Whence Justice?

An Analysis of Brian McLaren's Postmodern Deconstruction of the Christian Metanarrative and A Recommendation to Pursue Biblically Defined Humility

The wing of the evangelical church that is most concerned about the loss of truth and about compromise is actually infamous in our culture for its self-righteousness and pride. However, there are many in our circles who, in reaction to what they perceive as arrogance, are backing away from many of the classic Protestant doctrines (such as Forensic Justification and Substitutionary Atonement) that are crucial and irreplaceable—as well as the best possible resources for humility.¹

Abstract

This paper engages a few of the core philosophical and theological commitments of the Emergent Church, a movement that is attractive to dissatisfied, current and former Christians. Since the movement is broad, and to some extent indefinable, Brian McLaren's works will serve as a representative of its general concerns. One of these primary concerns is how to respond to the enormous quantities of injustice and suffering that have been wrought throughout modernity. According to McLaren, this suffering and injustice flows out of arrogance grounded in normative metanarratives; therefore, the ultimate sin resides in absolute confidence in a worldview. This absolute confidence can be defeated utilizing a postmodern, deconstructionist methodology, and the Emergent Church is the natural outworking of applying this methodology to the modern, Christian metanarrative. While this approach does not entail a comprehensive rejection of absolute truth or a descent into moral nihilism, as some have suggested, it does fundamentally redefine the orientation of sin and salvation toward earthly, rather than heavenly, concerns. A return to a Biblical conception of humility will allow Christians to have both strong levels of confidence and a meaningful concern for others and the cause of justice.

Social Justice: Too Missional For Anti-Abortion Gospel Ministry?

I fully believe that were it not for prayer and a consistent diet of the word, it would be easy to grow cynical of what goes by the name of "evangelicalism" in America.  On the whole, American evangelicalism is very materialistic and individualistic rather than sacrificial and collective.  I am exposed to it constantly, and as I've already said; were it not for plenty of prayer, meditation on Scripture, and many a good night's sleep, I'd probably have quit pastoral ministry a long time ago.  I, along with many atheists and skeptics roll my eyes (but for completely different reasons) when I see another goofy church marquee or read another article about Rob Bell's latest heresy, or hear supposed evangelicals pounding the drum of what is known as "social justice".  I roll my eyes because all of these groups are missing the point.

It's not that I question Biblical Christian theism in any way; quite the contrary, I have full epistemological confidence/warrant that it is historically true and I fully believe that the Biblical gospel is the power of God unto salvation and such salvation naturally entails societal changes from the ground up.  However, much of American evangelicalism seems to be all about two things: (1) "Hipster christianity", (2) and "Hippy christianity".   The lowercase "c" in "christianity" is there for reasons that you'll see in the explanations below.

"Hipster christianity" presents Jesus in a shiny, slick materialistic veneer with a limp wrist wearing a Hawaiian shirt.  He avoids offending heretics, homosexuals, and theological liberals at all costs and he certainly doesn't want to be politically incorrect.  After all, being politically incorrect earns you zero social currency at the water cooler.  A "Hipster christian" would be much better off at the water cooler being thoroughly conversant with the latest "House" episode, the latest reality show details, or having already memorized their favorite lyrics from the most recent Avril Lavigne release that they recently downloaded from iTunes.  In a nutshell, "Hipster christianity" majors on skin-deep superficiality since religion is still considered somewhat "hip" in America.  It loves to join hands with the world to throw money at social problems all the while ignoring the problems in its own congregations and communities; problems that are ultimately rooted in sin.  It holds conferences that provide a platform for the world's unbelieving gurus who are diametrically opposed in both philosophy and deed to the Biblical gospel while spilling their rank heresy onto their unsuspecting, but "thirsty-for-the-world" congregations.  For the average "Hipster christian", really knowing what the Bible says about the Jesus of history and faith is a foreign concept since the Bible paints a portrait of Him that doesn't fit well with the materialistic, cool, hip, world-consuming "evangelical" masses.  The Jesus of the Bible angers the Hipster christians because He demands of them the very thing that they aren't willing to give to Him: everything (Luke 14:27-33).  

