Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 4)
December 21st, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
This article is adapted from the Fall issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. The full text of this article can be read by obtaining a copy of the journal.
4. McLaren and Religious Ecumenism
The exclusivity of the Christian gospel is an unmistakable theme that runs throughout Scripture. In the Old Testament, the Lord plainly told the Hebrew people:
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Ex. 20:3–6; cf. 20:23; 23:24; 34:14; Lev. 19:4; Josh. 23:7; 2 Kgs 17:35)
In the New Testament, the message is equally clear. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The apostle John wrote, “… but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. “For there is one God [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. “And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:11–12).
Of course, those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of postmodernism. They make exclusive, universal truth-claims, authoritatively declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is also what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate postmodern sensitivities and immoralities.
McLaren, however, flatly rejects the straightforward exclusivism of Scripture. In his version of orthodoxy, Christians should “see members of other religions and non-religions not as enemies but as beloved neighbors, whenever possible, as dialogue partners and even collaborators” (A Generous Orthodoxy, 35). Thus, “having acknowledged and accepted the coexistence of other faiths, Christians should actually talk with people of other faiths, engaging in gentle and respectful dialogue. … We must assume that God is an unseen partner in our dialogues who has something to teach all participants, including us” (Ibid., 257-58). Later he writes:
To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are) to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love, as mine has been entered by the Lord. I do this because of my deep identity as a fervent Christian, not in spite of it. (Ibid., 264; cf. The Secret Message of Jesus, 4-8)
In light of his apparent openness to non-Christian faiths, it is not surprising that he finds all broadly Christian religions to also be equally valid. After discussing the “Jesus” of the Conservative Protestant, the Pentecostal, the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Liberal Protestant, the Anabaptist, and the Liberation Theologian, he asks,
Why not celebrate them all? … Up until recent decades, each tribe felt it had to uphold one image of Jesus and undermine some or all of the others. What if, instead, we saw these various emphases as partial projections that together can create a hologram; a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus?
What if we enjoy them all, the way we enjoy foods from differing cultures? Aren’t we glad we can enjoy Thai food this week, Chinese next, Italian the following week, Mexican next month, and Khmer after than? What do we gain by saying that Chinese food is permissible, but Mexican food is poison? Isn’t there nourishment and joy (and pleasure) to be had from each tradition? (Ibid., 66)
Without question, the Bible’s claim that salvation is in Christ alone by faith alone is certainly out of harmony with the emergent notion of “tolerance.” But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. In the words of John Frame,
But again, McLaren is insensitive to spiritual warfare. The Bible is sharply negative toward false worship, the worship of idols, rather than the true God. Paul’s missionary labors were not only positive, but also negative: to turn the Gentiles away from their idols to serve Christ (as in Acts 17:29-31, 1 Thess. 1:9). . . . Insofar as McLaren confuses the issue of false worship, he confuses something of vital importance to the God of Scripture. (Online Source)
Only by turning a blind eye to the Bible’s clear teaching, can the broad ecumenism of McLaren be entertained with any enthusiasm.
(Final Part to come tomorrow)
Sharing the deepest gratitude for the recent articles; they’ve been timely and very illuminating!
Paul spent most of the first chapters of Romans helping his readers ‘unlearn’ their misguided beliefs. We are dead and depraved without God. Salvation is not by works, nor by heritage, not even by the law. These challenges were not to ‘dialog partners or collaborators’. Paul was challenging core beliefs and traditions, community and personal identity. He was intolerant toward false man-centered philosophies and beliefs.
There is no one righteous. What a challenge this must have been. A righteousness from God has been revealed. This is a great turning point, a pivot in history. For those who resist change, this was radical beyond belief. God’s plan of salvation does not have to do with our interpretation, but His intervention. It is not a question of consensus, but of command. From the Creator Himself. Questioning to obtain consensus is a reasonable exercise – but only among men. Questioning God’s command and word is sin.
We cannot believe that consensus among men is the path to understanding God’s commands. We cannot believe that God’s commands are unclear and therefore subject to consensus as some sort of means test. Instead we are challenged to work out our salvation with trembling and fear – through application – obedience – not debate.
Let’s acknowledge (confess) that imperfect man will always fall short of perfect understanding. This is why faith is necessary. We may want to challenge each other to a better application of God’s Word – but this is not the same as challenging God’s Word. Faith and humility allow us to subject our ‘need’ for understanding to God’s sovereign control. He is not absent, He is patient, slow to anger and abounding in love. He will continue to work in us through the Holy Spirit until our transformation through salvation is complete.
To seek greater understanding and consensus from men instead of allowing God to conform us into the image of His Son is going in the opposite direction – away from God toward self. It is the path of destruction.
Aren’t we seeing this dialogue and collaboration at Saddlback and its association with Barak Obama and the like to fight aids? Also with Willow Creek and its associating with Bono to fight African hunger and then sending their interview with Bono to their associated churches to broadcast to their congregations?
One of the things that has struck me about the ECM and the Seekers is that they crave the approval of the world. Reading excerpts from McLaren, and reading posts by other emergents make me think they are approval junkies. The only way to get approval from the world is to be like them. The more like them the church becomes the more its loses its saltiness, and according to Matthew 5:13 once salt loses its savor it is impossible to make it salty again and is only good being thrown underfoot and being trampled by men. That’s a good picture of becoming irrelevant.
Galatians 1:10 speaks well to this, “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.” Isaiah 2:22 says it a little more pithily, “Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils; for why should he be esteemed?” So there is only One to please, One to esteem, and we can not be His bond-servant if we are seeking to please anyone else but Him. I don’t think God can speak any more clearly than this…He who has ears to hear should listen.
