This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
Introduction
Brian McLaren is the chief representative of the Emerging Church Movement, if such a person exists.[1] There are so many ideas within the movement that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the people associated therein believe about the gospel or any other first-order doctrine of orthodox Christianity. They also purposely use language that makes their beliefs difficult to decipher because they are continually emerging and are trying to reach postmodernists.[2] As a result of the ambiguity of the movement, and although explaining McLaren’s beliefs will prove virtually impossible because they may “emerge” even more before this article is read, this writer will nevertheless seek to explain why McLaren’s doctrines are foreign to the salvific theme of the Reformation: salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.[3]
Always Reforming
Concerning the Reformation, McLaren claims to respect the tradition. He argues in favor of continually reforming, and has even been heralded by some sympathizers of the Emergent Church Movement as a contemporary reformer in the likeness of the Protestant Reformers.[4] Furthermore, McLaren “humbly” purports that his book A New Kind of Christianity is of greater substance and motivation than the 95 Theses of Martin Luther, but exists in the same vein of “something new”:
But the ninety-sixth thesis for today must be very different from the original ninety-five, because we already have more hate than we need, and a surplus of debate too, much of which is inversely proportional in intensity to the actual importance of its topic. At this moment in history, we need something more radical and transformative than a new state: we need a new quest. We need more than a new static location from which we proclaim, “Here I stand!” Instead, we need a new dynamic direction into which we move together, proclaiming, “Here we go!” We need a deep shift not merely from our current state to a new state, but from a steady state to a dynamic story. We need not a new set of beliefs, but a new way of believing, not simply new answers to the same old questions, but a new set of questions. Again: new statements (theses, propositions, answers) can inspire debate and bring us to a new state. But only new questions can inspire new conversations that can launch us on a new quest. So, in homage to Martin Luther, this new statement, or ninety-sixth thesis, is humbly offered, in fear and trembling, to my fellow Christians of all denominations around the world: It’s time for a new quest, launched by new questions, a quest across denominations around the world, a quest for new ways to believe and new ways to live and serve faithfully in the way of Jesus, a quest for a new kind of Christian faith.”[5]
McLaren at least considers his motives and declarations comparable to the motivations and desires of the Protestant Reformers. As will be examined shortly, it is difficult for McLaren to make such claims whenever he argues against the central salvific theme of the Reformation. What he argues is foreign to Zwingli, Luther, or Calvin. His doctrines are indeed new, but they are not a New Kind of Christianity, as his book purports; instead, they leave Christianity altogether for the sake of “McLarenism.”
Sinners Need God’s Salvation
The Reformation argued in favor of man’s need for salvation because of his sin;[6] and this need has been a central theme for Christianity ever since redemption’s prophetic inception in Genesis 3:15.[7] Sometimes the Reformation cry has been for a tangible here and now salvation, but overwhelmingly the cry has been for an eternal salvation from sin and its curse, a salvation that begins now but is fully realized in eternity. McLaren believes in salvation from sin, but he does not believe in original sin or the Fall.[8] He also does not believe that sinners are the enemies of God because of their sin; rather they are His friends that He wants to use to create a utopia on earth for everyone. Concerning the real reason why God sent Jesus to earth, McLaren writes:
Instead, he [Jesus] came to announce a new kingdom, a new way of life, a new way of peace that carried good news to all people of every religion. A new kingdom is much bigger than a new religion, and in fact it has room for many religious traditions within it. This good news wasn’t simply about a new way to solve the religious problems of ontological fall and original sin (problems, remember once more, that arise centuries later and within a different narrative altogether). It wasn’t simply information about how individual souls could leave earth, avoid hell, and ascend to heaven after death. No, it was about God’s faithful solidarity with all humanity in our suffering, oppression, and evil. It was about God’s compassion and call to be reconciled with God and with one another—before death, on earth. It was a summons to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, citizens of a new kingdom.[9]
McLaren believes God sent Jesus to establish His kingdom on earth. The church is to continue His work for the good of all humanity, both Christians and non-Christians. Thus, the exclusivity of Christianity is foreign to McLaren. “It bothers me,” he writes, “to use exclusive and Jesus in the same sentence. Everything about Jesus’ life and message seemed to be about inclusion, not exclusion.”[10] So, Jesus came to earth, not to save sinners from the wrath of God, but to save sinners from themselves and each other. Since McLaren does not believe that the Fall transformed anything, he argues that man simply is not as good as he once was due to sin, and that he needs to work toward being better in the likeness of Christ for the good of everyone in order to continue bringing about God’s Kingdom on earth.[11]
Furthermore, the Christian and Reformation idea concerning a sinner’s condemnation to hell in eternal conscience torment of God’s wrath is foreign to McLaren’s writings. Rarely does McLaren speak about heaven or hell or eternity, and when he does, he tips his hand to reveal that he is probably a universalist.[12] He also reveals that he believes eternal conscience torment is foreign to the Scriptures, and is rather an idea founded upon interpretations based on Greco-Roman Platonic ideologies:
Now, before I address my uneasiness about those images, I need to say again that nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do I find anything as horrible as Theos. Yes, I find a character named God who sends a flood that destroys all humanity except for Noah’s family, but that’s almost trivial compared to a deity who tortures the greater part of humanity forever in infinite eternal conscious torment, three words that need to be read slowly and thoughtfully to feel their full import. Yes, I find a character named God who directs a band of nomadic former slaves to fight and claim from more powerful nations a piece of land for themselves, but never does this God direct them to expand their borders, brutally conquer and occupy weaker nations, and create a global totalitarian regime through slavery and genocide as Theos-Zeus-Jupiter likes to do. Yes, I find a character named God who does a good bit of smiting, but those who are smitten are simply smitten and buried, and that’s it. They are not shamed and tortured for a while by the “godly” before death and then shamed and tortured by God after death—forever and ever, without end. Now, I am in no way interested in excusing or defending divine smiting, genocidal conquest, or global quasi-geocidal flooding; I’m just saying that even if these are the crimes of Elohim/Lord, they are far less serious crimes than those of Theos.[13]
McLaren is so repulsed by eternal conscience torment that he does not even credit such a reality to God, but instead charges it as a crime to Theos. He allows for “crimes” to possibly be charged to God, but he definitely does not believe that the doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is the satisfying of God’s divine wrath toward sinners. Man must rather reconcile himself to God “through” Christ by following Christ’s example in trying to bring about God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.[14]
Salvation is Given by the God of the Reformers
Traditionally and biblically since the Reformation, salvation has been found through God’s grace alone. The Reformers understood the Scriptures to reveal inerrant truth about God in their original writings.[15] They understood the Scriptures literally; although, they sometimes spiritualized the text as well. Overall though, the Protestant church has had a high view of God, believing that God’s holiness and justice demand the punishment of sinners or the punishment of Jesus on their behalf. McLaren however approaches the Scriptures, not as an exegete, but as authoritative autonomous interpreter. For lack of a better word to describe his audacious hermeneutics, his arrogance is astounding. Concerning the global flood found in Genesis 6-9, McLaren writes,
In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life? To make matters worse, the global holocaust strategy didn’t even work. Soon the “good guy” Noah gets drunk, and soon after that his sons are up to no good, and soon after that we’re right back to the antediluvian violence and crime levels. Genocide, it turns out, doesn’t really solve anything in Genesis, even if a character named “God” does it. (Could that be a more worthy lesson to draw from the text?)[16]
Respect toward McLaren is difficult to achieve for anyone with a high view of the Protestant Christian God because of statements like this about the God of the Bible. Instead of taking the flood as it is written, instead of exegeting the text, McLaren changes what he does not like about God, choosing instead to create a god of his own making.[17] His arrogance does not stop here, for his newest book A New Kind of Christianity is full of such references:
In previous chapters, we saw God as the good creator in Genesis, as the compassionate liberator in Exodus, and as the reconciling king, lover, and father of all people in the prophets. But as a serious reader of the Bible, I’m still a little uneasy, because I know about some of the other images of God that are also found in the Bible—violent images, cruel images, un-Christlike images.[18]
McLaren clearly calls God, the only God that exists, his Creator, un-Christlike. He simply does not like the images accredited to God in the Hebrew Scriptures, and he will either try to explain them away, or he will try to accredit the “un-Christlike” images to a Greco-Roman Platonic view of God instead of his purported Aristotelian view:
Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus (Jupiter for the Romans), but we will name him Theos. The Greco-Roman god Theos, I suggest, is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1, or Lord (referring to the unspeakable name of the Creator) of Genesis 2 and 12, not to mention the Abba to whom Jesus prayed. As a good—no, make that perfect—Platonic god, Theos loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story, and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward into decay. In fact, as soon as something drops out of the state of perfection, Theos is possessed by a pure and irresistible urge to destroy it (or make it suffer).[19]
Once again, McLaren simply picks and chooses what he likes about God, and discards the rest. The staggering reality is how he argues against the Reformers’ view, and the historically overarching Jewish and Christian view of God. He blasphemes God by first associating Him with evil, and second, by creating an idol named Theos to take credit for the evil that he associates with God. He also wrongly gives his Christian god only credit for things that he believes are worthy of praise. Furthermore, instead of the God-centered approach encouraged by the Reformers, where Christians take, believe, and live in response to what the Scriptures reveal about God, [20] McLaren allows himself and his audience to dictate what they like to think about God. His doctrines therefore speak more about anthropology than they do about theology.