"Hippy christianity" has Jesus with holes in his bleached jeans, dreads in his hair, wearning thick-rimmed $500 designer eyeglasses.  He is all concerned about the poor, homeless, and sick, and he even ministers on the street to them while living in a 100 year old tenant apartment house along with 20-25 other people right in the middle of downtrodden downtown.  This "Hippy Jesus" doesn't preach the gospel of sin, righteousness, and judgment because that would reveal what the real underlying problem is:  sinful men.  Not only that, but if the "Hippy Jesus" starting preaching the gospel of the Biblical Jesus, He might get persecuted or killed like the Biblical Jesus.  After all, the gospel infuriates many and our "Hippy Jesus" doesn't want to be at enmity with the world.  Those who follow the "Hipster Jesus" fail to understand that the community is the way that it is because those evil bureaucrats attending their theologically liberal churches, atheist meet-ups, or tee times have long rejected the gospel and have treated the poor badly because they believe that the only ones they ultimately have to answer to are themselves and if dissing the disenfranchised (but not too much) allows them to get ahead in the world, then so be it.  On the other hand, while many of the poor attend "church", they attend those that have long left the Biblical gospel too and traded it in for a mess of heretical Word of Faith pottage; a blab-it-and-grab-it and give-to-get scheme religion.  Since they don't embrace the true gospel which changes lives forever and for the good, they have responded with their own evil by hating their enemies, embracing the sin of laziness by depending upon the government to save them (as well as the "Hippy Jesus" community to give them soup and sandwiches) and they avoid work hard.  After all, if the "Hippy Christians", Uncle Sam, and HUD housing can save them by putting bread on their tables and a roofs over their heads, then why would they ever need to hear about the Biblical Jesus, especially since the Word of Faith "Jesus" has promised them that if they give what little they do have (which many of them received from Federal subsidies), then their version of "Jesus" will give them food, shelter, and clothing?  After all, in a system like that, why give hope to the community through opening "their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in [the Biblical Jesus]" (Acts 26:18)?  You see, the "Hippy Jesus" is too urban for all of that ancient nonsense.  After all, what good is giving the poor, homeless guy a sermon when his real problem is that he needs a sandwich?  The Jesus of the Bible also angers the "Hippy Christians" because He demands of them the very thing that they aren't willing to give to Him:  everything (Luke 14:27-33).  

Both portrayals of "Jesus" and "christians" reveal that many professing believers really don't read their Bibles (much less believe them) and that they are content with having the sticky jello of the world on our hands rather than use their hands as a vehicle to exude the eternal message of the gospel that saves men from God's wrath.

Now, all of the above commentary was inspired not only by some great interaction this past Sunday in our church meeting regarding the role of "social justice" in the life of a church and individual Christians, but the following short article by Anthony B from WORLDmag.com touches my nerve too:

The number one social justice issue for African-Americans in New York City is abortion. Period. The city’s abortion rate is twice the nation average, with 41 percent of all pregnancies ending in abortion. According to recent data, the rate for blacks is even higher: 59.8 percent. For Hispanics it’s 41.3 percent, Asians 22.7 percent, and whites 20.4 percent. In 2009, unmarried women accounted for 84 percent of the abortions in the city.

To make matters worse, votes will be cast today for Bill 371, which will effectively shut down New York City’s pro-life crisis pregnancy centers by imposing outrageous regulations that most centers do not have the manpower to implement.

Then last month, controversy was stirred up over a billboard erected in SoHo noting, “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” The billboard was only around for a few days.

All of this has me wondering why the missional, center-city evangelicals, who are all about “justice,” “loving the city,” “renewing the city,” “serving the city,” etc., do not seem to consider abortion one those flagship “justice” issues.

