Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global
Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope by Brian McLaren (Thomas Nelson, 2007)
McLaren’s book has received attention because he is perhaps the most
prominent author and representative of the emerging church movement. Although many Christians are unfamiliar with
the movement, McLaren’s views on Christian economic responsibility have already
influenced various local churches. I
felt led to better understand and write about all of this because I am an
economist with an academic background in ministry. Although my review is generally unflattering,
McLaren deserves ample credit for his passion in presenting his case and demonstrating
a kind heart toward people that find themselves marginalized in their
societies.
McLaren concedes he is not an economist, so I am not surprised that the
book contains a mixture of valid statements along with ideas that do not
reconcile with established economic principles.
In addition, his writing seems ideologically based which of course is
difficult for any author to avoid including me.
There are many dimensions to ideology, but a pertinent fundamental
described by economist Thomas Sowell1 involves one’s vision of human
behavior. McLaren presents an
unconstrained vision, where he assumes that individuals are able to work
together for justice. This is opposed to
the constrained vision which assumes that self interest dominates human
behavior and limits communitarian goals.
The unconstrained vision fits with the belief that the world could be
ordered properly in the present age. The
constrained vision fits with believing sin nature limits mankind until the Lord
returns.
In considering perspective beyond ideology, I discovered among the
literature a very clear dispassionate article written by Larry Pettegrew for
the Master’s Seminary Journal2.
He claims that McLaren’s ideas and the emerging church movement in
general are predicated on the assumption that a significant part of our culture
has accepted the philosophy of postmodernism.
A fair statement about postmodernism is that it can be characterized in
reading as granting license to interpret from different cultural viewpoints,
and therefore the truth is there is not necessarily any specific truth in what is
read. Postmodernist professors have
influenced a large segment of the younger generation with postmodern teaching. This leaves me uneasy because although men
and women are not omniscient, they can know truth. What is written hardly need be uncertain, filtered
through different lenses or left as mystery which may cause even more
doubt. Authors typically write for their
audience so that they may understand.
The Bible itself is generally legible, and where passages are not, we
have centuries of scholarly research to help laymen comprehend. Gladly there are concordances.
Contrary Views of
Salvation
McLaren is a postmodernist, but ironically he wrote a book in which he
hopes to influence his readership about the truths he interprets. Many definitive statements in his book caught
my eye, but the sharpest came into sight on pages 78-79, when he differentiated
two views of Jesus. He harshly described
what he called the conventional view of Jesus, where the church is about
warning people they are doomed to hell unless they are saved. I suppose that some have heard too much of
the sin and hellfire message, but I suspect most Christians rarely hear their
pastors pound away in this manner.
Instead, church goers are typically taught about God’s overwhelming love
and hope that all would be saved through Christ. The reality that McLaren does not mention in
his critique is that there is “so much mercy, yet still there is hell” (C.S.
Lewis3).
McLaren’s description of the emerging church movement’s interpretation of
salvation seems aberrant. I believe that
salvation is granted to every individual who in faith repents, recognizes the
atonement and accepts the grace of our Lord.
McLaren indicates in the two pages and within his book’s theme that salvation
is part and parcel to also saving the world from the mess he thinks it is in. This quote for example is foreign to me, “Jesus
came to become Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all
it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil” (page 79). Apparently salvation is not just personal,
but also about saving the planet by ridding the world of its toxic and
inequitable systems of social organization.
The Bible is filled with scripture about stewardship and justice, but
the overpowering message is that the Father’s love is so great that he sent his
Son to die for our sins. McLaren’s
statement about salvation seems to be religion without the cross. I was very perplexed that he would reduce or
at best mix the event at
McLaren appears disingenuous because his question does not recognize
that salvation is the necessary condition and only then kingdom living is possible. By contrast, Peter writes plainly while
encouraging those sanctified by faith. “But
also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to
virtue knowledge, to knowledge self control, to self-control perseverance, to
perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly
kindness love. For if these things are
yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Pet. 5-8)
Additions to faith are needed but they are additions and they are not equivalent
to indispensable faith itself. If
McLaren does not understand this, then his diagnosis is faulty, and his treatment
and prognosis of a world economy in crisis are of negligible value. The critical problem with the world is primarily
about lost souls I believe, not about saving the earth from the present social
systems. If I am interpreting his
theology correctly, he commits the error that so many before him have committed
such as with the social gospel movement in which they look to works as part of
salvation instead of works in response to salvation and a new life in Christ. McLaren’s book presents the possibility of a
new heaven and new earth that is dependent upon Christian effort in the present
age.
