- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (9/26)
- Next Post »A La Carte (9/27)
"Everything Must Change" by Brian McLaren
- 09/26/07
- 90
Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Emasculated Theology…
Those 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Security Crisis - This is the danger of war arising from resentment between the groups at opposite ends of the economic spectrum.
- 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.
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 (90)
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
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…
McLaren may not be “wishy-washy”, but his teaching is clearly liberal (modern-day Socinian).
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?
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.
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.
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!
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…
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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…
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 ofDriscoll’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…
“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…
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!
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…
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
“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.)
“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?
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…
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…
“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?
Whoops, that second paragraph was supposed to be in italics too. Must have missed that!
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?
These four “crisis” points all seems to be solved in communism. Why even bother with Jesus we just need to perfect Marxism!
“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.
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.
“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.”?
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.
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.
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.”
Tim, your review disappeared from Amazon again. Thanks for writing this.
There are only two reviews on amazon for the book, and both are glowing.
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’?
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.
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’.
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.
It’s amazing that your reviews keep disappearing. That’s twice now.