Progressive Brian McLaren vs evangelicals: is there really such a big divide?

As well as the questions over climate change and pessimism raised in the last post in relation to a recent Unbelievable? conversation with Brian McLaren, there are theological questions, too. 

One of McLaren’s main points was that the Church is too concerned about getting to heaven, and not enough about what’s happening before we get there. “I became convinced that the version of the gospel I had inherited in the…version of Christianity I grew up in, was not the same gospel that Jesus had talked about,” he told Premier Unbelievable? host Andy Kind.

“We do not pray ‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, may we go to your Kingdom in Heaven after we die.’ It’s rather, ‘may your kingdom come, may your will be done here on Earth as it is in heaven.’ So, this sense that Jesus’ message was about a different way of life, a different way of seeing and organising and prioritising life while we’re alive on this Earth.”

He harshly criticises “elevator theology” that is “only about getting our souls up to heaven”. Are his criticisms fair? And what do evangelicals think about his new approach to Christianity? A wide range of speakers on Premier Unbelievable? have offered opinions to help us think through these questions. 

Does McLaren use the Bible to support his position? 

McLaren cites Jesus’ saying to “look at the birds of the air, look at the flowers of the field” as an “invitation for us to come back to be part of the community of creation, not above creation to exploit and dominate over it, but to be part of it”. 

He believes some Christians view this as “pagan” because they’ve been “taught a way of seeing Jesus that is all about escaping this Earth and going to heaven”. He adds that he believes these assumptions come from “capitalism”, “centuries of white supremacy”, “colonialism” and “eurocentrism.”

Tim Wyatt, in the first Matters of Life & Death podcast, also ponders whether Christians have been put off by some environmental ideas that seem “pagan”, as McLaren suggests:

“Because the green narrative seemed to veer towards a kind of pantheism or Gaia or pagan ideas about worshipping Mother Earth and worshipping the creation…and they were drilled in a Protestant reformed sense in which it’s all about the word and about individual faith and we don’t really want to mess around with that physical mucky stuff of soil between our fingers.” 

Is it all about heaven on Earth? NT Wright’s view

In some respects in this pre-pandemic Unbelievable? conversation ‘Is the world doomed’, respected professor NT Wright also agrees with McClaren. He firmly states:  

“The Western Christian narrative, which is ‘how do I go to heaven?’ is not what Jesus intended. We assume that the whole point of religion, if you believe in it, is to go to heaven eventually, and be with God if there is a God…but actually, in the New Testament, as with the Jewish world in general, it’s about God wanting to bring heaven and Earth together, and God wanting graciously to come and live with his human creatures and to be at home with them.”

He goes on to discuss the tension between taking action to mitigate environmental disaster and trusting God that we have a good future ahead of us. “We have to hold those two in sort of tension,” says Professor Wright. 

“The second one gives us a secure faith, that the God who raised Jesus is going to make all things well at the end. And that’s not whistling in the dark, that’s rooted in what we believe about Jesus. But in the meantime, we are to be people of new creation, who are not just beneficiaries, but also agents of new creation, that is, we are to take responsibility for our world. So, we’re not just to sit back and say, ‘Oh, well, you know, if the planet warms up, and we can’t live in it anymore, too bad’.”

Professor Wright seems to be placing importance on both the spiritual and the physical, rather than dismissing the former. 

Read more:

Climate anxiety — ’Delay means death’

Life after doom

Resurrection, miracles and climate change

Should Christians break the law?

While McLaren advocates for Christians to take climate action – can the faith bring anything extra to the table? 

What about someone who doesn’t believe in God or moral standards, how could we persuade them to share the values of caring about climate change? People who do not believe in God can have a variety of approaches to life, including that of a caring, humanistic outlook. But logically, one response to meaningless in the Universe is to be nihilistic and selfish. 

This was discussed by two environmentalists, A Rocha worker Rachel Mander and Lori Marriott from Humanist Climate Action, in the Premier Unbelievable? debate: ‘Can Christianity or humanism save the planet from climate change?’ 

For Mander, as a Christian, she could appeal to the existence of morals that are instituted by God: to not be selfish and greedy, to consider the wellbeing of others and so on. Rachel said: 

“The foundation that Christianity offers is more secure in that respect, because the claims that it’s making about a worldview are actually in many ways like external metaphysical ones, and I think that gives a firmer foundation.” 

Again, Mander had a story of hope and trust in God: 

“It’s not all on us to save the world actually, we are part of a much bigger story, and we are absolutely responsible for the ways in which we participate in that. But there’s also a source of strength that’s beyond us, both from God and also within a community of other people who believe, and that has a really wonderful and awe-inspiring story and narrative. That’s based on what Christians would say is the truth about forgiveness and grace and God’s purposes and for all creation.

“We believe in a much bigger picture and a promise of renewal and of grace and of a God who is both creator and redeemer of everything that has been made, and I think that’s really helpful when you’re in the midst of taking action.” 

In contrast, humanist Marriott appeals to a higher power, but a much more worldly one: government: “To get that kind of wider social change it does also need to come from the top.”

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Is McLaren’s caricature of evangelicals correct? 

In this conversation between Tim and John Wyatt in an episode of Matters of Life & Death, they point out that the late John Stott, one of the UK’s best known evangelicals, wrote repeatedly about Christians’ duty to care for the Earth from the 1970s onwards. Could McLaren’s criticisms be about a small subsection of the Christian USA, rather than Christianity as a whole? 

However, in the next episode, John Wyatt admits that the thesis that blamed “the environmental catastrophe” on “the Judeo-Christian concern for the centrality of humanity” may be correct. “Until relatively recently, it’s been unusual for evangelical Christians to see creation care as being something of high priority.” 

How do evangelicals see McLaren? 

McLaren is often criticised by evangelicals – but he seems to be happy to make a clear distinction between himself and this group. In this Unbelievable? discussion between evangelical pastor Andrew Wilson and McLaren, the latter compares two of their books. “We use exactly the same passages of scripture to make very, very different points,” says McLaren.

But there was more agreement between the two pastors than some might expect, although Wilson is a conservative evangelical. For example, they agreed to take the Bible more seriously and apply it compassionately rather than legalistically to pastoral problems such as domestic violence and divorce. 

Wilson said: “I think I’m probably agreeing with what Brian’s affirming, and just disagreeing with what he’s denying…I thoroughly agree people have read the Bible very badly. And people have used the Bible to justify all sorts of wrong things. And that will continue to happen probably in all brands of Christian belief…it’s not just Christians…an awful lot of bad things have been done in the name of Islam and atheism and humanism.”

Therefore, many of McLaren’s concerns about evangelicalism do not seem to be applicable to all who wear that label. 

Who believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus? 

Then, a chapter in a book of McLaren’s was discussed, where he appears to suggest that it didn’t matter if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead physically. However, McLaren said he wrote this to help people who find it hard to believe the story: “I have no problem believing in physical resurrection. But I understand why people do,” he said. In contrast, Wilson believes the doctrine to be more important. 

The other significant difference was on the interpretation of “arsenokoitai”, which is usually translated by conservatives as men who have sex with men, and is condemned in the Bible. McLaren disagreed, and argued that this could be used to harm people, as once the Bible was used to justify slavery, for example. 

But Wilson pointed out that the Bible was also interpreted correctly to argue for ending slavery, against those with vested financial interests. Rather than McLaren’s “New kind of Christian” [a title of one of his books], Wilson says, “I want the old kind,” so long as you read the Bible with “checks and balances”.

Is McLaren a Christian? 

In this discussion between the two evangelicals, Randal Rauser and Douglas Groothuis, they debate whether Christians like McLaren who are labelled “progressive” are Christian at all. Groothuis, who thinks they are not, described McLaren as unorthodox. 

The main issue he has with progressive Christians is “the authority and interpretation of the Bible” and “meaning of salvation through Christ”. It’s said that progressive Christians such as Brian McLaren often put more emphasis on “works” in the present rather than salvation in the future. 

However, modern evangelicals like Rauser and Groothuis – as well as Wilson – are usually concerned about the socio-political teaching of Jesus, as were many evangelicals historically, such as William Wilberforce. Where they do criticise progressives is if the theology is “liberal” ie it denies the resurrection of Jesus, or that we need his death on the cross to be saved, for example. Here, the two evangelicals appear to disagree on whether McLaren can be described as a Christian.

Put together, it does seem that McLaren’s caricature of an evangelical Church that does not much care for the wellbeing of humankind is misleading. At the same time, some of the evangelical criticisms of progressives such as McLaren can misunderstand their intentions or their beliefs. As with the discussion around climate change, getting a balance between the various perspectives seems to be more helpful. 

Heather Tomlinson is a freelance journalist. Find her at www.heathertomlinson.substack.com or on twitter @heathertomli