When I read Galatians 2:20 to 3:5, I ironically wonder if the salvation
concept is unwittingly legalistic, something of which McLaren himself dislikes. Verse 3 says “Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are now being
made perfect by the flesh?” Salvation aimed
at fixing systems is an imperfect salvation.
A friend once told me that if roads to God are from a center of social
justice and all roads to outreach are social justice, then what need have we
for Christ, the cross or the blood?
What is the Crisis?
The salvation concept described in this book is illogical to me as both
a follower of Christ and as a practical economist. But, before I comment further, I would like
to propose that social problems are not so much of economics but a moral crisis
much broader than social justice. McLaren
would have done better to campaign against wider scoped moral decay, where certainly
deviancy has been defined downward (an expression coined by the late Patrick Moynihan5). As I read the book, I kept thinking that the
New Testament not only teaches us about addressing inequities but also many other
failures of moral character.
Unfortunately for unconstrained visionaries like McLaren who see the
potential for societal change, sin continues to persist.
The downward deviancy of moral character contrasts sharply with known economic
progress and aggregate improvement in the standard of living not recognized my
McLaren. Love cannot be a legal duty,
but what if we were able to track since the first century the love the neighbor
problem illustrated by people disregarding most of the Ten Commandments? We would probably conclude that the moral character
of the world is worse than ever, where evangelicals need to better promote the
conventional salvation message.
For those who are saved in Christ, the fruit of the spirit is not narrow
but instead diverse. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control are many opportunities for kingdom living. Many of these attributes relate to economic
issues, but again we also need to put this in the context that the global
economy has shown improvements over the centuries. A recent article by Keith Still presents
information that illustrates world economic progress for both rich and poor6.
There is overwhelming evidence to reject
the proposition that generally the rich become richer at the expense of the
poor. Without doubt, workers have been
exploited where colonialists and dictators have ruled, where slavery has
existed, or where there have been monopsony (i.e., single firm) employment
opportunities. However, capitalism under
competitive conditions assures market wages. We may not like what they earn, but generally
people are paid according the value of their production.
When considering rich and poor, we must understand that poverty is
relative where by definition it will always exist. The poor of today are far better-off than those
in poverty when Jesus walked the earth. Certainly
the gap between poor and rich has widened over recent centuries, and therefore
the ability of the rich to help the poor has increased. But why do we worry so much about the
gap? I think the premise to worrying is
in believing that poverty makes people unhappy.
Except for extreme poverty (where people are hungry, without clean water
or shelter), there is scant evidence that poverty causes unhappiness. For believers like me, the beatitudes confirm
the overwhelming importance of faith toward happiness compared to worldly
definitions. The widest gap by far is
between believers and nonbelievers.
We must also recognize that the poor in most countries today are
better-off than the many of the rich of the first century. The rich did not have motor vehicles, telecommunications,
and modern health care of which many poor (certainly not all) enjoy to some
degree. Again, I concede that there are many
pockets of extreme poor of which we must be very concerned, but most observers
are also very aware of the advancements of pastoralists and horticulturalists and
also the ongoing migration in seeking better opportunities in urban areas where
there has been some development related to technology and international trade
in poor continents such as Africa.
McLaren’s conclusion that we are in a global crisis is not logical, and most
economists would characterize his reasoning as either a fallacy of composition
or a sweeping generalization. If one
finds extreme poverty in various pockets of the world, one should not conclude
that we have a global crisis of poverty when aggregate data shows general
improvements in the standard of living across all continents of the world. Instead, it is prudent to consider the individual
pockets and understand each within its own right. One pocket might be related to lack of
geographic endowments, another pocket might be related government corruption,
and another pocket might be related to cultural resistance in the adaption of
more efficient production methods.
