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 blog or about the author.

Wednesday September 26, 2007

“Everything Must Change” by Brian McLaren

Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Emasculated Theology…

Review of Everything Must Change by Brian McLarenThose of us who have been keeping a wary eye on the Emerging Church know that to understand the movement we must 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 guide or compass for the movement. Where he leads, others follow. It is with interest, then, that I turned to his latest book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope. It is a book that promises to electrify the Emerging Church and, if history is a reliable guide, to further polarize it from those who hold to more traditional Protestant beliefs. My plan in this review is simple: I’m going to give an outline of what the book teaches and then interact with it just a little bit.

This book is shaped by two preoccupying questions: what are the biggest problems in the world and what does Jesus have to say about these global problems? Said in a way consistent with the book’s subtitle, What are the global crises and how can Jesus provide a revolution of hope? These are good questions, no doubt. They are valid questions and probably questions to which Christians should devote more attention. In this book McLaren address them head-on. Allow me to present a brief outline of just how he goes about this.

To set the context he begins with a short biography of himself and the movement he has been part of. “As a follower of God in the way of Jesus, I’ve been involved in a profoundly interesting and enjoyable conversation for the last ten years or so. It’s a conversation about what it means to be ‘a new kind of Christian’—not an angry and reactionary fundamentalist, not a stuffy traditionalist, not a blase nominalist, not a wishy-washy liberal, not a New Agey religious hipster, not a crusading religious imperialist, and not an overly enthused Bible-waving fanatic—but something fresh and authentic and challenging and adventurous.” This conversation has been necessary because “the versions of Christianity we inherited are largely flattened, watered down, tamed … offering us a ticket to heaven after death, but not challenging us to address the issues that threaten life on earth. Together we’ve begun to seek a fresh understanding of what Christianity is for, what a church can be and do, and most exciting, we’re finding out that a lot of what we need most is already hidden in a trunk in the attic. Which is good news.”

“Is it possible that at the heart of the life and message of Jesus was an attempt to expose, challenge, confront, transform, and replace the unhealthy framing stories of his day? And could there be a resonance between the unhealthy framing stories of his day and their counterparts in our day?”According to McLaren, we live in a societal system consisting of three subsystems: the prosperity, equity and security systems. These are all guided by a framing narrative. The world was made in such a way that these should function in perfect harmony as they are guided by God’s framing story, but unfortunately they have become misaligned so they no longer function as they should. When the framing narrative is destructive, this system can go suicidal, ultimately self-destructing. This is society as we know it now—a society that is completely suicidal. And this is the problem Jesus came to address. Having thought long and hard about the world’s problems, McLaren says this: “Our plethora of critical global problems can be traced to four deep dysfunctions, the fourth of which is the lynchpin or leverage point through which we can reverse the first three.” These three crises are linked in a very tightly integrated system that functions as this “suicide machine.” The dysfunctions are:

  1. Prosperity Crisis - This is environmental breakdown caused by an unsustainable global economy that does not respect environmental limits even as it succeeds in creating great wealth for about one third of the world’s population.
  2. Equity Crisis - This is the growing gap between the ultra-rich and the very poor, the majority of whom are growing in resentment and envy as they consider the privilege of the rich. The rich, in turn, become fearful and angry as they seek to protect their wealth.
  3. Security Crisis - This is the danger of war arising from resentment between the groups at opposite ends of the economic spectrum.
  4. Spirituality Crisis - This is the failure of the world’s religions (especially Christianity and Islam, the world’s two largest) to provide a framing story that is capable of healing or at least reducing the previous three crises.

A framing story is “a story that gives people direction, values, vision, and inspiration by providing a framework for their lives.” It tells people who they are, where they have come from, what they should do, and so on. It frames their lives. The search for a better framing story, he suggests, will allow Christians to discover a fresh vision of Jesus and his message. “Is it possible that at the heart of the life and message of Jesus was an attempt to expose, challenge, confront, transform, and replace the unhealthy framing stories of his day? And could there be a resonance between the unhealthy framing stories of his day and their counterparts in our day?”

“As long as evangelism presents a gospel centered on the need for personal salvation, individuals will acquire a faith that focuses on maximum benefits with minimal obligations, and we will change the costly work of Christ’s atonement into the pragmatic transaction of a salvific contract.” (quoting David Watson and Douglas Meekes)Jesus, says McLaren, stepped into this dysfunctional system and proposed an alternative in both word and deed. Jesus’ solution was to confront society’s suicide machine, to redraw and reshape the framing narratives by proposing a radical alternative. He says Jesus’ message, His good news, is 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.”

In the gospels, says McLaren, we see that Jesus confronts the prosperity crisis by telling us that we are all fellow creatures in one grand global ecosystem and by calling us to seek the common good rather than our own selfish interests. He confronts the equity crisis by telling us we are all neighbors in a global community and by calling on us to seek justice for all. He confronts the security crisis by calling us to reconciliation rather than competition and domination. He calls us to respond to our enemies through love and service, not as victors who eliminate others. Jesus does all this through parables, miracles, ethical teachings (“which should not be seen as laws through which one earns hell or heaven, but rather as practices through which people can seek and participate in God’s kingdom.”) and ultimately through his death and resurrection. In this great act Jesus showed that God’s grace will ultimately triumph over human wickedness. And all of this calls us to respond by disbelieving the framing stories we’ve been taught and embracing instead Jesus and His radical new story.

This is only a brief (and no doubt inadequate) summary of what the book contains. It is a long book (362 pages) so I simply cannot adequately address all of it. I have attempted to quote McLaren in such a way that certain concerns with his theology (or lack thereof) are clear. I will continue here by providing some of the questions or overwhelming problems I noted as I read the book.

McLaren is aware that his understanding of Jesus necessarily conflicts with the more traditional Protestant understanding. Yet this traditional Protestant view of Jesus, of His work and His mission must be flawed, McLaren says, because it poses no real challenge to the framing story of Jesus’ day (or of our day) but instead feeds the suicide machine. It is unable to respond to the two great questions he posed at the outset. “Jesus in the conventional view has little or nothing to say regarding the world’s global crises.” In fact, the traditional view has actually placed Jesus within the framework of this machine so that He aids and abets it instead of providing an alternative. “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.” He goes so far as to say that those who hold to this traditional view must regard much of the Bible as useless filler that we deliberately choose to disregard.

McLaren’s utter disdain for Protestant theology is evident throughout, but perhaps nowhere so clearly as in his rendition of Mary’s Magnificat, rewritten in such a way, he says, that it can now be consistent with traditional theology.

My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my personal Savior, for he has been mindful of the correct saving faith of his servant. My spirit will go to heaven when my body dies for the Mighty One has provided forgiveness, assurance, and eternal security for me—holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who have correct saving faith and orthodox articulations of belief, from generation to generation. He will overcome the damning effects of original sin with his mighty arm; he will damn to hell those who believe they can be saved through their own efforts or through any religion other than the new one He is about to form. He will condemn followers of other religions to hell but bring to heaven those with correct belief. He has filled correct believers with spiritual blessings but will send those who are not elect to hell forever. He has helped those with correct doctrinal understanding, remembering to be merciful to those who believe in the correct theories of atonement, just as our preferred theologians through history have articulated.

But the Bible, he says, teaches none of this. Rather, “Mary celebrates that God is going to upset the dominance hierarchies typical of empire so that the nation of Israel can experience the fulfillment of its original promise.” Time would fail me to even begin to address all of the doctrines he mocks and belittles even in this one paragraph. Suffice it to say that no doctrine is safe, with those closest to the heart of the gospel the ones that disgust McLaren the most. Just this one paragraph ought to shock and disgust any Christian.

“Jesus will use a cross to expose the cruelty and injustice of those in power and instill hope and confidence in the oppressed.”After reframing Jesus and His message, McLaren reintroduces Him through a new lens. Needless to say, this Jesus is radically different from the one Protestants have known and honored and radically different from the Jesus of the Bible. McLaren continues to systematically dismantle doctrine after doctrine. “With no apologies to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or modern evangelicalism, Jesus (in Luke 16:9) 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—literally or figurative—is for the rich and comfortable who proceed on their way without concern for their poor neighbor day after day.” Jesus “calls them to grow their good deeds portfolios for the common good, especially the good of the poor and marginalized.”

McLaren seems particular incensed with the biblical concepts of heaven, hell and atonement. Rather than being eternal realities, heaven and hell become states we create on this earth as we pursue or deny the kingdom of God. Because Jesus’ message is not one of sinful men becoming reconciled to a holy God through an atoning sacrifice, those of any creed can seek and participate in the kingdom. People of other creeds may well be participating in it more fully and more purely than ones who claim to be Christians. Men and women of all creeds can be followers of Jesus living out the kingdom of God even if they have never heard His name. We see this in McLaren’s lists of people in whom we have apparently seen Jesus’ story echoed: Saint Francis, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Oscar Romero, Mahatma Gandhi, Saint Claire, Jane Goodall, and so on. Never mind that many of these people had no understanding of the gospel—they are the best and brightest in history because they sought to create “a generous, generative, and human alternative society” in place of the suicide machine around them.

“The core message of Jesus focused on personal, social, and global transformation in this life”As with McLaren’s previous books, no doctrine is safe. And, in fact, almost every critical doctrine is emasculated, destroyed or redrawn. Nothing is sacred. Yet the problems go even deeper than theology because this book deals also with other subjects such as economics. With McLaren’s willingness to play fast and loose with Scripture, interpreting it as he seems fit with utter disregard for the stream of historic orthodox theology and the context of Scripture, how am I to trust his presentation of economics? If he is willing to adapt Scripture to fit his agenda and to do so at the expense of its most clear and obvious meaning, what confidence can I have that he has not done the same in other areas? What credibility remains? The same can be said of his view of politics, socio-economics and every other field he touches on. He has an agenda and it seems that he will not allow even the truth to derail him as he seeks to fulfill it.

The Emerging Church excels at asking good and difficult questions but has been widely critiqued because the answers are too often wildly inconsistent with Scripture. Everything Must Change is no exception. With this book McLaren further draws a line in the sand. He declares, increasingly unequivocally, that this Emerging Church bears little resemblance to the church as we know it from the Bible. The doctrine of the Emerging Church is moving farther and farther away from the doctrine of the Bible, at least as it has been understood from the Scriptures since the days of the early church. It will stop at nothing and will call into question and trample under foot even the most fundamental doctrines. McLaren will bring thousands of sincere people with him in his quest to see how Jesus addresses the world’s most serious problems. I hope these people count the cost. I hope they know what they must reject in order to be a new kind of Christian; they must reject the very heart of the gospel. After reading this book it is my hope and prayer that this marks the time when the Emerging Church realizes that if it is to maintain anything even remotely resembling biblical orthodoxy, it must stop now and it must abandon Brian McLaren. They must say “enough is enough” and turn back.

It seems increasingly clear that the new kind of Christian McLaren seeks is no kind of Christian at all. The church on the other side of his reinvention is a church devoid of the glorious gospel of Christ’s atoning death. It is a church utterly stripped of its power because it is a church stripped of the gospel message. McLaren’s new gospel is a social gospel, a liberal gospel and, in fact, no gospel at all. This Emerging Church has managed to do something remarkable—it has emerged into something the church has already seen, has already wrestled with, and has already defeated. The Emerging Church has gone suicidal.

Comments (90) »


1. Mark
September 26, 2007
10:47 AM

Tim,

Thanks for your review here - I have just begun to read the book. I was wondering - Do you feel that Mclaren denies the resurrection and power of Jesus to save us from sin and eternal separation from God? Or is it that he believes these things but focusses on social justice to its detriment?

Thanks for any thoughts you have …

mark


2. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
11:01 AM

Do you feel that Mclaren denies the resurrection and power of Jesus to save us from sin and eternal separation from God? Or is it that he believes these things but focusses on social justice to its detriment?

I think he affirms the resurrection but denies that it has anything to do with saving us from eternal separation from God. At this point I’m not quite sure what he believes about our eternal destination as he seems to deny that heaven and hell are anything other than states of living here on earth.

At this point I don’t really know what to think about him anymore. I don’t feel like I can trust him even when he does use words from the Christian lexicon since he seems so willing to assign his own meaning to words. Just because he speaks of certain points of theology I have no confidence that he uses them in the same way Christians have always done…


3. Jim B.
September 26, 2007
11:02 AM

McLaren may not be “wishy-washy”, but his teaching is clearly liberal (modern-day Socinian).


4. Martin Downes
September 26, 2007
12:20 PM

Tim,

I have this book on order.

Could you help out on the following…

According to Brian McLaren, in what way is Jesus himself essential to changing this global crisis?

Could this crisis be addressed without the death of Jesus? Is Jesus’ death essential to addressing the world’s problems?


5. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
12:32 PM

According to Brian McLaren, in what way is Jesus himself essential to changing this global crisis?

Could this crisis be addressed without the death of Jesus? Is Jesus’ death essential to addressing the world’s problems?

Good questions. I’m not sure that McLaren really makes it clear why we absolutely need Jesus. After all, he mocks the idea that only those who know Jesus can please Him. I think (and am willing to be proven wrong) that Jesus is not essential, but rather serves as a good guide and example. But I think he would have to say that humans can please God without ever having heard the name of Jesus.

I’ll skim back through and see if I can find anything about why Jesus is absolutely necessary.


6. Matt Foreman
September 26, 2007
12:47 PM

Tim, At first glance, it seems that your review summarizes the book well but then basically says at the end - “I don’t agree; that’s not what the Bible says.” Your review might be improved by saying something positive at the end about the power of the real Gospel. The Bible does speak honestly about the world’s problems, but gives the Gospel of justification and atonement through Jesus’ blood as the only power that will change lives and relationships and communities and spread like leaven to change the world.


7. Josh Golackson
September 26, 2007
12:54 PM

Wow, I don’t know whether I should cry or throw up or both. I’ve read most of “A Generous Orthodoxy” and at the time was really convicted to be praying for McLaren and “Emerging” folks. I have not been and again I’m seeing the huge need for that. Please God show them that they are preaching a false gospel.

As much as I would love to tear him to shreds and go off about how awful and dangerous this man is, I want to encourage us all to pray for his repentance!


8. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
1:06 PM

Tim, At first glance, it seems that your review summarizes the book well but then basically says at the end - “I don’t agree; that’s not what the Bible says.” Your review might be improved by saying something positive at the end about the power of the real Gospel.

I’m aware that the review was not exhaustive. The problem is that it was getting long and something had to give. There’s a lot more I’d like to say and perhaps sometime I will. But with the review already pushing 2500 words I thought it was time to quit. I focused on aspects of McLaren’s teaching that are particularly abhorrent hoping that this would speak for itself…


9. Paul
September 26, 2007
1:11 PM

Did your review disappear from Amazon already? I found it well-thought-out and helpful even if it does not reflect positively on the book.


10. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
1:12 PM

Did your review disappear from Amazon already? I found it well-thought-out and helpful even if it does not reflect positively on the book.

I’m not sure where it went. It seems to have disappeared!


11. Matt
September 26, 2007
1:26 PM

I’d be interested to know, where do you find McLaren resonating? Perhaps I’m in a backwater, but, for example, his repetitive appeal to ambiguity and uncertainity (exposed well in Carson’s “Conversant with Emergent”) is not just wearing thin, it doesn’t connect to the way people think and live. “Generative friendships” and “conversations” sound cool (I guess) but I don’t meet a lot of people who get all that.


12. Michael Herrmann
September 26, 2007
1:33 PM

Tim,
Thank you for this review and I CAN find it on Amazon. Though McLaren believes his ideas are fresh and new this just shows his continuing slide into some of the same old arguments that were refuted far in the past. Your turning the “suicide machine” comment around, and shining it on the very movement McLaren promotes, was brilliant.


13. Larry Geiger
September 26, 2007
1:38 PM

Reading Tim’s review and what Matt says, it sounds a lot like Scientology or Transcendental Meditation: It sounds really cool, there’s a bunch of cool terminology and some really neat people that I have met are into it, but I don’t get it yet. Therefore, I need to spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure it out and understand it.


14. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
1:49 PM

I’d be interested to know, where do you find McLaren resonating?

He seems to really resonate with young people, especially young people with soul patches and thick-rimmed glasses (just kidding!). But his primary audience is definitely a young one, hence his status as the elder statesman. He seems to say, “I’ve been through evangelicalism and know it doesn’t work. So to save yourself the bother, just follow me…”

As I said in the review, the Emerging Church does as good questions and I think it’s great that they wish to address real problems. I think they can make a good case that the church hasn’t done all it can do to address problems. But certainly a solution that rejects the very heart of the gospel is one that we must avoid. McLaren’s gospel is hardly one that the world will call foolish…


15. Matt
September 26, 2007
2:12 PM

Asking good questions yes, but no differently than reformed minded, culturally conscious people like (for instance) Driscoll ask. Indeed, many of the young people with whom I chat, find the rawness and explicitness of
Driscoll’s “conversation” more clarifying. I mean, read “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.” for instance. This book is “cookies-on-the-bottom-shelf” real; funny, irreverant, sarcastic. All the while it says important things about theology and culture. And it connects. Compare that to Tim’s detailed review:
According to McLaren, we live in a societal system consisting of three subsystems: the prosperity, equity and security systems. These are all guided by a framing narrative…
When the framing narrative is destructive, this system can go suicidal, ultimately self-destructing…
This is society as we know it now—a society that is completely suicidal. And this is the problem Jesus came to address…
“Our plethora of critical global problems can be traced to four deep dysfunctions, the fourth of which is the lynchpin or leverage point through which we can reverse the first three.”

I respect you for being able to make it somewhat cogent Tim!

“framing narrative,” “dysfunctional system,” “suicidal machine”?
It’s like whatever Dude! Who talks or thinks like that?

And watch Driscoll’s influence intensify as he pumps a gazillion books out over the next few years…


16. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
2:25 PM

“framing narrative,” “dysfunctional system,” “suicidal machine”? It’s like whatever Dude! Who talks or thinks like that?

