My Meeting with McLaren

OK, so it's not really a meeting. I did get to shake the guy's hand and say a cursory hello.

(By the way...that's me on the fourth row aisle seat, looking stoned. I wasn't. I promise. My brother and sister-in-law are to my left.)

Brian McLaren, known in many ways as the father of the emergent church movement, visited my brother's church (Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky) this past weekend, delivering a Sunday morning sermon, holding an informal Q&A during Sunday School and then lecturing on the thesis of his new book, "Everything Must Change." I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in all three activities and certainly enjoyed the experience. Not that I agree 100 percent with his theology, but I think he is raising some important issues for the Church to consider.

(Others didn't agree either, especially during the evening Q&A. This is McLaren's take on the event. I looked across the blogosphere for the guy who challenged McLaren about redemption, eternity and the emergent theology during the Q&A but couldn't find him. I also looked on Twitter to no avail.)

Of course, I could spend hours talking about where McLaren and I agree and disagree. Feel free to peruse posts tagged "emergent" or "brian mclaren" for times we've discussed it before.

Darwin's Birthday...and I'm Late to the Party

I read a fascinating piece the other day while researching ahead of a trip to see Brian McLaren speak out in Louisville on Sunday.


Sure, this is a late response to that particular blog post, but I'm sharing nonetheless.

I'm certainly in agreement that religion has treated science with disdain when the two are not inherently competitive. I'm also in agreement that society has, in large part, sacrificed objective truth on the altar of subjective morality (although I don't think Charles Darwin is solely to blame for this shift in cultural attitudes...post-modern thought didn't arise from one man's scientific theory).

I disagree with Ken that "do unto others as you would have them do until you" is the core of Christ's message. It is undoubtedly an essential part of the Christian theology that Jesus established. It is not The Gospel. To think otherwise is to place man's actions ahead of God's salvation. Indeed, that line of reasoning has it backwards; the reverse, in fact, is true: salvation first, works that result from that salvation is second.

The Gospel is this: in an outpouring of love, God created the universe, and with it, mankind. The first man chose sin instead of a personal relationship with God, and, thus, sin entered the world, separating imperfect humans from a perfect and divine God. Yet God, in his great mercy and love, ever-seeking to restore man's relationship to Him, provided Himself as a sacrifice by coming to earth as a man, Jesus, who lived a perfect and sinless life prior to giving Himself to death.

In that act of sacrifice--and in His glorious, bodily resurrection from the dead three days later--Jesus now stands at man's side as an advoate, saying to God on behalf of those Christ has saved: "This is my child. He/she has asked forgiveness for the sinful acts of their lives that have separated them from you. Yes, this one is imperfect. But I was willing to live the life he/she could not have lived by dying the death he/she should have died. I took this one's place, Father. My perfection provides Grace to them in your eyes, regardless of their worthiness."

That's The Gospel. Sure, gratitude from Christ's sacrifice pours itself out from Believers in acts of sacrificial love; these are reflections of Christ's love for man, stirred in us by Christ living within us through the Holy Spirit. This manifests itself as Christ commanded, through "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." But that oft-quoted verse is not The Gospel. A component, yes.

I'm not as intelligent as Charles Darwin. I think he came up with a fascinating theory. The minutae of how God, in His omniscence and omnipotence, established Creation, is beyond the limits of my human intelligence. Don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that it is somehow wrong to attempt, with vigorous scientific observation and inquiry, to discern these and other matters. What I am suggesting is that mankind is guilty of a collective arrogance in regards to its attempts at comprehending God. That, among other reasons, is why I can't understand the reasons behind some evangelicals' celebration of an agnostic scientist, despite his obvious genius.

So, what do you think? Agree with me? Disagree with me? That's cool...but share your thoughts. Back 'em up.

Take care...

What's Social Justice Without Jesus?

I had the opportunity to visit a college-town mega-church this past Sunday. It had a huge campus, a coffee bar, great decor, a ton of young people and a rockin' praise and worship service. It's truly remarkable what God is doing there, and I was certainly happy to be a part of the service.

The sermon was good, too. Its title was "Kingdom Living," and the pastor asked, somewhat rhetorically, if we truly understood what it means to live the way Jesus told us to live. He explained, quite rightly, that Christ's way of living is radically different from the way our culture tells us to live. Naturally, he incorporated some manifestations of "Kingdom Living." Cleaning up at a homeless shelter. Buying food for an orphan in Honduras. And so it went.

