Thoughts on Brian McLaren, Ramadan and the Anti-Christ.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, no, I am not suggesting that Brian is the Anti-Christ. (But the headline did get you here didn’t it?) This post was actually motivated by an article from World Net Daily.  Joel Richardson, a regular contributor to World Net and apparently an expert on end time events, posted some extensive comments on Brian McLaren’s observance of Ramadan.  To understand Brian’s reasons for observing the Muslim holiday, you are best served by reading his own words on his blog. I’ll come back to this later but first some thoughts concerning Mr. Richardson.

Joel’s article features references to his latest book entitled “The Islamic Antichrist” and subtitled “The Shocking Truth about the Real Nature of the Beast.” Now, I will give Mr. Richardson props. It takes brains and brawn to research and write. I believe that he is probably sincere in his efforts in the same way that I am sure McLaren is sincere in his. Still, sincerity is never the final measuring rod of an idea or book’s value and I consider both men to be misled in their approach. One misleads by playing on our sympathies and the other by playing upon our fears.

"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist." Martin Luther

Richardson is one of a large number of those who have written books concerned with the end times and specifically on the identity of the Anti-Christ. I’ve been around long enough to have seen this go through several versions but, let’s go back a bit further. Most early church and post-nicean writers were zeroing in on Rome and eventually, the Pope as the Man of Sin and the reformers made no bones about it! Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox  and John Wesley all promoted the view that the Papacy was indeed the guilty party. Over the years the culprit has been identified as Hitler,  Kissinger, even Ronald Regan! Type in “Who is the Antichrist?” into Google and you’ll get 3,410,000 results. Look up Antichrist on Amazon and  you will find a mind boggling collection including: The papacy, the anti-Christ of scripture: A sermon, delivered before the Synod of the German Reformed Church, in Philadelphia, October 18, 1853, by John F Mesick; Mussolini, is He The Antichrist? With Introductory Chapters on Nebuchadnezzar’s Image by Charles S Price (1929); Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? – (Jun 1988) by Robert W. Faid (He even had that red “mark” on his head!) and A Palace for the Antichrist: Saddam Hussein’s Drive to Rebuild Babylon and It’s Place in Bible Prophecy (Oct 1996) by Joseph Chambers This represents just a sample of thousands of books on the subject. All of these writers were very sincere in their intentions but the simple fact remains that the identity of the Anti-Christ, if indeed is a guessing game even for the most educated.

I found a book written by Ernest Angley of televangelism fame called "Raptured! A Novel on the Second Coming of the Lord" from 1950. So LaHaye wasn’t the first on the market..

So what do we make of current writers on the subject? I will give them the benefit of the doubt on their sincerity, but I also think we have to admit that these types of books predictably turn into bestsellers at Christian bookstores. The question asked by the disciples: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) fascinates us. Websites, books, seminars, charts, graphs and diagrams abound. Let’s face it, there is money to be made off that which fascinates us. Bookstores love end-times books and Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins and Hal Lindsey are rich because of it.  Add to our fascination and worry the element of fear rising from the threat of Islamic fanatics and the well intentioned and not so well intentioned capitalize on the alarm and create for themselves a steady stream of income. Mr. Richardson may be sincere but he taps into fear while adding yet another chapter to the unanswerable question of who or what the Antichrist may be.

Brian McLaren taps into something different. He taps into our sympathy, into our longing to be compassionate.

Brian attended the church I worked at in Fairfax between 1980 and 1985. I didn’t know him on any kind of personal level but being the worship leader of the church I discovered he remembered who I was when I emailed him a few years ago and suggested getting together for coffee. I had read some of his books and at the time I was wrestling with issues related to the church and postmodernism. I was interested in bouncing some ideas off of him and he graciously offered to meet but due to circumstances and my ADD, that appointment, regretfully, never materialized. Over the years I have watched Brian become a lightning rod for controversy. His books have provoked no small amount of dissension and due to his visibility and popularity, especially within emergent circles, much has been written both lauding and attacking him. In his efforts to reshape Christianity for a postmodern culture I believe he strays on to some very thin ice and in seeking to build bridges between belief systems, sacrifices the uniqueness of Christ crucified and risen as the only hope of the world.

Brian wrote the following wrote the following concerning his observance of Ramadan:

“Our main purpose for participating will be our own spiritual growth, health, learning, and maturity, but we also hope that our experience will inspire others to pray and work for peace and the common good, together with people of other faith traditions … as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago, we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.” (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff)

I appreciate Brian’s heart. Those who know me have heard me say repeatedly that the church has lost it’s influence because we have chosen to be prophetic without being compassionate. Our “coming close” to our neighbors, Muslim or otherwise, is vital. It is Biblical. It is the right thing to do. Assisting the poor, caring for the sick, caring for the environment and seeking justice are indispensable to any honest approach to Biblical living. But Brian’s comments give me pause.
Brian uses the term “faith tradition” in referencing Islam. Would he refer to Christianity as one of many “faith traditions?”  If so he would be technically correct but does he not run the risk of validating other traditions as being equal with Christianity? Let me be clear, I am not suggesting a society which treats people of other faiths as non equals with people of Christian faith. Civil rights belong to all people regardless of race, gender and creed. But I do think we need to be faithful to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) The Apostle Paul’s insistence on defending the gospel is unavoidable (Galatians 1:6-9) and cannot be set aside simply in the interest of conversation. Don’t we need to be open to conversation? Of course! But, the discourse should help us understand one another as we represent our gospel with integrity.

Brian’s reference to the Syrophonecian woman that suggests she somehow educated the Messiah is more than a stretch. The person overcoming their religious prejudice was the woman herself.  She was placing her faith in this Jewish man over and against the gods of her background. I’m not sure what Jesus learned from her. Being God incarnate, he was aware of what was in men’s hearts and being the Truth, there was no insight to be gained from her. Now, I am not the truth and I don’t know all things. I can learn from others and I should but using this encounter to sanction the observance of a religious festival and inadvertently endorsing beliefs that run contrary to God’s revealed truth, is a misguided notion.

I have come to a place of rest in God’s sovereignty and in faith that while my flesh may resist it, God’s wrath and justice are revelations of His love in the same way that the sacrifice of Christ is on our behalf. I make no apology for believing in the penal-substitutionary atonement of Christ and that it is by faith alone in Christ alone that we are saved. This is not the only truth about the atonement but it is the heart of it and can’t be removed without compromising the Gospel. That being said, I can identify in desiring a theology shaped by compassion rather than the other way around. I would love for there to be no hell, no eternal punishment, no lake of fire. I would love for all paths to lead to the same place. It would be great if all good folks went to heaven and only the really evil people had to live in a “hell” of their own making. I get it that people don’t want to be bothered with the cross as anything other than a symbol of Jesus showing us the lengths that love will go to in order to be, well, loving. In our pride He sits better as an example rather than a redeemer. Ultimately I believe that the theological positions of many within the emergent movement will lead to a universalism that betrays the gospel in favor of sympathy. Being generous in our orthodoxy is good if we mean generous of heart and humility but not when it comes to the sacrifice of foundational Christian belief.