This post was actually designed to be a comment on Rick and Christy’s blog, but I kept rambling so I decided to post. It is in response to McLaren’s article in Christianity Today…
just read the article. a few comments. first, a qualifier: this is a good word for us to hear. obviously, nobody is going to disagree with McLaren’s premise. then comes the HOWEVER…he makes the statement: ‘that too many of our most “educated” Christians are some of the meanest’. here he gives a general sweep with no examples or reasons for prompting him to write this article. who exactly does he have in mind? and now people reading the article are drawing the inference that less education equals more godliness. i have met many people, and many christians (as i work customer service for a well-known christian book company) who are not educated at all and are extremely mean. just look at many fundamentalists who actually downplay education and can be some of the meanest people. and on the contrast, most all the smartest people around me are the nicest also. i was all but ousted from a church because i had “too much” education. i just guess that the 12 inch head/heart distance thing has become very cliche. i honestly think that we act on what we believe. i don’t think knowledge is the issue, so much as it is faith. i mean, come on, people are so afraid of “knowledge” that all you hear in churches is application. having gone through a seminary that has a “spiritual formation” class/program, requiring “spirituality”, i really think that McLaren’s statements about this are not helpful. our class was a royal waste of time. think about it, do we really think that the major problem in christendom is that people are “over-educated”? absolutely not! quite the opposite. to experience or learn Christ, you must learn about him. i know that i am automatically the bad guy as soon as I critique an article about being more godly. maybe i would have been better served by this article if he made it more narrative and described some of the negative experiences he has had with the “more” educated rather than just generalizing. as Piper said on Edwards:
“How many people in your churches do you know that are laboring to know God, who are striving earnestly in study and prayer to enlarge their vision of God. Precious few. Well then, what will become of our churches if we the pastors, who are charged with knowing and unfolding the whole counsel of God, shift into neutral, quit reading and studying and writing, and take on more hobbies and watch more television?”
“If the single-minded occupation with these things is left to a few academic theologians in the colleges and seminaries, while pastors all become technicians and managers and organizers, there may be superficial success for a while, as Americans get excited about one program or the other, but in the long run the gains will prove shallow and weak, especially in the day of trial.”
“You recall what Mark Noll said: ‘Edwards’s piety continued on in the revivalist tradition, his theology continued on in academic Calvinism, but there were no successors to his God-entranced world-view. . .’ The sweet marriage of reason and affection, of thought and feeling, of head and heart, study and worship that took place in the life of Jonathan Edwards has been rare since his day and still is rare.”
“In other words, it is to no avail merely to believe that God is holy and merciful. For that belief to be of any saving value, we must ‘sense’ God’s holiness and mercy. That is, we must have a true delight in it for what it is in itself. Otherwise the knowledge is no different than what the devils have. ”
“Does this mean that all his study and thinking was in vain? No indeed. Why? Because he says, ‘The more you have of a rational knowledge of divine things, the more opportunity will there be, when the Spirit shall be breathed into your heart, to see the excellency of these things, and to taste the sweetness of them.’ (Works, II, 162, see p.16)”
“But the goal of all is this spiritual taste, not just knowing God but delighting in him, savoring him, relishing him. And so for all his intellectual might, Edwards was the farthest thing from a cool, detached, neutral, disinterested academician.”
I mean not to generalize here myself, I just think that we need an Edwards-like model to help us balance. Thoughts?
9 comments so far
good word, very good words.
we should meet.
i am fletch.
You are very right that there could be over-generalizations in the article, and I don’t at all think McLaren was trying to prove that not being educated is the answer. I know personally that in my life, in my pursuit of education, I have often fallen short of transformation. There have been times that I might spend days devouring a theology book, but not really spending any time in relationship with God. Not that you can’t do the two together – but it’s a fine line that I find hard to walk on. None of that means education shouldn’t be a priority – it always will for me, I spent almost six years studying theology in college. But it’s also important to realize that sheer knowledge alone isn’t enough. The answer isn’t to not have knowledge, but to understand that knowing about God doesn’t always equal knowing God. Certanily there is no doubt that a similar argument can be made about the uneducated – that’s just not what the article dealt with. Thanks for the post, good thoughts.
i see what you are saying here, but, like christie, i don’t believe that this was mclaren’s attempt. just to preface my statements here: i have not read any of his books, so my view of him is a little limited. but, if his intent was remotely what i think it was, it is more along the lines of too many people seeing the knowledge as the end-goal. maybe they are miseducated instead of overeducated (which he never claims). maybe it’s that we are taught only the actions of God, and not how those actions fit into the character of God, and how that character of God (holiness) is what we strive for in following Him. or maybe i’m totally wrong.
