Theology

The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 3

2011-10-03T11:48:00.000-07:00

The New Monism

In contrast to the traditional view, many are looking at the advances being made in neuroscience and embracing a monistic view of man. It should be noted here that like those who try to find God in evolution, those in this new movement begin with the scientific evidence and then turn to exegetical theology. Throughout their writings, multiple examples of neuroscientific studies are cited to argue that belief in the soul is simple uncredible.

One example comes from Joel B. Green in his book Body, Soul, and Human Life. He highlights one of the more famous stories of neuroscience that took place in 1848. Green notes that though this “may be the most famous story . . . it is hardly unique.” One day a twenty-five year-old railroad worker named Phineas Gage “experienced the piercing blast of a thirteen-pound iron rod that entered below his left cheekbone, penetrated his skull, traversed the front part of his brain, and exited through the top of his head.” Gage survived the accident but was severely affected. Prior to the accident, Gage was known “as a responsible, efficient, energetic, and capable person” but afterward became “irresponsible and careless, given to raucous profanity, socially backward, and emotionally stagnant.” In other words, “Gage was no longer Gage.”[1]

Similarly, Green tells the story of a forty-year-old male schoolteacher who in the year 2000 became addicted to pornography. Such activity eventually led to him making suggestive advances towards his stepdaughter who reported his actions to her mother who discovered “his growing preoccupation with child pornography and called the police.” He was then “legally removed from the home, diagnosed as a pedophile, found guilty of child molestation, and sentenced either to an in-patient rehabilitation program for sexual addition or to prison.” While at the rehabilitation center, the man continued to make sexual advances and was then put in jail. Eventually, the man underwent neurological observation. There it was discovered he had an egg-sized tumor on his brain and when removed the man’s sexual “lewdness” and advances dissipated. However, a year later, his perversions returned and it was discovered again that the tumor had returned and, like previously, when removed, the man returned to his old moral self.[2]

Such stories are given to prove the point that our brains control us more than we previously thought. Whether it is the question of free will or the existence of the soul, the goal is to make the point that science – and neuroscience in general – is leaving no room for the soul or for traditional Christian theological assumptions. And like the debate over origins, it is time for Christians to reconsider some of their beliefs in light of the scientific evidence. Consider the following statement from Lawson G. Stone:

But what theological considerations privilege the partition of human nature into separate physical and spiritual faculties over against an often physicalist neuroscience? Although the Bible is not the sole voice shaping Christian thinking, a theological analysis of human nature requires a convincing construal of the biblical narrative. If dualism fails here, they forfeit their status as a privileged Christian view and scientific denials of dualism appear less controversial. If dualist readings prevail, then the scientific claims of some species of monist physicalism constitute a more penetrating challenge to the coherence of the Christian vision of human life. Thus if the immorality of the soul, and, hence, dualism are essential to Christian thought, then the church should be bracing for an encounter with science far overshadowing debates about creation and evolution.[3]

The statement is telling as Lawson admits that the debate over anthropology is hugely important not just theologically but also scientifically. The world of science is pulling theology in a different direction and the new monists are taking the bait. To them, neuroscience has proven that virtually everything is controlled by the brain and thus there is no longer a need for a soul. Furthermore, the concept of an immaterial soul goes against everything science stands for. In other words, the soul, because it is immaterial, cannot be proven.[4]

The biblical proof of their view is at times anemic. Throughout many of their writings, much is said regarding the meaning of Hebrew words like tOr and vpn. For example, Stone goes through great pains to explain how Gen. 2:7 does not describe the creation of man’s soul, but of his life.[5] Stone rightly notes that the language of Gen. 2:7 in regards to Adam is repeated in regards to the animals in Gen. 6:17 and Gen. 7:15. Dualists concede the point that Gen. 2 describes Adam as a living being. In the conclusion, Stone notes:

In the end, this essay is not about the soul as we know it, because Genesis 2:7 is not about the soul, as we have traditionally conceive it . . . The exegesis of Genesis 2:7 clearly points to a situating of Adam in the midst of a range of creatures with whom he shares greater or lesser degrees of compatibility. He is made from dust, as they are. He has the breath of life, as they do. He is a living being, a nefesh hayyah, as they are. His interactions with them assume this commonality, as my comments on the serpent indicated. No exegetical justification exists for finding here the notion of abstract, immortal, disembodied personhood that we usually mean when we speak of the ‘soul,’ just as it is equally unnecessary to introduce ‘Satan’ into the serpent narrative. These narratives get along just fine without that metaphysical assistance.[6]

It is such statements that permeate these writings. The new monists argue that dualism is the byproduct of Greek philosophy.[7] This means that from their perspective, dualism is a philosophical argument, not a biblical truth. As a result, Scripture either does not teach dualism or it is ambiguous regarding the parts of man.

In this manner, after stating “that most Christian theology has in fact been greatly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, but those influences were various” (primarily Platonic, Stoic, and Aristotelian), Nancey Murphy argues that “physicalism is the position of the Bible.” She clarifies, however, that such a statement is a bit “complicated than that,” but still affirms its basic truth because “while there is wide agreement among biblical scholars that at least the earlier Hebraic scriptures know nothing of the body-soul dualism, it is surprisingly difficult to settle the issue of what the New Testament has to say.”[8] In other words, the conclusion of the Old Testament is clear: we are only a body. The New Testament, on the other hand, the issue is more complicated an ambiguous.

In regards to the Old Testament, Murphy, like other monists, argues “that the original Hebraic conception of the person comes closer to current physicalist accounts than to body-soul dualism.” She then suggests that the reason most Christians throughout the years have missed this fact is based on Greek philosophy and the Septuagint. The LXX translates the word vpn as yuch thus promoting the Greek philosophy of an immaterial soul.[9] This allows the monists to write off dualistic interpretations of Old Testament passages, and many New Testament passages as well, as faulty. It is this point that really drives the exegetical and theological argument of the new monists. Since it is easier to make a monistic argument from the Old Testament, the new monists spend most of their time there, but when they turn to the New Testament they are tempted to simply say that the texts are ambiguous, they reflect Greek philosophy, and to remind the reader of the “wealth” of evidence from the Old Testament that there is no soul.

It should be noted here how confident Murphy and others feel in their exegesis of the Old Testament. Like previous monists, they present a simple definition of Hebrew words like vpn and tOr all the while denying (or ignoring) that the Old Testament does allow room for dualism. For example, the Old Testament hints at conscience activity in Sheol which implies an intermediate state which demands dualism. This is seen in texts like Isaiah 14:9-10 where the dead remember, recognize, and speak and in 1 Samuel 28 where the writer strongly suggests that Saul spoke to a deceased Samuel himself.[10] Such texts, among others, at the very least allow room for some belief in an intermediate state and an immaterial soul. It is this possibility that likely best explains the sharp difference between Pharisees (who affirmed the immaterial soul and resurrection) and the Sadducees (who were monists and denied resurrection).

Furthermore, though the new monists are certain in their Old Testament exegesis, they resort to ambiguity in the New. Murphy begins her survey arguing that the New Testament was written in Greek and “has been read in light of Greek philosophy.” However “there are a number of passages that many take to show that the New Testament authors espoused” dualism. These texts, listed by Murphy, include Matt. 10:28; Luke 16:19-31; 23:39-43; and 2 Cor. 5:1-10. However, in Murphy’s estimation, these texts are not clear enough to demand dualism.[11]

She then discusses Luke 23:40-43 interacting with Joel Green’s monist interpretation of it, but for the most part says little about the New Testament as a whole. Instead, she cops out saying, “the New Testament authors are not intending to teach anything about humans’ metaphysical composition. If they were, surely they could have done so much more clearly!”[12] Amazing how confident Murphy is about the Old Testament but uncertain about the New.

This then leads to the clear conclusion that

there is no such thing as the biblical view of human nature insofar as we are interested in a partitive account. The biblical authors, especially the New Testament authors, wrote within the context of a wide variety of views, probably as diverse as in our day, but did not take a clear stand on one theory or another. What the New Testament authors do attest is, first, that humans are psychophysical unities, second, that Christian hope for eternal life is staked on bodily resurrection rather than an immortal soul; and, third, that humans are to be understood in terms of their relationships – relationships to the community of believers and especially to God.[13]

Here again, Murphy shows her inconsistency. Her certainty regarding the view of the Old Testament and her uncertainty regarding the New really shows her own bias. She begins with the conclusion of monism and when presented with clear (and admitted) problems from the New Testament (and even from the Old), she resorts to ambiguity, uncertainty, and doubt, but strangely this doubt does not keep her from holding fast to her monistic conclusion.

This brief survey of Christian monism has shown that their greatest strength is the voice of many neuroscientists and philosophers, but are rather weak exegetically. Though some monistic scholars have presented exegetical defense of their views and take on the many texts in the New Testament that call into question monism, the discussion centers on science and philosophy.[14]

[1] Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 2008), 82.
[2] Ibid., 73.
[3] Lawson G. Stone, “The Soul: Possession, Part, or Person? The Genesis of Human Nature in Genesis 2:7” in Joel B. Green, What About the Soul: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology (Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2004), 48.
[4] One writes argues, “Neuroscientists are moving toward a unified theory of mind-brain that implies a monist view of the human person. In short, no longer will we be able to isolate a separate ethereal mind or soul. A divided dualism with a mindless body and a disembodied soul will not square with science, nor, we are told, does it square with a careful reading of the Bible.” Michael A. Rynkiewich, “What About the Dust?: Missiological Musings on Anthropology” in What About the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology, ed. Joel B. Green (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 134.
[5] Genesis 2:7 reads, “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (vpn).”
[6] Ibid., 59.
[7] See Ibid., 57, Warren Brown, H. Newton Malony, and Nancey Murphy, eds., Whatever Happened to the Soul?: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 2, and Nancey Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 12-13.
[8] Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?, 16-17.
[9] Murphy writes, “It is widely agreed now that the Hebrew word translated “soul” . . . – nephesh – did not mean what later Christians have meant by “soul.” In most of these cases, it is simply a way of referring to the whole living persons.” Ibid., 18. Some of the specific passages cited by Murphy include Genesis 2:7, Psalm 16:10; and Psalm 25:20.
[10] I am not suggesting that it is literally Samuel, but that the text reads that way. The debate over who the medium conjures up will not be solved here. However, it should be pointed out that the text suggests that it is Samuel himself who speaks. Since the text suggests that this is actually Samuel it must mean that there was room in Hebrew thought for an intermediate state as Samuel is clearly in a spirited state, not a physical one. This would also explain why necromancy is condemned in the Old Testament (Isaiah 8:19). For a monist exegesis of this text, see Bill T. Arnold, “Soul-Searching Questions About 1 Samuel 28: Samuel’s Appearance at Endor and Christian Anthropology,” in What About the Soul?, 75-84.
[11] Murphy writes, “It is not clear what to make of these passages. For example, the Lukan parallel to the text from Matthew reads ‘do not fear those who kill the body and after that have nothing more they can do . . . fear him who, after he was killed, has authority to cast into hell . . .’ (Lk. 12:4-5). Which is the better representation fo Jesus’ own words?” Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?, 19. The obvious problem here (among others) is the apparent belief that one parallel is right and the other is wrong. Traditionally, Christians have embraced the message of both. If Murphy is left picking one that best fits her physicalism then is she admitting that dualism is an accurate interpretation of Jesus words in Matthew 10:28?
[12] Ibid., 21. Two paragraphs later, Murphy adds, “So the Greek philosophers we have surveyed were interested in the question: what are the essential parts that make up a human being? In contrast, for the biblical authors each ‘part’ (‘part’ in the scare quotes) stands for he whole person thought of from a certain angle. For example, ‘spirit’ stands for the whole person in relation to God. What the New Testament authors are concerned with, then, is human beings in relationship to the natural world, to the community, and to God. Paul’s distinction between spirit and flesh is not our later distinction between soul and body. Paul is concerned with two ways of living: one in conformity with the Spirit of God, and the other in conformity to the old aeon before Christ.” Ibid., 21-22.
[13] Ibid., 22. Murphy then adds, “I believe that we can conclude, further, hat this leaves contemporary Christians free to choose among several options. It would be very bold of me to say that dualism per se is ruled out, given that it has been so prominent in the tradition. However, the radical dualisms of Plato and Rene Descartes, which take the body to be unnecessary for, or even a hindrance to, full human life, are clearly out of bounds. Equally unacceptable is any physicalist account that denies human ability to be in relationship with God. Thus, many reductionist forms of physicalism are also out of bounds.” Ibid.
[14] The scholar that takes the biblical text most seriously is without a doubt Joel Green. In his books and articles he spends much of his time (if not the majority of his time) dealing with exegetical issues. See for example Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life, Joel Green, “‘Bodies – That is, Human Lives’: A Re-Examination of Human Nature in the Bible” in Brown, Murphy, and Malony, eds., Whatever Happened to the Soul?, 149-174, and Joel Green, “Resurrection of the Body: New Testament Voices Concerning Personal Continuity and the Afterlife,” in What About the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology, 85-100.

The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 1
The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 2
The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 3

Repost | Sola Fide and the Early Church: Quotes From the Patristics

2011-09-29T08:32:00.000-07:00

Did the Early Church teach justification by faith alone like the Reformers? The folks over at Reformation Theology have offered the following list of quotes suggesting that in fact they did. This shouldn't surprise us considering that the Reformers were returning the Church to biblical doctrine, not to Church doctrine. The early believers did the same.

This is an important point. There is nothing new under the theological sun and orthodoxy is certainly not new. The Reformers did seek to return the church back to its orthodox roots believing that the Catholic Church of its day had lost its way. They read Augustine and the rest like we do (remember that Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk). So it is inacurrate, as this brief survey reveals, to suggest that the Reformers discovered the gospel, but that they rediscovered the gospel.

Scripture clearly teaches that we are saved apart from works. We are saved by faith alone. Our trust is in the Person of Jesus Christ and the work He accomplished at the cross and resurrection. We do not meet God half-way. Christ rescues us from our sin. All our "righteousness" is likely filthy rags and so to suggest that works, ritual, or religion can somehow cleanse us is simply foolish. Christ became our curse for us so that by faith - and only by faith - we might be saved.

This is exactly what the 1st Century church, the early patristics, and the Reformers taught. And it is the gospel. Sola deo Gloria.

Here are some of the quotes offered by the Reformation Theology blog:

1. Clement of Rome (30-100): “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4.

2. Epistle to Diognetus (second century): “He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

Source: The Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5.

