I have tried very hard to be as fair as possible in responding to this interview. If at any point you believe I have misrepresented/misinterpreted or misunderstood Brian McLaren please let me know specifically how and where. Also feel free to contact me if you need further clarification or more information about anything!
Thanks,
J.M. McCallum
Brian McLaren and Leif Hansen are both supporters of the Emerging Church Movement. While there are some who are part of the movement who strongly disagree with him, McLaren could be called the “popularizer” of the emerging church movement.
In the interview, I have two points of serious concern. The most serious one is in trying to re-define or get rid of the doctrine of eternal Hell, they also totally redefine the sin and what happened on the Cross! Obviously this is really important because it is central to our salvation!
Redefine Sin… The Bible defines sin as being an offense against God even if it is also a sin against ourselves and/or others (Gen 20:6; Ps 51:4; Jer 14:7, 20; 16:10; Is 42:24; 1 Sam 12:13, 23; Luke 15:18). However McLaren wants to redefine it so that it is only wrong because of what it does to us and to others.
Redefine the Cross of Christ… The Bible teaches us that the atonement (the work of Christ on the Cross) is the payment for the penalty of our sins (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2, 4:10) by becoming our substitute. Jesus took on himself the punishment that we deserve (the theological term used for this is "penal-substitution"). If there is no payment for our sins, then God is unjust in forgiving them (Rom 3:25-26). The Cross also gives us the example of love (1 John 4:10-11) and how we should treat others (Phil 2), but this is not the primary purpose of the Cross. The primary purpose of the cross is to reconcile sinful man to God (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20).
You may be able to see what they are doing here. If sin is no longer an offense against God, then the Cross does not have to pay the penalty for sin. Instead, McLaren makes it into only a model for us of how to love other people sacrificially. If it is only a model for us, then it is not necessary to put your faith in Christ (who paid that penalty) to be saved so long as you are following that model He gave; even if you do so unknowingly. Also, if sin is not primarily rebellion against God, then God is unjust if he punishes non-Christians in Hell for eternity. He becomes an angry father who wants to kill his children for being mean to each other.
McLaren's illustration of God as the Angry Father who wants to kill his kids
To make his point about Hell and God not being a god of wrath and vengeance (in direct contradiction to Ps 94:1 and Heb 10:29-31), McLaren uses a very vivid illustration of a Father who wants to kill his son because he has been mean to his brother. He compares the Father to God wanting to send people to Hell because they have sinned. There are a number of problems with this illustration:
McLaren makes the same error he has made before by putting man in the position of God. The reason we cringe in thinking that he would kill his son is not because all punishment is wrong, but because the father would be asserting himself in a role reserved for God. It would be wrong for the father to kill his son because he is not God. Also, although the son sinned against his father by disobeying him, he primarily sinned against God because it is God who gives the father the authority he has and because the son breaks the direct commandments of God (Eph 6:2-3; Col 3:20).
Sin is infinite rebellion against God, therefore it must be punished infinitely.
It is not that, as McLaren says, God wants to kill everybody, but that God cannot be holy and just and at the same time overlook sin. The Cross is the way God does two apparently contradictory things. First he remains perfectly holy and just by fully punishing sin, and at the same time he shows his incredible love and forgiveness by taking that sin on himself so that we could be saved.
The other problem that is the foundation for McLaren's heresy is that virtually every he makes an argument, it is filled with "logical fallacies". All this means is that what they say either contradicts itself or they come to unfounded conclusions based on the evidence.
He repeatedly talks about how people criticize him unfairly, call him names, and take what he says out of context. However, he does this very thing repeatedly (characterizing "Westminster Confessionalists" as "Hard-Core Calvinists" and being an extreme and arrogant group, those who hold to a doctrine of Hell as being ignorant and unthinking, calling those who disagree with him "raving fundamentalists", mischaracterizing those who take the Bible as it was written as being strict "literalists" who do not consider the historical setting, etc…)
He manipulates your emotions by using the illustration of a God who would send people to Hell as being like a father who wants to kill his son because he disobeyed him.
Notice how he uses verses as a springboard for what he wants to say, but does not really focus on explaining the meaning of the verses. He just uses them to support what he is trying to convince you of.
In summation, Brian has been someone who introduces people to the emerging church through his writings. Among those people I have spoken with in the movement, he is widely read. However, this interview should alert his readership that there is more to him than he may disclose in his books. He seems to be moving more and more towards theological liberalism which neither resembles the faith of the writers of the New Testament nor that of Jesus himself. My dear brothers and sisters, let’s be very cautious what we put before our eyes or draw into our minds!
I may post in more detail tomorrow…