To Come: Assessing the Theology of Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”
Because of some fancy footwork by my wonderful wife, Melinda, HarperOne is sending me a free copy of Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity. As promised I will begin reviewing it in the next few weeks, because I believe what he is saying in this book theologically is important enough to address.
Several people have already reviewed this work, and another has offered his own theological assessment. I hope to offer mine. While apparently Brian has come out in support of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, I am not convinced. He appears to be as Multiple-Personalitied as he is duplicitous (bad word choice) disingenuous, which is why I plan to take each of Brian’s 10 questions and theologically critique them. From what I have already read and others have said, his theology is a large departure from the historic Rule of Faith, which deeply saddens me. What I am looking for specifically is this:
- Is the Holy Scripture our authoritative revelation for understanding Christian (let alone Human) life, practice, and belief?
- Does God exist in Trinitarian form (i.e. Does Brian believe in the Trinity)?
- Is God the Creator intimately involved in Creation and above/outside/separate from it?
- Is Humanity as a whole rebelliously fallen and individually sinful?
- Is Jesus very Human and very God?
- Did Jesus Christ die/suffer in our place on the Cross in order to do something with our sin nature?
- Did God physically resurrect Jesus from the dead?
- Is Jesus Christ exclusively both Lord and Messiah?
- Will Jesus Christ come again as Judge, to judge the living and the dead?
In a review, Tim Challies bittingly writes:
Here, in A New Kind of Christianity it’s as if McLaren is screaming “I hate God!” at the top of his lungs. (I wish I wouldn’t have included this part of the quotation, because I think this “I hate God!” charge goes too far…)And swarms of Christians are looking at him with admiration and saying, “See how that guy loves God?” I don’t know what McLaren could do to make the situation more clear. In fact, his book is nearly indistinguishable from many of the de-conversion narratives that are all the rage today. Compare it with Bart Ehrman’s God’s Problem and you’ll see many of the same arguments and the same misgivings; you’ll find, though, that Ehrman is at least more honest. He at least has the integrity to walk away from faith altogether rather than reinventing God in his own image.
This “admiration” is why I am writing my own assessment. Thousands are admiring Brian and others for the “different” and “new” Christianity they are constructing. Like we are seeing in Doug Pagitt’s own theological endeavour
Hopefully I can shed as much light on this construction effort as others are.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Jeremy, do you really mean to call Brian 'duplicitous'? Perhaps if you think he's being contradictory you could say 'confused.' To me this blurs the lines that you've been trying to uphold with Pagitt; that is, making your critique about the ideas and not the person. 'Duplicitous' is ascribing motives to Brian, like 'he really doesn't believe that God is Three-in-One, but he's saying it to confuse & lure more sheep.' Even Bill Kinnon, who has had scathing things to say about Brian's content, has clarified that he's not talking about Brian personally, but the ideas.
Thanks for the reminder, Mike! I caught the poor word choice just before you commented
I've changed it…
While I’m looking forward to this series as well, I’d respectfully suggest that if the starting point is “McLaren hates God!” we are not on our way to anything remotely resembling a helpful conversation. I get that you’re just quoting Tim and may not share his sentiments fully, but if that’s where this is going, count me out. I wouldn’t want to waste time having a conversation with someone (like Tim) who thinks theological differences must mean I’m a God-hater. It’s a totally absurd and ridiculous insinuation (and that’s the very, very charitable way of putting it).
To say that Tim thinks "theological differences must mean I'm a God-hater" is irresponsible. Tim has made no such sweeping statement and has modeled charity and respectful disagreement for years at his blog. You have to read Tim's reasoning for reaching that conclusion to understand why he would say that in this instance. He by no means writes off everyone with a theological difference as a God-hater.
"In this book we finally see where McLaren’s journey has taken him; it has taken him into outright, rank, unapologetic apostasy. He hates God. Period." That's not exactly my idea of "charity" and "respectful disagreement." Neither would be accusing him (and by extension, those whose faith has been impacted by his work) of creating "a faith made in the image of a man who despises God and who is hell-bent on dragging others along with him as he becomes his own god."
