"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

09/18/07
Comments (70)

The Gospel: Conventional vs. Emerging

Brian McLaren shares two gospels, one new and one old.

Those of us who have been keeping a wary eye on the Emerging Church know that to understand the movement we need to understand Brian McLaren. Though it is not quite fair to label him the movement’s leader, he certainly functions as its elder statesman and his writing seems to serve as a barometer for the movement. But anyone who has read his books will know just how difficult it is to pin down what he really believes. So often he is deliberately vague and mischievous and opaque, making suggestions but stopping short of actually saying, “This is what I believe.”

It was with some interest, then, that I read his understanding of “two views of Jesus’ good news” in a pre-release copy of his upcoming book Everything Must Change. In a chapter entitled “How Much More Ironic,” he lays out the gospel as he understands it, set against the gospel as traditionally understood by Protestants. In an endnote he defines this just a little bit further to say it represents a Calvinistic, evangelical Protestant, understanding of the good news.

So here, under four headings, is McLaren’s portrayal of what he calls the “conventional view” of Jesus’ good news:

The Human Situation: What is the Story We Find Ourselves In? God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, god has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings—expect for those specifically exempted—will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.

Basic Questions: What Questions Did Jesus Come to Answer? Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: “How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die?” “How can God help individuals be happy and successful until they die?”

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus Respond to the Crisis? Jesus says in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.” This is the good news.

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus Important? Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on earth and more rewards in heaven.

And here, now, is the “emerging view” of the good news under those same four headings:

The Human Situation: What is the Story We Find Ourselves In? God created the world as good, but human beings—as individuals and as groups—have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering farther and farther into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward into sickness and evil.

Basic Questions: What Questions Did Jesus Come to Answer? Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: “What must be done about the mess we’re in?” The mess refers both to the general human condition and its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under domination by the Roman Empire and confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus Respond to the Crisis? Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news—that God loves humanity, even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her current path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.” This is the good news.

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus Important? Jesus came to become the savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s truth and hope discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.

Following his summary of the two views of the good news, McLaren says his readers will recognize that the conventional view is commonly described as “orthodoxy” while any departure from it is heresy. While he affirms that the conventional view has a lot going for it, he says “more and more of us agree that for all its value, it does not adequately situate Jesus in his original context, but rather frames him in the context of religious debates within Western Christianity, especially debates in the sixteenth century.”

Before turning to a discussion of six unintended negative consequences of the conventional view, he makes this statement about conventional theology. “The basic shape of the story is similar despite [denominational or traditional] differences in details: earth is doomed, and souls are eternally damned unless they are specifically and individually saved, and the purpose of Jesus was to provide a way for at least a few individuals to escape the eternal conscious torment of everlasting damnation. Supporters of the conventional view can justify it with many questions from the Bible, and in so doing they bring much of value to light. But many other passages of the Bible are marginalized in the conventional view, and it has proven to entail many unintended negative consequences.”

This book is an attempt to answer two overarching questions: What are the biggest problems in the world? and What does Jesus say about these global problems? Those who know McLaren from his previous books will not be surprised to learn that “Jesus in the conventional view has little or nothing to say regarding the world’s global crises.” Clearly, then, an alternative is needed—an alternative that will allow Jesus to speak to the crises in the world.

But if Jesus did not come to proclaim that He had come to reconcile sinful men to a sinless God through his substitutionary atonement, what then was the central message of Jesus? Well, I haven’t quite finished the book yet, but this seems to be the best summary so far: “When Jesus proclaimed his central message of the kingdom of God, he was proclaiming not an esoteric religious concept but an alternative empire: ‘Don’t let your lives be framed by the narratives and counternarratives of the Roman empire,’ he was saying, ‘but situate yourselves in another story … the good news that God is king and we can live in relation to God and God’s love rather than Caesar and Caesar’s power.’” Another summary of Jesus’ message reads like this: “The time has come! Rethink everything! A radically new kind of empire is available—the empire of God has arrived! Believe this good news, and defect from all human imperial narratives, counternarratives, dual narratives, and withdrawal narratives. Open your minds and hearts like children to see things freshly in this new way, follow me and my words, and enter this new way of living.” Jesus took that message to the cross, an instrument of torture and cruelty that He used “to expose the cruelty and injustice of those in power and instill hope and confidence in the oppressed.”

So, according to McLaren, Protestant theology has had it wrong all along. We’ve missed the message of Jesus by reading sixteenth century presuppositions into the Bible. We’ve read the Bible with faulty lenses and have arrived at a flawed and false view of Jesus.

It seems clear to me that Everything Must Change is another step down the steep path that leads farther and farther away from biblical orthodoxy. McLaren seems to be fully aware of the path he is taking and of the crowd he is taking with him. I fear for them all. It seems increasingly clear to me that the new kind of Christian is starting to resemble no kind of Christian at all…

The Gospel: Conventional vs. Emerging

Comments (70) »


1. Brian Jonson
September 18, 2007
11:44 AM

This is more than frightening…it is horribly sad as well.

It appears the greatest and most challenging mission field is now the “evangelical” western church.


2. donsands
September 18, 2007
11:50 AM

“This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. “

This is MaLaren’s dream, not God’s.

Brian makes God into a human, a gentleman, with high hopes.

“Jesus took that message to the cross, an instrument of torture and cruelty that He used “to expose the cruelty and injustice of those in power and instill hope and confidence in the oppressed.”

This is such a perverted statement of the true Gospel. Shame on this man, for demeaning the Cross.


3. Todd
September 18, 2007
12:08 PM

Hmm. Sounds like your basic universalism except with pomo trappings.


4. Levi Nunnink
September 18, 2007
12:25 PM

Believe this good news, and defect from all human imperial narratives, counternarratives, dual narratives, and withdrawal narratives

I can’t believe someone could write this sentence with a straight face. Anyone with a shred of common sense can step back and see what nonsense that is. Why do Christians hate their religion so much that they must make a joke out of it?


5. Todd Pruitt
September 18, 2007
12:27 PM

I am amazed at MacLaren’s ability to totally misrepresent classical Protestantism. He even calls it “the conventional view.” How quaint. Who, after all, wants to be conventional? Does he truly believe that historic Protestants define the mission of Christ so narrowly? Notice how he refers to “qualified individuals.” I know of no orthodox Protestants who speak of repentant sinners as “qualified individuals.”


