"Reinventing Calvinism, A Generous Heresy- The Gospel According To Brian McLaren" By Steve Camp (www.stevenjcamp.blogspot.com)
Reinventing Calvinism - A Generous Heresy
...the gospel according to Brian McLaren
Mr. McLaren has tried in a portion of his book, Generous Orthodoxy, to attempt to redefine the meaning behind Calvinism's theological acrostic T.U.L.I.P., known as the "Doctrines of Grace," through the onion skin of his postmodern blended-faith. Though an effort in futility, an appropriate subtitle could have been (please sing alone) “he don’t bring me tulips anymore.”
If Brian McLaren's name is new to you, he is the latest guru of evangelicalism's "search for significance movement" which he and others have coined as “The Emerging Church.” This is the new "flavor of the month" in Christian circles. He is featured currently in the cover article of CT (Christianity Today) on the theme of "The Emergent Mystique." More on “The Submerging Church” later ("submerging" - for what is emerging is not a biblical church at all, but more appropriately - a movement).
Is This Biblical Historic Christianity?
Let's begin by taking a walk together through Brian's spiritual garden and see if you can spot "the tulip" among the postmodern hybrids in his "new" kind of being Christian horticulture. He refers to it as the "Church on the Other Side," "A New Kind of Christian," and now "A Generous Orthodoxy." At its roots, there is seemingly in part an influence of Kantianism (Kant coined the phrase ‘categorical imperative’, a test whereby we judge our moral principles at the bar of reason, to see if they are indeed universal rules valid for all people. He discussed questions concerning divine commands, grace, the nature of Christ's redemption, the atonement, and the Church, stressing the primacy of the rational moral judgement and often criticizing, challenging and rewriting traditional doctrines.)
McLaren's brand of Christianity also seems to be a blend of several other components in varying degree as well: Open Theism, The New Perspective of Paul, Inclusivism, social activism, an emphasis on "the self" in serving others, with a minimum emphasis on Scripture and biblical truth. Mr. McLaren is a smart winsome man, compelling author, gifted communicator, and enticing wordsmith. He is also, I believe, from pure motives, trying to make sense of an ever-changing culture and how the church should be responding or adapting. Mr. McLaren is not to be taken lightly--his words are smooth and well crafted; and at the same time there is cause for concern here; for his words are strangely vacant of genuine biblical truth and principle.
What he represents does 'sound' new--mission accomplished. But sadly, his views fail to represent historic biblical Christianity. (I am not saying these things in a flippant way. I have read several of his books in the last few weeks and multiple articles by him and others in this movement on their various websites.) But what makes this man, his cohorts, and this movement potentially hazardous is the obvious lack of Scriptural authority, doctrinal foundation and clarity in what he propositions us to believe. His books seem to represent and resemble more the tone of "cultural therapy" then of biblical theology.
Listen, I fully understand his wanting a different kind of church today. Evangelicalism is in turmoil; and in no greater identity crisis than what's taking place within the local church. I also understand how easy it is to be scarred and jaded from an unfortunate, unpleasant local church situation. It can make us all cynical, skeptical, and hopeless in feeling like we will never see real faith exemplified in the local church environment in our day again. Granted. But the solution to the current struggle is not to reinvent the faith, but to reclaim it; holding the pastors, elders and church leaders accountable to a biblical standard and truth--not a cultural one.
Whatever Happened to the Authority of the Bible?
You'll quickly discover from reading McLaren that he rarely developes his ideas or beliefs from a clear biblical foundation taken from God's Word. He usually draws the water of his fluid faith from the well of his own experiences, lost expectations, and personal dreams. That's fine if you're writing novels, but not if you're claiming to represent the Lord. The Bible is God's self-revelation to man. In it we have all that we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4). In other words, it is sufficient and authoritative for all things pertaining to faith and practice (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21).
If Mr. McLaren holds to the absolute authority and veracity of Scripture, why is he silent on its truth most of the time? Why does he not represent his views in light of its eternal standard? Why is the message in his view, not just the methods, open for change and needs to constantly be evolving? This, ladies and gentlmen, is the primary concern I have for our brother. He does not speak from God's Word but his own predilections and moorings but then still represents them in some form as biblical. Is he convinced that the Word of God transcends our personal experiences, culture, movements and trends? Or is he seeking to rewrite or reinterpret Scripture by the culture, by movements, by personal experience and by ever-changing social trends? Postmodernism is not that difficult to understand or that unique culturally if viewed in the context of all of redemptive history. Listen, societies and cultures will always be vacillating and changing with the varying moorings of men. But what is constant is God Himself and His gospel; and it alone is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). All of our cleverly devised methods add nothing to its effectiveness or impact. It is obvious that emergent philosophy thinks that it has to somehow "change" the gospel message for it to be understood and effective in reaching pomo's (postmoderns). I couldn't disagree more. God is immutable and so is His truth (Hebrews 13:7; Psalm 119:89). We need not to alter it so it can "fit in" to our times better; but we do need to proclaim it without apology, without alteration, and without compromise. So much effort these days is spent on analyzing the times (I do agree we should understand our culture and the audience that we are communicating with) rather than on proclaiming the gospel. Acts 17 is usually quoted heartedly by those seeking to address evangelism in postmodern culture. But what is usually overlooked, is that Paul spent very little time in relating to the Stoic philosophers; and spent the majority of his time telling them about the person and character of the one true God and then immediately calling them to repentance. That is the missing element in emergent church thinking. Salvation, for them, is by relational osmosis than by gospel proclamation.
That is why reading his tomes as serious biblical efforts on being a new kind of Christian or discovering a new kind of church would leave one wanting. Again, he rarely speaks from the veracity of Scripture (again he seldom mentions or even quotes it), but usually from a faith in desperate need of maturity, clarity, direction and solidity. Brian was created in the image of God; and now he has returned the favor by recreating God, the faith and the church in his own image. In other words, he is a “postmodern babe” in sheep’s clothing.
When it comes to his reinventing the five points of Calvinism, better known as TULIP, he brings the same mentality--large on sentimentalism or relationship; small on truth. Here is Brian’s “Generous Orthodoxy” on the Doctrines of Grace. (Generous Orthodoxy... translation? he makes up the faith as he goes. There are no rules, no models, no denominational walls; no truth constraints; no theological grids; no ecclesiastical structures; no polity; no seemingly observance of hermenuetics for properly interpreting Scripture; no common meta-narratives (they have invented their own pomo religious language that you must understand ahead of time to fully communicate with them); and not even any agreed definitions to common biblical terms and truth. It's just him learning, growing, evolving, experiencing with a left unfinished kind of Christianity.)
Click here to review and learn of the original read the rest of "The Doctrines of Grace"
The TULIP according to Brian McLaren:
1. Triune Love – Sovereign Judge is too ominous a view of God for McLaren. He says, "God as Judge seems so predominate over all other metaphors, and the divine attribute of sovereign will is favored over all other attributes so that God's relation to creation is seen primarily in terms of legal prosecution (as judge) and absolute control (as naked will)." None of God's attributes is "metaphor" -they are in reality... actual. He is Judge. He is also heaven's dread Sovereign excercising His absolute power, authority and will over all His creatures driven only by His perfect free will, divine purposes and holy pleasure. He does not consult His creatures to accommodate their desires and moorings before He acts--He is no respecter of persons.
McLaren prefers the use of “community” in describing the One Triune God: “a Divine community of Father, Son and Spirit." Preexisting in an "eternal, dynamic, glorious and holy fellowship of love.” Did you hear that? This is foolishness beloved. Why not speak of a divine village? A quaint spiritual township? A beautiful nook in the eternal woods where They (the Trinity) communed in a gentle mutually beneficial spirit of harmonius love and holy nurtured relationship? I am not trying to be sacrilegious, but see how utterly absurd this is to describe the eternal Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in such sentimental, romantic, transient terms?
McLaren's model has no Scriptural support whatsoever. Just as important, McLaren's model offers no transcendent view of God. His view of God is... way to human. It is arrogant of him to even assume that he could know definitively how the Trinity functioned in eternity past. Scripture does not say--it remains a glorious mystery.
-But Scripture does say,
"God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day" -Psalm 7:11.
"The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity" -Psalm 5:5.
"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" -John 3:35-36
"As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" -Romans 9:13-15
And praise be to God Scripture also says, "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life" -Titus 3:4-7 (see also Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Cor. 13:14)
2. Unselfish Election – McLaren believes and vilifies that anyone who believes in a God who elects some and not others to eternal life (1 Peter 1:2) must be so self-absorbed in their standing before God that they view themselves as having what he calls “exclusive privilege” over others. Nonsense. There are elect and non-elect; there are vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath; one is prepared for eternal life, the other prepared for distruction. There is no room for boasting here; there is no room for spiritual elitism here. We are not better than the world; but we are better off because He saved us and not we ourselves (Titus 3:1-5). In both cases, whether for salvation or damnation, God will be glorified either for His mercy and grace or for His justice and wrath (cp, Romans 9:13ff).
Brian seems to prefer a God who elects His people "exclusively" for “missional responsibility.” He defines this concept of election as “a gift given to some for the benefit of others.” To "be chosen" in his lexicon means to be “blessed to give a blessing; to be enriched to enrich; to be healed to heal; to be taught to teach.” He compares the biblical view of election “like a prominent credit card offers elite privileges to its possessors.” We are to benefit others “unselfishly.” But what Mr. McLaren seemingly fails to comprehend is that we are elected not primarily for "missional responsibility," but to bring glory to God and worship Him. Missional responsibility or sharing our faith is a wonderful privilege telling others how they can have forgiveness of their sins through Jesus Christ our Lord. But this is that which flows from our election in Him, not the chief reason for our election.
Listen, the doctrine of election properly understood does not make one proud, but humble; does not make one silent, but vocal; does not make one arrogant, but grateful. It is the heartbeat of evangelism. This doctrine is pride crushing, joy producing, Christ exalting, and hope promising truth. Of course we are to faithfully serve one another by the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10) and we are to go into all the world and proclaim His gospel of grace: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31, emphasis added). But the primary reason, above all, for our election is for His glory, not our "missional responsibility" in service to others. And that is not selfish- "exclusive privilege..." that is worship!
Here is the balance: "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" -1 John 4:9-11.
That is why Paul says, "Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" -2 Tim. 2:10
Scripture says,
"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" -Eph. 1:4-14 (emphasis added).
We are elected by the Father; redeemed by the Son; and sealed with the Holy Spirit for the chief reason for praise of the glory of His grace. Out of that flows a burden for the lost and to share His gospel.
3. Limitless Reconciliation – Not content with the terms or truth behind "particular redemption or limited atonement," he seeks to redefine reconciliation and thus the atonement (under the postmodern banner of what he calls a Reforming Reformed faith) as that which “never isolates the divine from human relational healing...” The emphasis for McLaren is “the others” not God. He says of God: “Because God’s heart moves God to come to us in Christ, as neighbor to all...” God is my neighbor? I don't think so. (This is the gospel according to Mr. Rogers).
Reconciliation is not a biblical term the Scriptures uses in an arbitrary relational sense between people to heal troubled race relations; mend broken marriages; restore fractured church relationships; or settle disputes between others. If used in its biblical context, it speaks of man being reconciled to God. This is salvation. Therefore, the "ministry of reconciliation" that we have been given by the Lord is the proclamation of the gospel--not the rhetoric of a relational seminar.
Scripture says,
"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" -2 Cor. 5:18-21
4. Inspiring Grace – McLaren says, “Rather than picturing God’s grace as a dominating, almost mechanistic force that cannot be resisted, a Reforming Reformed faith would view God’s grace as a passionate, powerful, personal desire to shower the beloved with healing and joy and every good thing.”
Scripture says,
The reason that God's grace cannot be resisted is precisely what makes it grace--it is His unmerited gift to His elect in salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 2:11). Until we come to know Him we are hopelessly "dead in our trespasses and sins; ...sons of disobedience; ...by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3). "No one seeks after God..." (Romans 3:11). We were walking corpses needing regeneration. Salavation is not co-operation with grace--that is Romansitic works righteousness--semi-Pelagianism. A false gospel. Listen, unless God "draws me" to Christ, literally in the Greek "drags me"; I/we have no eternal life. "No man may come to the Me unless the Father draws him." That is grace. Anything less than that is works and not the gospel. McLaren wants to elevate man to not being completely sinful, not being completely lost, not being completely depraved; but as "almost..." so that grace becomes this "passionate showering" not complete life regeneration. This is nothing less than Arminianism on steroids.
