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,
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

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

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.

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.

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

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”.

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

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?)

[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...)

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.

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

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