Does Brian McLaren’s Vision Lead to Violence?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, April 30, 2008
- Viewed 160
- (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 Sat, May 03, 2008
Wendi:
This may sound like splitting hairs, but I think this is what I was trying to get at:
“CS – over and over Jesus talks about FAITH saving, not knowledge or correct doctrine. “
No, by GRACE we are saved, through FAITH. Our faith cannot save us, it is only by God’s grace that we are saved.
So, how does that relate to correct Biblical understanding of topics such as Hell as I have been discussing? I would say that to have faith in something, that person should have correct understanding of it.
For example, if I had faith that Jesus saved me, but my belief in Jesus was that he was a twelve-horned fish who lived in the Baltic Sea, that would be erroneous. That sort of faith would not be in line with the grace offered by God.
Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to consider that people who do not have total correct Biblical understanding could go to Heaven when they die. Yet for a pastor like McLaren to preach something other than the literal version of Hell presented in the Bible to people, especially after being approached by other believers for correction, is heretical.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Sun, May 04, 2008
Ahh, but CS…
...a LOT of people who believe in the Bible as God’s word don’t believe Jesus DOES teach a literal hell, who interpret those teachings as metaphorical. Where does that leave them? If they disagree with you or with me on this doctrine, is that central?
I put to you that it is not so simple an issue.
Peter Hamm on Sun, May 04, 2008
Also,
on the “faith saving” issue, we are splitting hairs here.
After all, in Luke 7:50 [Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”] Hmmm… sounds like somebody’s faith saved them.
Wendi on Sun, May 04, 2008
CS – I am going to try to resist being drawn into a long and useless debate about this (so why am I posting again????). There are many things we disagree about, and I think we’re both fine with that. However . . .
For you to claim that someone must have a correct (in your view) understanding of a particular doctrine in order to be saved is ADDING to Jesus’ own requirements for salvation. From the early centuries people did this, and it was always considered heresy. Faith (and only faith) in Jesus as the one (and only one) who died and was raised again to restore my broken relationship with God is ALL that Jesus required for salvation. Should we help people learn how to live their lives as a Christ follower? We must. Should we help people understand and embrace the various doctrines of the faith? Absolutely?
I work with Christian people in Swaziland, Africa. They are precious people who deeply love Jesus. They understand He died and rose from the dead to save them from their sins. But . . . their culture makes it difficult to understand some of what we consider orthodox. For example, although they follow Jesus enthusiastically, many also still pray to their ancestors. Many live in households with many wives. Polygamy and multiple partners is the norm in Swaziland. (Please don’t respond about this “sin” issue – it is too complicated and I won’t engage with you about it). My point is, there is much that these wonderful people have wrong in their understanding of Christianity, but what they have right is enough. I am very worried that what they have wrong is devastating their lives and am working with others to help them gain good biblical knowledge and learn new skills for biblical living. However, I am not one bit worried for their salvation (which is not to say that we are unaware of the unsaved people in Swaziland who need to be reached).
CS – I’d like to ask you what you’ve regularly asked of us. Please show us one passage that supports your claim that believing in a literal hell is required for salvation (and I know you claim Jesus believed in a literal hell – which may be true, but that doesn’t provide evidence that it is required for salvation). If you cannot, then I hope you will consider that you are ADDING to what Jesus required for salvation.
Wendi
CS on Sun, May 04, 2008
Wendi:
“Please show us one passage that supports your claim that believing in a literal hell is required for salvation (and I know you claim Jesus believed in a literal hell – which may be true, but that doesn’t provide evidence that it is required for salvation). “
Hermeneutically, the first thing to look for would be a verse that says, “If you don’t believe in Hell properly, you will not be saved,” or, conversely, “Proper belief in Hell is a requirement for salvation.” You probably knew this when you wrote the question, but there is no such verse in the Bible. So what do we have, instead, that may lend credence to my belief that a person should have a proper understanding of a literal Hell as a part of their salvation? (Note that I did not say “must,” but said, “should,” which leaves a door open for flexibility.)
The Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that says that we are saved by grace through faith. I agree totally with this, and do not believe in burdening people with additional requirements for salvation (sorry to disappoint, Peter). Our salvation is solely dependent on God’s grace and what He did on the cross. So, let’s take a little more in-depth look at faith.
Proper knowledge with faith is something that the Bible demonstrates people should have. Peter commends people in 2 Peter 1:5 to, “add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge.” So, there is a tie-in with knowledge. How does that affect people?
