McLarens new book called “The Secret Message of Jesus”, has more unclear messages for us to chew on — either we swallow it eagerly because we are starving for food any food will do, or spit it out, knowing that it is less than nutritious, because you have had a decent meal, and know what is good and what is not. Have you ever watched survivor and been amazed at what people will eat if they are starving!! They will eat anything for the feeling of fullness. Much in the same way, if you have not been fed on good food, then you will be starving for any food.
McLaren has unlocked the secret messages of Jesus. Yes, that’s right the secret message of Jesus is now clarified all the more by McLaren, as it has always been a bit of a problem for the church over the past 2000 years or so to get a proper understanding of what Christ actually meant when he engaged the people in parables. Sounds like McLaren has a new revelation to tell, he even says he maybe classed as a gnostic by some. Here we are in the 21st century all upset about an ancient document called the gospel of Judas, and the role that Judas played in bringing Christ to the cross and the impact it will have on the Christians of today; now we also have McLaren to contend with and his views on what Jesus really meant.
Clearly, this gospel or account of Judas is going to be a problem for those who do not hold to sola-scripture; as will McLarens teachings. I however do hold to sola-scripture, and I make no defence but by the scriptures alone where Jesus says that not one word shall be added or taken away from the book — ‘I believe Him’.
Rev 22:18-20: “For I testify together with everyone hearing the Words of the prophecy of this Book, if anyone adds to these things, God will add upon him the plagues having been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and of the things having been written in this Book. The One testifying these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus!”
I personally trust that the Almighty God chose what books were to be included into His Word and what books were to be excluded. If you don’t trust that an Almighty God has the last Word about His Word and what that Word is going to be; well then you are open to all sorts of heresy, and so called revelations that are going to be coming in these days of liberal revisionism and liberal theology.
Anyway, I digress. I may blog about Judas at some later date, but for now I am going to concentrate on McLaren’s account of what the Lord is all about, and what his readers are beginning to understand about Jesus. First though, let McLaren speak:
A number of people have asked about the title. Some people are concerned that it has “Gnostic connotations.” Obviously, I was aware that some might draw this conclusion, but my main audience for the book (and really, for most of my books) is not members of the Christian subculture who would even know what “Gnostic” means. Instead, my primary audience is the “spiritual but not religious” people who are interested in what Jesus was about, but are generally turned off by the Religious Right, institutional religion, etc. I felt that the title would connect with this audience, and I was willing to risk being misunderstood for that purpose. Jesus, I think, took similar risks again and again.
As I worked on the book, I was repeatedly struck by how “strategically indirect” Jesus was – hiding his message in parable, sign, and wonder. I began to realize that this strategy of hiddenness was integral to Jesus’ whole message and ministry. I think people who read the book will be struck by this theme as well.
Well, let us hear from the people who have read his book and now have an understanding that is new and insightful. Amazon is an amazing site for feedback from where these quotes were taken from:
The title itself has to do with the idea that Jesus often concealed his message in parables and questions. Rarely does Jesus ever give a clear statement of what the gospel is all about. In fact, in Matthew 13:10-15 Jesus flat out admits that he is being deliberately unclear. Brian asks why would Jesus do such a thing? If doctrinal knowledge is so very important (at least according to evangelical theologies), then why couldn’t Jesus have just spoken more clearly and told us everything we needed to know. Why did he speak in parables rather than in doctrinal statements? (…) Instead maybe Christ’s goal was to effect spiritual transformation in the lives of his hearers by inviting his hearers into an interactive relationship with himself; and maybe this goal is best achieved by means of parables and other similarly evocative forms of communicating. But what is Jesus’ secret message then? According to Brian, it comes down to the idea of the kingdom of God as a present, political, social, and personal reality. In other words, he focuses on the fact that Jesus didn’t seem to talk about heaven as some place we go to after we die, but rather as a reality that we can begin to live in here and now (“the kingdom of God is among you!”). And perhaps by living in this reality (according to its ways and values) we can begin to transform the world in such a way as to bring a little bit more of heaven to earth.
Let’s look at Matthew 13, and see if the above is in accordance with scripture.
Mat 13:9-14 The one having ears to hear, let him hear. And coming near, the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables? Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, And answering, He said to them, but it has not been given to those. For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have overabundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. Because of this, I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled on them, which says, “In hearing you will hear and in no way understand, and seeing you will see yet in no way perceive.
Ok, firstly the parables are not for them (the unsaved), but for us his disciples. So, the idea that the parables are unclear is true to a point; they are unclear for those who are not saved. The unsaved do not understand the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven…read again — ‘H-E-A-V-E-N’. He was not strategically indirect with us so to hide a secret message from us that had to be enlightened with some new revelation or some form of gnosticism. He was strategically indirect with them. Who are the ‘them‘? They are the unsaved, the ones who do not have their ears open, or their eyes open.
