Does Brian McLaren’s Vision Lead to Violence?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, April 30, 2008
- Viewed 159
- (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.
Peter Hamm on Wed, May 07, 2008
CS writes
[-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?]
If they believe in Jesus trust him, and do what he says, but have any of this figured out wrong, I don’t think it has any eternal significance on their soul. The Spirit will lead us all into all truth, and in order for that to be true, that would mean that some things we believe as we go along are incorrect.
You obviously disagree with my contention that to be “saved” is to trust in Christ and believe him and in him, not to mentally assent to a list of correct theology. Much of what you say above is a not-too-veiled question about someone who trusts in Jesus but doesn’t believe the Bible to be inspired or authoritative. My experience is that these people’s views on that will change as they follow him. Jesus never said you had to believe in the canonical scriptures as authoritative and inspired to be born again, but he did say you have to trust in him. I guess we are merely defining it differently.
And remember that not everyone who follows Jesus is a theologian who thinks deeply about these things. Some are just regular guys. They don’t understand words like “premillenial”, “modalism”, and the like.
Ladies and gentlemen, I propose to you that we may be attempting to remove gnats from our drinking water, and you know what that means we might be swallowing…
http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
DanielR on Thu, May 08, 2008
CS, I followed your previous discussion of “what knowledge is necessary as a part of our saving faith?”
I was interested specifically in understanding what you meant by “literal version of Hell presented in the Bible”?
I’m sure Peter, Leonard, Wendi, et al, believe in heaven and hell, and although Brian McLaren’s concept of hell may be different than yours or mine I believe from what I’ve read of his writing on the subject that he does believe in heaven and hell.
If someone says that hell is a state of being rather than a place, I don’t think that means that they don’t believe in hell. If someone says they don’t believe hell is really located underground in the middle of the earth, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in hell.
It seems to me that you’re saying a person has to believe in the idea of hell as a physical place, such as is described in Dante’s Inferno, or they don’t really believe in hell.
It seems to me that the scriptures use the image of Gehenna to represent hell because that image was relevant to people at that time, it was an image they could relate to; the image of never-ending death and decay, of fire and the smell of burning sulphur and they could imagine what it would be like to be confined to such a place.
Today that image is not so relevant to people. We have cartoons with little demons running around poking people with little pitchforks and we are subjected to images all the time designed to minimize the seriousness of hell and make the devil seem not that menacing. Satan wants to lull people into complacency, into not worrying too much about the consequences of sin because hell isn’t really that menacing.
I don’t see a problem in telling people you don’t know what hell is realy like, as long as you can help them understand that hell is where they don’t want to spend eternity and that hell is the very serious consequence of sin. If someone is really afraid of fire then Dante’s image of hell may be very relevant to them and help them understand. For someone who struggles with depression relating hell as a place of eternal torment where despair is omnipresent and the sadness is like a weight around your neck constantly dragging you down for all eternity may be an image they can better relate to.
I think we all believe in hell, but you seem to be saying that people who don’t believe in the same image of hell as you don’t really believe in hell. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t see a big difference in where you seem to stand on the concept of hell and where everyone else in the conversation stands. The difference seems to be only in your mind. I think we all agree but it seems like you don’t think we agree.
Phil DiLernia on Mon, May 12, 2008
Wow ... what a post! Sort of sad really. I think we’ve developed into a generation who prides itself in its freedom and ability to “ask” questions ... it’s really quite the paradox ... postmoderns who revel in their ability to be “open” and “ask” any question then do themselves a disservice when the answers become obvious.
This whole thing about being a Christ “follower” is sort of funny really. Do you want to be a Christ follower concerning the theology of Hell? Then go through the entire NT and read every verse that mentions it, teaches about it, warns against it, and overall sheds light on it. The amount of verses that deal with it are astounding. Jesus is continually warning against it (by the way I’m thinking that He warns against Hell maybe even more so than He invites us towards Heaven!)
Wanna be a Christ follower? Then follow His focus on Hell and teach about it as much as He does. I didn’t say “what” to teach about it, but teach your understanding of it which will cause you to focus on it as much as He does then I’m confident the Spirit of God will lead you into the truth about it.
I love questioning why it is I believe what I believe ... I’ve been moved many times to adjust my thinking on various subject matters addressed in Scripture (and I’m certain that this process will never stop at least as long as I’m alive.)
The question isn’t whether someone can be saved who doesn’t believe in a literal Hell (whatever that means?) but rather “why” someone would not believe in it. It they believe that everyone is “saved” then they are strictly AGAINST the teaching of Jesus.
After all we were “saved” which infers that we were saved from “something.” And that “something” is what we need to discuss and come to grips with.
Funny, but all those who are backing McClaren (I have no horse in this race because I have not read his book) have not expressed what Jesus meant (in their view) when discussing Hell. They have not enlightened us as to what we’ve been “saved” from? I would like to know you thoughts. It seems to me that what causes us to live differently is our love for God in response to His grace that has saved us from the deserved results of our own lives.
IF, and I mean IF, the author of this article has quoted McClaren correctly then I believe he is correct in his assessment of the resultant impact on the church and society.
Phil
Chuck Denton on Mon, May 12, 2008
Since when does God give us the option to choose what part of His Word, The Bible (God’s spoken and written word) and Jesus (God’s living word), to believe? If you do not believe it all then how can you believe any of it? I do not understand how “Christians” can say they believe in Jesus and His salvation, but deny His Word to be totally true. So many of them want to deny the first part of the Bible, creation,and the last part, His return and judgment of the world. If there is no judgment of sin then there is no salvation from the judgment of sin. You can be sincere about your beliefs, but be sincerely wrong. The Bible and God’s teachings determine if the Jesus Christ one professes is the true Jesus Christ. Many cults claim they believe in Jesus and that their slavation comes through Jesus, but if their belief about Jesus and His teachings is not in agreement with the Bible it is false doctrine and therefore wrong. McLaren wants to pick and choose which parts of God he believes. He does not like the God of Exodus and Joshua who cammands the children of Israel to destroy cities and all the people when they entered the Promised Land, but likes the God of love and compassion who sent Jesus to die for us(Generous Orthodoxy p.185). I guess he does not like the God who killed all mankind, but 8 people by flooding the earth, killed the firstborn of Egypt, and drowned Pharoah’s army in the Red Sea. He believes that one can be a follower of Jesus and remain within unchristian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Jesus stated that you are either for Him or against Him. You cannot serve two masters. How can you, as he states in Generous Orthodoxy (p.20), follow Jesus without identifying yourself as a Christian. I wish people would make a real distinction between emerging and emergent churches. Too many times these are used interchangably, but the views and beliefs are very different.
I pray that God would bless you all, but the fact is that one day God will judge us all. Our belief about Jesus is just as important as our believe in Jesus. The one determines the other. Without His salvation we will not be found innocent. We will be found guilty and the judgment will be eternity in hell. I hope to see you in heaven.
Page 4 of 4 pages « First < 2 3 4
Post a Comment