I kept thinking the same. When McLaren isn’t changing the meaning of existing terms, he’s creating a whole new language. I didn’t even get into the most ridiculous examples. Consider, for example, his suggestions for what Jesus might use instead of “kingdom of God” if he were to walk the earth today.

“To address the global security crisis, Jesus might speak of the divine peace insurgency. … To confront the global equity crisis, Jesus might speak of God’s unterror movement. … Jesus might confront the global prosperity crisis by announcing a new global love economy. … Jesus might encapsulate his alternative framing story in the image of God’s sacred ecosystem.”

I’m just waiting for the day my pastor starts preaching a new global love economy…


17. Matt
September 26, 2007
2:36 PM

In praise of the terminology from McLaren et.al. Rex Miller posted this at Millenium Matrix recently:

For example, I have found the best way to translate what we used to say in evangelicalism as “getting saved” into something like, “learning how to love God with all of your heart,” or “developing an interactive friendship with Jesus.”
I had started using the unwieldy phrase “moment-by-moment surrender to God’s leading” as my current translation based on my own recent experiences. My friend Michael Cook sometimes uses the phrase, “the eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11) to describe God’s master plan for the universe. Another possibility was suggested to me recently in a conversation with Bob Mumford: “The Agape government of God”. Even better might be the “Agape Conspiracy” or Bob’s own phrase, the “Agape Road”. Scot McKnight, in The Jesus Creed, suggests the “movement for good.”

For Pete’s sake!
“Movement for good” sounds like my last trip to the bathroom!


18. Jake Meador
September 26, 2007
2:43 PM

I know I’m in the minority, but I guess I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with the book. I haven’t read it myself, but I have read his New Kind of Christian trilogy, A Generous Orthodoxy, and The Secret Message of Jesus and I don’t see anything there that I feel undermines my understanding of the gospel. (Confessionally, I’d line up most closely w/ reformed baptists or the PCA)

There are issues where I disagree with McLaren, and I feel that sometimes he focuses too much on the Kingdom at the expense of individual atonement, but I have not yet read anything that has made me feel like he’s not on the same team I am…. (Frankly, I have much bigger issues with Doug Pagitt than Brian McLaren, which is perhaps odd…)

Of course, I’m 19 years old so if this is just reinventing the wheel of Christian liberalism, I lack the personal experience to know it. I just know that McLaren’s books have been enormously helpful in my life and I have a deep appreciation for his willingness to ask hard questions that make us uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean I affirm everything the man writes, but I certainly appreciate his books.

I don’t want to hijack Tim’s thread but if anyone would care to e-mail w/ me about this, I’d love to talk. Aside from Tim Keller, I haven’t really spoken w/ or heard from any evangelicals who seem to understand where the EV crowd is coming from…


19. Tony
September 26, 2007
3:05 PM

I got an email from a group called Ground Force Network (GFN) that was looking for people to help spread the news about a book signing tour of sorts McLaren is going on. I already posted on what was said in the “About the Book” section of the email at my blog but I dare say that there would seem to be a difference between what scripture says the Gospel is and what McLaren seems to see it as.

To me the message of McLaren is no less legalistic than the “fundamentalists” he so often derides. His message is about doing something, which in and of itself is not wrong, but the doing has to progress out of God’s work in us not our work in the world. He obviously knows the hot buttons to push so that if one is to question him that person sounds like they are against such things as caring for the poor and other such social issues. My concern with McLaren is his continuing instance to avoid the Gospel as God presents it, in such books of Scripture as Hebrews, to instead try and portray that he has some heretofore missed understanding of scripture.

In some ways, I said in some ways, I am glad McLaren continues to write because the more he writes the more he defines the theology he often seems to purposefully keep vague. I have heard it said that if you let a person speak long enough they will inevitably reveal where they stand, no matter how much they try and hide it.


20. carissa
September 26, 2007
3:11 PM

As for whom McLaren resonates with - he resonates with certain college students, absolutely. I sometimes wonder if this is less because of his message (which we can agree is hard to pin down) and more because of his pseudo-intellectual and INCREDIBLY (really, it renders me speechless) postmodern style….

In my limited experience, with McLaren and other emergent writers, it’s less about comprehending their logical argument (which is what Reformed thinkers are really into, right?) and more about latching onto the sense of what they’re saying. You may not understand, let alone be able to articulate, what “divine peace insurgency” or “framing narrative” really means, but you know he’s saying something radical, something with postmodern terminology, and it stirs people up, and they understand just enough to go along with it. I think that is not even necessarily a bad tactic if it’s packaged along with reason and truth… but this kind of rhetorical strategy alone can be a pretty dangerous thing.

Also,
Jake - I wouldn’t mind talking to you because I kind of agree with you (and I’m also not very old, so I’m not sure how to think about it either).


21. the cutting truth
September 26, 2007
3:18 PM

I agree that the doctrinal inexactitude of the emergent movement is alarming. I also agree that many emergents have soul patches and wear thick-rimmed glasses (and that Brian Maclaren wouldn’t be nearly as popular if he didn’t have the appearance and demeanor of one big cuddly teddy bear).

Still, I cannot help feeling that the confessionally conservative crowd - in a reactionary, knee-jerk response - is too quick to indict the man. MacLaren poses many incredibly important, relevant questions, then posits his answers. Because his answers are doctrinally at odds with traditional orthodoxy, the man is ridiculed and mocked and denounced. What is forgotten in our rush to condemn, however, is that the questions Maclaren first asked are, in fact, valid, important, vital, questions which are hard to answer, but altogether necessary.

In my opinion, the better response to Maclaren, rather than pointing at his answers and simply declaring them unbiblical, is to provide our own biblical answer to the valid questions he was asking in the first place. Rather than mock his answer and stay silent on the question, we should provide our own answer embedded in traditional evangelicalism. It is surely a better way than reactionary denouncement.


22. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
3:26 PM

Rather than mock his answer and stay silent on the question, we should provide our own answer embedded in traditional evangelicalism. It is surely a better way than reactionary denouncement.

I agree with you there. Mocking McLaren is hardly the solution.

Of course many of his questions have already been answered. We do not need to revisit and reinvent the very basics of the faith. But certainly we would do well to ask the difficult questions and attempt to answer them in ways that are both effective and biblical.


23. The Thinking Christian
September 26, 2007
4:04 PM

Why not revisit the very basics of faith armed with new understandings, and new tools like academic studies, new voices, prayer and our own story? I think that’s EXACTLY what McLaren and EV is trying to do.

Jake, I actually disagree with your last statement. I really don’t think Tim really does understand what Emergent, or postmodern Christianity is all about. I think Tim has a slightly better grasp than some conservatives, but his whole basis of this book review is grounded in modern logic. Yes logic IS and SHOULD BE a tool used by those of a more postmodern nature, but it is only one of the tools used in pilgrimaging on or journey.

In paragraph, witty as it may be, it shows there that Tim is doing exactly what Brian is trying to state is a problem (# 3 on the list) is in the Christian tradition. POLARIZATION! The blatant attack in that last paragraph is enough to say that you can’t, and won’t be able to understand what the Emergent movement is all about. In many ways it is people like McLaren and myself who are trying to regain our footing after a lifetime of statements like that, when we want to respect and allow all beliefs to be heard and respected.

We NEED people like Brian who lets us know that we aren’t alone in asking the hard questions in our lives. Granted, I don’t always agree with everything he says, but i surely applaud his voice, and happily read each book. Postmodern Christianity is about reexamining Biblical orthodoxy… because we feel that there is something wrong with it. I can make a list, but I believe many others have made such lists published. This is not a BAD thing! even if your views do not change, at least you now are left with beliefs that weren’t handed to you through the birth canal. (i mean you as in everyone in general, i will not attack you personally, so please do not read this in that fashion).

I really wish that people would give us Emergent folks a break. When we reexamine traditional views/beliefs/practices, we are not targeting individuals. We don’t care what others outside of us believe, we are too busy trying to figure out who we are as spiritual individuals, and who God is in our lives, because we feel like the religious institutions of the modern era have let us down, rebuked us, and left us out in the cold and rain. We respect your individual held beliefs, but are on a journey to find what our beliefs may be, because we have far more questions than we do answers. Unlike what I grew up in (fundamentalist SBC), I’m willing to live within those questions and meet them head on, unlike the churches from my past (both as a clergy and in my upbringing).

So just because we can’t proof-text everything that we believe with a single/set of passages, its ok. We have departed from a literal interpretation of scripture, and until one does that, they cannot even begin to understand where EV and spokesmen/women like Brian is coming from.
we haven’t gone “suicidal”! Suicidal is where we were before Postmodernity and the Emergent movement rescued us from what we had always been force-fed about God, the Bible, Christ, and discipleship, and gave us new life. Thank God for speaking through people like McLaren!


24. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
4:16 PM

We have departed from a literal interpretation of scripture, and until one does that, they cannot even begin to understand where EV and spokesmen/women like Brian is coming from.

