Does Brian McLaren’s Vision Lead to Violence?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, April 30, 2008
- Viewed 169
- (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.
CS on Thu, May 01, 2008
Peter:
“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”.”
Ah! That’s exactly the point. If not believing in Jesus as the unique son of God or the uniqueness of God Himself disqualifies them from following proper doctrine, at what point does other doctrine in the Bible become inessential or vague enough for wide interpretations, but still qualifying as “Christian”?
In Wendi’s question, she dismissed views on Hell or eschatology for people who, “follow Jesus and taught how to live this life as a devoted disciple.” I would ask how someone could be a disciple of Jesus and not believe in Hell as He described it in Luke 16, for instance. Or, conversely, could I throw out something like taking communion as believers, even standing against it, and still be considered Christian? What no longer qualifies as the core beliefs of Christianity?
—
CS
Jeremiah on Thu, May 01, 2008
Peter,
I completely concur.
Peter Hamm on Thu, May 01, 2008
CS,
First off, the description of the man in “hell” in Luke 16 can’t be totally theologically accurate according to many modern understandings of hell, for how would we be able to explain the rich man speaking to Father Abraham. Perhaps that story isn’t about hell at all? Out of context with the rest of Jesus’ teaching, that story seems to teach a salvation by works message, which we KNOW is not what Jesus taught. Or perhaps it teaches that all rich men will fry? Or that only poor people will be saved? (The “hell” in that passage is “the place of the dead” by the way. Hades. not Gehenna… now I’m REALLY getting confused… anybody else?) http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
[at what point does other doctrine in the Bible become inessential or vague enough for wide interpretations, but still qualifying as “Christian”?] That’s a good question. There are many things, I suspect, that might be on your list of “essential doctrines” that are not on mine. But anyone who calls upon Jesus will be saved, we know that.
I sometimes think we are trying to make the narrow way even narrower. We keep arguing (even here) that following Jesus is believing the right list of things about Jesus and God and Hell and ________(you fill in the blanks) instead of believing Jesus and believing in what he believed in. (I’ve said that a lot lately, I sound like a broken record. I got it from David Augsburger, by the way…)
Jeremiah on Thu, May 01, 2008
CS,
The point is that then New Testament and Jesus himself help us to form the essential doctrines. One of those essential doctrines, if take literally, is the doctrine of hell. If you want to spiritualize the scriptures and abuse essential principles of study you can arrive at any conclusion you desire.
Taking God at his word is a very rare characteristic in todays church someone like McLaren perpetuates this abuse.
This is all kind of funny considering Christ spoke more about a literal place called hell than he did a literal place called heaven. You don’t hear very many people debating whether or not heaven exists do you: )
Peter II on Thu, May 01, 2008
If you have to believe that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God to be a Christian, then millions of Christians over the ages are burning in Hell.
For me, 99% of the gospel could be made up and it would not shake my faith in Christ.
I feel sorry for those whose faith rests upon the Bible being literally true.
Hell is the absence of God, and for all we know, we may be living in it right now.
Leonard Lee on Thu, May 01, 2008
Like Peter I too have read many McLaren’s works and have met him a few times. We sat for several hours before he was “The Brian McLaren”. I have found him to be a gentle and genuine man who I believe love his Savior deeply. I do not believe his view will cause more violence and feel as though this gentleman is stretching a bit.
I do not agree with huge portions of McLaren’s thinking.
Wendi on Thu, May 01, 2008
Come on CS, you know me well enough to know that I acknowledge the difference between a historical orthodox Christian view of Jesus and a Mormon view of Jesus. A person can indeed interpret scripture in a way that does NOT acknowledge a literal hell (though I have no evidence that McLaren is in this camp) or a personal and future return of Jesus, but still embrace His divinity, His death and resurrection on our behalf, the depravity of humanity and her need for a savior.
In seminary, one of my favorite professors embraced a realized eschatology. I did not agree with his views, but there is no question about his commitment to Jesus.
Wendi
Jason Pettus on Fri, May 02, 2008
Psalm 45:2-72You are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed with grace, since God has blessed you forever. 3Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendor and majesty. 4In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds. 5Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies; let the nations fall beneath your feet. 6Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. 7You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
CS on Fri, May 02, 2008
Peter II:
“For me, 99% of the gospel could be made up and it would not shake my faith in Christ.”
God revealed who He is through the Gospel. The Gospel is God’s definition of who Jesus Christ is. Therefore, if the Gospel is inaccurate, then who you believe Jesus Christ to be would be inaccurate as well. Do you see the logical fallacy here?
Wendi:
“A person can indeed interpret scripture in a way that does NOT acknowledge a literal hell (though I have no evidence that McLaren is in this camp) or a personal and future return of Jesus, but still embrace His divinity, His death and resurrection on our behalf, the depravity of humanity and her need for a savior.”
I disagree. Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. Why? To save us from the consequences to those sins—death, and punishment in a literal Hell—all for His glory. And He made promises in the Bible to come again. If we believe in an eschatology that denies this, we call God a liar.
