Thoughts on Erwin McManus’s Talk at the Global Leadership Summit



















Let us go and do likewise.

11 thoughts on “Thoughts on Erwin McManus’s Talk at the Global Leadership Summit

  1. Crazy thing is your “exegesis” of the text is EXACTLY what Erwin was getting at today.

    You said it,
    “Did he [Solomon] literally mean there is no purpose in life and that literally nothing new ever happens?” NO!!! (If it’s not to be taken literally then it means it’s not literal right?)

    “Moreover, has any respected biblical scholar or pastor ever assumed that’s what he meant?” Your answer was no, but that was because of your qualifier “respected biblical scholar or pastor.”

    Erwin said today how he went all over and heard pastors, preachers and the like basically butcher the meaning of this passage–assuming that in fact Solomon did mean what he said. Otherwise Solomon would have been wrong. And no one would dare go out on a limb and say that. Thus they would leave people helpless and hopeless to the possibilities of embarking upon anything new; not to even mention being used by God to bring about anything new for the future.

    Are we to go around teaching people that life is meaningless? Should we go around teaching people that they shouldn’t aspire to be used by the almighty Creator to create something new? Or should we teach that there’s a way for life to have meaning and for new things to be created, and then show them this way? Is it not wrong and criminal even, to teach people that life is meaningless and that nothing new can ever happen and that was been will always be, when God tells us through the Apostle Paul that He, God, makes us into a new creation, new creatures? Or should teach people in fact that it is not true that what’s always been will always be? That there are in fact new things happening under the sun (son)? That life can have meaning?

    I ask again, haven’t people for years butchered that text and left people feeling hopeless that there’s no possibility of anything new happening under the sun? Without giving them an alternative? Luring them into a life of apathy and mediocrity?

    Was Solomon’s statement that there is nothing new under the sun, apart from God, true/right/correct? Undeniably YES!!! Funny thing is, that’s not what Solomon said in the text. He didn’t include the qualifier “apart from God.” So then, was Solomon’s statement that there is nothing new under the sun true/right/correct? Or was it wrong?


  2. Perrin, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    What I am arguing for, and what Erwin said, is not the same. Ecclesiastes is a book that shows how life lived for satisfaction in things (some even good things!) is a wasted life. All is vain if God is not treasured above all else. Did he talk about Jesus making people a new creation? Of course! Do I affirm that and that God makes things new? Of course! The problem is that Erwin flat out said that Solomon was wrong and left it at that.

    If Erwin would have come back at the end with a twist and said, “But you know what? Solomon actually isn’t wrong. He’s very right. Life is meaningless and there is nothing new…when life is lived in a mud-pie eating slum. That’s your own selfish, boring, old hat story. You see, outside of God’s story there is no redemption and life and creativity. There is no re-creation. There is only the stench of death.”

    But he never said that. He never said, “Solomon actually isn’t wrong.” And that’s the problem. The problem is that Christian “pastor” said a biblical author is wrong. He left 180,000 people open to the possibility that if you see something that doesn’t coincide with your particular persuasion, you can say they’re wrong and interpret the text anyway you want. That is extremely dangerous.


  3. I’m with you on this. What bothers me most is that WCA has such a gleaming reputation for excellence in so many areas. Why not in Scriptural exposition??

    Mcmanus is very gifted in so many areas, but the way he treated the text reveals an ignorance in principles of “rightly dividing the Word.” Did he consider context or genre? It seems that he did not.

    I am more comfortable with secular managers speaking at the LS than with pastors who can create confusion re: Scriptural inspiration.


  4. Yes. Our church was a host church. I enjoyed this year more than last.

    I was also impressed with Bill Hybels’ admission that his ministry is unique, in sort of a *bad* way. Appreciated that he recognized the Jeremiah’s of the Christian world, who remain faithful, even though they will hardly be known this side of the Judgment Seat. I never thought I would hear that from him, and I am glad he took the time to recognize it.


  5. I continue to beg to differ. Erwin did consider genre and context. That’s the way he came to the conclusion he did. He just didn’t tell you that. Is that “criminal?” I don’t think so. But I can understand why some would think so.

    But answer me these questions, since you haven’t answered ANY of my other questions. With true or false please. No qualifiers, no explanations. Just true or false.

    1. Is the statement there is nothing new under the sun a true or false statement?

    2. Did Erwin not explain that there’s a way, through Jesus for us to experience and create something new?

    3. Does Solomon not explain later in Ecclesiates that there is an alternative to the meaningless life?


  6. Perrin,

    I’ve already answered all three of those questions in my original post.

    And as Lance already alluded to, Erwin made no such explicit statement that Solomon explained there is an alternative, completely ignoring genre and context. I watched intently, waiting for Erwin to put in the “twist” ending saying, “Solomon is actually right, there is an alternative to a meaningless life,” but he did not say that. He gave the alternative, but left Solomon under the bus he threw him under in the first 10 minutes.


  7. James,

    Thanks for clearing this up. When I heard it originally, I laughed at his wife’s comment, but his way of interpreting it bothered me. It was like wearing your t-shirt inside out but not knowing how to fix it. If we don’t fix it, everyone will be wearing their t-shirts in that new creative way because after all, E.M. did it, and he was at L.S.


  8. I found this article late in the game. Better late than never, I guess. Great piece, James. You are spot on. I used to attend Erwin’s church. You did not get it wrong…he means what he says, “Solomon was/is wrong.” I believe Solomon was/is right, however. (Is that a clear enough of an answer for you Perrin?)

    McManus has some very strange theology that he uses sparingly to his advantage (gains popularity with the disenfranchised) and likes to try and stir things up. Not for the sake of driving home biblical truths, more because it gains attention like a t-shirt being worn inside-out (thanks for that analogy Mindi).

    Strange how Perrin is able to discern that Erwin in fact did, “…consider genre and context. That’s the way he came to the conclusion he did. He just didn’t tell you that.” That is the Mosaic sycophant factor kicking in. Erwin has his minions trolling the internet to challenge anyone that questions his t-shirt wearing habits.

    Until people begin requesting their money back from events like this, because they do not like paying for heresy to be publicly broadcast, the Erwin’s of the world will have free reign. I’m just saying.


  9. Excellent critique….i have heard Erwin hundreds of times and am sad to see how the world has enticed him….sometimes we dislike the passages and persons in the bible that reflects are inner core.


Comments are closed.