Excellent post here brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/challenging-three-cherished-evan.html by Brian McLaren in which he sticks up for Rob Bell, shows some weaknesses in criticisms of Bell by Albert Mohler in particular, and makes an awful lot of good sense. Nice one Brian!
Here is Albert Mohler’s reply albertmohler.com/2011/03/23/a-theological-conversation-worth-having-a-response-to-brian-mclaren/. Interesting…
Thanks for finding this. Yes, I’m glad to see Brian sticking up for Bell and having good reasons for doing so 
Is Mohler’s reply worth reading?
I guess that depends.
What I see in his response is a guy that clenches undyingly to his denomination’s orthodoxy claiming that his denomination isn’t fixated on particular tradition (interpretation of scripture) but rather is the holder of absolute truth as handed down directly from the apostles.
He (Mohler) sees himself as a key link in the chain of custody and is doing his best to guard the deposit (the one true source and lineage of scriptural interpretation) entrusted to him.
First of all how can anyone claim this with a straight face? Isn’t it obvious that every other denomination is laying claim to the same exclusiveness? Further, they do it by claiming on the one had that the Bible speaks for itself (infallible word of God… etc.) and then on the other that their system is the only way to know what the Bible is really saying.
Second, isn’t this exactly what the Pharisees claimed? They we’re the exclusive trustees in the chain of custody and therefore the only gatekeepers of the true path to God. In other words they were claiming to be: the way, the truth, and the life.
Third, Mohler claims the “Gospel text is a clear and understandable message to others”. Isn’t it highly ironic then that the head of the The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is using this as an argument?
It just makes me want to scream.
Good post Davidbo… I agree with you about where Mohler is coming from.
And I like that those like Rob Bell and Mclaren are getting people to think about the subject of Hell and question its validity.
But like I said on another thread when Rob Bell first came out with Love Wins. These are not the guys that I would have picked to be the spokesperson for EU for just the reasons that Mohler makes in his article.
The Emergent wing of the family is just a little too out there in left field with their approach to scripture and scripture knowledge IMO. They like to keep much understanding in a state of “mystery”, questioning. Like I’ve said before, trying to get a solid answer to any truth from the likes of Mclaren is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
So it makes it easy for the Mohlers of the right wing to just argue the liberal/mystic card and dismiss EU and not have to deal with the scriptural evidence from an EU perspective.
I’m not a Maclaren fan so I don’t think his contributions will be helpful to the UR debate. I’m talking about UR from an evangelical perspective, as Parry presents.
I agree, davidbo; good observations.
I see this same behavior all the time in my pastor/ denomination. I call them the “guardians of tradition” which is what they’re really doing, even though they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, and even if they are doing other good things/ “getting it” in other areas.
I really appreciated this from McLaren; in spite of his detractors comments, He has a lot of good things to say.
Isn’t evangelical by definition related to spreading the gospel? Who better to spread the gospel than those who have the better version of it?
Isn’t evangelical by definition related to spreading the gospel? Who better to spread the gospel than those who have the better version of it?*
Yes it is, but there is much more to being evangelical than simply spreading the gospel. Jehovah’s Witnesses “spread the gospel”, so to speak, but it is a false gospel. Being Evangelical also has strong roots to holding fast to the scriptures, which is why Robin Parry worked so hard in his book TEU to show from the scriptures that UR is true. There are many kinds of universalists around. There are some who completely reject the bible and the need for Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. I came to this site because I wanted to see a biblical defense of UR. I haven’t read too much Maclaren, but the stuff that I did read sounded really arrogant. When I read that he didn’t believe in Noah’s flood because God wouldn’t do such a thing I couldn’t believe it! When I read the account of the flood, it doesn’t sound like it is a poem or an allegory. The bible seems to say that this thing really happened and God did it. When Maclaren is denying some basic stuff that the bible says, he hurts the cause of evangelical universalism, in my opinion, not universalism in general.
I haven’t read much McLaren, but what I have read of him seems to indicate to me that his detractors may be misunderstanding what he’s saying. I haven’t read enough of him to know that he doesn’t say some outlandish things, but rather that what I have read has led me to the opposite conclusion.
I suppose it’s a fair point though that if McLaren is perceived as antagonistic toward an Evangelical perspective, that his support of Bell doesn’t do much from those who take a hard line evangelical stance.
Here is a Maclaren quote on the flood:
“In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life? To make matters worse, the global holocaust strategy didn’t even work. Soon the “good guy” Noah gets drunk, and soon after that his sons are up to no good, and soon after that we’re right back to the antediluvian violence and crime levels. Genocide, it turns out, doesn’t really solve anything in Genesis, even if a character named “God” does it.”***
Great quote, and very true. Fortunately, the Flood isn’t historical, but mythical.
