critique...finding hope in the suspension between questions, and answers

I was going to write something around the recent public discourse around Brian McLaren's new book, " A New Kind of Christianity." But then I got the heads-up from Mike Morrell over his thoughts on the recent deterioration of critique around what was once an open table of humble thought provoking conversation.

Anyways, Mike, I think sums up how many of us are feeling. I said this in the comments to Mike...

So much of what I’m reading is beyond good critique, it’s almost character assassination…jumping on the band wagon, bordering mob mentality. My book just arrived, so I’m barely into it. Am I being stretched…you bet. Brian doesn’t expect everyone to drink the KOOL AID, he expects critique. The hope is not to win or even to convert the other to your perspective, but for both to be transformed through the engagement.The hope is not to defeat, condemn to beat up on each other, the hope is in some kind of reconciliation, not avoiding differences but seeing them as an expression of a God so large, so gracious…whose love will conquer anything. Is it possible to critique with out an attempt to wound, hurt…and stomp the conversation out like crushing a cigarette butt. I’m really beginning to wonder.

Anyways, below are Mikes thoughts and encouragement to move us to place where we can stretch each other...as friends.

 

( image courtesy Andrew Jones )

 

It’s a new year; A New Kind of Christianity is out. I highly recommend it; it’s a fantastically thought-provoking book. Not everyone would agree, though – which is perfectly fine. Iron sharpening iron and all that. But it’s not just content-disagreement; it’s becoming increasingly fashionable to bash Brian McLaren these days. This has been the case for years actually in certain quarters, but in the last few months it’s become common for folks who might’be happily displayed a ‘Friend of Emergent’ badge on their blog a couple of years ago – folks for whom Emergent has become either too ‘establishment’ or (more common) too ‘liberal.’ I deliberately haven’t posted at all on the latest spate of ‘breaking up with emergent’ posts here because, frankly, they depress the hell out of me. But you can find a roundup of the points and counter-points here on my Delicious bookmarks. At the end of the day, I think some valid critiques have been raised, for sure, but the overall tenor of dismissal is rather debilitating, to be honest ... ... ... 

Read the complete post ... Here.

Something is on the way out and something else is being painfully born. It is as if something were crumbling, decaying, exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble...we are in a phase when one age is succeeding another, when everything is possible. ( Vaclav Havel )

I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love ( Mother Tersa ). Wise words from saint, wisdom for a way forward.

I purposely have not included links, I think a lot of it is attention seeking...and there is no sense in feeding the bad dogs in the neighborhood.

Comments

[Linda]

Ron,
It all reminds me very much of a church split. Or maybe just an argument in a marriage where you have a huge blowup over toothpaste. Sometimes underlying issues simmer out in unexpected ways. I don't think we're even to the stage yet of knowing what the underlying issues are, but the tension reveals a problem. Sometimes conflict can be resolved in a healthy way, but it would be nice if casualties are minimized.

[Al]

Perhaps part of the intensity of the altercation is what you allude to in your title for this post--the assumption that there has to be definitive answers, a right and a wrong.

If there has to be one (and only one) answer to a particular question, and the person you are in conversation with has a different answer than you, then you feel the need to oppose vehemently.

If we are willing to discuss without feeling the need to solve or answer the question, or are willing to have more than one answer, then we can talk, challenge, disagree and consider without it being a battle to the death.

That approach is not common, especially in matters of faith. We tend to think that we should be able to nail God down, to find the correct, all-definitive answer.

So, when someone like McLaren tosses some alternatives into the conversation, most Christians feel they need to distance themselves from him (so they don't get hit by the lightning bolt!) instead of engaging him and his ideas. I don't think he is as adamantly pushing his thoughts as people might assume. Sure, he presents concepts that are different, alien, perhaps heretical in some quarters, but at least he is looking for better responses to the questions many of us have.

I think we all (particularly me) need to learn how to discuss instead of fight. And figure out how to be generous with each other in our differences.

[ron cole]

Linda, you're right. It reminds me to much of " church ", you wander to far out side the fence, the door is usually slammed behind you...or the Shepherds hold out a hand, while starting the BBQ with the other.
I long for a church that can think, imagine...and do it at an open table. Unity is not in the shape of a cookie cutter.

Al, I've always liked Brian's questions. He hasn' got it all figured out...it's thinking in progress. It's like opening a box of puzzle pieces. He throws it on to an open table and says, " lets see what we can put together?" But, your right. We need to do it graciously, humbly...at a very generous table.