|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology?
|
| Too Liberal |
|
| Too Conservative |
|
| Straight up Heresy |
|
| I like it but won't tell my friends |
|
Total Votes : 18
|
(last vote on : 8/11/2008 4:17:24 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 7:52:20 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 669
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
jazzact13, I'll consider your post and get back to you later, dh needs the computer and I need to start dinner prep.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
For an example of how McLaren has no interpretative method except to read into the Bible what he wants, take a look at this.
Sorry, I see there was nothing for me to get back to you on, since that wasn't what I asked; I'm going to assume you were not answering my question  :
quote:
Can you give me examples of McLaren's attempt to redefine the "details essential to salvation"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown,
"...i don't see anything humble...."
maybe, but maybe not. look at what happens in these forums about folks that differ from the typical fundamental/evangelical stream - they end up being slandered/defamed/etc about.
how very interesting....
So true, so true ..., how very sad it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:00:33 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
what, exactly are you referring to, so i can better answer it.
Where do you draw the line? Here we have someone literally changing a core essential of Christianity. If we were to follow your logic, where do we draw the line? Sincerely asking. Do you then accept into the fold Mormons, JW's, etc?
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
the ones i have repeatedly asked about? hmmm, don't recall seeing that in any of my posts in this thread.
In other threads where you have participated, where I have asked you the same questions, and where the questions went unanswered by you.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:26:25 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2972
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Pat,
In light of McLaren's quote:
McLaren "“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...” (pp. 62, 63).
And the fact that Muslims teach Jesus was a "human being" not God do you agree with McLaren that their teachings is not against the gospel message?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:36:30 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2972
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Brian McLaren states, "More and more Christian leaders are beginning to realize that for the millions of young adults who have recently dropped out of church, Christianity is a failed religion. Why? Because it has specialized in dealing with 'spiritual needs' to the exclusion of physical and social needs. It has focused on 'me' and 'my eternal destiny,' but it has failed to address the dominant societal and global realities of their lifetime: systemic injustice, poverty, and dysfunction."
Is this true? Is McLaren telling the truth?
Let me see. Here in my hometown we have the Salvation Army shelter, thrift store and children's services center. Our local Methodist Chruches have united and operate 33 helping agencies. Our SB churches have united to help support an orphanage, food bank offering free groceries to needy families in our area. This summer the World Changer helped to rebuild 8 homes. Habitat for Humanity is headed up by several local churches in our area. We also have both Methodist and Baptist hospitals in our area along with several christian daycares, schools and after school programs.
To be honest with you the list to too long for me to write out.
Now what the emergent Chruch and Mclaren and his friends have in our area or done when they visited our area?
Nothing Zero, nada zlich.
They only have "books for sale at a pretty high price at the local bookstore".
Why anyone would give this guy the time of day is beyond me. Unless - of course - they are an enemy of the Chruch (the Bride of Christ) and her groom Christ and only want to lie about what we teach, believe and do and who we worship.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:41:16 AM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 669
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Before I leave this discussion, even though it wasn't addressed to me, I would like to reply to this:
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
Even more so, take a look at this (part in parentheses added by me for clarity).
quote:
A shared reappraisal (with Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, and Judaism, and maybe others?) of Jesus' message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue--and it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say that the future of the planet may depend on such a dialogue.
Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 5
So, he advocates a "shared reappraisl...of Jesus' message" with religions that aren't even Christian, all of whom have false ideas about Christ and sin and salvation. Aren't we suppose to take the Gospel to them, not let them tell us what the Gospel is?
AND this:
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
facedown,
Where do you draw the line? Here we have someone literally changing a core essential of Christianity. If we were to follow your logic, where do we draw the line? Sincerely asking. Do you then accept into the fold Mormons, JW's, etc?
I was raised in a Denominational Church, we were taught that we were to stay away from ["have nothing to do with"] Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptist, Pentecostals, and a list of others.
In fact when I was in my late teens I was dating a young man who was Catholic; on day my father backed me into a corner and put his finger in my face and said, "You WILL break it off with him or I WILL; There will be NO mixed marriages in this family!!!"
