 |
|
|
|||||||
|
McLaren's SoteriologyBrian McLaren was recently uninvited from speaking at a Kentucky Baptist Convention on Evangelism on account of his views on soteriology (salvation). You can read more about this here. McLaren's view is not unique. Through the years there have been many Christians who espouse a rather inclusive understanding of salvation. There is a spectrum really ranging from universalism (everyone will be saved) to rigid exclusivism (only people who believe X, Y, Z will be saved). Not only is McLaren opposed to the narcissistic individualism inherent in so much "saved" language, he is also opposed to Christians making claims on who is in and who is out. Karl Barth wrote, "God planned our salvation. God effected our salvation. God enables us to appropriate this salvation. He does it all!" Hmmm. Can we speak dogmatically about who is in and who is out? Is that what we are called to do? In our postmodern, post-Christendom world ought we be more inclusive or exclusive? It's a good thing that Jesus never said anything about this! Or did he?posted by Jake at 2/23/2005 11:50:00 AM  
14 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts My New Toy ------------ Read this blog! ------------ Ummm...Ouch! ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 2) ------------ Ruth Unplugged ------------ Journey to the Cross ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 1) ------------ It's a Girl! ------------ See where fundamentalism gets ya? ------------ The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 3) ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
good stuff here jake..another day to be just a little embarassed of Baptist leadership...
Matthew 7:21ff
21. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
This is a tough subject. We all wish that a yes-no question will determine our entrance into the kingdom, whatever that may look like. Of course, we want it to be the yes-no question of our choice so that we can be sure to get in, while "those over there" will have to say no to it.
So, some of us want to be, "Have you accepted JC into your heart?" while others may prefer, "Did you fight for justice here on earth?"
But Jesus tells us that there want be a yes-no question in this type way. Instead, those "who do the will of the father in heaven" is the "criteria." The will of the Father is not something that can be reduced to a yes-no question that we can seperate people onto seperate sides. It is much more "out there," unquantifiable and unamanagable.
We continue to try and reduce the entry into the kingdom down into a question that has a 50% chance of getting it right...
Now..as Brugg often says, this text must stand in tension with Matthew 25 as you note..It seems that many in the evangelical tradition need to hear Matthew 25 (which incidently will be our theme at souled out this year) while other traditions may need to hear Matthew 7 (and other texts.)
In the end, we can't be too confident using rhetoric about the final judgment, whatever that may look like. We also need to take into account that God's judgment throughout scripture is almost always redemptive in some way...
mark
Mark, good point. I had an interesting discussion with a friend about this today. He wants to be dogmatic about saying that unless you "accept Jesus into your heart" you will go to hell. Consequently, he thinks that ministers should preach condemnation to the Hindu, Jew, or Muslim who doesn't trust in Jesus. In a way, this person was doing exactly what you said in your response to my post. Gadamer is clear that the kind of questions we ask of the text predetermine the kind of answers we will receive from the text. I think he is right and this is certainly apropos to the subject of soteriology.
I think there is a marked difference between these two statements:
1. You are not skinny.
2. You are fat.
It seems that in Scripture we get a lot of the first kind of statement and very rarily the second. I don't think that this obviates evangelistic preaching or talk of judgement, repentance, hell or personal decision. It does change the tone and tenor of the conversation though. Some evangelical and fundamentalist preachers seem to want to reduce "You are not skinny" statements into "You are fat" statements. This, in my opinion, does harm to the text and binds God's final decision with the fetters of modern, propositional reductionism. Peace.
Hey guys. Obviously, as an evangelical, Mclaren's comments are troubling to me (just as evangelicals' comments are troubling to you). In light of the “skinny” “fat” distinction - would Jesus' comment "Unless a man be born again he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" fall more into the skinny or fat category? Do you feel comfortable saying that all who are not born again will not enter heaven? I guess I'm comfortable saying that those who are not born again (once we identify what this means) will not enter heaven, while not being overly dogmatic about who is born again. Ultimately God will judge. Though, having said that, I would also add that it is difficult to imagine that those who intentionally reject Christ as the son of God (Muslims), or those who hold to an impersonal God (Hindus), are born again by the Spirit of Christ. Also, Paul seems to have given us a pretty clear indication of what kind of people (though not who) will and will not enter heaven (Gal 5:19-21, etc.) I would love it if universalism were true, incidentally, but if our sincere reading of scripture seems to suggest that those who have not heard of Christ are in danger of judgment (Romans 10:13-16), isn't it the greatest act of love to warn those who we think might be in peril? Is it necessarily true that all who fear that Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists are in peril of hell are simply driven by narcissism? Just some thoughts and I welcome a response.