4. Origen (185-254): “For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.”

Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.

5. Origen (again): “A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.”

Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.

6. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”

Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 20:7)

8. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) “A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”[31]

Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.

10. Jerome (347–420): “We are saved by grace rather than works, for we can give God nothing in return for what he has bestowed on us.”

Source: Jerome, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.1.

11. John Chrysostom (349-407): “For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.”

Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, 4.2.9.

13. John Chrysostom (again): “God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is God’s righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then they would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed.”

Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 11.5.

18. Augustine (354-430): “If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.”

Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.

19. Augustine (again): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”

Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7.

21. Ambrosiaster (again): “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”

Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:24.

25. Prosper of Aquitaine (390–455): “And just as there are no crimes so detestable that they can prevent the gift of grace, so too there can be no works so eminent that they are owed in condign [deserved] judgment that which is given freely. Would it not be a debasement of redemption in Christ’s blood, and would not God’s mercy be made secondary to human works, if justification, which is through grace, were owed in view of preceding merits, so that it were not the gift of a Donor, but the wages of a laborer?”

Source: Prosper of Acquitaine, Call of All Nations, 1.17

26. Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457): “The Lord Christ is both God and the mercy seat, both the priest and the lamb, and he performed the work of our salvation by his blood, demanding only faith from us.”

Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans; PG 82 ad loc.

27. Theodoret of Cyrus (again): “All we bring to grace is our faith. But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler. For [Paul] adds, ‘And this is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast’ (Eph. 2:8–9). It is not of our own accord that we have believed, but we have come to belief after having been called; and even when we had come to believe, He did not require of us purity of life, but approving mere faith, God bestowed on us forgiveness of sins”

Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Paul; FEF 3:248–49, sec. 2163.

28. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): “For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says. By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in Him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?”

Source: Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius, 3.62

29. Fulgentius (462–533): “The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. Where there is true belief through true faith, true salvation certainly accompanies it. Anyone who departs from true faith will not possess the grace of true salvation.”

Source: Fulgentius, On the Incarnation, 1; CCL 91:313.

30. Bede (673-735): “Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul’s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith.”

Source: Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.

HT: Reformation Theology

For more
Blogizomai - For Reformation Day: An Insightful Documentary
Blogizomai - Douglas Bond on the Legacy of John Knox
Reviews - "John Knox" by Rosalind K. Marshall
Blogizomai - The Mighty Weakness of John Knox
Blogizomai - Was Calvin a Calvinist? Helm Weighs In
Blogizomai - He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | Calvin on the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Theology - Calvinist Baptists and the Many (False) Misconceptions
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 5
Blogizomai - The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 6
GBC - "Without the Gospel": A Gem From John Calvin
GBC - Calvin on God in Theology and the Christian Life
GBC - Calvin on Providence
GBC - Calvin on Treasures in Heaven
GBC - Calvin on Fasting
GBC - Calvin on Prayer: Why Bother?
Reviews - "Young, Restless, and Reformed"
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea
Reviews - "Five Leading Reformers"

The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 2

2011-09-22T10:18:00.000-07:00

The Debate: Do We Have a Soul?

Due to recent developments in neuroscience, psychology, and other schools, the debate over the soul has become more heated. Traditionally, Christians have affirmed the existence of the soul, but many are beginning to reject such an assumption. For the purpose of brevity, this paper will limit itself between monism and dualism. Though a trichotomy view of man remains a common view by some Christians, it, like dualism, affirms the existence of an immaterial soul/spirit and it is that fundamental belief that monists reject.

In Defense of Dualism

So do we have a soul? From its birth, Christians have answered such a question in the affirmative.[1] Christians have believed historically that man is both body and soul and between death and the resurrection the two will be temporarily separated. This includes Augustine,[2] Thomas Aquinas,[3] John Calvin,[4] the Heidelberg Catechism,[5] and many more. The historical record shows that in each age of the Church, the belief in both the body and the soul and an intermediate state was defended.

The grounds on which dualism was articulated was based primarily in Scripture. Scripture, and particularly the New Testament, overwhelmingly affirm the presence of anthropological dualism. In the Gospels, for example, Jesus repeatedly affirms dualism. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) both persons die and find themselves immediately in their eternal state. One in “Abraham’s bosom” and the other in Hades. This text clearly affirms an intermediate state especially since both men are dead and yet living while the rich man’s brothers are still living on earth. The resurrection had not yet taken place, thus suggesting an intermediate state where the man has both a body (which is buried at this time) and a spirit.

Likewise, while on the cross, Jesus tells the repentant thief next to him that “today” the thief would be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:42-43). Such language implies an intermediate state. After all, in spite of many other attempts to redefine the word, “today” means today. That day both Jesus and the thief would be in paradise even though their physically lifeless bodies remained on the earth decaying.[6]

Then there is the question of where Jesus was between His death and resurrection. The language to the thief on the cross clearly implies that between Friday and Sunday, Jesus’ Spirit was separated for a time from His body. This point is critical to understand as the cross and resurrection becomes the catalyst by which the Apostle Paul lays out his eschatology of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Just as Jesus’ Spirit was separated from His body after His death and prior to His resurrection, so will we. At our death, our spirits and bodies are separated for a temporary time only to be reunited at the resurrection.

But there is another important point to be made here. Christians have always affirmed that Jesus is both God and man (the Hypostatic Union). At the Incarnation Jesus did not cease being God, but in the mystery of the incarnation, He took on flesh. But monism presents a serious case of heresy when we face the question of where Jesus was between His death and resurrection. Monism denies the soul thus leading to the conclusion that when Jesus died, He literally ceased to exist and yet Scripture is clear that God is eternal and always has and always will exist.[7]

The same message of dualism continues beyond the Gospels.[8] In Acts 23:6-8 Paul, a former Pharisee, claims that he was on trial due to his belief about the resurrection. Luke then juxtaposes the views of the Pharisees with the Sadducees noting that the latter reject the resurrection, angels, and an immaterial soul. Luke makes clear that Paul sided with the Pharisees thus affirming his belief in angels, the resurrection, and the soul.

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul lays out his view regarding the resurrection. As mentioned above, the death and resurrection of Jesus is central to Paul’s understanding of our resurrection. In verse 51-52 Paul notes that the resurrection is a future event which will occurred after a time of “sleep.” Furthermore, this resurrection is not individualistic, but will involve all believers. The monists argue the opposite. Because they affirm that the resurrection happens immediately after death, they argue that resurrection is an individual event, but Paul argues here and elsewhere (see particularly 1 Thess. 4:13-18) argues that it will be a corporal event.[9]

Consider also 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 where Paul describes his visions of the “third heaven – whether in the body or out of the body” (vs. 2). Paul reaffirms in the next verse that he “was caught up into paradise” either “in the body or out of the body” (vs. 3). At the very least, we ought to be able to admit that to Paul the possibility of a temporal disembodied existence was possible. The fact that Paul remains unsure if he was in body or in soul is irrelevant. Paul certainly affirms that he must have an immaterial soul otherwise he would have never wondered if he was caught up into paradise in body or soul.

Again, more passages from the New Testament could be cited in support of anthropological dualism and the intermediate state and for centuries Christians have pointed to these texts to defend their position.[10] What is missing from this very brief survey is any mention of the Old Testament and it is here where many monists point to defend their view. Certainly there are plenty of passages in the Old Testament that promote dualism, there is no doubt that the clearest dualistic language is in the New Testament.[11] Monists who spend their time in the Old Testament must first deal with these clear texts.

In summary, these texts clearly teach that man is made up of both a body and a soul.

[1] This does not mean that every Christian throughout history has affirmed the belief in an immaterial soul. Certainly one could easily collect a list of theologians and Christians who were monists. The point here is that the view held by far by Christians throughout the centuries has favored the belief in an immaterial soul.
[2] In The City of God, Augustine commends one of his characters for “regarding man as neither the soul alone nor the body alone but the combination of body and soul” Furthermore, in his book On the Immorality of the Soul, Augustine notes that “the soul is present as a whole not only in the entire mass of a body, but also in every least part of the body at the same time.” Regarding Augustine’s anthropology, theologian John Cooper notes, “Augustine’s anthropology is a two-substance dualism. Human beings are composed of spirit and matter intimately conjoined so that the soul permeates and animates the entire body. Whereas the body depends for its existence and activity upon the soul, the reverse is not true. Augustine’s view of the human constitution dominated Christian thought in the West unchallenged until the thirteenth century, as did his views on many theological topics.” As quoted in John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 11. Ibid. It should also be pointed out that though Augustine had been a Platonist, it is an oversimplification inaccurate to contribute Augustine’s anthropology to just Platonism. Cooper points out that in contrast to Plato, Augustine “criticizes Platonism for holding that souls are not created but are by nature self-sufficient and have existed eternally. And he rejects the opinion that the body is intrinsically antithetical to the good. These Platonic doctrines,” Cooper emphasis, “directly contradict the teachings of Scripture.” Though much of Augustine’s theology “is recognizably Platonistic” it is simply inaccurate to limit Augustine’s view solely on Platonism. Ibid., 10.
[3] In his famous work, Summa Theologica, Aquinas plainly states that man “is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance.” Cooper notes that “this is clearly a two-substance dualism in line with Augustine.” Ibid., 12.
[4] Calvin clearly states in his Institutes that “there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion trans. Henry Beveridge, revised (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 104. Furthermore, in his book Psychopannychia, Calvin argues against soul-sleep defending the intermediate state and dualism. Consider also the Heidelberg Catechism which emphasis both dualism and the intermediate state. Question and Answer 57 asks how the resurrection of the body comforts the believer? The answer given is, “Not only will my soul be taken immediately after this life to Christ its head, but even my flesh, raised by the power of Christ will be reunited with my soul and made like Christ’s glorious body.”
[5] Question and Answer 57 asks how the resurrection of the body comforts the believer? The answer given is, “Not only will my soul be taken immediately after this life to Christ its head, but even my flesh, raised by the power of Christ will be reunited with my soul and made like Christ’s glorious body.” As quoted in Cooper, Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting, 15.
[6] Monists have tried to redefine the meaning of “today” throughout the years in order to avoid this clear conclusion. Instead of an objective time, some have suggested Jesus is speaking subjectively. In other words, though it would seem like they would be in paradise “today” in reality it would be in the future. After all, eternity is without time and thus to speak of eternity in time-filled language is inaccurate. Others have made similar attempts but all of them are equally impossible. See Ibid., 140.
[7] Making this same argument, John Cooper argues, “Now if the extinction-re-creation account of Jesus’ resurrection is true, then the teaching of Chalcedon is false. The two natures of Christ are separable and were in fact separated between good Friday and Easter Sunday. The human being Jesus completely ceased to exist. For on the monist-holist view motivating the extinction-re-creation theory, persons are essentially linked to their organisms. Bodily death is complete death. Persons do not survive. So the divine-human person Jesus Christ did not exist for the interim. Only the nonincarnate Word, the wholly divine Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, existed during that time. What occurred on Easter is essentially the same as the miracle of Christmas. Once again the Word became flesh, this time resurrection flesh. We do not have an incarnation and something essentially different – a resurrection – in the life of Christ, but two incarnations. If the extinction-re-creationists are consistent, they seem closer to the heresies which Chalcedon rejected than to orthodox Christology itself. For either the human nature of the Son is incidental even after his incarnation and was nonexistent for three Jewish days; or else we have two persons in Jesus Christ, a divine person who continued to exist and a human person who did not. Neither option would have escaped condemnation at Chalcedon.” Ibid., 145.
[8] For more texts in the Gospels that support dualism see Matthew 10:28 (parallel in Mark 8:36-37); Matthew 16:26; Matthew 27:50 (pneuma); Luke 12:20; and John 19:30 to name a few. Consider particularly Luke 23:46 (peneuma) where Jesus quotes Psalm 31:5 (LXX uses peneuma). Jesus is clearly speaking in dualistic terms here and seems to have a dualistic interpretation of Psalm 31.
[9] See Ibid., 152-155.
[10] Consider for example Acts 7:59 (pneuma); 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 1:21-24 (note Paul language of remaining in his body).
[11] Consider for example, Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Ecclesiastes 12:7; and Isaiah 53:12 among others. These passages, among many others from the Old Testament, suggest anthropological dualism.

Repost | The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 1

2011-08-25T08:17:00.000-07:00

Originally posted here.

What follows is a series of posts regarding the New Monist movement which combines neuroscience with theology and argues that science has "proven" that we have no soul. The problem I have with such a suggestion isn't just the challenge it presents with what I think is clearly the dualism revealed in Scripture (that we are made up of both a body and a soul), but what this new monism does with the gospel. How does denying the existence of our soul affect our understanding of the gospel? That's one of the questions I hope to answer. This debate is another example of the challenge that science can present for Christian theology.

Since the dawn of modernism, the debate over the relation between the empirical sciences and theology has been in constant friction. The debate, at least in popular culture, almost always centers on the debate between Darwinian evolution and the Bible’s revelation regarding creation. For over a century and a half, some Christians have sought to blend the trend of evolution in science and the biblical message while others embrace either evolution in their fidelity to science or young-earth creationism in their fidelity to revealed Scripture.

But the debate between science and Scripture is not limited to the question of origins, but also of the mind. If biology, astronomy, and other sciences promote a view of origins contrary to Scripture then what about the science of the brain? In recent decades, advances in neuroscience has mounted an assault on the traditional biblical doctrine of dualism – that we are both a body (material) and a soul/spirit (immaterial). Many scientists and well-meaning Christians who have embraced the direction of neuroscience are beginning to more loudly proclaim that humans do not consist two parts – the material and the immaterial – but only one (just the material).

Some materialists use the language of mechanics to describe persons thus making man nothing more than the byproduct of his genes robbing man of any freedom or responsibility. Such a worldview is clearly contrary to the gospel and Scripture.[1] Others, however, affirm persons as a holistic self without a soul whose entire self/body is controlled solely by the brain and yet retain some form of free will and responsibility. This latter view (that we are a holistic body) has a variety of names, but each (though slightly different) are similar in many ways. One of the more prominent views is promoted by persons like Nancey Murphy is called Nonreductive Physicalism. It is nonreductive in the sense that the rejection of the soul ought not to be reduced to the belief that we are simply mechanistic beings. “Physicalism” is preferred to “materialism” due to the implications of such a term. Materialism is usually associated with atheism driven by extreme Darwinian views. Nonreductive physicalism is just one of countless other views in which argues that man is not body and spirit, but a material, holistic self.[2] Since these views are unified in their monism, I have referred to them as a whole as the new monism movement.

The reason all of this is important is not because the new monism movement, based primarily on neuroscience, threatens traditional Christian anthropology, but because such a belief threatens the fundamental doctrine of salvation. Like most doctrines, to tweak, deny, or redefine one doctrine (like Christology, Theology Proper, harmitology, Bibliology, or in this case anthropology) is to tweak, deny, or redefine the gospel. It is imperative that Christians engage theological issues with this fundamental truth in mind. If a certain doctrine, particularly a core central doctrine, is misunderstood it will directly affect one’s view of soteriology. In the case of the new monism, if one rejects the existence of an immaterial soul, then their understanding of salvation will be greatly inhibited and are likely to embrace heretical doctrines.

In this paper, I seek to show that many of those who have embraced monism in this manner have, whether directly or indirectly, abandoned the gospel. As it will be shown below, though few take the atonement and soteriology seriously (namely Joel B. Green) most undermine the gospel by embracing a here and now message with little said in regards to sin, hell, judgment, propitiation, the atonement, or salvation. The simple fact is that thus far in the movement, few have considered this issue in great detail, but when they do speak regarding salvation, they always error on the side of heresy. Furthermore, it will be shown that a more biblical understanding of anthropology is necessary for an accurate understanding of the gospel.

[1] Consider for example atheist Daniel Dennet who wrote, “One widespread tradition has it that we human beings are responsibility agents captains of our fate, because we really are souls, immaterial and immortal clumps of Godstuff that inhabit and control our material bodies rather like spectral puppeteers. It is our souls that are the source of all meaning, and the locus of all our suffering, our joy, our glory and shame. But this idea of immaterial souls, capable of defying the laws of physics, has outlived its credibility thanks to the advance of the natural sciences. Many people think the implications of this are dreadful: We don’t really have ‘free will’ and nothing really matters.” Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking, 2003), 1 and quoted in Ed. Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer, In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 115.
[2] For a brief discussion for some of the other views including emergentism and material constitutionism see John W. Cooper, “The Current Body-Soul Debate: A Case for Dualistic Holism,” SBJT 13.2 (2009): 32-34. See also Green, Palmer, and Corcoran, In Search Of The Soul: Four Views Of The Mind-body Problem for more examples in detail of the different views.

The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 1

Repost | Was Calvin a Calvinists?: Helm Weighs In

2011-08-22T15:49:00.000-07:00

Originally posted here.

I am finishing up another degree at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the ground zero's of the New Calvinists and the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. I am surrounded by Calvinists and for the most part adopt much of Calvinism with some clarification. Personally, I don't care for the label as I find it rather misleading and unhelpful, but such labels have their places.

But here is one of the questions that historians and theologians ask: was Calvin a Calvinsts? We must admit that the answer on the surface is a no because the five points of Calvinism, as we understand them today, came at the Synod of Dort years after John Calvin's death. The five points of Calvinism were in response to the five points of Arminianism. But one can't deny that Calvin affirmed what became known as Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace (a rather unhelpful label), Unconditional Election, and the Perseverance of the Faith. But what about Limited Atonement (another unhelpful label)?

Paul Helm suggests that maybe Calvin, at least in this regard, may not have been as Calvinists as one might think. Maybe. He writes:

Calvin did not commit himself to any version of the doctrine of definite atonement. This, at least, is what I think. His thought is consistent with that doctrine, that is, he did not deny it in express terms. But (by other things that he most definitely did hold to) he may be said to be committed to that doctrine. The distinction is an important one in order to avoid the charge of anachronism. Calvin lived earlier than those debates that led to the explicit formulation of the doctrine of definite atonement in Reformed theology. He did not avow it in express terms, but nor did he deny it. But (I shall argue) in his lifetime he held to certain positions which taken together may presume the doctrine. Note that such a conclusion is not equivalent to an affirmative answer to the question ‘Had Calvin been present at the Synod of Dordt, would he have given his assent to the doctrine of definite atonement?’ A ‘Yes’ to this would leave open the question of whether in the interval between Calvin’s last published word and the early years of the seventeenth century his doctrinal commitments may have changed. That may or may not be a reasonable assumption to make.

I made such claims in Calvin and the Calvinists, published almost thirty years ago, (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982). So this piece involves a trip down memory-lane. Here is what I wrote:

Calvin, not being a universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement. And, it could be added, there is a sound reason for this. There was no occasion for Calvin to enter into argument about the matter, for before the Arminian controversy the extent of the atonement had not been debate expressly within the Reformed churches. (18)

A person may be committed to a doctrine without committing himself to it. How so? Because the proposition or propositions that a person believes may have logical consequences that that person does not realise, (even though such consequences may, to later students, be as plain as a pikestaff).

It seems that Helm's main argument is that it is difficult to pin a theologian down on a subject that he has never had to consider or debate. For example, did Martin Luther affirm the inerrancy of Scripture in terms that we understand today? One would certainly think so, but Luther never made such an explicit claim. But of course not. Luther was not debating modernism, but Roman Catholicism. B. B. Warfield did. But then again, inerrancy was a major theological issue during his day. At the same time, the problem with trying to understand modern debates in our theologian forefathers is that they did not see some of the implications of their writings and thought as we do.

This is one of Helm's main points. If Calvin had personally been at the Synod of Dort would he have affirmed particular redemption? Maybe. There is certainly an argument to be made suggesting that. But at the same time, one can easily cherry pick quotations taken from Calvin's sermons, commentaries, letters, and his systematic theology that suggest the contrary. The same could be said about Luther and inerrancy. One may be safe to assume that they would affirm our modern theological categories, but it is still important to not allow modern theological assumptions to cloud historical truths.

Was Calvin a Calvinists? Probably. Maybe. Its hard to say definitely regarding something he never explicitly stated nor articulated. Maybe I'll add this question to my ever-growing list of questions I'll ask the saints and God when I meet them in glory. But I promise you it won't be the first on that list.

At the end of the day, perhaps Luther himself summed up this debate, and Helm's argument here, in a very different context:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Thus Luther didn't debate inerrancy because it wasn't an issue. Warfield didn't debate the meaning of truth because it wasn't an issue. And regarding definite atonement, perhaps we can say that in terms of a developed theology, Calvin may not have had one. Maybe.

Credo Magazine (Paul Helm) - Definite Atonement and Calvin's Commitments

For more:
Blogizomai - He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | Calvin on the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Theology - Calvinist Baptists and the Many (False) Misconceptions
GBC - "Without the Gospel": A Gem From John Calvin
GBC - Calvin on God in Theology and the Christian Life
GBC - Calvin on Providence
GBC - Calvin on Treasures in Heaven
GBC - Calvin on Fasting
GBC - Calvin on Prayer: Why Bother?
Reviews - "Young, Restless, and Reformed"
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea
Reviews - "Five Leading Reformers"

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Conclusion

2011-08-09T07:30:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Full Series

2011-08-09T06:12:00.000-07:00

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.4

2011-08-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 7
A RESPONSE TO BRIAN MCLAREN SOTERIOLOGY

McLaren and the Gospel

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.3

2011-08-06T07:30:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 7
A RESPONSE TO BRIAN MCLAREN SOTERIOLOGY

The Transcendent Gospel As Antithetical to Culture

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.2

2011-08-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 7
A RESPONSE TO BRIAN MCLAREN SOTERIOLOGY

The Gospel According to the Story in Acts

Because McLaren emphasizes story over propositions, it is best to critique his movement by defining the gospel through the biblical narrative. Therefore, a brief survey of Acts, which consists of various cultures as its background, will prove the transcendence of the gospel. Acts is a story from beginning to end narrating how Christ grew His church on the gospel. If the gospel remained transcendent when the early church traveled the Roman world, with its different cultures, then the gospel is not subject to adaption due to changes in any cultural.

Acts begins with Jesus’ Great Commission prior to His ascension, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). From the beginning, then, Christ commissions the disciples to preach the gospel to everyone regardless of culture, people group, geographical location, race, gender, or background. Christ says nothing about contextualizing the gospel, but only to preach it as it is. The rest of Acts records how the apostles fulfilled this commission and Acts 1:8 serves as an outline of how they did that.

The gospel began to spread first in Jerusalem. After being filled with the Spirit, Peter stood up and began to preach the gospel to the crowd. Peter finds himself in a Jewish context and in a Jewish culture. Although the Romans were the ruling power, Judaism remained the dominate culture in the city. These events took place during Pentecost (2:1); a Jewish holiday. In the city was the Jewish Temple, the center of Jewish worship.

In this Jewish culture, Peter preaches the gospel. Beginning with the Old Testament, Peter explains that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Jesus, according to Peter, was crucified (2:23; 2:36), raised from the dead by God (2:32), seated at the right hand of God (2:34), and is both Lord and Christ (2:36). Peter exhorts the crowd to “save yourselves from this crooked generation” (2:40).
Those who accepted the message were baptized subjecting themselves to the teachings (propositions) of the apostles and living lives that reflected obedience and regeneration. In other words, those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and Lord over all sent from God to be crucified and raised from the dead repented fully subjecting themselves to the will of Christ.

The same message, with the same culture and context, is preached throughout Jerusalem. In chapter 3, after healing a lame man, Peter and John proclaimed the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, Peter exhorts his Jewish readers to “repent . . . and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). And those who repented did so publically.

Beginning in 8:4, the gospel begins to spread outside of the city into Judea and Samaria. In both regions, the gospel encountered different cultures, contexts, nationality, traditions, and backgrounds. In the eyes of the Jews, Samaritans were outcasts and considered half-Jews, but though the setting and the culture changed, the gospel remained the same.

Philip is sent to Gaza to preach the gospel where he meets a man reading Isaiah 53 and is unsure of its meaning. Philip explained that Isaiah foretold of Jesus Christ would be crucified on our account. The man believed and evidenced his repentance by being baptized. So even though the gospel was in a different culture it had not changed.

Chapter 10 introduces the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter’s mission to Cornelius best illustrates the transcendence of the gospel. The message Peter preaches to Cornelius is the same message preached in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria even though Peter (who preached in each of these regions) finds himself in a very different culture and context. He begins by identifying Jesus Christ as “Lord of all” (10:36) describing how Jesus was appointed by God and performed many signs and wonders (10:38-39). This Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead (10:39-40). It is through this raised Messiah, that God expects all to seek the “forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43). As a result of their repentance, those who believed were baptized.

Finally, from chapter 12-28, the spread of the gospel is told from Paul’s perspective as he preaches the gospel to both Jews (in the synagogues) and Gentiles everywhere he goes. Paul, like Peter, preached the same message of repentance (17:30; 26:20) and belief in Jesus Christ (13:41; 15:7; 15:11; 16:31; 19:4; 26:27) who died and was raised from the grave everywhere he went regardless of the surrounding culture or context. Nowhere in Acts is the gospel subject to cultural accommodation nor do the apostles debate contexualization.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.4
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.5
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1b
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.2

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: Form Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 7.1

2011-08-04T08:52:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 7
A RESPONSE TO BRIAN MCLAREN SOTERIOLOGY

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.2b

2011-08-02T11:05:00.000-07:00

Throughout some of his books, McLaren repeatedly names a number of issues and crisis’ that are important to him. In Everything Must Change, McLaren offers “our plethora of critical global crises [that] can be traced to four deep dysfunctions.” These four crises, or dysfunctions, are the Prosperity Crisis, the Equity Crisis, the Security Crisis, and the Spirituality Crisis. Most interesting is the fourth crisis identified by McLaren which he sees as “the lynchpin or leverage point through which we can reverse the first three.”[1]

McLaren believes that solving the Spirituality Crisis is “capable of healing or reducing the three previous crises.” To McLaren, the world’s religions, especially Christianity and Islam, have failed to provide answers to solving the three other crises: Prosperity (environmental breakdown), Equity (economic inequality), and Security (war). The answer that McLaren offers is the kingdom of God, which calls us to solve the problems of the world.

McLaren follows up with asking two important questions that he cannot help but ask. First, “what are the biggest problems in the world?” followed by, “what does Jesus have to say about these global problems?” McLaren believes, Christians, and all followers and admirers of Jesus including Muslims, have failed to take the message of Jesus to bring the kingdom of God to earth and are therefore not faithful to the message of Jesus.[2]

Likewise McLaren is moved by his co-author, Tony Campolo, to write about what issues should matter the most to us.   He criticizes modern evangelicals of only caring about abortion and homosexuality. McLaren offers five issues that concern him most: overpopulation, consumerism, ecology, genetic engineering and psychopharmacology, and poverty.[3] What is interesting about all of this is that Rauschenbusch did the same thing. In what he considered to be the “social evils” of his day, Rauschenbusch believed that the social gospel was the answer to these issues. The six social evils, according to Rauschenbusch were Religions Bigotry, the Combination of Graft and Political Power, the Corruption of Justice, the Mob Spirit and Mob Action, Militarism, and Class Contempt.[4]

The point here is not the contrast between McLaren and Rauschenbusch in what they see as major crises’, but that both identified specific issues that the kingdom of God is to eradicate. Jesus came to conquer sin (“social evils” such as colonialism) by calling His followers to partake in the kingdom of God here and now. McLaren is in line with modernism’s social gospel in that it defines the gospel as solving specific social evils that Jesus seeks to eradicate.

Walter Rauschenbusch is among the many influential voices for McLaren. On his website, McLaren offered various resources as “follow-up” for Everything Must Change. One of the resources McLaren recommends is Walter Rauschenbush’s Christianity and the Social Crisis where Rauschenbusch lays out his argument for the social gospel.[5] In Everything Must Change, McLaren quotes Rauschenbusch in agreement with the influential social gospel theologian.[6] Furthermore, Paul Rauschenbusch, Walter Rauschenbusch’s great-grandson who continues the work of his great-grandfather, is an influential voice in the Emerging Church. McLaren frequently links to Paul on his blog, especially during the 2008 Presidential election.[7]

Because of the social implications of McLaren’s understanding of the kingdom of God, McLaren has increasingly become involved in politics.[8] McLaren and the Emerging Church is reacting to perceived abuses of the Religious Right by lobbying for the other end of the political spectrum. Emergents use terms such as “Progressive Evangelicals”[9] and “Red-Letter Christians,”[10] to describe their political convictions. In the 2008 Presidential election, McLaren joined the Matthew 25 Network that endorsed then Senator Barack Obama for President. The Matthew 25 Network was created in order to use the political realm to fulfill the kingdom of God by reaching “the least of these.”[11]

McLaren publically endorsed Obama for President encouraging others to do the same. In a series of posts McLaren offered six reasons why Christians should vote for Obama. One reason he gave was that he felt that Obama was the best candidate to help to help the poor and the oppressed, i. e. “the least of these.”[12]

Furthermore, McLaren has frequently contributed to the God’s Politics website and blog.[13] God’s Politics was inspired by Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics, and continues the “conversation” among Emergents as they engage in the political process.