I had my fill of this kind of attitude and "religious dialogue" then and It sickens me to hear it over and over again today; nothing has changed in over 50 years --- except the list has gotten longer and the meanness has grown.
I think Brian D. McLaren might just have something there; after all he is just talking about changing attitudes and dialogue ---- it won't get on you and make your flesh rot or anything and it won't steal your salvation to be nice and accept these as human beings, not like roaches. That's what McLaren is talking about NOT accepting their gods or their culture as being correct, but accepting THEM as God loved; Jesus came to seek and to save, NOT brain beat those who didn't hold his views into accepting his views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:46:55 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2972
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Pat,
Are you going to answer the question that was asked of you before you leave?
Do you agree with McLaren that religions that teach Jesus is not God rather only a human being who was inspired by God not an enemy to the gospel?
quote:
McLaren "“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...”
Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Do you believe the world is "better off" having these false religions than we would be if we only had the "one true religion"?
McLaren is talking about much more than dialogue. He is talking about universalsim and anything goes. Just "act good" and you are going to be "OK" in God's eyes.
quote:
I was raised in a Denominational Church, we were taught that we were to stay away from ["have nothing to do with"] Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptist, Pentecostals, and a list of others.
I was NOT raised that way. That is why I can look at his "theology". Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Study his "doctrine and theology" - compare it to scripture and not how you were raised.
< Message edited by P31W -- 8/11/2008 9:04:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 9:35:01 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
I am friends with people of all belief systems and many that swear they have none. I don't see what that has to do with recognizing the absolute truth of the Bible, for it is God's Word for all of mankind.
I was not raised to avoid others because they are not Christians, quite the contrary.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 9:43:26 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 936
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
the apostles and nicene creed have for quite some time helped in answering your question.
and feel free to ask any specific question that you believe has gone on "unanswered"
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 10:03:16 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
earthless
the apostles and nicene creed have for quite some time helped in answering your question.
Yes, I agree.
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
and feel free to ask any specific question that you believe has gone on "unanswered"
And so here it is, for the third time:
Where do you draw the line? Here we have someone literally changing a core essential of Christianity. If we were to follow your logic, where do we draw the line? Sincerely asking. Do you then accept into the fold Mormons, JW's, etc?
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 10:24:08 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 936
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
again - the apostles and nicene creed works wonders
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 10:29:41 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
earthless
again - the apostles and nicene creed works wonders
So that is where you draw the line? OK. And so you do not include into the fold Mormons and JW's? OK.
And so you do have a problem with Mclaren's statements/teachings that are contrary to Scripture? OK.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 2:24:23 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 512
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
Pat-rebel_lady,
I hope I didn't take too long in getting back to you with the information you asked for!
The reason you might not see what I am talking about is because McLaren rarely is straightforward about what he means. Instead he uses terms and phrases that can be interpreted different ways, or that lead people to conclude he is saying something other than he actually is. An example of this is a statement McLaren (I have not read this statement myself; another CrossWalk member sited it in defense of McLaren) made in response to his apparent agreement with the theology of Marcus Borg. McLaren reportedly said that while he welcomes Borg’s participation in the theological conversation, he (McLaren) would not say things the way Borg does.
People who casually read McLaren’s statement will most likely interpret it to mean that he disagrees with Borg. However that is not the case. Nowhere in that statement does McLaren say that he disagrees with Borg‘s theology. In fact I will demonstrate in the next post that just the opposite is true.
I am posting this explanation before posting the examples of McLaren’s teachings that you asked for, because it is important to understanding him that we allow McLaren to define his own terms. This usually takes reading a variety of his writings, e.g. books, articles, interviews.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 2:50:26 PM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 669
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
Pat,
Are you going to answer the question that was asked of you before you leave?
Sorry, I didn’t see your Post and/or your questions; you must have Posted it while I was typing my last Post and getting it Posted and rushed off to attend to my grand-daughter who had woke-up and needed changing and feed and so forth.
