"That’s what I mean by a non-utilitarian friendship."

I appreciate what McClaren is trying to express, but I don't think that's what Lewis means, or at least he would probably be loathe to use that language.

Lewis, like Jonathan Edwards and so many others on this point, make use of the Augustinian distinction between uti and frui, or benevolence and complacence. The only object ultimately fit for frui, or complacence, or resting in, is God. Everything is by necessity of being a creature in some important sense a penultimate means.

In this way you might even say that the friendship described by Lewis is the best example of a rightly ordered utilitarian friendship.

While it is true that some people are unduly harsh on McLaren, I would be careful to call them enemies. I critique McLarens views and am deeply opposed to some of his approached but I am not his enemy nor is he mine.

Let's not make him a martyr because he says things that go outside the framework of orthodoxy and people react. This whole tone here is divisive pitting McLaren the poor soul against those mean old fundies.

I enjoyed reading Brian's response along with the prayer (I would do well to memorize it). I have encountered people who have criticized me rather crudely and I in turn became so defensive that I missed that they were actually right. I think this approach allows us to rejoice in the trial of criticism, even in criticism done poorly, for it grants us the chance to grow closer to God. The pain of rejection for our beliefs reminds us we are not home yet.

Brian modeled this (and more)... and we in Malaysia have been blessed by his recent visit.

I'm puzzled by the whole thrust of this article. If there were numerous people publishing books critical of Rev. McLaren as a person, then I would be more sympathetic to the insinuation here that he is bearing the brunt of some kind of unfair attack. That, however, is not the case.

As far as I can determine, McLaren is a prolific writer, whose writings are intentionally provocative. McLaren is a gifted, bright, well-educated individual, so he undoubtedly knows when he writes for publication something which challenges the beliefs held by large numbers of other people he is likely to get a response.

I know many articles and books have now been written questioning and seeking to refute McLaren's views. I know his writings have been criticized as being unbibilical, too beholden to Christian liberalism, and mired within postmodern philosophy.

These critiques may or may not be valid. I wonder, though, why those writers have any less standing here than McLaren. McLaren took up rhetorical arms, walked into the arena of ideas, and there threw down a guantlet. Are we to somehow pity him or sympathize with him because the other side picked up the gauntlet he thew down?

And before anyone here starts to criticize me or suggest that the purpose of this article is not to elicit pity for McLaren, I invite readers to go back and read the article again. Those who disagree with McLaren as called his "enemies." He identifies himself with a pastor betrayed by his own people and imprisoned by the Nazis for his views. He takes solace in praying a prayer wherein he is pictured as one both wise and mighty, but who has been persecuted and hunted as an animal.

If McLaren has a tough time with criticism of his views (and, regretably there are those who also criticize him personally), I pray that he has close family and friends who can be of support to him. At the same time, a guy who writes as much as McLaren does, and as provocatively as he does, ought not complain when others come along and challenge his arguments.

great post. I think that many of the Bible scholars that critisize McLaren can learn a lesson from his example of humility.

It is a shame that Mr. McLaren does not mention the use of criticism as an evaluation tool. I believe that God sometimes uses the critic to teach us something besides humility.

I think there is a fine line between a classically defined enemy, and inquirers who are confused by the positions Mr. McLaren takes on key issues of spirituality and Church behaviours.
There seems to me, just from this reading, that he is conflating the two because people who question him and his ideas are not his enemies. They're just people looking for further information.
Remember, the praise the Bereans got was not for meekly nodding their heads, and saying with each new doctrine that came their way, "hey, sounds great to us, lets go with it!."
I think what Mr. McLaren is observing is that he has brought something new to the table in the Church, and everyone wants more particulars than just the repeated talking points, and cagey references to his books that he has written. And it is there that I think the problem for me extends too, because it smacks too much of money grubbing, and not enough of honest dialogue which is what he says he wants. If he wants to have honest dialogue via printed books, then I would like to know that and I will "dialogue" in that manner.
But as an enemy? No, I'm not his enemy. I have honest questions, and I expect, at the very least from someone who touts openess, an honest answer.
It's not being an enemy to expect that, it's called being a brother in the Lord.

To the person who wrote:

"Let's not make (McLaren) a martyr because he says things that go outside the framework of orthodoxy and people react. This whole tone here is divisive pitting McLaren the poor soul against those mean old fundies."

Please understand, McLaren is not saying that criticism is always personally motivated and mean-spirited. There is plenty of criticism of the Emerging Church and McLaren himself that is kindly put and soundly argued. However, there also exists another kind of criticism altogether. And McLaren definitely receives more than his share of this variety as well. This form of criticism is mean-spirited, is unfair, is personal.