I’ve been browsing the mercy and justice websites of several of New York’s well-known churches and Christian non-profit groups for discussion of New York’s abortion crisis. Outside of the crisis pregnancy centers themselves, I have not found much of anything. What one will find are very good discussions on subjects like fighting homelessness, improving inner-city education, opening women’s shelters, and dealing with sex trafficking and juvenile delinquency. I raise this issue because I am concerned that perhaps the missional pendulum has swung too far in one direction.

There are groups of 30-something-and-under Christians in cities who are trying to present a different kind of evangelical Christianity—one that’s not so political and not so much about “culture wars,” protesting abortion, or escaping “the culture” to the safety of the suburbs. These groups have made a conscious decision to not live out Christianity politically.

But Christian withdrawal from politics can inadvertently undermine the justice work of the church by not having a voting presence to maintain religious liberties for Christians to do what they are called to do. I fully recognize how an organization’s non-profit status constrains certain types of activities and speech, but if New York’s Christians are not encouraged to get involved in the politics of religious liberty, people are going to die, literally.

If there were pro-life Christians on New York’s City Council, Bill 371 would fail and the crisis pregnancy centers would not be in jeopardy of closing. Bill 371 is a reminder that if your center city church is too missional for the politics of abortion and religious liberty, Christianity eventually will be limited to serving and renewing the city in rhetoric only.

So where are the missional people when it comes to abortion?  Where are the books, the debates, the conferences addressing this issue from the social justice preaching missional proponents?  Where are the missional churches in Greensboro, NC at 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning outside of A Woman's Choice abortion clinic begging young mothers not to kill their children, offering to adopt their children, and giving them the only message that the change them forever, the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Where are the black Word-of-Faith church attenders on Saturday mornings when statistically-speaking, a genocide of black people is taking place at 201 Pomona drive?  Where are the black pastors who are not only exposing abortion for the damnable genocide that it is but are also educating their people to vote for political candidates not because of the color of their skin but because of their dedication to protect pre-born life because the Bible says that the life of a human person begins at fertilization/conception?  Where are they? 

IN CONCLUSION, I've been listening to the social justice, missional people for years and like most other things I've watched come and go within evangelicalism, they too will eventually run out of steam and morph into something else that is just as non-gospel preaching as their current schtick.  They are a fad that has come and will eventually go as their "wave" runs out of fleshly energy and their adherents grow up a little bit and get tired of "the cause", especially since it has no eternal, heavenly-minded gospel perspective and shows little results for such hard, dedicated work.  Some missionals need to repent of their worldly, godless thinking and embrace the gospel and then go and preach it while giving people sandwiches, clothes, and adoption options.  If you give an able-bodied man a fully belly, a warm cot, and a roof over his head and fail to give him the gospel whereby his soul can be saved, then you have done nothing more than heaped up more condemnation on him on the day of Judgment since his ongoing, continued dependence and trust upon you and "the system" instead of the Sovereign God to provide for his needs further calcifies and solidifies his ungrateful, lazy, and unrepentant heart.  The real Jesus said it best:

Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.  (John 6:27) 

New Monasticism Redivivus

Note: The following is a response to a person who left a comment a few days ago in the combox of an article written by us over a year ago titled New Monasticism. My response is in blue font.

Lindsay stated:

You said that they [the New Monastics] accept everything nominally Christian, even thought 2 denominations might be mutually exclusive. I don't see this as a bad thing, Paul himself warned us about denominations. Being Christian means believing that Jesus is the one savior, that should be what brings us together, denominations should not get in the way. We may have different approaches to things, but we can still worship together, love each other, and love the world, together, we still believe the same core beliefs, we all believe in Jesus, the trinity, and the apostles creed, these are what matter, not the the different ways we go about believing in them. Jesus is not divided, nor should we be. Paul himself warned us about denominations.