That seems clear. Of course that statement needs to be fleshed out a little bit because there are times when all of us depart from an entirely literal interpretation of Scripture. I think the issue is more Scripture’s authority than its interpretation, but will grant that the two go hand-in-hand.


25. Steven
September 26, 2007
4:24 PM

Yes, this is just a modern spin on a Modernism. Modernism 2.0. If Mclaren is right in his understanding of Jesus and the Gospel, then so is almost 200 years of German higher criticism and liberal understandings of Christianity.

Perhaps Fosdick was telling the truth, and Machen was all wrong.

You decide.


26. Scott Christensen
September 26, 2007
4:26 PM

Tim,
Am I correct in saying that McLaren sees the problem of humanity as socio-economic? Subsequently, does he see the gospel as redressing socio-economic inequality? In other words, is this not a rehash of old school Protestant liberalism and the Social Gospel with PoMo slipperiness to boot?


27. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
4:33 PM

Am I correct in saying that McLaren sees the problem of humanity as socio-economic? Subsequently, does he see the gospel as redressing socio-economic inequality? In other words, is this not a rehash of old school Protestant liberalism and the Social Gospel with PoMo slipperiness to boot?

That’s the gist of it. He doesn’t get into the origins of human sin much but says that sin causes socio-economic inequality and that is the root of most of society’s evils. Listen to what he says about gangs: “Gang members are both villains whose behavior helps perpetuate poverty and victims who wouldn’t be behaving this way if it weren’t for the collapse of community and family caused by the previous six forces.” The forces are trade, aid, debt, limits, wages and justice. So yes, evil is rooted, at least in this case, in socio-economic inequality.


28. dave matre
September 26, 2007
4:38 PM

I’ve not read any of McClaren’s books, but I encounter the “What did Jesus say about that?” quite a bit. Is it fair to say often the understanding of Jesus is limited to His years and teachings after taking on the cloak of humanity 2000 years ago? As an eternal Person in the Trinity, isn’t it fair to say that wherever God speaks, such as the Mosaic Law, Jesus is a part of the voice, since there is perfect unity in the Godhead? For example, when asked what Jesus said about homosexuality, is Leviticus 18:22 an accurate answer?


29. Chris Marlow
September 26, 2007
4:45 PM

It’s really sad to see Brian’s theology evolve to this level. I was really impacted by his first few books. Although not always theologically correct, he was asking good questions that I though were beneficial for the church.

Now he seems to be trying to answer those questions and his answers are not up to par. He seems so lost and frustrated. I think we can all respect Brian’s passion for social issues…But we just can’ t trust his theology as one that is accurate and correct.


30. donsands
September 26, 2007
4:46 PM

“in order to be a new kind of Christian; they must reject the very heart of the gospel.”

Man! This false teacher had better come to his senses.

Twisting the Gospel, and the Holy Scriptures?

May all who do this be accursed. And that includes me.

Thanks for reading this terrible book, and reviewing it for the Body of Christ at large. A very needful thing for us. Thank you very much. (And that’s not an Elvis, Thank you very much.)


31. ChrisB
September 26, 2007
4:59 PM

“It seems increasingly clear that the new kind of Christian McLaren seeks is no kind of Christian at all.”

Gee, Tim, how do you really feel?

Is McLaren degenerating into a works righteousness with this one?


32. Matt
September 26, 2007
6:46 PM

Honestly, I find that more than just “Reformed thinkers” are “into” comprehending logical arguments. Indeed I find that because some of this “postmodern speak” is so dubious, people, young and old are not stirred up. Indeed the teaching that marks a movement like Passion for instance, demonstrates a surging number of young adults who find much more in clear, distilled truth.
Also, why all the commendation for someone who is “asking good questions?” This is not compelling. Do you know how many people have and are asking the same questions McLaren et.al. asks. I keep heraing this, “Yea, but he’s asking such good questions…”
And…


33. Tim Challies
September 26, 2007
7:21 PM

Is McLaren degenerating into a works righteousness with this one?

I don’t know that he is. He’s certainly advocating good works, but he’s not really advocating righteousness. There doesn’t seem to be any heaven to earn through good works…


34. dt
September 26, 2007
8:31 PM

“framing narrative,” “dysfunctional system,” “suicidal machine”? It’s like whatever Dude! Who talks or thinks like that?

I kept thinking the same. When McLaren isn’t changing the meaning of existing terms, he’s creating a whole new language.

The idea of a framing narrative does not originate with McLaren. I’ve encountered that idea in some of the readings I’ve done for one of my discourse analysis (a branch of linguistics that deals with large chunks of spoken or written texts or discourses) classes. I’ll go see if I can dig up exactly where I’ve seen it, but I distinctly remember reading and discussing that very concept, in pretty much the same way that McLaren appears to be using it. From what I remember of my reading, that concept lies on the more postmodern end of the scale, and so it doesn’t shock me to see McLaren using it. I’m curious though: does he happen to cite where that idea comes from, or does he take it as his own?


35. dt
September 26, 2007
8:32 PM

Whoops, that second paragraph was supposed to be in italics too. Must have missed that!


36. David Castor
September 26, 2007
9:06 PM

Tim, while I come from a different theological tradition than yourself, I appreciate the fact that you are able to acknowledge that the EV has valid questions to ask. I think perhaps one of McLaren’s major concerns is that the gospel of traditional Protestantism has become little more a privatized phenomenon and an invitation to the great U2 concert in the sky. In which case, the question is whether these accusations are fair, and if not, why not? Does Jesus have a broader social agenda that has relevance to the workings of contemporary society? And if so, what relationship does this agenda have with the more traditional understanding of Jesus coming into the world to save sinners?


37. Brad
September 26, 2007
9:31 PM

These four “crisis” points all seems to be solved in communism. Why even bother with Jesus we just need to perfect Marxism!


38. donsands
September 26, 2007
10:33 PM

“I think perhaps one of McLaren’s major concerns is that the gospel of traditional Protestantism has become little more a privatized phenomenon and an invitation to the great U2 concert in the sky.”

What exactly does this mean? Could you break that down?

“Does Jesus have a broader social agenda that has relevance to the workings of contemporary society? “

Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He loves His people, and came to lay His life down for them, because His Father gave them to Him, and gave Him this charge.
As Christ seeks and saves His lost sheep, and brings them into His fold, in this life, surely we are to be a people who worship, serve, and love our Savior, so that the fruit we produce will bring Him glory, now, and in the life to come. And the life to come is what life is all about. Build your treasures there, not here.
May the Body of Christ seek the things above, and not the things here on earth. Amen.


39. David Castor
September 26, 2007
11:02 PM

Hey Donsands - thanks for your question and comments.

By “privatized phenomenon”, I mean that the gospel is seen primarily in terms of Christ coming to die for *my* sins, to which *I* must make a response about *my* eternal fate.

By “the great U2 concert in the sky”, I mean that the gospel is seen primarily in terms of heaven and the afterlife as opposed to this goings on in this world.

Sure enough, you speak of the community of Christ bringing glory to God in contemporary society as well as in the world to come, but this simply seems to be a means towards the end of initiating people into this privatized transaction I previously spoke about.

While I certainly don’t dismiss the afterlife, I would suggest that the teachings of Jesus have a more profoundly imminent focus than the prevailing focus of traditional Protestantism. And this is what I believe McLaren is on about - connecting the imminent with eschatological.


40. donsands
September 26, 2007
11:29 PM

“I would suggest that the teachings of Jesus have a more profoundly imminent focus than the prevailing focus of traditional Protestantism.”

What is “prevailing focus of traditional Protestantism.”?


41. ryan
September 26, 2007
11:57 PM

Brad Castor I agree with you, Protestantism has been to “personal” for some time now. By I believe McLaren is a drastic over correction or reaction to the problem. And for the life of me I do not see how he is not just repeating the same footsteps and predictions of the mainliners 80 years ago.


42. David Castor
September 27, 2007
1:00 AM

What is “prevailing focus of traditional Protestantism”?

I thought I had outlined this above?

Ryan, I’m honestly not sure whether McLaren is over-correcting or not. You may very well be right. Indeed, it is not usual for many correctives to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Whether or not McLaren is right, the challenge for traditional Protestants will be to recognise the reasonable critiques of traditional Protestantism by the EV and to evolve accordingly, while retaining those elements of faith that they believe that the EV has inappropriately discarded. Surely this process of thesis, antithesis and counter-antithesis will help the church to refine its vision in the long term.


43. SteveE
September 27, 2007
1:10 AM

Though I find McLaren’s views of - dare I say it - Christianity, disturbing in the extreme, I find I must agree with you in that, I cannot find an accurate description of what McLaren’s views are, or where they stand.

While this is just the most recent revelation of Christ and His purpose on Earth, It is obviously not the most radical or far fetched, Reformed teachings and others are not much different in this regard. A radical change in teachings must, must be required to be subject to much scrutiny. Regardless of the amount of followers, a failure in teaching must be a failure. It is only those committed to a specific belief that fail to see they have no monopoly on truth, and that the failings of their belief system may lead them to Hell.

It is when we hold to these specific’s that we find we are holding a line that cannot get us to heaven. And that is only because “there are none so blind, as those who will not see.”


44. Don
September 27, 2007
1:59 AM

Tim, your review disappeared from Amazon again. Thanks for writing this.


45. seeker
September 27, 2007
2:09 AM

There are only two reviews on amazon for the book, and both are glowing.


46. Ken
September 27, 2007
2:43 AM

McLaren may be right to criticise the ‘ticket to heaven’ mentality of modern evangelicalism, but traditional evangelicals are also criticising this. I have in mind David Pawson’s comment that the gospel is not so much about going to heaven when you die, but rather if you want to gain heaven, are you willing to live the whole of the rest of your life on earth according to God’s will, meaning as set out in the Bible? This is what God expects if you want forgiveness of sins through trusting Christ. This may be an under-emphasised aspect of repentance, but it does make biblical Christianity less other-worldly than McLaren thinks.
On a different tack, does McLaren ever interact with the fact that ‘the whole world lies in the power of the evil one’?


47. David Castor
September 27, 2007
2:59 AM

On a different tack, does McLaren ever interact with the fact that ‘the whole world lies in the power of the evil one’?

Whether he would use that language is doubtful, but it sounds like this book adopts an understanding of systemic and structural evil that is promoted by scholars such as Marcus Borg. The idea you raise is of absolutely foundational importance to those who understand the atonement primarily through the model of Christus Victor.

I’d suggest that the idea you raised by David Pawson still sees heaven as the most important end of one’s discipleship endeavours. What’s more, it still seems incredibly individualistic.


48. Ken
September 27, 2007
4:10 AM

David C. - But what could be more important than reconciliation with God, and heaven, or perhaps more accurately, the new earth? I can understand McLaren’s Magnificat critique of those who take too much pride in their correct doctrinal formulations, but if addressing weaknesses in evangelicalism means abandonning truths like the race is fallen, that ‘God commands all men everywhere to repent’, in effect jettisoning the biblical gospel, it is too high a price to pay. My experience of evangelicalism is that it is largely too indifferent to doctrinal clarity. Historically, evangelicals in the UK had a fairly good record on social issues (slavery, working conditions) where they were also involved socially, until they abandonned this to defend the bible against liberal theology.
It occurred to me in reading the book review, that the apostle Paul might well have looked at McLaren sadly and said ‘McLaren, in love with this present world, has deserted me’.


49. Matt Adair
September 27, 2007
5:11 AM

Tim, one thought I had while reading your helpful review on ‘EMC’ is that you’ve made the unfortunate mistake of lumping all things ‘Emerging’ into this particular stream that McLaren and other guys like Doug Pagitt are swimming in.

The Emerging Church is not a monolithic theological movement - its unity lies in a particular perspective on the relationship between followers of Jesus and the culture. That’s why you can have guys like McLaren and Driscoll both be part of the EC while essentially preaching and teaching two different gospels.

My fear is that statements such as your last sentence will unintentionally fuel the growing divide between good brothers and sisters whose differences are more philosophical and methodological than theological. There’s no reason to insist that Driscoll and John MacArthur have to be best buddies but the vitriolic approach that some have taken towards missional, Reformed churches whose stylings seem a bit too culturally comfortable is tragic and unnecessary.


50. David
September 27, 2007
8:36 AM

It’s amazing that your reviews keep disappearing. That’s twice now.


51. Tim Challies
September 27, 2007
8:51 AM

It’s amazing that your reviews keep disappearing. That’s twice now.

Something weird is going on. I’ve written Amazon, but don’t expect to hear back. Being the stubborn sort I went ahead an uploaded it yet again! I’ve written hundreds of reviews there and have never had this happen.

you’ve made the unfortunate mistake of lumping all things ‘Emerging’ into this particular stream that McLaren and other guys like Doug Pagitt are swimming in.

I don’t think it’s a mistake. McLaren refers to “emerging” so I just followed suit. I don’t think I need to expend too much effort in trying to unravel the emerging from the truly emerging, and the emerging from the emergent.


52. David
September 27, 2007
8:57 AM

Well - hope you don’t mind Tim, but just before I noticed your 3rd try was back on Amazon - I took it upon myself to copy and paste the last 3 paragraphs of your review myself to see what might happen. This is pretty fascinating.


53. curtis sheidler
September 27, 2007
9:06 AM

Tim said, When McLaren isn’t changing the meaning of existing terms, he’s creating a whole new language.

Sadly, McLaren isn’t using a new language at all—all the principles you’ve been talking about (“framing narrative” is a big one) come straight from the ur-texts for postmodernism.

“Framing Narrative” is McLaren’s equivalent to Jean-Francois Lyotard’s grands recits, which are the “metanarratives” (or framing narratives) that he says are no longer able to satisfy given the shrinking of the world through late-stage globalized capitalism. Lyotard is famous for characterizing the postmodern age as the age of “the collapse of metanarratives.” (The biggest of which, of course, is Biblical Christianity.)

McLaren’s obsession with the ills of capitalism is pure postmodern Marxism, as can be seen from Lyotard and from the dean of postmodern marxism in America, Frederic Jameson. McLaren’s fixation with the evils of the global economy and the unequal distribution of wealth are high points in Jameson’s book Postmodernism: Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capital. This is also one of the most important treatises on postmodernity available—it and Lyotard’s book (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which seems to me to be the ultimate source of all emergent epistemology), are two sources that are quoted at length in any serious treatment of postmodernity.

So McLaren’s language, properly speaking, isn’t new at all…unfortunately, it also isn’t Scriptural.


54. Tim Challies
September 27, 2007
9:07 AM

This is pretty fascinating.

Indeed. The first time around I figured it was too long. Amazon has a 1000-word limit, but I’ve often exceeded that and it hasn’t mattered. But when I reposted the review I trimmed it down to 990 or so, so I know I was under the limit.

Perhaps it has something to do with getting too many “Yes” votes in a day? Maybe they have some kind of filter. I doubt it, but that’s about all I can think of!


55. donsands
September 27, 2007
9:35 AM

” I thought I had outlined this above?”

Okay. I get you now.

This life is more important to you then the next life.

I would rather be with the Lord Jesus right now than anything. It is far far better to go and be with Him! But it is needful for the kingdom here that I be here, until the Lord calls me home, or He returns.

Here’s a verse that Brian McLaren most likely wouldn’t think is appropriate, and therefore doesn’t mention it when he teaches his philosophy: “If you then are risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God.
Set your affection on the things above, not on the things on the earth.” Col. 3:1-2

Christ is what life is all about. And it’s not a made up christ, but Christ crucfied; the Christ that became sin for us, and bore the debt of God’s holy wrath, thewrath that you and I deserve to bear.


56. Adam (Ochuk)
September 27, 2007
11:35 AM

Thanks for doing the hard work of reviewing this book. I reviewed one of McLaren’s books and it is hard work. One thing I don’t understand about the Emerging Church, or I should say McLaren in particular, is what his understanding of baptism and the Eucharist is. I mean with those sacraments was he instituting means by which the kingdom of God would overcome poverty and the kingdoms of this world? The fact that those things have to do with new creation and atonement are a bit inconvenient for such a different Jesus who did all the things Walter Wink said a good Savior had to do.


57. Tim Challies
September 27, 2007
12:41 PM

The fact that those things have to do with new creation and atonement are a bit inconvenient for such a different Jesus who did all the things Walter Wink said a good Savior had to do.

After a while you wonder how there can be any consistency in the faith? At this point I think they’re almost finished deconstruction and are in a rebuilding phase. I’m sure they’ll attach new meaning to the sacraments as part of that process…


58. Kelly
September 27, 2007
3:35 PM

I haven’t read this book. I started but did not finish, Generous Orthodoxy. I made it as far as his discussion of other religions. I really disagree with his resistance to calling God, Father…reducing this to mere metaphor to be discarded if offensive.

I saw this new one and skimmed through it yesterday at the LifeWay bookstore at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY (I’m an MDiv student).

I thought it seemed interesting, as far as the two questions are concerned: What are the world’s top crises, and what do the life and message of Jesus say to those global crises?

I am not hearing an answer to those questions here.

It is difficult to read and “listen” to the tone of the discussion. I have posted on sites before, but generally don’t anymore. One big reason is because of what seems to be the apparent glee of writing clever, stinging jabs…that these writers would say to his or another’s face? I hope not.

“But he does it too!” Which is to say, some of Mclaren’s quotes, presented by Tim, are not helpful either. His rewriting of the Magnificat bruises…and obviously incites. Should we?

But, setting my tenderness aside, I have a question which keeps coming up in my mind, even when I am not skimming Mclaren or reacting to blog comments on the internet:

“What about the way Jesus describes our judgment?”

Doesn’t Jesus make everyone in the room (including myself!) sweat when he says, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. They will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Mclaren’s questions are legitimate. What are the world’s top crises? What do the life and message of Jesus say those global crises?

They remind me of Jesus’ harsh and terrifying warning. His context is that the self-assured righteous are not really righteous. They do not feed the hungry, thirsty, strange or naked Jesus.