It's amazing to witness what God's Church is doing in what we're told is a post-modern world. Oh, His people have always been generous to a fault. Studies show Christians are much more philanthropic than the public at large. Even Christians in lower tax brackets are prone to giving what they have much more readily than those who make more money but don't identify with a specific belief system.

But what's changed in the last generation or so is an awareness of social issues that may have escaped Christians in another time. Evangelicals today focus their energies on environmental issues, believing it to be a moral cause and worthy of their God-given mandate to change the world for the better. We care about fair trade; sure, Christians have always been aware of global poverty--one of my Sunday School classes when I was a child sponsored a child in El Salvador--but today we think twice about buying a cup of coffee. Was the man who grew these beans paid a fair price, and can he feed his family in the name of my desire for a latte? That silk shirt I'm wearing--was it stitched by an eight year-old boy in a Indonesian sweatshop?

These are all critically important issues, and I'm so very thankful that today's Church cares about--and works toward a solution for--these and other problems of social injustice.

But there's an inherent problem that comes with this new worldview. It walks a dangerous tightrope between faith- and Grace-based salvation and a works-based system of belief. Scripture tells us Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was an act of supreme Grace, one that we could never merit, deserve or accomplish on our own. In short, there's nothing we can ever do to bridge the gap between our humanity and God's divinity. 

We must be very careful, then, that we keep spreading the Gospel forefront when confronting social justice. The old saying goes "No Jesus? No Peace. Know Jesus. Know Peace." That's doggone right, trite though it may be.

Fighting social injustice without incorporating Jesus into the mix doesn't mean anything to the one ministering or to the one being ministered to. That's because the minister isn't able to reconcile himself to God through works, and the one being ministered to cannot hope to find reconciliation to God through someone other than Jesus.

What's your take? Is tackling social injustice without the Gospel message worth anything? Why or why not? Share your thoughts...

Defender of the Faith: Tim Keller

Evangelizing to a post-modern culture requires Believers to speak to the head as well as the heart. Our culture is smarter, more savvy and more gluttonous on information than any of its previous generational incarnations. Simply saying "You've got to have faith" isn't going to fly. At least not as a singular strategy.

Meet Tim Keller (if you haven't already). This guy slays the stereotype of Christian as dunce. His body of work is not only wide-ranging and Biblically sound, it challenges us on an intellectual level and turns our model of evangelical ministry on its head.

That's especially true of his latest book The Reason for God. (at least that's the kind of reviews he's getting; I haven't yet read it myself). Keller is now out on a nationwide tour promoting not only his book but his brand of reaching both Believers and unBelievers.

For a little sneak peak, read his interview with Christianity Today. Don't have time right now? You'd be well-served in bookmarking and coming back to it. In the meantime, here are some highlights:

On how some Christians are at a loss to effectively witness
"I do think a lot of Christians — because they don't understand the grace narrative — get out into the world and find it very tough to navigate. I think it's because they don't understand the gospel, not because they can't answer all the theological questions."

On the difference between marketing Christianity and spreading the Gospel
"Marketing is showing how Christianity meets the need, and I think the gospel is showing how Christianity is the truth...C. S. Lewis says somewhere not to believe in Christianity because it's relevant or exciting or personally satisfying. Believe it because it's true. And if it's true, it eventually will be relevant, exciting, and personally satisfying."

On one pastor's response to a controversial issue
"He went through all the various theories that evangelical Christians with a high view of Scripture have come to. He showed the strengths and weaknesses of every one. Nobody does that anymore. Nobody says different Christians might come down in different places here and still have a high view of Scripture. Instead, they identify their take as the wise one, and say everyone else is selling out or something."

On dealing with Jesus first and other issues after that
"I point out that it's a red herring to go after (intelligent design versus evolution) before you decide whether Jesus died and rose again. Two people said [last night at a Veritas forum]: 'I can't believe in Christianity, because look at the fossils.' And I was trying to say, 'Because you believe in evolution does this mean that Jesus Christ couldn't be raised from the dead?' One said, 'No, that has nothing to do with it.' If he was raised from the dead, then you have to take seriously the Scripture and you have to work on all this. If he wasn't raised from the dead, who cares about Genesis 1–11?"

So, if you were going to design a new way of "doing" evangelism, what would it look like? How much can intellectual arguments really sway unBelievers toward a relationship with Jesus? Where do appeals to one's intellect stop and a simple act of faith start?

For more about Tim Keller, visit the Web site of Redeemer Church in New York, where Keller is pastor.

I welcome all comments. Feel free to comment on-page, or e-mail feedback to CandidChristian@gmail.com.