Hi Lindsay,

Thank you for your comments. We also agree that there must be essential unity in the church of Jesus Christ and that Christians must strive for such so as to maintain a strong and effective witness to a lost and dying world. However, I have several disagreements that I would like to share:

1. Paul was not warning against denominations in 1 Cor. 1:10-17, for such a reading would be anachronistic. Instead, he's condemning sectarianism/factions within the local church at Corinth. This is not the same thing as denominationalism as it has been historically understood. Denominationalism has been historically rooted in a core set of Protestant beliefs; i.e., The Five Solas of Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of the Trinity, the virginal conception of Christ, and the literal resurrection of Christ and of all people at His second coming. In other words, various local churches could have different views on say the mode and subjects of baptism but in order to be considered a true church of Christ they had to adhere to certain cardinal doctrines of the faith in order to be considered truly Christian.

Being Christian means believing that Jesus is the one savior, that should be what brings us together, denominations should not get in the way. We may have different approaches to things, but we can still worship together, love each other, and love the world, together, we still believe the same core beliefs, we all believe in Jesus, the trinity, and the apostles creed, these are what matter, not the the different ways we go about believing in them. Jesus is not divided, nor should we be.

2. Roman Catholics also believe in the Apostle's Creed, believe that Jesus is the "one savior . . . believe in Jesus, the trinity", etc. However, they deny one of the essential truths of the Christian faith, justification by faith alone (Sola Fide). In The Council of Trent, Catholic Church declared,

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html]

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

By virtue of their clear denial of Sola Fide, Catholics and other pseudo-Christian groups like them are preaching a damning lie. Here's an example of modern Rome's heretical denial of the exclusivity of Christ:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Thus, according to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Christians cannot have fellowship and work together in mutual ministry with anyone who preaches a false gospel and says that Christ is not the only mediator between God and man, no matter how nice they are (Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5). That is because those who wholeheartedly affirm such things are not Christians.

Lindsay: "Jesus didn't command us to cozy up to people who did not believe in the truth of the gospel. A lie believed by a thousand people is still a lie." I agree with you to an extent, you're right that a lie is a lie no matter what. However, I think we are called to cozy up to people who don't believe in the truth. That is what Jesus did, did he not? He was friends with the tax collectors and the prostitutes. He said himself, a doctor doesn't try to heal the healthy, a doctor is there for the sick. We are here to form relationships with those who don't know him, and to show His love to them, we are not here to surround ourselves only with other believers, what good does that do the world? Being close with unbelievers does not mean that we support their beliefs, and it doesn't mean we have to deny ours, but we are called to go to the poor and the sick and the lost with God's love and God's truth. I don't believe that a Christian can love another and not be sharing God's truth.

We are not saying that we shouldn't develop relationships with unbelievers so as to bring the gospel to them. We wholeheartedly affirm such things! During the semesters, we do weekly evangelistic outreaches on our local college campuses as we seek to engage the lost at every turn. We engage in cordial conversations, welcome debate (formal or informal) because we fully believe in the life-changing power of the gospel.

However, to reach people with the gospel we, as professing Christians have to first be agreed on what the gospel actually is. Feeding the poor is no good if the feeders are trumpeting uncertain and inconsistent sounds. If my Catholic friend wants to yoke with me in ministry to bring the gospel to abortive mothers, he must first renounce his Catholicism and then put his faith in Jesus Christ and embrace the true gospel as it is presented in the New Testament. Anything else is merely another welfare movement, and not a fulfillment of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20.

Lindsay: I understand your concerns, and they are definitely important to consider, but I urge you to look more closely into the beliefs on the New Monastic movement.

I have read their books, listened to their presentations, and weighed them in the balances and found them doctrinally wanting.

Lindsay: I find a lot of truth in their lives,

According to what standard? Yours or Scripture's? Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God. We only come to know the mind of God by studying the word of God. Anything else is guess-work. If people do not speak according to His word in the main and plain things, it's because they have no light in them, no matter how many poor people they've clothed and fed (Isaiah 8:20). Remember, Ghandi helped a lot of poor people, but Ghandi rejected the gospel and is in Hell today. Feeding poor people isn't going to matter for a hill of beans if you and they don't embrace the gospel of Christ. People can feed the poor till the cows come home, but without Christ, all of them will burn in Hell.

Lindsay: . . . and they aren't claiming to be right all the time, they want to live a life glorifying God and spreading his love, Shane Claiborne said so himself in his interview with Tony Campolo.