We have to have a correct view on these things. We can be learning and growing from where we have been, and initially err, but a long-term view like this is not Biblical and can lead to souls perishing, like with the Mormons.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Fri, May 02, 2008
CS,
So let me get this straight. Someone who trust Jesus, follows him, and believes him to be God’s only Son sent to save us from our sins, but who interprets the New Testament message of hell incorrectly is not saved?
Again, Saving faith is where I trust in Jesus, and follow him, not where I believe the list of correct things about God, Hell, heaven, eternity, etc…
Your list of “necessary things to believe” is, I suspect, too long for me.
CS on Fri, May 02, 2008
Peter:
“So let me get this straight. Someone who trust Jesus, follows him, and believes him to be God’s only Son sent to save us from our sins, but who interprets the New Testament message of hell incorrectly is not saved?”
I would say that the odds are likely that the person is not saved. I cannot cast the final judgment, and am willing to say I may be in error, but I would have some serious concerns for a person who believes this because there are likely also other problems with their theology.
“Your list of “necessary things to believe” is, I suspect, too long for me.”
Going back to something you said earlier:
“We keep arguing (even here) that following Jesus is believing the right list of things about Jesus and God and Hell and ________(you fill in the blanks) instead of believing Jesus and believing in what he believed in.” (Emphasis mine)
I would say that Jesus believed in a literal Hell, which would qualify for both what you and I believe. My list isn’t that long, either; I’d say it matches up pretty well with your later statement.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Fri, May 02, 2008
No, CS. My comment you quoted that you agreed with was my comment about FOLLOWING Jesus, not a comment about “saving faith”.
To you, saving faith entails a pretty detailed list of specific items to believe about Jesus, God, Heaven, Hell, etc. Even to the point of saying that somebody who truly believes in Jesus and trust Him for their salvation can somehow not be saved.
I can not disagree strongly enough. That is not saving faith, but merely intellectual assent. There are plenty of folks who follow Jesus and believe in him, and yet do not agree with some pretty basic orthodoxy. I would conjecture it’s totally possible for them to be saved. Are they wrong about stuff? Sure, Maybe I am, too. Will the Holy Spirit guide us all into all truth. Sure, maybe not “all truth” till we get there and see face to face, but it will happen for all of us, and it happens with me as I go along in this life of following Jesus.
Again, we all have problems with our theology. Our theology doesn’t save us. Jesus does. He’s real, and you can follow him and be wrong about a great many things.
Wendi on Fri, May 02, 2008
CS – over and over Jesus talks about FAITH saving, not knowledge or correct doctrine. Over the centuries there have been billions of people who had saving faith with very little knowledge or understanding, starting with the thief who hung on the cross next to Jesus. NO WHERE does Jesus indicate that being able to correctly articulate Christian doctrine is required for salvation. You, my friend, are adding rules to the message that Jesus Himself communicated, and that is a false gospel.
Wendi
Daniel on Sat, May 03, 2008
Just a thought: personally I find the discussion of ‘salvation’ in the abstract to be problematic. In the context of Second Temple Judaism, the ‘salvation’ which Jesus and John the Baptizer preached was the salvation of (a remnant of) Israel from historical judgment (the ‘wrath of God’). This ‘salvation’ is of course to be located in the larger narrative of God’s redemptive purposes for Creation and his calling of Abraham and Sarah’s descendants.
But my point is that if we fixate on ‘what it takes to be saved’ (faith? saving faith? orthodoxy? defined by which church?), we tend to fall back into the Lutheran error of thinking primarily in terms of a legal standing before God (i.e. ‘righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’). But if serious study of Scripture teaches us anything, it’s that this narrowing of the scope of ‘salvation’ is unbiblical!
Let us think clearly and precisely about doctrine, but let us remember that God’s salvific purposes in the world are to be carried out by the Church. That is, ‘salvation’ is corporate! It is personal AND social redemption from the fallen patterns of this world (e.g. pride, lust, greed, materialism, consumerism, etc.). In an important sense then, ‘salvation’ is God’s bringing into the present the future plan for redemption for all Creation. That is ‘salvation’ carries the already/not yet mark of God’s Reign. To be ‘saved’ is to be baptized. But baptism is the first step, not the last, and sanctification also is ‘salvation’.
Put succinctly, you might say no one is fully ‘saved’ yet. And no community is fully ‘saved’ yet. Those of us who pledge allegiance to Jesus through baptism are called to transformation through attentiveness to the Spirit, but I insist that this is a process, a ‘race’. None of us have crossed the finish line yet.
Maybe that wasn’t helpful, I don’t know. I just felt the discussion of ‘salvation’ was unnecessarily narrow. Do with that what you will.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Daniel on Sat, May 03, 2008
Or to rephrase it perhaps more controversially, this dialogue is exhibit A in my case that when Christianity boils down to afterlife theology, everything gets distorted.
‘Hell’ is a post-biblical construct. ‘Heaven’ is where God lives. Neither are ‘final destinations’. Resurrection is the New Testament’s final horizon my friends, and resurrection means nothing less than a (re)new(ed) Earth. Everything else is fuzzy, and not the center of our faith.
Rather, the center of faith is (or should be) BEING the people of God, the ‘Israel of God’, to be the ‘city on a hill’ which manifests to all nations what right-relatedness to the Creator looks like.
Peace.
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment