Evangelism and Brian McLaren

This is in reference to Brian McLaren's words, quoted in this post, where he says emergent Christians like him aren't out to "shoehorn" other people out of their religions, if they're happy with them. He says that Jesus was out more to bring about God's reign on earth, than on getting people into heaven. One commenter called him a "wise man."

More conservative Evangelicals will likely disagree. At its worst, Evangelical Christianity ignores the needs of the world so long as people are saved. I've argued that this model of Christianity reproduces structures of oppression by forcing people to give up their own cultures. Of course, not all elements of non-Christian cultures are worth keeping; I find the Chinese highly superstitious, for example. But not all elements of the Christian culture that stems from Evangelicals raised or influenced by the West is worth adopting, either.

And so, McLaren offers us a new model. I believe that the Emergent movement considers themselves Evangelical. To be sure, they are pretty loosely organized - congregational polity, I believe. (In fact, I once read of an Emergent speaker who said that the institutional church did not matter, that the institution was not connected to the way of the Cross; having been raised Evangelical, I agree, but not all my Catholic or mainline brethren, especially Anglicans, agree).

What is the terminal value of Christianity? Why should one bother being a Christian? After all, your Sunday mornings are booked. You're generally encouraged to tithe. Some churches frown on drinking and gambling. Many frown on various forms of sexuality. All of them frown on illicit drugs, if that's your thing. Why bother?

The narrow interpretation of eternal life, that all the unsaved will perish and all the saved will be with God, is one reason given, but I don't like it. People who turn away from the church because of its sins (e.g. crusades, colonialism, not protecting the Jews during WWII, not doing enough to protect various other oppressed groups, etc) are either in danger of damnation, or face certain damnation (depending on who you ask). I don't feel like serving a God like that.

The other way is less clear. Do Christianity, in the world. Treat the poor and oppressed as your equals, because what you do to them, you do to Jesus. This strain of Christianity is less certain than the first. Many people like certainty. And certainty has been used to great effect as a marketing tool by conservative Evangelicals.

But certainty can also blind you. For example, some Christians are certain that homosexuality is a sin, and the Bible does contain clear statements that condemn at least some forms of homosexuality. But these Christians are blinded to the presence of God within the LGBT community, whether they are Christian or not.

Those Christians who are neutral or affirming have to face the fact that the Bible says what it says. We might interpret the Bible as the work of human hands, interpreted through human eyes and prejudices (e.g., the author of Leviticus was certainly a man). But that path is less certain.

Brian McLaren clearly has faith in God. I think that those who come to true faith lose the need to have everything else written in black and white.