Salvation is by God’s Grace
Concerning the grace given by God, the Reformers did not believe that salvation was found through men, their abilities, social programs, the pursuit of a utopia on earth, common good, etc. The Reformers emphatically emphasized the sinner’s need for God’s unmerited favor, i.e. grace. McLaren agrees with man’s need for God’s grace, but he defines God’s grace differently than the Reformers:
Perhaps most powerfully of all, Jesus’ liberating message is embodied in his own life and example, in his interactions with people, and most decisively in his crucifixion and resurrection. As he is misunderstood, arrested, falsely accused, tortured, and crucified, he manifests an unflinching attitude of forgiveness, enacting the essential drama of his story: The evil of human beings may break boundary after boundary, but the grace of God is always wider, deeper, bigger, and more powerful than human wickedness. God’s grace will surely triumph over human evil, and the story of the resurrection celebrates the power of faith to triumph over the machinery of societal suicide.[21]
Although his definitions and descriptions are almost always subtle, the reader must notice that McLaren calls the resurrection, the central distinguishing mark of Christ overcoming the results of the Fall and justifying sinners in the presence of His Father, a “triumph over the machinery of societal suicide.” So, instead of Christ’s resurrection sealing God’s grace to the elect or even making God’s grace possible for the elect, it instead revealed His conquering of the machinery of societal suicide. Society thus cannot commit suicide because even though it killed the best human ever, He conquered their wicked deeds by rising from the dead to show the church that by following His example, they too can triumph over the evil deeds of society by seeking the common good of all humanity.[22]
Salvation is by God’s Grace Alone
The Reformation not only emphasized God’s grace, but also emphasized that salvation is by God’s grace alone. Apart from God’s unmerited favor given to repentant humans, there is no hope for humanity. Regardless what man conjures up as meritorious for salvation, apart from divine grace alone he will be condemned forever. McLaren agrees with God’s gift of grace, but confuses common grace with saving grace:
I was liberated by a new understanding of the story of Abraham. I realized that there was a Part A and a Part B to God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. Yes, in Part A God says, “I will bless you… I will make you a great nation.” But that was only half of the story, because in Part B God added, “I will make you a blessing… all the nations of the world will be blessed through you.” The conventional view of Christian Zionists depends on reading Part A alone, so the world falls into two categories, “some/us” who are elected and “others/them” who are rejected. When I was no longer able to break apart what God put together, when I included Part B with Part A, God’s choice of some was no longer exclusive of others; it was instrumental for others. God no longer played favorites, but, in line with the teaching of Jesus, graciously gave rain and sun to all people.[23]
He evidently believes that all mankind regardless if they know Jesus or not, still receive grace from God to empower them to love one another in order to bring about God’s kingdom on earth. Sometimes this grace is found in other religions, humanism, etc., and other times it is found in Christianity.[24] McLaren clearly departs the Reformers in his belief, but he does seem to believe that “salvation” is by God’s grace alone; but as examined earlier, his god is different, and the grace is different than the special grace given by the God of the Reformers to only the elect.
Salvation is through Faith
Not only did the Reformers argue that salvation is by God’s grace alone, but it is also by faith. Faith was a necessity in the Reformation known as solus fide. Repentance as well was coupled with faith. They are two sides of the same coin, in a manner of speaking. McLaren, although he speaks of faith quite frequently, rarely speaks of having or possessing faith; he instead speaks of the Christian faith and other faiths. Concerning Christ’s definition of faith, Steve Chalke in McLaren’s book Finding Faith: A Search for What Makes Sense writes,
[Jesus] He had what we often lack—the maturity to see that faith isn’t something you either have or don’t have, but something that ebbs and flows in the life and soul of every individual. Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith. It is an element of faith. Where there is absolute certainty, there can be no room for faith. Jesus never compelled people to believe. Instead He invited people to have faith. And that’s very different. He accepted even that His closest and most loyal followers (the church’s future leaders) would have their doubts and their misunderstandings. Rather than demanding absolute certainty or doctrinal orthodoxy from His followers and adopting a policy of “zero tolerance,” He encouraged them to explore their doubts, ask their questions, and express themselves honestly.[25]
The ability to write much while truly saying very little is amazingly prevalent throughout the Emergent Church Movement. With McLaren’s endorsement, Chalke argues that Jesus never compelled people to believe; however, the reality is that Christ emphasizes believing in Him and on Him throughout the Gospels. Furthermore, the idea of faith ebbing and flowing in the life and soul of every individual, both the elect and non-elect, is foreign to the Reformers.[26]
Salvation is through Faith Alone
The Reformers emphasized God’s miraculous work in redeeming sinners through saving faith alone, not a “willy nilly” faith, or a common faith. It seems that Chalke like McLaren has infused the doctrine of common grace into his idea of faith, creating a new doctrine altogether: common faith. Furthermore, McLaren obviously is not concerned with correct belief (orthodoxy); while the Reformation on the other hand was spurred based on a desire for biblical orthodoxy that led to orthopraxy.[27] Without orthodoxy, the Reformers did not believe orthopraxy was possible. McLaren, however, believes that orthodoxy is irrelevant. “Correct” faith is not a concern of his. For example, in The Last Word, and the Word after That, he has a character named Neil say, “Dan, when it comes to other religions,… the question isn’t so much whether we’re right, but rather we’re good. And it strikes me that goodness, not just rightness, is what Jesus said the real issue was—you know, good trees produce good fruit, that sort of thing.”[28] So, McLaren believes that the real issue is not correct belief, but is instead correct actions.
Because of the aforementioned grace of God proceeding to everyone on earth, and because every individual also possesses the ability to have “saving” faith in McLarenism, it is no wonder why McLaren exalts “orthopraxy” over orthodoxy. This un-Reformed development of his doctrines is the natural outworking of his purported foundations. There is no need for correct belief in a world where humanity already has the benefits of the special grace that the Reformers believed foundational orthodoxy gave them—although the Reformers believed that even orthodoxy was a benefit of God’s special grace in their ordo salutis. Even though McLaren agrees that “salvation” is by “God’s grace alone” through “faith alone,” his definitions of these terms are so foreign to the Reformers that he cannot be credited with believing like them even when he uses the same language because his underlying doctrines would be considered blasphemy by them.[29]
Salvation is through Jesus Christ
Not only did the Reformers believe that salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith alone, but they also believed that salvation is in Jesus Christ. To them there was no other mediator between God and man, save Christ the righteous. Solus Christus was their theme as they argued for no other Way of personal salvation.[30] God justifies sinners through the finished work of Christ alone. At one time, McLaren believed this truth; however, he became convinced that Western Christianity has read the gospel of Jesus Christ through the lens of the apostle Paul instead of reading Paul through the lens of Jesus’ definition of the gospel:
A lunchtime meeting in a Chinese restaurant unconvinced and untaught me. My lunch mate was a well-known Evangelical theologian who quite rudely upset years of theological certainty with one provocative statement: “Most Evangelicals haven’t got the foggiest notion of what the gospel really is.” He then asked me how I would define the gospel, and I answered as an good Romans Protestant would, quoting Romans. He followed up with this simple but annoying rhetorical question: “You’re quoting Paul. Shouldn’t you let Jesus define the gospel?” When I gave him a quizzical look, he asked, “What was the gospel according to Jesus?” A little humiliated, I mumbled something akin to “You tell me,” and he replied, “For Jesus, the gospel was very clear: The kingdom of God is at hand. That’s the gospel according to Jesus, Right?” I again mumbled something, maybe “I guess so.” Seeing my lack of conviction, he added, “Shouldn’t you read Paul in light of Jesus, instead of reading Jesus in light of Paul?”[31]
McLaren not only exalts the words of Jesus above the other Scriptures, but he also changes the words, sentences, and genres of Paul’s letters, specifically the book of Romans, based on his presupposed idea that Christ preached the good news of God’s kingdom existing on earth alone.[32] So, every time he hears the gospel message proclaimed by Paul, he hears the message of the kingdom instead of justification by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Furthermore, McLaren speaks often of Western Christianity’s refusal to allow progressive revelation to build upon previous truth, saying instead that they should allow the text to define the terms used by later Christians. The problem is that much of Western Christianity is within the tradition of the Reformation; so, when McLaren speaks of the West, he speaks of the Reformers: “…I believe the Christian religion in the West, as it habitually read the Bible backwards through the lenses of later Christians, largely lost track of the frontward story line of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and so on, within which Jesus had emerged.”[33] According to McLarenism, Reformational hermeneutics are incorrect and wrong—although this writer believes that even when the Scriptures are studied with McLaren’s frontward focus, justification by faith alone in Christ alone by God’s grace alone is still the exegetical result.
Also Contrary to the Reformers, McLaren forgets that Abraham was justified by faith before the moral standard of God was even given. Abraham believed God and righteousness was accredited to him as result of trusting in the coming Seed. The apostle Paul argues in favor of this reality in Galatians 3 and 4. Readers must wonder how McLaren neglects this reality for Paul merely quotes the Old Testament to prove his point; he does not add to the text, but quotes Genesis 15:6 verbatim.