Greg,
I did not say that that particular comment was itself particularly charitable. I said that he has a long history of modeling charity and respectful disagreement. Your characterization of Tim as one who "thinks theological differences must mean I'm a God-hater" is much less charitable and much less founded in reality that Tim's comments concerning McLaren. Tim actually develops why he makes that statement, as opposed to your sweeping assertion about Tim.
Gotcha – I just wasn't sure what you meant. I look forward to reading your review once you get the book!
Yikes. That bandwagon is getting full, isn't it? "I Hate God" was clearly what McLaren wanted to communicate. There is no overstatement at all.
It is incredible how shrill this blogosphere gets so suddenly. I remember hearing Rob Bell at a Zondervan conference once. During a Q&A time, someone asked him point blank his stance on inerrancy. He quoted, verbatim, II Timothy 3:16 as his answer. This was apparently the wrong answer since it produced a collective grown from the audience. Next day, the blogosphere confirmed that Rob Bell was a heretic and didn't believe in the Bible.
Honestly, I quit reading anything McLaren wrote after Generous Orthodoxy. I joined the crowd in calling for McLaren to actually take a stand on some issues.
[ smarmy sarcasm ]
Now that he has taken a stand , he apparently hates God. I won't read the book since I have such a succinct summary available to me.
[ /smarmy sarcasm ]
Fair enough Corey! BTW I wish I wouldn't have included that part of the quotation, because that's not the part that saddens me. I also think Challies went to far with that line. Anyway, made that notation above and thanks for pointing that out.
Shocking that even a man's confession of belief is not accepted "While apparently Brian has come out in support of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, I am not convinced."
This certainty of other theological failures is quickly going off the rails. To quote that great pop-icon, George Jetson, "Get me off this crazy thing".
This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post on all of this a few days ago. That statement you quote is exactly indicative of what I suspected all along: that putting forward a "rule" like the creeds (or scripture or whatever) is really, the last instance, a foil for elevating one's own interpretation as the norm and circumscribing the entire tradition, in all its diverse and variant forms, to a singular understanding.
Jeremy – you SERIOUSLY expect folks outside your "following" to believe your review will be "fair and balanced"? Don't you think your friend Wittmer did enough of a trash-job?
Question: I no longer can read the creeds in a literal sense, but I am just now starting to understand them in a mystical sense. Am I a Christian in your view or not? Just curious.
Jeff,
I am curious, what exactly do you mean by "mystical"? Why do you no longer believe in the Creeds in a literal sense? What about them do you not take literally?
As I've already said, I believe that belief in "Nicene Christianity" is the minimum necessary to be a Christian. If, for instance, you do not believe that God literally raised Jesus Christ from the dead—to which both the Creeds and the Holy Scriptures specifically testify—but only "mystically" then no I do not believe that you are a Christian. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is literally both God and Man, you are not a Christian. That's just not you, that's anyone.
Hello again Jeremy. While I find the Creeds a helpful starting point for discussions of Christianity, and obviously there are important theological issues locked up in them, I have to respectfully, gently push back on this slightly.
I personally have little interest in deconstructing the Creeds, I find them sufficient despite the fact they are human documents, forged in a crucible of politics and philosophical debates of their day, to capturing an important core of the Christian faith.
But I'm also not in favor of using them as they, and other teachings have been used for so many centuries — as hammers, rhetorical or literal to claim the right to sever people from the Body of Christ.
I look at the Gospels, at the words and life of Jesus, and I wonder how he would react. I watch him patiently help Thomas to find the proof he needs– extolling the faith of those who will believe without seeing, but by no means excluding those who will have the same struggles as one of the 12 in the future. I look at Matthew 25, and his radical inclusion of people who compassionately served him unknowingly. I look at his own work, which seemed more centered on glorifying God and inspiring faith than by drawing attention to himself. God raised him up (Philippines), but only after he emptied himself completely. Can we as Christians dare to put tight hedges around Christ's work in the world 2000 years later, if it proved unpredictable and radically diverse even in his own life?