Gerald, I understand why McLaren's comments would be troubling to you. His "Generous Orthodoxy" muddies the waters that modern evangelicals have worked so hard to clear. Your question is a good one and here are some of my extemporaneous thoughts. First, Matthew uses "Kingdom of Heaven" in a manner commensurate with Mark's and Luke's phrase "Kingdom of God." The writer of Matthew seems to have preferred this phrase but this does not mean "heaven-as-the-place-we-go-when-we-die." Jesus presents us with a picture of God's rule (the kingdom) as breaking on the scene in the person of Jesus the Christ. It's a realizing eschatology, not a purely future eschatology.
Second, the 'born again' language is clearly a metaphor (the text highlights this fact) for a new orientation to a totally new way of life. Many evangelicals whom I have encountered have a very flimsy notion of being 'born again' as a purely cognitive decision that does not impact one's whole being. The rebirth metaphor is so powerful because it presents us with a radically different way of living. With that understanding in mind perhaps a hindu or a muslim could experience such a radical reorientation in their life after learning about Jesus and still chose to live under the Hindu or Islam umbrella for cultural or religious reasons, while trusting Christ. This is speculative on my part, and on Brian McLaren's for that matter (check out his language carefully). To answer your question, I think that this statement is one of the rarely found "You are fat" statements in the Bible. And (you shouldn't have a problem with this) that is what we are called to preach as Christian ministers: a radical new orientation towards God's rule in this world. I don't think this is merely an admission ticket to heaven. To me, that seems to miss the entire point about what Jesus was about. I agree with you regarding God being the judge and not us. I also agree that those who have entered into God's radical rule are expected to live a kingdom ethic commesurate with what Paul talks about in Galatians 5. However, I know 'born agains' who do not typify such a kingdom ethic (and I am one of them at times) and Muslims who do. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to reduce this discussion to acts. The point of my post is this: we are called to preach the good news, minister to the downhearted, serve the poor, liberate the captives, teach, love, and follow Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do I find any statement that tells me I am supposed to tell people they are going to hell!
Sounds like an interesting discussion afoot. Jake, you should ask me sometime about my experience with SBC leadership and Mclaren's "generous orthodoxy". It was not pretty.
Personally, I am unsure of what to make of Mclaren's idea mostly because of what you call "purely speculative". What would it mean for a Hindu to live as one redeemed by Christ but remain within a Hindu (language game?) culture/religion? If someone could flesh that out for me, I would probably adopt Mclaren's terminology (after reading his book someday, of course).
Jake,
I’ve spent so much time disagreeing with you that it’s refreshing to find a point of continuity. If there is one thing that I agree with post-evangelicals about (and always have), it is their concern for a better articulation of the gospel. I couldn’t sympathize more with your observation that, “Many evangelicals whom I have encountered have a very flimsy notion of being 'born again' as a purely cognitive decision that does not impact one's whole being.” This is true and I believe such a neutered view of the gospel (inherited indirectly from Calvin and the Melanchthon, in my mind) is the bane of evangelicalism. Evangelical conversion, in many instances (though not all) has been reduced to cognitive assent to doctrinal propositions - a “Believe these things and go to heaven” sort of affair. I reject this as much as post evangelicals. The best of evangelical theology rejects this as well, by the way, but where I part company with my tradition is that I believe that it is our evangelical/Reformed understanding of justification that actually feeds this aberration of the gospel. I don’t know of any significant evangelicals yet who would agree with me on that.
Also, I think that what you mention as speculative is perhaps not too far out there, at least if what you’re imagining is similar to Jewish converts that see themselves as more of a Jew after turning to Christ. For instance, as I understand it, the term Muslim simply means submitted one and the expression is intended to communicate one who is submitted to God. In this most simplistic sense, perhaps we could argue that a Christian is the truest Muslim of all. Perhaps there is a precedent for this with Naaman the leper (2Kings 5:17) – though I wouldn’t want to press a narrative passage too far. This logic does seem harder to work out however, in a Hindu context (with its impersonal God) and Buddhism (with its denial of God altogether). Where I think McLaren’s speculation goes too far however, is his openness to the idea that people can be “saved” apart from a knowledge of Christ (please correct me if I’ve misconstrued his comments). If such a contingency exists, as far as I can tell it has not been revealed in Scripture, and in fact quite the opposite seems to be the case. I would have great reservation about developing praxis based upon a speculation that seems to run counter to the plain meaning of much of Paul’s, Jesus’, and Peter’s comments. If I’m wrong and we all find out that God was more inclusive than I imagined, you won’t find me complaining any, but for now I don’t want to speculate contra to what I read in the Scripture.