Furthermore, Jesus Christ has always been the basis of justification within the Reformers’ thoughts and conservative Protestantism, but McLaren disagrees with this doctrine, arguing instead that good works are only what Jesus is concerned about:
With no apologies to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or modern evangelicalism, Jesus (in Luke 16:19) does not prescribe hell to those who refuse to accept the message of justification by grace through faith, or to those who are predestined for perdition, or to those who don’t express faith in a favored atonement theory by accepting Jesus as their “personal Savior.” Rather, hell—literal or figurative—is for the rich and comfortable who proceed on their way without concern for their poor neighbor day after day. As Jesus also makes clear in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), they fail to love their neighbors as themselves and fail to follow “what is written in the Law,” and therefore will not inherit eternal life.[34]
McLaren uses Christ’s words to point to his purported magnum opus, that the gospel is God’s kingdom existing on earth. He believes that Christians and non-Christians alike should seek the betterment of all humanity in order to continue the development of God’s kingdom on earth. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ thus exists only as an example for others to follow. McLaren even argues that humans are the audience of the cross, witnesses of God the Son’s example in suffering, instead of the offenders of God’s righteousness:
Even we who believe have to choose how we will interpret the meaning of the cross. Contemporary pop atonement theology is an interpretation, and therefore a choice, as is this alternate view. Do we choose to see God as the distanced judge, or as the involved victim and friend? Is God the offended potentate who needs somewhere to vent His revenge? Or is God the fellow victim who suffers, endures, accepts the ugliest and fiercest human rage and injustice—as Hosea suffered and endured Gomer’s wandering lusts? Is God the audience waiting for a good performance by Jesus? Or is God-in-Christ the tragic actor; and are we the audience, seeing God pour out His heart, all the while hoping we will truly see, understand, learn, repent, turn, return?[35]
If humanity will follow Jesus’ example, they can overcome the wickedness in the world through loving God and their neighbors, just as Jesus did. McLaren does not believe in penal substitution, arguing that it is just “one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”[36] So, McLaren at least affirms that salvation is found “through” Christ, but in opposition to the Reformers and the substitutionary atonement, this “salvation” is actually found in following Christ’s humane example. Instead of reviling in return, Jesus stretched out His arms and died so that humans will not revile in return either, but instead will seek to continue bringing about God’s kingdom on earth through good works toward one another; and thus toward God as well.[37]
Salvation is through Jesus Christ Alone
Another mark of the Reformation was the Reformers’ emphasis on solus Christus.[38] They literally believed that salvation was found in none other than Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, alone. Protestantism has often been defined as well by this Christ-centered mark. McLaren agrees, but extends Christ’s “atoning” work to all of humanity, not based on their faith or repentance, but based on God’s love, mercy, salvation, etc. encompassing all of humanity. He therefore views the “atonement” of Christ through the lens of common grace although he only uses the term “grace.” Therefore, instead of seeking souls with this exclusive gospel message of the Reformers, McLaren argues that, “Missional Christian faith asserts that Jesus did not come to make some people saved and others condemned. Jesus did not come to help some people be right while leaving everyone else to be wrong. Jesus did not come to create another exclusive religion…”[39] So, although Jesus is in a sense the only way, His example and work somehow encompasses the whole of humanity. This is the only alternative if Christ does not demand exclusive rites to individuals through His finished work, but is inclusive of all people regardless their allegiance.
In another example McLaren has one of his characters named Neil say, “In the long run, I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours.”[40] Due to the emphasis on good works, McLaren points to morality in other religions and societies as proof for his inclusive Christ.[41] He therefore could honestly say that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, but based on the evidence, he believes that Christ’s work and example is evident in all humanity, and all of the world should get together in peace for the common good of God’s kingdom on earth in Christ-like example.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although McLaren could claim to believe that salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone in the likeness of the Reformers, he nevertheless departs the Reformers and the conservative Protestant Tradition in favor of McLarenism. He redefines the theological terms of the gospel to suit his own theological anthropology. Although his arguments and doctrines will continue to emerge, the reality is that he will likely look nothing like the Reformational heritage of his youth as his years progress, for he has already left justification by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as known by the Reformers and the conservative Protestant Church today.[42]
Bibliography
Calvin, John. 2 Corinthians and Timothy, Titus, & Philemon, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries Series, no. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1988.
Johnson, Gary and Ronald Gleason, eds. Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy. El Cajon, CA: Youth Specialties, 2004.
. A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
. A New Kind of Christianity. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2010.
. “Chosen for What?” Tikkun, 1 May 2008, 59-60. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
. Everything Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and Jesus’ Good News Collide. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
. Finding Faith: A Search for What Makes Sense. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
. “An Open Letter to Chuck Colson,” http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000269.html.
. “Q & R: What is the gospel?” http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/q-r-gospel.html.
. “The Cross as Prophetic Action.” In Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement,” ed. Mark D. Baker. 110-121. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
. The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
. The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian, Jossey-Bass Leadership Network Series, no. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
. “The Stories We Tell Ourselves.” Sojourners Magazine, 1 November 2007, 16-17, 19, 21-24. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
Nichols, Stephen J. The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
Robinson, Anthony B. “Review of A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith.” The Christian Century. (20 April 2010): 37-39. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
[1] Gary Johnson and Ronald Gleason, eds., Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 21.
[2] It is frustrating to read most of the works of the Emergent Church, for few of their writings are clear or straightforward. Instead, they are often full of double speak, descriptions of nothings that can be interpreted whimsically by their readers.
[3] Stephen J. Nichols, The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 18 and 23. Nichols argues that the gospel is the treasure of the Reformation.
[4] Anthony B. Robinson, “Review of A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith,” The Christian Century, (20 April 2010): 37. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
[5] Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2010), 17-18.
[6] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1988), 213-216, 221. John Calvin argued that God’s wrath and love towards the elect are held in juxtaposition. God loves sinners even while hating them because of their sin.
[7] The judgment of God is detailed in Genesis 3:15 after the Serpent’s deception, and the Fall of Adam and Eve. There will be a Seed of woman coming that the Serpent will bruise, but the Seed will crush him. Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy.
[8] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 139.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 35.
[11] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 41-43.
[12] See Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (El Cajon, CA: Youth Specialties, 2004), 112, as he recommends If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Philip Gullery and James Mulholland. This book is one of several that he recommends for any of his readers that want to explore various answers to “the hell question.” See also Johnson and Gleason, eds., Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, 245-268, 283, for similar musings about McLaren probably being a universalist.
[13] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 98-99.
[14] Brian D. McLaren, “Q & R: What is the gospel?” http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/q-r-gospel.html.
[15] John Calvin, 2 Corinthians and Timothy, Titus, & Philemon, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries Series, no. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 330. Calvin says, “… we owe to the Scripture the same reverence as we owe to God since it has its only source in Him and has nothing of human origin mixed with it.” Also see, Nichols, The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, 18, for a brief argument that the Reformers gave the Protestant Church the doctrine of sola scriptura.
[16] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 109.
[17] This writer is amazed that Mark Driscoll is included in the same movement with Brian McLaren. This writer suggests that the gospel should be the defining mark of any movement associated with the church. Driscoll and those postmodern thinkers who affirm that salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone should be part of the Emergent Church Movement while every other postmodern thinker that does not affirm the gospel should be associated with another movement called the Emergent Cult Movement.
[18] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 98.
[19] Ibid., 42.
[20] See Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 216-223, for a brief description of Zwingli’s, Luther’s, and Calvin’s Christ-Centered theologies.
[21] Brian McLaren, “The Stories We Tell Ourselves,” Sojourners Magazine, 1 November 2007, 22. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
[22] See McLaren, Everything Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and Jesus’ Good News Collide, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 208. He writes, “In case after case, Jesus calls people to repent and defect from the goal of growing their personal wealth portfolios, and instead he calls them to grow their good deeds portfolios for the common good, especially the good of the poor and marginalized. The result will be qualitative improvement in the lives of everyone.” See also Brian D. McLaren, “Q & R: What is the Gospel?” http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/q-r-gospel.html. He writes, “The kingdom of God is at hand. The kingdom of God – God’s reconciling community, God’s new way of living, God’s dream for creation, God’s mission in this world, God’s healing of all creation, God’s will being done on earth as in heaven, Creation 2.0. At hand – within reach, available to everyone, truly here and at work, present, inviting our participation, calling us to rethink everything and reorient our lives. This is the good news Jesus proclaimed both before (Mark 1:14) and after (Acts 1:3) the resurrection. It’s also the good news Paul proclaimed (Acts 28:23, 31). It’s the one I hope more and more of us rediscover, embody, celebrate, and proclaim as well.”
[23] Brian McLaren, Chosen for What? Tikkun, 1 May 2008, 60. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 31, 2010).
[24] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 263-264.
[25] Brian McLaren, Finding Faith: A Search for What Makes Sense, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 10.
[26] It must be noted that Zwingli believed that God chose some sinners for salvation without any prior saving knowledge of Christ or the Christian God. If they were outside the boundaries of chronological or geographical redemption history, he held that some were still chosen by God. Zwingli however was staunchly different than McLaren, for he believed that God’s election of the gospel-ignorant heathen was not based on universal revelation of God in nature or their own meritorious deeds, but was rather based on God’s decision to choose whom He will. The ordo salutis remained the same, since election logically came first. Thus, justification still sealed the heathen sinner in the same manner, but the difference was that there was no human involvement in proclaiming the gospel, whether in audible or written from. See George, Theology of the Reformers, 124-125.
[27] Nichols, The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, 23.
[28] Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 61.
[29] See Brian D. McLaren, “An Open Letter to Chuck Colson,” http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000269.html. In this letter McLaren wrote the following, “Neither you nor I think that postmodernity or modernity is ‘the answer.’ Rather, we both believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God to salvation – for the modern and the postmodern alike.” This letter dates back to 2003; so, McLaren’s doctrines may have emerged i.e. changed even more since then. He may not believe this statement anymore; or he is probably able to make such statements by redefining terms like “gospel,” “Jesus Christ,” “power,” and “God,” unbeknownst to many of his readers.
[30] Nichols, The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, 18.
[31] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 139.
[32] This writer is always fascinated by individuals that exalt the words of Christ above the words of other Scripture writers. After all, the words of Christ were recorded by other Scripture writers. Granted, this writer believes their detailing of Christ is accurate, but if other Scripture writers do not carry the authority of Christ, then the Gospel writers do not either. They clearly only included events in Christ’s life that helped communicate the themes and purposes of their Gospels. If the other Scripture writers cannot be trusted as much as Christ, then the Gospel writers’ themes and purposes cannot be trusted as much as Christ either; even though they detailed some of Christ’s life accurately. Furthermore, if God the Holy Spirit carried along all the writers of Scripture, then those people that exalt the words of Christ above the words of other Scripture writers also exalt the words of Christ above the words of God the Holy Spirit. If they jest at such a statement, then they must diminish the words of Christ as equally as they diminish the words of the other Scripture writers.