I have a just a few minutes now to answer these:
quote:
Do you agree with McLaren that religions that teach Jesus is not God rather only a human being who was inspired by God not an enemy to the gospel?
quote:
McLaren "“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...”
Do you agree with him?
Yes
quote:
Why or why not?
There is a wonderful message by the late Ern Baxter (one of my long time Bible Teachers) called ‘The Cross’; that you can down load for $5.00; if you’re really interested in why I said “yes” on ‘this’ subject. You can find it HERE
quote:
Do you believe the world is "better off" having these false religions than we would be if we only had the "one true religion"?
McLaren is talking about much more than dialogue. He is talking about universalsim and anything goes. Just "act good" and you are going to be "OK" in God's eyes.
quote:
I was raised in a Denominational Church, we were taught that we were to stay away from ["have nothing to do with"] Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptist, Pentecostals, and a list of others.
I was NOT raised that way. That is why I can look at his "theology". Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Study his "doctrine and theology" - compare it to scripture and not how you were raised.
I was raised Methodist (that’s who taught us these others were all Cult regligions; they didn’t teach ¾’s of the book of Daniel and none of Revelation --- their excuse being “they didn’t understand it so they wouldn’t teach it.”), I was born-again in a Pentecostal Church, Baptized in a Baptist Church, married a Lutheran (been married 48 years), and etc. I don’t put Christianity in a bunch of little Dominational Boxes, each having their own limits to how far you’ll go.
As I said at the beginning, I never heard of Brian McLaren until the one Book was recommended reading. What I read in the Book is all that I know of him; I found that I agreed with half of what he wrote and I’m still processing the other half. I will not promote him nor will I bash him; I don’t know enough about him to form even a personal opinion yet, but more then that I take to heart Jude 5- 25. As for those other religions ( Buddhism, Islam, JW, and etc.) it’s not so much that the people are wrong but they just DON'T have ALL the FACTS, if they did they would repent and convert to Christianity; the people are not our enemies, the devil is, it is he who has blinded their eyes to believe a lie. Do you want them to stay blinded? Jesus said, “Whosoever”; Peter said in 2 Peter 3:9 “not willing that any should perish.”
I must go and attend to other things.
mushhead, I'll have to read your Post and answer later, no time now.
< Message edited by Pat-rebel_lady -- 8/11/2008 3:08:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 2:52:41 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
Pat,
I am still failing to see where acknowledging the absolute truth of the Bible - the core essentials - the line of demarcation between what is biblical Christianity and what is of the kingdom of the cults.. translates into hating other people of differing beliefs or viewing them as enemies.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 2:58:54 PM
|
|
|
Soxfan
Posts: 1509
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
McLaren "“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...”
Do you agree with him?
Yes
If you agree with Mr McLaren that it is good to have other religions, then I can assume both you and he missed the verse in Scripture where Jesus says that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father except THROUGH ME"
_____________________________
"This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the false.".......C.H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 4:06:26 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 936
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
well....if i were to draw a literal line in the sand using the creeds, many christian (evangelicals, independent churches/churches of christ, anabapstists, etc)denominations wouldn't cross it, would they?
in addition there are many, many who are not satisifed with them - they are not "detailed" enough.
so that kind of draws me back to something jesus said: love god - love neighbor.
what specific teachings do you think i have a problem with?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 4:40:16 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
earthless
well....if i were to draw a literal line in the sand using the creeds, many christian (evangelicals, independent churches/churches of christ, anabapstists, etc)denominations wouldn't cross it, would they?
If they are preaching another Jesus, another Gospel, another God.. then it is what it is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
in addition there are many, many who are not satisifed with them - they are not "detailed" enough.
Really? I have never come across a Christian denomination that differs with the core essentials of Christianity - who God is, Jesus, Salvation, etc..
Differences on seconday (non-salvic) issues? Yes, many. But they are secondary matters, not items to have to divide over.
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
so that kind of draws me back to something jesus said: love god - love neighbor.
Love? No problem. But when you love someone you tell them truth, not give them politically correct hyperbole that leads them to eternal separation from God.
