Brian Mclaren – day 3. Back again

May 4, 2007

I didn’t get to a computer after I got back yesterday, and struggled with Linux the whole day after getting back. I’ve decided to try and use Linux, but couldn’t figure out much. Problem is, when using Windows you have the complete general knowledge of everyone around you (especially when living in a mens hostel), but when using Linux you are kind of on your own. So it’s a major struggle.

The last day of the conversation with Brian Mclaren was a bit more focused on South Africa. How do the post-apartheid church look. To Africa in general, the post-colonial era we are now part of. Many of the problems of colonialism still needs to be worked out. What is the role of the church in that? The role of the church in poverty?

Some questions. What is the unique contribution that we can make as South Africans to the global emerging church conversation? Maybe we should broaden it to the global theological conversation? I’ve been thinking of two things:

  1. One is how we can be church across racial and economical lines. South Africa is the country with the widest devide between poor and rich, and a country with a very long history of racial devide. I believe that our conversation on these things can really mean something to the global conversation.
  2. The theology of David Bosch is highly spoken of in the emerging conversation, although not well known. If we can become accuinted with the works of David Bosch, we can carry this into the global conversation. So, anyone with knowledge on the work of David Bosch out there?

What do you consider the unique contribution of the emerging conversation, or the theological conversation currently happening?

3 Responses to “Brian Mclaren – day 3. Back again”

  1. LayGuy Says:

    McLaren’ emergent movement is good at understanding culture. What it sucks in is Doctrine. Many key fundamental attributes of Christianity are pushed aside in order to “welcome the emergent masses.”

    I suggest you become familiar with Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, The Resurgence, Acts 29 etc. These guys do a great job in understanding culture BUT do it in a way where scipture is held with authority.

    Driscoll et al are very popular and hated at the same time. Hated especially by the emergent movement because they hold scripture with high regard.

    Check out my post “Hybels v Driscoll” which will give you a primer as to this struggle. Of particular interest, check out the comments and my dialogue with an emergent leader.

    This will give you insight into the emergent movement – some parts of which are hostile to sound doctrine. Remember, Mclaren came from a Plymoth Brethren background and much of which he rebels from is the strict, almost cult like traditions of the Plymoths (excuse me if the spelling is wrong)

    To the masses, his messages seem innocent but many are very concerned with the emergent movement. I’m not just talking about fundamentalists here cause they cause an outrage everytime someone has a beer or farts in public.

  2. cobus Says:

    I came upon Driscoll a couple of months ago, and followed his blog for a while as well. I wasn’t impressed though. I got the impression of a chauvinistic guy, still clinging to some form of literal interpretation of the Bible. Although I do consider Driscoll part of the emerging church, I don’t agree with what I’ve read on his theology up to now.
    I don’t think Mclaren tries to be big on doctrine, but my impression while in conversation was that this is not because of ignorance, he seems very well clued-up on Christian doctrine, but rather a choice about what is important. And I tend to agree with his that we over-emphasized doctrine in the past century of so.

  3. cobus Says:

    I’m closing the comments for this post, because I have to delete spam comments from it every few days


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: