Does Brian McLaren’s Vision Lead to Violence?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, April 30, 2008
- Viewed 249
- (49) comments so far
“Many of us have been increasingly critical in recent years of popular American eschatology in general, and conventional views of hell in particular,” he writes. “Simply put, if we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly.”
McLaren also argues the orthodox understanding that Jesus will return at a future date and forcefully conquer all His enemies needs rethinking.
“This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe (as we’ve said before) that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion; no one should be surprised when those shaped by this theology behave accordingly,” McLaren writes.
Moore, who also serves as dean of Southern’s school of theology, said the doctrine of a forceful Jesus actually should restrain Christians from committing acts of violence.
“When the apostle Peter takes up the sword to defend Jesus, he is rebuked precisely because Jesus says He can call ‘more than twelve legions of angels’ to defend Him (Matthew 26:53), but His time is not yet,” Moore said. “The apostle Paul tells us not to avenge ourselves. Why? Because, he writes, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’ (Romans 12:18-20).
“As for domination, the Bible tells us not to dominate one another, precisely because ‘we will all stand before the judgment seat of God’ (Romans 12:10).”
Even though McLaren claims to want world peace, his own view is actually the one that leads to violence, Moore said.
“When a Christian understands that he does not fight for his own honor, but that justice will be done by God, either through union with Christ and His cross or at the judgment itself, the Christian is freed then to trust God, not his sword or his gun or his fists or his tongue,” he said. “It is McLaren’s vision of a life that consists only of the justice achieved in this era that leads to violence and Darwinian struggle to see that a pound of flesh is exacted.
“It is the kind of world that McLaren envisions, without a messianic hope of a second coming, that leads to the bloody utopian experiments we have seen throughout the twentieth century. If human beings do not expect a Messiah in the skies, they will expect to elect one or anoint one or biochemically engineer one. And, do not be deceived, such pseudo-Messiahs always eventually have a sword.”
Christians should know by now that McLaren displays “hostility to the most basic aspects of the Gospel message,” Moore said, adding that Willow Creek should not have invited him to speak.
You can read more here at the Florida Baptist Witness...
Your input: What do you think of Brian McLaren? Do you agree with the thought that his theology could lead to violence? Is McLaren one that you have embraced or distanced yourself from?
Recent denials of hell and a literal second coming of Christ by emerging church leader Brian McLaren are absurd and actually lead to the kind of violence McLaren seeks to prevent, said Russell D. Moore, senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. In his latest book, Everything Must Change, McLaren argued that those who believe in a Jesus who will crush His enemies by force may be inclined to dominate and take advantage of other people...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Brent H on Wed, April 30, 2008
Interesting how this misses the entire point of the book. Even if you don’t agree with McLaren’s eschatological views, I think what he is trying to say is that what Christ teaches is that it’s not about redemptive violence at all. Not ours, not God’s. It’s about overcoming evil with good, overcoming violence with love.
Those who believe this don’t visit violence on others because God won’t, they seek to overcome through the power of God the same way they believe God will when Christ returns, through love and mercy. Justice will take place, just not through violence and coercion.
I’m not saying McLaren’s right (I’m not convinced he’s entirely wrong, either), I’m just saying that Moore misses the entire point.
bryan allain on Wed, April 30, 2008
I think McLaren makes a lot of good points, though I probably don’t track with him all the way through to ALL of his conclusions. I haven’t read “Everything Must Change”, but I plan on it.
incidentally, Brian just completed my sports survey. click here if you want to read it.
Todd, I’m dying to have you fill out one of these things…
Peter Hamm on Wed, April 30, 2008
If I was only going by the quotes out of context and the misquotes, then I would be more concerned. But I have read most of McLaren’s work (at least 6 of his books), and having met him, and having worshipped with the congregation of the church he founded, and so I am less concerned than some think I should be.
Do I agree with him on every detail of theology? Nope. I don’t think so. But his harshest critics have not, it is obvious to me, actually read and understood what he is saying.
fishon on Wed, April 30, 2008
Peter,
I have not read anything by McLaren. So I will have to, for the moment, rely upon you.
Is Russell D. Moore wrong in his assurtion that McLaren denies a literal hell and the literal coming of Jesus? My question is pretty straight forward.
fishon
Peter Hamm on Wed, April 30, 2008
It is a straightforward question, but you will not get a straightforward answer out of McLaren. Sorry, that doesn’t help.
I do wonder if a belief in a literal hell as it is understood by 20th and 21st century evangelicals should be as high as it is on the list of “must haves” for orthodoxy, though.
CS on Wed, April 30, 2008
I would say that McLaren’s visions lead to more violence. I mean, whenever I read his stuff, I wind up hitting my head against a wall for a while to try to get that nonsense back out. =)
—
CS
CS on Wed, April 30, 2008
Peter:
“I do wonder if a belief in a literal hell as it is understood by 20th and 21st century evangelicals should be as high as it is on the list of “must haves” for orthodoxy, though.”
