But the news gets better. Instead of the worst getting worse and worse until Jesus comes to wipe out sinners and to set up His promised Kingdom, the world is going to get better. Global warming will be prevented. Poverty will be defeated. The environment will be clean. Violence will cease. Wars will be no more. Justice will be our home. The gap between the rich and the middle class (because there will be no poor) will not be great (if there will be a gap at all). Everyone will have an education and a well paying job. Our economices will be just and fair. Our politicians will tell the truth and lead honorably. And finally, finally, the Kingdom of God will be realized. Its been a long time coming, but it was worth the wait don't you think?
So how do we reach this Christian Utopia? We work to bring about the Kingdom of God. We fight global warming, poverty, injustice, war, economic inequality. We hold the keys to making this become a reality. We must work to bring the Kingdom of God down. God will help us (like He did Jonah), but it is ultimately up to us. So roll up our sleeves and lets get to work. No more laziness due to the imminent bodily return of Christ. God's Kingdom will not be realized unless we work. So let's get busy!
That's essentially the eschatology laid out in Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity. One thing is very clear: traditional eschatology (especially, not limited to, dispensationalism). McLaren believes that traditional eschatologies encourage laziness, resignation, fear, apathy, "and arrogant aggression" (200). But what offers instead of Left Behind and similar theologies is a participatory eschatology. Note the language:
In this 3-D view, God is not in control in the sense of being a machine operator pulling levers or a chess master moving bishops and pawns. Nor is the universe out of control in the sense of being chaotic, random, and purposeless. Instead, God and the universe are in relationship. That in-relationship vision is captured ina number of metaphors in the Bible. For example, God is like a rider guiding a horse with a will of its own, or God is like a parent guiding a child with a will of her own.
The universe, in this view, isn't just an object upon which God acts by dominating fiat; it is a subject endowed by its Creator with millions of real minds and wills, a community with which God relates intersubjectively. All creation is harmed when humanity pulls, drops, or drifts out of relationship, like a moody child putting in the corner or a rebellious teenager running away to a distant city far from home. All creation (try thinking of this ecologically) groans for humanity to reenter a right relationship with God, so we can fulfill our God-given calling as creation's stewards, students, and creative partners - and cease being its abusers, exploiters, and plunderers. -196, emphasis authors
You see his point. We participate with God to bring the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth. By redefining the gospel as primarily (if not exclusively) regarding this world, it is inevitable that eschatology becomes a social gospel eschatology. The social gospel believes that through their work for the Kingdom, Christians (through the occasion help from God) will lead to a Utopia here on earth.
There are so many holes in this argument, I don't know where to begin. For one, I am very concerned with the tying of God's hands in this argument. McLaren uses Jonah as an example of how God guides us but doesn't direct us (in the sense of the traditionally understanding of sovereignty and providence). What we have here is the elevation of man and the pulling down of God. God is seen as a cheerleader in heaven rooting for, believing that we can solve our own problems, and only occasionally interrupting us in order to guide us, but he never intercedes, or affects the direction of the earth directly.
This simply is not the language of the Bible especially in the Old Testament. Read the prophets describe the Day of the Lord and note who is doing all of the action: God. God is the one that will subdue the kingdoms, conquer the nations, and set up His Kingdom. Not us. We can't.
This sets up the second problem with this Utopian view: McLaren has a wrong view of man. Such an eschatology can only happen if man was ultimately good, but we're not. Furthermore, this theology could only be realized if the earth wasn't cursed, which it is. For every disease that is cured, a hundred more takes its place. With every new technological advance is another way to kill human beings. Violence continues to rise, families continue to break down, politicians and governments continue to fail, economies continue to falter, poverty remains, injustice is too common, and man will continue to live in greed, violence, fear, anger, and selfishly. The human race is not pretty, and this ugly race will not bring the Utopian dream we all want. Pandora from Avatar is an illusion, not a reality. This is why we need God, not us to solve our problems.
Throughout this chapter McLaren sets up more straw men and argues that those who hold to traditional eschatologies are lazy, apathetic, and refuse to save the planet, end poverty, and fight for injustice. In response I would say that he knows nothing of the many charities and efforts that Christians participate in (the SBC is almost always the first to arrive after disaster strikes. Katrina is a good example of this). Though many may fall guilty of this, it simply isn't true. Almost every church is involved in some (if not multiple) ministries domestic and foreign to help the poor and the needy.
But there is another point that needs to be made here. The Bible, in specifically the New Testament, speaks of eschatology, not in an academic, dry sense, but in a pastoral, vibrant sense. When Paul (and Jesus in John 14) describes the end times (is this the dispensationalists coming out in me?) he does so to offer hope. The churches are being rounded up, put into jail, and killed. What they need is hope. What Paul offers them is the hope found in the bodily return of Christ.* When Christ returns, he is bring an end to persecution and peace. No more violence, no more filth, no more fear. When Christ returns, it will all end.
Another passage is 2 Peter 3. There Peter warns the readers not to give up hope in the 2nd coming. Just because Christ hasn't returned yet doesn't mean He won't return at all. He then goes on to describe the end of the world (boy do I sound Platonic) asking Christians to reflect on what this means to them. If Christs return is imminent, then how should we be living today? The point is for Christians to lot be apathetic, but to be vibrant.
Here is where McLaren and the New Testament differ. What Peter wants the Christians to do in light of Christs imminent return is to live in godliness and to preach the gospel. But McLaren thinks we ought to do since Christ isn't returning bodily is to work for the social gospel in hopes of a Utopia. One offers hope (because we are certain that Christ is coming, so let's get to work) and the other offers exhaustion (though we work and work and work and work, the world is still corrupt and at war, the poor continue to suffer, injustice continues to exist, and global warming remains a threat). McLaren doesn't offer hope, he offers exhaustion.
Finally, I am confused as to what he understands judgment day to be. He seems to try to get around it all. By undermining the "violent" God in the Bible**, McLaren sounds more like a universalists than anything, but then again, I don't know if he believes in an afterlife. I mean if we are to bring heaven down to earth, what's the point of an afterlife? Certainly he rejects hell (which all universalists do), but what about heaven or life after death?
Overall, what McLaren offers isn't a New Kind of Christianity, but an old kind of heresy*** This is nothing more than the social gospel. We cannot and will not bring about a Utopia by ourselves or even with a little bit of God's help. We are sinners in need of grace (we call that the gospel). McLaren does not offer the gospel, but only a Jame Cameron Avatar with a little bit of Jesus dust.
* I repeatedly emphasize the bodily return of Christ in this post because McLaren seems to reject it (though he doesn't come out and say it). He suggests that after the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 (McLaren uses the more secular CE and BCE) rthe cataclysimic 'last days' of the old era ran their course, the new age, new convenant, new tstament, or new era was brought to full term, and its parousia had come. Therefore, he writes, our call, in this view of things, is not to wait passively for somthing that is not present, but rather to participate passinately in something that is prsent - fully prsent, but not complete in its development, and s calling for our wholehearted participation. -199
** McLaren writes, "As a first step in seeing judgment in our new eschatolgical context, we must stop defining it as condemnation." -203
*** Line taken from the SBTS panel on McLaren's book.
For more:
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Narrative Question - Part 1
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Authority Question - Part 2
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The God Question - Part 3
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Jesus Question - Part 4
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Gospel Question - Part 5
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Church Question - Part 6
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Sex Question - Part 7
0 comments:
Post a Comment