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
what specific teachings do you think i have a problem with?
If you agree that the creeds are a good starting point.. then you must take issue with Mclaren's comments regarding religions and the atonement issues provided in this thread.
And you must believe that Mormons and JW's do not preach God's truth.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 5:20:31 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 936
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
so...you agree, that the creeds are not an applicable "line"? or do you?
again - many evangelicals do not stand behind the creeds - and if they just so happen to believe what they say to some degree, they'll tell you "but we live by god's word, not the creeds". church of christ is another. many independent churches are the same.
when you love someone - you love them. 'love' is often a word with a lot of baggage (many hard-line evangelical type folks see it as a 'feel-good' word, other hard-line non-evangelical folks have their own preconceptions) but one thing i know for sure - is that it isn't self-seeking, it's patient, it is self-giving to the point of emptiness, it's a servant - it is honest, indeed; however, i'm not certain that it presupposes an "us vs. them" - but an "we all need god - me included".
i'm sorry what statement, in particular, has been quoted in this thread that cuts the grain against the creeds?
i don't spend much time thinking about JW or the like to be honest with you. but maybe that's for another thread?
pax
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 5:36:00 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6091
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
earthless
so...you agree, that the creeds are not an applicable "line"? or do you?
The creeds simply codify what the context of Scripture lays out as the core essentials. So are they are a good starting point? Sure, they can be. But I prefer to show the inquirer the context of Scripture for the core essentials.
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
again - many evangelicals do not stand behind the creeds - and if they just so happen to believe what they say to some degree, they'll tell you "but we live by god's word, not the creeds". church of christ is another. many independent churches are the same.
OK, yet here we're talking specifically about Mclaren's teachings/comments. I would love to discuss any other church, denomination, etc in another thread. Seriously. :)
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
when you love someone - you love them. 'love' is often a word with a lot of baggage (many hard-line evangelical type folks see it as a 'feel-good' word, other hard-line non-evangelical folks have their own preconceptions) but one thing i know for sure - is that it isn't self-seeking, it's patient, it is self-giving to the point of emptiness, it's a servant - it is honest, indeed; however, i'm not certain that it presupposes an "us vs. them" - but an "we all need god - me included".
I cannot show someone love if I lie to them and tell them that Jesus is not God, etc..
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
i don't spend much time thinking about JW or the like to be honest with you. but maybe that's for another thread?
pax
Sure, I was using them as an example because you made some comments that seemed to come against any division over truth. So I naturally wanted to know where you drew the line between someone claiming to be a Christian, like Mormons and JW's do, and knowing that their beliefs say otherwise.
As you can tell - I am not one for subjective stances on things which Scripture is absolute about.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 6:00:01 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 512
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
Pat-rebel_lady,
Brian McLaren wrote the following in the chpt. titled "Jesus: Savior of What ("A Generous Orthodoxy)?
quote:
"Preach the gospel to all creation," Christ said. Are we only now beginning to understand what he meant? I believe the unwritten melody that haunts this book ever so faintly, the new song waiting to be sung in place of the hymn of salvation, is simply the song of creation. To move away from the theology of salvation to the theology of creation may be the task of our time." (Vincent Donovan's "Christianity Rediscovered;" as quoted in A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 100)
McLaren cited Donovan to establish that another interpretation of the Gospel that redefines the meaning of the cross and the way of redemption are necessary.
McLaren continues:
quote:
"As I first read that paragraph, almost with tears, I thought: Maybe his faint, haunting, 'unwritten melody'' was actually exactly what the hymn of salvation should be. Perhaps our 'inward-turned, individual-salvation-orientated, un-adapted Christianity' is a colossal and tragic misunderstanding, and perhaps we need to listen again for the true song of salvation, which is 'good news to all creation.'" (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 101)
What is this new redefined version of salvation? McLaren goes on to explain how salvation means to "rescue." Rescue from sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any other type of danger or evil.
While this is partially true, what McLaren fails to mention is that what one is being saved from is established by the context in which the term is used. The Bible is very clear that the salvation Jesus provides has a much narrower application: it is a salvation from sin resulting in reconciliation of the sinner with God.