Poverty in
Theo-economic
Systems
This brings me to commenting on the assumptions and conclusions of what McLaren
calls the earth’s ecosystem or suicidal machine. I do not recognize the machine that he
describes as an interconnection between spokes of prosperity, equity and
security. Instead, most economists would
describe a model of the political economy, where there is political system that
interrelates with an economic system.
The political structure can take many forms ranging from totalitarianism
to democratic republic. In
totalitarianism, the economic system can be state directed capitalism (which
inhibits the benefits of real capitalism) or socialism. In either case, the economic system is not granted
freedoms to produce efficiently.
Totalitarian political systems from kingdoms to dictatorships have dominated
the world at times.
Democratic republics are more in favor in today’s world, although still too
many people in the world are under some forms or remnants of
totalitarianism. There are even cases
such as
Capitalism under democratic republics allow for oversight and the
creation of laws to address public matters concerning the very issues McLaren raises
in his book on military, environmental quality and equity. We should never be so naïve to believe that
laws can be created to develop perfect solutions to these issues, but we should
recognize the mitigating progress that has been made. Although good people debate the proper use and
degree of military action, countries such as
Equity will be addressed in two paragraphs down, but I need to comment
on McLaren’s view of multinational firms.
I agree that in a global economy, firms may seem to be beyond a single
country’s ability to regulate. There is
incentive for some firms to setup operations in countries that have the least
regulation with respect to environmental quality and labor standards. These countries are generally the poorest
countries of the world, and regulations come at a high opportunity cost to
them. If they attempt to regulate to the
same degree as the advanced countries, they will not find as many firms
locating and thus production and better paying jobs will be lost. In contrast, McLaren should also recognize
that multinational firms are multi-regulated by the various advanced countries
they do business within. Witness
Microsoft’s problems with the European Union.
McLaren takes aim at corporations in general, seeing them as
unaccountable enterprises almost out of control. Although, corporations have their warts
compared to smaller firms, this view is also very naïve and typically taken by
generalizing from the few infamous cases reported by the media. Corporations are certainly not perfectly managed,
but they have organizational structure and incentives to do better than most
people believe possible. They are influenced
by price competition, creative destructive (knowing that competitors are
developing better alternatives), self governance by boards representing
stockholders, executive peer pressure and social responsibility, competitive
labor markets and government regulation8.
McLaren’s call for charity is an important message of which pastors need
to continually remind their flocks.
However, I cannot accept McLaren’s economic model as being a means to
understand inequities. Equity is a
relative term which means fairness, and what I interpret as fair may not be
what someone else thinks is fair. Although
more could be done, I am unconvinced that conventional Christians are unconcerned
about equity and thus a special issue for the emerging church movement. If data were available, I would not be
surprised that conventional Christians give more generously than people who
have an unconstrained view of human behavior like McLaren.
I also cannot agree with McLaren’s general proposition that because the
rich are in fear of the exploited poor, they set up security systems to protect
themselves. First, there is very little
evidence of exploitation in capitalist systems patrolled by democratic
republics. Exploitation hardly occurs in
competitive labor markets, and if it does, it is usually addressed by
government. Second, security is what
economists call a public good, where security once in place is there for all to
consume. Military presence in the name
of homeland security is for every citizen’s safety. The present military conflicts involving
McLaren is a ‘theosocialist’ (a twist on his ‘theocapitalist’ term), who
is convinced that God wants the world to radically socialize its economic
system. McLaren instead should be
advancing the cause for worldwide democratic republics and capitalism. He can’t because he underestimates how
capitalism creates opportunities for those less advantaged. Most economists know - voluntary cooperation
within capitalism (as opposed to the force of socialism) creates both
employment opportunities and greater purchasing power for almost every
participant.
McLaren’s fatalistic conclusion about ‘theocapitalism’ reminds me of the
old doomsday prophesies of scientists of the 1960/70s such as by Paul
Ehrlich. They used simple models to
conclude that economic growth causes natural resources to dwindle until the
system collapses on itself. I recall how
the late economist, Julian Simon, challenged biologist Ehrlich to pick a list
of natural resources that were going to diminish after one decade9. When the results came ten years later, Ehrlich’s
predictions were in error. The lesson
Simon taught Ehrlich and other pessimists is that capitalist systems adapt to
the problem of scarcity. Men and women use
their God given ability to think! When a
resource becomes less available, its price rises and provides incentive to
business men and women. They either
discover previously hidden stocks or they innovate to develop alternatives. The world has more available resources today
than the past and there is no reason not to predict that it will have even more
in the future. The pessimistic view is
naïve arithmetic and sometimes very disturbing because it supports abortion to limit
population growth’s impact on natural resource utilization10.
