RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Affirming the Footnotes: What the Manhattan Declaration Gets Right

by Brian McLaren 11-24-2009

Although there are several points I find troubling, inaccurate, or misleading in the recent Manhattan Declaration, and although I noticed the relative homogeneity of age, race, and gender of its signors, I want to focus on a section of the document I find positive and helpful:

Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.

In his response to the declaration, Jonathan Merritt, a younger evangelical in age as well as spirit, wrote in The Washington Post, “Older evangelicals have been largely silent on these issues and in similar fashion this declaration has relegated them to little more than a footnote.”

He’s right: even though the Declaration mentions this broader range of issues, the same “big three” (abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty – defined rather oddly in relation to the first two issues, by the way) do remain at the top, demoting all other issues to near footnote status. Chuck Colson says it with characteristic clarity: “We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues… these are the three most important issues.”

But I’m at least happy that a footnote-level acknowledgment of a broader range of issues was included, because that’s a step up from where things were even a few years ago. It’s an encouraging sign when committed Christian leaders like these take a stand against the suffering of innocent victims of war – without excluding innocents who have suffered and are suffering because of wars planned and launched by the U.S. It’s a good sign when they oppose – along with child abuse and sex trafficking – the exploitation of laborers. It’s a good sign when leaders defend not only their rights but also the rights of the racially and religiously “other.”

Again, I differ with some of their diagnoses, prescriptions, and assumptions. For example, I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it. I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States. And I still can’t shake the feeling that the polarities of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” conceal as much as they reveal. But I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a “loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.”

I would add that the sanctity of human life is what motivates many of us to be so deeply concerned about the status of the environment, including non-human life with which human life is inextricably interwoven. And I would add that this same sense of the dignity of the human person makes many of us want to work harder to seek nonviolent solutions to global problems and avoid wars that make so many suffer as innocent victims. And it is the dignity of human persons who are gay that motivates many of us who are straight to work against violence and discrimination against gay human persons, including in their desire for access to legally protected civil unions (some of us would say) or marriage (others of us would say).

So even though many of us differ – in varying ways – with the priorities, policies, and approaches held by the signors of this document, we can agree that much evil flows from a loss of “the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life.” Like these signors, we have proven ourselves willing to risk criticism, danger, and even arrest for our convictions, which we believe no less strongly than they do to be rooted in our faith, in the scriptures, and in our great tradition.

[to be continued...]

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • ckgmail
    Thqnk you Brian. I consider myself pro-life. I find abortion abhorrent, but I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment is a good way to express that conviction. I am pro-life when it comes to war and capital punishment as well. I am certainly pro-religious liberty, but had some apprehension about the context in which that affirmation is made in the Manhattan declaration.
  • BrotherMarcus
    It's not about expressing your conviction (such as it is). It's about protecting the unborn from being killed. That's the problem with so-called "progressives" like McClaren: while the poor and hungry are very concrete to them, the unborn are an almost pure abstraction. Perhaps if the bodies of the aborted could be seen in the public parks and on subway grates of our big cities, the "progressives" at Sojourners would care. As it is, the unborn are nothing more to them than an "expression" or a "conviction."
  • ckgmail
    Brother Marcus, your response violates the spirit of the code of conduct for this blog. You belittle my conviction by your parenthesis of (such as it is), and you question my right to express my convictions. Please be more civil in your responses!
    Charles Kiker
  • BrotherMarcus
    Apparently, ckgmail, your feelings are all that count to you. Go ahead and report me. It wouldn't be the first time I'd been censored by the broad-minded, inclusive folks at Sojourners.
  • ckgmail
    I respect your feelings. Your feelings count to me, so mine are not all that
    count to me.
  • The fact that, after nearly 37 years of electioneering, demonstrations and "awareness-raising," we have done next to nothing to end legal abortion or even seen a large grass-roots movement to deal with it at its roots should tell you that perhaps we who oppose it need a completely new strategy and/or mindset. And part of that is to marry abortion to a more consistently pro-life ethic -- which some refuse to do because doing that can be a tad inconvenient. Let's remember that abortion isn't even mentioned in Scripture ("child sacrifice" is, at best, a stretch).
  • jesse3
    "I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it."
    --It's not even necessarily a matter of whether it is "best" or even "good." Unborn children need legal protections because they are persons deserving of protection....just like you and me. I believe abortion is an injustice and it compels me to seek changes in laws. Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach.