Beloved, read John chapter six-- it is the rich account of God's wonderful divine "dominating, almost mechanistic force [of grace] that cannot be resisted." It is His imposing "grace-centered-eternal-will" on His chosen creatures for new life in Christ Jesus our Lord. And aren't you glad? "We love Him because He first loved us" -1 John 4:19.
5. Passionate, Persistent Saints – In his final attempt to rewrite Calvinism, McLaren defines the perseverance of the saints as a “grim endurance” rather than one of grace-filled obedience--the fruit of regeneration.
Scripture says,
"And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" -1 John 2:28f.
"For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance" -Romans 8:24-25.
Once we are saved by grace then we live by that same grace which is in Christ Jesus our Lord for our daily walk in Christ (2 Tim. 2:1; Titus 2:12). The same grace that saves us- sanctifies us. Though we do not participate in our salvation, we do in our sanctification (Romans 6-7). And it is not a grim endurance, but one marked with hope, joy, and promise.
In Conclusion:
The one reoccurring concern in all of McLaren's definitions (frankly in most of his writings) is that he seldom, if ever, offers any Scriptural context in what he declares, defends or defines as his positions. This is what makes him evasive, slippery, and hard to pin down. He speaks well and appeals through "relational language" but not through biblical truth--which to remind you, does not change with the tides and transcends any cultural peculiararities, religious or philosophical movements, or any mystical meanderings one might drift to. Therefore, what are you left with...? just his "opinion." Truth in McLaren's world has to be spelled with a small "t" for the message must be free to adapt, change, evolve and become--as with the methods.
Because of this fact there is very little of the "eternal" in McLaren's writings. In his paradigm objective, absolute, immutable truth does not take priority; but is replaced by "conversations" about ones spiritual journey.
Beloved, we must remain hopeful and positive through the malaise and quagmire of these aberrations representing themselves as biblical Christianity. Truth will always prevail ladies and gentlemen--it always has and always will. Be not afraid. But we must guard the truth, contend for the faith and defend His gospel against all attacks from within or without the church. And may we do it with boldness, love, compassion, grace, and truth.
I will be addressing more about this new leader and the “The Submerging Church” movement in future weeks to come. Until then, always remember: you don't go liberal by reading your Bible--or in McLaren's world, "letting the Bible read you."
Guard the Trust,
Steve
...the gospel according to Brian McLaren
Mr. McLaren has tried in a portion of his book, Generous Orthodoxy, to attempt to redefine the meaning behind Calvinism's theological acrostic T.U.L.I.P., known as the "Doctrines of Grace," through the onion skin of his postmodern blended-faith. Though an effort in futility, an appropriate subtitle could have been (please sing alone) “he don’t bring me tulips anymore.”
If Brian McLaren's name is new to you, he is the latest guru of evangelicalism's "search for significance movement" which he and others have coined as “The Emerging Church.” This is the new "flavor of the month" in Christian circles. He is featured currently in the cover article of CT (Christianity Today) on the theme of "The Emergent Mystique." More on “The Submerging Church” later ("submerging" - for what is emerging is not a biblical church at all, but more appropriately - a movement).
Is This Biblical Historic Christianity?
Let's begin by taking a walk together through Brian's spiritual garden and see if you can spot "the tulip" among the postmodern hybrids in his "new" kind of being Christian horticulture. He refers to it as the "Church on the Other Side," "A New Kind of Christian," and now "A Generous Orthodoxy." At its roots, there is seemingly in part an influence of Kantianism (Kant coined the phrase ‘categorical imperative’, a test whereby we judge our moral principles at the bar of reason, to see if they are indeed universal rules valid for all people. He discussed questions concerning divine commands, grace, the nature of Christ's redemption, the atonement, and the Church, stressing the primacy of the rational moral judgement and often criticizing, challenging and rewriting traditional doctrines.)
McLaren's brand of Christianity also seems to be a blend of several other components in varying degree as well: Open Theism, The New Perspective of Paul, Inclusivism, social activism, an emphasis on "the self" in serving others, with a minimum emphasis on Scripture and biblical truth. Mr. McLaren is a smart winsome man, compelling author, gifted communicator, and enticing wordsmith. He is also, I believe, from pure motives, trying to make sense of an ever-changing culture and how the church should be responding or adapting. Mr. McLaren is not to be taken lightly--his words are smooth and well crafted; and at the same time there is cause for concern here; for his words are strangely vacant of genuine biblical truth and principle.