I appreciate the good intentions of McLaren, but intentions sometimes do
not translate into well thought-out ideas.
McLaren’s final chapters contain public policy prescriptions often
without understanding unintended consequences.
I have critiqued several in what I have written so far, but I would like
to critique one more because it is a good example of how well intentioned people
like McLaren might make critical mistakes.
He calls for fair trade, which involves forcing higher wages than market
conditions. If the policy is enacted,
some will receive higher wages but others lose employment opportunities. Firms will react to avoid increases in labor
costs by eliminating jobs because they are pressured by consumers and
competitors to keep prices low (by the way, a good thing for the poor).
Revisionism
There are too many errors in this book for unsophisticated readers. McLaren’s book has value in only to readers who
recognize the mistakes but are willing to learn about a position that springs
from ideology and a theological framework.
For me, the emerging church movement is enough to consider by itself
without flawed economics intertwined.
The article by Pettegrew differentiated the emerging church movement
into three groups. Relevants are those
who want to preserve the conventional church but adjust worship services to
include such things as storytelling to peak interest of postmodernists. Reconstructions want to go further and
develop non-traditional venues such as house churches. The first two have possibilities. According to Webber11, there has
been too much scientific assessment of scripture where instead the divine
narrative needs to be rediscovered.
Mills12 contends that teaching on the mystery of God does not
have to lead to revisionist propositions.
I agree, but non-traditional approaches should have accountability
through church overseers and also a solid network of well-trained clerical peers.
The third category is the revisionists, who challenge orthodoxy and
established doctrines of our faith. The
title of the book, Everything Must
Change, was my first clue that McLaren might be a revisionist. Reading the book sustained this suspicion,
and then I read some scholarly reviews from trusted theologians who have
examined McLaren’s writings and speeches.
John MacArthur13 for example asserts that McLaren questions
the clarity of scripture in his quest to relate to the postmodern culture. McLaren has it backwards, where scripture is
very clear especially as it describes the fundamentals of our faith. Another authority who I respect, apologist Norman
Geisler14, concludes that McLaren rejects the Bible as ultimate
authority.
I tried to confirm MacArthur and Geisler’s assertions for myself, so I looked
at an article by McLaren15 where he explains the meaning of John
14:6 when Jesus says he is the only way to the Father. This verse is uncomplicated to me, but he
needed 15 pages to interpret the verse. I
didn’t understand why something so clear needed to become so complicated, but
perhaps his writing appeals to postmodernists.
Then I recalled, “For a time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine, by according to their own desires, because they have itching ears
they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away
from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (II Tim. 4: 3-4).
At this stage, I am wondering if II Timothy applies to the revisionists within
the emerging church movement. However, I
must declare that with respect to the mixing economics and theology, I do not
have itching ears for the ideas presented in Everything Must Change.
References
2 - Pettegrew, http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj17h.pdf
3 – Lewis, print copy only, http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969
4 – McLaren, print copy only, http://www.amazon.com/Generous-Orthodoxy-Contemplative-Fundamentalist-Depressed-yet-Hopeful/dp/0310257476
5 - Moynihan, http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm
7- Environmental Kuznets Curve, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/pdfs&zips/PalgraveEKC.pdf
8 – Delong, http://econ161.berkley.edu/Econ_articles/Command_Corporations.html
9 – Kellard on Simon vs. Ehrlich, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=44
10 – Cook, http://www.quodlibet.net/cook-population.shtml
11 – Webber, print copy only, http://criswell.wordpress.com/2006/03/27/hello-world/
12 – Mills, Ibid. 10.
13 – MacArthur, http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj17g.pdf
14– Geisler, http://www.worldviewtimes.com/print.php?&ArticleID=3991