"Claiming to be right all the time" isn't the issue, the gospel is the issue. I am not expecting anyone to be "right" all the time because no one individual person understands all parts of Scripture with equal clarity due to the noetic effects of sin on our minds. We all have false beliefs about Scripture to one extent or another, but to flatten out all doctrinal propositions with the result that you confuse the Catholic "gospel" with the Biblical gospel in order to promote helping the poor and indigent is grossly mistaken at best and heretical at worst.

The bottom line: We do not yoke ourselves with unbelievers who clearly deny the Biblical gospel in order to work together in mutual ministry nor can we share fellowship with them (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

I'll conclude with a statement from the article you commented on:

The only problem with the New Monasticism movement is its foundation--and therefore everything built upon the foundation. There is no clear theological basis for New Monasticism; they accept anything & everything that is nominally Christian, promoting what Pastor Dustin describes as a "buffet bar" mentality to Christianity.

"Buffet bars" are great when it comes to getting a meal with the family after church, but they are horrible when it comes to doing theology and developing theological foundations for ministry. New Monasticism is wrong because it confuses Biblical discipleship with social justice; and the two are not the same. We are not commanded to go into the world by first adopting a least common denominator faith that allows us to strategically join forces together with heretics in order to feed the poor. Instead, we are told to preach the gospel, make disciples, and then baptize them. If we do that, everything else Christians are supposed to be doing will follow.

A Disingenuous Orthodoxy: Why I Am Everything But a Calvinist Unless Calvinist Means Any Ole Christian

Mclaren offers some words of wisdom to help out those making the church uncool in his blog post Calling All Calvinists.

The terms Calvinist and Reformed can have wildly different meanings, depending on who uses them.

Of course, this is entirely uninteresting. So can the term, 'Christian'.

For example, some of the most misogynist and some of the most feminist folks I know would see their views as being inherently Reformed.

Just like some of the most polytheistic or unipersonalistic folks I know would see their views as being inherently Christian.

So, when people tell me they're Calvinist or Reformed, I generally ask them what they mean.

Does Mclaren ask this while rubbing his chin with his finger and thumb, pretending he has just asked something profound? Or does he ask arms akimbo?

One line of response goes to TULIP (an acronym for five points of a type of deterministic Calvinism) and the Westminster Confession and a list of things they're against. Folks in this camp seem eager to repeat and redo faithfully in the 21st century exactly what Calvin said and did in the 16th.

1. A type of "deterministic Calvinism?" As opposed to, what, an indeterministic Calvinism? Well then, isn't this risible; jejune too. With these kinds of Procrustean dismemberments of basic units of language, postmodernism seems downright rote, rigid, determinate, and modern. Boorish too. On this analysis, if indeterminists count as Calvinists, then monopersonal modalists count as Christians. And why not allow polytheists too? Indeed, I could see a Unitarian write something similar: "I often wrap my fingers around my chin after someone tells me they are a Christian, let out a sigh, ponder it for a bit, and then ask, while letting out a lot of air, slowly and semi-confused, 'What do you mean by that?' One line of response goes to the trinity (an fancy way of saying polytheism) and certain creeds of the early, oppressionistic Church and a list of things they are against and an even larger list of things they're for so as to show that church and God is cool--Jehovah is my homeboy."

2. Ironically, Mclaren tells us that he is "against" this kind of Calvinist.

3. Can we have any names of these Calvinists? And, is Mclaren using hyperbole when he claims that "they" want to redo everything today in the exact same way as Calvin's day? Even the language? Long beard, 'n all? Or does Mclaren just mean the "theology?" But again, we must ask if he is being hyperbolic. I know some hard-core Reformed baptists who hold to Tulip, even call themselves Calvinists, and have most of the nasty stuff in their confession as is in the Westminster Confession. Yet they do not want to redo paedobaptism. Or, are you particularly nasty if and only if you baptize babies?

