Brian McLaren is an influential opinion leaders in many emerging economies and other Christians in the postmodern world. He recently introduced his latest book "A New Kind of Christianity" and published in the acquisition of new bursts of fire from the whole spectrum of the Protestant Church. My goal in writing this article is not to criticize his work, but the question of how to evaluate a book like this to increase.
I read most of the many contributions appeared inInternet and only few are good. Some of the guests are sharp, some are superficial, but others simply can not resist the temptation to slander casting for the man himself. Some label him a heretic who intends to describe this as a personal insult instead of the true meaning of someone simply an opinion that is contrary to religious doctrine holds. Others say that he tried to be brainwashed (or what they mean Brianwash) us poor gullible evangelical orthodoxy. ABrian referees accused of being an apostate, and to hate God I think it's unfortunate.
Where does this kind of criticism is to get up? First, it polarizes opinion. McLaren fans tend to close their minds to possible criticism of quality when they are packaged with personal insults. The only people that something critics are those who are already predisposed to agree with the reviewer. So what's the point of criticism? Secondly, the positions McLaren as a martyr.He makes a point of describing himself as a 'gentle soul and writes: "How did a mild-mannered guy like me in trouble so much?" Attacking him personally played with these and directs the reader where the focus should be submitted to ideas.
McLaren has claimed several times to ask simple, and try to explore alternative discourse (conversation). He actually goes much further than this in his latest book, and finally approaches, stating exactly whatto believe. However, his style is still attractive as assertive. Those who respond to his ideas with dogmatism is looking very likely to alienate the people who most need to hear the opposing arguments. A sweet, or use a McLarenism, is the more generous approach to the problems presented in a respectful but honest to be involved.
Another way to effectively communicate the critical work like this is more questions that call for deep reflection poseAnswers. For example, Brian revision of Genesis as a "compassionate coming-history of aging." He says that the biblical text (Gen 2:17) do not claim that eating the fruit of the tree would lead to a wrong spiritual separation from God, or condemnation of original sin. Instead of running with the Orthodox on this zeal would probably be more effective, the question "What to say of our need for a Savior?" or "In this context, why did Jesus need to die on the cross ofCalvary? "An open-reasoned answer to these questions would be the themes of sin, atonement, salvation and spiritual regeneration. Would not this lead us to think, even the most ardent McLaren break?
Some of the questions worth ten respond to Brian, but I do not think that, because of its subtitle, ten questions, which are the transformation of the summons faith. In fact, every generation has asked these questions, but found the answers which mainly led to Protestant orthodoxy. Tothe record, I have serious problems with censorship Brian most important and critical that I faced in my Blogspot, entitled "A new kind of liberalism." However, I do not think that it is useful for everyone to demonize the man or publicly questioning his motives or his mental state. My best advice is to let his ideas stand the test of biblical interpretation with the methods of interpretation are given. In this way, the ideas and philosophies are presented, what they really exposed usCome away with something learned from the process, and Brian is with his integrity intact and his martyrdom are allowed to refuse.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น