It doesn't say "I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their beliefs and religious affiliation. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, homosexuals, and liberals were thrown into the lake of fire ... Christians were spared." Nothing like that at all! The judgment occurs according to works ... "what they had done." (Now I belief in justification by grace alone through faith alone - but I don't believe in "justification by believing in the doctrine of justification alone by faith alone through grace alone.") So what some Christians commonly say about judgment is quite different from what this text itself says.
Clear huh? So he accepts the Reformed belief of justification by grace alone through faith alone, but does not believe, at the same time in justification by believing int he doctrine of justification alone by faith alone through faith alone. So he both affirms and yet rejects sola fida, sola gracia, etc. And this is why people find McLaren and similar theologies confusing and unhelpful. How would you present this to someone who is "lost" (if the word has any meaning."
So what does McLaren mean here? First we must see that McLaren is not a big fan of a gospel that is primarily about the afterlife - the get-your-butt-out-of-hell-and-into-heaven gospel. McLaren believes that the gospel is summed up in the phrase the Kingdom of God and primarily in the idea that the Kingdom of God is a present reality and not (almost exclusively not) a future hope. In other words, what it means to be a follower of Jesus is to work to bring the Kingdom of God to earth here and now. I have laid this argument out repeatedly and for more detail see my Thesis on the right in which I wrote on Brian McLaren's Soteriology.
But in the meantime, for proof of this idea, consider what else McLaren wrote in this blogpost:
I don't read these passages as descriptions of the afterlife. As I explain in a few of my books, Revelation is a genre piece - it fits in the genre of "Jewish Apocalyptic Literature." This genre is in turn part of a larger genre called "Literature of the Oppressed." In literature of the oppressed, an oppressed group tells the truth about the powers that be, but they do it in a "slant" or indirect way so that they won't be arrested, tortured, and killed for doing so.
So, I think the Beast represents the Roman Empire (and by extension - recalling Daniel 7 - all oppressive, violence/fear-based domination systems). I think the false prophet represents religious establishments that baptize those powerful violent, heartless, inhuman (hence "beastly") systems. And I think the point of Revelation is that the powerful people who did the killing will ultimately be judged as the villains of history, and the powerless people who got killed for their witness against the beastly systems will be judged the heroes in God's eyes. It says God is on the side of the marginalized and oppressed (remember Exodus and Pharaoh?), not on the side of the powerful who control the status quo.
You can see this influence of the present-now belief in the Kingdom and the gospel. To McLaren, Jesus came to set the literal (not spiritual) captives free. he came to end poverty, help the oppressed, and side with the marginalized. McLaren, thus, has been on the front ground of social justice (remember the whole "Glenn Beck is against Social Justice" thing?) and is heavily involved in politics.
To though most read Revelation 20-21 in the future-tense, McLaren reads it more in the past-tense. Rome was unjust and oppressive and thus was "judged." God always sides with slaves and the oppressed (remember Exodus and Pharaoh?), and never on the side of the powerful who control the status quo. And since this is a judgment against Rome, it is also a judgment against us in America and the West now, McLaren believes. Are we oppressive? Are we prone to war and ignore the oppressive and the marginalized? If so, then Revelation 20-21 stands in judgment over us because God is for those in whom we sin against.
McLaren prefers systemic theology instead of systematic theology. The gospel is about nations and individuals repenting of systemic sins and not of individuals repenting from moral sins. The advantage of this should be obvious to the outsider. McLaren's model calls for action now whereas his caricature of the transcendent gospel is simply escapism. Certainly this is nothing new and Christians have heard this accusation for centuries now, but McLaren repeatedly makes this accusation.
So going back to the beginning, what does McLaren mean by saying that he affirms justification by faith alone through grace alone and yet at the same time rejects sola fida and sola gratia? In order to understand, one must see that McLaren has two different meanings. McLaren is postmodern and has deconstruct everything including the Reformed doctrines. As he said in the post, he affirms sola fida and sola gratia, but not the doctrines of sola fida and sola gratia. In other words, salvation doesn't come to those who affirm the right doctrines, but affirm the way of Jesus - justice, love, compassion, reconciliation (including among other faith traditions) and mercy.
Consider what McLaren has said previously on the subject:
We must be open to the perpetual possibility that our received understandings of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted . . . In this sense Christians in missional dialogue must continually expect to rediscover the gospel. -McLaren, Story We Find Ourselves In, 102
With no apologies to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or modern evangelicalism, Jesus (in Luke 16:19) does not prescribe hell to those who refuse to accept the message of justification by grace through faith, or to those who are predestined for perdition, or to those who don’t express faith in a favored atonement theory by accepting Jesus as their “personal Savior.” Rather, hell - literal or figurative - is for the rich and comfortable who proceed on their way without concern for their poor neighbor day after day. -McLaren, Everything Must Change, 208.
So what is said here is nothing new. McLaren rejects the doctrines of the Reformation especially with the mindset of exclusivity - only those who believe in the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ will be saved. However, he does believe that only through faith through grace can we follow in the example of Jesus. It is Jesus in whom we see salvation, but that can be seen in other religions and especially in the face of orphans and victims.
Clearly this is not the gospel. In this one post itself, McLaren makes an argument for Annihilationism (something that I'm not sure he has ever dealt with) in his exegesis of "second death" from Revelation 20-21. In addition, McLaren forces us to ask if it was God's will for Jesus to die? In other words, is the cross necessary? Traditionally, the answer has been an emphatic yes. Without the cross and its meaning, there can be no resurrection of Christ along with its salvific meaning. Paul was not bluffing when he said that unless Christ was raised from the dead we remain in our sins (1 Corinthians 15). The cross and resurrection is necessary for salvation (both present and future; this life and the next).
The reason I bring this up is because McLaren is about to take an even more dangerous step in his theology. Like the social gospel pioneer before him, Walter Rauschenbush, McLaren is beginning to suggest that Jesus' original plan and mission was thwarted by the evil Romans and the religious Jews. If only Jesus hadn't died, Rauschenbush said, He would have succeeded in bringing heaven down to earth. This is not only dangerous, but heretical - rank heresy.
So though McLaren presents himself as something fresh and new, he is really repeating the same heresies of neo-orthodoxy, liberalism, the social gospel, and process theology. McLaren has rejected the transcendent, pure gospel as proclaimed in Scripture, by the apostles, and remains with us today.
Brian McLaren - Q & R: Revelation 21
For more:
Thesis: Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Social Gospel
Commentary - Who Isn't One?: Brian McLaren and Social Christians
Theology - A Fad Within a Movement: What is the Emergent Conversation and Where is it Going?
Theology -A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: Some Final Thoughts - Part 11
Theology - A New Kind of Christianity . . . Indeed: The Gospel Question - Part 5
Theology - Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Theology -Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
Theology - Jim Wallis and Open Theism
Theology - Repent for Health Care is At Hand: Did Obama Just Legislate the Gospel?
Theology - Rob Bell and the Resurrection
Theology - SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology -The Emergent Gospel in 140 Characters or Less
Theology - The Emergent Pelagius: Bouma's Critique of Pagitt's Theology
Theology - The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren
Theology -The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Theology - The Gospel According to Emergents: An Insightful Article
Theology - The Gospel Once For All Delivered to the Saints: Theology for the Next Decade
Theology - The Postmodern Social Gospel: Brian McLaren Proves My Point
0 comments:
Post a Comment