And one final thought. Though I agree with post-evangelicals such as yourself regarding the need for a “radical reorientation” and a “new way of living”, I worry that post-evangelical sotieriology does not often take into account the need for the essential change that makes such a reorientation possible. In other words, I can’t simply decide to start acting like a Christian without fist becoming one through my essential/ontological union with Christ via the Holy Spirit. It is his “loved poured out into our hearts” that provides me with the ability to actually reorient my life. To me, the new life of regeneration (being born again) is not primarily “a manner of life” but rather “life as essence.” It is the sap of the vine running through the sap of the branch. It is the “new heart” of the New Covenant. Without this component, I fear that the post-evangelical gospel runs the risk of being reduced to a way of life/works that does not require enabling grace. It becomes merely another law measured up to by mere human strength and effort.
P.S. Great job on your Hermeneutics post. And don’t worry too much about reductionism. Sometimes I think academics get unduly worried about that and we’re always qualifying everything and hedging our statements. Precision is important, but sometimes its good to just talk about the forest in spite of the trees –especially in this venue. I liked it.
Interesting that a Christian, any Christian, would find merit in Brian McLaren's views on salvation.
Did Christ suffer and die in vain? Wasn't His suffering and death the point? By His stripes we are healed (spiritualy restored)? So all the prophets
beginning from Moses were all
wrong? It wasn't what it was all about; belief in what Jesus did, believing that He came in the flesh, that He is the one and only unique Son of God, and He went to that cross so we wouldn't have to; and thereby opened up to us, God's Kingdom. It was all, what? A lie? A joke? A misunderstanding?
You don't need a new gospel to reach the current culture (regardless of what country you're in). You don't need a new Theodicy for today. The Good News does not need to be changed or rewrapped in a different package for a postmodern generation; people need to change...and there's the rub.
The world is so narcissistic (always has been) it refuses to be convicted of it's sin. And then there's the Evangelicals with the message of Repent and Believe the Good News and be saved! And oh, everyone is so offended and the Evangelicals are called the narcissist! And, if you the know the scriptures, their message is the same as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ! Don't misunderstand me, we've got a lot of "bad guys" in the church who are not training converts in righteousness. But the "good guys" are there too! Yet some on this blog think it is okay to condemn evangelicals of the Southern Baptist variety; en mass. I can't even imagine what some might think of Paul, the apostle!
People need to be offended; Jesus is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling to those who don't believe and we all need(ed) to stumble over Him!
How about less blogging and more eyes and hearts centered on God's Word. When you start throwing out the truth of the Gospel, all in this attempt to reach "THIS CULTURE"...well, all I can think is...don't let your intellect turn you into one of the "bad guys". Don't be guilty of this admonition from scripture: "always learning but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth." Guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; not in a Preacher or College Professor! (Take note: The apostle Paul warned the church about this!) Watch that your ears itch only for the truth; not the lie! And remember, God confounds the wisdom of those who think they are wise in their own eyes!
Be on guard, the question Satan asked Eve was a lie. Yes, questions themselves can be lies!If you truly watch and listen, you will learn that the adversary just keeps spinning this same old rhetoric; nothing original about him!
Matt, here is where you find the absence of any redemptive quality in God's judgement...when Jesus made this statement: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
His servant,
Kat
Interesting that a Christian, any Christian, would find merit in Brian McLaren's views on salvation.
Did Christ suffer and die in vain? Wasn't His suffering and death the point? By His stripes we are healed (spiritualy restored)? So all the prophets
beginning from Moses were all
wrong? It wasn't what it was all about; belief in what Jesus did, believing that He came in the flesh, that He is the one and only unique Son of God, and He went to that cross so we wouldn't have to; and thereby opened up to us, God's Kingdom. It was all, what? A lie? A joke? A misunderstanding?
You don't need a new gospel to reach the current culture (regardless of what country you're in). You don't need a new Theodicy for today. The Good News does not need to be changed or rewrapped in a different package for a postmodern generation; people need to change...and there's the rub.