In light of the growing influence of the social gospel that stains McLaren’s theology, Emergent theology could be more accurately defined as the Postmodern Social Gospel, thus sealing its fate as the New Liberalism. History has shown that cultural accommodation leads to the social gospel. By seeking to be like the culture, the Emerging Church, like Protestant Liberals before it, compromised on biblical authority which led to unorthodox views on anthropology, harmitology, and Soteriology. All that was left for the Emerging Church, just like modern liberalism, was the social gospel.

[1] McLaren, Everything Must Change, 5.
[2] Ibid., 11-13.
[3] McLaren and Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point, 122-124.
[4] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, 248-258.
[5] Brian McLaren, Brian’s Recommendations.
[6] McLaren, Everything Must Change, 243.
[7] For example, Brian McLaren, Paul Gets It Right.
[8] Rauschenbusch was also involved in politics, especially regarding economics. Both McLaren and Rauschenbusch dislike capitalism. Cf. Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianizing the Social Order (New York: MacMillian Company, 1926), 311-323 and McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 270-271.
[9] Wallis, The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America (Ney York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008), which McLaren endorsed. See also Tony Campolo, Red Letter Christianity: A New Name for Progressive Evangelicals.
[10] Tony Campolo, Red-Letter Christians: A Citizens Guide to Faith and Politics (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2008).
[11] See for example a letter written by McLaren on behalf of the Matthew 25 Network that described what the group believed and were trying to achieve at Brian McLaren, The Matthew 25 Network.
[12] Brian McLaren, Why I’m Voting For Barack Obama . . . And Why I Hope You Will Too: Part 3.
[13] Sojourners, Brian McLaren: God’s Politics Blog.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.4
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.5
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1b

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.2a

2011-08-02T10:51:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 6
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!

The Kingdom of God and the Postmodern Social Gospel

Because the kingdom of God is present and inclusive and not eschatological and exclusive, strong remnants of the social gospel flourish in McLaren’s theology. Some argue that the movement as a whole is not the social gospel revamped.[1] However, anyone that reads, studies, and joins the conversation within the movement cannot deny that the Emerging church has become almost nothing else than a postmodern version of the social gospel and Brian McLaren is among those leading the charge.

One example comes from Emergent Village, a website pioneered and continuously influenced by Brian McLaren. One blog asks the question, “what does it mean to be a Christian?”[2] The answer is given in the form of a youtube video that combines a number of videos from Emergent leaders, including Brian McLaren, that seeks to answer that question.[3]

In the video, Campolo reveals the social aspects of Emergent Soteriology. Campolo defined Christianity while a on the show, “the Hour,” with by George Stroumboulopoulos as:

The fact is there are 2,000 verses in Scripture that talking about caring for the poor. And I don’t care what else your into, if you ignore what the Bible is really about, helping poor and oppressed people, you’ve missed the message of Jesus . . . I see you’ve got the white band of Bono, and here is a guy who is a rock singer who has done more to articulate what Christianity is really about than most we preachers. In fact he says to be Christian is to commit to the poor and oppressed. The only description that Jesus gives of judgment day is how we treated the poor. On that day, He’s not going to ask you theology questions . . . Here’s what it’s going to be, 25th chapter of Matthew, “I was hungry, did you feed me? I was naked, did you clothe me? I was sick, did you care for me? I was an alien, did you take me in? What you’ve failed to do to the least of these, you failed to do unto me because I’m not up in the sky somewhere. I’m waiting to be loved in people who hurt. And as you relate to people who hurt, your relating to me.” There is no Christianity that does not tie us up with the poor and the oppressed of the world.[4]

In this one quote, Campolo makes it clear what he thinks the gospel is: helping poor and oppressed people. Nowhere in the video is there a referenced to the cross or the atonement. Rather, the video, endorsed by Emergent Village, answers that to be a Christian means to love one another by helping the poor, the oppressed, and by serving in the kingdom of God.[5]

Also, while promoting one of his books, McLaren spoke at a conference taking questions during a panel at the event. The panel was asked “what is the good news?” McLaren answered:

I think this is where it gets interesting because one of the ways that what we do become colonization, when we’re going to represent a religion and trying to make converts to a religion . . . but the good news isn’t the good news of Christianity, it’s the good news of the Kingdom of God. And I think that Fatmire [Muslim peace activist also present at the conference and sitting next to him on the panel] working for peace, is an agent for peace, and I’d much rather her be working for peace being who she is than . . . becoming a person in a church worrying about the list over there on that wall. [on “the list” are things nonessentials like speaking in tongues, etc.]

So, to me there’s something we really have to grapple with about whether the border of a religion is the border of the Kingdom of God. And I think that’s a question we’d be wise to raise. I liked what you said about there not being despair when you’re among the extremely needy people. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we found out that God is present where ever there’s suffering because God is there bringing healing and God is really present wherever people are working against injustice because that’s the work of God, where ever people are working for peace. And then we find that the place that God isn’t is where you have a bunch of affluent people who are self-absorbed . . . and that wouldn’t surprise me why they would get depressed, because, in some way, it’s not that God isn’t present but they’re snoring through the presence of God.[6]

Here, McLaren connects the gospel with the kingdom of God which brings peace to the world moving beyond the borders of religion and propositions. The kingdom is found in helping “the extremely needy people” because that is where God is present.

. . . to be continued.

[1] Gibbs and Bolger write, “It would be a serious mistake to interpret the foregoing conversations as simply a return to the liberal, social gospel of the 1920s,” in Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, 152.
[2] Steve Knight, What Does It Mean to be a Christian?.
[3] thekeynote00, What Does it Mean to be a Christian?.
[4] No transcript exists of this interview. However, the entire interview is available online and was taken from The Hour, Tony Campolo.
[5] The primary reference to the kingdom of God comes from the mouth of Brian McLaren in the video. McLaren says, “All of us are a lot more out of sync from what Jesus would have really wanted than we realize. Maybe we made little turns along the way and we have no idea how far we are out of sync from what Jesus really wants . . . I think you can contrast the kingdom of God with every kingdom or regime or ideology of this world by saying ‘worldly systems are - are unified by their love of power. The kingdom of God is about the power of love.’”
[6] Transcript from this speech is from, Michael Krahn, Brian McLaren: What is the Gospel?, who was at the conference and recorded the event. The same transcript is also available from Benjamin Euler, The Gospel According to Brian McLaren.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.4
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.5
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1a

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1

2011-07-29T07:43:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 6
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!

So, the gospel according to Brian McLaren is simply the kingdom of God is at hand! As it has been shown, Emergent theology, just like its Protestant Liberal counterparts, began by accommodating to the culture, and compromising biblical authority. This was followed by a here and now/inclusive salvation. All that is left, then, is emphasis on the kingdom that grows into a social gospel movement.

The Kingdom of God According to McLaren

So what is the kingdom of God according to Brian McLaren? It is the heart of Jesus’ ministry and message. It is the substance of salvation. It is calling of every follower of Christ. To dismiss the kingdom of God is to misunderstand the theology of Brian McLaren all together.

Throughout McLaren’s writings, heavy emphasis is placed on the present reality of the kingdom of God. After noting that the central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God, co-author with McLaren, Tony Campolo writes, “God wants this kingdom to become established on earth, now! . . . Which, of course, contradicts what both evangelicals . . . believe about Christianity being an otherworldly, pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die religion that promises us mansions in the next world if only we endure the oppressions, inequities, and injustices of the present socioeconomic order.” Campolo goes on to define the kingdom of God as, “a new society that Jesus wants to create in this world - within human history, not after the Second Coming or a future apocalypse or anything else. But right now.”[1]

McLaren echoes the present reality sentiment of the kingdom throughout many of his writings. In one instance, while discussing the frustration of the only sermon Christians preach: if you do not repent and believe in Jesus then you are going to hell, McLaren describes how radically different Jesus’ message of the kingdom is. He writes:

This message of the kingdom – contrary to popular belief – was not focused on how to escape this world and its problems by going to heaven after death, but instead was focused on how God’s will could be done on earth, in history, during this life . . . God’s Kingdom [is] God’s dreams coming true for this earth, of God’s justice and peace replacing earth’s injustice and disharmony.[2]

McLaren, then, by emphasizing the present reality of the kingdom, ignores the future hope of the kingdom. McLaren goes so far as to virtually deny any traditional eschatology because it take our eyes off fulfilling the kingdom here and now. McLaren criticizes “current eschatologies” as “not only ignorant and wrong” but also “dangerous and immoral.” The picture of Christ establishing His kingdom by force runs counter to the kingdom in His first coming:

We don’t have a violent “Second Coming” Jesus who finishes what the gentle “First Coming” Jesus failed to do, but we have a poetic description of the way the gentle First Coming Jesus powerfully overcomes through his nonviolent “weakness” . . . a prince of peace whose word of reconciliation is truly mightier than Caesar’s sword.[3]

The kingdom is much different than how it is portrayed by current evangelicalism. Overemphasized eschatologies and a failure to see the kingdom as here and now has caused Christians, for centuries, to ignore the real message of Jesus. Christians, therefore, have “launched . . . wars, perpetuated racism, and defended an unjust status quo.” The message of Jesus, rooted in the kingdom of God, is about “making peace and turning the other cheek and crossing boundaries to serve people formerly considered ‘outsiders.’” It is inclusive, loving, serving, and open. Because the church has missed this vision of the kingdom, McLaren argues, our message is ignored and “people turn from us in boredom,” and “disgust.”[4]

Not only is the kingdom present, it is also inclusive. Like the Pharisees, the modern Church believe that unless one believed the right things, they were not right with God. Jesus, McLaren argues, transformed all of that. By having fellowship with “notorious sinners . . . Jesus wanted to help them experience transformation.” Rejection only “hardens people,” whereas acceptance “makes transformation possible.” Therefore, the church must be inclusive, inviting persons to participate in the conversation, to join the kingdom of God. Rather than a “me vs. us” approach, the model set forth by Jesus was inclusive and accepting.[5]

This inclusive mentality results in unity and reconciliation. In Galations 3:28, Paul remarks that because we are all united in Christ distinctions like Jew and Gentile, free and slave, and male and female, are gone. McLaren says the kingdom unites the war veteran and the pacifist, the contemporary granddaughter and traditional grandmother, the Pentecostal and the Baptist, the Christian and the Muslim, the Republican and the Democrat, the Believer and the doubter are all reconciled in Christ. Only the kingdom of God can reconcile us.[6]

[1] McLaren and Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point, 47.
[2] McLaren, Everything Must Change, 21.
[3] Ibid., 144-145.
[4] McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, 78-79. See also, Ibid., 83-87 where McLaren goes into more detail into why church attendance has plummeted.
[5] Ibid., 162-170.
[6] Ibid., 99-100.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.4
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.5
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 6.1

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Repost | Jesus Chrsit is Divine: The Biblical Evidence

2011-07-28T06:35:00.000-07:00

Tonight we'll be discussing the doctrine of Christ as we continue our Wednesday night series on some basic beliefs of Christianity loosely based on Wayne Grudem's great book Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know. Here are some of the reasons to believe that Jesus was fully and completely God.

(Much of what follows is taken from Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (RE: Lit), beginning on page 221.)

God the Father said He was God

Hebrews 1:8 - “But of the Son [the Father] says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever & ever.’”

Jesus Said He Was God

Matthew 26:63-65 – his enemies declare JC spoke blasphemy
John 6:38, 41-46 – JC clams He was eternally God in heaven before coming to earth
John 5:18; 10:30-33 – JC enemies said He made “himself equal with God.”

Demons Said He Was God

Mark 1:24; Luke 4:3-34 - "the Holy One of God."
Luke 4:40-41 – “the Son of God.”

The Bible Says He Was God

John 20:28 – Thomas’ confession: “My Lord and my God!”
Romans 9:5 – “the Christ who is God over all.”
Titus 2:13 – “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Titus 3:4 – Jesus is “God our Savior.”
1 John 5:20 – Jesus “is the true God.”

Jesus has the names of God

Son of Man
Son of God
Lord
Alpha and Omega

Jesus Posesses the Attributes of God

He is Omnipotent

Matthew 28:18 - "All authority has been given to me."
Matthew 8:26-27 – quieted the storm
Matthew 14:19 – fed thousands with little boys lunch
John 2:1-11 – turned water into wine

He is Omnipresent - Psalm 139:7-12

Matthew 28:20 - "I'm with you always, even to the end of the age."

He is Omniscient - Matthew 11:27; John 2:25; 4:18

John 16:30 – (Disciples) “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

He is Immutable/Unchanging - James 1:17

Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

He is Sovereign Over the Future - Matthew 16:21; 17:22; 20:18-19; 26:1-2

Predicted the certainty of His own death.
Predicted the certainty of His own return.

He is Eternal - John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:11-12

John 17:5 - "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

He is Creator - Isa. 37:16; 44:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2

John 1:2-3 – “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through im, and w/o him was not anything made that was made.”

He is Soverign

1 Cor. 15:27 – “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.”

He is Sustainer – Heb. 1:3

Colossians 1:17 - “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

He is Savior - Joel 2:32

Rom. 10:13 - “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Jesus Did the Works of God

Performed Miracles

John 20:30-31 - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Remained Holy and Sinless

John 8:46 – “Which one of you convicts me of sin?”
Peter – Acts 3:14; 1 Pet. 1:10; 2:22; 3:18
John – 1 John 3:5
James - James 5:6
Paul - 2 Cor. 5:21
Judas - Matthew 27:3-4
Pilate - Luke 23:22
Executing Soldier - Luke 23:47
Robber on the Cross - Luke 23:41

Forgave Sins

Mark 12:1-12– JC forgave paralytics sins. Pharisees replied, “who can forgive sins but God?

Judges Eternal Destinies

John 5:21-22 - "“For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.”

Grants Eternal Life

John 10:28 - “I give them [my sheep] eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Accepted and Demanded Worship

Jesus said to pray to Him – John 14:13-14; 15:7
Stephen prayed to Jesus – Acts 7:59-60
Canaanite woman prayed to Jesus
Matthew 15:25 – Bu she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’”
Jesus is worshiped by a man He healed

John 9:38 – “He said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.”

