- 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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
” 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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There is no RANDYHURSTBLOGSPOT.COM. I’m not sure how that got in the your name box.
“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.
“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.
David,You write, but you don’t say anything.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
”- 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
Tim, Your review has been deleted for a 3rd time and mine, as far as I know, never showed up.
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?
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.
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.
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!
“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.
“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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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)
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!
“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.
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…”
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.
Looks like the review on amazon has been taken down…