In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, for instance, Paul rebukes Hymenaeus and Philetus for saying that, “the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” This shows that having doctrines that do not match up with Scripture and prophecy is wrong and can lead peoples’ faith astray. I would say that the same goes for preachers who deny a literal view of Hell. (Additionally, this is the same Hymenaeus that gets referred to in 1 Timothy 1:18-20, who, with Alexander in tow, suffer “shipwreck” in their faith by rejecting certain knowledge about Timothy, again crystallizing this idea.)
In Titus 1:13-14, similarly, Paul also links faith and truth by saying, “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” So to be sound in the faith, Paul says there is again some knowledge of truth required.
With these sorts of verses, I attest that a person should have proper knowledge as a part of their faith in their salvation. Not a requirement, but it prevents error that could be harmful and lead to false conversion. I also attest that for a pastor to say something grossly contradicting the Bible could damage the faith of others.
—
CS
Wendi on Sun, May 04, 2008
CS –
I’m glad too hear you say that a “correct” understanding of hell is not required for salvation. I hope you understand that Peter and I have pushed back on you because your previous posts you appear to indeed be adding correct knowledge as a requirement for saving faith.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that faith which is not biblical informed is dangerous. I think the illustration I gave about my friends in Swaziland makes that point.
However, as Peter pointed out, there are many Christians (and Pastors) who, after a careful and thorough study of scripture, have interpreted the references to hell metaphorically. If they are wrong in their interpretation, it still doesn’t compromise one’s salvation, so I wouldn’t consider this to be heresy. On that, I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
Wendi
pasdad on Mon, May 05, 2008
CVP training for the CCVP certification exam using CCVP practice test questions
CCVP Certification
MCP Certification
Peter Hamm on Mon, May 05, 2008
CS,
Thanks for being respectful in your position. I wanted to point out some things, at the risk of “arguing about geneologies…” http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
2 Peter 1:5 is about how to live life, not “how to be saved”. Interesting that Peter sums up the paragraph by pointing out lifestyle issues FIRST (Of course, you could argue that that whole list is lifestyle issues). “For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.”
You write [In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, for instance, Paul rebukes Hymenaeus and Philetus for saying that, “the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” This shows that having doctrines that do not match up with Scripture and prophecy is wrong and can lead peoples’ faith astray.] I submit that is an extrapolation at best. All we know is that Paul is once again stressing that without the resurrection it all falls apart. I can tell you that unlike some who I WOULD label as heretical, such as Spong, McLaren is NOT saying there is no resurrection.
And at the very end of the paragraph with that Titus passage, we find out what Paul is really condemning, which is those who “claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him”. Hmmm… sounds like Paul’s talking about actions here.
But you are right that believers should seek to always gain a truer understanding of what is really true and good and holy. I agree with that sentiment. As we often end up saying around here… At the end of the day, we agree more than we disagree.
Leonard Lee on Mon, May 05, 2008
McLaren says the church has had most things wrong since the second century. I heard him say that in an interview with Steve Brown about his book “everything must change”) McLaren is not dangerous because he is questioning the literal existence of a place called hell, he is dangerous because he loves his questions more than answers. When I first met him he was aksing some questions that were about the transition taking place in a generation of Christ followers. We discussed several things together. What has happened with him IMO is that he simply got in a habit of deconstruction.
Daniel on Mon, May 05, 2008
Leonard, I have to point out that McLaren asks questions because so many Christians think they have the answers. But all he’s doing is reading recent (orthodox) scholarship (e.g. NT Wright, Andrew Perriman, et al.) as well as some good old Anabaptist theologians (Menno Simmons, John Howard Yoder, Dorothy Day)—who have been with us all along, but generally as ‘marginal voices’—and suggesting that we need to take seriously their insights.
Seriously folks, if you want to understand McLaren, read the people he’s reading. He pushes questions because he wants people to think through things for themselves. People like me have had the luxury of asking the questions, reading the books, opening our minds, and then closing them again on something solid: Anabaptist theology. Likewise, I think McLaren has a number of ‘answers’ (though certainly not all the answers); but as any good teacher knows, giving the answers often shortchanges the thought-processes from which people actually learn. I’m grateful he’s willing to keep asking the same questions, myself.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Leonard Lee on Mon, May 05, 2008
I agree Daniel, he does ask questions for those reasons but you cannot blame others for his habits. He reminds me of the critical parent who gently can only find wrong with their child. Whose critique oriented and deconstructing questions are couched in I love you so I have to ask you this, have to tell you this, have to say this to you.