6. Casey Bedell
September 18, 2007
12:27 PM

“But if Jesus did not come to proclaim that He had come to reconcile sinful men to a sinful God through his substitutionary atonement, what then was the central message of Jesus?”

Sinful God?

Am I reading this wrong?


7. Eduardo Flores
September 18, 2007
12:42 PM

I think it should read: But if Jesus did not come to proclaim that He had come to reconcile sinful men to a sinful (SINLESS) God through his substitutionary atonement, what then was the central message of Jesus?…

TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THAT IS CORRECT.


8. Tim Challies
September 18, 2007
12:45 PM

TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THAT IS CORRECT.

Sorry - that was a typo!


9. Jim Swindle
September 18, 2007
12:51 PM

McLaren is right in thinking that the church’s traditional answers are often not the whole story. However, he’s distinctly wrong if he’s REPLACING orthodox truth with new insights. The gospel is deeper than traditional orthodoxy. It’s also deeper than my understanding of it or McLaren’s. But the answer is not to throw out the traditional answers. It’s to add to them. For example, the New Testament clearly does tell us of eternal blessing and punishment, of substitutionary atonement. It also tells us of God’s kingdom coming. We dare not throw out the first set of truths in order to proclaim the second. Instead, we must struggle to affirm and to live all the truth in the Bible.


10. Jason
September 18, 2007
1:02 PM

Wow. What started off as some good questions and challenges to the mainstream church has gone off the deep end. I like some of the questions the Emerging folks ask about how we practice our faith. They are good to hold our feet to the fire.

However, they seem to be peddling some kind of twisted works-based salvation. I was OK with a fair amount of A New Kind of Christian, but it would seem that Mr. McLaren is going off the deep end now.


11. Darryl
September 18, 2007
1:12 PM

The gospel is the heart of our message, and it’s so important that we get it right.

Any version of the gospel that doesn’t recognize sin and its effects, and the saving acts of God to save us from our sins, centering on the substitutionary death of Christ, is seriously deficient. As Tim Keller has said, we need a version of the gospel that causes us to sing, “Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature’s night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—; I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.”

We can never abandon that gospel. But as Cornelius Plantinga writes:

“At their best, Reformed Christians take a very big view of redemption because they take a very big view of fallenness. If all has been created good and all has been corrupted, then all must be redeemed. God isn’t content to save souls; God wants to save bodies too. God isn’t content to save human beings in their individual activities; God wants to save social systems and economic structures too…”

“Everything corrupt needs to be redeemed, and that includes the whole natural world, which both sings and groans…The whole world belongs to God, the whole world has fallen, the whole world needs to be redeemed - every last person, place, organization, and program; all “rocks and trees and skies and seas”; in fact, “every square inch,” as Abraham Kuyper said. The whole creation is “a theater for the mighty works of God,” first in creation and then in re-creation.” (Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Engaging God’s Word)

In affirming this part of God’s message, though, we dare not lose what McLaren calls the conventional gospel.


12. ChrisB
September 18, 2007
1:12 PM

I would take issue with the way some thing things are explained in the “conventional” view, but it’s mostly accurate, and there are some good things in the “emerging” view, though there are some questionable points. The big problem is that he, like many emerging folks, think those two are mutually exclusive.

I spend a lot of time at Jesus Creed and see many people go on and on about “the Kingdom” as if Jesus only wanted to teach us how to live. You cannot take sin and atonement out of the gospel without doing great injustice to many Bible passages.

Jesus did come to inaugurate a new kingdom, to create a people who would seek to see God’s will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. But a key prerequisite for being part of that kingdom is having your sins forgiven.

Why oh why do we always have people who think you have to work for the “spiritual” gospel or the “social” gospel?


13. David Bromberg
September 18, 2007
1:40 PM

Unfortunately, in my opinion, both views that Brian puts forth are incomplete (and he uses this to his advantage in speaking against the “conventional” view). The gospel must a necessity include kingdom theology (as most commonly expressed by Jesus in the Gospels), the idea of surrendering our will to God’s will, as well as a proper understanding of our sin and our need for atonement, and the substitutionary nature of the cross. And there are many other layers (sin as sickness, we need a healer, sin as darkness, we need light, etc.) For a full view of the gospel in all its facets, with a fresh focus on kingdom theology, try out Follow Me by Jan David Hettinga. It’s a bit long, but well worth the read. I think it has things to say to both Reformed and Emerging believers. Let’s not dumb down the gospel.


14. Blake Law
September 18, 2007
1:47 PM

McLaren = Mr. Worldly Wiseman

While reading this statement from McLaren I kept on thinking over and over of Pilgrim’s Progress and the way in which Mr. Worldly Wiseman enticed Christian off of the straight and narrow path to a village where his burden could be removed with much less difficulty than the road ahead. I read these statements with a severe and dreadful countenance.

“And now he began to be sorry he had taken Mr. Worldly Wiseman’s counsel. And with that he saw Evangelist coming to meet him; at the sight also of whom he began to blush for shame. So Evangelist drew nearer and nearer; and coming up to him, he looked upon him with severe and dreadful countenance, and thus began to reason with Christian.”

McLaren would have us believe he is the Evangelist, but he is preaching another Gospel.


15. Kevin
September 18, 2007
2:00 PM

Tim,

I’m glad you’re reviewing his books and not me! Just reading your summary of this made me exhausted and frustrated with him. Thank you for your discernment and defense of as McLaren calls it the “conventional view.”


16. SteveE
September 18, 2007
2:02 PM

Though Mclaren’s view of “Conventional Protestant theology” is rather vague and generalized it does seem to hit some of the high points. What I find interesting is the hodgepodge and mixing of so many theological beliefs and then calling it..”Emerging”.

I do wonder at why any of us would be surprised to see this happening. I can imagine in my mind’s eye the uproar that Calvin caused by presenting his new view of Christian understanding nearly six hundred years after Christ was gone, with Luther adding his, and they myriad of others like John Smith and…well, the list is endless.

We have become so mired in the need for doctrinal purity, that we have lost sight of the fact that God never asked us to do this…no, His two greatest commands were “Love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In these two, all the other commandments are bound up.” When we desire doctrinaly purity above a living relationship with God, we have missed the Gospel that frees us to live.


17. the postmortem
September 18, 2007
2:44 PM

the good news that God is king and we can live in relation to God and God’s love rather than Caesar and Caesar’s power.