This is one way I read it: If we continue to sin, we will drown in chaos. Not just us, but those around us, and in the end, the whole world. Nonetheless, God will have the last word. His faithful servant and all who are with him will float in safety on the water. A new world will rise from the ruins of the old.
And another: When my life drowns in the chaos of death, the part of me which has been faithful to God will float in serenity and peace on the surface of the waters. New life will rise from the ruin of the old.
Nice one Allan! Scripture doesn’t have to be read as simple descriptive history in order to be truth. McLaren and Bell do speculate sometimes but that seems more honest and evangelical than just toeing the old-school evangelical party line. The truth of scripture is often deeper and more challenging than the most obvious surface meaning.
I know of at least one contributor on here (James Goetz) who is definitely more in the conservative camp who also feels that a good portion of Genesis is allegorical rather than literal.
amen to revdrew, allans, and melchizedek.
who says a “hardline evangelical position” is something to fight to retain anyways? obviously defining terms is crucial, but from what ive seen of mclaren’s detractors, their method is not one i would want to pass onto future generations.
Well guys, I just went over that section of Genesis again and I just can’t see how it was meant to be read other than as an historical account. Chapter 5 starts out with a geneology from Adam to Noah. Then it begins to give the story of the flood. The flood is talked about in many places in scripture by different authors as if it is an historical event. Jesus talked about it. Peter talked about it. Then, in the book of Hebrews chpt 11, in the great chapter on faith it says:
***6But without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
7By faith Noah, being warned by God of things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should later receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.***
It names several historical figures who performed great acts of faith. Noah and the flood is talked about before Abraham. Guys, I just can’t see how you can say that the bible presents the story of Noah as an event that didn’t really happen. I’m an open minded guy, but from a literary perspective, I can’t see it. I think Maclaren is off base here.
Having not really looked into the whole thing in depth, I think I’m inclined to lean toward the literal interpretation as well.
McLaren may very well be off base on that comment.
Just as Aslan died to save Edmund, so Christ died to save us.
Aslan is mythical, but that doesn’t make the sentence false.
I have heard some propose that the story of Job was entirely allegory as well, and not something that literally happened. That case seems a little easier to believe, for some reason.
At any rate, I do think it’s interesting that a number of ancient cultures that were not Judeo-Christian had some kind of flood story, which may lend some external support to the idea that at very least some components of it are literal.
I remember hearing or reading a long time ago that even classic mythology and other fictional stories have some basis in actual fact.
I’ve recently read one author who suggests that many of the Greek and other classical mythological figures are based on Nephilim, the offspring of humans and angelic sons of God. Many of the Greek mythological figures were products of “gods” and men…
Just some food for thought.
Allan, how then do you read the sections of the bible that are written as historical narrative, then? The section of Hebrews that I quoted is written as if it really happened. Who gets to determine which parts are true and which aren’t? I’m not asking that with any negative tone of voice - it is a serious question. I’ve always wondered how folks who say certain portions of the bible are myth, how they determine what is real and what isn’t. It seems to be quite a slippery slope. Also, if you read the bible that way it would be easy to prove UR because all you have to do is allegorize any part of the bible that says people will go to hell eternally.
This used to worry me too. If Noah is mythical, perhaps none of the Biblical stories happened and Christendom is one momentous (and comic) misunderstanding. This worry deepened further when I discovered that there is arguably no archeological evidence for the existence of either David or Solomon! I began imagining some post-apocolyptic world where a whole religion is built around fragments of Superman comics.
It took me some time to realize that the *meaning *of the myth is the bit we need to be concerned with, and that this meaning is not dependent on the story’s historicity. Even if an historical David did not slay Goliath, I can still believe that God will kill the giants that enslave us all. Even if some hypothetical super-historian could demonstrate Christ did not die and rise again in actual history, it would not be unreasonable to still believe that God loves us, and that he can (and will) save us all from death.
My starting point is the goodness of God. If God is good, we have nothing to fear in the end. If God is bad or non-existent, we are doomed whatever we do. It is absolutely clear to me that the only sensible thing to do would be to seek this good God whether he exists or not, and so I do. A good God would reveal himself to us, would become one with us, would share our suffering and so forth. I find this God in Jesus Christ. I don’t believe God is good because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible because it reveals this good God. Whether the Biblical revelation comes through myth, or poetry, or historical narrative, or parable is of secondary interest to me.
Having said this, I am confident that the stories we have of Christ are substantially historical, though generously and artistically embellished to clarify and emphasize certain theological points. (I like using the analogy of iconic art showing Christ with halos ect. I think the gospels are iconic writing rather than iconic painting. Again, the meaning that is revealed through the icon it the really crucial thing.) I’d not be surprised to find much of the OT is grounded in history, and that much of it is not. Investigating this is the job of cosmologists, geologists, biologists, archeologists, literary critics and so forth.