Archive for the ‘Media Review’ Category

2 Timothy 2:15 – A review of Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”

Friday, May 14th, 2010

Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity provides the logical conclusion of a post-modern (read post-truth) Christianity. With the popularity and appeal of this approach to God and His Word within this generation, it is vital as a church body that we understand the danger of such teachings and learn how best to dialogue with others about them. In the spirit of 1 Timothy 4:16 (“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”), I plead with this church to take seriously the importance of trusting in Scripture, God’s revealed Word, as our sole guide to know God as He truly and unchangeably is and forever will be. Only in this knowledge can we overcome our own sinfulness and grow into a deeper love of Christ and one another. If we abandon a trust in the inerrant truth of Scripture, we will relapse into a reliance on our own wisdom – a particularly scary thought considering our wisdom is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 3:18). 

I hope to show by way of critiquing McLaren’s view of Scripture that accepting such a view (apart from the orthodox view in accordance with 2 Timothy 3:16 that the actual words of Bible are God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness) will lead to not only the disintegration of Christ’s beloved bride (His church), but also the tragic rejection of God in favor of self-centered idolatry. To do this, I will present a brief overview of McLaren’s position and idealism, followed by an attempt to apply these views to a Scripture passage. In doing this, it will be clear that while McLaren’s views sound appealing at first, upon a closer inspection they are incoherent, contradictory, and practically impossible to use with any consistency. 

Consider this quote from his book: 
 
“I am saying that human beings can’t do better than their very best at any given moment to communicate about God as they understand God, and that Scripture faithfully reveals the evolution of our ancestors’ best attempts to communicate their successive best understandings of God.” – p. 103 
 
McLaren states that for too long we have used the Bible as a legal document from which to derive moral codes and it is time we change the way we look at Scripture. He argues that Scripture does not tell the story of God simply, but is itself a part of God’s story. In other words, the Scriptures that we have to study today are not directly from God in any way other than being good-hearted, though flawed, human descriptions of God’s interaction with His created world. From this, he argues that the path to the knowledge of God does not come from studying a rigid collection of historical writings (the Bible) in a scholarly fashion, but instead comes from dialoging with one another regarding these writings. He writes, “No, revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in our conversation among individuals and God, we might say. It doesn’t simply occur in the black symbols on white paper, it also occurs in the white space between letters and words and sentences – in the unspoken interactions, tensions, and resolutions between voices in the text.” (pp. 89-90) In other words, truth cannot be discovered from the words of the Bible, for all the authors of the Bible were simply men doing their best to describe God. So, we must join in on the conversation, seeking to discover God’s attributes by interpreting our own life experiences alongside the imperfect explanations offered by Biblical authors of their life experiences. 

McLaren champions this view of Scripture as a bringer of community and an eliminator of longstanding conflict regarding disputed doctrines in Scripture. He cites prior Christian support for slavery and the Crusades as evidence that reading Scriptural statements as unquestionably true leads to grievous mistakes in the church, for whoever wields the most power in the church at any given moment will determine the correct interpretation and application of Scripture’s teachings. At first glance, this argument may seem appealing – after all, Christians have disagreed with one another for thousands of years on any number of Scriptural teachings, bringing division and disunity, not to mention very real violence. Is not, then, a communal and cooperative approach to seeking God a better and more harmonious option for the church?

To answer this question, we must think logically of how this view would be applied in a communal setting. Let us say that a group of believers holding this position gather to read and discuss 2 Peter. In no time, they would run into this passage from chapter one of Peter’s letter (verses 16-21):

Immediately the problem of McLaren’s approach comes to light. What does this group of believers do with Peter’s words? Are Peter’s statements true or simply a “best attempt” to reveal truth? If, as McLaren wishes us all to do, this group were to put themselves on equal ground with Peter, could their own views hold more authority than Peter’s? Did Christ really receive honor and glory from the Father or was this simply Peter’s interpretation? Were Peter’s views of the prophets his best guess as to their inspiration, or were they actually provided by the Holy Spirit?

If the group simply agrees to disagree on their interpretation of this passage, or any other passage for that matter, in what sense could they agree that there even is a God? We may as well throw the Bible out completely and attempt to discover who God is through our own emotional and natural world. If we were to say that everyone’s view is just a different aspect of God, and all views point to the same God, then what of views that directly contradict one another? Can God be both good and evil? Deeply caring and apathetic? As you can see, McLaren’s approach does not eliminate conflict, but instead brings a whole new set of conflicts! Such conflicts as these that do not have a basis in arguing from truth external to our minds (i.e. Scripture) will lead to an individualistic religion of wishful thinking, the creation of countless false Gods, and the elimination of the solid ground the church community needs to live in harmony of purpose with one another.

It is clear that in this passage, Peter had no intention of entering into the kind of discussion that McLaren proposes. Peter clearly states and explains his positions are irrefutable truth. He had no intentions to open up the discussion, but instead was teaching from a place of authority and knowledge. No one could read his words and think otherwise. If, as McLaren proposes, Peter was simply stating his own interpretations of his experiences, in what sense could we respect words that seem to carry so much authority? If McLaren’s view of Peter is correct, he and every other Biblical author is beyond egomaniacal, as they would be stating truths of God without proper assurance of their legitimacy. God forbid we listen to someone who speaks so boldly without knowing their statements are true! If this were true, these men would be deceivers and liars, not men of faith and a reliance on God’s revelation.