Perhaps Mclaren would do well to consider Jesus and Paul’s view of Caesar before he develops his own:

And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.

Mark 12:17

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

Romans 13:1-2

Essentially, Mclaren proposes that the two forces, Christ and Caesar, are necessarily diametrically opposed, while Paul and Jesus see them as intrinsically linked.


18. Steve Camp
September 18, 2007
3:01 PM

Tim:

  1. What is the specific date that this book is due for release?

  2. Did McLaren use the language that you entitled your article here? Did he actually use the term “emerging church”?

“Emerging church” is classically known as the conservative arm of the movement (Kimball, Driscoll, A. Jones, etc.); while “Emergent Church” is known by the liberal arm of the movement (McLaren, T. Jones, Burke, Ward, Miller, Sweet, etc.)

Thanks, Steve 2 Cor. 4:5-7


19. Blake
September 18, 2007
3:04 PM

Steve—you don’t think the Lord requires doctrinal purity??

2 Timothy 1:14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

^Sounds like exactly what is not going on in EC


20. diane
September 18, 2007
3:23 PM

I am so sad for Brian McLaren and those who follow his thinking/teaching/heresies…. I fear for their souls.


21. donsands
September 18, 2007
3:28 PM

“Just reading your summary of this made me exhausted and frustrated with him.” - kevin

Yep. I tried to read Generous Orthodoxy, and did press through about half of it.

He actaully says a lot, but after he says it, all I can say is “What?”

Why any one wants to be so unclear is beyond me.

Brian is a nice guy, but his theology is bad at the core, and his gospel is different than the Bible’s.

And he doesn’t seem to be that enthrawed with the Holy Scriptures to begin with.

More concerned about peace and happiness, then contending for the faith and holiness.

He also sees all religions as being absorbed with Christ, and not opposed to Christ. This is very pagan, and he doesn’t see it.

I wonder how he felt about the Hindu priest praying in Congress?


22. julie
September 18, 2007
3:45 PM

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1Ti 1:5-7)

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Ti 6:3-5)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2Pe 2:1-3)

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (2Pe 3:15-17)


23. Tim Challies
September 18, 2007
4:14 PM

1. What is the specific date that this book is due for release?

October 2, I believe.

Did McLaren use the language that you entitled your article here? Did he actually use the term “emerging church”?

He used “emergent.” I’m not sure that he used “emerging church.” I’m quite sure he hasn’t used “emergent.”


24. ChrisB
September 18, 2007
4:15 PM

SteveE said: “We have become so mired in the need for doctrinal purity, that we have lost sight of the fact that God never asked us to do this… When we desire doctrinaly purity above a living relationship with God, we have missed the Gospel that frees us to live.”

Yes and no. Doctrinal purity does not replace the need to love God and love our neighbor. But what God are you loving? Is it a holy and just God who demands that we be holy because He is? Or is it a kind and forgiving grandpa type that just wants a relationship with us? If we no longer care about doctrine, we quickly fall into idolatry — not to mention a confused, non-sensical collection of beliefs about Christ, man, the Spirit, and the Church.


25. Rob
September 18, 2007
4:39 PM

Is it fair to say that there are two movements… EmergING - “led” by Mark Driscoll EmergENT - “led” by Brian McClaren

?


26. SteveE
September 18, 2007
5:16 PM

Blake and ChrisB,

Of course I believe in doctrinal purity. The question then becomes - “who’s purity?” Do I espouse the doctrine that Jesus taught, or the altered variation that Calvin taught six hundred years later? Do I teach reformed or hard lined Calvinism? Do I completely discount Arminius in favor of Calvin or Luther, or John Piper…all of whom teach a differing doctrine; albeit with some similarities.

One of the things that so infuriated Paul with the Corinthians was that they could not come together in unity. In one chapter he is telling them that they should not require circumcision, yet the very next chapter he has Timothy circumcised. Why? Because Paul was willing to forgo his freedoms in Christ or allow something that he knew was not sinful or wrong to alter what he did and what he said, all for the sake of unity. He was not concerned with pounding the right and wrong into hundreds of christians who were to immature to accept it; instead he did what was necessarry to help them grow up into Christ.

What would Paul tell us who hold to the hard line of Calvinism, or Arminius and cannot come together, even though we all call Christ Lord? I believe he already said it. We would be babies, unsuited to meat, because we still need the milk and the basics. We do not grow as we ought because we do as the Corinthians did…You follow Calvin, I follow Arminius…and Christ is lost in our pride. (By the way that last was not acutally accurate about me.) We defend Calvin’s belief, because it has so many holes it cannot be Christ’s, and the same for Arminius. Thus I say that doctrinal purity in the name of a man, is not doctrinal purity.


27. NWProdigal
September 18, 2007
6:07 PM

I have never read McClaren before. If the samples given are verbatim, then I perceive that these are things written by a man who is mad at God. Doesn’t anyone else sense the smart-alecky attitude behind all these doctrinal statements. If these were being read with the ferocity they were penned, I think you’d find McClaren hates the conventional gospel because he sees God as a bully and self-serving in all that He does. He admits some truths reluctantly, but only to hide what would be obvious sarcasm.

At least that is what I sensed from the first attributed sentence, especially in “Jesus’ Message” under the conventional portion. McClaren does not seem to be a friend of God, but rather an enemy.


28. ChrisB
September 18, 2007
7:36 PM

SteveE said: “Do I espouse the doctrine that Jesus taught, or the altered variation that Calvin taught six hundred years later?”

We’re all (at least in theory) trying to be true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. If you can show, e.g., Calvinists that they’re wrong, they should, if they’re truly seeking the truth, walk with you toward a more Christ-like theology.

But just because there are differing opinions doesn’t mean we can’t say someone is wrong. Yes Paul circumcised Timothy — and refused to do so to Titus. You have to know when it’s time to go to battle.

If “we” are right about the gospel — sin, substitutionary atonement, repentence — then those who preach anything else as gospel are peddling dangerous lies. That is worth a fight.

And if they’re the ones who are right, I want to know that too.


29. Steven
September 18, 2007
8:27 PM

Everything Brian Mclaren says heres sounds pretty much like what the mainline protestant churches have been saying for a while. Have you read any literature from the PCUSA or the American Episcopal church? Pretty similar if not the same.

They must read the same scholars. How sad. Lets pray for them to see the Glorious Jesus of the Gospel, and remember to keep praying for both Brian and all his disciples in sincere love of the faith and of Christ our lord. Were it not for Grace we too would be blind.


30. SteveE
September 18, 2007
8:42 PM

To Vynette, There could be no Christianity without the New Testament; which was brought to us by it’s founder in name and doctrine. The lives of men living with God prior to Christ would not have been Christianity, but as scripture tells us..” as shadow of things to come.” You confuse a God directed life with a life lived under His Son.

To ChrisB, I agree. We are all, at least in theory, trying to be true to the teachings of Christ. The abilty to shoe grevious errors in Calvinism is easy. Even as it is easy to show errors in Arminean beliefs. The problem is that the two stand in differing camps and instead of trying to reconcile these differences, merely rail at one another. The need to defend a particular stance is more important than trying to see what God wants, or how to unifiy believers. Both sides are wrong, and both sides are right. Where the two come together is unlikely to be found because no one wants to feel wrong, or that his belief is flawed.

And so, that wide path to destruction is widened even further, while the tiny path to salvation remains even smaller because of our own defiance and refusal to seek God rather than defend our doctrine.


31. Victoria Lynch
September 18, 2007
9:08 PM

No Penal Substitution = No Gospel If Jesus did not die to appease the wrath of God for our sin then we are all still in our sin. I can’t believe how fast the slide toward apostasy is accelerating. Brian Mclaren’s gospel is NO gospel at all!


32. Steve Camp
September 18, 2007
9:34 PM

Tim: Thank you brother for the info… I forgot to mention before: very good article you’ve written. Thank you.

Rob: There are two movements and the more conservative of the two strands (emerging) is currently moving away from any “emerging” nomenclature and identification altogether because the term has been so stigmatized.

The new word to be looking for in this discussion is “missional.”

Doctrine matters; truth matters; theology matters; the Scriptures matter.

Grace and peace, Steve 2 Tim. 2:15


33. Scott
September 18, 2007
10:50 PM

http://digg.com/offbeatnews/TheGospelConventionalvs_Emerging


34. Halie
September 18, 2007
11:20 PM

Thanks for summarizing this book. Now I don’t have to read it.

I appreciate the critique of Tim and others above, but you all seem to be preaching to the choir. A one sided slam doesn’t help us to learn as much as a 2 sided debate. Are there any folks out there who want to wade into this discussion and provide a defence of McLaren, or have all dissenting voices boycotted Challies.com?

Hailie


35. Jim Vellenga
September 18, 2007
11:38 PM

SteveE, this is not about Calvinist or Arminian, it is about what is the gospel. That is a foundational question, and when the Galatians were wandering from it Paul did not mince words,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 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. Gal 1:6-9 (ESV)

By the way, Calvin was about 1500 years after Christ, not 600.


36. Reid Monaghan
September 19, 2007
12:10 AM

Tim, I have followed McLaren’s trajectory for some time. Once his deconstruction project ended and he started to say things (I think as early as The Story We Find Ourselves in) - it has gotten worse and worse.

I actually read his interpretation of John 14 today and was saddened by his twisting of the text. But remember, he views hermeneutics as a dance between the reader and the text so it is no surprise to see “a reading” of John 14 that stands very much outside of historical orthodoxy.

We also need to remember than “Jesus dying for sins” is not an invention of the reformation and 16th century Europe. It is in a mid first century text known as 1 Corinthians.

Finally, I have been reading essays in the book “Emergent Manifesto of Hope” the most recent book from Baker in the emegent line. There is so much stuff in this book that is not even Christian that it is a cause for weeping and continual warning of the people of God.


37. Matt
September 19, 2007
12:29 AM

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in Heaven.” Wasn’t that the main point of McLaren’s perspective? Forgive my slowness, but I did not read a denial of sin; in fact, I read a greater awareness of deep, personal and cosmic decay because of sin. And I did not hear a denial of substitutionary atonement. All I heard was an emphasis on the cosmic effects of Christ’s gospel in addition to the personal effects; that it’s not just about escaping the world and going to heaven but of being apart of a new creation. And that this happens when Christians live out the narrative of the kingdom of God as opposed to the other competing narratives of our culture. Please help me understand.


38. Martin Downes
September 19, 2007
4:24 AM

Rather than Protestant theology misreading the gospel in the 16th Century your description of McLaren’s gospel bears more than a passing resemblance to the Socinianism of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Becuase they were pelagian in their views of sin and grace the Socinians had no real place for Christ as Priest and predominantly say him as a Prophet. So there was far less emphasis on what Jesus did and much more on what he said. It is the old dichotomy of the “message of Jesus” rather than the message about Jesus. Not that we should ever want to divide the words and work of Christ. It is just that on this reading it is hard to see how Jesus, beyond his example, is really essential to his own gospel.

And it is also reassuring to see the caricature of Protestant theology reloaded into another book ;-)


39. Rich Owen
September 19, 2007
5:30 AM

What a mess. It makes me so sad.

I don’t know about emerging/ant stuff, but from the quotes, it looks just like classic theological liberalism. There is nothing new in McLaren’s writing. Same old wolves.

My heart sinks, my soul cries, but my Gospel will never change, and my Saviour will not be defeated by the same old wolves.


40. Timmy Brister
September 19, 2007
6:30 AM

Tim,

Excellent article. Thank you for this helpful review and summary. McLaren’s writings require a polemic that is clear and solid. You have made a great start!


41. Kyle
September 19, 2007
6:30 AM

I get the feeling that Reformed folks (of which I am one) don’t rightly represent the Emerging movement. I hear people rant against EC pretty frequently, but it seems like they’re attacking straw men. The EC sympathizers with whom I’ve spoken all recognize that McLaren is a loony, and in no way claim him as their spokesperson. So to say that since McLaren is a fraud, therefore EC must be a fraudulous movement doesn’t seem to be the whole story. As some have noted, I can’t really see any comparison between McLaren and Driscoll.

My understanding is that the EC emphasis is all about context. It’s not about reinventing biblical hermeneutics or throwing out centuries of theological conviction - it’s about cultural methodology - how do we get the gospel to godless postmodern people?

One thing is clear: what McLaren espouses is not the gospel.


42. PAUL KURITZ
September 19, 2007
7:45 AM

It seems Mr. McLaren needs an “emerging view” because he has a deficient understanding of the “conventional view.” Neither view seems to represent the orthodox view in the historic creeds.


43. Lori
September 19, 2007
8:32 AM

I’m not sure that Driscoll would refer to his ministry as emerging. I’ve heard him say that he is part of the reformed resurgence and aligns himself with Piper,Keller and the Gospel Coalition.


44. Alex Leung
September 19, 2007
9:29 AM

Clearly, if only McLaren had paid attention in his Intro to New Testament I class, then he would have learned biblically what the purpose of God incarnated in Christ was! It is certainly about the Kingdom of Heaven, and such wording tells us that it is about the rule of the King of Heaven - Jesus the Christ, son of the living God.

It was definitely a new kind of “empire” that the Jews were not expecting—if McLaren would read his Bible in its context, he’d know that the Jews were expecting a kingdom that would have their Roman oppressors defeated; but Christ did so in a way they could not accept, by suffering and dying on the Roman cross and raising to life again to defeat sin and death once for all! Christus Victor yes, with penal substitution at its core.

Every time I read McLaren’s aberrant understanding of the “message” or the “gospel”, my mind goes blurr and my brain farts! Unbelievers or even undiscerning Christians who’d follow McLaren or his emerging ways will definitely become a new kind of Christian… a non Christian :(


45. Woz
September 19, 2007
10:24 AM

As someone stated above, there is a difference between emerging and emergent, hence a difference between Dricoll and McLaren. Driscoll contends for doctrine and relevence, McLaren for dissent and relevence.

The problem with saying that we are all trying to contend for the doctrine of Jesus, so why can’t we all get along? Is that not everyone’s doctrine of Jesus is the same. I believe that Calvinists and Arminians can certainly get along better (and should), because they both believe in justification by grace through faith (the difference then being in how we get that faith, and whether we get more glory or God does). But now compare those systems with say Christian Scientists, or Mormans, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. All say that they teach the gospel of Christ, but we of the Reformed persuasion would disagree that what they preach is truly the gospel.

The reason that we try to defend our doctrinal purity, is because we believe that when we seek God, we want to seek the right God. In Exodus 32, Aaron made a golden calf as an idol to God for the Isrealites to worship. They thought they were honoring God by worshipping this idol, but God’s anger burned against them, because they were not worshipping the one true God that had been revealed to them, but only their perception of Him. When we love the Lord with all our heart, we need to make sure we’re loving the right Lord, the revealed Lord of the Bible, not the Lord of our tainted presuppositions viewed through the lens of our (post)modern culture.

In the same way, if anyone puts one aspect of Christ above another, they are committing idolotry…we worship a complete God, not a piece of Him. Yes, Christ came to make all things new, and to usher in the Kingdom of God, but he also came to be a propitiation for all who believe. We must strive to do righteous deeds, and to care for their world, and for those who are unbelievers. We must not sit in our white towers of theology and ignore those around us. But we must also remember that without Christ as our savior, our good deeds are not good at all, they are merely “filthy rags”.


46. RANDY HURST
September 19, 2007
11:02 AM

Anytime the discussion revolves around the Good News of the Kingdom of God through Christ we are on joyful ground. This has been a good discussion. That this very old news is always fresh good news is the important thing to remember. If you are a captive to any addiction (and who isn’t), you can be set free. If you are aimlessly seeking purpose, it has found you. If you are grasping your last straw, here’s a strong rope to pull you to safety. If you’ve alienated everyone you love, here is the love that will not let you go. If you think you are too far gone for God, here is God on the brink to bring you back. If your house of self righteous rules has been locked from the outside, the locksmith is knocking at the door. If you think God is class bound, here is a Lover of all souls that knocks the props out from under every vanity of man. Here is Hope. Here is Acceptance. Just turn around. That’s all Jesus asked. Turn around. Follow him to life like only the maker of life can make it. There are a couple of dozen folk right here in this comment section that would be happy to take your hand and put it in Jesus’.


47. Daryl Little
September 19, 2007
4:09 PM

What makes this so sad (as if it wasn’t sad enough already) is that, while admittedly a little skimpy in some areas, McLaren understands the gospel, and walks away. Reminds me of a certain verse about millstones and little children.

Hopefully those in the EC movement at large will read his book and see that he knows what he is leaving behind. I say hopefully because maybe then some/many of the EC followers will see their error and return to the God of the Bible and not McLaren’s wishful thinking.

I’ve always said that I’m sure McLaren is a Christian, just no so sure that his teaching will lead anyone to Christ. Now I begin to believe that McLaren is on of those who “went out from us because they were no of us.”

He’s not a Christian, he can’t be.


48. Jacob
September 19, 2007
4:33 PM

Why even read such poison?


49. Daryl Little
September 19, 2007
4:37 PM

Jacob,

To be aware of what’s out there. To be able to warn people. To adequately rebuke those involved in this kind of heresy. So you know it when you see it.

That sort of thing I think.


50. Denis
September 19, 2007
5:06 PM

There was, and still is, a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew modes of thinking and expression and this lack of knowledge on the part of the post-apostolic Graeco-Roman fathers produced the doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

Did the Jews of Jesus’ day also have a “fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew modes of thinking”? It seems they thought Jesus was claiming to be God too.

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” - John 10:33 (NIV)


51. Jason
September 19, 2007
8:14 PM

Hiya vynette,

How’s the water in Jesus-as-metaphor lake? Or is it even real water?

Or is that just your interpretation?

Good Luck.


52. Christian Beyer
September 19, 2007
8:54 PM

Hey Vynette - very well put and very astute.

As usual, I think Brian makes a lot of sense. I’d just wish he’d quit stealing my ideas. ;)

Anyway, thanks for the nice, concise synopsis. I think I will link to it - we have a nice discussion going on about Calvinism and I like Brian’s take on it.

A dios, folks.


53. Christian Beyer
September 19, 2007
9:49 PM

I was wading through your comments, occasionally coming across something of value but usually encountering much of the same “I’m OK, you’re OK but they’re not OK” backslapping that you find on sites devoted to somewhat narrow theological perspectives.

But then I caught Hallies challenge. I am sure Tim has read Brian’s books (or at least one of them) and he is fairly even handed in his treatment of him. I don’t believe the rest of you read his books nor do I think many of you have paid close attention to what Tim has culled from Brian’s writing.

I was once a very conservative fundamentalist (never Calvinist but never Arminian either - I think we called it Methodism). But it became painfully obvious to me that what most of us call the church is far from resembling the body or bride of Christ. We have forsaken the Gospel for a multi-layered, overworked systematic theology full of formulas and doctrines. Far, far away from the simple, yet convicting, message of Jesus,many of us have forgotten it is supposed to be the Good News.

I now belong to the church that Brian founded 25 years ago, Cedar Ridge Community. He no longer is pastor as he devotes his time to writing and speaking. He is no transcendental meditating Zen Buddhist guru with a new age bent. He is a God loving and God fearing man who has a passion for Jesus and his ministry.

I don’t agree with everything he says but I respect our disagreements. I respect that McLaren (though he occasionally slips up) generally shows more respect for other’s differing opinions than most have of his.

I really think that more time should be spent studying Jesus’ example for how we should live than trying to figure out what modern take we should have on what certain post medieval translations of Paul’s Greek letters literally meant to a classically trained cleric during the Reformation. It is so easy to slip into legalism as Jesus often reminded the Pharisees.

Let’s work out our own salvation with fear and trembling while exhorting the corporate church to heed the admonishments of the prophets. Meanwhile let’s rejoice in our salvation and share this good news with others, but gently.


54. Jason Ruzek
September 19, 2007
11:36 PM

Hiya Christian,

Let me make sure I understand. Us “backslappers” are narrow, and our apparent narrowness must have prevented us from actually reading McLaren, and that is why you would presume something like that? Is it possible that we actually have read him and actually disagree with what he writes? Is it possible that what he writes is actually what he believes? Is it possible that you would just make something up about our narrow self-imposed ignorance so that you could just stick it to a broad rage of individuals which you see as a fundamentalist monolith and change the subject? Is it possible that you, from your own particular narrowness, have chosen to falsely accuse and impugn that with which you disagree? Why is it that you don’t respect the disgreements of those who you perceive as narrow? How is that not narrow? And so what if it is? It really seems as though you yourself chose to participate in the OK-OK-not OK mutual admiration society. which you find so unfortunate in those with whom you disagree.

Look, if the above quote from Brian is accurate, and none of us (even the slappers and slappees) have any reason to think it isn’t, then Brian finally feels comfortable saying that which he has been hinting at for a long time, that is, as far as he is concerned the gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15 is ancillary to the concerns of this world, or in other words, the most important thing about the cross was some statement of self-sacrifice for some cause and whatever actually happened there is somewhat significant but not as important as what we need to do now to be nice and helpful and not narrow.

Yes we need to be nice, but there is more there that that, namely, buckets and buckets about false teaching. And that is false teaching.

Unless that is a metaphor, too. Then forget I said anything.


55. Christian Beyer
September 20, 2007
6:24 AM

You’re right Jason. I could’ve been wrong. But I didn’t say that none of you read his books, I suggested that most of you did not and perhaps chose to pass judgment on him based upon comments that were not studied too carefully. If this does not describe you then I am sorry.

Even Tim says said that he had not yet finished the book prior to this posting and that is not necessarily the best place to start off with a review but I doubt that his opinion would change to0 much. I would guess that most of you folks have already demonized Brian (just as I was ‘pretending’ to demonize Calvin)

By talking isolated passages from any book and ask them to stand alone we perhaps miss the main point of the author. You know, proof texting. Often inaccurate, dissatisfying at best and quite dangerous as when we do it with the Bible.

Just as many fundamentalists seem to fear people like Brian because they believe that people may to follow him and his ideas as opposed to Jesus, I think many others will share the same feelings about Luther, Calvin,Swingli, Armenius, Scofield etc etc. I would even suggest some of them were false teachers. Christ said that the world will know us for our love, not our doctrine.

So, you read the book? What did you think?


56. Daryl Little
September 20, 2007
8:57 AM

Christian, Let me cast my vote as someone who has read McLaren’s writing. Not all of it, but a fair chunk I think. My previous comment stands. Having read his books and read the review of this latest one he cannot believe what he says he believes and still call himself a Christian. By the way, I find it interesting that your biggest problem seems to be that people are willing to critique him and identify his apparent beliefs as heresy, but you don’t make any attempt to explain how we’ve misunderstoond him and that he really is on the straight and narrow. It seems to me that Brian’s biggest strength and weakness is that he seems, by all accounts, to be a genuinely nice guy. While he and others like Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Princess Diana may try and parlay that into being considered Christian (by many) it’s not enough, in fact it has no bearing whatever. Examine his teaching in light of the whole Bible, not in the light of his personality.

You said we should rejoice in our salvation and continue to deliver the gospel, gently. Unfortunately Brian’s books show no signs that he has a salvation in which to rejoice and the message he is spreading is in no way, the gospel

And so we call him out.


57. Jason
September 20, 2007
11:36 AM

Hiya Christian,

Thanks for at least the attempt at a clarification, although writing “I don’t think” and “I don’t believe” and then say that those were just suggestions smells a bit of revisionism. But I appreciate it, anyway.

Recently I was having a discussion with someone who felt that I needed to read every book written by a certain contemporary theological lightning rod in order to “understand” him. Having read about 1,100 pages of the individual was not enough. And I feel that so much of the debate surrounding the “theo”-logical variations within strands of emerging, -ent, -inionism involves a similar angle: having listened to sermons or lectures, having read large sections of books, but not having read them cover to cover or not reading the postscript or the preface renders a person unqualified to comment on that which they have heard and read. Perhaps you have read the Institutes cover to cover, but if you haven’t are you unable to critique Calvin based on what you have read? I don’t think so.

So per your question, as to whether or not I have read the book, correct me if I’m wrong but the book isn’t out yet, right? And again, do I need to read further if I have read most of “the story we find ourselves in”, “A New kind of Christian” and as much of “A Generous Orthodoxy” as I could stomach (before I felt its greatest usefulness would be to light my charcoal grill)? overandoverandover throughout these works are “Oh, sure, I think that’s important, BUT” and then proceeding to say what he really thinks is important. The above quote is only reflective of what I think is his growing honesty and confidence in saying what he really believes, and it fits in nicely with his less forthright compositions which preceded this one.