It is still right to say, “Sin. The Cross. Jesus is King. He has ‘put all things to rights’ and will come back again.” And there is more that we say. But, I worried over what we do. Doubtless, many will point with me to all the ways that Christians are behind all kinds of good things. I am as tired as everyone else of “the other side” telling us how badly churches and Christians are plateauing, declining or dying or as Mclaren states, “Christianity is a failed religion.”

But, again, Jesus still seems to slice at the self-assurred, whether conservative or post-conservative. We need to absorb all the force of another of Jesus’ responses, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? The I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evil doers!”

Ok, just some thoughts, to remind myself of the need to take seriously Jesus’ warnings. What if Mclaren is as bad as we say, but Jesus is using him to shame us with the questions…which we are not answering…at least here.

Grace and peace.


59. David F.
September 27, 2007
3:58 PM

Kelly, I think agree with you in part. Your comment together with donsands’ posts reflect I think what true Christianity is about. We as Christians should diligently (perhaps agressively?) defend the true gospel and not let it slip into a malaise of wishy-washy thinking. We need to keep our eyes focused on ‘that day’ before the throne room of grace. That in turn should motivate us toward good works in this day … if we truly believe the gospel message the fruit of our lives will bear this out (just as James says).
I take Tim’s review of the book to be directed at defending the gospel not at determining the proper outworking of the gospel. Along these lines, we need to remember that man’s greatest need is not food, drink and shelter but to be redeemed from the justified wrath of God. However, we as Christians should be mindful of just how Jesus proclaimed the gospel … he first demonstrated care for sinners and then confronted their sin (how often did he heal someone and then say ‘Go and sin no more.’). Follow the pattern of Paul’s epistles, each starts out with a defense of the gospel or re-statement of the gospel and then leads into proper Christian living. If we get the gospel wrong, how can we possibly get Christian living right? If I don’t seek to understand and confront the prevalance of sin in my own heart I will have a hard time loving and forgiving the sinners around me.
Authors like McLaren set up straw men of the church and easily knock them down by pointing out how they fail to care for the world. There argument is that the world is a big mess and the church is not doing anything publicly about it. What he misses is the many evidences of faithful churches regularly caring for and investing in their local community on a daily basis, they are in fact changing the world one person at a time. My church has a strong grasp of the gospel and conducts numerous outreaches and charity programs for the community that are gospel centered. I know of many other gospel centered churches that are doing the same thing and bearing much fruit in it precisely because they are gospel centered.


60. Chad
September 27, 2007
4:55 PM

“I don’t think I need to expend too much effort in trying to unravel the emerging from the truly emerging, and the emerging from the emergent.”

Would you like it if you and every other calvinist were lumped in with every quote from an extremist TULIP adherent? It’s really an honest question because I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to differentiate.


61. Kelly
September 27, 2007
5:07 PM

David F.,
I appreciate your thoughts. I agree that Tim and others feel moved to defend orthodoxy. I am ok with that.

However, my overall concern remains.

Grace and peace.

Kelly


62. Daryl Little
September 27, 2007
9:42 PM

Kelly,

Having read the review and thread of conversation I’ll take a crack at your concerns, which seemingly, are also Brian’s concerns.
I think those concerns, while valid, are simply not the church’s concerns. Should the church encourage its members to be good stewards? Certainly. Should it teach people to take care of people when they can? Certainly.
Should individual Christians attempt to right the wrongs as far as their lives intersect with those wrongs? Certainly.

That said, however, there is a real and signicant difference between Joe Christian’s life and the church as the church. I should help my neighbour cut his lawn, but that doesn’t mean the church is called to cut grass.
The concerns of the church are eternal concerns, so yes, Brian is wrong when he says the emphasis on individual souls is misplaced. Jesus came to sake and save that which was lost. The parable of the lost sheep, lost coin and prodigal son were all about God’s seeking afterindividuals. And our mission is to spread that particular exclusive message to the world.
Where the liberal of the 20th century and the EC of today get off track is when they make temporal, earthly concerns the concerns of the church. Jesus never addressed Roman occupation of the cutting of trees in Palestine or any of that.. Why must we? As soon as that becomes our focus, at it is Brian’s, we lose track of the gospel and we then, as Brian and Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell have done, change it to suit our new found ideals.

In my view, Brian comes off as an environmental humanist who is trying to hi-jack to gospel to his own ends, not God’s.


63. David Castor
September 27, 2007
10:05 PM

Daryl,

I honestly don’t think that McLaren is objecting an individual dimension in the traditional Protestant gospel. He merely believes that such an approach overemphasises the individual dimension and is accordingly essentially reductionist because it fails to acknowledge that the church should also have a broader social agenda. You suggest that there is no political dimension in Jesus’ teachings. However, I would strongly disagree. I’d suggest you consider reading a text such as “Binding the Strongman” by Ched Meyers, which is a fairly thorough investigation of the socio-political themes in the gospel of Mark.


64. RANDY HURSTBLOGSPOT.COM
September 27, 2007
11:05 PM

Kelly…

I appreciate your Biblical clarity.

I keep hearing “McLaren” is asking the proper questions, but he is answering them with distorted, pseudo intellectual (silly or even blasphemous) rhetoric.

I’ve read right here in these comments in the recent past that the world is going to hell anyway…so let’s toss ecology to the wind. I can see where McLaren gets his fire.

I still don’t get the emergent terminology. More correctly, I think we live in the age of the Divergent church…a little something for everyone. Don’t like last years model, we’ll tickle your ears with a little adaptation of the world’ lingo. I’m an old Jesus freak. I used to love seeing the world’s slogans stolen (we thought we were “saving the slogans”)and turned into Christian t-shirts…He’s the Real Thing! kinda thing. As I have matured in my faith, I realize that our generation has done that on a grand scale with lots of diversional versions of the sloganized t-shirt church. McLaren has a XXXL shirt filled with truths. But in his well written calls for relevance, is he diversioning away from the Power that is the Gospel?

The church has historically fragmented over taste; one person or group exaggerating one doctrine or interpretation or style of worship over and against another. The true Word of Christ draws us together, as Jesus said it would. Your sound interpretation just drew me to you, Kelly. It has drawn me to Tim. I was drawn to McLaren in his early writings. Now I’m puzzled by much that he says. That is a shame. But I know where he wanted to go. Maybe he still does. Time will tell. I pray for all those who want Christ’s work to make a difference in the world. But you cannot leave behind sound teachings and the core of the Gospel.

The Gospel is always the Good News (always good, always news for every generation). This generation is the first to need a global regenerate ecology. People still need individual regeneration through faith in Christ’s work, but they will find it’s transformed expressions addressing all sorts of new challenges as we obediently love our neighbors (who are the very ones we would disassociate from if we remained unregenerate).

So it is a both /and life. Love the Word. Love the People. Cherish God’s creation. If we lose the severity of Jesus’ judgments, that take us all to our full prostrate worm squirming humility, crying out “God save us”… we will never be cleansed vessels that can be authentically empowered to love.


65. RANDY HURST
September 27, 2007
11:09 PM

There is no RANDYHURSTBLOGSPOT.COM. I’m not sure how that got in the your name box.


66. donsands
September 27, 2007
11:14 PM

“You suggest that there is no political dimension in Jesus’ teachings.”

Amen.

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world, if it were My subjects would fight.”

And: “The kingdom of God is among you”. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; he is the kingdom.

Jesus will return one day and then His kingdom will come in it’s fullness, and it’s perfect righteousness. Oh what a day that will be!
And all who trust in the Cross will be heirs of this kingdom. Satan will be finally, and completely, vanquished, never to be heard of again. And God’s children will shine in His grace and love.

Jesus is making all things new. He is building His church. He is gathering His lost sheep. He is adding to His church daily those who are being saved. He gathers the living stones of His temple, and fits them into His walls.


67. David Castor
September 27, 2007
11:25 PM

“You suggest that there is no political dimension in Jesus’ teachings.”

Amen.

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world, if it were My subjects would fight.”

I think one of the problems I’ve discovered is that conservative Protestants generally have pretty poor hermeneutic skills because they become apologists for their tradition. I’m sorry, but you’ve provided a fairly predictable, but fairly poor reading of the text. And this is McLaren’s argument: Traditional Protestants, because they fail to properly understand the words of Jesus, contribute to, rather than respond to the problems of this world.


68. donsands
September 27, 2007
11:35 PM

David,
You write, but you don’t say anything.


69. David Castor
September 28, 2007
12:15 AM

With all respect Donsands, your criticism doesn’t really criticise anything. I am all for debating and discussing these issues constructively, but if you wish to shut down such discussion before it even starts with vacuous cliches, there’s very little I can do.


70. donsands
September 28, 2007
7:03 AM

David,
I wasn’t really criticising you, as much as frustrated. I simply try to look at the Holy Scriptures in there immedaite context.

What I mean by my statement is that you slam-dunk the Scriptures. You criticise what I stated about the Scriptures, and actually say I’m giving a “fairly poor reading of the text”.

What is McLaren’s, and even your own, interpretation of the Scripture’s I mentiioned?

“Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world, if it were My subjects would fight.”

And: “The kingdom of God is among you”. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; he is the kingdom.

Jesus will return one day and then His kingdom will come in it’s fullness, and it’s perfect righteousness. Oh what a day that will be!
And all who trust in the Cross will be heirs of this kingdom. Satan will be finally, and completely, vanquished, never to be heard of again. And God’s children will shine in His grace and love.

Jesus is making all things new. He is building His church. He is gathering His lost sheep. He is adding to His church daily those who are being saved. He gathers the living stones of His temple, and fits them into His walls.

Show me where my thinking here is poor. And where I “fail to properly understand the words of Jesus”.


71. David Castor
September 28, 2007
9:10 AM

First of all, Donsands, I should probably take the time to apologise. My most recent remarks were less than loving and less than well founded.

Concerning your questions, I’d love to discuss these issues with you, but given that I am working with a framework that needs to be comprehensively fleshed out, I’m not sure that a response on this thread would do my position justice. However, I’d love to continue this conversation further - perhaps you could work your way over to my profile and flick me through an email sometime?


72. Daryl Little
September 28, 2007
9:29 AM

It seems to me that much of this “Kingdom Now” stuff and EC mistreatment of the Scripture begins with a failure to believe the Bible when it talks about a literal hell. In McLaren’s trilogy he gives a huge list of Scriptures where Jesus warns about hell as evidence (somehow) that hell isn’t real. I’m not sure how he thought that’d help, but there it is.
Trouble is, once hell is made to be something different, or a sad state of affairs on earth or a literary device rather than reality, eternity for the unsaved becomes inconsequential and so the gospel must become socio-economic in order to have any weight at all.

Just my take on what I’ve seen/read.


73. donsands
September 28, 2007
9:50 AM

”- perhaps you could work your way over to my profile and flick me through an email sometime?”

Thanks for the invite. I’ll try to do that.

“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” Jude 24-25


74. David
September 28, 2007
10:14 AM

Tim, Your review has been deleted for a 3rd time and mine, as far as I know, never showed up.


75. Chris Kammerer
September 28, 2007
12:33 PM

Why is the amazon review being deleted? Does anyone know? Is it amazon that is doing it blindly for some technical reason, or is it being deleted specifically for it’s content?


76. David
September 28, 2007
1:53 PM

Chris - I think it would be safe to assume that it’s being deleted for its content - considering the other 2 favorable reviews continue to remain. The question that’s interesting to me is - is it Amazon or is someone from the McLaren camp causing this in some manner?

Either way - I have never seen a review deleted for content - especially if the reviewer actually read the book. In my opinion, it’s almost newsworthy.


77. Chris Kammerer
September 28, 2007
3:48 PM

It doesn’t really surprise me, my experience has been that the emergent crowd for all their talk of dialog and conversation are VERY unwilling to listen to any opposing point of view.

I noticed that there is a “report this” button next to each review. So maybe multiple people are reporting it as inappropriate and thereby getting Amazon to delete it.


78. The Thinking Christian
September 28, 2007
9:38 PM

You know, I see all this bashing of McLaren’s theology in this thread. I think that what he, and others have said about the modern Church being focused on the afterlife it completely true. I completely disagree with Daryl when he says:

“The concerns of the church are eternal concerns, so yes, Brian is wrong when he says the emphasis on individual souls is misplaced.”

What happened to the command of Christ to feed the hungry, take care of the poor, clothe the needy, heal the sick, visit those in prison…. ALL SOCIAL ISSUES….all temporal issues not eternal! See, that’s doing exactly what others are bashing Brian and EC for doing. They are being accused of manipulating the gospel to fit their own social agendas, when hasn’t the modern church proof-texted it’s way to this very same comfortable understanding that Daryl holds?

the idea that “individual Christians [are to] attempt to right the wrongs as far as their lives intersect with those wrongs” is totally selfish and non-biblically based. The analogy of cutting someone else’s lawn doesn’t even make sense. And Daryl, I’m sorry, I’m not attacking you, I am just using your response to point out that is exactly the SPIRIT in which Brian and Emergent people are asking these very questions! Your response summary says that we are not supposed to GO OUT OF OUR WAY to help others in need, just if we happen upon them, then we have a responsibility to help them.

Most people here have spent so much time going off on McLaren and his theology that they are participating in “adventures in missing the point.” (pun intended). However, when it comes down to it, we can all find theological ideas that we each cling to, and yet another person won’t agree with. This post saddens me because i would like to think that this many proclaimed Christians coming together to discuss this book would instead of bashing Brian, would turn lens inward and say, “ok, so we don’t agree with McLaren. However, rather than completely ganging up on him as our common cause, let’s reexamine the questions that Brian asks. What is our Christian responsibility to these global social issues? Let’s discuss this in open dialog on this thread.”

however, i guess that is too hard and would show where some of us may differ in our theology and ideology. Instead it is easier to unite against something/someone, than it is to do what the book was more than likely (knowing Brian) meant to do: ask the question and get people to start talking about the issues. At least then this post would be accomplishing something productive because I know that he’s not losing any sleep over what is being said badly about him in this thread.

I think this is why people in the EC have moved away from the mainstream churches, because the institutionalized Christianity would rather tear down than build up. They would rather avoid the real issues and focus on the easy and “safe” ones that the Church has been focusing on for the last century. I know that’s why I left! but I keep coming back to places like this hoping that, even in the midst of your negativity, a positive discussion would break out on what we can do to fulfill the great commission (which I’m pretty sure said “go into the WORLD”, not “just when you happen upon someone….”) as well as how we as American followers of Christ can truly Love our worldly neighbors!


79. donsands
September 28, 2007
10:34 PM

“the institutionalized Christianity would rather tear down than build up.”
That’s judgemental my friend.

I don’t want to tear down. But I surely don’t want to be deceived by Satan.
Let me ask you, do you believe Satan is a powerful deceiver? Do you see in the Scriptures that Jesus our Lord said, “Many will come and deceive, if it were possible, even the elect of God.”
I understand where you are coming from, but the Holy Scriptures need to rule. I hope you feel the same.


80. Daryl Little
September 28, 2007
11:34 PM

“Thinking Christian”

You’ve missed my point (yes I’ve read the “adventures…” book, he misses it too, badly.)
I’m not saying don’t go out of our way. I’m saying, go out of our way, to preach the gospel. The constant refrain in the N.T. as far as social issues seems to be help “my brethren”, again I’m not saying don’t help unbelievers, I’m saying, our social responsibility is to believers primarily. Yes, we should help our non-believing neighbours but use it to deliver the gospel.
The gospel is not “feed the hungry” it is “Jesus came to die to save us sorry people from God’s eternal wrath”
My pointing out the failings of the EC (McLAren in particular) is not for it’s own sake. The failings of the EC have a specific starting point. That is, rejection of the clear teaching of the Scripture regarding the whole reason Jesus came at all. From there on in, what else is there but a social view of the Bible?
Where in the orthodox (small ‘o’) church has there ever been a movement away from helping people? On the other hand the greater portion of the EC movement has been away from Scripture.
I respect that Brian wants to right the wrongs in the world, but at what expense? Telling the world that being a good Hindu will get you to heaven? Telling the world that hell is a literary device used by Jesus to say “I’m really really serious now!!”
Go ahead, right the wrongs, we all should, just don’t lose the gospel in the process. Stand up and proclaim it as the very reason we believe the wrongs should be righted in the first place!! And don’t make the mistake of telling the church (as a body) that she should leave off preaching in order to stop global warming and eliminate poverty. Do that yourself with thousands of committed unbelievers that already have that as their goal.

Jesus didn’t die to save the planet from carbon-dioxide, he died to save SOULS, individual, one person at a time SOULS. Mr. McLaren has forgotten or ignored that, and as a pastor, that is almost unforgiveable.


81. Daryl Little
September 28, 2007
11:50 PM

Thinking Christian said…

“They would rather avoid the real issues and focus on the easy and “safe” ones that the Church has been focusing on for the last century. I know that’s why I left! but I keep coming back to places like this hoping that, even in the midst of your negativity, a positive discussion would break out on what we can do to fulfill the great commission (which I’m pretty sure said “go into the WORLD”, not “just when you happen upon someone….”) as well as how we as American followers of Christ can truly Love our worldly neighbors!”

And there he says too much. What are the “real issues”? How many people go to hell because the poor in Africa aren’t fed? (And don’t think I’m saying “don’t feed the hungry”) People need salvation. That is the central issue. All other issues are barely even secondary to that.

Let’s discuss for a moment the great commission. What exactly are we to “go into all the world” to do? To feed the hungry? To fight for justice? (Good goals all) No. To preach the gospel and make disciples.

The trouble is, trying to save the world by any other means misses the point entirely. Are people oppressed because the oppressors don’t know any better? Is the world a bad place because not enough people are nice? Again, no. The issue is sin. Romans 1 makes it clear that the problem is people are refusing to worship God and so he has given them over to the judgement of sin. So what can fix that?
The gospel. Only.

