Bryan McLaren is a Christian that engages postmodernity missionally . He has been very influential on many, including myself. One of my profs, Ryan Bolger, recently offered a review of some of his accomplishments in a post entitled Bryan McLaren is the Real Thing, which I hope you will read. However it was missing one crucial element, a critique, so I commented to that effect on Ryan’s blog. I said:
That was really good...but.
Some thinking out loud: I wonder, would it be fitting to voice some critiques, even if you don't share them? Or to put it another way, where does McLaren have room for improvement? That was afterall a pretty one sided review.
On the other hand, if one did have critiques, is it fitting to offer them in public? I mean, pastorally, we don't typically critique people in public. Although what McLaren says is public, so I suppose it could be critiqued publically.
It seems that the issues surrounding the modernity vs postmodernity, and evangelism vs being missional battles are entirely too polarized. Maybee that is why there is no critique here?
Those that do have negative things to say are entirely too unforgiving about what they typically say, labeling people like McLaren as potential heretics, and those that tend to agree with him, which includes me, have nothing negative to say. Shame on me and all of us, we need more critiques of a helpful nature.