[33] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 41.
[34] McLaren, Everything Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and Jesus’ Good News Collide, 208.
[35] Brian McLaren, “The Cross as Prophetic Action,” in Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement,” ed. Mark D. Baker, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 119.
[36] Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian, Jossey-Bass Leadership Network Series, no. 2, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 143.
[37] McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 139.
[38] Nichols, The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, 18.
[39] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 109.
[40] McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey, 63.
[41] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 263-264.
[42] This writer prays that he returns and perseveres in the faith once delivered to the saints.
This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
Reminds me of another title by another “heretic,” Tony Campolo – Adventures in Missing the Point.
McLaren has already let the genie out of the bottle and Baptists aren’t going to get it back in. If you understant the Anabaptist/Pietist heritage that informs McLaren’s attitude and, by extension, his theology, you will find a modern day Francis of Assisi, not a Luther/Melanchthon or Calvin/Knox. He has learned the way of nonretaliation and has already bested you in the debate by declining to engage on your terms.
I think your article will be relevant to anyone over the age of 45 or 50. However, anyone raised from the 80’s and later in a postmodern milieu will find your response mostly irrelevant. (And yes, I realize that there are those under 50 who were sheltered from exposure to the cultural sea-change in the world at large, so you probably will appeal to them too.) First of all, McLaren is not engaged in a debate, but a “conversation.” Most people who are married recognize the difference. When my wife says, “We need to talk,” what she means is “You need to listen.” This is not a conversation. A conversation entertains the interlocutor’s ideas, rolls them around, considers them, and then engages with those ideas in a constructive way that leads to mutual understanding (not necessarily agreement). It is hard to tell from this article if you have given due consideration to McLaren’s ideas and engaged them or just refuted them in a debate based on Baptist tradition. I see remarkably little use of scripture or reference to it in this post, but I find a lot of reference to traditional statements of faith. From this I conclude that you are absolutely correct that McLaren is undermining the tradtional understanding and expression of our faith. Where you have missed his point (and where you have already lost the debate, since he isn’t really having one) is that he is questioning whether our traditional understanding and expression of the faith is A.) the correct one, B.) the only one, and C.) the complete one. For your argument to stand, all three must be correct. For McLaren’s arguments to stand, he only needs to undermine a single one of these.
And that’s pretty easy to do.
For instance, Christian claims of exclusivity mirror Jewish claims of the same in the Bible which formed the basis, in part, for Christ’s crucifixion (i.e. his claims were not in line with those of the traditional religious understanding). As one goes through the book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles, one finds a consistent pattern of inclusiveness that embraced The Other on their own terms rather than requiring them to kowtow to Jewish traditions beginning with Cornelius and extending through Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 “where there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, or free, but Christ is all and in all,” not to mention the Jerusalme Council and the entire book of Galatians. It was the exclusivists, spurred by jealousy, who did the most to persecute Paul and other Christians in the First Century. So to say that exclusivity is a Reformation idea is entirely correct. To say that it is fundamental to scripture needs a lot of finnesse.
What McLaren does is point people to the scriptures and asks questions regarding the last 400 years of religious development and progress, and gets people wondering what is actually in the Bible and what is tradition acculumated over the centuries. In this endeavor, I applaud him.
On the other hand, he does have a decidedly postmillennial approach to things and from my understanding of the history of postmillennial movements, every single one of them has ended badly, whether the Shakers, the Hutterites, the Munster Kingdom, or Savonarola. Your arguments against his “social gospel” approach are moot to an organization that funds orphanages, hospitals, schools, and relief agencies, especially since McLaren sees them as the expression of his Christianity, not the centerpiece of it. Besides, if we are so worried about the “social gospel” why do we openly support the Republican party? Isn’t the goal of the Religious Right to transform society through political activism rather than the gospel alone? Not judging, just sayin’
I could go on and I applaud your efforts to “expose” McLaren, but if you want to engage those who give him consideration, this article is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If, on the other hand, you’re mainly engaged in a homily to the robed choristers, then you’ve done an admirable job.
McLauren is a non-Christian who preaches a false gospel. Any of “those who give him consideration” are non-Christians who believe a false gospel. They’re just proving what Peter wrote in his 2nd epistle, namely that many will be led astray by false teachers and bring shame to the testimony of the church.
Joe, I love you and consider you a friend, but I think you err when you act as if you know who is truly saved and who isn’t. You and I are both guilty of sin, and should be careful to act as if we know the hearts of others.
Christians remain fallen people, and we can err. We can be deceived by false doctrine. Until either you or I are perfect, perhaps we should not pretend we know who has and who has not been actually saved.
I’m going to ask you to stop making pronouncements here about who is and who is not a true Christian. Confront doctrine, demonstrate why you think something is wrong.
But, Joe, you do not have a copy of the Book of Life and neither do I.
Dave,
Joe may have drawn his pistol a little early by stating McLaren is not a Christian, (although, he may very well be right. Certainly McLaren speaks as a biblically defined apostate which would constitute his not being a genuine follower of Christ) but he is most certainly a heretic as is Tony Campolo.
In addition, it is well established that the Rick above has a very low view of Scripture himself. Ask him when the Book of Daniel was written.
You’re right, Dave, as per ususal.
CB, to be clear, I think McLaren’s teachings are dangerous and false. My concern is specific. Say, “this is false.” Fine. But to say, “anyone who gives consideration to this man is not a Christian” is out of line.
Dave Miller,
Here we will greatly disagree. Brian McLaren may very well be one of the most well known apostates in contemporary, Christian culture. Of course Doug Pagitt runs a close second. Tony Campolo is a heretic. And Ole Rick here, as I have already stated, has consistently proven himself to have a loathsomely, low view of Scripture.
Ok, how about “Brian McLauren preaches a false gospel. Anyone who believes what he preaches believes a false gospel”?
Joe, I’m no expert on McLaren, but from what I’ve read, I would agree with that.
Thank you, Joe, for naming me a non-Christian and a believer in a false gospel simply because I’ve read McLaren’s books, evaluated them, and have formed an opinion on them that, while different from McLaren’s, is not sufficiently vituperative or hostile.
On the other hand, I note that you’ve not engaged a single one of the ideas held by either McLaren or Jared.
Rick
You’re welcome.
Rick, I do not think that Jared has, as yet, turned 30.
Dave, I suspected as much. I’m also guessing that Jared does not have a liberal arts degree from a secular college or a fine arts degree either.
I work with a lot of fine arts students, writers, and computer geeks at church, and they have a different perspective than Jared’s. I’ve been swimming in postmodernism since the early 80’s. As a result, I was mystified when I was exposed to the “new” ideas in postmodern Christianity in the late 90’s because I was under the impression that postmodernism had already been declared passe. But thanks to guys like Len Sweet and McLaren, they exposed a previously cloistered audience to the “latest” academic thinking and introduced hipster Christians raised in evangelical Youth Groups to “A New Kind of Christianity.” And guys like Tony Jones, Doug Padgitt, Rob Bell, and Marc Driscoll all dipped from the well and ran in various directions with it.
Point being, without the cultural milieu to provide a context for McLaren’s approach, irrespective of a person’s age, any response is going to be inadequate if it doesn’t address his ideas on their own merit (rather than merely dismissing them as out of the historical stream of Reformation thinking).
If I were to summarize the essential disconnect, it would be that the premise of the article is that McLaren is not a Reformer because he is so thoroughly disconnected from Reformation thinking. McLaren would argue that the metanarrative of the Reformation marked it as a time to break with old, entrenched ways of thinking and hit the theological “reset” button to start some new ways of thinking about Christianity. Or if you want to use a trendy term, it was a paradigm shift and McLaren is the herald of a 21st Century paradigm shift for Christianity.
And you’re both right.
McLaren is as far removed from the theology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Huss as can be. In this, Jared has spoken correctly. However, he also sits firmly within the Reformation tradition of questioning the prevailing authority (in his case, Evangelicalism rather than the RC Magisterium) and calling them to account. In this McLaren is correct in saying he is Reformed and always reforming.
Personally, I think “mutate” would be a better description than “reform” for what he is proposing.
You wrote: “McLaren is the herald of a 21st Century paradigm shift for Christianity.”
Actually I think the falsity of this statement is what Jared was addressing. Not whether he’s a reformer in the Luther mold. Yes, he addressed all that and contrasted reformation theology with this current heretic, McLaren. But, the point was the Reformers hit the reset button to bring scripture back into the mix and define beliefs by scripture alone. McLaren redefines scripture, and while postmodernity is all fine with that, it’s not Christianity. The Scriptures are God breathed revelation. They were written as God ‘carried men along’. (theres a non-pauline ref for ya.)
The scriptures are God’s self-revelation, and the only way we can truly know God. Thats where McLaren fails and I think Jared did a fair job of showing that.
SO then, by all intelligent accounts of what Christianity should be; ie. based on God’s self-rev, McLaren may be a harbinger but not For Christianity. Maybe some new cultic version of it.
Clark, I wasn’t saying that McLaren’s content is the herald, rather it is his approach. He has stepped outside of the narrow confines of how religious arguments are phrased and the arenas where those arguments are conducted. Instead, he has moved beyond the walls of the church to engage things like popular culture, science (and not just creation science), sociology, literature, and the arts.
