Brian McLaren Paints Critics as Gay-Hating Bigots
Emergent author Brian McLaren doesn’t believe in a literal Second Coming of Jesus. He has problems with the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross. A literal hell with eternal torment for those who reject Christ? Not likely. The Genesis account of the fall of man? Not true. But instead of addressing his own spiritual rebellion, Brian appears to want to paint his critics as bigots. In a recent blog post, McLaren demands that what he calls “discernment websites” (he used the quote marks) address an African country’s attempts to codify severe penalties for homosexuality into law. He seems to imply that these same “discernment ministries” would automatically support the arrest and execution of gays by Uganda.
For the record, Brian, that’s a pretty nasty strategy to use against those who point to your heretical doctrinal views. While emergents supposedly are intellectual, open-minded people who enjoy conversations with subtle nuances and lots of mystery, McLaren actually sees things in black and white. Anyone who is not willing to jettison cardinal doctrine and embrace his “new kind of Christianity” is painted as ready to commit hate crimes and would support mistreating gays. What an appallingly dishonest way to deal with your critics, McLaren.
Mr. McLaren is helping create a new kind of Christianity that will turn on the old Christianity (the 2000-year-old kind that originated with Jesus Christ) and help create the basis to prosecute the old (biblical) Christians for committing hate crimes. The ADL sent out a press release this morning announcing that hate crimes are just endemic, exploding everywhere you turn, and that something must be done about it. Now that the laws are in place in Washington, Brian McLaren can get busy trying to portray biblical Christians as dangerous, militant wing-nuts who foment hatred against gays and other religions. Consider your strategy exposed, Brian. Our love for the souls of homosexuals is the same love we have for all who need to hear of the saving grace and forgiveness of sins found in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. And all the dishonest emergents will never be able to stifle that powerful, life-changing message.
The phrase ‘the Second Coming of Christ’ never actually appears in the Bible. Whether or not the doctrine to which the phrase refers deserves rethinking, a popular abuse of it certainly needs to be named and rejected.
–Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 144
ShareThisCommenting at the Crosstalk Blog is not a right, it is a privilege. Crosstalk Blog staff reserves the right to reject any comment that is found to be offensive or otherwise unaccaeptable for any reason. We will not tolerate the following: abusive or profane language, objectionable links, off-topic remarks, and bickering with other commenters. Thank you for respecting this policy.
7 Responses to “Brian McLaren Paints Critics as Gay-Hating Bigots”
Leave a Reply
To share this post, click the "share page" on the bar at the bottom of the screen.
Latest Crosstalk Shows- Your Body Is Your I.D. - Biometrics and Your Freedom
- The Third American Revolution
- National Security Feedback
- Beck Rally Causes More Evangelical Confusion
- Best of Crosstalk (First Aired August 23, 2010)
- Controversial End-of-Life Case in Canada
- Domesticated Jesus?
- Homocon Update
- No Fear of God in Evangelical Churches
- Following Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny or God's Word?
Who was it that murdered the saints and Jesus? The corrupt religious were joined at the hip with the corrupt government. It's coming full circle.
Worldly false teachers like McClaren try to gain some semblance of relevancy through degrading the true believers. In truth, they hate Jesus Christ.
I am no intellectual, but after reviewing Mr. McLaren's site, it seems to me that the 'emergent' understanding of Christianity is fundamentally wrong. If beliefs are not rooted in the Bible, where then? If part of the Bible isn't true, then what parts are? To answer those questions and define them on our own, Christianity ceases to be Christianity, regardless of what it is called. It is instead a religion based on self, or the emergence of self over God.
I would liken it to a group of supposed scholars who, denying the truth of algebra they don't yet understand, decide they are clever enough to study the intricacies of calculus. The study is based on the rules they created in place of algebra. But who among the students knows calculus and can call them wrong? How many of the students even know basic algebra beyond what they are told and readily accept the teachings to avoid doing the math themselves?
Hi,
I hope you don't mind some friendly disagreement. A couple of things. First, I don't think McLaren is trying to paint critics as a hate filled bigot. I think that he is taking the argument many evangelicals have in making gay/lesbian issues a matter of public policy to its natural (if extreme) end. He's merely trying to point out that when we hold so hard to a minor doctrine of Christianity (notice how sexuality does not come up in any of our creeds… in ancient times it was a non-issue) there is danger in making it more important than it is. We find in Unchristian that most unbelievers perceive the church to be anti-gay. Is that what we should be known for? Why are we so worried about something so minor when the world is literally dying?
As to the question of penal substitutionary atonement, you are aware that it was invented by Reformers in the 16th Century as an addendun to Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Again, this is NOT a primary Christian belief. In fact, it has been argued by many scholars that it is NOT biblical at all. The key here, is that you are defining McLaren's faith by your own set of doctrines, none of which would fall under the traditional Orthodox teachings.