The reason having a positive discussion is so difficult is because when one of the participants denies the centrality of the gospel from the outset, what is left to discuss? This is why the EC and the non-EC can’t agree on any of the solutions to the problems.
Typically, what we non-EC types see are the EC leaders are denying basic things like original sin and the atonement and no one around them is calling them out. That needs to change.

If someone from the EC would clearly delineate the message of the gospel and it’s absolute centrality to all of life and THEN presented these other concerns as other things we could improve on, then there could be a conversation. Until then, I’m not really sure how it can happen.


82. The Thinking Christian
September 29, 2007
2:29 AM

I concede. You guys win. I am an EV who is still devoted yo the gospel message. I also am still a mainstream protestant. However, I completely depart with the statements made that our priority is primarily to BELIEVERS with social needs. I simply cannot comprehend that sort of thinking. Also, the question ” how many people go to hell because we dont feed the hungry in Africa?” is one of the most insensetive and saddest statements I’ ever heard made! That’s a very easy question to ask when you know you will have 3 meals a day like I do! my question is how many people in Africa do we ALLOW to LIVE in hell EVERY DAY because we don’t feed them? I mean, as Americans, we certianly have the power and wealth. And as Christians I truly think we have the responsibility! Yes, I believe in bringing them the “good news”, but don’t you think that they’d be a little more receptive to hearing how to keep their soul out of hell if you can help first get their lived out of their daily hell? Let me phrase that this way: The central message of the death and ressurection of Christ is that of hope. shouldn’t we embody that same message by bringing a social/ physical hope to their situations? Then, we can tell them about another, more lasting hope found in Christ. Am I the only one that makes sense to?

I’m sure you can find some common ground in there, but why do we only want to feed the hungry only when it can be a tool for evangelism? Last time I checked, when Jesus told us to take care of those less fortunate socially, he didn’t follow it up by saying, “but only as a evangelistic tool! If you can’t get them saved then forget I said anything.”

I know none of this is gping to make a difference on this thread, so I give up. If you think that saving souls is the only responsibility, or even just the primary responsibility of being a disciple, then perhaps we do worship a different Jesus! The Christ I worship loves people so much that not only did he come to bring salvation to my soul from hell, he also came to teach those who would follow in his steps the responsibility to save the lives of those people who libe in hell every day!

again, you guys win! I think we’ve reached a stalemate so I surrender and will remain silent. I’m sorry that I sidetracked everyone from this brotherly bashing. please continue, I’m sure that the tolerance that has been shown here will help you win people to Christ. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, and please don’t take offence ( i haven’t). But this is why I work with both mainstream evangelical churches and with EV, because in some places there are people willing to discuss and understand, rather than sit around and publically bash another person and their thoughts.

in sincere regret and much prayer,
blessings and peace


83. donsands
September 29, 2007
9:37 AM

“because in some places there are people willing to discuss and understand, rather than sit around and publically bash another person and their thoughts.”

There’s another very judgemental remark. And very self-righteous.

This post, and review was about Brian McLaren’s teachings. Are they good and biblical, or are they bad and even false?

We had better believe there is a devil who comes as an angel of light. For he is tempting thousands of souls with different gospels and half truths, which will hinder and even blind the eyes, of even the elect, if it were possible.

We need to be watchful, and wise as serpants, and harmless as doves.

And surely we need to caring for the poor, that goes without saying.


84. David Castor
September 29, 2007
10:17 AM

It seems to me that all the arguments against McLaren in this thread can be reduced to the following:

(1) McLaren rejects the evangelical understanding of the gospel
(2) The evangelical understanding of the gospel IS the gospel

Therefore, McLaren rejects the gospel.

I’m sorry guys, but this simply doesn’t cut it, Simply suggesting “I disagree with McLaren, therefore he’s wrong and has departed from the teachings of the Bible” is simply another way of begging the question.

Friends, the game is on. We have nailed our 95 Theses to the door, stating that not only has evangelicalism got the gospel wrong, but that it has got the Bible wrong as well. If you’re willing to argue the case for the evangelical gospel, then go for your life. But if you wish to circumvent conversation and simply pass anathemas on McLaren and company, then we will leave you alone to your obscurantism.


85. The Thinking Christian
September 29, 2007
10:57 AM

donsands, I did not mean my statement to be judgmental, simply an observation of the churches I’ve worked with (and been raised in). please do not take it as me passing judgment on this group of people. I respect your right to believe whatever it is you chose to believe… something that doesn’t seem to happen a lot in churches. Respect??? let’s reread a lot of these threads/posts and ponder that word a second….

whoops i said i would remain silent didn’t I? well i just wanted to thank David for how beautifully he said what he said because that’s pretty much what I was thinking the whole time I wrote. Well put my friend, well put! coffeehouse discussion sometime? :)
peace to all of the rest of you and may your answers never have questions! (sorry, a little postmodern humor there to lighten my morning)


86. The Thinking Christian
September 29, 2007
11:03 AM

again please don’t read any of that as being mean or judgmental, just being humorous. (if you are not postmodern, it probably isn’t humorous to you and therefore might be found offensive, that was not my intent). again, your thoughts and opinions are honored and respected by myself. Please, I have no delusions of self righteousness. I know that I don’t have it all figured out, and listen to all sides in my quest for better understanding God in my life. I am humbled by all I don’t know, and will never know about the God and Christ that I love and serve. please take no offense!


87. donsands
September 29, 2007
2:23 PM

“I am humbled by all I don’t know, and will never know about the God and Christ that I love and serve. please take no offense!”

None taken.

And I am always humbled by the Cross of Christ wher He bore my sins, and drank God’s cup of wrath for me, and for all those who come to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God.

I can’t judge McLaren’s heart, but his teachings, and his disregard for the Holy Scrptures, makes him more likely a false teacher, than a genuine one for me.
Not to mention how he supports the homosexual pastors who have a church in LA, and says we need to revisit our thinking on homosexaul behavior in 5 or 10 years from now when we understand it better.

Once again, Christ warns us, that Satan will come with his false teachers and prophets, so the elect of God if possible, would be deceived.
If that doesn’t scare you, then I fear for your soul.


88. Wordlover
September 29, 2007
6:47 PM

Gary Gilley has a helpful article on the emergent view of the kingdom of God:
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?ID=139

A couple excerpts:

Emergent theology sees the kingdom of God as present now with future culmination as we (the subjects of the kingdom) restore justice, eliminate poverty, clean up the ecosystem, tame global warming and the like. Of course the issue is not whether Christians ought to be involved in finding solutions to these earth-related concerns (we should be and have been and are), but whether this is the mission of the church and whether doing so will more quickly bring in the kingdom.

…..

Emergent kingdom theology, like its liberal postmillennial predecessor, is based not so much on the observation of an improving world but on feelings of desperation. McLaren admits that many might see his kingdom views as a mere pipe dream, but if that is so, “what do [we] have to look forward to if they are right? Simply more of the same in human history…”


89. Rose
September 30, 2007
8:08 PM

I don’t know if I really want to jump in here at this point but here goes nothing.

I am neither a mainline evangelical or a EC christian. I am a Christian but I see problems with both camps. I absolutely agree that McLaren misses the gospel. I’m very traditional on this front. I have no problem with any of you here for criticizing his bad theology. Paul got quite riled up about the judiezers and was very vocal about it. Condemning bad theology is not wrong, and in fact is important, even if it is politically incorrect. I suspect this is where a lot of the clashes in this thread root from. A lot of EC folk do not understand that it’s not right to tolerate error. McLaren’s magnificat shows this clearly. Obviously too, people who agree with his theology would find criticism of it difficult to swallow. I can also understand why people here have a hard time dialoguing with McLaren. It would be like trying to figure out how to build a church building with a muslim. The world view of the two sides is just so different that it’s hard to work together

I also see some of the criticisms of the EC as legitimate. I suspect that a lot of them look in at the evangelical church as a bit of an old boys club. Everyone is nice, white and middle class. The church hardly looks different then the world. While I agree that we’re primary focus is to save souls I think that Christians are also called to care about the temporal needs of the people around them. Jesus went out of his way to feed people and to heal the sick. We are to as well without losing the centrality of the gospel of the cross. Jesus tells us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. What does that mean? Let’s not spiritualize this. The example Jesus gives is of the Samaritan man meeting the temporal needs of the abandoned man. If we are to love others in the way that we love ourselves we certainly will lead them away from hell but we will most definitely also care for their temporal needs.

Some people said that Jesus’ message was not political. To an extent I agree but I believe that if the church was living out radical love political systems would be influenced. Radical love would also cause the church to stand apart from the world and it’s destructive socio-economic forces. For example if all Christians only bought fairly traded products markets would change and we would be set apart from the world though our love of the less fortunate. Also, if Christian communities saw systemic injustice and saw ways of influencing change, why wouldn’t they? This would be a way of doing to others what we would want done for us. Why shouldn’t the church make relieving earthly suffering a bigger goal? Radical love is our goal and that is both spiritually and temporally worked.


90. Philip
October 1, 2007
1:10 AM

Looks like the review on amazon has been taken down…