John 5:23 – “All may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”
Colossians 2:9 – “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

How one can look at this evidence (and this barely scratches the surface of the wealth of biblical evidence of the deity of Christ) and deny that Jesus Christ is God. Liberals, Jehovah Witnesses (who are in the tradition of Arius and the Arian heresy), when they deny Christ deity are at the same time questioning the authority and clarity of Scripture.

Consider following what James Boyce had to say on the importance of this doctrine:

The importance of this fact of the Scripture teaching cannot be over-estimated. In its appropriate relations to the other truths taught it becomes the foundation of every hope. It is not a mere speculation. It enters into the very life of the Christian, enabling him to say: “I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day.” 2 Tim. 1:12. It is not sufficient for us to know that the person who died for us was divine before he came into the world. The Scriptures assure us, and we need to comfort ourselves with the assurance, that he was equally divine when a babe in Bethlehem, when suffering upon the cross, when ascending from Olivet, and even now, while in human nature, he rules as Mediatorial King, or makes intercession with the Father as our great high Priest. We must even go beyond the idea of some kind of divinity, and recognize him as the unchangeable God, who was, and is, and ever shall be, the Almighty, the well-beloved Son of the Father, whom that Father always hears, and to whom all things have been entrusted, in order that the consummation of his glorious kingdom may be fully attained. The incarnation has been indeed, of only one person of the Godhead, but of a person truly and essentially divine, whose relations to the divine nature have remained unaltered during his incarnation on earth and in heaven. -James Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, 275-276

For more:
Sermon - December 19, 2010 - Jesus is God
GBC - Grudem on the Deity of Christ
GBC - The Gospel Coalition on the Deity of Christ
GBC - December 5, 2010 - Jesus is Lord
GBC - The Nicene Creed

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.5

2011-07-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 5.5

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRIAN MCLAREN

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.4

2011-07-25T17:10:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 5.4

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRIAN MCLAREN

Soteriology (continued)

The second question raised regarding inclusion regards hell and eternal punishment of which McLaren has written much. McLaren holds that hell and eternity are primarily issues about God. The most comprehensive treatment of hell from McLaren comes from The Last Word and the Word After That. Greg Gilbert[1] argues that McLaren is uncomfortable “with the traditional doctrine of hell” for a number of reasons. First, “it implies a capricious, vindictive, and almost sadistic God.” Even McLaren dedicates his book to those “seeking for a God to love but have been repulsed by the ugly, unworthy images of a cruel, capricious, merciless, tyrannical deity.”[2] At stake here is God’s love. God is so loving, McLaren argues, that if persons were in hell, Jesus “would go down there and get them out.”[3]

Additionally, Gilbert points out that McLaren is uncomfortable with the traditional doctrine of hell because of the negative affects it has on Christian behavior. Emphasizing the afterlife, as it has been shown, leads to ignoring injustice and committing atrocities. Furthermore, the wrong people are prescribed to be in hell. In McLaren’s view, hell is not reserved for those who do not accept a prescribed set of beliefs, but it is rather for those who do not love their neighbors as Jesus commanded:

With no apologies to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or modern evangelicalism, Jesus (in Luke 16:19) does not prescribe hell to those who refuse to accept the message of justification by grace through faith, or to those who are predestined for perdition, or to those who don’t express faith in a favored atonment theory by accepting Jesus as their “personal Savior.” Rather, hell - literal or figurative - is for the rich and comfortable who proceed on their way without concern for their poor neighbor day after day. As Jesus also makes clear in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), they fail to love their neighbors as themselves and fail to follow “what is written in the Law,” and therefore will not inherit eternal life.[4]

McLaren’s view of hell is described as “predicamentalism.”[5] Universalism, traditionalism, and annihilationism are all invalid. “What happens to the wicked in eternity,” is the wrong question. The right question is how does the idea of hell function in our lives? Does it lead to hate or make us realize that God wants no one to be cast from His kingdom.[6]

In the Emergent doctrine of hell, two key components of McLaren’s understanding of the gospel are apparent: the gospel is inclusive and about here and now. In regards to inclusion, McLaren believes that Jesus used “hell-rhetoric” in order to teach His followers about the evil of exclusion and ostracizing others. The Christian should rather show compassion and mercy for the downtrodden and needy.[7]

[1] What follows comes from Greg D. Gilbert, “Saved From the Wrath of God: An Examination of Brian McLaren’s Approach to the Doctrine of Hell,” 247.
[2] McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That, iii.
[3] Ibid., 32.
[4] McLaren, Everything Must Change, 208.
[5] McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, 126.
[6] Gilbert, “Saved From the Wrath of God,” 248. Neo argues, “It’s none of your business who does and does not go to hell . . . Now stop speculating about hell and start living for heaven!” McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That, 126.
[7] Gilbert, “Saved From the Wrath of God,” 251.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3



For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.3

2011-07-25T07:30:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 5.3
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRIAN MCLAREN

Soteriology (continued)

Another important aspect of McLaren’s Soteriology is inclusion. Rooted in postmodern thought, McLaren seeks and finds truth in various religions and faiths.[1] Inclusion, to McLaren, is rooted in the ministry of Jesus. Throughout His time on earth, Jesus repeatedly included persons who had been rejected by society like tax collectors and prostitutes. Jesus was inclusive, and so should we. This inclusion, to McLaren, goes beyond uniting races and genders, but also applies to uniting persons of other faiths:

Because we follow Jesus, because we believe Jesus is true, and because Jesus moves towards all people in love and kindness and grace, we do the same. Our Christian identity must not make us afraid of, superior to, isolated from, defensive or aggressive toward, or otherwise hostile to people of other religions. Rather, the reverse.[2]

McLaren’s understanding of inclusion is rooted in the incarnation. The incarnation of Jesus, McLaren argues, bound Him, not just to the nation of Israel, but to all of humanity. Therefore, like Jesus, Christians are bound, not just to each other, but to all of humanity. Because Christians are followers of Jesus, then they are “bound to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, New Agers, everyone.” We are not only bound to them in love, but also called to “become one of them, to enter their world and be with them in it.”[3]

This inclusion that began with Jesus becomes the standard practice of New Testament Christians, McLaren argues. The apostle Paul exemplified this. Prior to his conversion, Paul was a Pharisee, the group most criticized by Jesus. They refused to approve or tolerate other religions and beliefs. After Paul’s conversion, he began to reach out to Gentiles and persons of other faiths. McLaren then quotes 1 Corinthians 9:2-23 where Paul says that in order to reach Jews, he became a Jew, and to reach Gentiles he became a Gentile. Paul was willing to become all things to all men that by all possible means he might win some. In short, Paul was incarnational by being inclusive. Therefore, inclusion in relation to other religions:

should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat. We should be seen as a protector of their heritages, a defender against common enemies, not one of the enemies. Just as Jesus came originally not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, not to condemn people but to save them, I believe he comes today not to destroy or condemn anything (anything but evil) but to redeem and save everything that can be redeemed or saved.[4]

McLaren then provides a number of “obligations” that the Christian must adhere to in light of his proposal of inclusion towards other religions. These obligations include humility, a willingness to “coexist” with other religions ungrudgingly, dialogue with other faiths, protect persons of other faiths, and other similar proposals. One such proposal is “that the ‘old, old story’ may not be the ‘true, true story.’”[5] By this, McLaren proposes that as we engage and dialogue with other religions, we might come to the realization that the gospel as we have understood it may not be correct:

We must be open to the perpetual possibility that our received understandings of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted . . . In this sense Christians in missional dialogue must continually expect to rediscover the gospel.[6]

An inclusive gospel, then, is an evolving one. Postmodern Christians must live in paradox proclaiming the gospel even though we may not fully have it yet.

For the rest of us, rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on (as Jesus told his disciples to do), giving all the respect and honor due those who are not convinced by our message (with meekness Jesus taught, rather than calling down fire from heaven on them (as Jesus told his disciples not to do).[7]

This inclusion of other religions leads to a number of questions. First, do all paths lead to God? Rooted in postmodernity culture, McLaren answers with uncertainty and inclusion:

Don’t all religions lead to God? Well, I wouldn’t put it past God to be able to get         through to people in (or out of) any religion. In my experience, God is amazingly merciful, so I wouldn’t be shocked at all if God’s mercy extends to surprising lengths, in unexpected directions, to people you never would have guessed.[8]

But McLaren is clear, he is not suggesting that “it doesn’t matter what you believe.”[9] However, pluralism does have something going for it: they avert “the concept of a narrow, exclusive god who enjoys fueling petty religious squabbles.” God has given each of us “state-of-the-art brains” to seek the truth and to use our minds. Humility is key. We must be humble enough “to admit it is wrong and self-correct, and active enough to keep pursuing truth and learning, thus leading over time to an interestingly accurate, truth-reflecting faith.”[10]

McLaren draws a diagram in order to help explain his argument. One large circle is labeled A which “represents the ultimately true religion, possessing all truth (and no falsehood) about God, life, the universe.” However, McLaren adds, anyone that claims to posses such faith should be laughed at in their face for no one posses’ such ultimate true religion. Interwoven with this diagram are a number of smaller circles, each a different size from the other. These circles represent various religions, including Christianity. McLaren argues that each religion possesses some truth, but also some falsehood. The point of the diagram is to show the reader that “clearly, each circle has something to teach and something to learn from all the others.” Therefore, “instead of saying each religion is equally valid, we would be wiser to say that each religion has real value, conveying a viewpoint that can challenge and enrich the others and be challenged and enriched by the others.” But in the end, “no circle comprehends or contains all the truth.”[11]

[1] McLaren is emphatic that he is not arguing that “all religions are the same.” Incarnational ministry is not “a kind of ‘everybody-is-ok/all-religions-are-equally-true’ relativist/pluralist tolerance, where I smoke weed with the Rastifarian, chant with the Hare Krishnas, bow toward Mecca with the Muslims, and dance with the Pentecostals because ‘it’s all good, it’s all fun, it’s all mellow, and it doesn’t matter which religion (if any?) you believe as long as you’re sincere, man.’ If you take what I’m saying and turn it into either of these approaches, you’re smoking some kind of weed yourself, I think” in McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 283.
[2] Ibid., 281.
[3] Ibid., 281-282.
[4] Ibid., 287.
[5] Ibid., 294.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 295.
[8] McLaren, A Search For What Makes Sense, 177.
[9] McLaren states explicitly, “All paths aren’t all the same.” However he adds, “‘Although all will no doubt yield some truth.” Ibid.,178.
[10] Ibid., 177. See also R. Albert Mohler, A Generous Orthodoxy. Is It Orthodox?, who discusses McLaren’s view on relating to other religions.
[11] McLaren, A Search For What Makes Sense, 179.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2


For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2

2011-07-22T08:38:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 5.2
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRIAN MCLAREN

Soteriology

McLaren’s Soteriology is clear that the modern approach to salvation falls short of the message of Jesus. For one, nowhere are there the Four Spiritual Laws or altar calls in Scripture.[1] Rather, McLaren offers a postmodern gospel wrapped in mystery and inclusion. McLaren defines salvation as “to rescue” or “to heal.” It has little to do with life after death. Throughout Scripture, salvation carries the idea of “getting out of trouble” which could “be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.” Salvation means God intervenes and rescues.[2]

According to McLaren, God saves in a number of ways. First, He saves by judging: when injustice reigns, God sets things straight. Secondly, God saves by forgiving: true salvation comes whenever God both judges and forgives, brings both justice and mercy, Thirdly, God saves by reaching and revealing: Jesus, then, comes to show His followers a better way to live. Therefore:

To say that Jesus is Savior is to say that in Jesus, God is intervening as Savior in all of these ways, judging (naming evil as evil), forgiving (breaking the vicious cycle of causes and effect, making reconciliation possible), and teaching (showing how to set chain reactions of good in motion). Jesus comes then not to condemn (to bring consequences we deserve) but to save by shining the light on our evil, by naming our evil as evil so we can repent and escape the chain of bad actions and bad consequences through forgiveness, and so we can learn from Jesus the master-teaching to live more wisely in the future.[3]

In light of this definition, Mclaren, presents a number of propositions that describe his understanding of salvation.

First and foremost, salvation is not just about life after death. Modern evangelicals are obsessed with eternal life. McLaren, in contrast, is vehement that salvation is not about who gets into heaven or hell, but about Jesus saving us in this world.[4] McLaren defines life after death salvation as “personal salvation.” To McLaren, personal salvation is wrong for a number of reasons.[5] The main reason for rejecting personal salvation is because it strikes of selfishness.[6] McLaren compares this to those on the Titanic who scrambled for life rafts trying to save themselves rather than seeking to save others. A personal salvation approach to the gospel turns each individual towards the self rather than each other. Rather than seeking to save the world, the individual is only interested in saving themselves. Is this not the “sanctified self-centeredness” that Jesus condemned? McLaren fears that personal salvation “unintentionally” trivializes “life before death.”

