My invitation to World Vision’s “An evening with Brian McLaren” arrived in the post today. The nicely recycled-looking brochure didn’t do anything to alleviate my surprise at the partnership between this organisation (of which I happen to be a former employee) and McLaren, the “speaker, thinker and activist.” I think I was at least expecting some acknowledgment of his position on the fringe of Christian orthodoxy, but none was made.
It is helpful to hear from people from outside our own “stable.” We appreciate it when people are well-read and able to see past our own cultural blind-spots. And as someone preparing to plant a church and seeking to engage the community around me with the gospel of Jesus, the opportunity to hear from one of the leaders of the Emerging/Emergent Movement definitely has some appeal. As a pastor though, I believe there are good reasons for me to politely decline the invitation. It’s my privilege to spend my time with people who wrestle daily with all sorts of issues, including many which are staple fare in McLaren’s writing and speaking.
For the sake of these people and because of the following issues, I have to say to World Vision, “Thanks for the invitation, but I respectfully decline.”
Let me first make three quick comments.
1) I am extremely cautious about publicly stating that someone else has got it wrong. I hope that I have misunderstood some of what McLaren says, but I don’t think I have. He is an expert at reframing questions into those he wants to answer and a master at creating “straw men” representing those positions he opposes.
2) In trying to accurately represent McLaren’s stated positions I have included lengthy quotations. This is a long post!
3) If you’re interested in the questions that McLaren raises (faith & culture, poverty, the environment and the spiritual crisis facing our world) but like me, you’re not happy with the answers he provides, some possible next steps are listed at the end.
McLaren – “Would it be—Does it make sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite torture, infinite time, infinite—you know, never be numbed in their consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds—It really raises some questions about the goodness of God.
And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.
One of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then … the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.”[1]
McLaren’s apparent misunderstanding of the cross of Christ leads him to deny the reality of hell. In his analysis of the death of Jesus there is no mention of God’s justice or God’s holiness. There is no evidence of God’ self-giving in the cross so that the penalty for sin, which is ultimately an offence against God (ie Psalm 51), can be paid. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and so without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness for sin (Hebrews 9:22). In misunderstanding what the cross is really about, McLaren is then forced to start abandoning other biblical doctrines, such as the doctrine of hell.
Jesus himself uses the reality of hell as a warning of the seriousness of sin. In one chapter of the Sermon on the Mount, of which the Emerging/Emergents seems so fond, he does so three times! One of the great dangers for Christians today is that we fail to grasp the seriousness of sin and its consequences. We think sin just doesn’t matter! Well Jesus says, it does matter: “if your right hand ?causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into ?hell” (Matthew 5:30). The people I know who battle sin and temptation daily (that’s all of us, right?) don’t need to be told that that hell isn’t real, that the worst consequence of sin, eternal punishment and separation from God and his blessing, is just made up. That just makes the battle against sin that little bit more difficult. I think we can do without that.
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us…
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.[2]
Friends who struggle with same-sex attraction despair when they read words like these. Imagine how hard it is to remain pure, to resist temptation, to strive for holiness, when a leader in the church says in effect, “for all we know, you might be wasting your effort. The sin you’re tempted towards might not be sin at all. Come back to me after 5 years of struggle and I’ll tell you if the battle was worth it.”
Yes, let’s listen respectfully. Let’s disagree agreeably. Many who have been at the forefront of the debate on the authority of Scripture to speak about sexual ethics have been leading us in this way for years. But the “wind of the Spirit” has blown. The Spirit of God has spoken. The Word of God, verbally inspired by the Spirit of God says the proper place for a sexual relationship is in a marriage between one man and one woman. If it’s up to the scholars in “biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology and related fields” to determine what is right and wrong, I can’t help but wonder what other decisions and life-choices, warned against in the Bible, might one day become open to us!
“In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal’. It emphatically does not mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.” [3]
It is true that the word commonly translated “save” in our New Testaments can have a range of meanings, including “heal.” But the Apostle Paul could hardly have been clearer in Ephesians 2, describing the human situation; dead in sin and deserving of God’s wrath. Yet he writes, it is by grace you have been saved. Christians throughout history have found in these words the great assurance that an eternity in hell and the power of the ruler of the kingdom of the air are the very things from they have been saved. Similarly in 1 Timothy 1:15 – 16 Paul says, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life” Or consider Romans 5:9 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wraththrough him?” Clearly the biblical picture of salvation very much includes being spared the due penalty for sin and instead receiving eternal life!
Those for whose care I must one day give account can only be led astray by McLaren’s teaching here. There seems to be no understanding of salvation as the turning away of wrath. Where is the assurance of being spared from hell and God’s righteous anger at sin if it is not hell and God’s righteous anger at sin from which we’re saved? Where is the certainty of eternal life, if it is not eternal life to which we have been saved? McLaren appears to under-realise the richness of the Bible’s teaching on soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) in order to emphasise the present blessings and implications of the kingdom of God, but in doing so, denies Christians of their assurance.