For example, if you read the movie reviews that Focus on the Family produces, you end up with a grade of whether or not it is “safe” for the family. This is almost irrespective of content. Just look at their review of Slumdog Millionare to see how totally they missed the theological point of karma as the main message of the film. That film was far more “dangerous” than any R-rated shoot-em-up, yet it gets a pass. Why? Because of theological ignorance.
McLaren is engaging the ideas of the surrounding culture on their own terms and speaking out of a Christian perspective rather than forcing the surrounding culture to conform to Christian ideas. This is the paradigm shift I’m referring to. Francis Schaeffer declared us a post-Christian society back in the 70’s. The sooner we realize that, the better off we will be. McLaren understands this and speaks this language. That is one reason he makes Evangelicals uncomfortable because he “abuses” the vocabulary.
There is always going to be a need for a conversation among God’s people, from generation to generation, over the answers to the question: ‘How should we then live?’
We must address this question, or we risk falling into a pattern mentioned in Ezekiel 33, this, concerning the peoples’ response to the Son of Man:
“31 And they come unto thee as the people cometh,
and they sit before thee as my people,
and they hear thy words,
but they will not do them:
for with their mouth they shew much love,
but their heart goeth after their covetousness.
32 And, lo, thou art unto them
as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice,
and can play well on an instrument:
for they hear thy words,
but they do them not.”
When we realize Who ‘the Son of Man’ refers to, we understand fully the meaning of prophet Ezekiel’s vision . . . he holds up a mirror, and calls us to account.
Conversation is needed:
In the Kingdom of Our Lord, how should we then live?
L’s,
The just shall live by faith. Therefore, repent and believe the biblical gospel wherein you shall have life sufficient to answer the question; “In the Kingdom of Our Lord, how should we then live?”
No Christiane, no conversation is needed. Paul was clear. “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed”. Galatians 1:9
That is clear, crystal clear.
Schaeffer’s great question, and I think of the O.T. mandate to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. Much more can be said, but no less.
And don’t tell me, let me guess–what is loving justice and doing mercy? Ah, yes, left wing politics, of course.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:29&version=ESV
So, you suspected his words played to an older crowd (implying that he was out of touch with the young crowd that supposedly finds this thought desirable)…and then when told he was younger than 30 you responded that you suspected that as well.
Hmm.
I suspect you were going to be condescending and dismissive regardless of Jared’s confirmed age.
Here is the full quote:
“I think your article will be relevant to anyone over the age of 45 or 50. However, anyone raised from the 80?s and later in a postmodern milieu will find your response mostly irrelevant. (And yes, I realize that there are those under 50 who were sheltered from exposure to the cultural sea-change in the world at large, so you probably will appeal to them too.)”
As stated, I work with lots of people who have had liberal arts, fine arts, and technical backgrounds and education. They don’t approach McLaren’s writings the same way, nor do they respond to rebuttals the same way.
To be honest, Christianity at large is incredibly (and dangerously) indifferent to doctrinal issues in general. As a result, they would read Jared’s post and say, “Yeah, so?” While the SBC argues about soteriological schema, can the average pew-potato even articulate the major arguments?
Our churches contain more highly educated people than ever before, yet they seem more doctrinally devoid than any previous generation. How do you account for that?
Rick, thanks for the comment. I’ll try to engage your thoughts.
1. I realize you think I’ve missed the point, but I don’t know if you’re being fair to my paper or not. The question is not if I missed McLaren’s point, the question is if I proved my thesis or not. This paper is not a one-stop-shop refuting McLarenism. My point is that he’s not within the tradition of the Reformation. You may say, “He never said he was.” The reality is that others have said he is. My point is that they’re wrong.
2. You said that McLaren is questioning whether our traditional understanding and expression of the faith is A.) the correct one, B.) the only one, and C.) the complete one. You also argued that he only needs to prove that one of these is false to win the argument. Your thoughts on this debate seem rather arbitrary. McLaren must not only prove that Evangelical Christianity is not correct, is not the only one, or the complete one, he must also prove that his own thoughts are correct. Merely proving that confessional Reformed theology is not perfect does not prove that McLarenism is right or that he even deserves a viable seat at the orthodox table. I mean, for example, if a Satanist proves that Evangelical Christianity is not perfect, does this mean the Satanist wins the debate? Nope.
3. How can McLaren win the debate if he’s not having one? How can I lose the debate if we’re not debating? Someone needs to tell politicians this so they can never lose a debate again.
4. I don’t understand how anyone can read Scripture and claim that Christianity wasn’t exclusive. I understand your point that Gentiles didn’t have to submit to Jewish traditions, but this point is a strawman. Who has argued that they must? Also, Jesus excluded those who rejected Him. Jesus said that He’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that no one gets to the Father but by Him. That’s an exclusive statement. Thus, I don’t understand how you can say, “So to say that exclusivity is a Reformation idea is entirely correct. To say that it is fundamental to scripture needs a lot of finesse.” I think arguing that Christ was inclusive based on Scripture needs a lot of “finesse.” It can’t be proven. Jesus excludes all those who reject Him. Scripture is plain on this issue.
5. Comparing McLaren’s social gospel to the SBC’s love for his neighbor is starkly different. Southern Baptists believe that the gospel is the church’s primary responsibility, namely that spiritual salvation is our primary concern. Loving one’s neighbor, and protecting the image of God in them is a concern, but secondary to the spiritual. In other words, the church’s task is primarily a spiritual one, a gospel one, not a physical, temporary one.
6. I’m always fascinated by individuals like McLaren that exalt the words of Christ above the words of other Scripture writers. After all, the words of Christ were recorded by other Scripture writers. Granted, I believe their detailing of Christ is accurate, but if other Scripture writers do not carry the authority of Christ, then the Gospel writers do not either. They clearly only included events in Christ’s life that helped communicate the themes and purposes of their Gospels. If the other Scripture writers cannot be trusted as much as Christ, then the Gospel writers’ themes and purposes cannot be trusted as much as Christ either; even though they detailed some of Christ’s life accurately. Furthermore, if God the Holy Spirit carried along all the writers of Scripture, then those people that exalt the words of Christ above the words of other Scripture writers also exalt the words of Christ above the words of God the Holy Spirit. If they jest at such a statement, then they must diminish the words of Christ as equally as they diminish the words of the other Scripture writers. To make the argument that they understand Christ better than Paul and the other eyewitnesses, they must necessarily undercut Christ’s own words since they were recorded by eyewitnesses.
Jared:
I’m not going to comment on the substance of this debate, because I’m not really in the mood to poke a stick in that ant hill today. However, I did want to commend you on the amicability of your response to Rick’s comments. Had I been in your shoes, I doubt that my response would have been as measured.
. . . And that’s coming from an under-30 Christian with liberal arts degrees (one of which started out as a fine arts degree) from secular universities who is married to an under-30 Christian with multiple fine arts degrees from a secular university, (since, apparently, that’s now an important credential in this debate).
Jared, thank you for your kind and even-handed reply.
1. Please forgive me for misunderstanding your intent. As I mentioned below, I was evaluating your post unfairly. Yes, you did present a thesis to a sympathetic audience and affirmed their convictions very well. I see no one arguing with the substance of your post or questioning your conclusions. You have judged the audience well and written exactly the message they wanted to hear. In that you have succeeded.
2. McLaren’s primary argument is not that the gospel as presented by traditional evangelicals is false. His premise is that it is incomplete. If I can paraphrase C. S. Lewis, it isn’t that we desire the gospel so much, but that we are satisfied with so little of it. We are satisfied that we “get butts into heaven” as McLaren states it. Most of our evangelical efforts are directed at people’s eternal fate and compliance with cultural Christian taboos. McLaren’s understanding of the gospel encompasses more than the final state of the dead and addresses more than just moralistic therapeutic deism. For the most part, Evangelicals, including Baptists, aren’t willing or interested in much more than soteriological schema (as evidenced by 2/3 of the conversations here at SBC Voices) and a few other minor issues I’ve seen discussed here. And please forgive me if I use SBC blogdom to evaluate what it is that Baptists think are important issues worthy of our attention.
3. Touche. And yes, that is part of what makes McLaren so slippery. He’s not interested in persuading YOU to change. Just your audience.
4. You’ve made my point. You admit that you can’t see his argument. I agree with you and that is the point I was making. You can’t see it. Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there: http://www.moillusions.com/2006/04/coffe-illusion.html
5. McLaren would argue that his approach is more holistic and doesn’t preserve the docetic bifurcation common to evangelicals. McLaren thinks the physical/spiritual distinction is unnecessary, unhelpful, and a perpetuation of the docetism we inherited from the Greeks. In that this is not a traditional Reformed approach, I would have to agree that McLaren’s holism is in contrast to Reformation thinking, particularly the more pietistic sects.
6. I, in turn, am fascinated by those who exalt the words of the apostle Paul above all other scripture writers. And for the same reasons that you are fascinated. I know of no Baptist of my acquaintance either face to face or online who would attach as much importance to the writings of David or Moses as they do to the words of the apostle Paul.
Once again, thank you for your gracious reply and I hope that I have responded in kind.
Rick,
I read your post as well as Jared’s. However, I’m 56 years old so you discount my opinion out of hand.
But . . . somehow, I think that helps make Jared’s point.
In reading this article along with the recent expressed development of Traditional Soteriology I see many things in common. Although you can not expect Traditional Soteriology to be as developed as McLaren’s theological anthropology. It will be interesting to see how these two emerge over the coming years.
This is not to put down in any way these views, it is just an observation of the evolution of Protestant views that are currently at the forefront of Protestant discussion. Over time we shall see what survives the centuries of careful debate.
Rick,
One of the best and reasoned responses I have read – ever.