I also agree that prooftexting is unfortunate, as with the context-free use of Christ’s citation of Psalm 82:6 in vynette’s last submission. Or quoting 1 John 4:8 in obscurance of literally hundreds of other passages dealing with the eternal perils of false teaching. I’ve never understood how so many people who say God is Love are perfectly happy to tolerate and even accept false teaching. Is it loving to lie to people about who God has said he is? And, I, if I may, “suggest” that your prooftexting comment was perhaps directed toward my citation of 1 Cor 15 as the gospel. At the end of a letter dealing with disunity in matters of factionalism and antinomianism and disregard for the well being of others, Paul cites that which so many today feel to be the divisive aspect of Christianity. Think about it. Paul didn’t think that saying what was true about who Christ is and what he did would lead to any disunity that probably wasn’t already there. What is in the passage is that around which those who were disunified were to unify.

And to teach something different than that is not loving.

Actually, in this situation, you could dispel our errors by just telling us what you think about above quote, and/or, if it is out of context then how it does not reflect McLaren’s consistent teaching. I mean that sincerely, since you worship in close proximity to him and what he has built, your take on the above quote would be very helpful.

Thanks again for your reply.


58. Christian Beyer
September 20, 2007
6:31 PM

Ah Daryl, touche’. But to be sure, you’ve exaggerated my point. I was addressing the general tone of this thread, not each and every participant. A little bit too much throwing around words like ‘apostasy’. But, that speaks to my tastes probably more than anything. But I do think deciding for yourself who is Christian and who is not (don’t you really mean who is ‘saved’ and who is not?) is a bit much for anyone.

It is rhetoric like this that encourages some people to cease identifying with “Christians” even if they loyally follow Christ. To declare that one has accepted Jesus as savior and lord is meaningless if one does not follow his example in how he deals with others. And deciding that slavish devotion to (what one believes is) the truth, without respect and compassion for those who would hear this truth is not love. One can be so loyal to the letter that one can entirely quench the spirit of what has been written. I think Paul said something like that.

Sure Daryl. Which quote?


59. Jason
September 20, 2007
7:20 PM

Wow. Christian, you really wanna have your rhetorical cake and eat it, too.

You come here with your own chip on or near your shoulder, making broad prejudicial remarks and somebody gives you attitude and you say, “yer not nice, people don’t like Jesus cuz yer not nice” Wow.

But it’s also a slick way of changing the subject. You still said anything about the above quote from McLaren, other than “you don’t get it”.

Tell us how you feel about the above quote.


60. Jason
September 20, 2007
7:40 PM

Hiya Vynette,

Context free, you bet.

Just four passages before Christ’s quote of Psalm 82:6 Christ finishes up a pericope in which he makes us considerably subordinate. He refers to us as sheep over and over. So was Christ anointed into sheepship as well? Asserting that we are sons of God in the sense you are asserting is a super-duper word-thing fallacy.

As well in the last passage in that pericope Jesus says that He and the Father are one. Now it doesn’t take very long anywhere in the Bible to understand that God does not give his glory to another, buuuut see John 17:1-5. Now that is a clear statement. Before creation, Jesus was being glorified in the presence of the Father. Hmmm. And then we view thie quote from you:

“The crucial difference between Jesus and other ‘sons’ was that Jesus was ‘anointed’ with plenipotentiary powers to speak and to act with full authority in the name of God.”

Did Jesus become one with the Father before or after this anointing? When do I get to be one with the Father, or does my oneness not have the same potentiality? All authority in heaven and earth? The sounds like totipotency to me. When was that anointing? I need help with my bills and and even oligapotency (I made that up) might come in handy.

An ostentatious display of context freeness in prooftexting.


61. Daryl Little
September 20, 2007
9:36 PM

Christian,

Which quote? I don’t get it. When Brian denies the gospel and presents a “kingdom now” gospel his behaviou means nothing. We are Christians because we believe, not because we act. Acting is important, yes, but if the belief is wrong, more specifically, if the right belief is rejected, we all have a responsibility to identify those who are not Christians, especially when they claim to be teachers of a “new way” or “secret message” at the expense of the true gospel.


62. Daryl Little
September 20, 2007
9:40 PM

Christian,

One last point. It is true that we must obey the Spirit of the gospel but tell me this, in obeying the Spirit do we reject the letter (as McLaren has done}?


63. Victoria Lynch
September 21, 2007
9:31 AM

Where are you Tim? To have someone who is either new age or Jehovah’s Witness spouting their false doctrine on a reformed site without being challenged by someone trained in theology is a shame! To deny the trinity - to actually imply that the new testament writers did not teach or believe that Jesus is God—makes me wonder what bible they are reading. How can someone come into the 21st century and say they now have some new understanding or interpretation of what the biblical writers meant? Do words mean anything? Does John chapter one mean anything when it says” In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Do the words of Philippians chapter two mean anything other than the deity of Christ? Does Jesus correct Thomas when Thomas says to Him “my Lord and my God”? John 20:28 I will only use only one other of many passages-Titus 2:13 ” Waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” To say that the new testament writers did not believe that Jesus was and is God is dishonest. What proof have these people that the church for 2000 years has not understood the nature of the person of Christ? How do they come up with a statement that “The Hebrew movement begun by Jesus and the Apostles bears no resemblance at all to the creeds of orthodox Christianity”. I may be a layperson but I know better than that! This is just another vicious attack on the clarity of scripture and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ!


64. Jason
September 21, 2007
12:46 PM

Bravo, Victoria

(closed caption: backslapping)


65. Victoria Lynch
September 21, 2007
1:10 PM

May I also add this- If you get it wrong on the person and work of Christ, you also get it wrong on the doctrine of salvation. If you get it wrong on the doctrine of salvation, your soul is at great peril! Study the Granville Sharp rule and you will understand that the N.T. writers knew and wrote definitely of the deity of Christ. This is one of those “hills to die on” of the Christian faith- Jesus Christ is God.
I am commenting on the post above that states this:

“It can be demonstrated from the New Testament that its authors did not believe or teach that Jesus was ‘divine’ or equal to God in any way except as it pleased God to make him so. That means for instance no Trinity, no Miraculous Incarnation. There was, and still is, a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew modes of thinking and expression and this lack of knowledge on the part of the post-apostolic Graeco-Roman fathers produced the doctrines of orthodox Christianity.”

How in the world can such a statement be demonstrated from the New Testament? What bible is being read? Sounds like Jehovah’s Witness or New Age or New Perspective.


