From McLaren's perspective there are two camps. The first camp says that Jesus came to die for sinners as a substitute guaranteeing Christians a mansion in heaven. In this view, the gospel is a get-out-of-hell-free card and is primarily about the next life, not about this one.
McLaren sums this view up by quoting one of his critics who said:
The only reason Jesus came was to save people from hell . . . Jesus had no social agenda . .. [He didn't come to eliminate poverty or slavery or] . . . fix something in somebody's life for the little moment they live on this earth. -127
The quote seems to be taken from John MacArthur from a youtube video from an interview he did in response to Brian McLaren's theology. MacArthur was responding to McLaren's claim that Christians are preoccupied with getting people out of hell and into heaven and even have the audacity to say that we have the exclusive answer as to how persons can get to heaven.
It should be briefly noted that the above quote does not summarize the entirety of MacArthur's ministry. MacArthur is responding directly to McLaren who argues that Jesus didn't come to save us from hell and in fact argues that heaven and hell weren't part of the ministry of Jesus. MacArthur preaches godliness, holiness, and sanctification, but those things are rooted in MacArthur's understanding of the cross, propitiation, expiation, etc.
The only view as to why Jesus came to earth was to give us "life to the fullest" (this is how McLaren interprets John's phrase "eternal life" in his Gospel). This is the view that McLaren has of Jesus' mission. Remember that Jesus is the highest image of God and so what Jesus came to do was not to affect our future destination, but how we live here and now. McLaren writes:
[Jesus'] other miracles - healings, provision of food for hungry people, giving life to a dead man, conquering death himself - all suggest Jesus's life-giving, health-giving creative power. Together, these examples make clear that from the first sentence John is telling us that a new creative moment, a new Genesis, is happening in Jesus. The Genesis echoes keep resounding to the end of the book, where they ring out powerfully in the climatic account of the resurrection. -129
McLaren sees striking parallels between John's Gospel and Genesis and Exodus. And just as God brought about a new creation in Genesis, so too Jesus brings forth a new creation, a new moment, "a new creative moment," in human history. From His birth to His resurrection, life on this earth is changing due to the ministry of Jesus (His death is only a part of this new creative act).
McLaren goes on to add:
In this light, Jesus's offers of 'life o the ages' and 'life abundant' sparkle with new significance. When Jesus promises 'life of the ages' [his interpretation of John's "eternal life"], he is not promising 'life after death' or 'life in eternal heaven instead of eternal hell.' (John, it should be noted, never mentions hell, a highly significant fact.).* Instead, Jesus is promising a life that transcends 'life in the present age,' an age that is soon going to end in tumult. Being 'born of God' (1:13) and 'born again' or 'born from above' (3:3) would in this light mean being born into this new creation. So again, Jesus is offer a life in the new Genesis, the new creation that is 'of the ages' - meaning it's part of God's original creation - not simply part of the current regimes, plots, kingdoms, and economies created by humans in 'the present evil age' (a term Paul uses in Gal. 1:4). No wonder the risen Christ's first appearance is in a garden, and he is imagined to be a gardener (19:41-42; 20:15), just as Jesus was portrayed the Father as a gardener (15:1) - John wants us to see in Jesus a rebirth of the original garden. -130-131
Once again, McLaren offers a convenient hermeneutic that deconstructs orthodoxy for the sake of his own preference. Remember, as we have just discussed, Jesus is the climatic image of God (but apparently not God Himself) and by saying that Jesus is more concerned (if not only concerned) with life here and now is a convenient way to avoid the difficulties of Christian doctrine: exclusivity, the urgency of evangelism, condemnation, judgment, hell, wrath, etc.
McLaren's hermeneutic of the Gospel of John (as a new Genesis-Exodus) allows him to escape the parts of the Synoptics that create a lot of problems with the image McLaren has made of God in his own mind. Once McLaren redefines hermeneutics, and challenges the Bible's own description of God, he is free is to pick and choose which kind of Jesus he wants to believe in. By fundamentally challenging the triumphant Jesus if revelation, McLaren has limited Jesus to a peace-loving, poverty-serving, ecological Jesus that loves animals and Gentiles and hates bigotry and sound, divisive doctrine.
Of course this is how McLaren sees Jesus because this is the kind of Jesus McLaren wants to believe in. One cannot miss the motivation behind the theology. By fundamentally rejecting the wrathful side of God, McLaren is forced to understand Jesus as a picture of such a nice God. What McLaren offers his readers is an escape, not truth. An escape from the harsher parts of Scripture, but not the truth of God's inspired words.
One must be careful in approaching the ministry of Jesus in this way. Yes Jesus did come to give us life, but he also came to die for sinners. Christ's death reconciled us with God which affects our present and future life. Unless we repent, we will remain subject to God's Divine wrath in the life to come and we will continue to spiral out of control in this. McLaren loves his straw men and he certainly has set this up in this section of his book. But at the end of the day, we must embrace a Christ who offers us reconciliation, salvation, redemption, justification, propitiation, expiation, and adoption as we stand guilty and deserving of hell before God. Through our salvation brought forth by the death and resurrection of Christ, we have a better understanding of how to live. Christ offers us holiness by granting us righteousness. Let us live in holiness.
* McLaren offers the following footnote here: Since we aren't assuming the six-line narrative, it would be an unwarranted conclusion to equate words found in John like 'condemnation,' 'death,' and 'perish' with the word 'hell,' which is never found in John (275). However, one should point out how a proper interpretation of John 3:16 challenges McLaren's interpretation. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life." (emphasis mine) McLaren's translation of "eternal life" is inadequacy here as is his rejection that "perish" has anything to do with hell or death after death. Furthermore, one must point out the language in Revelation which pictures Christ as judge over saved souls and damned souls. Though McLaren rejects such an interpretation of Revelation (is he a preterist?) one cannot so easily dismiss it. The same author of John is the same author of Revelation.
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
Youtube - John MacArthur on the Emergent Church pt1
Novus Lumen - Brian McLaren’s “New Kind of Christianity”: A Theological Review, The Jesus Question 4
Theology - SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology - The Evolving God: McKnight Critiques McLaren
0 comments:
Post a Comment