I’m going to post two links. The first is an interview done by Scott McKnight with Brian McLaren. The second is a link to the Issues, Etc. archives regarding an interview Todd Wilken did with Brian McLaren. The background is this. Brian McLaren is an “emerging church” guy. He is an evangelical. He’s younger, and he wants to see the conversation change. And his version of changing the conversation can be seen as heretical. Here is my basic understanding. Mr. McLaren does not like the penal substitution understanding of the cross. I’m not exactly sure that he denies it; he just thinks there are much better metaphors like freedom or peace or adoption. Mr. McLaren also wants to be a universalist regarding salvation although he will hedge that. Underneath both positions, I think, is a large understanding of the limits of our knowledge. Brian McLaren thinks we are too sure of certain understandings. Todd Wilken is a smart LCMS confessional. He takes none of that squishy uncertainty. CFW Walther, LCMS founder, once held that everything in theology was settled and all we had to do was confess it. Todd Wilken is the heir of that understanding.
After I saw the Scott McKnight interview (FYI, McKnight has serious reservations about some of McLaren’s writings), there was a spot in it where McLaren complains about how certain people didn’t have any interest in what he was actually talking about, they just wanted to grind swords on dogmatic topics. He had to be talking about Todd Wilken.
So why am I posting this stuff? I think it highlights a change in the general culture. And it is a change that drives a large portion of the LCMS out of their minds. The post-modern holds multiple opinions and might even personally think some of them are objectively true. They will argue for them. But they will try on other opinions. They are experimental. They hold a small core set of propositions as universally true, and think that it is darn near impossible to build from there. The modern starts with a small set, but believes that we have the ability to construct relatively expansive systems of truth. If you question the modern’s surety, they usually gets defensive and think that you are squishy and stupid. (Can’t you see the simple logic here! If you give up that you’ve given up justification by grace! All of this stand or fall together!) The post-modern will refuse separate from others over dogma because we just aren’t that sure. (I get the feeling that Brian McLaren’s small set truth is Jesus is the Lord who represents the Father too us. Follow him as best you can.) The modern will separate very quickly and will drill down to find the point of separation.
Now let’s bring it out of the clouds. In living together in a congregation, what is more important? Should we all be sure that we confess exactly the same large set of doctrine, or is the unity on a small set and commitment to life together more important? The 19th and most of the 20th century were a large set time. Lutherans were separate from Baptists were separate from Methodists were separate from everyone. It would have been unthinkable for a Methodist to send their kids to a Lutheran VBS. The last third of the 20th century up to today is not that. Is this a sign of gross immorality and backsliding, or a healthy reshuffling toward unity? It is possible to see church history going from large set (Aquinas in the 13th century) to small set (Luther in the 16th) to large set (Confessionalism in the 17th/18th) to small set (pietism/revivalism in the 18th/19th) to large set (denominationalism in the 19th/20th) to small set (today’s environment). The complexity of the large set works, until it doesn’t. And things get ugly when it breaks.