What he represents does 'sound' new--mission accomplished. But sadly, his views fail to represent historic biblical Christianity. (I am not saying these things in a flippant way. I have read several of his books in the last few weeks and multiple articles by him and others in this movement on their various websites.) But what makes this man, his cohorts, and this movement potentially hazardous is the obvious lack of Scriptural authority, doctrinal foundation and clarity in what he propositions us to believe. His books seem to represent and resemble more the tone of "cultural therapy" then of biblical theology.
Listen, I fully understand his wanting a different kind of church today. Evangelicalism is in turmoil; and in no greater identity crisis than what's taking place within the local church. I also understand how easy it is to be scarred and jaded from an unfortunate, unpleasant local church situation. It can make us all cynical, skeptical, and hopeless in feeling like we will never see real faith exemplified in the local church environment in our day again. Granted. But the solution to the current struggle is not to reinvent the faith, but to reclaim it; holding the pastors, elders and church leaders accountable to a biblical standard and truth--not a cultural one.
Whatever Happened to the Authority of the Bible?
You'll quickly discover from reading McLaren that he rarely developes his ideas or beliefs from a clear biblical foundation taken from God's Word. He usually draws the water of his fluid faith from the well of his own experiences, lost expectations, and personal dreams. That's fine if you're writing novels, but not if you're claiming to represent the Lord. The Bible is God's self-revelation to man. In it we have all that we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4). In other words, it is sufficient and authoritative for all things pertaining to faith and practice (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21).
If Mr. McLaren holds to the absolute authority and veracity of Scripture, why is he silent on its truth most of the time? Why does he not represent his views in light of its eternal standard? Why is the message in his view, not just the methods, open for change and needs to constantly be evolving? This, ladies and gentlmen, is the primary concern I have for our brother. He does not speak from God's Word but his own predilections and moorings but then still represents them in some form as biblical. Is he convinced that the Word of God transcends our personal experiences, culture, movements and trends? Or is he seeking to rewrite or reinterpret Scripture by the culture, by movements, by personal experience and by ever-changing social trends? Postmodernism is not that difficult to understand or that unique culturally if viewed in the context of all of redemptive history. Listen, societies and cultures will always be vacillating and changing with the varying moorings of men. But what is constant is God Himself and His gospel; and it alone is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). All of our cleverly devised methods add nothing to its effectiveness or impact. It is obvious that emergent philosophy thinks that it has to somehow "change" the gospel message for it to be understood and effective in reaching pomo's (postmoderns). I couldn't disagree more. God is immutable and so is His truth (Hebrews 13:7; Psalm 119:89). We need not to alter it so it can "fit in" to our times better; but we do need to proclaim it without apology, without alteration, and without compromise. So much effort these days is spent on analyzing the times (I do agree we should understand our culture and the audience that we are communicating with) rather than on proclaiming the gospel. Acts 17 is usually quoted heartedly by those seeking to address evangelism in postmodern culture. But what is usually overlooked, is that Paul spent very little time in relating to the Stoic philosophers; and spent the majority of his time telling them about the person and character of the one true God and then immediately calling them to repentance. That is the missing element in emergent church thinking. Salvation, for them, is by relational osmosis than by gospel proclamation.
That is why reading his tomes as serious biblical efforts on being a new kind of Christian or discovering a new kind of church would leave one wanting. Again, he rarely speaks from the veracity of Scripture (again he seldom mentions or even quotes it), but usually from a faith in desperate need of maturity, clarity, direction and solidity. Brian was created in the image of God; and now he has returned the favor by recreating God, the faith and the church in his own image. In other words, he is a “postmodern babe” in sheep’s clothing.
When it comes to his reinventing the five points of Calvinism, better known as TULIP, he brings the same mentality--large on sentimentalism or relationship; small on truth. Here is Brian’s “Generous Orthodoxy” on the Doctrines of Grace. (Generous Orthodoxy... translation? he makes up the faith as he goes. There are no rules, no models, no denominational walls; no truth constraints; no theological grids; no ecclesiastical structures; no polity; no seemingly observance of hermenuetics for properly interpreting Scripture; no common meta-narratives (they have invented their own pomo religious language that you must understand ahead of time to fully communicate with them); and not even any agreed definitions to common biblical terms and truth. It's just him learning, growing, evolving, experiencing with a left unfinished kind of Christianity.)