Now for the claim that Jesus did not talk about Heaven as a place to go, but rather a kingdom of God that is here and now. Well taken out of context this claim appears to be true. But Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world when questioned by Pilate. The kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, this world is fallen; no matter how in our humanity we try to make it better, it just isn’t going to get any better. This world has fallen under the curse of sin. Rom 8:22 “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”. Peter also tells us that we are aliens and strangers of this world; that this is a carnal world, and is full of many temptations. We are told to seek first the kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you. Matthew Henry on seeking the kingdom and His righteousness says:
First, The object of this seeking; The kingdom of God, and his righteousness; we must mind heaven as our end, and holiness as our way. “Seek the comforts of the kingdom of grace and glory as your felicity. Aim at the kingdom of heaven; press towards it; give diligence to make it sure; resolve not to take up short of it; seek for this glory, honour, and immortality; prefer heaven and heavenly blessings far before earth and earthly delights.”
Now, more from a reader of McLaren:
Brian puts it this way: “What if Jesus’ secret message reveals a secret plan? What if he didn’t come to start a new religion – but rather came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world?” (p. 4)
What is this New world that McLaren is talking about? It is the ever more popular ‘kingdom now’ theology, or ‘restorational eschatology’, an over realised theology that claims that the church has to bring in the kingdom before Christ comes.
Dominionism or Triumphalism is what McLaren is all about. It is nothing better than mans way of sorting the whole mess out before Christ comes again. Christ did not teach a social gospel, He came to save us from the clutches of this world, and He was interested in where we will spend eternity. Christian humanism has been born again, in fact in never really went away. But as Christians we really should recognise what is truth, and what appears to be truth. Please people fill your mind with His Word, and search to see if these things are so.
Filed under: Christianity, Emerging Church, Theology
Hiya... this is just a little blurb about why this blog exists. Living journey is pretty much a personal blog with emphasis on religion, culture, politics with a bit of personal thrown in. 
RSS - Posts
Thanks Paul for your support, I wonder how the current conflict in the middle east sits with those that think the world is just going to become better and better.
In fact I bet things will get worse until there is oooooh …some kind of PEACE treaty signed by all the worlds nations and this treaty being ushered in by someone who the world thinks is just great and fantastic.
Yet, those who are wise will count the number of this man to be 666.
V
Paul… if you come back to comment I am just letting you know that on your blogger blog you have the setting for comments to allow only blogger users to be able to comment.
I would like to have the opportunity to comment on your blog but cannot because of this setting.
I like your idea of going back to the times when gnosticism was defeated the first time and to use those arguments…
Have you got any iteresting web-sites that you would be interested in sharing with us?
I hope to see you back Paul…
V
Christ did not teach a social gospel, He came to save us from the clutches of this world, and He was interested in where we will spend eternity.
While I’m no fan of McLaren’s theology, I’m also no fan of yours. The term “social gospel” is as loaded as the term “pacifist.” Say “pacifist” and we don’t think of Bonhoeffer or Tertullian or Jesus or Martin Luther King Jr but of Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. So the word carries baggage that infects it’s definition. So some now use the word “Christian non-violence.”
When I hear “social gospel” – and you may have this reaction as well – I cringe because I don’t think of Wesley (who definitely argued for loving God by loving others by seeking to meet their emotional, physical and spiritual needs). No, I think of men and women throughout history in the West who discounted Heaven as a place to come and worked solely for it as a place here and now. So I don’t use the term though I believe it’s original meaning – that the good news, or gospel, is good news for all people and every situation in part because those who submit to the Author of the good news and are transformed by it and Him become His agents of mercy showing and peace making to all people – to the ends of the earth.
Instead I’ve replaced “social gospel” with “discipleship” which Ii believe at it’s heart is Christ imitation. An excellent book I read recently on the subject is Dissident Discipleship by David Augsburger a professor at Fuller.
Jesus’ “alter call” – not that he literally had one – was not concerned primarily or solely with the after life. You cannot produce one quote from Jesus saying essentially “I came ONLY to bring you into my future kingdom in the sky.” The kingdom – and I’ve really wrestled with this over the years and parsed and exegeted and prayed about this so please teach me if I’ve missed something valuable here, I want to learn – is talked about in two tenses. In the beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) for instance the kingdom is said to be present (theirs is) and future (they will).
Matthew is the only writer to speak of the kingdom as “the kingdom of heaven” while the rest of scripture simply speaks of a kingdom (a word usually also used of earthly kingdoms that are tangible) or “the kingdom of God.” SO we can’t let the word “heaven” alone and our certainty that it is a place of the future and of another geography color determine by itself the meaning of every mention of the word “kingdom” in scripture.
Furthermore, we cannot say, as you have that Jesus did not teach social implication of His coming. He asserted in the temple did He not that the reign of God had come to earth in Him and that this meant, in part, healing (spiritual and/or physically) of the blind and freedom for captives (again, physical and/or spiritual). We see by His example, which I believe we are to imitate and which the church in Acts imitated, God in the flesh healing the sick, feeding the hungry as well as freeing sinners from sin and themselves. He reigned in that sense right then and there when his will – perfection and glory to God as a result of it – peaked through in the present.
His kingdom then, as I understand it, has come through Christ, is coming through His Church, but will not come fully until the new heaven and new earth arrive. It is our job to “aim for perfection” as Paul said it in our personal obedience to the model of Christ and the rule of the Father and the leading of the Spirit. In that sense, perfect is sought.
At the same time, it is true, as you’ve pointed out, that we will always have the poor and imperfection. But Christ Himself taught about this paradox in the parable of the wheat and tares when He described the earth as a place inhabited by good (rooted in Him) and evil (rooted in Satan). He said BOTH kingdoms (of good and evil) will advance and grow. BOTH. And in the end He’ll separate the kingdoms forever. One will enter His perfect unfiltered presence in Heaven and the other will be separated from His presence forever in Hell.
But until that day the kingdoms advance. When we engage in the work of Christ – feeding, clothing, preaching, etc – we love God. To claim a love for God without loving people makes us liars (1 John 3-4). The gospel then has a social consequence. It is not, however, socially terminated. It goes beyond the present social ramifications to eternal residence and reign.
In short, you’re both wrong as I understand scripture. You wish to make salvation something about the individual only, bringing her/him into a future kingdom that has no social impact today. That is heretical.
McLaren, as you say, I’ve not rad this book of his, is teaching a kingdom that is only present and open to all and does not one day result in eternal separation or union with the Father. That is also heretical.
What seems to be true is a present and future kingdom. The Christian has the kingdom within her (as Christ Himself told the Pharisees – “The kingdom of God is within.”) and that kingdom or reign of or obedience to Christ changes the way we will and results in love of mankind and God’s creation. A love that is not tangible is not viable. BUT those who love and imitate CHrist are His true disciples who answer His invitation not to believe in Him but to believe and follow and THEY alone will inherit a future residence in the presence of God. It’s both and. Not either or.
-Shaun
Shaun,
You’re right about us being active and loving now, and in fact, the kingdom starting now, because when Jesus came, the kingdom came. But there’s a reason why we pray, “Thy kingdom come…” The primary hope for the kingdom is future.
The gripe here is with those people who say this world is all the kingdom there is, that our primary hope is not heaven. And, as you know, the apostle Peter tells us to fix our hope completely on when Christ comes back to usher in His kingdom–both heavenly and earthly. Only He can make this earth a peaceful kingdom.
Then again, this present earth is due to be melted, so let’s not become too attached to it.
Hey, I saw one of your concerts a few years back. You’ve got some talent.
Hey guys, I’m back. Thanks for the heads up on not having the blog open to anyone but “bloggers.” I’ll change it.
The material I have on the fathers and their refutation of gnostics is primarily in print form, but I’ll see what I can find on the web and get back to you. Irenaeus really ran circles around those guys.
Paul
“The gripe here is with those people who say this world is all the kingdom there is, that our primary hope is not heaven. And, as you know, the apostle Peter tells us to fix our hope completely on when Christ comes back to usher in His kingdom–both heavenly and earthly. Only He can make this earth a peaceful kingdom.”
Here is the issue though, Brian McLaren most certainly does believe in the New Creation … which includes the New Heaven and New Earth…
My issue with articles like this is it sounds like you are opposed to helping the poor feeding the hungry and truly come across as unloving.
N.T. Wright is a big influence on McLaren and many of us… he is Reformed in theology contrary to what many say. Brian has mentioned NT Wright in many of his talks.
N.T Wright also teaches about New Creation…
So the real issue is you are taking McLaren out of the context he is speaking from and placing him into your own agenda to tear him down… which then makes you also a deconstructionist… yet with the fault of re defining the original context.
Ponder that a bit.
This is a very dishonest approach as far as presenting a fair review of any situation.
I know very few “Gnostic” emerging churchers… In fact most “Gnostics” I have met that claim to be emerging see themselves still outside of emerging and hope though that they are adding to the understanding… yet most of us who are emerging still see Gnosticism as heresy… as Paul stated above with Irenaeus.
Brian is not a Gnostic… nor is he claiming to be presenting anything new. He is showing that there is a social aspect that has been lost to many in the Gospel message.
Your comment here is not correct also:
“Ok, firstly the parables are not for them (the unsaved), but for us his disciples. So, the idea that the parables are unclear is true to a point; they are unclear for those who are not saved. ”
If i recall Judas was also a disciple… yet was not saved. Also, it parables were to “those who had dears to hear”, yet the disciples themselves had to ask what they meant! You are implying that the disciple understood the parables yet if you actually read scripture they did not… until after the resurrection and Jesus explained all things to them.
The parables were to hide the message first from those who claimed to understand the scripture, then to those who had ears to hear.
I could go on and on as to other errors, yet I just feel they will not be heard…
Blessings,
iggy
I don’t believe anybody’s against feeding the hungry or helping the poor.
The issue is whether or not this is the Gospel – or more of a consequence of the Gospel.
The difference is huge.
If these good things are in themselves the Gospel or are an integral part of the Gospel, then the “I really don’t like it being called the social gospel” complaint falls flat – it is a social gospel, no matter what other label you might like to apply to it to assuage hurt feelings over the implications thereof.
That is like asking if the consequence of the Gospel is the New Creation…
You cannot separate the Gospel and it’s consequences.
iggy
Sure you can.
It’s simple epistemology. It’s like how you can separate the premises and conclusions of syllogisms.
The consequences of the Gospel may or may not be necessary (I am using “necessary” in the sense of inevitability – and that in the sense of inferential logic – i.e., that the consequence of a thing invariably and necessarily flows from that thing as a subsequent corollary), but they flow from the antecedent cause (the actual Gospel), but are not in themselves definitional of that cause.
I love my wife. As a necessary consequence of that love, I married her. However, the marriage is only a corollary of the love (the antecedent cause) – the love would continue to exist even in the absence of its subsequent consequence.
The Gospel is the good news of salvation. Belief in the Gospel is a requirement for salvation. Good works of any stripe are a consequence of (and usually a necessary consequence of) belief in the Gospel – but are not in themselves that Gospel.
Mike,
If you separate the Gospel and the consequences of New Creation… you gut the Gospel of the power of the Resurrection… in fact it becomes nothing less than the very denial of the Resurrection.
In that I agree with Paul… “Without the resurrection we are the more to be pitied” (paraphrased)
Belief in Jesus IS the Gospel… one must place their faith in the Person of Jesus and in that believe the Gospel…
So many times I state this and then people state there is no difference… but there is a great one…
If one accepts the Gospel… “I believe Jesus lived and died and lived again”… great! Ton’s of people do… but as the Scripture teaches…
John states in his gospel 2nd chapter:
“23. Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.”
Here is the very thing you are saying and they are NOT saved… so it contradicts your teaching… In that I hope you agree with scripture over your view. All things hinge on the Person of Jesus Christ and whether we accept and receive His Love. Whether one accepts of rejects… all knees will bow an dall tongues confess, Jesus Christ is Lord!
The people believed in Jesus… and where not saved!!!! The point is they did believe in Jesus but Jesus new their heart… so it is in how the person receives the Good News… in that being the person… Jesus. Yet, it is that Jesus knows us that matters not in that we know Him.
This is in the story of the Sheep and Goats… and is also taught by John in 1 John 4:10. “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” It is that we respond in action to the Love that God has given us.
Your example of marriage was actually a perfect example of what I am stating. I loved my wife and she loved me in return… we then proposed marriage to consummate our marriage… in that we married and continue in the “love” that was started… and we continue to grow more in love every day! It is the continuous flow of the Gospel that keeps the connection and is why I say that the consequences cannot be separated.
I did to stop loving my wife after we married… that would be the separation of the consequences… I did not go out after other women and “love” them as I did my wife as that would not be loving to my wife… There is a connection and not a separation between us. We are one… in that the consequences of the Gospel is either one rejects it and is connected to it in their rejection… the other is to accept and receive it and be connected to The Kingdom of God.
Now, only a good tree bears good fruit… right? And only God is good… right? Jesus is the vine and we are the branches… Jesus bears His Fruit in and through us…
If we think this is OUR fruit… then we are deceiving ourselves and have fallen into works. For, we are bad trees and can bear only bad fruit… this is often mitsuta. We bear only good fruit if God is doing HIS good and perfect will in and through us.
So, as far as I can see you are at odds with much in scripture if you think you can disconnect the Gospel from its consequences.
Blessing,
iggy
LOL!
I re-read this and found this phrase was not caught by my “spel chiker”.
“this is often mitsuta.”
Which of course should be “this is often MISUNDERSTOOD”
Sorry… but it was funny…
BTW Mitusta is a Japanese Dr. who had some great breakthroughs in antihistamines… or he was a dentist… = )
Blessings,
iggy