-----
I have been struck over some period at the number of times that Evangelicals have questioned Brian McLaren with respect to certain points of belief. While claiming orthodoxy in belief, he responds by being surprised at the responses of those Evangelicals while he never answers their questions. Some have taken this silence on position as evidence of a problem in McLaren’s belief. Some defenders suggest that the purpose in the vagaries is to keep from scaring off the unbelievers before they get a chance to understand for themselves. But McLaren says nothing, at least in any place that I have seen.
I would not be adverse to a statement that suggests:
- He is critically reexamining many of the so-called orthodox beliefs and does not wish to speak on it until he is finished.
- He agrees with the orthodox belief, however, he believes that it is really a more complex thing than the simplistic item(s) being brought forward.
- He actually believes but chooses to allow God to bring others to belief rather than force it on them because of a need to be “orthodox.”
This seems to be an insightful snapshot of what happens when doctrinal purity (of a purely intellectual variety) takes precedence over faithfulness to discipleship. These different emphases lend themselves to different methods of response. It’s fascinating to me that Brian could be labeled by so many as someone with no regard for the atoning work of Jesus when he so clearly aspires to follow Him in absorbing the attacks of others as opposed to returning evil for evil.
While I understand the sentiments of the particular writer, the problem with the statement is that Brian’s doing of a righteous thing is given as evidence of his beliefs concerning the atoning work of Jesus. Those who have partaken of the atoning work of Jesus should be those who both aspire to and actual do live righteously. But Paul wrote of his own struggles and “aspirations” to live righteously prior to receiving the atoning work of Christ. So the fact of an aspiration to live righteously, and even some signs of success in that endeavor is not evidence of belief in the atoning work of Christ. The comparison is apples and oranges.
Now I am fairly comfortable saying that it is a fact that Mr. McLaren has actually partaken of the atoning work of Christ. But it is not clear that he thinks it is something that should be taught, at least not directly, or that it is important or required for “following.” Maybe he could clear this all up by showing how his progression of teachings actually brings one to accept/receive the atonement without using the expected terminology. Or he could explain how he thinks that the application of that atonement is not necessarily tied to having a specific belief concerning it. I can admit that I might be swayed, or at least take a hard look at, such a position.
But I return to the title of this post. These are arguments from silence. Silence does not establish anything, but instead leaves possibilities open without admitting or denying anything. Within the realm of reason and debate, argument from silence is a two edged sword. It is generally said that mere silence does not create a position. But sufficient silence can be used to reasonably infer that the repeated but un-denied charge is true. I read at least some of the comments, interviews, and even Brian’s responses, directly or indirectly, and he displays incredulity in the notion that anyone would question his belief, but once you finish reading, you are still left wondering what it is that he actually believes. He managed to say nothing about what he does believe, only that doubts concerning his beliefs are unbelievable. His silence is beginning to infer. He should set the record straight.
There are many more examples. While I generally believe that the fears of the Evangelical community are overstated, there clearly are some concerns. What do you think about this? Or better yet, have you seen anything that would tend to answer the question that I have seen as unanswered for so long?
No comments:
Post a Comment