Furthermore, McLaren sees personal salvation as a self-fulfilling reality. According to personal salvation the world will deteriorate resulting in God destroying the earth in wrath and judgement. As a result, proponents of the personal salvation view allow this to take place out of complacency. “Since God is going to destroy the earth,” the argument goes, “why worry about trying to save it?” “If things will only deteriorate, then why seek to improve everything?”[7]

As a result, McLaren believes that personal salvation could make someone a worse person because they are “more self-centered and less concerned about justice on earth because of a preoccupation with forgiveness in heaven.” Jesus, rather, “is the Savior of the whole world.”[8]

McLaren, thus, not only redefines the cross and penal substitution but also rejects it. Even Jesus Himself did not even know why He had to die. McLaren tells the story of a church member, George, who came into his office and asked him “why did Jesus have to die?” The climax at the cross made no sense to him and so McLaren, as the pastor, spent two weeks thinking about that question before answering. After researching the theology of “John Stott, J. I. Packer, James Boice, and others,” McLaren still had no answer. McLaren then turned to his brother and asked the same question who answered, “well, neither did Jesus . . . Remember the story about Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane? . . . It sounds to me like Jesus didn’t really understand why it had to be that way either. But the point wasn’t understanding it; the point was doing what needed to be done.” After some thought, McLaren responded, “You know . . . for some reason . . . that doesn’t answer my question, but somehow, that’s better than an answer. It kind of makes the question not really matter so much.” McLaren gave the same answer to George who became “a committed follower of Jesus.”[9]

Furthermore, in the “conversation” between Dan, the burned-out pastor, and Neo, the postmodern Christian, Dan asks Neo why he failed to share the “gospel” with a certain woman who was hurting and craving “to feel closer to God again.” Neo’s answer is telling:

“Dan, I don’t think that most Christians have any idea what the gospel really is . . . For example, how would you define the gospel?” I said something about accepting Christ as your personal savior and justification by grace through faith, not by our works, based on the finished work of Christ on the cross, and he said, “Yes, that’s exactly what most modern Christians would say . . . Does it bother you that Jesus never defined the gospel in this way? And does it bother you that no Christians in history ever used the phrase ‘accept Christ as your personal savior’ until a few decades ago? Does it bother you that our little gospel presentations are really just modern sales pitches that reduce the gospel to modern dimensions – laws, steps, simple diagrams, complete with sales close?”[10]

Neo defines the gospel as “The kingdom of God is at hand.” By redefining the gospel apart from the cross is a radical shift from historical Soteriology. Jesus, in McLaren’s theology, becomes less of a sacrificial lamb and more of a unfortunate martyr who stood for something that was too radical for His day. Trevor Craigen described McLaren’s understanding of the cross best:

[This] new idea sees Jesus becoming vulnerable on the cross and accepting suffering     from every one, Jew and Roman, and not visiting suffering on everyone in some sort of revenge. It puts on display God’s loving heart which wants forgiveness, not vengeance. The idea is about suffering and transforming it into reconciliation, and not avenging it through retaliation. God rejects the violence, dominance, and oppression which have so gripped the world from the time of Cain and Abel until today’s news headlines. The call of the cross is for mankind not to make the Kingdom come about through coercion but ‘to welcome it through self sacrifice and vulnerability.’[11]

[1] “Do you realize that Paul never shared ‘the Four Spiritual Laws,’ John never invited anyone to come forward and say a sinner’s prayer so they could have a born-again experience, Peter never explained the four or five simple ‘steps to peace with God,’ St. Augustine never invited anyone to pray with him to receive Christ as personal Savior, Martin Luther never issued an altar call, Jesus himself never told anyone how to ‘become a Christian?’” in McLaren, More Ready Than you Realize, 146-147.
[2] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 101.
[3] Ibid., 104-105. Note that McLaren does not make any reference to sin.
[4] “The description of the ‘here and now’ focus continues: Salvation is as much concerned with life before death as with life after death, and is the rescue of one from the fruiltess ways of life today, of rescue from the cycle of violence . . ., and of deliverance from a life of hatred and fear . . . This kind of person would not have been told to give up this life and focus on salvation from hell after this life, but rather to make sure his theology does not aid and abet him in avoiding being involved in God’s will being done on earth.” Trevor Craigen, “Emergent Soteriology: The Dark Side” Master’s Seminary Journal 17, no .2 (2006): 182.
[5] The following points derive from McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 109-110.
[6] McLaren makes the same argument in other writings. For example, “the preoccupation with being saved sometimes strikes me as strangely selfish . . . Do you think that God would want a heaven filled with people who cared more about being saved from hell than saved from sin? Who cared more about getting their butts into heaven than being good? Who cared more about having their sins forgiven than being good neighbors? Who in fact became worse neighbors precisely because they became so religious in their concern about their own personal souls?” He then goes on to attribute this wrong understanding of the gospel to a “shrunken and freeze-dried by modernity. We need a postmodern consideration of what salvation means, something beyond an individualized and consumeristic version. I may have a personal home, personal car, personal computer, personal identification number, personal digital assistant, personal hot tub - all I need now is personal salvation from my own personal savior . . . all of this strikes me as Christianity diced through the modern Veg-o-matic.” in McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, 129-130.
[7] McLaren, Everything Must Change, 82.
[8] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 110.
[9] McLaren, More Ready Than You Realize, 79-82.
[10] McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, 105-106.
[11] Trevor Craigen, “Emergent Soteriology: The Dark Side” Master’s Seminary Journal 17.2 (2006): 185. Greg D. Gilbert, “Saved From the Wrath of God: An Examination of Brian McLaren’s Approach to the Doctrine of Hell,” in Reforming or Conforming: Post-conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 248 described McLaren’s understanding of the cross in similar terms: “By becoming vulnerable on the cross and dying at the hands of the Romans, Jesus shows the world that violence is not the answer, that what God wants is not retaliation and revenge, but rather kindness and forgiveness.”

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.2

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5

Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 5.1

2011-07-19T20:30:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 5
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRIAN MCLAREN

If Scripture is ambiguous, so is the gospel. By universally rejecting both Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture due to their accommodation to the culture, the gospel inevitably shares the same fate. The two are always linked. By redefining their doctrine of Scripture Brian McLaren, is ready to redefine the gospel by updating and re-forming it to accommodate twenty-first century postmodernism.

Harmitology

Any discussion on the gospel must begin with the issue of sin. A wrong harmitology inevitably means a wrong Soteriology. Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo wrote Adventures in Missing the Point to show how Christians continue to miss the point on various subjects including environmentalism, Scripture, theology, leadership, homosexuality, women in ministry, and many other issues. The book provides keen insight into the thought and theology of Emergents as it is written by two of the most influential leaders in the Emerging Church movement. McLaren wrote the chapter on sin. But rather than write exclusively about sin, McLaren says very little about it. McLaren is concerned that sin is used to point out the problems of others though each individual is just as weak, just as guilty, just as “sinful.” Therefore, our responsibility as Christians is not to condemn, but to comfort, to lend a hand, because we are just as weak as our fallen brother or sister:

And when you see others struggling and stumbling and falling, don’t distance yourself from them or their weakness. Don’t miss the point by condemning them. Empathize instead. Draw close . . . Identify with your weak brother or sister, because you’re no different. And believe that just as you have by grace survived “many dangers, toils, and snares,” they can survive, too. For we serve a God who says, “My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:8).[1]

In a chapter on sin, it appears that McLaren says very little on the subject. There is no clear reference to repentance of sin. But that is his goal – to be ambiguous about sin. Rather than lecture on depravity, lostness, and corruption, McLaren, engulfed in postmodernism, lectures on inclusion: “how can I who is guilty condemn my brother who is guilty?”

But what about original sin? McLaren, unlike other Emergents,[2] says little on the issue . One example comes from the third installment of his A New Kind of Christian series. Regarding original sin McLaren, through a character named Markus, depicts:

The problem goes back to dear old Aurelius Augustine, and maybe before . . . The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog to a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it. Instead of being God’s big message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information on how to solve the pesky legal problems of original sin . . . [T]he central question the gospel answered was how to solve the original sin problem.[3]

To McLaren, it would seem, original sin is a major hurdle for modern Christians trying to cross into a postmodern culture. To McLaren original sin is an “old doctrine,” that it is outdated and worn. It is time, then, to discard it. Because of such doctrines, the gospel is “twisted,” and misunderstood. The gospel, McLaren notes, is about God’s saving “love for the whole world.” Since Augustine, Christians have defined the gospel as “secret information” in which one must gain in order to resolve “the pesky legal problems of original sin.”[4]

A further harmitological distinction in McLaren’s theology is that societal sins are just as serious as the sins of an individual. McLaren particularly dislikes colonialism. In his estimation, colonialism is the great sin of the West in which it must repent and be reconciled with those whom it has wronged. What is particularly dangerous to McLaren is the number of atrocities, violence, and injustices performed by the West that “claim to be based on the tradition that is rooted in the law and prophets of Judaism and in the life and teachings of Jesus.” For McLaren, “from those to whom much has been given, more is expected.”[5]

By claiming to be followers of Christ and yet commit the atrocities that the West has through colonialism[6] over the past several centuries is the greatest of sins. McLaren argues that Proverbs 28:13 equally applies to civilizations as it does to individuals: “Those who conceal their sins do not prosper, but those who confess and renounce them find mercy.” McLaren goes on to add that, “without confession and truth telling, there can be no true reconciliation.”[7]

In order to reconcile with the dark side of Western Christianity’s past, McLaren proposes that the West emerge “from a religion of conquest and control to a faith of collaborative mission and humble service.” This emerging faith will abandon the “various nationalisms, rationalism, and political and economic ideologies” and embrace “a new vision of prophetic faith that seeks God’s kingdom and God’s justice for all.”[8]

So according to McLaren, sin is not just individual, man against God, but also social, society against man. Anytime McLaren hints at individual sin, he is quick to remind his reader that since original sin is outdated it must be rejected and as Christians we are called to remain silent regarding the sins of others because we are just as guilty.

Liberalism and Harmitology

This redefinition of sin radically affects the gospel. If man has not, and is not, transgressing God’s holy law in complete rebellion as a result of Adam’s sin, then the meaning of the cross changes. Machen saw this same problem with Protestant Liberalism. In his thinking, the root problem of the modern liberal movement was their loss of “the consciousness of sin.”

The consciousness of sin was formerly the starting point of all preaching; but to-day it is gone. Characteristic of the modern age, above all else, is a supreme confidence in human goodness; the religious literature of the day is redolent of that confidence. Get beneath the rough exterior of men, we are told, and we shall discover enough self-sacrifice to found upon it the hope of society, the world’s evil, it is said, can be overcome with the world’s good; no help is needed from outside the world.[9]

By redefining sin and denying original sin, Emergents, too, have lost “the consciousness of sin.” If preaching sin is the first step in laying out the gospel, it is inherent that McLaren’s understanding of salvation falls short as well. Therefore, redefining harmitology is inevitable. By accommodating to the culture in order to reach the culture, thus resulting in an inadequate Bibliology, always leads to a redefined anthropology and harmitology. And a redefined anthropology and harmitology always leads to a redefined Soteriology.

[1] McLaren and Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point, 221.
[2] For example, Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 191-192 in which McLaren wrote the forward.
[3] Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity, vol. 3 of A New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005) 134. McLaren has also added that to him, original sin, is an “exaggerated understanding” of the Fall. McLaren argues that the Fall and original sin are really “Wester neo-Platonic” ideas of biblical truth. Therefore, Emergents “are looking to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and to emerging narrative theologies where creation is still seen as sacred, ‘good,’ ‘very good,’ and, in fact, ongoing,” McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 265.
[4] Though McLaren does not discuss original sin very often, other Emergents do. One example is Tony Jones, Original Sin: A Depraved Idea, Part 1, [on-line]; accessed 21 March, 2009, available from http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2009/01/original-sin-a-depraved-idea.html; Internet, who has done a series of blog posts on the subject where he clearly rejects the doctrine. Jones frequently refers back to another Emergent blogger, Brian “Ephphatha Poetry,” Thank You, Saint Pelagius, [on-line]; accessed 21 March, 2009, available from http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2009/02/thank-you-saint-pelagius.html; Internet. See also Kevin Deyoung, Saint Who?, [on-line]; accessed 21 March, 2009, available from http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/2009/02/saint-who.html; Internet, who provides a brief survey of various Emergents view on original sin and why the doctrine is so important.
[5] Brian McLaren, “Church Emerging: Or Why I still use the Word Postmodern But with Mixed Feelings,” An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, ed. Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones (Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 145.
[6] McLaren defines colonialism as, “the extension of a nation’s sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and usually markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized,” in Ibid., 143. McLaren further discusses post-colonialism in McLaren, Everything Must Change, 35-36.
[7] Ibid., 146.
[8] Ibid., 149-150.
[9] Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, 64.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.2

2011-07-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER 4.2
THE EROSION OF BIBLIOLOGY

The Erosion of Bibliology - Part 1

The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture

Dr. John MacArthur sees the real battle with McLaren over the perspicuity of Scripture. By downplaying propositional truths and embracing postmodern epistemology, Emergents are assaulting the clarity and certainty of Scripture:

Influenced by postmodern notions about language, meaning, subjectivity, and truth, many . . . are questioning whether the Word of God is clear enough to justify certainty . . . on points of doctrine . . . It’s proponents are more interested in dialogue and conversation. As a result, they scorn and rebuff propositional truth (which tends to end dialogue rather than cultivate it) as an outmoded vestige of twentieth-century modernism.[1]

MacArthur has a strong distaste for McLaren’s Bibliology. MacArthur begins with the tradition of the Reformation as a model of the perspicuity of Scripture. In contrast to the Roman Church during their time, who believed that Scripture was difficult to understand thus needing the Church to interpret it, the Reformers believed that anyone who could read could understand Scripture because of its clarity.

McLaren, MacArthur argues, finds this Reformed tradition problematic primarily because McLaren places a higher value on conversation and ambiguity. MacArthur finds McLaren’s words in A Generous Orthodoxy particularly problematic:

A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.[2]

As a result of his “provocative, mischievous, and unclear” rhetoric, MacArthur is not surprised that McLaren is not even certain that what he is espousing is correct. But that’s the point. Truth does not come solely from Scripture or revelation, but, as Tickle pointed out, from community, conversation, and dialoging. As MacArthur sees it, “great reward results in always pursuing but never finally arriving at truth.”[3]

This ambiguity has horrendous effects in MacArthur’s view. One such effect is his treatment of the exclusivity of the gospel, though clearly laid out in the New Testament (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5), McLaren is hesitant to speak so boldly. To McLaren, inclusivism is a must because conversation and dialogue can only take place in a setting of openness. He notes that McLaren goes out of his way to find “truths” from other religions and thus cannot accept an exclusive gospel that would shut out dialogue with other faiths and teachings. By rejecting the perspicuity of Scripture, McLaren flatly denies and rejects the exclusivity of the gospel.

No doubt, some will find the above analysis unfair or unloving. But with Brian McLaren and his collaborators at Emergent, much more is at stake than mere semantics or slight philosophical disagreement. The purity of the gospel itself is at stake. If God’s Word cannot be understood with certainty, a saving comprehension of the gospel becomes impossible. But if the straightforward reading of Scripture is allowed to stand, then McLaren’s system of doctrinal subjectivity crashes to the ground. As D. A. Carson observes: “I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can that to my mind if words mean anything, . . . McLaren . . . have largely abandoned the gospel.”[4]

What is at stake is more than just the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture, but the gospel. To have a weak Bibliology is to have a heretical Soteriology. MacArthur connects Bibliology with Soteriology. A correct view of Scripture leads to a correct view of the gospel. However, an inadequate view of Scripture always leads to an inadequate view of the gospel.

