - that stuff enters in there, too, I'm sure.

Anyway, the ideas themselves can't be rejected purely because of who thought of them, or who the people who thought of them hung out with, or whatever. I'm sure you'd agree. But it is natural to be especially suspect, when you have to wonder, "So...how's that workin' for you, there, Mr. Calvin?"

He clearly did think he needed to protect the church from heresy, at all costs, the truth being the flimsy, fragile, always jeopardized thing that it is. Calvin understood scripture in a way many appreciate, so maybe he gets a pass on actual behavior.

I run into that sort of thing quite a bit: The important question, of course, to so many, is what your opinions are on the Bible, rather than your manner of living.

[Rick Frueh]

The quandry is how does someone who is resistant to both receive some self satisfying humor? Who would I want to be stranded on a deserted island with, MacLaren or Calvin?

It depends, do I value my life?

[Samuel Jones]

I've been wrestling with myself about why exactly this post bothers me so much. It probably is in part because it nails me. I totally hold people 'guilty' in my head by association to Brian McLaren, and I do so largely by hearsay of people that I associate myself with. But is that really bothering me that much. Am I doing the guilt by association game right now? Am I so petty?

Here's what I think is really bothering me. In Brant's comments on Bob Sacamento's comments, he upholds the value of true ideas above their source, and the need to deal with ideas themselves rather than judging sources of ideas by association. I think what gets me is that this post, judging by the comments, has by and large failed to actually lead people in that direction.

Calvin's getting flamed here, and whether or not you agree with any of his 'points' or whatnot (I like about 2.5 of them), Calvin, like our illustrious leader of leading leaders, loved the Truth. He loved God's Word and loved God's Glory. He lived in an era when they burned heretics, and faced that danger himself much of his life. (The Open Marketplace of Ideas is kind of an Enlightenment-Era concept - 1700s not 1500s). It's regrettable that Calvin was blind to the evil of this himself, but the reformers were doing difficult work in dark times. Those of us who are quick to judge them should look at the foundation we're standing on while we point our fingers, and realize that we owe it in large part to the work of the reformers, whatever their failings.

Meanwhile, Brian McLaren espouses an epistemology that disregards the need for propositional truth, trenchant or otherwise, and demonstrates a pretty low regard for scripture. I'm sure Brian McLaren makes some pretty good points. Charles Manson does on occasion, I'm sure, say true things. However, because he legitimately wears the useful label "lunatic" I don't think it is wise for me to go looking for truth there. Labels are useful things - they give us an idea of what's inside. Now we might use labels to throw some babies out with some bath water, but honestly, for the weak and impressionable, I think that's sometimes the safest thing. Because people tend to abuse a label doesn't mean labels are bad things. We do have to make sure that we're not throwing out people, and we must make sure that those whom God has made to be thinkers don't abuse them to be lazy.

We must discern between truth and falsehood -- judge ideas presented to us on the basis of God's word. GOD is the judge of mankind! God will judge John Calvin and Brian McLaren and you and me!

[Andy]

"The important question, of course, to so many, is what your opinions are on the Bible, rather than your manner of living."

More so, does it lead to the fruit of love, mercy, and justice in your life (among other things)?

I was just watching a video on YouTube of Mark Driscoll attacking The Shack as heresy. If I hadn't already read it (great book BTW), that would be enough to make me a customer. Isn't it fear makes us attack and love that drives out fear?