4. What if the Westminster Confession is true? How come that question doesn't even make it into consideration. Now, I'm not making any claims that it is true all and sundry, mind you. But what if it is? And, what if one believes that it is? Or, is this kind of talk just wrong-headed in today's world? Irrelevant? Well, okay, I guess if this claim is true I can accept it. Read that sentence again. And second time if need be, until you get it.

The other line of response refers to the Lordship of Christ over all of life, the priesthood of all believers, the absolute importance of God's grace, and the integration of faith with every dimension of human enterprise ... seeming more eager to imitate Calvin's general example, seeking to translate into our times what Calvin generally sought to do in his times, even when that means disagreeing with specific things Calvin - and many Calvinists - have said and done.

Since every Christian could affirm this, Mclaren wants to deny the Calvinist any demarcating feature. On Mclaren's warped use of language, 'Calvinism' turns out to be identical with 'Arminianism' as well as any ole hoi polloi version 'Christianity'. Basically, to be a Calvinist means you must deny anything that uniquely makes you Calvinist. Upon analysis, this turns out to be a veiled attack against Calvinists, arguing that the only way to be a cool Calvinist is to not be a Calvinist. Once you do this it's still okay to call yourself a Calvinist. Mclaren's calling all Calvinists to a Roman Christianity. A Roman Christianity says that you can call yourself whatever you want, worship whatever deity you want, so long as you don't claim your way is right to the exclusion of all others. See, the cool Calvinist is a 'Calvinist' who "denies specific things Calvin - and many Calvinists - have said and done. Read, who "denies all those offense things I dislike in Calvinism."

The TULIP/WC group tends to include my most passionate, persistent, and grandiloquent critics. I, of course, am not alone in finding myself in the polemical cross-hairs of these energetic folks who have rightly earned the nick-name "Machen's warrior children."

Yet the author of the piece to which Mclaren links holds to TULIP and much of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

It is doubtful Mclaren even read Frame's paper. One should not be too proud to identify with those in the cross-hairs of these energetic people considering it was "born in the controversy over liberal theology." Furthermore, those in the cross-hairs are fellow Reformed. Thus, Mclaren cites as relevant something irrelevant. Odds are he did it to seem cognoscente. He came off looking knavish. But perhaps the biggest problem is that the article makes clear that the critiques came because of the motto "truth before friendship." Putting aside questions of interaction and debate (though I have the feeling Jesus would agree with this sentiment), can't Mclaren see that to say Machen's Warrior Children have put you in their cross-hairs is to say that they think you are making false claims. Does all your jovialness and glad-handing even matter if you're flat-out wrong. As the emperor would say, they "believe you are mistaken, about a great many things." That's why Mclaren is in the cross-hairs. If Mclaren is wrong about a great many things, even important things, then what is his post supposed to accomplish? Well, it's meant to claim that they are wrong without having to do the hard work of showing it. Maligning and marginalizing those you disagree with, without showing where they are wrong, and without showing why you are right, is just to be uncivil. I mean this in the same sense as Os Guinness's book: The Case For Civility. You know, the one you wrote the praise blurb on the back for? Or, did you also not read that piece?

The other kind of Reformed Christians are much more irenic and include many of the wisest and most thoughtful Christians I've ever met. A great example of this tribe's Reformed thinking can be found here. I hope and pray many in the former camp will migrate to the latter camp in the years ahead.

We have seen that upon analysis this simply means that there are no uniquely irenic or wise Calvinist or Reformed. That's not nice. Hybels Warrior Children!

But the question to ask is, why does Brian get stingy rather than stay "generous"? Didn't he tell us: "The last thing I want is to get into nauseating arguments about why this or that form of theology (dispensational, covenant, charismatic, whatever) or methodology (cell church, megachurch, liturgical church, seeker church, blah, blah, blah) is right (meaning approaching or achieving timeless technical perfection)." But now he cares about the right way to be a Calvinist! Consistency is a will-o-the-wisp.

It turns out that Mclaren isn't really generous. Indeed, his title is disingenuous:

"Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian."

doesn't mean what it looks like it means. Everyone makes it in besides the traditional Calvinist!