McLaren states that the story of the Kingdom of God is “echoed in the dreams of our best and brightest” and then he lists a number of well-known figures from history and contemporary life who are presumably, our best and brightest, including Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Jane Goodall.[4] According to the Bible, the “story” of the Kingdom of God is told in terms like, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15) and the kingdom is for “those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 72:1). As far as I can tell there’s no reason to believe that those on McLaren’s list all dreamed of such things, so I’m left to conclude that McLaren’s understanding of the Kingdom and it’s citizens are not those of the Bible; God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule (from Graeme Goldsworthy).
Or to take it one step further, in A Generous Orthodoxy McLaren claims that Gandhi “sought to follow the way of Christ without identifying himself as a Christian” [5], yet even a cursory reading of any of the biographies of Gandhi clearly shows he lived as a Hindu and not as a follower of Christ. In 1925 he addressed a gathering of missionaries: “Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find a solace in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads … My life has been full of external tragedies, and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.” [6]
McLaren again:“I have noticed that John 14:6 is often quoted out of context so that it seems to say, “I am in the way of your getting to truth and life. I will keep everyone from getting to the Father unless they get by me first.” One would think that the context reads like this: You should be very troubled, because if you believe in God, but not me, if you believe in God, but not me, you will be shut out of my Father’s house in heaven…”[7]
McLaren seems to deny that those who believe in God but not in Jesus will be excluded from God’s presence for eternity. However Jesus himself says, No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23 Or in John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him (Jesus) is not condemned,?? but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”
To anyone struggling to persevere in the Christian faith, McLaren’s statements just put additional stumbling blocks in their path. Imagine the recipients of the Letter to the Hebrews receiving word from Brian McLaren. One can only assume they would feel entirely justified in giving up their faith in Jesus and returning to their old ways, the very thing the author of the letter is so desperate for them not to do.
And so, for these reasons, and for the sake of those who are confused, troubled and mislead by Brian McLaren, I won’t be attending the workshop. It saddens me that World Vision are promoting this event since, as Don Carson observes, “as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and (fellow activist Steve) Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel.” [8]
I can’t help but wonder if in McLaren’s mind, whether the Bible is true, reliable or inspired matters not at all, as long as we can see in it enough to make us “better” people on some (presumably arbitrary) scale of goodness.
If you’re interested in finding answers to the sorts of questions Brian McLaren raises, here are some suggestions.
Sit in on a conversation about mercy ministries between Don Carson, Tim Keller and John Piper.
Find out about Education for Transformation at African Enterprise.
Read about Lydia’s List at Tear Australia or become a Tear Partner.
Help Retrak enable street children to realise their potential and discover their worth.
Engage with The Gospel and the Poor at Themelios.
Read Tim Keller on The Missional Church.
Partner your church with at-risk Australian children and their families through World Vision’s Kids Hope Aus.
Watch Keller on Being Salt and Light in the World.
Volunteer with Anglicare SA.
Sign the Micah Call, calling for Christians to be agents of hope and asking world leaders to halve world poverty by 2015.
Become a Salvo Crisis Partner for $1.15 a day.
[2] http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html.
[3] McLaren B. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. p. 101.
[4] McLaren B. Everything Must Change. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007. p 275.
[5] McLaren B. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. p 189.
[6] Andrews, C F. Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas Including Selections from His Writings New York: McMillan, 1930. p 73.
[7] McLaren, B. A Reading of John 14:6. 2006. p 4.
[8] Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. p 186.
Rick Lannoye | September 17th, 2009 at 3:15 AM #
Actually, McLaren is on to something, especially in the way he’s explained why the doctrine of Hell is so ludicrous.
I beg to differ with your response, particularly where you claim that Jesus supported the idea of God torturing billions of people for eternity in order to satisfy a need to be avenged.
I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–”Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it.
If one is willing to look, there’s substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: “You don’t know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!” Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Sam W | September 17th, 2009 at 9:32 AM #
Rick, once you start revising the Bible to suit your own opinions you’re not really on the same page any more.
With 24,000 ancient manuscript fragments, many within the generation of the autographs and the eyewitnesses, the argument over the canon of Scripture is well and truly over.
Harvey | October 26th, 2009 at 3:18 PM #
Thanks for an interesting topic… As a father of three kids I have to say that I struggle with the idea that a father (perhaps the best summation of who God is, in my perspective at least) could create a family (all of humanity in this case) and then when some of them choose to disobey him and go their own way choose to not simply discipline them or leave them to experience the ramifications of their own actions, but take them prisoner and grossly torture them for the rest of their lives (in this case in timeless eternity) with no reprieve possible. When you view it in this light it’s pretty obvious why so many people have trouble with this doctrine. It just doesn’t seem much like what a loving dad would do, to say the least. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, so I’d be interested to hear how others can reconcile the idea of a dad torturing his children forever because of their disobedience with the picture of a loving God.
Oh, and another one I don’t get – Why God would create an entire civilization (which apparently he loved) only to wipe all but 5 of them out by downing them. (oh and then torture them for eternity in hell of course). Bizarre!