Brian McLaren and preterism
|
There has been a surfeit of eschatology on this site recently, and I imagine that many are wondering how this all helps the emerging church. To make matters worse, we are beginning to see some sort of convergence between the emerging church and preterism. Virgil Vaduva, who is one of the editors at planetpreterist.com, has been contributing to discussions here, but he has also just published an interview with Brian McLaren which, in the spirit of a generous orthodoxy, tentatively explores the potential overlap between these two movements. I’d be especially interested to hear from people who think this is a move in the wrong direction - either for the emerging church or for preterism. |
Comments
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
"To make matters worse, we are beginning to see some sort of convergence between the emerging church and preterism"
I hope that is your sarcasm at work there Andrew :) But on a serious note, I would say that emergent and preterism have a lot of things in common. They both challenge the establishment and they both take a new, alternative and refreshing approach to the story of redemption and the fulfillment of prophecy. On the other hand, preterism can sometimes be characterized by a very "modern" mindset, although we are fighting to change that. I am troubled by some things I see within Preterism today: extreme fundamentalism, inability to accept solid criticism, and almost a total inability to reach out to critics and construct bridges to further theological dialogue. Likewise, I was just sharing with someone earlier my misgivings about how far those in emergent are willing to go…are there any limits? Will anything go? So I am too a bit troubled by some of the things I see within emergent: a perception of extreme anti-Americanism (and I am not an American by the way) for example which borderlines on a strange socio-communist agenda, and I say that with no critical heart at all, just a genuine observation. Since I’ve lost two thirds of my life to communism, you may understand why this matters to me personally.
I think "convergence" is a positive thing, although I see it more as an orbital relationship. We are circling, probing, asking questions, trying to find common ground. And I find the whole thing encouraging. I think we can all learn a lot more from each other with patience and with an open ear.
Now if only someone will point out the negatives; I really am curious to see them.
Virgil Vaduva
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
"So I am too a bit troubled by some of the things I see within emergent: a perception of extreme anti-Americanism (and I am not an American by the way) for example which borderlines on a strange socio-communist agenda, and I say that with no critical heart at all, just a genuine observation. Since I’ve lost two thirds of my life to communism, you may understand why this matters to me personally."
Wow, I didn’t really see this criticism coming. Of course, as an American who is studying religio-political fundamentalism in an American context through sociological perspective, I can certainly be accused (or, perhaps, misrepresented) by some as being anti-American. (Acknowledging, Virgil, that you have named no one.) However, my criticisms of my own country are more in the line of the criticisms of MLK or even the OT prophets: the calling of nation to higher ideal, bringing it into account via a source beyond itself (we widely call this American Civil Religion here in the states as it applies to our country) is certainly not the same as condemning the country, hating what it stands for, or, really, anti-American in any sense. Certainly we wouldn’t call the prophets anti-Israel!
I presume, Virgil, that you are not living in the states? If not, I think you may be surprised at the kind of media to which we are exposed. I have a Swedish visiting-scholar friend who was appalled at the ethnocentricity of our media and our inability to hear non-American perspectives. Of course, we also have a president who just recently explicitly made the case that he was above the law when it came to his duties to protect the country, i.e.: he could do whatever he deemed necessary to accomplish this mission and was accountable to no one in its pursuit. We live in genuinely scary times here (as does everyone else for that matter) — and I imagine that the times in which you lived under communist rule were also quite "scary". Just as perhaps your experience colors the glasses through which you look at the historically-defined *other* of communism (i.e.: American-style democracy) — and how you react to related criticisms of it, so also perhaps are my glasses colored by living within a nation that appears, for all intensive purposes, to be crumbling a bit at the foundations. How will a Christian live within an empire that comes dangerously closer on a daily basis to tyrannical rule and has the largest military in the history of the world?
I don’t mean to overstate, but this is a genuine concern of mine at this point and I am working very hard to not be naive about these things. Emergent gives me a Christian community through which I can theologically prepare to oppose the powers that be.
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
"I presume, Virgil, that you are not living in the states? If not, I
think you may be surprised at the kind of media to which we are
exposed. "
Actually now I live in Dayton, Ohio. A very good-looking
American girl suckered me into marrying her…or maybe it was the other
way around…I don’t remember. :)
Pointing out what I perceive to be the case was by no means
intended to be an "attack" or "misrepresentation" - I am sorry if it
came across that way.
And I can definitely see where you are
coming from. We all wear colored glasses, the question is, how do
we take them off, or is it even possible at all? Can I, a
Libertarian who still believes in what the U.S. is doing and sees the
spread of freedom as means to free people from poverty and oppression
dialogue with you, who likely are not sharing my position or with
someone who thinks forced redistribution of income is the way to deal
with poverty? These are major issues we will all have to deal
with sooner or later. I guess, doctrine aside, I see political agendas
interfering with our dialogue more than anything.
"Emergent gives me a Christian community through which I can theologically prepare to oppose the powers that be."
But why do we have to "oppose" anything? Do you really want emergent to always be associated with a defensive mentality? That is what Preterism did, and that is why it will likely never make it into the mainstream…that is why we are trying so hard to give it a new face and repaint it. What if we recognize that God’s presence is what brings healing, rather than removing Bush from office? Would that be a step in the right direction?
Virgil Vaduva
Re: 'To make matters worse...'
Andrew,
I agree with you. I don’t like the label either, but so far it is the best descriptor of where I stand with regards to my faith, theology and God’s redemption story. "isms" are bad…they tend to turn into prisons over time. I know that firsthand after being involved with this movement for only four years or so. But I am still confident that we can change. I really don’t have the illusion of seeing emergent moving towards preterism (well, maybe a bit through your work and what others are doing) but I do see preterism moving towards emergent. And keeping your arms open never hurts. Who knows, perhaps you can look at us as the prodigal son of emergent or something…
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
I wouldn’t describe the site as suffering from a surfeit of preterism; it’s important to find out what people mean by ‘preterism’ - there are so many different shades - and that takes time and space.
There is a great deal on ‘planetpreterism.com’ which is of interest, and I have found helpful. A great deal which is novel - and needs to be weighed carefully. It’s easy to misunderstand each other. Virgil speaks in the interview of the ‘realised presence of Christ’ - by which he means the ‘parousia’ of Christ in AD 70. Brian McLaren takes this, I think, to mean a spiritual experience we can enjoy - of the manifest, felt presence of Jesus. Whatever Virgil really meant by the phrase, and the parousia, I think Brian McLaren would have been surprised if it had been spelt out.
The overlap between preterism and emergent church is something that Andrew has thought about more than most, and this is a particular strand of preterism, almost a rediscovery of preterism, but pursuing it in quite a new direction than was understood by the classic preterists.
So, no - the discussion hasn’t died of excess - it needs a great deal more clarification. Brian McLaren seems to me to be a very mild, pastoral man, whose theological views, on the whole, are unexceptionally conservative.
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
“Only those who risk going too far will know how far they can go.” - T.S. Elliot
The key to resolving conflicts about preterism is to understand how to deal with the biblical prophecy. If we can learn to see prophecy as the "warning" of a possible outcome instead of the divine prediction of an absolute outcome then all of this is becomes a non-issue. I don’t understand why we still try to read the biblical prophecies with such naivety. The future cannot be predicted, however you can warn against reasonably possible outcomes using our analysis of history and our available wisdom.
I’ve said elsewhere on this site that I believe the objective of prophecy is to STOP an undesirable outcome or bring about a desired outcome. It is NOT designed to predict it. The more successful a prophet is at telling his tale the more likely it is that everyone will turn from their ways and change the outcome (which by the way would prove his prophecy to be wrong so good prophets are actually bad predictors of the future).
The point of NT eschatology is that oppressive domination systems are wrong and will not work in the long term (i.e. God will bring judgment against them). You could easily say that happened in 70AD. You could say it has happened a dozen times since then and you would be right again. You can also say that it will continue to happen every time people develop oppressive systems of domination and I think you will be right again. So the partial-preterism view is right, the full-preterism view is right and the futurism (or endtimes goofballs) could be right too depending on what we do with the wisdom we have acquired from Jesus.
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
Certain aspects of preterism strike me as profoundly compatible with emerging theology, particularly its ecological focus (since we aren’t expecting God to rapture us any second)—I think this is what appeals to McLaren (since he deplores what conservative Christianity has done to take our focus away from the here and now).
From the little that I know about preterism, it seems very systematic (dare I say, fundamentalist). Virgil has pointed out that he and his posse are trying to change this. This is where I think there is hope for some sort of ‘convergence’. While I wouldn’t whole-heartedly echo danutz’s thoughts, I think he’s on to something with his emphasis on rediscovering prophecy. I think this has been one of the strengths of the ‘openness of God’ movement (although it can be quite rigid and systematic at times too—something to be avoided). Applying openness insights, along with a good deal of contextual analysis (e.g. andrew’s COSM) to preterism seems like a viable project for the EC.
-Daniel-
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
Daniel,
I just noticed your comment here about the systematic aspects of preterism. Ironically, some believe that it is not systematic enough. May I ask what aspects you see as systematic or fundamentalist within Preterism? And I am also curious to get your feeling on whether or not you see a need for fundamentals in the emergent conversation at all? Are there any non-negotiables at all, or anything goes?
- virgil
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
Hi Virgil. Like I said, I don’t really know that much about preterism. I visited PP and noticed that the ‘timeline’ seemed to try and frame every biblical prophecy there ever was in the preterist framework (if this is a mistaken perception, please forgive me). Like peter (and andrew to a certain extent), I think that 70AD needs a far greater emphasis than it’s ever had, but like danutz, I think it’s a little careless to try and pinpoint where, when and how each and every prophecy was ‘fulfilled’ (and again, if this is not how you would describe your version of preterism, feel free to ignore my comments). I think I was pointing out that preterism could learn from openness theology, that’s all.
You ask if there are "any non-negotiables, or anything goes?" I ask "why the false dichotomy?" I think many ‘emergents’ might be uncomfortable with ‘non-negotiables’, not because there aren’t central aspects to the faith, but rather because ‘non-negotiable’ is an a priori parameter on the discussion (you may thinking thus far, but no further), and if an emerging theology is truly to emerge, it must give heed to every voice. Does this mean anything goes? No. Much like the software counterpart of OST, open source programs take the best of what is out there, within the parameters set by the programming language. Translated back into theological jargon: we must allow the fundamentals the freedom to prove their fundamentality (in a sense, we have enough faith in the fundamentals to believe that their importance doesn’t always need to be posited ahead of time—perhaps we’re too optimistic?). Blind dogmatism is something to be avoided (though I’m sure you weren’t suggesting we all become ranting extremists).
One last thing… the emerging church isn’t emerging from some primordial soup. For people like myself, to ‘emerge’ means to get beyond mere ‘evangelicalism’. Hence the term post-evangelical (or post-conservative, post-protestant, etc.). And so it must be noted that there will be trends. The EC’s theology emerges out of certain traditions (although some have happily noted that there seem to be positive prospects for a post-conservative post-liberal convergence). Am I making sense?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
The voice of Preterism?
Hello & greetings in Christ Jesus.
My name is Roderick Edwards, I too have been a preterist for about 15 years. As way of introduction with no egotism intended, I was the most prolific columnist on planetpreterist.com (PP) since its inception until about a year ago when the administrators of PP began to move more in a pop-psychological direction of ambiguity & relativism. I had actually left the site because of it, & was later asked to come back. But then later was banned because the admins did not like to be questioned. Enough of that.
Preterism & preterists started out as a solidly Bible-based “movement”, but has been tacking away from that for some time now.
There are actually some preterists that say they no longer want to be identified with the label “christian”.
I came here to add another perspective. Virgil Vaduva (& I am saying this with the utmost grace) is NOT the voice of Preterism. He has shown through many actions that he thinks of himself as the voice of preterism, most pointedly when he attempted to actually trademark the term “preterism”, listing himself & planetpreterist.com as the owners of that trademark (see this link to the U.S. Trademark office
See also this link where he likens his “leadership” as accomplishing “big things” & all other people as being “small” (http://planetpreterist.com/news-2765.html). I say these things not out of bitterness, but out of true concern. Such pride & arrogance is not what the kingdom is about. There are many preterists that are concerned about this “new face” Virgil Vaduva & planetpreterist.com are trying to project.