That is all.
Heretic. No longer a wolf in sheep’s clothing, these days McLaren is simply a wolf for all the world to see.
Chris,
That is usually how these guys work, a.k.a., Compolo, et. al.
It’s the religious version of “sleight of hand.”
Chris,
I really am not interested in a protracted debate on McLaren’s orthodoxy or otherwise. But, in terms of Christian confessions and history, McLaren may be outside of a narrow band of Reformed Orthodoxy but heretic is a serious accusation. I know Brian. To contend him a heretic just does not fit his confessions.
I’m sure it doesn’t fit what he says about himself, but it does fit what he says. I would not accuse someone of being a heretic simply for disagreeing with Reformed claims, I accuse them of heresy for disagreeing with Christ and Christianity. That is what McLaren has done, over and over again. Jared does a good job of drawing this out. What McLaren has invented is not a new kind of Christianity, but a new religion altogether.
Chris,
I do not intend to defend Brian McLaren.
Any attempt to engage the subject matter here will simply devolve into the sort of shouting match that ensued in the aftermath of the Traditionalist Statement. Everyone claims the other as being pushed out. The difference in this matter is that both of those sides will at once find a common foe and amplify their internalized disgust for one another’s position and scapegoat the liberal. And I am sure that everything wrong in your church and mind is a result of Brian McLaren and his ilk.
I do not find every nuance McLaren pursues to my liking. But, I have followed the trajectory of his pastoring, writing, and speaking for some time (since the late 90’s). I have participated in times of worship and reflection. There has never been a hint of anything other than the hope and desire that Jesus the Christ be followed, loved, and pursued. What he has done is to ask questions, posed possibilities, drawn some of his own affirmations about which many have already decided and formed their certainties.
What I can tell you is that after 25+ years of pastoring, I have a greater appreciation for the complexities of life and faith. I have been helped along the way as those like Brian who have generated space to ask questions about matters where my former answers illuminated by the Scriptures are not so adequate to cover the entire maze. That those questions may be pursued without such heresy hunting has helped. So I am appreciative of the space to even think about such matters without threat of condemnation even if my conclusions ended up far different than McLaren’s.
In this I think of David Platt’s message. We may with force and vigor stake our faith in our claims about God revealed in Jesus found in the Scriptures, but we may not be so arrogant to assume our answers cover every angle thereby marking any other person pursing faith seeking understanding in the same way. Maybe our conclusions go off the rail, but the way McLaren is talked about here is that he is some sort of incarnate demon.
Many have made declarations about McLaren – Jared is not the first. Nor, will he be the last. But, I hear in these proclamations less interest in the honest struggles a person has with the way the world works in light of Revelation (both in Jesus and the Scriptures) and more rhetoric that is nothing short of what Jesus describes as the onset to murder in the Sermon on the Mount. It begins with disgust for another human and their thoughts that lead quickly to the physical action of murder. I do not mean to imply that anyone here is planning a lynching, but verbally it is indisputably evident that has occurred.
For me, this marks us out of bounds for the way we have handled a brother unwilling to look deep into the matters that prompted such questions and produced what Moore here determines errant.
We know not how to have a conversation.
We view it thusly. Jared wrote it. C.B. said it. That settles it.
The next time the Traditionalists come calling for you, rest assured that I will be standing with you. And, the next time you come calling for the Traditionalists, I will be standing with them. I tire of the Baptist Way that sees everything but its own theology as repugnant when we do not have a theology of our own illustrated in the run up to NOLA. And, you can be sure we will see more of this going forward resolutions approved notwithstanding.
There has never been a hint of anything other than the hope and desire that Jesus the Christ be followed, loved, and pursued.
No, actually, since he preaches a false gospel, that is the exact OPPOSITE of what he does.
What he has done is preach a false gospel that is contradicted by scripture from beginning to end on each and every point without fail
Sorry, you had a little typo in that sentence there. Thought I’d help you out. Anyway, cool story, bro.
Joe,
You are always right.
You are always right.
Nope. But Brian McLauren is always wrong. And supporters of even one thing Brian McLauren says are always wrong. However, I do appreciate him and others of his purtrid ilk (Bell, Campolo, etc). When they state their beliefs, people who you might other wise have thought orthodox affirm his beliefs. That makes it much easier to tell the sheep from the goats, so to speak.
Todd, you said, “For me, this marks us out of bounds for the way we have handled a brother unwilling to look deep into the matters that prompted such questions and produced what Moore here determines errant.
We know not how to have a conversation.
We view it thusly. Jared wrote it. C.B. said it. That settles it.”
This is exactly why my participation in this venue is so rare. I think all the emphasis in our current culture on bullying is overblown and look askance at those who claim to be bullied on most occasions. Yet I know of no other term to describe what happens here. Other than Jared, NOT ONE PERSON here has actually engaged in any substantive way a single one of McLaren’s ideas.
Makes me wonder why I bother to subscribe. Well, I do know why – the articles themselves are often beneficial. The comments, much less so, usually.
Rick,
I recently met Jared. I found him to be thoughtful and passionate. His reply to you was illustrative of how responses may be thoughtfully addressed.
There is little doubt Dave Miller would prefer such, even if it cost him traffic. I am thinking of brushing off Scot McKnight’s posts from several years ago on the Art of Conversation. I suspect it would be beneficial to us all.
Hey, Joe.
What do you think about my premise that the primary problem with Emergents is not the questions they ask but the answers they offer?
Chris,
I could almost agree with much of what you said, if you did not misunderstand McLaren’s (The Latter Emergents’) premise.
I have no problem with “asking questions,” or opening up space for discussion. But, what you seem to miss is that “the question” is the key answer offered by Emergents.
They embrace uncertainty, they don’t just admit it where it is found. They don’t just “embrace” uncertainty, they worship it and see it as a “higher form of enlightenment.”
Skepticism and relativism are the order of the day in Latter Emergents I have read. Perhaps less so in the beginning, but very pronounced in latter writings–even by the same writer. Truth is a moving target for Emergents–one that is not even worth shooting at. Absolute truth for an emergent is an “annoyance” and a “downer for their myth-induced stupor.”
Your ad hominem attacks on C.B. and Joe (though Joe deserves it :)) actually mitigate your own proposition that what we need is a conversation. I think what you are calling for is a monologue, or a dialogue in the key of relativity.
I don’t see anyone here willing to stand by for either.
I would guess, though I don’t know him except for his writing, that McLaren is a pretty good guy as “good” guys go. He may be deeply spiritual, as many of my Hare Krisna neighbors were growing up.
Again, what do I know . . . as Rick and other emergents point out: I’ve got one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. I’m 50+ and all washed up.
By the way . . . how old is McLaren. He may be too old for his own movement.
Frank,
“Chris, I could almost agree with much of what you said…”
Just to clarify – I assume you meant that for Todd, not for me.
Sorry, Chris, I got tangled up in the thread.
PS–McLaren is too old according to Rick to be an emergent. He’s the same age as this old goat.
Chris,
PSS-So, what did you think of my perspective even though I aimed it in the wrong direction?
Frank,
It is a caricature and poor reading to accuse Emergents of worshipping uncertainty. These folks have opinions and passionate convictions. They generally hold them in such a way as to avoid the sort Of certainty that would expunge faith and humility from the verity of human theological projects, Christian news.
As to attacking Joe and C.B., you demonstrate a reader response hermeneutic assuming I was attacking Joe and C.B. I was being far more general than specific. Your interpretation is dependent on your reading. A conversation would have included a question, “Are you attacking C.B. and Joe?” I am not sure the pot has not called the kettle black re: looking for monologue rather than dialogue.
If hitting 50 marks the beginning of being washed up, I better make use of the next 10 months.
I would be interested in what you have in mind when you reference McLaren’s premise.
Maybe there is hope for a conversation.
Todd,
There are heretics in this world. McLaren is one of them in my opinion. I hold that opinion because I have had to read most all the guy has written.
And if you do not like the word heretic, lets try “apostate.” I think it fits him much better. And if you don’t like the word apostate, let’s try the word “nut.” And if you want to give him as much grace as is theologically possible, let’s just say he is a “theological dwarf” and call it a day.
BTW, as always, I enjoyed your company in NOLA. Again, tell Paul I said Hello.
Oh yeah, I have never considered you a heretic, nut, apostate, or theological dwarf. 🙂
C.B.
Copernicus and Galileo were heretics too.
Whatever word the esteemed SBC Magisterium chooses to refer to another with whom they disagree is certainly in bounds. But, to suggest McLaren is not Christian is beyond the pale.
And, it did me good to see you too. I will pass your sentiment along to Paul.
Oh yeah, after my two most recent comments you will likely reconsider how you label me. 😉
“”””Copernicus and Galileo were heretics too.”””
I’ve seen this many times. Exactly when, where, and what council declared Galileo a “heretic,” and exactly what was the charge?
Also, if he was declared a “heretic,” and heresy was punishable by death, why did they not put Galileo to death?
I’m not sure everybody that footnotes Galileo as proof the church was misguided in regard to science and theology has really read the whole account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Todd, what are McLaren’s confessions?
Jared,
Unless something has been published I am unaware of, McLaren would uphold the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicaean Creed at least.
For Southern Baptists, these are not the Baptist Faith and Message, but they have historically been affirmed as Orthodox.
Todd, do you have a reference for where McLaren affirms these creeds? I’m asking because he’s gotten further and further away from orthodoxy with each new year and new book.
“””To contend him a heretic just does not fit his confessions.”””
Give him time. He’s certainly headed in that direction.
Todd,
You know Brian McLaren. I do not personally know him. We both know a lot of people. We both would have to admit that we have differing views of many of those people.
Nonetheless, I do not make these strong statements by pulling them out of the sky. I do not live in a vacuum as you well know. (or at least I assume you know)
I have read Brian McLaren’s work. Some of his works such as: “The Church on the Other Side,” “Finding Faith,” and especially “A New Kind of Christian.” are very revealing to say the least as to his core theological positions. Would you not agree that he strains against the concept of absolutes in any area of human existence?
Another book that I think brings light to McLaren’s theological weaknesses is the book written by D.A. Carson. Naturally, the book has drawn much criticism from the Emergent Church community. Nonetheless, I think it is worth reading to gain a working perspective as to what McLaren and others within the movement think and promote.
You may well have read the book, but maybe others here have not. D. A. Carson’s work entitled: “Becoming Conversant With The Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications.” is a worthy read, in my opinion, if one desires to get a grasp of the movement. Then, of course, there is, “Stories of Emergence: Moving From Absolute to Authentic,” edited by Mike Yaconelli, that, in my opinion, sheds much light toward the seriousness of the issue and why I and many others hold the opinion we do of McLaren’s theological lacking.
In truth Todd, it is not “We know not how to have a conversation. We view it thusly. Jared wrote it. C.B. said it. That settles it.” That does not hold water. It may sound good and get “cudos” from the “Ricks,” such as the one who made comments in the thread, but McLaren wrote what he wrote. He has taught what he has taught. He is outside the parameters of orthodox Christianity and your knowing him personally does not change that as is true for many people I know also.
He may be a very swell guy to hang out with, but he is not a guy who teaches sound and biblical truth.
C.B.,
Never once have I suspected you live in a vacuum. Even more, I have followed the comment thread and am aware you have read quite a bit from Brian McLaren. I would be disappointed had you not formed an opinion – critical thinking requires such. And, I do not question how you arrive at your analysis.
You make a fine point. We know lots of people with whom some we would disagree. I did not intend to imply that since I know Brian everyone I know should give him a pass from criticism or evaluation. What I did intend to say is that when many in the SBC operate from a very narrow band when describing orthodoxy we have to admit such.
If we are not careful, we are well on our way to marking Southern Baptists as the only orthodox Christians. Would it be fair to say that McLaren is out of bounds when it comes to Southern Baptist orthodoxy? I would say yes. Would if be fair to say McLaren is outside Evangelical orthodoxy. Some believe he has moved there. Most here would think so. Would it be correct to say McLaren has moved outside Christian orthodoxy. Now that is a harder move to make. In order to get there, we would have to define Christian orthodoxy as equivalent to Southern Baptist orthodoxy. If that is the move and definition operative here, then the conclusion is simple.
I am simply suggesting that while I may disagree with McLaren I am not absolutely certain he has moved outside of orthodox Christianity. In fact, Jared does not make that move in his paper. He evaluates McLaren on the claim that he emerges from within the Reformation ethos. Moore weaves quotes from McLaren to support his thesis at times making the solas the hooks on which he hangs his thesis.
What has not been demonstrated is McLaren’s denials that would mark him outside of historic orthodox Christianity.
Maybe we could consider a couple of other figures from recent Christian history. Evangelicals, and many Southern Baptists, love to quote Lewis and Bonhoeffer. But, there are some of both of their writings that would make it difficult to suggest they would fall within Southern Baptist orthodoxy, Metaxxes recent work notwithstanding. Yet, I have not heard anyone rush to accuse either of heresy, apostasy, or being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Such a move, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, requires you and me to understand the motivations behind the person’s words and actions. It, for me, would require some sinister plot to lure people away from the Faith. I cannot find such indications. The result is a move to sift what is helpful and think through what is challenging, and let go of what does not seem to fit.
For me, and I realize that not everyone chooses such a path in these matters, I prefer to let God be the one who judges the heart and the motives. So, until I understand otherwise, I am not willing to paint McLaren as non-Christian, a heretic, or otherwise. Instead, I find him doing theology by the definition, faith seeking understanding. You and I may disagree with each other and with McLaren on those grounds. But, I find the manner of some pronouncements less willing to consider this a possibility and more prepared to tar and feather. A move I am unwilling to make – know him or not.
I have read Carson’s book. And, many others.
As to our ability to have a conversation, I suspect that you and I can carry on well to agreement or disagreement, But, we have made that commitment. Reading the comment thread on any number of posts here and elsewhere Southern Baptists hang out and comment falls more in line with the CR leaders days you may well remember, we “go for the jugular.” That move kills conversation.
I would agree with saying that only God can judge the heart and therefore any pronouncements saying that McLaren is not is a christian are out of bounds. But labeling someone as heretical is not out of bounds. The scriptures in a number of cases warns against heretical teachings and what christians are to do concerning them. Paul himself named names and details of the heresies that were being taught.
I would have to disagree with you about McLaren though. His comments about remaining in a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu context after accepting Christ are antithetical to the biblical message. 1 Thess. 1:9 His statements about homosexuality and basically implying that we really aren’t sure if it’s wrong or not are outside of the christian faith. His implications and propositions that the God of the New Testament is in fact a different God than the One of the Old Testament are not biblical. If you have read much of McLaren at all than you know these are some things he proposes and each one in itself constitutes heresy.
If you have read much of McLaren at all than you know these are some things he proposes and each one in itself constitutes heresy.
Ah, therein lies the problem. The suggestion that McLauren “may not” have moved outside of Christian orthodoxy is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read in my life. Couple that with the suggestion that to think he’s outside of Christian orthodoxy and you’re one joke short of a comedy hat-trick.
Prebyterians (PCA and possibly confessing PCUSA) would find him outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Lutherians (Missoursi synod) would find him outside the bounds. Need we go on.
Fact: McLauren is a false teacher who preaches a false gospel. Fact: People that believe what he believes believe a false gospel.
Fact: False gospels do not save.
Couple that with the suggestion that to think he’s outside of Christian orthodoxy involves thinking that only Southern Baptist doctrine is orthodox and you’re one joke short of a comedy hat-trick.
Edit.
John,
Yes, I agree. Paul describes errant teaching and warns against such. Warn away.
One quibble – remaining in a context is not that same thing as remaining substantively Hindu, Buddhist, et al. Unless of course we want to assume said convert must move to a Christian context, i.e. Country where Christendom reigns. But, most agree there really is not such a place anymore, if ever there really was.
McLaren’s unclear position on homosexuality, again, sets him outside of some Christian contexts. Joe noted a few more that would mark McLaren out of bounds. But, there are others that would not. I am only suggesting that just because we would make such a claim does not make it so. It is very easy to discount Mainline Christian groups as outside the pale if your only referent is the SBC, or gain as Joe points out, other conservative Christian denominations.
The sort of category move that lumps all people as unorthodox because they belong to, say, the PCUSA is itself problematized when we are debating what qualifies as Traditional soteriology within the SBC. Read back through the debates and the accusations of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Sweeping generalizations qualify as a logical fallacy.
That McLaren notices the differences in the language and descriptions of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament is not in fact a qualifier for heresy. How he attempts to work through the distinctions may present problems when they become too adventurous – at least for us. But, that Jesus never commands his disciples to kill anyone problematizes Old Testament readings where in fact we read that God does. We may offer rational explanations that make sense to us – even using progressive revelation as our default – but that does not require everyone to see that as rational, even logical.
Some do not think it wrong to speculate other options since the notion of progressive revelation is itself a speculative move to explain what we cannot when laying these distinctions side by side. What eventually happens is that we find an overlay to our liking and then return to those passages making them fit the overlay that makes it all work out to our way of thinking.
Again, that we would force our speculations on others as though they were received on Sinai or even Olivet is, in my estimation, arrogant.
None of this is to deter you from your opinions about McLaren. I care not what you think of him or his teachings. But, our requirement is to love even those whom we count as enemies. That is clearly Jesus, not Todd.
My contentions turn on the way we lockdown our own certitudes as though our interpretations become inerrant because we say so. Fine. Say so. But, those pronouncements may be little more than talking in a big echo chamber. But, then again. I may be doing the same.
Joe,
You are right.
He (Mclaren), like so many in the church today, is on the social gospel bandwagon.
These works(that he puts forth) are a good thing. But they are penultimate. They are a result of the gospel. Not a pre-condition. He might as well return to Rome. It’s the same theology. It’s not Christ, alone…but rather, ‘a lot of God and a little bit of me’. Only it usually turns out the other way around. ‘A little bit of God and a lot of me’.
All that works language in Scripture shows us that we are not up to it.
Furthermore, when they asked Jesus point blank, “what is it to do the works of the Father.” Jesus answered them, “believe in the one whom the Father has sent.”
Also, in Romans 4:4 , the Bible tells us (God tells us) that “to one who works his wages are not reckoned as a gift, but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Thanks.
Steve,
As I said in my reply, for the SBC to accuse someone of holding to a “social gospel” is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. The SBC has spent countless billions of dollars in social programs over the years, not to mention all the man hours in relief work. And this is not just “in the church today” since many of the Baptist orphanages, hospitals, schools, and local relief efforts have been in place for over 100 years.
The difference between McLaren’s “social gospel” message and SBC practice of providing relief at home and abroad is largely semantic rather than substantive.
Rick,
Great forward to Compolo’s Book, “Adventures in Missing the Point.”
The SBC attaches no salvific value to our relief work or social action.
And what entity ever did? If I understand my history correctly, the “social gospel” was born in a Baptist church, albeit not a SBC one. Can you point me to a web site or quote where any advocate of the social gospel claims it has salvific value? I’m not contesting your claim, only expressing my own ignorance. If you can remedy that, I’d appreciate it.
Indeed! Harry Emerson Fosdick and yes it was Baptist…good memory you have.
what ‘social gospel’ are you referring to?
Rick,
Perhaps you need to define, “social gospel,” as you understand it. As I understand our relief efforts as SBC’ers, it has nothing to do with the liberal ideas of “the brotherhood of man and the higher ethic of love.”
If you mean we as SBC’ers believe in doing good works along with our presentation of the gospel, then I would accept the charge of a “social gospel.”
If, in the liberal sense, you mean “good works as an essential component” of the redemptive plan of God, apart from grace, then I don’t except that charge.
I don’t really know why you are conversing with me. I’ve already told you I’m over 50 years old and you discount anyone past 50 as having any significant understanding of the gospel. (Please see your first post).
Frank, here’s the quote:
“I think your article will be relevant to anyone over the age of 45 or 50.”
Why do you think this equates to not having a significant understanding of the gospel?
Are you saying the self-identified proponents of the social gospel promote is as “‘good works as an essential component’ of the redemptive plan of God, apart from grace,”? A link to a web site, wiki, or blog post where a social gospeler makes this claim would be helpful.
Thanks,
Thanks, Rick.
I know what can happen (though) when Christians put social gospel ahead of the proclamation of THE gospel. It happens in my own denomination all the time…at the expense of Jesus.
Oh yeah, before I forget.
Jared Moore, this is one of your best posts on Voices and it was my pleasure to meet you in NOLA. But, I was somewhat disappointed that you did not bring your chainsaw. 😉
CB, I really enjoyed meeting you as well brother. I enjoyed talking with your son as well.
When I first met you, and you acted like you were kicking me and punching me in the face, I didn’t have a clue who you were :). I enjoyed the fellowship. It really adds context to our online conversations. I think meeting several bloggers and commenters in person only helped me better understand their positions. I hope to meet you again brother in person, sooner rather than later.
Rick, one more observation;
“I could go on and I applaud your efforts to “expose” McLaren, but if you want to engage those who give him consideration, this article is exactly the wrong way to go about it.”
I have to say I was surprised you “applaud” efforts to expose McLaren, but glad. However, is this approach wrong because it was logical? Because it compared McLaren to reformation beliefs or to scriptural beliefs?
What would be the best approach, engage postmodernity and McLaren followers by acknowledging a lack of scriptural authority, by elevating conversation over lecture? (Remember a lecture is only a part of conversation. When the respondent lectures back conversation happens. Oh hey, that’s what Jared did.)
I think the best bet is to speak the truth in love and let the Holy Spirit do His Work. Oh wait, I think Luther said something like this, too. Sorry. My bad.
Clark,
Indeed, I need to reconsider this. The audience here is unlikely to be swayed by McLaren’s arguments for a variety of reasons. And the response here is overwhelming that McLaren is heretic/apostate and not worth considering. So let me then admit that my initial assessment was wrong and that Jared’s post was entirely appropriate for this audience. Additionally, in the larger context of a scholarly treatise rather than a casual blog post, it is also entirely appropriate in form and content for such a writing style suitable for a Southern Baptist seminary.
As for comparing it to “scriptural beliefs,” may I just say that “scriptural beliefs” is a euphemism for “biblical” and I thought we had a moratorium on using that. I know of no denomination that promotes their beliefs as non-scriptural or un-biblical, so the term is meaningless and pejorative. McLaren will assure you, with chapter and verse, that his views are “scriptural” and in fact Jared’s primary references to scripture were contained in the quotes and beliefs that McLaren holds. Did Jared uphold traditional Reformation beliefs? Yes he did. Did he quote scripture? No, he did not. Did he refer to any particular scriptures in anything more than an oblique way? No. Yet I am sure everyone here will cite his beliefs as “scriptural” while McLaren’s, buttressed with scripture references, are not. Go figure.
Rick,
You are correct. ” The audience here is unlikely to be swayed by McLaren’s arguments for a variety of reasons.” In reality, any audience with any credible understanding of orthodox faith will consider McLaren’s basic theological premise to be extremely flawed at best. For that reason, your comments hit a theologically sound wall here, among this audience. Most certainly, it is not because some of the folks here do not have a liberal arts degree. That rationale is simply absurd.
Of course, in your continuous desire to to appear to have an intellectual superiority, as has been observed in blog threads for some time now, you take the position you do here in hopes of hiding your lack of theological understanding related to the Christian faith.
You have proven nothing here other than to reaffirm the reality that you continue to have a low view of Scripture and are possibly destitute of basic theological moorings sufficient to have a true understanding as to why McLaren’s teachings are those of an apostate. Pseduo-intellectualism has benefited neither you nor Brian McLaren.
“””it is also entirely appropriate in form and content for such a writing style suitable for a Southern Baptist seminary.””””
I wonder how condescending you could be if you really put some effort into it?
How is this condescending? Do you feel that this post is NOT suitable in form and content for a SBC seminary submission? If not, what do you find in his article defective? If so, then why would you think such an admission is condescending?
Heretic.
A-Men, Chief Katie
Y’alls talk here of heretics and apostates and reference of Tony Campolo reminded me that I still need to send my fellow heretic and favorite sociologist a Thank You note for a kind letter that he sent me earlier this year. So, thanks for that.
Who said heretics could not be friendly, winsome, kind, funny, or bald?
While my personal knowledge and conviction in confronting in regards to “false teachers” focus’ on the WoF movement, when I look at Mclaren and others out of the “liberal” emergent church movement (ie Bell, Pagitt, ect) I see little difference to the faith hustlers within the WoF. Each group seeks to pervert the gospel in order to gather people in, for their (false teachers) own motives. I believe that most in each movement “think” they are doing God’s work, yet in reality they are not. Scripture clearly condemns the acts of each group, yet they choose to ignore the scripture that condemns them, and grossly misinterpret scripture to try and prop up their positions. While I believe that there can be people saved in each movement, it is in spite of that movement not because of it, similar to how people can be saved and attend the LDS churches, or JW’s, or Christian Science.
While its essential message remains, Christianity undergoes change. It experiences contextualization, and should we lose touch with its essence we will return to it as always; the church reformed constantly reforming!
I think McLaren is trying to do something different. He’s trying to see the whole rather than parts. He would have us concentrate more in the direction of synthesis. That may be his only point or perhaps his central one.
I’d say his main point is to “embrace the unknown,” not make God known.
I can’t see how that is “reforming” anything. Does the world have so many good answers that we need to “embrace the question?” Are we to listen to McLaren play his emergent flute while we plummet headlong into the abyss of relativity and skepticism?
That’s just too high a price to pay for a conversation on the gospel.
No, I don’t think that’s the route we’d take as Christian people. We need to learn from people like McLaren, to hear what they see, and thereby enlarge our perspective. We should, I think, take truth wherever we find it. It was just such an integrative process that led C. S. Lewis to a fuller, broader, and deeper sense of reality and of course this finally resulted in his conversion. He never went off the deep end, but remained orthodox to the end. And yet he saw far more than most Christian writers; he was arguably the best of our authors in the 20th century. So I have no problem with learning from these people whether or not they’re entirely or even mostly correct. They have something to show us. We can never see the whole truth from one standpoint and only God has a God’s-eye view as I like to say. There is no objective standpoint, in other words. No matter how much we study our Bibles, we know in part, we prophecy in part, and so we speak tentatively. Some things we know are so essential and essentially basic that they go without saying. Other things are found out through time or perhaps only at the restoration upon Jesus’ return. Despite years of study and some experience, I fail to utterly understand this world and the plan of GOd for it. I do know it’s not as it should be and that we should work toward the day when it is. We do not knwo all that God has in store for us. We do know we must finish out our act upon this stage–this last act before His return–and when he comes in glory creation itself will be liberated along with the children of God. The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ. Let’s act like it, shall we?
Charley,
I’ve got no quarrels with this post. We may discuss how valuable a particular person’s theology is or is not, but I do think we can take truth where we find it.
However, some people’s presentation of error is so slick and so subtle with so little truth and so much error, I don’t think I want to spend that much time picking out the bones to get a little morsel of meat.
That’s how I feel about McLaren, et. al.
Every now and then someone rises above the strife and clamor to catch a vision that links all perplexed meaning. I think I found it in N. T. Wright. You all should seriously consider reading him. He’s worth it!
Hey, Joe.
What do you think about my premise that the primary problem with Emergents is not the questions they ask but the answers they offer?
Frank, ol’ son, that about sums it up in a nutshell.
Asking the question “Will God save people of other faiths without them repenting of their sins and personally, consciously trusting Christ in this lifetime?” is a valid question and one that needs to be asked and answered.
Someone who answers that question “No” has answered it the way God answers it. Someone who answers that question “Yes” or “We can’t know for sure” does not believe the gospel. So, certainly, their answers are much more significant than their questions.
JOe,
I think it really is that simple–at least the large majority of the time to be sure.
I can appreciate a good philosophical discussion as much as anyone, but sometimes we need to stop asking questions and start answering them.
A butterfly cannot spend all its time emerging–it has to get out and fly.
When the power of God falls in the coming Awakening, then folks like the fellow above will be somewhat chastened, me thinks and hopes.
It seems that McLaren chooses to accept what he considers agreeable and discards biblical doctrine that does not conform to his opinion of who God should be or how God should act. God’s Word is trustworthy and true; we cannot simply choose to accept the parts that are agreeable to us and reject those with which we have difficulty. God’s thoughts and ways are higher than our own. Simply because we do not understand or cannot explain something does not make it untrue; our own lack of understanding does not give us the right to turn truth into something that makes sense to us. Other religious cults have been founded because someone had trouble accepting difficult doctrine (such as the doctrine of hell). Furthermore, McLaren’s views seem to be man-centred and works-based rather than God-centred, which Scripture clearly refutes.