    "I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States."
    --Sorry, I find it hard to believe you were "shocked" because this is a standard argument used by most who are pro-legalized abortion ("laws won't do anything"). It is far from proven. The relatively low abortion rates post-Roe and their gradual increase thereafter indicate that laws in fact DID affect abortion rates. Peer-reviewed research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of more conservative laws and the absence of abortion providers as being linked to lower abortion rates. No peer-reviewed research has been published suggesting increases in welfare would reduce abortion rates (contrary to the opinions always being pushed on this site related to this topic).

    In truth, polls suggest overturning Roe would likely lead to more conservative laws in most states and outright bans in a few states.
    Overturning Roe would also correct an egregious, intellectually and morally indefensible, anti-democratic power grab by the supreme court. It is to Sojo's shame that they have never spoken against this horrible decision.
  • Here's the problem with that reasoning: The abortion laws that were enacted around the turn of the last century had huge popular support, so much so that even Margaret Sanger, long vilified as a Nazi sympathizer and "baby-killer," remarked in 1920, when abortion had already been illegal for a generation, that it was a "disgrace to civilization" that abortions were still happening. Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there.
  • jesse3
    "Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there."
    --If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

    Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous. The latest polls show the public is divided on the issue, though strong majorities have always supported some restrictions (restrictions that are not allowed by Roe).

    Why do people treat abortion differently? If we treated it like any other injustice, we wouldn't be so resigned to just accepting things as they are.
  • If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

    What I would not do is to denounce consistently pro-slavery folks as an enemy to be defeated and slander them left and right. But even during the fight against slavery, abolitionists did try to get as many people on their side as possible because that was the only way anything could get done. You don't think public opinion doesn't matter? It does. That was the reason for nonviolent protest during the civil-rights movement -- let the bad guys act up and the populace would hopefully be aroused.

    Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous.

    But that has to do with the strong Catholic influence, which doesn't always translate in America. In fact, when the Roe decision came down the head of the Southern Baptist Convention praised it because, in those days, abortion was seen as a Catholic issue.

    Why do people treat abortion differently?

    In part because the conservative movement hijacked the issue during the late 1970s for the sake of votes. Being anti-abortion but indifferent to other issues of "life" is simply hypocritical.
  • WaveTossed
    [from Brian McLaren's comments]"Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and 'ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS."

    Here are some prime examples. Though I have serious doubts that the signers of the Manhatten Declaration would support thisee campaigns:

    http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pres...

    [excerpts] "A broad coalition of civil society groups in Uganda have united against the legislation, warning that it will severely undermine human rights and the work of human rights defenders in the country. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans are already persecuted under Penal Code Article 145a, which prohibits 'carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature.' The proposed bill specifically criminalizes homosexuality, and punishes anything from sexual stimulation to 'touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality' with life imprisonment. Worse, 'aggravated homosexuality' – including activity by 'serial offenders' or those who are HIV positive – would merit the death penalty."

    The death penalty for those LGBT people who are HIV positive. Any takers to confront this from the Manhatten Declaration signers? I didn't think so. Though the Episcopal Church has begun taking measures to speak out against this affront on human rights.

    http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_117289_ENG...

    Or else this:

    http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/take...

    [excerpt]Transgender Day of Remembrance memorializes those who have been killed by hatred and prejudice against transgender people and raises public awareness to combat violence against transgender people. Every year, transgender people around the world face pervasive threats of discrimination, imprisonment, violence, and murder.
  • letjusticerolldown
    If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?
  • WaveTossed
    "If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?"

    My problem with the Manhatten Declaration is that it spends paragraph after paragraph on abortion and on arguments on why biology is supposedly so important in dealing with lifelong faithful relationships. And spends barely a sentence on human rights issues such as religious persecution in China.

    On top of that, I specifically cited the persecution of Gay people in Uganda because of the myriad paragraphs that were spent on explaining biology's role (as opposed to spiritual facets) in intimate relationships. I'm not saying that the Manhatten Declaration signers would endorse Uganda's persecution of Gays. But I certainly haven't seen any outcry from these signers against these human rights violations in Uganda. As opposed to the Episcopal church and other Protestant churches who have spoken out on human rights issues -- the religious persecution in China (my own church has addressed this topic during our services), the persecution of Gays in Uganda, and other human rights issues.

