Jesus Died for 'Climate Change'?

Did Jesus die on the cross to 'save' us from global warming? According to Emergent leader and neo-liberal Brian McClaren apparently he did.

Last week McLaren spoke at a homiletics festival in Tennessee (homiletics is the art of preaching) and McLaren had much to say about what topics pastors should and shouldn't be preaching about. In McLaren's view, sermons about doctrine, sin, and salvation through Jesus alone create factions and should be replaced with messages about global issues.

Here is how one paper covered the story.

Brian McLaren, an author and Christian activist who spoke Thursday, said many television and radio evangelists had delivered to their listeners the kind of fear-mongering and finger-pointing messages that promote factionalism.

In his lecture at First Baptist Church, McLaren proposed that preaching should remedy, rather than incite, controversial issues.

These include poverty and climate change, and he encouraged his audience not to shy away from such global issues.

"We can't really afford to waste too many Sundays with so much at stake," he said.

"If instead we play it safe, in a true sense we have switched sides from being part of the solution to being part of the problem."(Online Source)

Did you catch the part about wasting Sundays? Since when is preaching on a Biblical passage or Christian doctrine, or proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus for sinners a 'wasted Sunday'?

What problem does McLaren think that Jesus was solving while suffering on the cross? Since there weren't any epistles written by Ralph Nader or Al Gore we can say with confidence that Jesus' death wasn't about climate change. Therefore, that is not what our sermons should be about . Instead, the Bible tells us that the Church of Jesus Christ is supposed to preach a message of repentance from sins and belief in the gospel.

Luke 24:46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

According to the Bible, what is at stake is salvation from the eternal judgment and wrath of God.
The message that Jesus gave us to preach is more urgent, more pressing and more important than the highly dubious issue of man-made global climate change. And there is the rub. Mclaren doesn't believe the Bible is God's word nor does he believe its exclusive claims and message.

The news report was right in describing McLaren as an activist. But, his denial of the substitionary attonement, the innerancy of scripture, and his denial of hell all disqualify him from being called a 'Christian' Activist.

Comments

[Mrs. Pilgrim]

1. McLaren thinks that "preaching should remedy, rather than incite, controversial issues," does he? Then I guess you preachers should quit with this Gospel stuff, because I guarantee that there is nothing more controversial than Christianity...

2. Brad Braxton, "a professor of homiletics and the New Testament at Vanderbilt University," thinks that "[r]ecognizing the validity of different religions...is a necessity for contemporary pastors." Validity? What validity? I'm not aware that the practices of unbelievers have any validity with God. In fact, don't we all require validation in Christ, Whom other religions reject?

...And these people lead others?

[Gary (aka fool4jesus)]

My favorite McLaren quote:

“When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels.”

Um... ok. I agree with McLaren on one point at least: Jesus would not have been draped in an American flag. God is no respecter of persons, nor countries. I am not saying I don't love this country, I do; I am simply admitting that God has higher purposes that (though I hate to consider it) may not include the United States.

But everything else shows exactly where McLaren is coming from. He complains about the Christian Right all the time. Funny that I don't see him complaining about the Christian Left, but rather doing everything in his power to take more of the reins of power for himself and his followers.

Mr. McLaren, I would challenge you - if you happen to hear about this from one of your followers - to tell us exactly why you think that the rest of us Christians are pro-war (when we admit that war is a regrettable necessity in certain cases, and I regret to say that I don't consider you an informed judge of whether we can be successful in Iraq), anti-poor (when we give significant amounts of both our money and time to the poor yet believe they are more effectively helped when everything is not handed to them on a platter but that work is good, and was sanctioned by God Himself in the garden), anti-homosexual (because we object to being called homophobes and lots of even nastier things when we preach what the Bible clearly spells out), and all the rest.

Just more name-calling and labeling. As I said in my Amazon review of Brennan Manning's "Ragamuffin Gospel", it's a lot easier to throw names around at people you disagree with and knock down strawmen than it is to actually get to know them and their views. But if they did, they might actually learn something - Christian humility and charity, for example.

[Thomas Jenkins]

In the last sentence of the blog post, are you inferring that McLaren isn't a Christian? Are you OK with making such statements when you don't know the man's heart? You can disagree with someone on a billion issues, but I don't believe that any human being can safely diagnose a man's heart. That's God's job. Let's leave it to him to decide.

And Gary, I couldn't agree with your last statement more:

"It's a lot easier to throw names around at people you disagree with and knock down strawmen than it is to actually get to know them and their views. But if they did, they might actually learn something - Christian humility and charity, for example."

You're exactly right! My only question is why aren't we practicing that here, on this very blog and its message board? Why aren't we trying to get to the bottom of these other men's views and get to know their hearts instead of throwing names around?

[michael]

I think painting Jesus in any light that implies poor stewardship is in error, whether that be towards the earth, creation or more specifically, human life. Abortion and a lack of wisdom in matters of war are identical.

The only anti in Jesus' life was towards those with a pharisaical attitude, and that is towards their own sin or someone elses. Haughtiness, whether clothed in sin or spiritual pride are detestable before God.

McLaren's comments reagrding Sundays are riculous unless he is speaking of those who do nothing but tell stories without teaching the Word and have bake sales. Discipleship is never a waste of time and neither is sharing the Gospel or taking it to an unbelieving world.

[Mrs. Pilgrim]

Mr. Jenkins,

You write: "In the last sentence of the blog post, are you inferring that McLaren isn't a Christian? Are you OK with making such statements when you don't know the man's heart? You can disagree with someone on a billion issues, but I don't believe that any human being can safely diagnose a man's heart. That's God's job. Let's leave it to him to decide."

My question to you, of course, is whether there is any point at which we may say, "John Doe is not a Christian." Does he have to come straight out and say, "I am not a Christian," or may we draw conclusions based on other statements?

Logically speaking, if a person denies, say, the Deity of Christ, can we conclude that he is not a Christian? (An example.) How about a denial of any core doctrine? A life demonstrating few or no fruits of salvation? Unrepentant sin, even when confronted and corrected lovingly?

Once you've answered this very important definitional question, please weigh the following quotes in light of your answer:

"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?" The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 4.

"...[M]any Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine... many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people.... A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue—and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. This reappraisal of Jesus’ message may be the only project capable of saving a number of religions." Id. at 7.

"This, by the way, is what the problematic word repentance is all about. The word means to rethink—to reconsider your direction and consider a new one, to admit that you might be wrong, to give your life a second thought, to think about your thinking." Id. at 47.

"How do 'I' know the Bible is always right? And if 'I' am sophisticated enough to realize that I know nothing of the Bible without my own involvement via interpretation, I’ll also ask how I know which school, method, or technique of biblical interpretation is right. What makes a 'good' interpretation good? And if an appeal is made to a written standard (book, doctrinal statement, etc.) or to common sense or to 'scholarly principles of interpretation,' the same pesky 'I' who liberated us from the authority of the church will ask, 'Who sets the standard? Whose common sense? Which scholars and why? Don’t all these appeals to authorities and principles outside the Bible actually undermine the claim of ultimate biblical authority? Aren’t they just the new pope?'" Generous Orthodoxy, p. 133 (explaining why the Bible is not authoritative).

"I felt that every tree, every blade of grass, and every pool of water become especially eloquent with God’s grandeur. Somehow they seemed to become transparent—or perhaps translucent is the better word—because each thing in its particularity was still utterly visible and unspeakably important . . . These specific, concrete things became translucent in the sense that a powerful, indescribable, invisible light seemed to shine through. . . . It was the exuberant joy of simply seeing these masterpieces of God’s creation…and knowing myself to be among them. It was to be one of them, and to feel and know that 'we'—all of these creatures, molecules, and phenomena—were together known and loved by God, who embraced us all into the ultimate 'We.'" Id. at 178.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, is this enough yet to see where Mr. McLaren is coming from? I have more if you'd like more, but I refrain from posting it all here, given that this is not my blog, and also given that I think you're smart enough to get the idea without too much more of being beaten about the head with it.

[Gary (aka fool4jesus)]

Thomas, I agree with you that we can't judge McLaren's heart. That's why I would not say categorically that he's not a Christian. Substitutionary atonement, hell, and scriptural authority are all extremely important, and categorical rejection of all of them would make one suspect - but there have been different legitimate views throughout Christian history. Don't get me wrong - I think that denial of any of these is a very bad error. But C. S. Lewis, for example, denied inerrancy, and was rather squishy on the subject of substitutionary atonement.

To be fair, I don't think the original blog post said that he is not a Christian. It said he should not be called a "Christian activist" - meaning, I think, not that we know he's not a Christian, but that "Christian activist" means something in particular, and more than "activist who is a Christian."

Michael, you wrote the astounding statement "Abortion and a lack of wisdom in matters of war are identical." I don't see how any rational Christian could believe this. Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent human being. On the other hand, "lack of wisdom in war" is your subjective evaluation of whether a person - presumably the president - prosecutes a war in the way that is most likely to end in some set of objectives, which may not be agreed to by all sides (and again, you will pardon me if I don't have any evidence to believe that you are capable of evaluating whether this war is winnable or being run in a "wise" manner). On the one hand we have a pure, intentional evil; on the other hand we have a debatable question of what means are more correct.

The only way in which these could be equal is if the president went into this war saying "let's try and kill as many Iraqis as possible with no regard for anybody's interest except my own." I realize some of your most rabid anti-war commentators say exactly this, but then I would question whether they are either rational or Christian.

[PJ]

"In the last sentence of the blog post, are you inferring that McLaren isn't a Christian? Are you OK with making such statements when you don't know the man's heart?"

Mr Jenkins:

The quote was that it disqualifies Mclaren from being called a "Christian" activist. No one said anything about his salvation. However, the Bible does say that anyone who preaches 'another' gospel, let him be accursed. Who are the accursed? Why, the unsaved, of course.

Draw your own conclusion.

[Marcian]

Can someone please tell me where Genesis 8:20-22 plays into this???

[Mrs. Pilgrim]

Sure, Marcian. They will tell you that it has absolutely no bearing on anything, given that "Genesis is a piece of mythology--inspired mythology, but only mythology. Everyone knows that life came from a bowl of chicken soup gone bad that crossed paths with static electricity..."

[Nate]

Who makes these magazine covers? Yall got great analysis but these magazine covers are mocking things that shouldn't be mocked. We hope that people like McLauren reads your blog and has a realization about what he's preaching. The magazine cover makes it more like a joke.