By: Chris Walker

14 March 2005 The Person of Christ: Why Brian McLaren's wrongly separates the person of Christ from the message of Christ

astor and author Brian McLaren (Recently named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals of the last century) has said something worth repeating. He wrote in The Church in Emerging Culture that, "If Christianity has anything to say at all, if it has a message that is worth repeating at all, then at the core is Christ." That's true - our focus must be on Christ, and as believers, we should rejoice in every opportunity we have to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ. It is also true that in the church today, we might do well to examine how Christ-focused we truly are.

However, these considerations slip to background as McLaren immediately defines what he means by putting Christ at the core. He proceeds, "And not just a facet of Christ or an idea about Christ, not just a theory about Christ's birth and death or resurrection or teaching or deity or humanity, but Christ himself". What exactly does McLaren mean by a "theory" about Christ's birth, deity, teaching, death, and resurrection that is not at the core of the Christian's message? If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is, and must necessarily be, a message about Christ's birth, deity, teaching, death, and resurrection. But McLaren draws what he sees as an important distinction between the person of Christ and the message about Christ. In other words, there is a pattern of acceptance, peace, justice, and (most importantly) love of one's neighbor that is embodied in who Jesus is, but is not necessarily tied strictly to what Jesus said, or what those after Jesus said about him. If one has a passion for what he believes, and shows love for people around him, that is the important thing (since he's following the person of Jesus), rather than a specific doctrine about what Jesus said or did. This distinction is both unscriptural and dangerous.

The danger of this teaching begins with the fact that it is impossible to know the person of Christ apart from the message that He preached. Jesus revealed Himself to us by becoming flesh, dwelling among us, teaching us, and dying for us. It is those who followed and lived with Jesus who exhorted people to follow the message He taught. The story of Jesus is precisely that God became man at a specific point in history; that he lived a sinless life, teaching, healing, and performing miracles; that He suffered and died for our sins; that He rose from the dead on the third day, and now proclaims salvation to all who place their trust in His shed blood. This person of Christ cannot be separated from the specific task He came to accomplish and the specific message He proclaimed in the process.

Any attempt to separate who Jesus is as a person from His message or doctrine means that He will be something different for each time and culture. This is exactly the conclusion McLaren wants to come to, but it is exactly this relative (albeit "relevant") conclusion that destroys both the message and the person of Christ. The message of Christ cannot and does not change from culture to culture and from century to century. The message of Christ is one faith for eternal life, offered to you and to all who are far off, in His blood shed on the cross.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the apostles proclaimed a specific message about Christ. At the very beginning of the church, in Acts 2, Peter stood before thousands and proclaimed a specific message about who Jesus was, what Jesus had done, and a specific response required of the listeners. Acts says that the new believers "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (v. 42). In Acts 17, the Bereans are commended for thoroughly searching the Scriptures to verify the apostles' preaching. Paul exhorts Timothy to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2-3).

Paul was not only concerned about preaching the word about Christ, but he was concerned with rebuking, exhorting, and teaching - all of which are important because the message about Christ was not a vague list of principles formed from examining Christ's life that could be applied many different ways. No, Christ preached a specific word that requires the believer to know the truth, to convince others of that truth, and to rebuke those who oppose the truth. In fact, Paul goes so far as to say to the church at Corinth, that if they deny that Christ actually rose from the dead, then the very foundation of their faith is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Hardly a statement of one who was concerned about an example of a person, but not the message of that person. And when the apostles did disagree on the message of Christ, they came together to resolve the matter. In Acts 15 Peter rebukes the other disciples for their view on circumcision, and they send a letter to the surrounding churches clarifying the truth of Christ's teaching.

In fact, it is only through this specific message about Christ that the sinner, dead in his sins, can come to Christ. It is not enough to live a life that vaguely echoes good things that are like good things Jesus did. McLaren would disagree, writing in A New Kind of Christian, "The bigger circle of the kingdom represents God's work in the world at large--God's concern for the environment, God's work with people of other religions, God's identification with the poor and oppressed…that sort of thing". (See the Evangel Society review of the book.) And it is for this reason that McLaren recently argued that the movie Hotel Rawanda, in which a hotel manager shows compassion to people in need, was more Christian than The Passion. But McLaren misses the point. While good works, love for your brethren and neighbors, and generosity to the poor are certainly characteristics of the believer, and indeed the fruit of a believer, only trusting in the saving blood of Christ will lead to salvation.

While buying dinner for a poor family is certainly something God commands us to do, passing out an infinite number of turkey dinners at Thanksgiving does not in itself bring us any closer to Christ. In fact, the Bible has many examples of people who had a zeal for God (the Israelites - Romans 10:2; the Greeks, Acts 17:22), but still needed the gospel. We are saved by grace alone, through faith, not of works (or anything in ourselves), lest we should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

But perhaps even more dangerous is McLaren's proposal that God works with people of other religions. McLaren tells a story of an orthodox Jew who was imprisoned for protecting a Palestinian man from being unfairly beaten. McLaren suggests that "God is proud" of this man, too, even though he didn't "say a prayer". In fact, throughout his writings, McLaren emphasizes that God can work through people of many religions. But this undermines the entire message of the gospel. Christ is the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). And Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). Again remember Paul in Acts 17 - "I perceive that in all things you are very religious"…but that was not enough; the Greeks needed Christ.

By ignoring the words of Christ and of the apostle, McLaren immediately calls into question important beliefs, from the inerrancy and adequacy of Scripture, to the nature of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, justification by grace through faith, and the nature of God's justice. In his attempt to focus on the person of Jesus, McLaren actually undermines the very reason for which Jesus became a person and the very work Jesus did as a person.

The irony of McLaren's argument is that it is precisely the message of Christ that leads to the person of Christ. Whoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life - and what is eternal life? That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (Jn 17:3). But as Paul makes clear in Romans chapter 10, this belief is not "rethinking" who Jesus was (McLaren's definition of repentance) and deciding to be kind like Jesus was kind. No, Paul talks about a specific message, and asks, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:14,17). The progression here is clear: the word - dare I say the message? - of God is heard, leading to belief in Christ, by which we are saved.

And for those who did believe, there was a reason the apostles urged the New Testament church to hold fast to doctrine, to search the Scriptures, to be discerning as to their doctrine. For only when the believer knows the specific reason for his hope that he stands firm, and it is only when the church continues in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship (Acts 2:42) that it will continue to grow in strength and number. To try and reach the person of Christ while bypassing the doctrine of Christ, that doctrine which the apostles also preached, can only lead to Christians who do not know what they believe, and a Church that lacks a firm foundation. So much for a message worth repeating.