    I truly don't understand -- I really don't understand -- why biology is so important as to take several paragraphs whereas human rights violations merit barely a sentence or two. All of the emphasis on biology that I came across actually has made me quite uncomfortable while I was reading the declaration.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I don't think it fair to expect that a statement designed to address three issues will address all other issues; nor that it means anything about what the signors believe or do not believe about other matters.

    I presume the statement is driven both by the perception they needed to make a clear public case on these issues. But the need not only being to state positions on public policy--but to ground them in an ethical construct.

    I care about all these issues. In a sense, I agree with them and the Catholic Church, that there can be a "hierarchy" of issues. A right to human life might trump a right to not inhale second-hand smoke. But it is also hard to truly frame and communicate "priority issues" without weaving them into what is truly a broad fabric of many issues.

    To a degree I think they attempted this--and is what McLaren is acknowledging/affirming.

    Back to the ethical construct. I see a society wrestling with each of these issues on a political level and on a sociological level. In other words--we engage in propoganda and power fights to win public policy battles. Or on better days (few and far between) we have civil dialogue as to how public policy might be better. On the sociological level we attempt to work out new ways of thinking, talking and acting on these matters.

    But in my perception--we largely engage in the political and sociological change without addressing the ethical base.

    The writers are attempting to state their position but also trying to tie the issues back down into an ethical framework; and in a sense they demonstrate a fear the society is moving to not safeguard the freedom of persons to hold and exercise religious/ethical belief.

    I read them as saying the society finds life, marriage, maleness, and femaleness to have no inherent value or order--other than what we assign.

    My assumptions here might be wrong--but I think they find this to be very dangerous ground. i.e. that to have no ethical ground on which to oppose abortion-on-demand is more dangerous than abortion itself.

    All this to say--they strain at the biology issue because they attempt to speak into a culture that rejects any external authority (e.g. revelation from God in scripture or in a created order). They are saying "male" and "female" and "life" and "sexuality" and "procreation" are neither detached from each other nor are they meaningless.

    Why do they hammer it? Because their view is being hammered by the culture everyday. And I do not mean their policy positions are being hammered everyday. I mean their basic ethical construct and right to advance it is being hammered. They believe they are speaking into a culture that cannot hear there is any standard other than us.
  • WaveTossed
    Here is the most troublesome paragraph in the Manhattan Declaration.

    "includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation."

    The sometimes-repeated use of the words "bodily, and "biological" and "flesh" literally makes me cringe.

    Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"? Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?" Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

    Whatever happened to committment of faithful love? What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate? Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?

    Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit.
  • letjusticerolldown
    "Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"?"

    To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body. These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression.

    "Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?""

    It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value. Work is not necessary--but we give it preferential value over a life of no productivity. It is given preferential value because it is what sustains the species. The pathway to not give it priority is the pathway of saying human life is meaningless.

    Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

    Because this is an apologetic for heterosexual, monogamous, marriage as being normative.


    "Whatever happened to committment of faithful love?"

    They identify it.

    "What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate?"

    They don't address it. I lived 39 years as single. And my wife's death on our 10th anniversary makes me single again. The fact most of my life does not fit within a "preferential norm" does not make me "less than." It has its own value. But as a society do you not see any problem when societies no longer sustain themselves with offspring--and treat babies as a special little side project; something like getting a new pet?

    But overall the statement does not address the issue. Expressing an ethic affirming marriage does not speak affirmatively or negatively to other circumstances.

    "Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?"

    The meaning of the statement, clearly expressed, is that it is a unity. The cumbersome use of the language you dislike is to counter turning of the body into meaninglessness.


    "Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit."

    It is not a matter of "most". It is a unity. The statement is a case for marital relationships. Life in community involves a full matrix of family and community relationships in which intimacy is developed and expressed in complex and rich fashion. Heterosexual marriage has a unique place in the manifestation of the full life created by God and sustained across the generations. It is not everything. It is one thing. It is a preferred thing. It is unique. Valuing its fullness and its place should not be diminished. A statement expressing that does not have to be taken as answering questions it does not addres..

    Thanks for your always considerate, kind, and clear comments. Blessings to you this Thanksgiving.
  • WaveTossed
    Happy Thanksgiving to you.

    You wrote: "[WT wrote]'Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic?'

    "[LJRD wrote]To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body."

    That's one of the major problems; bodily appearance, pleasure, and sensuality in the absence of true commitment to love. There is no spirit in all of these emphases on sexual intercourse and the body. When the MD keeps emphasizing the body, it contributes to a similar focus rather than moving away from it.

    I believe that a person's body is important. However, when it comes to relationships, committment, the mind and the spirit are more important than the body. The MD keeps emphasizing the body rather than the mind and the spirit.

    "These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression."

    When the MD makes biological maleness and femaleness to be so important, more important than the spiritual side of love, then once more, the MD puts body -- and male and female body parts -- over spiritual consciousness.

    "[WT wrote]'Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?'

    [LJRD wrote]"It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value."

    Why? In all cases, reproduction is to be given preferential value, over love? Over commitment? Especially when there is so much overpopulation? I volunteer at animal rescue agencies. We see everyday the tragedy of too much reproductive activity. Cats and dogs being euthanized every day in shelters because there are no homes. Our motto is always "neuter and spay."

    I'm not saying that humans should neuter or spay themselves. However, there is a limit over how much reproduction can be emphasized, given the scarcity of so many resources. One can see the tragedy of too much human reproductive activity especially in poorer areas where the humans are unable to support what their reproductive activities have brought into the world.

    So in the end, I have to disagree with the entire premise that the physical, biological act of sexual intercourse that results in reproduction is preferable to other relationships, preferable to other expressions of love and committment.

    It is this emphasis on the physical body parts and certain sexual acts instead of on the spirit that makes me cringe everytime I read this Manhattan Declaration.
  • BuckeyeDon
    "Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach."

    I take issue with this statement. It does not accord with what Sojourners has said or written, and it does not accord with what Brian McLaren says here: "I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a 'loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.'"

    You are putting your spin on Sojourners' statements, Jesse, that does not reflect what they say or believe. You are equating "upholding the sanctity of life" with "making abortion a criminal act." That is a false analogy.
  • jesse3
    No, I'm saying that if you believe abortion is an injustice to unborn children then you will seek to remedy this injustice through legal means--i.e., you will work for their legal protection.

    You probably would find it hard to believe that someone would consider slavery an "injustice" but also feel that people have a right to own slaves. We call things "injustices" when people are being denied their rights...in the case of abortion, the right to life. Sojo has never said that the unborn are being denied their rights. They have never said that abortion is an injustice to unborn children. Please tell me if I have missed anything.

    McLaren, Wallis et al. have said that abortion is a "tragedy" and something sad, but they have nowhere expressed any sentiment that would suggest they believe it is an injustice that must be righted. These may seem like subtle distinctions but they are real and important differences between what we believe.
  • hammerud
    Well said. Brian McClaren and Jim Wallis and others are more committed with not offending people than making clear, bottom-line, statements on such things, as you do here. The Jesus of the Bible was not afraid of offending people. He said, "the world hates me because I testify of it that its deeds are evil." Brian McClaren may have noble intentions, but he and others of like mind, embrace a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible, Who said, "I did not come to send peace, but rather division." He brought division because He loved the lost enough to proclaim truth to them, even though it offended them; and His ministry eventually led to His crucifixion.
  • chadbowen
    Hammerud, I think that your statement here is ironic on a few of levels.

    First, you say that these guys are too scared to make bottom line statements for fear of offending people. Clearly, their stances (or lack thereof, as you might prefer) are offensive to you, and you seem to find them quite divisive.

    Second, I would challenge your notion that they do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible was very concerned with the least of these, the lost sheep, and those overlooked by society. McLaren (and the selection on which he remarks from the MD) is pointing us to examples of those things beyond our boundaries. To point out our blind spots is one that is divisive and hard to hear. While I understand your concern about the unwillingness to speak against abortion, please do not let that harden your heart from hearing the proclamation that unborn babies are not the only ones who need our concern and activism at the moment. In fact, there are some issues with much less moral/ethical ambiguity.

    Third, part of the mission of Sojourners, as I understand it, is to provide some middle ground on which fruitful efforts can be carried out. Rather than asking, "How do we make abortion illegal," they ask, "How can we reduce abortion?" The goal is to bring people together, but not in the name of allowing everyone to leave with unharmed feelings. Instead, the motive for bringing people together is to allow them to *actually DO something*. You are crticizing them for doing the very thing that they aspire to do.

    Finally, I would like to say that I don't agree with everything that goes on on the Sojourners website-- particularly when the effort becomes one to change public policy rather than call the church back to its mission.
  • hammerud
    You have a pleasant way of sharing your thoughts. I see Brian
    McLaren, in particular, who has become widely popular, as one of those
    to whom Paul refers in Acts 20:29,30 because he rejects core Christian
    beliefs, including the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Once the
    reliability of Scripture is undermined (the "Yea, hath God said,"
    attack of Satan in Genesis), nothing Scripture states means anything
    that can be trusted. In undermining Scripture, he is spreading heresy.

    Regarding changing public policy, I believe Christians should use
    tools we have available. God has given us the privilege to live in
    this country where, at least for the time being, tools to make change
    are available. God expects us to do what we can -- "to whom much is
    given is much expected."

    Jesus did care for the poor, but the gospel was 100% focused on saving
    people from their sin. The message of the gospel is 100% grace and 0%
    works. It is Ephesians 2:8,9. Adding any human works to salvation
    from sin is a perversion of the gospel message, which is based 100% on
    the work of Christ, not man. Good works, taking care of the poor
    etc, are things that God expects his people to undertake after they
    become "his people," after they are sealed by the Holy Spirit, having
    trusted in the atoning work of Christ. It is the point at which
    Ephesians 2:10 comes into play. Good works are to be done FROM
    salvation, not FOR salvation. Jim Wallis has made statements that
    actually link good works (caring for the poor etc) TO salvation, and
    that is not just a semantic divergence; it is adding leaven to the
    lump and "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." In the gospels
    there is a picture of the judgment where many say (paraphrased),
    "Lord, haven't we done this in your name and that in your name," and
    Jesus replies, "depart from me for I never knew you." The outwardly
    good activities of these people, human merit activities in which they
    trusted, counted for nothing in the judgment because they were not
    done in the power of God, and could not have been, because they never
    knew God, they never had trusted Christ for salvation. Wallis and
    McLaren do not emphasize actually trusting in Jesus to save from sin,
    and it seems McLaren, at least, does not like to deal with sin at
    all. His message is all about being inclusive and not offending
    people. Unlike the truth proclaimed by Jesus, one example of which
    caused the crowd to carry Him to the brow of a hill to cast Him down
    to kill Him, the message of McLaren is non-offensive to the masses.
    It is one of inclusive worship and fluff devoid of content. It is
    heretical. His message offends me because, even though I am a faulty,
    sinful person, I do know truth and am saved, and know when I see "a
    wolf in sheep's clothing."
  • I see Brian McLaren, in particular, who has become widely popular, as one of those to whom Paul refers in Acts 20:29,30 because he rejects core Christian beliefs, including the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Once the reliability of Scripture is undermined (the "Yea, hath God said," attack of Satan in Genesis), nothing Scripture states means anything that can be trusted. In undermining Scripture, he is spreading heresy.

    And on what do you base this opinion?

    Jesus did care for the poor, but the gospel was 100% focused on saving people from their sin. The message of the gospel is 100% grace and 0% works.

    Sorry, but that's not right, and one of the problems with our evangelistic efforts is the kind of pietistic thinking that is divorced from everyday existence. The Gospel ("good news") of Jesus Christ is not, and never was, just about "fire insurance"; it's about the coming of the Kingdom of God and His working even in the affairs of men. To say that the Gospel is only about "salvation" as we tend to think of it is to ignore about 90 percent of said Scripture, much of which is indeed focused on the here and now. Indeed, the church should be a model of heaven (imperfect as it would be) because it should demonostrate that things can and will be different when Jesus comes to rule. The Scripture cannot be interpreted properly unless that part is understood. (And it won't be just or primarily about abortion, homosexuality or political freedom.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008