The world is so narcissistic (always has been) it refuses to be convicted of it's sin. And then there's the Evangelicals with the message of Repent and Believe the Good News and be saved! And oh, everyone is so offended and the Evangelicals are called the narcissist! And, if you the know the scriptures, their message is the same as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ! Don't misunderstand me, we've got a lot of "bad guys" in the church who are not training converts in righteousness. But the "good guys" are there too! Yet some on this blog think it is okay to condemn evangelicals of the Southern Baptist variety; en mass. I can't even imagine what some might think of Paul, the apostle!
People need to be offended; Jesus is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling to those who don't believe and we all need(ed) to stumble over Him!
How about less blogging and more eyes and hearts centered on God's Word. When you start throwing out the truth of the Gospel, all in this attempt to reach "THIS CULTURE"...well, all I can think is...don't let your intellect turn you into one of the "bad guys". Don't be guilty of this admonition from scripture: "always learning but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth." Guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; not in a Preacher or College Professor! (Take note: The apostle Paul warned the church about this!) Watch that your ears itch only for the truth; not the lie! And remember, God confounds the wisdom of those who think they are wise in their own eyes!
Be on guard, the question Satan asked Eve was a lie. Yes, questions themselves can be lies!If you truly watch and listen, you will learn that the adversary just keeps spinning this same old rhetoric; nothing original about him!
Matt, here is where you find the absence of any redemptive quality in God's judgement...when Jesus made this statement: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
His servant,
Kat
Interesting that a Christian, any Christian, would find merit in Brian McLaren's views on salvation.
Did Christ suffer and die in vain? Wasn't His suffering and death the point? By His stripes we are healed (spiritualy restored)? So all the prophets
beginning from Moses were all
wrong? It wasn't what it was all about; belief in what Jesus did, believing that He came in the flesh, that He is the one and only unique Son of God, and He went to that cross so we wouldn't have to; and thereby opened up to us, God's Kingdom. It was all, what? A lie? A joke? A misunderstanding?
You don't need a new gospel to reach the current culture (regardless of what country you're in). You don't need a new Theodicy for today. The Good News does not need to be changed or rewrapped in a different package for a postmodern generation; people need to change...and there's the rub.
The world is so narcissistic (always has been) it refuses to be convicted of it's sin. And then there's the Evangelicals with the message of Repent and Believe the Good News and be saved! And oh, everyone is so offended and the Evangelicals are called the narcissist! And, if you the know the scriptures, their message is the same as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ! Don't misunderstand me, we've got a lot of "bad guys" in the church who are not training converts in righteousness. But the "good guys" are there too! Yet some on this blog think it is okay to condemn evangelicals of the Southern Baptist variety; en mass. I can't even imagine what some might think of Paul, the apostle!
People need to be offended; Jesus is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling to those who don't believe and we all need(ed) to stumble over Him!
How about less blogging and more eyes and hearts centered on God's Word. When you start throwing out the truth of the Gospel, all in this attempt to reach "THIS CULTURE"...well, all I can think is...don't let your intellect turn you into one of the "bad guys". Don't be guilty of this admonition from scripture: "always learning but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth." Guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; not in a Preacher or College Professor! (Take note: The apostle Paul warned the church about this!) Watch that your ears itch only for the truth; not the lie! And remember, God confounds the wisdom of those who think they are wise in their own eyes!
Be on guard, the question Satan asked Eve was a lie. Yes, questions themselves can be lies!If you truly watch and listen, you will learn that the adversary just keeps spinning this same old rhetoric; nothing original about him!
Matt, here is where you find the absence of any redemptive quality in God's judgement...when Jesus made this statement: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
His servant,
Kat
Interesting that a Christian, any Christian, would find merit in Brian McLaren's views on salvation.
Did Christ suffer and die in vain? Wasn't His suffering and death the point? By His stripes we are healed (spiritualy restored)? So all the prophets
beginning from Moses were all
wrong? It wasn't what it was all about; belief in what Jesus did, believing that He came in the flesh, that He is the one and only unique Son of God, and He went to that cross so we wouldn't have to; and thereby opened up to us, God's Kingdom. It was all, what? A lie? A joke? A misunderstanding?
You don't need a new gospel to reach the current culture (regardless of what country you're in). You don't need a new Theodicy for today. The Good News does not need to be changed or rewrapped in a different package for a postmodern generation; people need to change...and there's the rub.