I'll note this in a few other places as I catch up with your later posts– but I have to respectfully also note the differing relationships even some of the most conservative churches have had with their creeds over the years.
Since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church not only directly challenged some of its "outside the Church, no salvation" teachings, but also the first lines of the Athanasian Creed, by stating salvation, even if still effected by Christ is not limited to those holding the "Catholic Faith" (very close to your rule of faith). One of the oldest branches of "orthodox" Christianity has accepted a more complex view of salvation, and thus pushed aside 1 of the 3 historic creeds. Certainly not without protest– and not without internal wrestling, as Benedict and even John Paul II certainly still encouraged the importance of the fullness of Salvation in the Catholic Church. But this is a BIG issue– in large part inspired by the Church's own sins towards the Jewish people for millenia (the Holocaust was a huge factor in the mind of some of the architects behind this aspect of Vatican II), but also many other factors.
I look forward to reading your McLaren material, since I'm more familiar with his writings (and working my way through his book now). But on at least some points, as a few blogs out there have pointed out, McLaren's views may very well be well echoed by various positions of many theologians and figures of the past century- including some of those of the Catholic Church itself too. I hope you won't shortchange this complexity– and as someone pretty versed in the different "theologies of religion/salvation" schools, I'm happy to bring some of my awareness to the table too.
The Athanasius lines I'm thinking of, though I assume you are familiar:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
"Baptism of desire" was more formally set out in the "Inclusive," though still Christo-centric salvation seen in Nostrae Atatae, Lumen Gentium, and other documents. Lumen Gentium had statements which seem radical even today. Its also interesting that in the inter-Christian distinction, the Catholic Church saw Baptism as the central uniting factor, rather than the creeds or a specific rule of faith (though of course this is just one document).
Chapter II of Lumen Gentium:
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
To me, it means an experiential awareness. So rather than using the word "believe" in the creed, I would use the word "experience". For example, instead of "I believe in God the Father…", I would say "I experience God the Father…" which then will make me pause to reflect on WHERE I have seen/experienced him during my day. I like what Richard Rohr says on this:
"The longer I have tried to follow Jesus, the more I can really say that I no longer believe in Jesus. I know Jesus. I know him because I have often taken his advice, taken his risks, and it always proves itself to be true!"
As to the literal reading, I personally struggle with many things within the creed in that sense, including a necessity of ONLY a literal virgin birth and ONLY a physical resurrection. I am coming to realize that "virgin" can have an even deeper, richer meaning if you release it from the restraints of a literal-only reading. So I am coming to read the creed in a both/and stance. A literal virgin birth? Perhaps. But something BEYOND that and DEEPER than that? Absolutely! Could Mary have been called a "virgin" simply because she was the absolute "perfect receiver" by saying she has not strings attached – “Let it be done unto me” (Luke 1:38)? Should WE then also be "virgins" in that sense in becoming the perfect "string-free" receiver for Christ? So, to clarify, I am NOT one that is either/or – one who instead of accepting a literal reading, scrapping it all. I am a BOTH/AND – reading it literally AND metaphorically, and resting in the tension of the unresolved state. I hope this makes sense.
Here is a Celtic Creed that I really connect to. Would my assent to this creed make me a Christian or not?
We believe in God above us,
maker and sustainer of all life,
of sun and moon, of water and earth,
of male and female.
We believe in God beside us,
Jesus Christ, the word made flesh,
born of a woman, servant of the poor,
tortured and nailed to a tree.
A man of sorrows, he died forseaken.
He descendend into the earth
to the place of death.
On the third day he rose from the tomb.
He ascended into heaven,
to be everywhere present,
and His kingdom will come on earth.
We believe in God within us,
the Holy Spirit of Pentecostal fire,
life-giving breath of the Church,
Spirit of healing and forgiveness,
source of resurrection and of eternal life.
Amen