[1] John MacArthur, “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emerging Approach,” The Master's Seminary Journal 141-158.
[2] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 27.
[3] MacArthur, “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emerging Approach,” 145.
[4] John MacArthur, “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emerging Approach,” 153, and Donald Allen Carson, Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 186.

Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God - Chapter 1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.1
Thesis| Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 2.3
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.1
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 3.2
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Kingdom of God - Chapter 4.1a

For more:
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4
Theology - The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 5
Theology/Reviews - "A New Kind of Christianity" - A 11 part review and critique of McLaren's book
Reviews - McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Reviews - McLaren - A New Kind of Christian
Reviews -McLaren - A Search For What Makes Sense: Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - Adventures In Missing The Point
Reviews - McLaren - Church On The Other Side
Reviews -McLaren - Everything Must Change
Reviews -McLaren - Finding Faith
Reviews -McLaren - More Ready Than You Realize
Reviews - McLaren - The Justice Project
Reviews - McLaren - The Secret Message of Jesus
Reviews -McLaren - The Voice of Luke
Theology - Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Blogizomai - Where is He Now? McLaren on the Question of bin Laden's Final Destination
Theology -   Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology -   SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -   The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -   The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology -   The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction
Theology -   The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
Theology -   Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads
Theology -   Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
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
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Future Question - Part 8
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Pluralism Question - Part 9
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Where Do We Go From Here - Part 10
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11

Repost | On Toilet Paper and Mission Work: Ezell's Report at the SBC

2011-06-17T09:40:00.000-07:00

The Southern Baptist Convention met this past week concluding just the other day. Though I did not attend, I have been trying to stay caught up on what has been going on at the national convention. One of the parts I was most anticipating was the North American Mission Board report by NAMB President Kevin Ezell. I anticipated his report because he has said before that he was going to have to level with the convention. Southern Baptists, as he rightly stated, love numbers and have a history of inflating numbers to make us look bigger, better, and more powerful. A lot of it is misleading.

I strongly encourage you to watch his report. I can excited for the future and direction of the North American Mission Board and this year our church will focus more on missions, mission giving, the Cooperative Program, etc. With leadership like Ezell, I am confident that our money will not be wasted. As Ezell shows, he has cut out a lot of the bureaucracy in order to free up more money and resources to go towards local and foreign missionaries. That is music to my ears!!

Part 1:

Part 2:

My favorite line (and point) regards his line about Wal-mart toilet paper. If Wal-mart can track when each roll of toilet paper is sold, surely Southern Baptists ought to be able to track where they send missionaries, where churches are planted, etc. Dido Ezell!

* This was originally posted on my pastor's blog available here.

For more:
Theology - SBTS: A Conversation With Kevin Ezell
Theology - 8 Months In: Kevin Ezell Reflects On His Tenure Thus Far
GBC - Repost - Facing Reality: How to Respond to SBC Decline

Congregationalism is From Satan: Congregationalists Respond

2011-06-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

Last week I wrote a brief post regarding Dr. James MacDonald's argument that congregationalism is from Satan. As I predicted, many have responded and the folks at Harvest Bible Chapel (where MacDonald serves as its senior pastor) have themselves responded to their critics. Below are just a few links.

James MacDonald - Congregational Government Is From Satan | This is the original article where MacDonald lays out 5 reasons why he rejects and seemingly abhors Congregationalism.

Dr. Denny Burk - Is Congregationalism From Satan? | Dr. Burk argues that some of MacDonald's reasons for rejecting Congregationalism (and Burk is a Baptist like me, thus he is a Congregationalist) is rooted in pragmatism, not Scripture. In defense of MacDonald, it is inaccurate to write off his argument as simple pragmatism. MacDonald is not a pragmatist and has spoken out against it. He cares about Scripture and I genuinely believe that MacDonald has come to the conclusion that Scripture doesn't affirm or encourage Congregationalism.

There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of this argument. McDonald’s evaluation is driven more by pragmatic observation than by the Bible. In other words, he has seen examples of congregationalism in practice, and he has concluded that it doesn’t work. It creates forums for division, it crushes pastors, and it negates pastoral authority. . .

If you read his discussion under each of these points, I think you’ll find that at least three of his five reasons are not biblically founded, but pragmatically founded. He observes abuses of congregationalism and reasons backwards that there must be something unbiblical about congregationalism itself. But we could level that argument against any form of church government. Believe me; I could multiply anecdotes of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Elder Rule models that have gone seriously awry. Every polity can be used by Satan so long as there is sin in the world. But susceptibility to corruption is no way to make a final judgment about any of these forms of government. On that criterion, they all fail miserably.

At the end of the day, the question we have to answer is this. What does the Bible teach us about God’s aim for the administration of His church? But McDonald helps us very little on this point. He has no serious engagement with the biblical arguments in favor of congregational polity. For that reason, this blog post falls really flat.

Jonathan Leeman (9Marks) - Congregationalism Is Used by Satan...Like He Uses Everything Else | A good article making good points. He concludes:

In one sense, congregationalism is reality, as I’ve often heard Mark Dever say. People are going to vote with their feet no matter which polity they belong to.

Yet more importantly, it’s our conviction that congregationalism in the context of elder leadership just makes the most sense of two streams of biblical teaching. On the one hand, you see a stream of passages in which Jesus and the apostles seem to entrust final say to the entire gathered congregation (Matt. 18:15-20; Acts 6:2-6; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:6; Gal. 1:3-10). Every single Christian, every single church member, is going to give an account to God for the role he or she played in preserving the gospel from one generation to the next. He will give an account for whether or not he tolerated false teachers, for whether or not he abided unrepentant sin within the body. Woe to the congregation that does not act to protect and proclaim the gospel!

On the other hand, you see a stream of passages which call Christians to submit to their leaders (Heb. 13:7,17; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2-3). Every single Christian, every single church member, in the ordinary course of the Christian life, is called to practice submitting to King Jesus by submitting to the earthly authorities he has placed over us, from parents, to presidents, to pastors. It's how we grow, flourish, and prosper.

It’s tempting to pick one of these streams rather than the other. But we need to strike the balance by figuring out how to put both together. If we don’t, the ship can veer toward unwieldy hyper-congregationalism, or it can veer toward an abusive elder rule. King Jesus, in his wisdom, appears to have opted for something in the middle. Along these lines, an elder-led, congregational-rule model seems to work best and best satisfy the biblical mandate.

Thank you, James, for provoking we who are congregationalists to think more carefully about how Satan would trip up a biblical system. He’s always trying to abuse and misuse God’s good gifts. So we must labor together to fight the good fight of faith.

Jonathan Leeman - Clarifying "Congregationalism" | Leeman returns with another post in response to MacDonald over at 9Marks. This is quickly, and predictably, becoming a debate between Harvest Bible Chapel and 9Marks ministry. Consider the conclusion:

Take a moment to thank God for James MacDonald, and the care he’s taking with matters of polity, and how he’s pushing us all to be more biblically careful with our polity. Pray that you and I would be careful, too.

James MacDonald - Responding to Satanic Attacks on My Post about Satanic Congregationalism | Now MacDonald offers more details to his original post. Here is his summary:

Solicit wisdom from the congregation? Yes, Elders should do that.
Prayerfully consider the counsel of the congregation? Yes, Elders should do that!
Subject the congregation to a public forum where any member can speak and decisions are made by voting and Elders must follow a mandated percentage of voters? No, Elders should not do that!

For more:
Theology - MacDonald: Congregationalism is From Satan

MacDonald: Congregationalism Is From Satan

2011-06-09T13:50:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite pastors is Dr. James MacDonald who pastors at Harvest Bible Fellowship in Chicago, IL. He recently published a blog post that will no doubt create a firestorm on the blogosphere. As the title suggests, MacDonald has publically and in no uncertain terms come out against congregationalism. For those who don't know, Congregationalism is a well established church government by which the congregation (hints the name), in the power of its own autonomy, makes decisions for the church. Baptists are in many ways congregational and typically meet regularly in order to vote on the business of the church.

MacDonald's main points are:

1. Congregational Meetings are Forums for Division
2. Voting is Not Biblical
3. Eldership is Sometimes Unpopular
4. Congregationalism Crushes Pastors
5. Priesthood Not Eldership of All Believers

I must say that as a Baptist, MacDonald raises some very good points and rightly points out the many abuses and dangers of congregationalism. I am still not willing to abandon Baptist polity - particularly autonomy of the local church, etc. - but I will agree with McDonald that these are five major problems with the way that democratic religion has been practiced.

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here and how leading Baptist and Congregationalists react. It is interesting that as MacDonald publishes this, the Southern Baptist Convention is meeting in Phoenix, AZ for their yearly "business meeting." There will be a whole lot of voting going on!

James MacDonald - Congregational Government Is From Satan

For more:
Theology - MacDonald: I Want the Whole Gospel
Theology - Churches Helping Churches: MacDonald Makes His Plea

8 Months In: Kevin Ezell Reflects On His Tenure Thus Far

2011-06-02T07:12:00.000-07:00

I found the article written by North American Mission Board Kevin Ezell reflecting on his first 8 months as the President of the organization. Without a doubt, it has been a difficult time and Ezell has lead NAMB through a lot of changes. I have been encouraged by his leadership and continue to wish him the best and pray that Southern Baptists do take local and foreign missions more seriously and apply the gospel to their lives changing the world. Ezell, I know, seeks the same.

Consider the following paragraph from Ezell:

NAMB’s focus

When I arrived at NAMB last September, I told our trustees I would embark on a process to bring focus to NAMB and build a strategy that would help Southern Baptists reach North America for Christ in the most effective way possible. We are well down the road to completing that process, and I would like to share some of that progress here.

Throughout its history, NAMB has been plagued with the reputation of being a well-meaning ministry with lots of good intentions but not very much focus. Over the years, the effort to respond to a long list of valid ministry needs resulted in an organization that was trying to move in too many directions at once, doing a lot of good things, but not so many great things.

Since September, we have aimed NAMB squarely at the goal of helping Southern Baptists plant thousands of effective, evangelistic churches in North America that will be lighthouses for the gospel in their communities for years to come.

The first step toward prioritizing church planting was to transition more money to the field so we can place churches where they are needed most. We took a big step in that direction by offering our staff in Alpharetta a retirement incentive late last year. The result was a 37 percent downsizing of our in-house staff. Even after retirement benefits are paid, that translates into a $6 million savings each year.

I don’t believe that you can judge the effectiveness of an organization by the size of its staff. We intend to stay lean and accomplish more with less infrastructure.

After staff reductions we cut internal operating budgets—including a 50 percent reduction in travel—which brought additional millions in savings. All of this money is going into our Send North America church planting fund.

These budget shifts have not been easy. It’s never an easy process to move an organization through the process of downsizing more than a third of its staff. And cutting operating budgets requires finding new ways of accomplishing things and saying no to many requests.

But the budget changes have positioned us to quickly put many more resources on the field for new churches. NAMB will put an additional $9 million toward regional church planting in 2011. That number will grow to $15 million in 2012.

I like to see the various wings of the Southern Baptist Convention make necessary cuts that frees up money in order to direct more towards missions. Without a doubt the SBC has become as much a beurocracy as state governments or even the federal government. Sometimes leadership and work is more politicaly driven than gospel driven. Ezell seems to understand this and wants to use his budget wisely.

I encourage you to read the rest.

North American Mission Board (Kevin Ezell) - My eight-month review and a look at the future

For more:
Theology - SBTS: A Conversation With Kevin Ezell

The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Theodicy and God's Sovereignty

2011-05-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

A while ago I offered a series of posts on the doctrine of God's Immutability (unchangableness) and after going back through some of it realized that more needed to be said. In part 5 on Practical Implications, I discussed Brian McLaren's doctrine of God and showed its dangers. However at the beginning I raised the question of process theology and openness theology and how their theology proper is in response to the question of theodicy. Though what follows will by no means be exhaustive, I hope it does help us see that when tragedy strikes or when we suffer what we need is an immutable God, not a changing one.

Three fundamental theology proper issues are at stake here: Sovereignty, Providence, and Immutability. These must always go together. We cannot adequately understand one without a fundamental understanding of the other. For example, if God is Provident, then He cannot act unless He is Sovereign. Likewise, to declare that God is Sovereign and always has been Sovereign means that He is Immutable: after all, He will never forfeit His Sovereignty.

Thus we can see direct application in each of these attributes. God, being fully and completely Sovereign, can be trusted even in our most difficult of times. Which would you rather want during your hardships, a weak God who loves us and wants to help, but can't, or a Sovereign God who, though His ways remains mysterious, will be glorified in the end and we will be the instruments by which He will be glorified? The former defines evil as accidental, worthless, and we are left without hope. The latter assures us of that though we may not understand, such suffering is not without purpose. The former is a worthless God unable to intervene or comfort. The latter is a powerful God who remains immanent and loving and in whom we can trust.

If God is Sovereign then we can trust. Trust that though this world doesn't make sense, He is still in control of it. Trust that though evil and injustice seems to rule the day, God is still on His throne. Trust that the god of this world will be defeated. Trust that evil will be judged. Trust that God will be glorified in the end. Trust that we are not here by accident. Trust that God is pure and all that He allows and does is rooted in His holiness.

Only if God is Sovereign can we every trust in Him. A weak, pathetic, I'm-too-loving-to-interfere, or I-wish-I-could-help-but-this-is-too-much-for-me God offers us no hope, comfort, or assurance. This is why those who stubbornly get mad at God at the funeral home remain bitter with no comfort. They have undercut themselves from a God who offers them comfort because He is in control.

We see this at the cross. At the Garden, Jesus sought God's intervention. He begged His Father to save mankind through another way, but God said no. Jesus, knowing the brutal suffering He was about to suffer, did not recoil in fear or anxiety, but in trust. Even at the cross Christ did not abandon God, but trusted God. "Into your hands I commit my Spirit," He said trusting in God's Sovereign control. There at the cross we saw the Sovereign holiness of God in judgement and at the same time we witness the Sovereign love of God in grace.

Process theology denies all of this. They present a God who is always changing affirming two key doctrines: God's love and our freedom. Though this sounds good on the surface it is inconsistent with reality and bad biblical theology. They argue that God is unaware of the future, unable to control it. Furthermore, their answer to the philosophical conundrum, either God is good or God is sovereign but He cannot be both, is to affirm His goodness and love. God does love us, but He cannot stop everything from happening. Whether it be 9/11 or your cousin's deadly car accident. God wanted to be able to stop it and loves us fully, but is unable to stop it.