The most painful part of this whole process is that it reveals how little we understand our own belief system. For example, in your blog you use the word 'souls'. That is a Greek concept, not Jewish. Jews never believed in souls. It is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. Jews also did not believe in a literal hell. Ever. That is as much a creation of medieval literature as anything else. I'm not saying hell doesn't exist or that it does, I'm saying that many ancient Christian leaders did not accept the premise of hell. Were they pagans too? Is only the North American view of the 20th Century correct? I have difficulty with the idea that your Christianity is 'biblical' Christianity. There are some that might disagree that it is biblical at all.
And a comment to the person above me, about basing ideas on Scripture. We all pick and choose from Scripture what we believe. Anyone who says they “just believe the Bible” is either being naive or cocky. That's what people said about owning slaves, because the Bible does not condemn slavery. Or does it? Paul says slaves should just submit? So why don't we have slaves? And what about churches that allow women to not wear hats? Is that wrong? Or have women in leadership? IS that wrong too? You see, we all pick and choose. The Bible is a living document, but an ancient one, and as brothers and sisters in Christ we are called to wrestle with it and help one another. Not wrestle with one another. We don't have to be right, but righteous. It's okay to be wrong. But better, I think, is the position of humility than the one of angered self-righteousness.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Much love
Stephen Burns
Hi,
I hope you don't mind some friendly disagreement. A couple of things. First, I don't think McLaren is trying to paint critics as a hate filled bigot. I think that he is taking the argument many evangelicals have in making gay/lesbian issues a matter of public policy to its natural (if extreme) end. He's merely trying to point out that when we hold so hard to a minor doctrine of Christianity (notice how sexuality does not come up in any of our creeds… in ancient times it was a non-issue) there is danger in making it more important than it is. We find in Unchristian that most unbelievers perceive the church to be anti-gay. Is that what we should be known for? Why are we so worried about something so minor when the world is literally dying?
As to the question of penal substitutionary atonement, you are aware that it was invented by Reformers in the 16th Century as an addendun to Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Again, this is NOT a primary Christian belief. In fact, it has been argued by many scholars that it is NOT biblical at all. The key here, is that you are defining McLaren's faith by your own set of doctrines, none of which would fall under the traditional Orthodox teachings.
The most painful part of this whole process is that it reveals how little we understand our own belief system. For example, in your blog you use the word 'souls'. That is a Greek concept, not Jewish. Jews never believed in souls. It is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. Jews also did not believe in a literal hell. Ever. That is as much a creation of medieval literature as anything else. I'm not saying hell doesn't exist or that it does, I'm saying that many ancient Christian leaders did not accept the premise of hell. Were they pagans too? Is only the North American view of the 20th Century correct? I have difficulty with the idea that your Christianity is 'biblical' Christianity. There are some that might disagree that it is biblical at all.
And a comment to the person above me, about basing ideas on Scripture. We all pick and choose from Scripture what we believe. Anyone who says they “just believe the Bible” is either being naive or cocky. That's what people said about owning slaves, because the Bible does not condemn slavery. Or does it? Paul says slaves should just submit? So why don't we have slaves? And what about churches that allow women to not wear hats? Is that wrong? Or have women in leadership? IS that wrong too? You see, we all pick and choose. The Bible is a living document, but an ancient one, and as brothers and sisters in Christ we are called to wrestle with it and help one another. Not wrestle with one another. We don't have to be right, but righteous. It's okay to be wrong. But better, I think, is the position of humility than the one of angered self-righteousness.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Much love
Stephen Burns
Well, Mr. McLaren, the word “toilet” doesn't appear in the Bible either. Does that mean we shouldn't use them? And how much more clear can the Second Advent of Jesus be when JESUS HIMSELF said that He goes to prepare a place for us and that if He goes to prepare a place for us, He'll surely come back to get us. Try reading Jn 14.3. Seems like a no-brainer to me. And he has “problems with” a substitutionary atonement…well, again, how EXACTLY is it that our sins are paid for? Perhaps they were washed clean by a rasperry moch-latte from Starbucks??? Or perhaps there was a love offering taken at the foot of the cross for those who felt sorry for Jesus because He was so deluded in thinking He was taking the sin of the world upon Himself to satisfy the demand of a Righteous God for a spotless lamb. I guess the Bible must be all wrong. NOT.
Reminds me of the joke “How many emergents does it take to change a lightbulb?” None, and it doesn't matter because emergents can't tell the difference between light and darkness.
what can i say i can't believe that. he will be? but it's some aim are right. how?