The great Roman Catholic-Emerging conspiracy!

Having recently read and engaged with an article claiming to link Emerging Church with Roman Catholicism, I've had my curiosity piqued: Do others also think this way?

The answer, it appears, is 'yes'. I've found another one. This particular critique is longer and (sometimes) more sensible, but equally as mean-spirited and reactionary. Read it if you like; I'll hit some of the positives and negatives...

On the positive side, this author (Richard Bennett, who is a former Roman Catholic priest) makes a few good points. His article is basically a critique of Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, and I share some of his concerns about this very influential book.

For example, Bennett takes issue with McLaren's "God A vs God B" paradigm, noting that "By this fictitious contrast he entices his readers to choose between two highly subjective conceptions of a god of his own imagination". Back in June, I made this observation regarding the same subject:

Chapter 2: Jesus and God B - Here McLaren contends that God should not be seen as merely "'God A', a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will, but as 'God B', a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love" (p.85).

If that isn't terribly confusing enough, there's more: "In English, there just isn't a personal pronoun to express this kind of Life/Personality that isn't either exclusively male or exclusively female. The only nongender pronoun in English is impersonal (it)" (p.83). I especially dislike this quote because it implies to the average reader that such a pronoun exists in the original Greek manuscripts, but not in English. As grammar would have it, though - there is no such pronoun in Greek either!

I found many occasions in this book when McLaren's lack of theological training became obvious. This chapter was one of those.

The truth is that - to use McLaren's somewhat odd language - the God of the Bible is both God A and God B. The Bible clearly paints Him (not It) so.


Also like Bennett, I was deeply troubled by the way McLaren attempts to redefine the old standard TULIP acrostic to better suit his own tastes in theology. Kudos to Bennett for pointing out the foolishness of such an attempt.


But the bad in this article far outweighs the good, folks. Right off the bat, Bennett tries to import a Roman Catholic context to this whole debate, one that is foreign to every discussion I've ever had with emerging-type folk. It comes across as nothing more than a conspiracy theory when he insists that:

Thus rather than looking for unity based on truth, the Papacy, as ever, is seeking to secure visible outward conformity through the compromise of others. This is the larger context into which the Emergent Church is set.

or that:

McLaren is in the early stages of presenting the same protocol as Papal Rome. But then, Rome said that the induction of Protestant churches was to be "little by little" as their thinking was changed by dialogue with Catholics.

Moreover, Mr. Bennett is clearly not very well-versed in the fine art of sarcasm. I know that as a (cultural) postmodern, I have an advantage on this front. But Bennett seems to be completely missing the rampant sarcasm in A Generous Orthodoxy. He actually thinks it's bitterness! For example, quoting McLaren ("you should know that I am horribly unfair in this book, lacking all scholarly objectivity and evenhandedness"), Bennett claims the he "shows by his own admission what amounts to bitterness against his conservative Protestant heritage...". Clearly Bennett doesn't understand the tenor in which McLaren meant these words. Perhaps if he ever read any of McLaren's other works, or listened to him speak, or even familiarized himself with the culturally postmodern context that McLaren runs within... But that's too much effort, I suppose.

Further adventures in missing the point: Bennett takes McLaren to task for saying "But the Bible requires human interpretation, which was a problem [for Reformers]...". To Bennett, this is nothing short of a denial that "Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture". But that's not the point. The point is which Scriptures? How do they interpret one another? By what method do we come to conclusions? Etc... The point is that the very act of interpretation necessarily involves humans.

And my personal favourite: when speaking of Martin Luther, McLaren (correctly) points out that Luther lived at the beginning of what we now call the Modern era (as opposed to the new Postmodern era). Apparently Bennett is wholly unfamiliar with the actual modern/postmodern debate, as he actually says:

In this way, he [McLaren]is able to use Martin Luther as simply a man of another time, not relevant for today because that time, which he calls modern, is now over.

Did you catch that? Bennett is throwing in the "which he calls modern" bit as a dig! As if McLaren is simply making up these terms to confuse people. I knew a Christian leader once who described postmodernity as a "camp" that he was not in! Much the same here. One more time, folks - modernity and postmodernity are not terms that heretics made up, nor are they "camps" to be in or out of, nor do they inherently carry value judgements. They are merely very common words used to describe a philosophical shift of massive proportions.

---

Mr. Bennett (and others), you may deny the existence of the 40 foot wall of water if you wish. You may insist that it is, in fact, merely a "fad". You may even claim that the word "tsunami" has merely been fabricated by a heretical group. But that does not change the facts.

They are (in case you're taking notes):

1.) Postmodernity has already come.

2.) It will soon be the dominant view within all Western culture (it already is in many areas).

3.) It is not necessarily any better or worse than Modernity; it's just different.

In light of these facts, it is my goal to help craft a cultural Postmodernity that better reflects His glory and that better equips Christ's followers to serve His mission.

Others, it would appear, would prefer to stick their heads in the sand or claim it's nothing but a Roman Catholic conspiracy.

Hatushili