Building on a faulty definition of "salvation" McLaren goes on to explain that salvation occurs when God intervenes to rescue and protect His people from their enemies and themselves. He says that God saves in three ways:
Judging: judgment means the coming forth of truth into a deceived and oppresed world. This according to McLaren is the natural consequence of bad behavior, so that evil doers are exposed, incapacitated, thus unable to continue their behavior.
Forgiveness: this allows people to have peace and start on a road of good behavior. McLaren says that this step requires conviction. Without conviction of their wrongdoing, evildoers will not turn away from their behavior and forgiveness would be nothing more than "intolerable toleration." Like a school teacher that allows a disruptive child continue in his behavior.
Teaching: Jesus saves by teaching how to live wisely, not foolishly.
McLaren illustrates the teaching phase by telling the story of an unwise farmer who doesn't do the things necessary to keep his soil healthy; leading to a reduction in crop production until he finally ends up starving. In this story, the farmer's grandmother teaches him about things such as fertilization and crop rotation. The farmer is saved when he learns from his teacher grandmother. According to McLaren, people are saved in the same way when they are rescued from their own behavior, the oppression of those in power, dishonesty, and so forth. They are saved when they are judged, convicted and forgiven, and begin acting differently. Then the oppresed are no longer the victims of their own behavior or the behavior of others.
McLaren then addresses the meaning of the cross:
quote:
"This is a window into the meaning of the cross. Absorbing the worst that human beigs can offer - crooked religiosity, petty politcal systems, individual betrayal, physical torture with whip and thorn and nail and hammer and spear - Jesus enters into the center of the thunderstorm of human evil and takes its full shock on the cross. Our evil is brutally exposed, drawn into broad daylight, and judged - named and shown for what it is. Then, having felt its agony and evil firsthand, in person, Jesus pronounces forgiveness and demonstrates that the grace of God is more powerful and expansive than the evil of humanity. Justice and mercy kiss; judgment and forgiveness embrace. From their marriage a new future is conceived." (A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 105) T
Of course the above description can, and is interpreted as a Biblical view of the cross by those familiar with the language of salvation. However, McLaren is not pouring Biblical defintions into these statements. He believes that Jesus judged (exposed) sin on the cross through demonstrating the oppressive and unjust nature of the ruling authorities - both religious and secular. They crucified an innocent and non-violent man simply because his teachings exposed their true nature.
The correct intrepretation of McLaren becomes evident when his statements are taken in context and also when joined with statements made elsewhere. He believes salvation means rescuing creation - both mankind and the earth - from the consequences of their bad behavior, i.e. abusing the enviornment.
quote:
"I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world. By 'the world' I mean planet Earth adn all of life on it, because left to ourselves, un-judged, and un-taught, we will certainly destroy this planet and its residents. And by 'the world' I specifically mean human history, because again, it was and is in danger, grave danger, ultimate danger, self-imposed danger, and I don't believe anyone else can rescue it."
(A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 106)
To summarize, McLaren believes that Jesus came to expose all the ways in which mankind is abusing one another and the earth. The ultimate exposure of this behavior took place on the cross. But rather than simply condemning man, Jesus offered forgiveness so repentant people can have the opportunity to change their behavior. Finally, Jesus taught us through His words and His actions how to live according the "way of Jesus." Anyone that moves from his or her bad behavior to living as Jesus did is saved (even if they have heard the gospel and rejected it, and even if they are faithful adherents to some pagan religion) and in some sense, so are those around them that suffered the consequence of that behavior/now reeping the benefits of the good behavior.
