Has the world seen all that the Christian faith has to offer?
Posted by Don Bryant on November 25, 2010
In other words, does the first 2000 years of Christian history exhaust what the Christian faith has to offer the world?
This reminds me of the argument of Yogi Berra with an umpire in which he remarked, “Is this it or are you going to get any better?”
Brian McLaren asserts that the narrative can be improved on and offer to the world a substantially better Gospel than the one of western churches. See here.
“the Christian faith as practiced by conservative Catholic and Protestant Christians in the United States is framed within a mega-story that is actually foreign to and incompatible with Jesus and his good news of the kingdom of God.”
That’s quite an assertion. Covers a lot of territory. The blessings that have come to the world through the “western” version of Christianity are immense. Immense. Read D James Kennedy’s “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born.” McLaren is arguing against the “soul sorting” narrative of penal substitutionary “theory” as having pride of place in explaining Jesus. (Sou sorting is the view that souls at the end are sorted into those who will go to heaven and those who will go to hell). I call it theory here. JI Packer says it is not a theory. It is actually a description of what literally transpired in Jesus – a propitiation of God and expiation of sin through the bleeding and broken body of Jesus.
After so immense a good that western Christianity has been, McLaren itches to discard it and claims that the western version is a small cage in which we have trapped Jesus.
“There’s a whole new generation of Christians coming up who will never fit in the existing paradigms and structures of Christianity. They are having to rediscover and re-create new and ancient practices for the development of their spiritual lives, and I hope this book can be a truly helpful resource in that expansive process.”
The number of false assumptions in these two sentences could fill an article or two in a journal. But mostly what occurs to me is the arrogance. 2,000 years after Christ, McLaren is going to develop a new metanarrative? I don’t question that there is new light to be shed. I do question McLaren’s replacement paradigm. Everyone already knows that McLaren belongs to the past. I can hear the yawns. This kind of language and critical stance simply puts McLaren in the place of unbelief. He doesn’t believe the Tradition delivered. That’s okay. But he can’t claim the story as his own, say he doesn’t believe it, come up with a different one and call it Christianity.
JohnCW said
why is it arrogant? – why is it any more arrogant than any other theologian? who is to say that you an McLaren aren’t still in the early church? If Christianity lasts for another 10,000 years, I have no doubt that the current church will be viewed that way. I’m not saying that McLaren has that kind of lasting power, but every generation of theologians has taken the story and made it their own. I could say the exact same thing about the protestant reformation, the formation of the catholic church, the 2nd century Christians….even the writers of the bible were interpreting their experience of Jesus and writing stories that fit their new theology. As I see it, McLaren stands directly in the line of Christian theologians experiencing, reinterpreting, and redefining the story of Jesus. If Christian theology is only a historical study, when do you draw the line? Is it drawn before the protestant reformation? before the shift in christianity’s view of slavery? Is it drawn be the canonization of scripture? I agree with Spong that “Christianity must change or die”. If the story of Jesus cannot evolve to withstand moral development, scientific knowledge, or individual experience then theology will indeed become a study of history b/c christianity will no longer exist.
Don Bryant said
At some point Christianity changes into non-Christianity and ceases to be Christian. It cannot be anything. And therein is the debate.
JohnCW said
I agree that at a certain point it stops being christianity. I just can’t see how Mclaren falls outside the gates. Isn’t he doing the same thing that the protestant reformers before him, the catholic church before them, the church fathers before them, the Gospel writers before them, or St. Paul before them…..or any of the non-canonical scriptures or the hertical church fathers and heritical reformers did in parrallel to all of these men. Inventing a theology and religion loosly based around a failed apocoloptic messianic rabbi?
I know you think you have the right version, but I hope you can see how silly it is to condemn McLarren for doing the very thing your faith is based upon.
Don Bryant said
I don’t think Protestantism did the same thing McLaren sees himself as doing. John Henry Newman in his “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” asserts there is certainly an embryonic form of Christianity which develops in history. He accuses Protestants of wanting to return to the embryo form of the faith rather than the adult form which requires development. There is a lot about this argument with which I agree. I am of the opinion that McLaren’s views are not transitional forms of Christianity but of another kind. I certainly reserve the right not to accept another’s proclamation of the name Christian as ipso facto a certainty that it is. That it uses the name Jesus, apostles, Bible, etc., proves no necessary organic relationship. McLaren’s assertion is not that this or that doctrine is mistated or understood but that for 2,000 years the church has gotten the metanarrative wrong. It is almost as if the church was never right apostolic in its understanding of the Gospel. This is absurd and irrational. While you might not accept the truth which Christianity claims that it knows, surely you can see McLaren cannot claim continuity when there is none. Of course, if it is all nonsense, who even cares and we are just talking about whose myth is “truer.” Would be absurd, wouldn’t it?
Don Bryant said
By the way in what way is Jesus a failed apocalyptic messianic rabbi? Even if he did not rise from the dead, misunderstood himself, and was as other men are, the revolution begun under his inspiration could not be labeled a “failed” thing. One thing Jesus is not is a no account Jewish rabbi who was put back in the box after his 33 years were done. Abraham Lincoln might have thought he was god as well as president, but for all that we wouldn’t call him a failure.
johnCW said
“He accuses Protestants of wanting to return to the embryo form of the faith rather than the adult form which requires development.”
In some ways this is true, but at the same time the reformation created a whole new theology and reinterpreted Paul to fit their development. I’d even say McLaren thinks his theology goes back to the “real” message of Jesus. Part of the problem [as I see it] is that christians are very comfortable taking their own personal experience with the living Christ and elevating it to the absolute truth. In this way I see McLaren in the same light as St. Paul. Paul was a pharisee who was freed from slavery from the law so he interpreted Jesus within that framework.
“Of course, if it is all nonsense, who even cares and we are just talking about whose myth is “truer.” Would be absurd, wouldn’t it?”
Yes and No – from my current perspective this IS how I feel about theological argument, but that’s not the thrust of my argument. My argument is about special pleading. It’s a view I held when I was still a christian and really I feel like all of my religious arguments come to this point. If the early church was free to create a theology based on the historical Jesus, then by what authority is McLaren denied the same ability. If Don Bryant is free to define the lines of Christianity, again McLaren should be free to do the same as there is no authority on the matter. One cannot argue “Yes, but it’s different b/c i’m right” One might say it, but it’s special pleading. Once the discussion has gone there, it’s over.
“McLaren’s assertion is not that this or that doctrine is misstated or understood but that for 2,000 years the church has gotten the meta-narrative wrong.”
hmmm…Claiming that the religiously invented meta narrative is wrong and that we should focus on loving God and loving people…that reminds me of something that someone might have said about 2000 years ago.
“One thing Jesus is not is a no account Jewish rabbi ”
If you believe the NT authors, which I don’t, Jesus claimed he claimed the end of the world would happen in the current generation. How many years need to pass before you would admit that apocalyptic theology of the Christian Jesus is failed? or are you free to reinterpret it to mean whatever you like? That’s what I meant by “failed”. Many apologies if that was unclear.
I think the historical Jesus had a huge impact on the world. As you say, that’s not contingent on any of the recorded stories actually being true, but the impact is undeniable. Even if there was no historical Jesus [a view I don't hold] the impact of the stories is undeniable.