It sounds like you're denying that critics can sometimes act like enemies. In McLaren's case, they certainly can- and do.

Maybe you could learn something from McLaren's overall point, which is not to position himself as a martyr, but rather to position himself as one who gains when he is humbled.

Brian's words are helpful. Maybe like the word "sin", we have made the word "enemies" too narrow in our time. My own experience is as Brian describes, folks who I was deeply part of their life as a pastor. Some just disappeared. I was disappointed and even felt hurt, but did not feel as though they were an enemy. However, some folks became vicious in their personal attacks on me and others. We had had a seemingly close relationship in the past. I had been their pastor. Been part of births, deaths, and other passages of life as well as day in and day out life. They were friends, brothers and sisters in Christ (or at least we were members of the same organization called "church.") Yet, the seriousness of their attacks and charges were deeply personal and for a few libel. The one who was the most vicious, after he was gone a year and a half, I wrote a letter of amends. He wrote back with offering the same, though a bit more guarded. Are we friends? No. Are we enemies? No. Were we enemies? Yes. Are we reconciled? Yes. By the grace of Christ.

i'm surprised Melody hasn't weighed in yet - this should be teed up perfectly for her viewpoints... (and, no, Melody, *I'm* not going to vote for you...:) )

when i listen to sean hannity, michael savage, michael medved, et al on the radio, it seems clear to me they see those with opposing views as "the enemy." and i think that same you're-the-bad-guy mentality is being etched further and further into the american psyche on EVERY issue.

when catholics were big on helping martyrs into heaven a little sooner than they might have planned, they saw those preaching what was "heresy" in the church's eyes as true enemies - that what they believed and espoused could drag believers into an eternal fiery hell (see - got it in here again...). it's sad that individuals and groups in the church today are seeing those with opposing (or just *different*) viewpoints as equally heretical as the early church did.

i got a kick out of the how-does-one-get-saved discussion over at the ct website. what a range of perspectives! and each writer entirely certain of the correctness of his/her viewpoint, and of the straight-chute-to-hell wrongness of others' understanding.

this is why i'm almost certain God sat in heaven at the canon councils and said, "no, no, no - don't *write* it down! you'll *never* agree on anything again!"

no, rodney, it's beginning to seem that we just *can't* get along...

Darren,
If you carefully read my words you will see, I do not say McLaren says he is a martyr but the Out of Ur is being divisive in their presentation of this issue. My guess is Out of Ur chose the title of this post not McLaren. They are the ones who liken his critics to enemies. My challenge is that their portrayal of this is divisive.

Anyone who leads will be criticized. So what. McLaren is not more criticized than Warren, Hybles, or any other key leader who challenges the norm. My disagreement with McLaren does not make me his enemy. Those who defend McLaren cite his humility in the face of criticism, to critique his beliefs, that he writes about, speaks about, posts on the www and is leading a movement of young thinkers in is not a lack of humility. To state I could learn from him, humility when critiqued, is a statement that insinuates a lack of humility on my part. Not sure how you would know that about me.

I do think that "enemies" is being taken too literally. I received a lot from this prayer. Thank you Brian. This month my "enemies" have included my supervisor who ever so delicately suggested in my review that I might be more organized. An co-worker who tried (unsucessfully) to engage me in some office politics and my Dr. who didn't say much but doubled my diabetes meds and said watch your diet. I obsessed over all these to one extent or another. All were blows to my ego. Two required some important changes. The other requires ongoing wisdom, courage and discernment. None of these people were enemies with any power to hurt me. But all of them showed me that by myself I fall short of the mark. Without God I am bound to fail.

Clare

I believe the languafe of arms, arena and gauntlet are exacly the problem. It gives the impression that discussion and exchange of ideas is some kind of battle.
I know many times it is, but does it have to? Is there a more constructive way of dealing with differences? One that would be more in line with our calling to love God and one another?

I'm glad i'm not in McLarens place. I have disagreed with fundamentalists on some issues, and was condemned to hell straight away. It is a good thing fundies are not really in charge of the judging department.

"I believe the languafe {sic} of arms, arena and gauntlet are exactly the problem..." Perhaps you're right, Pastor Astor, although I did use the terms advisedly. But I was attempting to make the point that Rev. McLaren likes to write in, and appropriate for himself, very provocative language and metaphors. Those who disagree with him are "enemies" and (from the prayer he has appropriated for himself) "nazis" who hunt and persecute him like an animal.

It is my assertion that Rev. McLaren, with his choice of language here and elsewhere does indeed regularly throw down rhetorical gauntlets. I think it disingenuous of him to play the provocateur, and then demure that he is shocked and hurt when others are provoked.

To Leoskeo:

I understand your point- and I appreciate your concern that things not be coined in an unnecessarily divisive way. I concur with your feeling there.

However, I think that if you were to research some of the comments made by McLaren's critics, you would find that they often present themselves as if they are his enemies- and he, theirs.

My guess is that is why Out of Ur chose the title they did for this article.

Criticism is fine. I, you, and Brian would all agree with that. But unnecessarily cruel, personal, uncharitable criticism is not.

I think the overall point of this article is that, even when critics are unnecessarily cruel and personal, one can still gain from the experience by choosing humility as a response.

All the best, Brother.

I have experienced McLaren as very mild rather than provoking. Very pastoral rather than apologetic. I believe you read a bit more than intended into what he says if you label him a provocateur (unless if, of course, you are very provoked by people who dare to communicate something original for once), and claiming that he labels his enemies nazis because he uses a prayer written in a situation involving them is simply laughable. That is a pretty provocative rethoric.

I would disagree Phil.
It is one thing to challenge people's popular beliefs and to get them to see another perspective. It's quite another to suffer ad hominems because one's opponents can't muster the intellectual acumen to point out what exactly their problem is with a presented thesis.
However, I agree with the poster upthread who pointed out that there exists a potential of editorial liberties. I would caution Mr. McLaren, and Out of Ur editorial staff that there is a danger in donning the mantle of Victimhood. If Mr. McLaren wants to be taken seriously then he's going to have to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous accusations while fielding the concerns of those of us who are seriously inquiring of his thesis.
An intellectual challenge does not equate to being communally ostracized, or marginalized as scholastically unpalatable. It's our way of "testing the spirits," if you will.
We've all had to endure the ignomy of those whose social piety takes precendent over actual spiritual discipline, and there should be no expectation in Mr. McLarens mind that he is exempt from that as well.

My consul is learn to differeniate between the two.

To Mike Rucker:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to love you. For Jesus' sake, I really do. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that you won't "vote" for me; I never asked you to. And I agree with the words of Rodney King right after he beat up his girlfriend for the umpteenth time, "Whyee can't we all just get along?"

My take...

Though I disagree with some of what McLaren is proposing, I have seldom seen a man who is as open to conversation and correction as he is. I've been in conferences where he has defused some pretty harsh attacks and because of his gracious spirit turned them into interesting discussions where the "attacker" turned into a conversant. In my experience, this is very rare.

As pastors, we have to understand that when people attack what we say, write, how we live, the music we listen to, the way that we celebrate sacraments, the shows we watch, the way that we parent, and even the way that we play golf... part of us takes any attack, whether theological, cultural or practical and makes it personal. I do. When someone tells me that I shouldn't have seen Borat, I take it as a criticism of my personal walk with God, my interpretation of scripture, the job that I am doing as a pastor, my level of holiness, etc. It's totally different than when someone that any of us know goes to their office job and forgets to put the cover sheet on the TPS report. They can say: "Sorry, I got the memo, and I just forgot." Case closed.

I know pastors that can take criticism and look at the criticizer and just think: "you're an idiot who just doesn't understand" and it rolls of their back. My guess is that McLaren, who because of his gracious and open spirit internalizes criticism the way many of us do finds comfort in prayers of patience, humility and grace. I get the feeling from his writing that some of the controversial issues that he writes and theorizes about are things that are not all completely settled in his own brain, but he feels a call to be honest spiritually and intellectually.

I can guarantee you that he doesn't see his detractors as Nazi's and would probably rarely use the word enemy to describe any of them. You have to agree though that the main point of the prayer that God would use not only our friends but even the actions and words of our "enemies" or detractors to shape who He wants us to become is a humbling and challenging request for any of us to make of God. I am very challenged by it personally.

Hi all,

Much has been said. However I will like to comment whether we are actually listening to what Brian is saying in the interview or not. I think his main points are:
(1) criticism hurts
(2) Nikolai Velimirovic's prayer helps him to process criticism directed against him.
(3) his critics teach him humility
(4) his friends help him to withstand criticisms.

These are positive measures in which a Christian can learn to handle criticisms. I believe these are valuable lessons.

I think a interesting exercise for all you great Christian thinkers, would be to find out what the Serbian Orthodox believe now...they don't tolerate anything outside their box.

As a teaching layman, I thank God for critics who are knowledgable, kind and diplomatic. They are my friends.