My point is, the Emergent community should consider that preterism is NOT monolithic — Virgil Vaduva & planetpreterist.com are NOT THE voice of preterism.
There are just as many, if not more preterists that continue to desire a solid bible-based focus. If the Emergent community is bible-based, may I suggest you seek out those type of preterists rather than the pop-psychological type.
Thank you for your time & consideration.
In Christ ransomed, risen, & returned —
Roderick
Re: The voice of Preterism?
Andrew,
I was going to let this slide, but I can’t. As I was saying earlier, this kind of post illustrates the kind of Preterism we want to get away from, and it illustrates very well why you perhaps do not like the label either…it serves as a great example of the extreme fundamentalist approach that some folks consider acceptable in this conversation.
- virgil
Re: The voice of Preterism?
Thank you Mr. Vaduva,
Again, you use terms like "we" as if you & those following you are the face & voice of preterism. The approach that I outlined could not have been taken as extreme fundamentalism or otherwise since I merely used a term like "solidly biblical" — is being solidly biblical equated with "extreme fundamentalism" in your eyes? I think you make my point well — that some preterists (mainly under your direction) are moving away from a bible focus & more & more into ambiguity. And that by using terms like "we" you show you still think of yourself as THE voice & face of preterism. Please refrain from this behavior.
Lastly, I find it ironic that you can actually label any preterist an "extreme fundamentalist" — how in the world did an "extreme fundamentalist" come to this eschatological paradigm? Your logic fails to make sense.
On a positive note, I will no longer address Mr. Vaduva on this site. My discussion is with others here.
Thank you for your time & consideration.
In Christ, (if that is not too "extremely fundamentalist" to say anymore)
Roderick
Re: The voice of Preterism?
"when the administrators of PP began to move more in a pop-psychological direction of ambiguity & relativism."You mean more of a Post-Modern/Emergent direction, don’t you? Roderick, why do you keep seeking out untapped forums and newsgroups to smear our name all over?If you want to discuss concerns over the Emergent movement, fine. If you want to talk about how Preterism effects Emergent, great. But why are you constantly dragging PlanetPreterist into the center of discussion?PP really isn’t all that important in the larger scheme of things, but co-op projects like Open Bible w/ Regnum Christi Ministries get me excited. Seeing a new Christian going ga-ga over God’s Word because "preterism puts the entire bible in perspective" puts a smile on my face. If you want to call this boasting or prideful then you will have to contend with Romans 15:17. "I have therefore my boasting in Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God"-A
No fear of the generous hand
Kyle (aka armothe),
As I said in the original post, I am here to present another perspective. I’ve “smeared” no one — It is TRUE that Virgil Vaduva & planetpreterist tried to trademark the term preterism. It is TRUE that Virgil Vaduva wrote an article where he puffs himself up as some sort of leader while he looks down on “small” people.
It might be relevant to the readers that you are an admin of planetpreterist, that way they can see why you are defending these SELF-pride actions. You are hardly an objective observer.
Just because others are afraid to “bite the generous hand” of Virgil Vaduva & planetpreterist.com doesn’t mean everyone will just sit back while you guys highjack the fulfilled view (from your attempts to trademark it, to your threats of suing fellow Christians who use the term in a manner in which you don’t agree, to calling people “small” for not joining you in your egotism).
You don’t own the term or the concept, by presenting yourselves as if you do is dishonest & I’m not sure why the Emergent community or any community would want to partner with that kind of character. I have asked Virgil to repent several times, so that perhaps we can get back to a bible-based, Christ-based focus, but he refuses to even admit his arrogance, thus I & others will keep offering different perspective, to “Virgilism”.
Let God be true & every man a liar (in comparison to Him)
Roderick
The true voice of preterism
Just to clear up the dispute that is developing on this thread - I would like it to be known that I am the true voice of preterism. Kenneth L. Gentry comes second, and Virgil Vadua third. I hope that settles the matter amicably.
Re: Brian McLaren and preterism
I find the phrasing of your post a bit puzzling, Andrew. "To make matters worse" sounds like you are offering an opinion, yet you are near the eye of the storm of the preterist movement in many ways.
Could you elaborate or rephrase? Are you simply looking for some critical feedback?