quote:
"We see great leaders - such as St.Francis, Gandhi (who sought to follow the way of Christ without indentifying himself as a Christian)... (A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 189)
In this sense, Jesus is the only way of salvation, as Jesus is the only one who could perfectly demonstrate the behavior God desires for humanity. McLaren tells the story about a snapping turtle, that as a hatchling, somehow got an inch and half plastic ring around its midsection, that as it grew in size, caused the turtle to look like a figure eight, and eventually would cause its death. However, some friends of his found this turtle and removed the ring thus "rescuing" it and giving it a future. McLaren goes on to say:
quote:
"A ring of selfishness, greed, lust, injustice, fear, prejudice, arrogance, apathy, chauvinism, and ignorance has similarly deformed our species. When I say that Jesus is Savior, I believe he snipped the ring by judging, forgiving, teaching, suffering, dying, rising, and more. And he's still working to restore us, to lead us, to heal us. Jesus is still in the process of saving us. Because I have confidence in Jesus as Savior, I'm seeking to be part of his ongoing saving work, sharing his saving love for our world." (A Generous Orthodoxy; pg. 107)
The following is another source that clarifies McLaren's social doctrine:
Writing about the meaning of the cross:
quote:
"The broad meaning refers to sacrificing one's life for a cause. It is common to refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Oscar Romero, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as sacrificing their lives for the causes to which they were devoted. Soldiers killed in action are often described as sacrificing their lives for their country. In this sense, on may speak of Jesus sacrificing his life for his passion, namely, for his advocacy of the kingodm of God. The more specific meaning of Jesus' death speaks of it as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, a dying for the sins of the world. This understanding is absent from Mark's story of Good Friday; it is not there at all...To many Christians, the word ransom sounds like sacrificial language, for we sometimes speak of Jesus as teh ransom for our sins. But it almost certianly does not have this meaning in Mark...Thus to say that Jesus gave 'his life a ransom for many' means he gave his life as a means of liberation from bondage. (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan; The Last Week; pg. 154)
"Was the death of Jesus the will of God? No. It is never the will of God that a righteous man be crucified." (pg. 161)
"How then does Mark understand Jesus's death? As his story of Good Friday reports, he sees Jesus's death as an execution by the authorities because of his challenge to the domination system...As such, Mark understands Jesus's death as a judgment on the authorities and the temple" (pg. 155)
"Second: sacrifice and substitution. Offerers never thought that the animal was dying in their place, that they deserved to be killed in punishment for their sins, and that God would accept the slain animal as substitutionaary atonement or vicarious satisfaction. Blood sacrifice should never be confused with or collapsed into either suffering or substitution, let alone substitutionary suffering...That theology would be a crime against divinity." ( pg. 38)
"Conservative Evangelicals usually think of themselves as the onew who take the Bible most seriously, but Borg and Crossan's The Last Week shows one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I've ever come across. (Brian McLaren; endorsement on back cover of "The Last Week")
Apparenlty McLaren endorsed this book because its theology is virtually identical to his. Jesus did not die to pay the penalty for sins - such a theology would be a crime against divinity (McLaren calls this doctrine "false advertising of the cross" in an podcast interview with Lief Hansen) - instead Jesus was crucified for a cause; a crucifixion that exposed the real nature of the ruling authorities. Anyone that follows Jesus's example for how to live as a member of humanity is a true disciple.
I hope this was enough to give you reason to pause. Now I challenge you to go back and re-read "A New Kind of Christian" with this information (and the information provided in the other posts on this thread) in mind and see if you don't start to notice what McLaren is really saying in that book.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 8/11/2008 7:06:36 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 8:44:16 PM
|
|
|
prophet
Posts: 525
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Emergents = Chameleons
_____________________________
Create in me a Clean Heart, O Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/11/2008 10:37:20 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
McLaren goes on to explain how salvation means to "rescue." Rescue from sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any other type of danger or evil.
This teaching seems to be just a repackaging of liberation theology. Barry's past pastor just placed a racial twist to the teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? - 8/12/2008 6:28:49 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 936
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
if they are preaching another jesus?
would a local SBC church, who if said "all those who follow jesus must cross this line of the apostles creed" and didn't do so then "it is what it is" and that means they are praching another jesus?
"...ok, yet we're talking specifically about mclaren's teachings/comments...."
really, i thought so, but you keep bringing up other folks. seriously :-0
who has said that jesus isn't god?
and can a mute love?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