Click here to review and learn of the original read the rest of "The Doctrines of Grace"
The TULIP according to Brian McLaren:
1. Triune Love – Sovereign Judge is too ominous a view of God for McLaren. He says, "God as Judge seems so predominate over all other metaphors, and the divine attribute of sovereign will is favored over all other attributes so that God's relation to creation is seen primarily in terms of legal prosecution (as judge) and absolute control (as naked will)." None of God's attributes is "metaphor" -they are in reality... actual. He is Judge. He is also heaven's dread Sovereign excercising His absolute power, authority and will over all His creatures driven only by His perfect free will, divine purposes and holy pleasure. He does not consult His creatures to accommodate their desires and moorings before He acts--He is no respecter of persons.
McLaren prefers the use of “community” in describing the One Triune God: “a Divine community of Father, Son and Spirit." Preexisting in an "eternal, dynamic, glorious and holy fellowship of love.” Did you hear that? This is foolishness beloved. Why not speak of a divine village? A quaint spiritual township? A beautiful nook in the eternal woods where They (the Trinity) communed in a gentle mutually beneficial spirit of harmonius love and holy nurtured relationship? I am not trying to be sacrilegious, but see how utterly absurd this is to describe the eternal Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in such sentimental, romantic, transient terms?
McLaren's model has no Scriptural support whatsoever. Just as important, McLaren's model offers no transcendent view of God. His view of God is... way to human. It is arrogant of him to even assume that he could know definitively how the Trinity functioned in eternity past. Scripture does not say--it remains a glorious mystery.
-But Scripture does say,
"God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day" -Psalm 7:11.
"The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity" -Psalm 5:5.
"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" -John 3:35-36
"As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" -Romans 9:13-15
And praise be to God Scripture also says, "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life" -Titus 3:4-7 (see also Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Cor. 13:14)
2. Unselfish Election – McLaren believes and vilifies that anyone who believes in a God who elects some and not others to eternal life (1 Peter 1:2) must be so self-absorbed in their standing before God that they view themselves as having what he calls “exclusive privilege” over others. Nonsense. There are elect and non-elect; there are vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath; one is prepared for eternal life, the other prepared for distruction. There is no room for boasting here; there is no room for spiritual elitism here. We are not better than the world; but we are better off because He saved us and not we ourselves (Titus 3:1-5). In both cases, whether for salvation or damnation, God will be glorified either for His mercy and grace or for His justice and wrath (cp, Romans 9:13ff).
Brian seems to prefer a God who elects His people "exclusively" for “missional responsibility.” He defines this concept of election as “a gift given to some for the benefit of others.” To "be chosen" in his lexicon means to be “blessed to give a blessing; to be enriched to enrich; to be healed to heal; to be taught to teach.” He compares the biblical view of election “like a prominent credit card offers elite privileges to its possessors.” We are to benefit others “unselfishly.” But what Mr. McLaren seemingly fails to comprehend is that we are elected not primarily for "missional responsibility," but to bring glory to God and worship Him. Missional responsibility or sharing our faith is a wonderful privilege telling others how they can have forgiveness of their sins through Jesus Christ our Lord. But this is that which flows from our election in Him, not the chief reason for our election.
Listen, the doctrine of election properly understood does not make one proud, but humble; does not make one silent, but vocal; does not make one arrogant, but grateful. It is the heartbeat of evangelism. This doctrine is pride crushing, joy producing, Christ exalting, and hope promising truth. Of course we are to faithfully serve one another by the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10) and we are to go into all the world and proclaim His gospel of grace: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31, emphasis added). But the primary reason, above all, for our election is for His glory, not our "missional responsibility" in service to others. And that is not selfish- "exclusive privilege..." that is worship!
Here is the balance: "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" -1 John 4:9-11.
That is why Paul says, "Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" -2 Tim. 2:10
Scripture says,
"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" -Eph. 1:4-14 (emphasis added).
We are elected by the Father; redeemed by the Son; and sealed with the Holy Spirit for the chief reason for praise of the glory of His grace. Out of that flows a burden for the lost and to share His gospel.
3. Limitless Reconciliation – Not content with the terms or truth behind "particular redemption or limited atonement," he seeks to redefine reconciliation and thus the atonement (under the postmodern banner of what he calls a Reforming Reformed faith) as that which “never isolates the divine from human relational healing...” The emphasis for McLaren is “the others” not God. He says of God: “Because God’s heart moves God to come to us in Christ, as neighbor to all...” God is my neighbor? I don't think so. (This is the gospel according to Mr. Rogers).
Reconciliation is not a biblical term the Scriptures uses in an arbitrary relational sense between people to heal troubled race relations; mend broken marriages; restore fractured church relationships; or settle disputes between others. If used in its biblical context, it speaks of man being reconciled to God. This is salvation. Therefore, the "ministry of reconciliation" that we have been given by the Lord is the proclamation of the gospel--not the rhetoric of a relational seminar.
Scripture says,
"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" -2 Cor. 5:18-21
4. Inspiring Grace – McLaren says, “Rather than picturing God’s grace as a dominating, almost mechanistic force that cannot be resisted, a Reforming Reformed faith would view God’s grace as a passionate, powerful, personal desire to shower the beloved with healing and joy and every good thing.”
Scripture says,
The reason that God's grace cannot be resisted is precisely what makes it grace--it is His unmerited gift to His elect in salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 2:11). Until we come to know Him we are hopelessly "dead in our trespasses and sins; ...sons of disobedience; ...by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3). "No one seeks after God..." (Romans 3:11). We were walking corpses needing regeneration. Salavation is not co-operation with grace--that is Romansitic works righteousness--semi-Pelagianism. A false gospel. Listen, unless God "draws me" to Christ, literally in the Greek "drags me"; I/we have no eternal life. "No man may come to the Me unless the Father draws him." That is grace. Anything less than that is works and not the gospel. McLaren wants to elevate man to not being completely sinful, not being completely lost, not being completely depraved; but as "almost..." so that grace becomes this "passionate showering" not complete life regeneration. This is nothing less than Arminianism on steroids.
Beloved, read John chapter six-- it is the rich account of God's wonderful divine "dominating, almost mechanistic force [of grace] that cannot be resisted." It is His imposing "grace-centered-eternal-will" on His chosen creatures for new life in Christ Jesus our Lord. And aren't you glad? "We love Him because He first loved us" -1 John 4:19.
5. Passionate, Persistent Saints – In his final attempt to rewrite Calvinism, McLaren defines the perseverance of the saints as a “grim endurance” rather than one of grace-filled obedience--the fruit of regeneration.
Scripture says,
"And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" -1 John 2:28f.
"For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance" -Romans 8:24-25.
Once we are saved by grace then we live by that same grace which is in Christ Jesus our Lord for our daily walk in Christ (2 Tim. 2:1; Titus 2:12). The same grace that saves us- sanctifies us. Though we do not participate in our salvation, we do in our sanctification (Romans 6-7). And it is not a grim endurance, but one marked with hope, joy, and promise.
In Conclusion:
The one reoccurring concern in all of McLaren's definitions (frankly in most of his writings) is that he seldom, if ever, offers any Scriptural context in what he declares, defends or defines as his positions. This is what makes him evasive, slippery, and hard to pin down. He speaks well and appeals through "relational language" but not through biblical truth--which to remind you, does not change with the tides and transcends any cultural peculiararities, religious or philosophical movements, or any mystical meanderings one might drift to. Therefore, what are you left with...? just his "opinion." Truth in McLaren's world has to be spelled with a small "t" for the message must be free to adapt, change, evolve and become--as with the methods.
Because of this fact there is very little of the "eternal" in McLaren's writings. In his paradigm objective, absolute, immutable truth does not take priority; but is replaced by "conversations" about ones spiritual journey.
Beloved, we must remain hopeful and positive through the malaise and quagmire of these aberrations representing themselves as biblical Christianity. Truth will always prevail ladies and gentlemen--it always has and always will. Be not afraid. But we must guard the truth, contend for the faith and defend His gospel against all attacks from within or without the church. And may we do it with boldness, love, compassion, grace, and truth.
I will be addressing more about this new leader and the “The Submerging Church” movement in future weeks to come. Until then, always remember: you don't go liberal by reading your Bible--or in McLaren's world, "letting the Bible read you."
Guard the Trust,
Steve
Comments