The world is so narcissistic (always has been) it refuses to be convicted of it's sin. And then there's the Evangelicals with the message of Repent and Believe the Good News and be saved! And oh, everyone is so offended and the Evangelicals are called the narcissist! And, if you the know the scriptures, their message is the same as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ! Don't misunderstand me, we've got a lot of "bad guys" in the church who are not training converts in righteousness. But the "good guys" are there too! Yet some on this blog think it is okay to condemn evangelicals of the Southern Baptist variety; en mass. I can't even imagine what some might think of Paul, the apostle!
People need to be offended; Jesus is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling to those who don't believe and we all need(ed) to stumble over Him!
How about less blogging and more eyes and hearts centered on God's Word. When you start throwing out the truth of the Gospel, all in this attempt to reach "THIS CULTURE"...well, all I can think is...don't let your intellect turn you into one of the "bad guys". Don't be guilty of this admonition from scripture: "always learning but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth." Guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; not in a Preacher or College Professor! (Take note: The apostle Paul warned the church about this!) Watch that your ears itch only for the truth; not the lie! And remember, God confounds the wisdom of those who think they are wise in their own eyes!
Be on guard, the question Satan asked Eve was a lie. Yes, questions themselves can be lies!If you truly watch and listen, you will learn that the adversary just keeps spinning this same old rhetoric; nothing original about him!
Matt, here is where you find the absence of any redemptive quality in God's judgement...when Jesus made this statement: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
His servant,
Kat
Interesting that a Christian, any Christian, would find merit in Brian McLaren's views on salvation.
Did Christ suffer and die in vain? Wasn't His suffering and death the point? By His stripes we are healed (spiritualy restored)? So all the prophets
beginning from Moses were all
wrong? It wasn't what it was all about; belief in what Jesus did, believing that He came in the flesh, that He is the one and only unique Son of God, and He went to that cross so we wouldn't have to; and thereby opened up to us, God's Kingdom. It was all, what? A lie? A joke? A misunderstanding?
You don't need a new gospel to reach the current culture (regardless of what country you're in). You don't need a new Theodicy for today. The Good News does not need to be changed or rewrapped in a different package for a postmodern generation; people need to change...and there's the rub.
The world is so narcissistic (always has been) it refuses to be convicted of it's sin. And then there's the Evangelicals with the message of Repent and Believe the Good News and be saved! And oh, everyone is so offended and the Evangelicals are called the narcissist! And, if you the know the scriptures, their message is the same as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ! Don't misunderstand me, we've got a lot of "bad guys" in the church who are not training converts in righteousness. But the "good guys" are there too! Yet some on this blog think it is okay to condemn evangelicals of the Southern Baptist variety; en mass. I can't even imagine what some might think of Paul, the apostle!
People need to be offended; Jesus is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling to those who don't believe and we all need(ed) to stumble over Him!
How about less blogging and more eyes and hearts centered on God's Word. When you start throwing out the truth of the Gospel, all in this attempt to reach "THIS CULTURE"...well, all I can think is...don't let your intellect turn you into one of the "bad guys". Don't be guilty of this admonition from scripture: "always learning but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth." Guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; not in a Preacher or College Professor! (Take note: The apostle Paul warned the church about this!) Watch that your ears itch only for the truth; not the lie! And remember, God confounds the wisdom of those who think they are wise in their own eyes!
Be on guard, the question Satan asked Eve was a lie. Yes, questions themselves can be lies!If you truly watch and listen, you will learn that the adversary just keeps spinning this same old rhetoric; nothing original about him!
Matt, here is where you find the absence of any redemptive quality in God's judgement...when Jesus made this statement: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
His servant,
Kat
To be honest, what Brian says about persons of other religions following Christ within their own contexts isn't all that new. There's been a fair amount of discussion in missions circles about "C5 Muslims", who see themselves as Muslim but who also are committed to following Christ. A fair introductory article to the topic can be found at http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/contextu.htm. Having read A Generous Orthodoxy, I really didn't find his statements all that radical. It's unfortunate that someone would define orthodoxy that narrowly so as to exclude Brian from it - not that I find it particularly surprising that an organization would do so.
no, this mclaren guy is not an orignal thinker. He falls under Peter Schineller's Type II Christology which maintains that Christ is constitutive for salvation in an implicit way. This is the basic stance of Karl Rahner, Vatican II and many others. We are discussing this on my blog. Come and join the Conversation at
http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/
your pal,
norm
no, this mclaren guy is not an orignal thinker. He falls under Peter Schineller's Type II Christology which maintains that Christ is constitutive for salvation in an implicit way. This is the basic stance of Karl Rahner, Vatican II and many others. We are discussing this on my blog. Come and join the Conversation at
http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/
your pal,
norm