I was reading Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” where he told Erasmus, who was advocating the impossibility of understanding Scripture where Luther says, “uncertainty is the most miserable thing in the world” (p. 69). There really is nothing new under the sun.
Good comment Scott! What I also laugh at is how the ECM seems to be like the Christian kid at the public school who swears at recess and takes a drag of a cigarette in an effort to get in with the “cool” kids but then is rejected by the 2 other Christian kids for not “acting like a Christian.”
And who’s kidding who? The “cool” kids know that he’s a churchie dork pretending to be “cool” because he still flinches when they show him the porno that they stole from their brother’s stash, and when he stops entertaining them they beat him up and make fun of him. AND, the Christian kids think he’s a spineless loser because when it all comes down, he buckles and doesn’t serve the Lord.
Like didn’t McLaren ever pay attention in elementary school?
[...] Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 4) [...]
Jesus told them a parable: “A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work today in my vineyard.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went.
He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to him, “The first.”
There will be people who say “No” to the father, but end up doing his will.
And vice versa.
Ha… that reminds me of the speech given by Sally Field when she won the oscars.
“You like me …. you really do like me!”
By the way an interesting site.
Vee-
You make a good point. “Approval junkies” show up in other circles as well. Check out how Joel Osteen ends most of his…well “sermons”. He’ll say something like, “Well, let me hear it if that blessed your heart.” Same thing…fishing for approval. Great observation!
Whyte Stonne,
There is the one who says no and does well and the one who says yes and does not. And then there is the one who sells out his Savior for 30 pieces of silver… or book royalties
I think Jesus said it best to the woman at the well:
John 4:22 22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
When one considers the lengths some of these individual ECM’ers go to behave like world one wonders where the line of ignorance is crossed and where the other territory (that of outright rebellion) begins.
McClaren’s “mischievousness,” as he calls it,should be informed by the Scriptural warnings of the Holy Spirit, in the writings of James and in the warnings of Jesus, Himself:
James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
If he’s not sure about much he shouldn’t write about that which he does not know (and receive payment for his ignorance).
If he’s trying to be cute and provocative, McClaren, and others who do so, should be take note of Jesus’ words:
Matthew 18:4-9 4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! 8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
And if he’s guilty of ignorance or “mischievous cuteness” then he should expect to be challenged and if he doesn’t repent then the rest of Matthew 18 applies (which is currently under way).
Matthew 18:15-17 15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
McClaren’s problem is that his public cuteness, mischieveousness, or ignorance requires a public rebuke.
1 Timothy 5:19-20 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
He has demonstrated his ignorance of Scripture or been unedifyingly cute about the clarity of Scripture, publicly. His words are in his books, blogs, etc. for all to see.
Now, he’s being publicly rebuked for the sake of the church, and the little ones and weaker brothers he may and is causing to stumble.
Hopefully, Whtye, he will do as the son who refused to do what his Father asked him to do–admit his error.
Others have, he should follow suit… The Scriptures are clear. God has written to communicate. He is sovereign so He has preserved His word. And He is not incompetent or limited in His clarity. That’s why He holds us accountable to His word. If His word is not understandable then He is a liar, or perhaps the problem rests with McClaren and many in the ECM movement who doubt the clarity of Scripture.
Psalm 19:7-9 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.
We KNOW that God is not a liar.
Grace to you:
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Keith, Rev. MacArthur’s topic is ecumenism and excusivism.
Keith, at the risk of “spamming,” let me nevertheless copy a portion of something I wrote to Scott G.:
“You may remember what I wrote about Jeremiah 31:31ff, how it he said that the New Covenant would not be like the Old Covenant, that it would be written on our hearts and minds directly by God.
I concluded that the page in my Bible marked “The New Testament” was a lie, and that I have torn it out.
Then I go to II Corinthians 3:6, where Paul writes that “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.”
In Romans Paul builds on this: “By dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we may serve in the new way in the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code,” or “the oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6).
Jeremiah prophesied that the New Covenant would be written directly in our minds and hearts. Calling the Greek Scriptures “the New Testament” contradicts the clear statement of Jeremiah about the actual nature of the New Testament, or New Covenant (which words mean the same thing).
I believe we have turned the Greek Scriptures into a new Law, the Christian Torah, to which our leaders have almost universally bound us. We still serve “in the old way of the written code.” We have changed codes, but we still “justify” our doctrines and structures by referring to the Letter of the Christian Torah, the “New Testament.”
Now someone will undoubtedly remind me that I am arguing from Scripture, being myself “bound” to conform my thoughts and beliefs to the “Christian Torah” I seem so dead-set against.
Let me reply that “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
* * * * * * * *
Someone recently wrote, “The Scriptures are clear. God has written to communicate. He is sovereign so He has preserved His word. And He is not incompetent or limited in His clarity. That’s why He holds us accountable to His word.”
I believe in the clarity of Jeremiah 31:31ff, II Corinthians 3:6, and Romans 7:6.
Approval Junkies….what are all of your comments? Remember when the Apostles asked Jesus if they should stop those who preached in his name without authority? what did Jesus say?
yes i listen to Rob Bell. but i took his first bit of advise and that was not to take his word as law, but to research it and test it. I find alot of his thoughts interesting, i don’t agree with them 100%. Don’t you think Satan would rather watch Christians fight with each other while the lost walk by saying…”that’s why I’m not Christian” or are you saying Bell isn’t Christian and is teaching an anti-christian message while masking it as worship to GOD? Bell was wounded in the head and survived.