This post has been removed by the author.
The previous was a Mulligan!
“MERE” intellectualism is a deadly poison. The intellect is AN ingredient in faith, but NOT the only one. Remove intellect, remove faith!
More foundational is my concern:
McLaren positively states: “As Dallas Willard says, we’ve realized that the gospel is opposed to earning but not to effort.”
WOW!!!!
This is a loaded statement and I suspect reveals his inner thoughts about his understanding concerning the distinction/relationship of the doctrines of justification and sanctification. Without any qualifier, his statement is borderline heretical. For the gospel, in its first place, IS most definitely and always opposed to earning AND effort…of any kind excepts Christ’s! No? Seems to me he is quick to run to issues of sanctification before settling in on a free – accomplished by another – declared by and credited to by God on account of Christ – salvation.
Here there is no human earning or human effort whatsoever. Life is given to the dead! It’s that simple…What this produces in the life of a beleiver is a whole ‘nother story!
Peace,
Danny
Hey bro.
Very timely topic for me. Next week I’ll be teaching NT survey at the bible college. So I’m struggling with how to balance teaching content and encouraging affection. Not an easy task. But is there any other way? I think not. I wholeheartedly agree that the problem with most (North American)Christians is not that they are too educated. Perhaps they think that they are too educated. Content with believing doctrines they really don’t understand. Only McLaren knows what his intentions were. I don’t. I’m glad he reminds us not to forget about transformation. He definitely painted his words with reactionary colors. He got us talking.
I am thankful for people like John Piper who, despite having a doctorate, clearly loves Jesus. He is someone who has been truly informed AND transformed.
I love his words on Edwards:
“But the goal of all is this spiritual taste, not just knowing God but delighting in him, savoring him, relishing him. And so for all his intellectual might, Edwards was the farthest thing from a cool, detached, neutral, disinterested academician.”
Give me a call, Dave.
fletch-where and when?
christie-as I finish my seventh year of theological education, I certainly know what you mean. however, all mclaren seems to do in this article is point is finger at a problem, offering really no solution, except maybe for putting “effort” towards transformation. but there is no model, and ultimately, not very good theology (I guess I am mean!). i just have heard what he says a million times and it is like water off my back. am I hard-hearted? perhaps. just looking for something more i guess from current leader (McLaren) to hopefully future leader (me).
the reeser-thanks for stopping by. i appreciate the thoughts.
dao-mr. theological eagle, good spot on that Willard quote. it’s funny because Willard claims to be a Calvinist. not there is anyting wrong with that…
josh-love ya man. i will call you.
I’m inclined to think that Dao misunderstood McClaren. It is quite proper to say that one cannot earn any merit, but that one is still called to put effort into law-keeping. Christ’s alien righteousness does not remove us from the demands of the law. The law, expressing the very character of God, is what we are to proscribe in our lives. We are to lead God-ly (God-like / Law-abiding / Torah-keeping) lives. What Christ’s righteousness does is remove us from the curse of the law, so that we do not constantly suffer its curse but, instead, strive to obey under the umbrella of grace, simil iustis et peccatur. We affirm our sinfulness and our saintliness both together.
Second, does this cliche of heart vs. head reflect a proper anthropology? Is the assumption behind it a Cartesian dualism between outer/inner; body/mind; matter/spirit? Shouldn’t we rather say, “Whatever your read, provided it is not fluff, and especially if it directly concerns matters of faith, if it has not involved you then you have not actually read it but merely observed it passing by like so much fireworks.” In which case, it is impossible to feed the mind, to use the Cartesian terms: to add to “head knowledge” without also adding to “heart knowledge.” I refer to Socrates’ long-struggle to define the philosopher over against sophistic imposters.
I just came across your blog about relationship problems and wanted to drop you a note telling you how much I enjoy reading the stuff you are posting here. I also have a web site about relationship problems so I know what I’m talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the world wide web!
greets,
Frank
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, approval may be required for first time posters, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>