So, if holding that the truth statements of Scripture are absolute truths leads to conflict, and also holding that they are not strictly true leads to conflict, what is the solution? How can we as a church move toward a place of respect both for God and for one another in approaching His Word?

Before I answer this question, it is important to first point out how McLaren’s portrayal of Christian history has perverted the orthodox approach to Scripture into something it has never been. True, those wielding power within the Christian world have misused Scripture for their own wicked schemes throughout history, but never have such schemes been undertaken due to a faithful and consistent reading of God’s Word. Slavery, for example, was opposed most forcefully from within the church by those who argued from Scripture the unethical nature of that institution. McLaren assumes that Scripture is contradictory, and in doing so wrongfully assumes that all people who have used Scripture to justify their sinful activities were reading Scripture faithfully, carefully, and fearfully.

Thus, if we approach Scripture with a real desire for it to teach us, and for us not to read what we desire into its teachings, a naturally congenial and vibrant world of discussion and mutual respect can thrive in the church even if there is disagreement. We cannot expect that everyone will be uniform in every aspect of their theology, but this does not mean that we discard the discussion of Scripture completely – it simply means that we argue gently and respectfully while also being open to the arguments of our brothers and sisters in Christ. As Proverbs 9:8 states, “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” So, while still being confident in the views we hold (Romans 14:5), let us strive to be wise and open to the possibility that we need correction, for this will bring not only sound doctrine and teaching, but love for one another.

It is important to know why we hold what we do from Scripture, for this is the only way to build confidence in our beliefs. Without the humble study of Scripture, the best we can do is simply hope that we have been taught correctly. In all things, we should take the advice of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (“Test everything. Hold on to the good.”). By doing this in our conversations within the church, we will not only gain confidence in our knowledge of God’s Word, but also we will help others to grow in their knowledge and faith due to the necessity of carefully explaining Christian belief from Scripture. Only in doing this will we be able to guard against the acceptance of false gospels (as the Galatians fell in to according to Galatians 1:6-9), and come to trust in the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who voluntarily took the penalty of our sins upon Himself as a sacrifice once for all on the cross so we may be free to approach God with confidence, a sincere heart, and full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:18-25). That, my friends, cannot be left up to debate.

Posted in Media Review, Theology | 4 Comments »

What’s so Amazing About Grace?

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

I just finished this book by Philip Yancey tonight. All I have to say is that more people need to read it and act on what they read.

One of the quotes that I want to share is actually quoted from another book which deals with the story of Will Campbell, a man who, after having a fiend of his killed by a KKK radical, went on to minister to the KKK. (If you’re interested in that book, it’s called Brother to a Dragonfly.) An agnostic friend of Will’s who constantly disputed his faith challenged him once again:

“In ten words or less, what’s the Christian message?”… We were going someplace, or coming back from someplace when he said, “Let me have it. Ten words.” I said, “We’re all bastards but God loves us anyway.” He didn’t comment on what he thought about the summary except to say, after he had counted the number of words on his fingers, “I gave you a ten-word limit. If you want to try again you have two words left.” I didn’t try again…

Thank God for His eternal Grace…

Posted in Media Review | No Comments »

Hope and Hopelessness…

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

The other night, I went to see The Road with a friend. Having read the book a couple years ago, I knew what to expect. The world has just ended. Everything is burned; all the trees are dead; the animals are gone. A father and son are making their way to the coast, trying to avoid the savage groups that have resorted to cannibalism. They scavenge for food and clothing, and their most precious possession is a gun with two bullets–one for each of them–should it come to that. It is utterly hopeless.

However, in the film, there is this idea of fire. If you have fire, you have a fighting chance. You have heat, light, the ability to cook, etc. But more than a physical fire, there is the notion of the fire inside of the boy that he is carrying with him all the time. While this fire is never explained, I’ll offer my interpretation. Fire is hope in the face of certain failure.

1 Peter 1:13 says, “Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.” Look at this life that Jesus has called us to. It is hopeless. In today’s world everything in subjective, nothing is absolute. What you believe is merely your opinion, so it might not apply to me. Offering a suggestion at a better way of life is no more than a judgement on people, saying that they are wrong. You’re a complete fool for believing in the person of Jesus. This is all there is, so learn to cope with it. But that is exactly the point. This is not all there is. Jesus is our hope, and only through his grace will we be able to carry the fire to the darkness.

Afterwards, people asked if The Road would be worth seeing in the theaters. Absolutely. But go in being prepared. It’s not a happy movie by any means. I won’t spoil the movie, but it doesn’t end on a happy note. But there is a glimmer of hope.  If you see it, don’t just watch mindlessly. Engage in it. Struggle with it. Let it get under your skin and make you uncomfortable. Embrace the hopelessness of your own situation. And then remember the hope you have in Jesus Christ.

Posted in Media Review | 1 Comment »