He loves the church but can only point out how big her butt has gotten… is another way to say it. He comes across as a guy who has simply gotten in a bad habit of deconstruction.
I have read some of the people you site and I get McLaren. Don’t assume because we disagree with Wright or McLaren that we misunderstand them. This mindset communicates if we were just a bit more enlightened then we would see things correctly.
Daniel on Mon, May 05, 2008
Leonard—point taken. My own debt to McLaren has not bred a dependence on his writing, and so I have perhaps a distorted view. His questions caused me to search for answers, which I believe I have found in Anabaptist theology (informed by Wright et al.).
I can easily imagine that someone has only listens to McLaren would get in a deconstructive rut… http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
The reason I keep bringing up Wright is not because I think I’m smarter than everyone else (and I really am sorry if that’s how it comes off), but rather because too few people genuinely interact with his work (especially in mainstream ‘Arminian’ evangelicalism).
Peace,
-Daniel-
DanielR on Wed, May 07, 2008
CS, while I agree that part of the foundation of knowledge Christians should have is an understanding of hell, I can understand why there are vast differences in peoples’ understanding of hell. If I read only the KJV for an understanding of hell I may get a vastly different image than if I read only the NIV.
Depending on the translation used, the word Hell is found in the Bible up to 54 times (54 times in the KJV, in the NET Bible you only find the word hell 16 times, 20 times in the NLT, and 14 times in the NIV). It is translated from several different words with various meanings. In the Old Testament from the Hebrew “Sheol,” which means the grave or the place of the dead. In the New Testament from the Greek “Hades,” which again means the grave or place of the dead, from the Greek “Gehenna,” which means the “place of burning” and seems to refer to the Valley of Hinnom which was located outside of Jerusalem. It was into this ravine that the people of Jerusalem threw their trash which they burned using brimstone (sulfur) to ignite and burn the trash. I believe they also burned the bodies of criminals and such that no one cared to bury properly there.
None of these words really translate clearly into the modern day concept of the literal hell that you seem to espouse. The modern image of hell seems to come mostly from the writings of the poet Dante and his book, Inferno. Dante’s Inferno was written sometime between 1308 and 1321 and greatly influenced people’s concept of hell. By the time the King James Bible was written between1604-1611 Dante’s image of hell had been widely accepted and may have influenced the translation of the various different words from the old manuscripts into the common word “hell”.
Isn’t there heaven and then anything else or “not heaven” or hell? (heaven = good) (anything else/hell = bad).
All this to ask that while an understanding of hell is important, is knowing exactly where hell is and what it will look like to those who go there really necessary? What do you mean by the “literal version of Hell presented in the Bible”?
CS on Wed, May 07, 2008
DanielR:
“All this to ask that while an understanding of hell is important, is knowing exactly where hell is and what it will look like to those who go there really necessary? What do you mean by the “literal version of Hell presented in the Bible”?”
Not to go full circle with this discussion again, but here is the short version of what is used to describe Hades/Hell. And it is a place, just like Heaven is a place where Jesus said He would go to receive us (John 14:2):
-A place of outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30).
-A place prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6-7).
-A place that will be cast into the lake of fire, where the wicked will burn for eternity following the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:14).
Now, in regards to your first question, the larger question should be, “what knowledge is necessary as a part of our saving faith?” which is what Wendi, Peter, and I discussed pretty well.
Here are some examples of things where I look at the knowledge present in faith and have to ask questions:
-What about the faith of someone who believes The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as three incarnations of one person, instead of three distinct persons in the Godhead (modalism)?
-What about the faith of someone who believes that Christ was not born of a virgin? (And I do mean “virgin” as in “never had sex before” and not “young maiden.”)
-What about the faith of someone who believes that Christ, after the resurrection, went on living here on earth, married, and had children?
-What about the faith of someone who believes that everyone will go to Heaven when they die?
-What about the faith of someone who says that there is no Hell?
—
CS
CS on Wed, May 07, 2008
DanielR:
“Isn’t there heaven and then anything else or “not heaven” or hell? (heaven = good) (anything else/hell = bad). “
I overlooked this question initially. By this definition, earth would equal Hell, because it is not Heaven and not completely good. And I think that we could both see how that logic is incorrect.
—
CS
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment