The Cross: Can We Have More?
Monday, September 22, 2008 at 5:33PM The latest issue of Christianity Today has an article by Scot McKnight called "McLaren Emerging". The whole article is worth reading, including this comment by McKnight on the cross as the unmasking of evil:
Yes, I believe this unmasking role of the Cross is not only true, but also vital to a political reworking and revitalizing of the Cross. Given the sociopolitical focus of these two books, perhaps McLaren didn't think any more needed to be said.
But I feel obliged to ask, "Can we have more?"...
The most stable location for the earliest understandings of the Cross, from Jesus all the way through the New Testament writings, is the Last Supper - and not a word is said there about violence and systemic injustice. Other words are given to explain the event: covenant, forgiveness of sins, and blood "poured out for many." In fact, I question whether a cross that only undoes violence is enough to create liberation, peace, and a kingdom vision.
I know that Brian McLaren has come under attack from critics, but Scot McKnight is a friend, and this is a very significant issue. It's hard to think of one that's more significant than this.
This came to mind as I read Michael Krahn this morning (found via Challies). Krahn attended the Everything Must Change conference in Oakville this weekend. McLaren answered a question about what the gospel is:
...the good news isn't the good news of Christianity, it's the good news of the Kingdom of God. And I think that Fatmire [Muslim peace activist also present at conference and sitting next to him on the panel] working for peace, is an agent for peace, and I'd much rather her be working for peace being who she is than... becoming a person in a church worrying about the list over there on that wall. [on "the list" are things non-essentials like speaking in tongues, etc.)
So, to me there's something we really have to grapple with about whether the border of a religion is the border of the kingdom of God. And I think that's a question we'd be wise to raise. I liked what you said about there not being despair when you're among the extremely needy people. Wouldn't it be interesting if we found out that God is present wherever there's suffering because God is there bringing healing and God is really present wherever people are working against injustice because that's the work of God, wherever people are working for peace. And then the we find that the place that God isn't is where you have a bunch of affluent people who are self-absorbed... and that wouldn't surprise me why they would get depressed, because, in some way, it's not that God isn't present but they're snoring through the presence of God.
The last thing I want to do is join a pile-on, but this statement concerns me. I agree that the gospel includes news of the Kingdom, and that it trumps secondary issues. I believe that the gospel contains good news for the poor, and that it has cosmic implications. I realize that a brief statement can't say everything. I won't even get into his statements on the borders of religion - some other time. But here's the thing: I want to hear about the cross. I echo McKnight: "I feel obliged to ask, 'Can we have more?'"
In A Quest for More, Paul David Tripp writes:
Focus on Christ will always result in focus on the cross. You cannot be Christ-centered without becoming cross-centered. The crucified Christ is to be the center of everything I know about myself and my world. You cannot have any real hope for flawed people in a fallen world unless there is a Redeemer to rescue us from the evil that resides both inside and outside of us. Real restoration to God's created design requires the cross. It is the cross of Christ that alone will restore my allegiance to Christ and his rightful place at the center of everything in my life. (via)
If we lose our focus on the cross - even if we don't deny it - we lose everything. Yet it's so easy to lose, if not the cross, then our focus on the cross.
So in the end, this isn't just an issue for Brian McLaren. It's an issue for all of us. It's not just an issue for his critics; it's an issue for his friends, and for anyone who claims to be Christian. And it's a serious one. About the cross: can we have more? More of all of its significance, including forgiveness of sins as well as its wider implications? Not just from McLaren, but from all of us? Please?
Reader Comments (7)
Darryl, did you read Michael Haykin's review of MacLaren's latest? Recovering Ancient Church Practices: A Review of Brian McLaren, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices Check it out. http://www.andrewfullercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/sbjt-122_haykin.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.andrewfullercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/sbjt-122_haykin.pdf
Hey Darryl, Good thoughts. I still come back to the idea that the cross and the belief in it may be the only way to truly do anything "peaceful" anyway. The belief that earning and paying and deserving don't exist for me anymore means that I can do something truly selfless, peaceful and "Kingdom of God"ish. I think I agree with you - and I think without the cross, the kingdom would not be here and coming. My hunch is that Brian would agree... ?
Werner: Thanks for reminding me of that review. I read it a while back, but I forgot about the section "Where Is the Cross?" Tim: I suspect Brian would agree, but I don't want to have to guess. I think McKnight is right to point out that it needs to become a much more important theme in his teaching. Here's where Keller has helped me again. He says we need a gospel that includes many of the social implications that McLaren talks about, but that also leads us to sing, "And can it be that I should gain..." I think he's right.
Great post, Darryl. More cross, please. Less political "hope."
yes, but the pendulum has been on the "and can it be" side for much too long. A pendulum swing has been in order- and McLaren, while agreeing with the importance of the cross, has become the bad guy for leading the "swing". The problem is that most of us think he's swinging it too far. I think all he is doing is saying the opposite - he doesn't want to guess whether the church believes in the social implications of the gospel, and thinks it needs to be a much more important theme in its teaching... I agree with Keller (although I wouldn't use that hymn to articulate it), but it easy to point fingers now that the hard work of "correcting" the unbalance is in motion...
Hey Tim: I don't know if you can be on the "and can it be" side too long, although I agree we've done a bad job of teasing out the social/cosmic implications. That's starting to change. The two really go together, but the second can't exist without the first (and the first shouldn't exist without the second as a result).
Mr. McKnight has succinctly stated the core question that has to be asked of emerging theology. The problem with the emergent idea is not with a call to love those around us more deeply, and to reach them where they are in need. The problem is that no one can respond to that call without the fundamental change that trust in Christ's sacrifice on the cross gives us. It is not enough to just say we should all "follow Jesus." We have to recognize that following Jesus is not possible without . . . Jesus. We simply can't do it in our own strength. We can't do it without the cross. And that is my concern with the Mr. McLaren - even if we help those in need physically, are we truly loving them if we don't show them the truth that Jesus can change their spiritual lives and their destinies? Are we truly loving them if we aren't willing even to be rejected by them for sharing that truth. John 3:18 is still hanging out there. What I see in the second statement by Mr. McLaren is not much more than the idea that "we are all working to get to the same place." Somewhere in the emergent discussion I think many may be losing sight of the fact that we are NOT justified by following Jesus' commandments or by doing good stuff. We are justified by faith, and then follow those commandments because we love Him and because His new life in us gives us the freedom to follow them from pure motives. And part of following Him is still to tell the Truth about how to be reconciled to God through Him. Sadly, my perception, based on what I have heard him say and read by him here and elsewhere, is that Mr. McLaren would not agree.