- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostBook Review Updates
- Next Post »A La Carte (9/19)
The Gospel: Conventional vs. Emerging
- 09/18/07
- 70
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…
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (70)
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.
“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.
Hmm. Sounds like your basic universalism except with pomo trappings.
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?
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.”
“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?
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.
TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THAT IS CORRECT.
Sorry - that was a typo!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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.
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,Steve2 Cor. 4:5-7
Steve—you don’t think the Lord requires doctrinal purity??
2 Timothy 1:14Guard 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
I am so sad for Brian McLaren and those who follow his thinking/teaching/heresies…. I fear for their souls.
“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?
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)
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.”
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.
Is it fair to say that there are two movements…EmergING - “led” by Mark DriscollEmergENT - “led” by Brian McClaren
?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No Penal Substitution = No GospelIf 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!
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,Steve2 Tim. 2:15
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/The_Gospel_Conventional_vs_Emerging
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
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.
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.
“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.
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 ;-)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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”.
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’.
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.
Why even read such poison?
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.
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)