The Logic of Intersubjectivity. Darren M. Slade
political activism (GSM, xi).50 Neo-Evangelicals are often hostile toward notions of social action and divergent viewpoints, becoming overly judgmental in the process (GO §6, 119). This offshoot of evangelical faith is synonymous with unquestioning sycophants of the Republican Party and the Religious Right (cf. TWLE).51
1.4 Problem Statement
With these definitions in mind, it becomes evident that McLaren believes the existentially intersubjective nature of Christianity (as defined above) has yielded to the fundamentalist tactics of neoconservatism and neo-Evangelicalism. Thus, McLaren endeavors to introduce a new paradigm through which people can approach faith in Christ. The problem, however, is that mainly conservative Christians either do not attempt to understand the socio-political rationale for his philosophy of religion or they misjudge it completely, resulting in vitriolic ad hominem attacks. This gap in understanding is exasperated when realizing that while very few writings give only passing reference to McLaren’s internal logic, the volumes of reactionary critiques against him are not fully accurate in their assessments. Oftentimes, they have failed to appreciate the nuances of McLaren’s actual belief system. This book will correct this gap in knowledge by answering two simple questions: if systematized, how does Brian McLaren hope to reform people’s approach to Christian faith and how did he come to this conclusion? Consequently, what is not widely recognized (and what this book will demonstrate) is fivefold:
1.McLaren adopts post-objective intersubjectivity (not subjectivity);
2.he expands upon Kierkegaardian existentialism (not fideism);
3.he emphasizes a constructivist epistemology (not relativism);
4.he integrates multivocal alterity (not philosophical pluralism);
5.and he cherishes Jamesian pragmatism (not nihilism).
1.4.1 Attacks on McLaren
McLaren once commented, “I’ve been shocked by the venom and unfairness of many responses. Often, it’s clear that they have not even read my books, or else they have only read them seeking to find fault, not really trying to understand what I’m saying.”52 Gerald Gauthier further comments, “His books have triggered a wave of criticism from fundamentalist Christians who view him and his work as a threat to the foundations of their faith. He’s been labelled a heretic and a son of Satan.”53 In many cases, these critics argue that McLaren has no allegiance to Christ (cf. GO §17, 260, 264).54 Many conservatives have dismissed him as a diabolical nonbeliever, a heretical liar, or a manipulative pagan trying to destroy the true gospel.55 Denny Burk remarks “[McLaren] has more in common with the spirit of antichrist than with the spirit of Jesus (1 John 4:3).”56 One North Carolina church even held a public book burning of McLaren’s literature.57 Tony Jones explains, “Entire Web sites [sic] are devoted to listing his heresies. Recently, Brian has been disinvited from several conferences at which he was scheduled to speak, usually after nasty letter-writing and blogging campaigns by his critics.”58 Intriguingly, however, McLaren concludes that these criticisms are an indication he is on the right path:
What did I expect when I wrote about ‘a new kind of Christian’ or ‘a new kind of Christianity’ or ‘a generous orthodoxy’—a standing ovation?. . . .Of course they would see anyone issuing such a call as a traitor, a threat, an outsider, a compromiser, an apostate, a revisionist, a heretic, and an infidel. Of course they would do all they could to marginalize, bypass, reject, discredit, and defund anyone advocating such radical change. Of course!. . . .If I were driven by the need to be right—or to be thought right by others—I would show how little I had experienced the liberation to which I was calling others! (GSM, 188‒89; emphasis in original)
What is argued here in this book is that the biggest failure of these reactionary critiques is a lack of understanding McLaren’s actual religio-philosophy (cf. GO §8, 138; WMRBW, 102). While people may continue to disagree with his conclusions, it is still possible to respect the reasoning process by which he approaches faith.59 Thus, to understand these vitriolic attacks, it is necessary to elaborate briefly on McLaren’s more controversial adherence to semper reformanda.
1.4.2 Introducing Semper Reformanda
McLaren recalls an incident when protestors distributed hundreds of flyers declaring him “dangerous” and “unbiblical.” He subsequently asked himself, “How did a mild-mannered guy like me get into so much trouble?” (NKOCY §1, 2‒3).60 The answer is simple: McLaren’s version of semper reformanda, which is his provoking belief that Christianity should continually change how it manifests within society (GO §12, 193).61 For instance, McLaren states, “We must never again preach Christianity or promote Christianity. Instead, we must seek to see, learn, and live [God’s] ways, which can never be owned or contained by any human label or organization.”62 Elsewhere, he remarks, “You have permission to redefine what it means to be a Christian. Other people might put the definition on you—you [have to] believe this, hate this—but you can say, ‘Well, you can call me whatever you want, but I’d like to become a more compassionate person’” (cf. NKOCY §Book Two, 159‒60).63 Accordingly, the specific problem that this book addresses is the identification of McLaren’s rationale behind his semper reformanda, particularly since he notes that it is this concept that causes him so many problems:
What’s gotten me into trouble, though, is my suspicion that a person can be a follower of the way of Jesus without affiliating with the Christian religion, and my simultaneous lament that a person can be accepted and even celebrated as a card-carrying member of the Christian club but not actually be a follower of the way of Jesus. And even worse, I’ve proposed that I would rather be a follower of the way of Jesus and not be affiliated with the Christian religion than the reverse. (FOWA §4, 33)
Nevertheless, because of the large amount of writings by McLaren and in response to his work, it is important to set limitations on the scope of this investigation.
1.4.3 Research Limitations
McLaren has an extensive writing career and presence online, most notably through his blog posts and other social media platforms (cf. AIFA, 155‒56; COOS1 §7, 89), which have generated a surplus of interactions with his work.64 Consequently, this study will consult McLaren’s many informal sources; yet, it will only prioritize his published work over other mediums with the assumption that his official publications reflect his most thought-out concepts. All other online material will be cited only if they introduce new content or help clarify McLaren’s overall philosophy of religion. As an academic study, however, this book does not intend to be an apologetic defense of or polemical attack against McLaren’s approach to faith. Instead, the investigation is merely a clarification of his philosophy of religion. Therefore, this study will address issues pertaining specifically to the academic study of the philosophy of religion, such as spiritual experiences, morality, metaphysics, and epistemology. More generally, the task of the philosophy of religion here is to provide a synoptic view of McLaren’s approach to Christian religion in a systematic fashion. Hence, this book will not provide an in-depth engagement with his theological inferences nor the assertions of his critics. However, a brief literature review is still needed to understand how others have interpreted McLaren’s ideas.
1.4.4 Literature Review
Since his earliest writings, numerous book reviews, editorials, magazine articles, conference papers, interviews, newspaper headlines, peer-reviewed journals, academic theses, dissertations, book chapters, and book publications have been written on McLaren and his affiliations.65 The following is a selective list of writings that typify the lack of attention to McLaren’s philosophy of religion and the reactionary attacks that have ensued.66 For instance, in the Master’s Seminary Journal, and later in the book, The Truth War, John MacArthur describes McLaren as a self-righteous hypocrite masquerading as a believer, declaring that anyone following him will not inherit eternal life because they must hate God and God’s truth (§8.3.1).67 In Spring 2008, the Christian Apologetics Journal devoted an entire issue to attacking leaders of Emergence Christianity. In one article, Thomas Howe offers an overtly hostile review of McLaren’s work, scoffing at the notion of him being orthodox, biblical, and evangelical (§6.1.1). Howe ends his review by accusing