I would say that the proper view of the afterlife is part of the essentials of our faith and not a secondary matter such as tattoos, drinking, or celebrating Christmas. If we do not understand why sins must be punished, or why Jesus went to the cross, we would not understand rightly why there is a Hell.
Good question, though.
—
CS
Jonathan K. on Wed, April 30, 2008
I’ve heard Brian speak before at an Inter Varsity conference, before he became such a controversial figure in the church. I am disappointed in his denials of hell and a literal second coming. These truths are clearly taught in the Word of God. What is also sad is his view of the term “violence.” The Scriptures are very clear that the Kingdom of God suffers violence and “the violent take it by force.” While it is true that terrorists and fear-mongerers might take that verse out of context, it is not an excuse for Brian as a minister of the gospel to basically throw that verse out of the Bible.
Daniel on Wed, April 30, 2008
McLaren has essentially endorsed the eschatological views of NT Wright and Andrew Perriman, both of which are thoroughly orthodox. The point is that the so-called second coming is often explicated using texts that have nothing to do with Jesus’ presence in the new heavens and the new Earth (which McLaren whole-heartedly affirms).
As far as ‘hell’… well, McLaren isn’t saying we should ignore Scripture but rather that we should read it more closely. Start with a word study. ‘Hell’ is a post-biblical construct. The Biblical concepts are Sheol (/Hades) and Gehenna. The picture of ‘hell’ that emerges out of those two is perhaps a little different than that of dispensational eschatology, but is far more biblical.
Read for yourselves folks. Second-hand ad hominems are never helpful.
Peace,
-Daniel-
stewart on Wed, April 30, 2008
I would add my voice to Danie’s comment.
Brian McLaren denied neither hell nor Jesus’ second coming. I don’t want to speak too much on Brian’s behalf, but I think it is safe to say that he does not believe “hell” as presented in Scripture corresponds to the “hell” that is often parrotted in our churches.
I’ll speak for myself. I believe hell is real. But I don’t envision the devil with a pitchfork pokin’ people in the rear while flames encircle the scene. That’s the image I was taught in church. It is reinforced by popular mythology. But I do not find it in Scripture. I think that’s what Brian is rejecting.
As for Jesus’ second coming. Brian is not rejecting that. He’s rejecting the violent images of second coming as typified by the “Left Behind” books that were such the rage a few years ago. Again, not the primary image presented in Scripture.
We need to stop reading the bible through the lens of 19th and 20th Century mistakes. [Insert sarcasm here] It might be worthwhile to actually try to understand the author’s intent before we try to understand what Scripture means for us today.
Okay. End rant.
Wendi on Thu, May 01, 2008
As long as someone isn’t a universalist (which I am confident McLaren IS NOT, because he says he’s not and because nothing I’ve read indicates that he is), then how would unconventional views about heaven or hell, or embracing a realized eschatological position lead anyone to hell? If people are invited to follow Jesus and taught how to live this life as a devoted disciple, doesn’t that cover all the necessary doctrinal issues?
It does in my book.
And I think it is ridiculous to claim that a realized eschatology promotes violence (again, don’t feel McLaren advocates that here). Moore is looking for justification to get into a doctrinal school-yard fight.
Wendi
Jeremiah on Thu, May 01, 2008
In the same article from which they quoted McLaren he says
“...Jesus committed an act similar to the Chinese student at Tiananmen Square in the late 1980s.”
Are you serious! I am constantly amazed by the ‘emergents” desire to make Jesus Christ to be a political, historical and socially relevant person and nothing more.
2 Tim. 3:5
Where is the God of power, strength, majesty AND of grace. Where is the God of David and the God of Paul? Why must there be this constant false balance of Kingdom vision vs. social responsibility. McLaren’s concepts are no better than the conservative legalist who scares people into “Christianity.” He has blinded people to believe that Christ is nothing more than a social role model - void of the power over death and life.
My stomach turns.
CS on Thu, May 01, 2008
Wendi:
“then how would unconventional views about heaven or hell, or embracing a realized eschatological position lead anyone to hell? If people are invited to follow Jesus and taught how to live this life as a devoted disciple, doesn’t that cover all the necessary doctrinal issues?”
By this standard, wouldn’t Mormons also therefore be fine? They have similar views on Hell to McLaren (it doesn’t really exist as a literal lake of fire), and they live their lives following after who they say is the same person of Jesus that we follow, too.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Thu, May 01, 2008
CS
That’s a straw man if I ever saw one. Mormons do not believe in Jesus as the unique son of God. They do not even believe in the uniqueness of the “one God”.
Jeremiah on Thu, May 01, 2008
I agree CS, but I believe Wendi’s point is that if people start misinterpreting the basic and clear doctrines of our faith eventually you’ll be led down that slippery slope.
McLaren speaks often of Orthodoxy but yet his great desire is to be completely unconventional. Christianity isn’t about originality its about truth that has existed since the creation.
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment