Comments on: Brian McLaren Snapshot

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Fri, 11 May 2007 13:45:45 +0000

Steffen – we are in agreement brother. I’m not here to bag McLaren. I like to listen what others, way smarter than me, have to say about people making a massive impact in the world.

McLaren has strengths, and also weaknesses – which kind of proves he is just human like you and me.

Like your words on the “full scope of the atonement” – in effect the whole gospel.

By: Steffen Boeskov

Steffen Boeskov — Fri, 11 May 2007 09:28:31 +0000

Hi Layguy

Thanks for your kind response.

Just to clear up – I don’t think McLaren focuses to much on the atonement. Gods movement towards us, his gift, his mercy cannot be overstated. I agree on that.

My concern is that we remember the full scope of the atonement – the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus.

I think the protestant church as a whole has narrowed its view on the atonement, and I think that maybe McLaren is still writing in that tradition. But I am grateful for his attempt to start a conversation about the different views (or “windows” as he writes) on the atonement.

Together we can know more of the height, the depth, and the lenght of Gods love.

God bless you, layguy

Shalom
Steffen

By: mommyzabs

mommyzabs — Thu, 10 May 2007 19:38:21 +0000

I’m pretty much in agreement on brian mclaren and EC. I don’t have time for sermon right now cause i aleady have one i just listened to and another to get too And boys that will be up from a nap soon. But If i remember i will come back. I’m so skeptical though on listenting to much out of the EC when there are so many other things I would rather be listening too.

By: Steffen Boeskov

Steffen Boeskov — Thu, 10 May 2007 14:15:16 +0000

Hi Layguy

Have you actually read the book?
“In his book, McLaren’s characters dialogue about this topic, it makes no sense to the seeker and they move on.”

That’s pretty far from what McLaren does. He talks a lot about atonement and different takes on the atonement.

I think he focuses to much on the cross in his atonement-theories, but you would probably disagree. To say that McLaren isn’t concerned about atonement or that “his silence shouts” – that’s just not serious.

Shalom
Steffen

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Thu, 10 May 2007 11:11:59 +0000

Hi TSK, Yes I did say that. Have a listen to what Dr. Breshears says about McLaren’s take on substitutionary atonement. Basically dismisses it because it makes no sense from a humanistic perspective. It echoes what Paul was saying, “the gospel is foolishness to the Greeks.”

In his book, McLaren’s characters dialogue about this topic, it makes no sense to the seeker and they move on. If McLaren was serious about this topic, he would have nailed it in his book – but his silence shouts.

By: andrew jones

andrew jones — Thu, 10 May 2007 08:30:28 +0000

sorry . . did you really say sin and atonement were grey areas in the EC?

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Thu, 10 May 2007 04:31:19 +0000

Steffen, thanks for your comment. I'm quoting Breshears on his thoughts about the content on McLaren's book. No I haven't read it - I'll admit that.

Breshears is a much smarter man than I and in the above sermon he points out McLaren's strengths many times (have you listened to it yet?)

Breshears focus' on this point quite heavily - the fact that the seeker questions the atonement and doesn't make sense - the Pastors wife asks her husband to respond - he does so but still doesn't nail the point and then the story moves on. In effect bypassing this extremely important topic.

I respect your comment on how you think he focuses too much on the atonement. Respectfully, I would disagree with you. If you took the bible, and divided it according to subject matter, you would find that atonement makes up the majority.

If God points out the need for atonement in His word and if Jesus faithfully acted his part out - to the letter, I don't think anyone can focus too much on this topic. And this is Breshear's argument.