Briefly let me note here that the highlighting of God's love and man's full and complete autonomy is not as consistent as it sounds. Pelagian for sure, but certainly not biblical. As a father (and it is no accident that God is pictured as a Father in Scripture) I love my children, but my love for them does not limit me in any way. If my son is playing in the street and a car is coming I have one of two choices. Either I can affirm his complete and full autonomy hoping that he will wise up and avoid the car and not play in the street again. Or I can run an throw his autonomy to the side and save my son. This is not to deny personal responsibility, only to emphasis that the love of God and man's liberty are not mutually exclusive. If God loved us - truly loved us - then like any Father He would intervene and the only way He can intervene is if He is Sovereign.

So I would then add this. Not only can we trust God because He is Sovereign, but we can be assured that because He is Sovereign, He must be love. We are reminded here, yet again, that the attributes of God aren't a give and take but interact with one another. A "loving" God who does not intervene, even at the cost of human liberty, is an indifferent God. We cannot so simply choose one over the other.

Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Introduction (Part 1)
Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Scriptural Foundation (Part 2)
Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Scriptural Challenges (Part 3)
Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Theological Challenges (Part 4)
Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Practical Implications (Part 5)
Theology - The Immutability of God: Its Truth and Relevancy - Theological Applications (Part 6)

For more:
Sermon Podcast - October 10, 2010 - God is Sovereign
Sermon Podcast - April 26, 2010 - The Immutability of God
Sermon Podcast - November 29, 2009 - The Transcendence of the Gospel
GBC - Luther, Depression, and the Sovereignty of God
GBC - MacDonald on the Sovereignty of God
GBC - Charles Hodge on Sovereignty
GBC - God's Sovereignty Defined: AW Pink on God's Sovereignty
Theology - Jim Wallis and Open Theism
Theology - The Sovereignty of God
GBC - Tony Evens on God and Purpose

Repost | This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - The Lord's Day

2011-04-23T18:32:00.000-07:00

Sunday is not the Sabbath. But before you think I’m a heretic, let me explain. Saturday is the Sabbath – the last day of the week. Just check your calendars. The Jewish day of rest in Scripture is Saturday. After a week of work, the Jews, as commanded in the Old Testament, rested on Saturday, the Sabbath. So what is Sunday all about? Why do we, as bible-believing Christians, worship & rest on Sundays if the Sabbath is on Saturday? Are we breaking one of the Commandments?

No.

For one, we must be careful in turning the Sabbath into a legalistic rule that offers salvation or threatens us with separation from God post-salvation. The 10 Commandments primarily identify idols & aren’t just rules. In this case, the primary idol identified here is work, greed, accomplishment, & unhealthy drives.

Secondly, we must ask why the change has taken place? Why did the “Sabbath” go from Saturday in the Old Testament & Sunday in the New Testament? The answer is simple: the resurrection. Since the founding of the Church, Christians have always set Sunday aside as a day of worship. When the first Church was made up primarily of Jews they still rested on Saturday as the Jewish law required, but made Sunday a day of worship whereby they would remember & commemorate the day of Resurrection.

This is an important point. The resurrection was & is so central to the Christian gospel & the Christian Church that it has altered our calendars. The substitutionary death & the triumphant resurrection of our Lord is central to Christianity & without these events there would be no Christianity, no salvation, & our faith would be in vain. Jesus is not dead, but alive! And that is worth worshiping.

This fundamental fact forces us to make a slight shift in our understanding of the day of rest. I do believe we ought to rest on Sundays (especially since our schedules are so full that Sunday may be the only day to take a nap!), but in a post-resurrection world, Sunday should be a day of resurrection. Sunday is the day we commemorate & remember the historical fact that Christ died in our place for our sins & was raised for our justification three days later. Thus we worship, not as a ritual, but with joy. Sunday is more than a day to sleep, it is a day to celebrate. Easter – Resurrection Sunday – ought not to just be a holiday, but an everyday reality whereby live as raised souls. Like Christ, we are not dead. Christ has raised us & will raise us.

In this light, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 says regarding the Lord’s Day:

The first day of the week is the Lord’s Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead & should include exercises of worship & spiritual devotion, both public & private. Activities on the Lord’s Day should be commensurate with the Christian’s conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.*

The point made in the confession is the same as made above. Notice that the Lord’s Day is an institution not a law that points us to Christ. It ought to be regularly observed not in the hopes of salvation, but because of our salvation.

It’s the last sentence that could cause trouble for some: Activities on the Lord’s Day should be commensurate with the Christian’s conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In other words, each person’s conscience ought to dictate what is & isn’t work on the “Sabbath.” The point here is to avoid being Pharisees-like with endless religious rules regarding the Sabbath. What the BF&M 2000 does is guard against such legalism. The Lord’s Day ought not to be a burden, but a joy.

So what ought we do in terms of rest on Sunday? Again we must be careful not to turn a day into a law. Sunday is a day of rest for sure, but it ought to primarily be a day of worship. We are encouraged in Scripture to gather together with other brothers & sisters in Christ & celebrate our risen Lord. Let that set the tone for the rest of the week. We are a resurrected people who serve a resurrected Lord. We must guard against both legalism & libertarianism & the gospel offers the right balance.

All of this is to say that Sunday ought not to be a burden on the people of God, but a day in which to look forward to by the people of God. Certainly we ought & better rest, but more fundamentally let us worship. In fact, the rest we enjoy on the Lord’s Day is itself an act of worship wherein we trust in the Providential care of our Father who has given us His Son. Why worry about tomorrow?

* BF&M 2000 offer the following references: Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 12:1-12; 28:1ff.; Mark 2:27-28; 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-3,33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1,19-28; Acts 20:7; Romans 14:5-10; I Corinthians 16:1-2; Colossians 2:16; 3:16; Revelation 1:10.

This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Introduction
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Scripture
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God
This is Who We Are What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Father
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Son
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Spirit
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Man
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Salvation
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God's Purpose of Grace
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Church
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Baptism
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - The Lord's Supper

MSNBC Takes on Bell . . . Or At Least Tries Too

2011-04-18T08:07:00.000-07:00

This is what happens when Chris Matthews at MSNBC tries to discuss theology. His panel is ignorant reflecting its host on matters of theology and namely the doctrine of Hell. In response to the recent TIME magazine cover regarding Rob Bell's book Love Wins, Matthews decided to spend 4 minutes trying to figure all of this out.

My favorite question: Why do Christians like the Old Testament so much?

The Resurrection: Erhman vs. Licona

2011-04-16T07:41:00.000-07:00

I haven't been able to watch all of this, but from what I've seen this is a good debate between Bart Erhman who rejects the historicity of the resurrection and Licona who embraces it. Obviously, this is an important debate.

HT: Reclaiming the Mind

For more:
Theology - Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Debate Between Craig and Erhman
Theology - Rob Bell and the Resurrection
Theology - Calvin and the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Theology - Where Theology and Life Intersect: A Theological Case for Christus Exemplar and Why It is Necessary - Part 4
Theology - The End: John 20:31 or John 21:25
Theology - A Consensus That We Can Believe: The Lost Tomb of Jesus Is A Hoax, Scholars Say
Blogizomai - Even Environmentalists Need an Easter: What Christians Can Learn on Earth Day
Blogizomai - What Did the Cross Accomplish?: Eternal Hope or Internal Reformation
Blogizomai - Happy Spring Holiday: Welcome to the War on Easter and Why Christians Are to Blame
Blogizomai - D'Souza: Did the Resurrection Happen?
Blogizomai - The Illegitimate Birth of Christ: Another Wild Claim Falling on Deaf Ears
Reviews - "The Jesus Inquest" by Charles Foster
Reviews - "Raised With Christ"
Reviews - "The Case for Easter"

SBTS: A Conversation With Kevin Ezell

2011-04-09T11:09:00.000-07:00

I was unaware of this video that took place in March 2011 at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It is a converation between the Seminary president, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and North American Mission Board President Kevin Ezell. I'm listening to it now as I type this and have enjoyed it thus far. Ezell has had a very different 7 months at NAMB and it is good to hear and see him discuss it with honesty. At the end of the day, let us pray that through it all, people come to Christ and the gospel goes forth.

HT: SBC Voices

A Call For Discernment: An Important Video Series Exposing the Word of Faith Movement

2011-04-06T06:21:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently directly me towards an important video (one in which I had only seen the preview) series debunking the Word of Faith movement so prevalent on "Christian" television. I have never been a fan of this movement and consider it heretical and dangerous to Christianity. Regardless of what one believes about tongues or healings, one cannot deny that this movement promotes a false gospel built from a false God and a false Christ. And that is before we get to the prosperity gospel aspect of it.

Anyways, Justin Peters, who had gone to one of their meetings in search for healing, has put together the following videos exposing them as false. I cannot recommend these videos enough and strongly encourage everyone to watch them. Each video is over an hour but well worth your time. Peters is engaging, honest, frank, direct, and accurate. He defends the gospel and calls out the movement for what it is and why.

Dangerous Doctrine - Session 1:

Mangled Manifestations - Session 2:

The Hurt of Healing - Session 3:

For more:
Theology - Justin Peters: Exposing the Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel Teachers
Theology - 9Marks: We Watch TBN So You Don't Have Too
Theology - Benny Hinn Goes Primetime
Theology - Duplantis Went to Heaven . . . He Thinks
Theology - Congress Investigates Hinn and Other Ministries Justin Peters: Exposing the Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel Teachers
Theology - Dembski on Todd Bentley

Driscoll: Hell is the Wrath of God in Effect (

2011-03-27T13:07:00.000-07:00

I thought this was helpful and important especially in light of some of the recent controversy in postmodern evangelicalism.

HT: SBC Voices

Repost | This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - The Lord's Supper

2011-03-24T15:07:00.000-07:00

Last month we discussed the first of two ordinances – Baptism. The second & equally important ordinance is the Lord’s Supper also known (in other traditions) as Communion (Protestantism) or the Eucharists (Catholicism). As Baptists we understand that baptism is the public symbol of salvation while the Lord’s Supper follows & serves as a reminder of the work of Christ. In other words, the Lord’s Supper reminds us of the grace & restoration baptism symbolizes.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 says:

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread & the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer & anticipate His 2nd coming.*

There are two main aspects of the confession highlighted. The first regards the memorial aspect of the Lord’s Supper. Throughout Scripture, God’s people are commanded to remember. The Jewish Passover was given as a means to remember the Exodus. Jews repeatedly laid out 12 stones to remember great works of God. And in the New Testament we are given the Lord’s Supper to be constantly reminded of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Like the Passover lamb whose shed blood redeemed the Israelites, so too the shed blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, redeems those who believe. Communion forces us to recall not just what Christ did but why He did it. He is the Divine Passover Lamb who took away the sins of the world – our sins. His body was broken (the bread) & His blood was shed (the fruit of the vine) on our behalf. Without His death (& resurrection) we would not be redeemed. We would not have hope. We would not be restored. We would not be reconciled. We would not be saved. The cross is central to everything Christians believe & affirm. The Lord’s Supper forces us to turn back to the cross & look at the One in whom stands in our place.

The second aspect mentioned by the confession regards anticipation. The Apostle Paul commands believers to continue to remember Jesus’ death & resurrection through this ordinance until Christ’s certain return. At that point, we will not need to remember for we will stand before the Trinity for eternity.

Believe it or not, this issue was the mostly hotly debated among the Reformers in the 16th Century. They all agreed on the gospel, on Christ, on Scripture, & the salvific doctrines of the faith, but when it came to the Lord’s Supper, they were deeply divided. One of the issues that remain with us today (& still divides denominations) is the substance of the bread & juice/wine. Catholicism teaches that upon the blessing of the priest, they become the literal body & blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). Lutherans modify this some (consubstantiation). Baptists & others hold that the bread & the juice are just that: bread & juice. There is no miraculous blessing or special presence within the bread/juice. They are just bread & juice. Baptist have understood that the debate need not be over such things. What they are is not as important as the purpose the serve & the symbol they represent. In all of this we have forgotten the cross.

At the end of the day, however, let us see in the Lord’s Supper, not a religious ritual we just do, but an opportunity to reflect, to remember, & to rejoice in what Christ has done. The Lord’s Supper will not save you & it will not keep you in the Father’s arms. Christ accomplished that at the cross. Let us never forget that. So as we participate in the Lord’s Supper moving forward, let us not complain that the service may go long or that the crackers taste bad. Instead, let us rejoice that though we were lost, we were found. Though we were blind, we now see. Let us then share with one another, as a redeemed community, at the Lord’s table & rejoice in His work on the cross by which we have been saved.

* The BF&M 2000 cite the following verses: Matt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-26; Lk 22:19-20; Jn Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1 Cor 10:16,21; 11:23-29.
** The above picture is one of the most famous in history painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. And for all of you Da Vinci Code fans, no I don't think that is Mary Magdalene in there.

This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Introduction
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Scripture
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God
This is Who We Are What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Father
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Son
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God the Spirit
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Man
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Salvation
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - God's Purpose of Grace
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Church
This is Who We Are: What a Baptist Is and Believes - Baptism

SBTS Discusses the Bell Hell Book Controversy

2011-03-17T20:12:00.000-07:00

Recently, sme professors from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College along with Justin Taylor sat down to discuss the Rob Bell book controversy that has blown up in recent weeks. Its a fascinating conversation and if you have 90 minutes of spare time, I encourage you to watch it.

For more:
Theology - SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion

Blogizomai - Will This Sort of Love Win?: Reflections on the Bell Controversy - Part 1

Blogizomai - Will This Sort of Love Win?: Reflections on the Bell Controversy - Part 2
Blogizomai - Sifting Through the Cybermuck: Links to the Bell Hell Controversy
Blogizomai - Sifting Through More of the Cybermuck: Links to the Bell Hell Controversy

Blogizomai - Some Final Cyber-Thoughts: Links to the Bell Hell Controversy

Blogizomai - Let's Talk About Hell Baby . . . And a Little More on Rob Bell

Blogizomai - Love Promoted: The First Bell Interviews
Theology - The Emergent Gospel In 140 Characters or Less
Theology - Bell and the Meaning of Evangelical
Theology - Rob Bell and the Resurrection
Theology - A Theological Critique of Rob Bell's "She" Video
Reviews - "Jesus Wants To Save Christians"
Reviews - "Velvet Elvis"
Reviews - Jesus Wants to Save Christians (a different review than above)
Theology - The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Charity
Theology - The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Conversation