66. Lucy B-H
September 21, 2007
3:41 PM

hi all

I am writing a dissertation on the emerging/ent chuch at the moment, specifically what it/they say is the problem with the human condition, and how it could affect youth work (and the salvation of young souls). I’m only an undergrad, and i’m not an expert at all, but in the last few weeks I have read 6 or 7 of Mr McLaren’s books, along with some other emerging stuff. Thank you, Challies for your review of the new one, which I have on order, and seems as though it will answer my main question!

Having read so much McLaren so recently, I feel full of sadness for him. “A New Kind of Christian” portrays a pastor who is having real doubts being undermined by someone who has postmodernity all sorted out. McLaren says that Daniel, the fictional pastor, is not to be identified with him, but I can’t help but feel that Mr McLaren has found himself at some point floundering in the faith and has not been helped out at a crucial point which has led him to think and write what he now does.

I think what has struck me most in reading is the absence of consequence of individuals’ sin. When the “sinners” are corporate religion or the Roman empire or something else big and mighty, the consequence of their sin is lots of opressed and marginalised people. But McLaren manages to ignore the clear biblical teaching on the individual consequence of individual rebellion against our Creator. For example, Adam and Eve aren’t shut out of the garden, it just seems that God and humanity drift apart. This of course leaves humanity to be able to just drift back to God when they so choose, which is what most of McLaren’s writings portray. It’s as if Jesus has turned up to describe this kingdom, this wonderful kingdom which we look forward to with hope and certainty, and just allowed people who want to, to just turn up, with no cost. Of course, to me, there has been no cost in the sense of buying my way in. Jesus paid that cost by taking the punishment of death promised in Genesis 2 for me. But there is nothing i can do to just walk back into the kingdom any time i choose. No amount of humility, justice and mercy, and reanalysis of my life (characteristics of McLaren’s writings) will allow me to just come back to God. It all hangs on Jesus paying my way in. In his bible overview in “a search for what is real” (i think), at no point is there any death or punishment - none in genesis 3, no sacrificial system with its bloodshed, no divide in Solomon’s kingdom because of his sinfulness, nothing.

I can understand that Mr McLaren wants there to be a God who doesn’t punish, because we don’t like punishment - that’s the whole point of the gospel. We don’t like what God say and we turn away from Him and His words - including the promise that our sin has eternal consequences - what did the serpent say? “you will not surely die…” Adam and Eve doubted God’s word then, and Brian McLaren stands in a long line of people (all who have ever existed, bar our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ), who want to deny a negative consequence of our sin.

People who oppose the view that Jesus took our punishment on the cross often say that this would make God evil, a child abuser or such like. But I see it as the greatest love that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, could show to me. Don’t forget that Jesus the Son willingly took the wrath, and the Father did something which seems so awful because he “so loved the world”. That love, that took God’s wrath from me, totally undeserved, is so awesomely bigger than the love that Brian McLaren evidently feels from God.

The emergent theology is a sad business indeed.


67. Christian Beyer
September 21, 2007
4:53 PM

Jason, you might want to brush that beam off your shirt before you pay too much attention to the chip on mine. Why so…strident?

Daryl; Yeah. Again, which quote? There are several in Tim’s piece. I don’t know which one you want a response for.

Brian’s book is not about a secret message at all. (Swooosh!) He is cleverly playing off of all the cultural hype concerning Da Vinci codes and Knight’s Templar. The title is designed to get attention and sell more books. That being said, I think that many people are unaware of this ‘secret’; that Jesus life, death and resurrection is not all about getting your ticket stamped before boarding the ferry to heaven. It is about serving him here and now. By feeding his sheep (someone earlier was hung up that metaphor), feeding him when he is hungry, clothing him when he is naked and visiting him in prison. It is not all about singing hymns, tithing, modest clothing, swearing, sex and slogans. But you wouldn’t know that by what the Church is most concerned about.

Brian believes in God the Father, Jesus his Son, our Lord and Savior as well as the Holy Spirit. I know this because I have heard him say it, numerously.He is not Protestant, Anglican or Roman Catholic. He tries to respect Protestants, Anglicans and Roman Catholics. He understands that we have commonality in Jesus.

Doctrines about the Eucharist, Baptism, Heaven, Hell, Adam and Eve, the Flood, Election- these are not at the heart of Christ’s church. It is Jesus’ sacrifice and the forgiveness of sin - God’s forgiveness of our wrongs and our forgiveness of others. The fact that he loves us all and welcomes all of us into the kingdom. Not just those with theology degrees.

Your are concentrating so very hard on the bark you don’t even see that the trees in your forest are dying. They are too stiff and not being able to bend they will eventually break.


68. david
September 21, 2007
7:36 PM

OK, let’s keep this on track. I’ve deleted several inappropriate comments.

Furthermore, I’m going to restrict comments to those who actually believe the Bible is the Word of God. Comments denying foundational truths such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ will be deleted.


69. Jason
September 21, 2007
7:50 PM

Hiya Christian,

Yah, I’m not sure why you thought the yer-not-nice thing would work the second time. And how is my pointing out your speck (which speck? Your prejudicial remarks?)different than your first entry toward nearly everyone who had posted on this blog? You make it easy to be strident when you keep making a break for the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do escape hatch.

Perhaps trying to have your speck and not see it, too.

And you’re still not really talking about the quote.

Nice metaphor, by the way. Are the sheep in Ezekiel 34 real sheep, if that’s the food that you are talking about? Or am I hung up? Or are we just too busy eating bark? Oops the metaphor crossed the centerline….

How many specific historical references to the Old Testament does Christ make in the gospels? Are these things really not central? It really seems that He thought that they were. Jesus eating bark. Hmmm. How much did Christ say specifically about those things that you bypass as doctrine? Were those comparatively throw away remarks?

Even if yer a red-letter Christian, you still gotta include all the red-letters.


70. just a mom
September 22, 2007
6:35 PM

When is Christian leadership going quit dancing around and sound the alarm warning against the false teaching of Brian McLaren and this Emergent garbage? Just mark them for what they are and tell everyone to avoid them. Poison is marked as such, POISON. No where in the bible does it tell us to follow false teachers.

My heart aches. Read the 25 verses of Jude and ask yourselves if this is not today. I fear for today’s so-called “evangelical” church. I fear for our country. How many kids today are falling for this Emergent New (Age) Spirituality?

I just finished reading Roger Oakland’s book, Faith Undone. Excellent! He outlines and exposes the Emergent church with truth and love.

Go out and share the true gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Be in His word… not in a book by McLaren!