The Logic of Intersubjectivity. Darren M. Slade
who wrote this Introduction” (NKOC §Intro., xxvi).89 In a separate novel, however, McLaren explains, “Nearly all [the book’s] conversations were drawn from the many real-life conversations I have participated in over recent years” (SWFOI §Pref., xiv).90 Therefore, applying the “principle of coherence” derived from historical Jesus research, this study will presume McLaren agrees with a fictional character’s contention if it coheres to one of his signed discourses.91
Underlying this method is a distinction between the historical (or “empirical”) author and the aesthetic (“implied”) persona of McLaren’s veiled arguments. Narrative literary critics often argue that the “implied author” of a story can never truly be identical to the “empirical author” because the book’s narrator, as well as the varied fictional characters, embody different cultural and emotional dimensions. The implied author becomes the voice behind the story, who regulates which information to consider, which questions to ask, and which value judgments to accept concerning particular plot points and ethical decisions. Stated differently, McLaren reasonably expects his audience to allow the embedded persona of his novels to guide readers toward self-reflection over their own beliefs. This tactic allows readers to appreciate the ethical-religious world of the plot’s narrative and to understand the perspective of its characters, even if the reader does not ultimately agree with the book’s conclusions.92
1.7 Summary
Ultimately, McLaren contends that there exists an incongruity between what Christians profess to be true and what Christians demonstrate to be true in their personal lives. For him, conventional paradigms have capitulated to modernity, which has tarnished the way believers express their faith in both word and deed. Here, conventional paradigms have prioritized arguments about God so much that believers now cognitively declare their religion “true” but live as though their faith is not real enough to transform them personally. As McLaren explains,
What many experience in religious communities on a popular level seems closer to the opposite of love. Religion as they experience it promotes conflict and selfishness rather than generosity and otherliness. It teaches them to prioritize their own personal salvation and religiosity over the well-being of others. It teaches practices and beliefs that make some fear, dehumanize, and judge others. (NS §2, 15)
In this sense, Christianity has become more of a culture-religion than an embodied relationship with the divine. Thus, the thesis of this book is that McLaren is an abductive rationalist and phenomenological empiricist, who deliberately creates controversy through rhetoric and satirical provocations to stimulate the rethinking of conventional paradigms, such as when he questions whether God himself is an atheist (GI, 200). Here, McLaren is not anti-conventionalism; he is simply post-conventionalism, meaning he wants to retain what is good in older paradigms while jettisoning what is bad.
Significantly, both conservative and postmodern Christians alike object to McLaren’s ideas and his provocative writing style. The problem for many is that McLaren is deliberately ambiguous and controversial in his writings, which often leads to distortions about his actual beliefs, such as when McLaren writes, “As I get older, I confess that talking about God is getting increasingly uncomfortable, even painful at times” (GI, 178). Moreover, he purposely complicates his philosophy in order to be scandalous, capitalizing on inflammatory rhetoric in order to capture his readers’ attention. One problem is that many of his critics do not realize he is intentionally engaging in generalizations, irony, and humor when critiquing conventional Western Christianity. Thus, his critics often complain that he merely reflects an increasingly hostile culture without the proper nuance of actual scholarship.
In short, what is argued here is that McLaren’s philosophy of religion suggests a faith-based intersubjective relationship with the divine ought to result in an existential appropriation of Christ’s religio-ethical teachings. When subjectively internalized, this appropriation will lead to the assimilation of Jesus’ kingdom priorities, thereby transforming the believer’s identity into one that actualizes Jesus’ kingdom ideals.93 To accomplish this new paradigm, McLaren enlarges empirical categories to include mysticism and divergent theological perspectives. In other words, numinous experiences become a type of “empirical” evidence for McLaren because they involve sensory data. Since many derive their religious beliefs from these sensory encounters, McLaren seeks to utilize both his own intuition and experiences, as well as the intuition and experiences of others, in developing a new philosophy of Christian religion.
In axiomatic structure, which will be elaborated and clarified in the following chapters, McLaren’s religio-philosophy is divisible into two main sections:
A.An authentically beautiful and plausible Christian belief system that is both objectively true and subjectively meaningful will derive from the faith-based paradoxy of the incarnation, signifying that
i.Jesus Christ is the ineffable embodiment of transcendent Truth,
a.who stimulates divergent theological perspectives to correct the myopia of human dogmatism, thereby compelling
b.an intersubjective relationship with the Creator and his creation
c.in pursuit of existentially embodying Christ’s kingdom values,
ii.which reprioritizes Christianity from a system of doctrinal esoterica to a suprarational organism that
a.evolves over time as people’s experiential intimacy with Christ deepens their spiritual knowledge of the divine.
B.To evaluate whether a Christian belief system is beautiful and plausible, its proponents ought to attain
i.firsthand corroboration,
ii.a transformative internalization,
iii.and an emulative actualization of Christ’s incarnation,
a.with the goal of creating human solidarity in defiance of an unjust and unequal status quo.
The hope is that by tracing McLaren’s philosophy of Christian religion, future researchers will not only be able to comprehend (and perhaps empathize with) McLaren’s line of reasoning, but they will also possess a more nuanced discernment of where they agree and disagree with his overall rationale. To accomplish this objective, researchers must first understand the socio-historical context that influenced McLaren’s personality and religious temperament.
1. See for example, Johnson, “You Can’t Handle the Truth,” 219‒45; Dixon, “Whatever Happened to Heresy?,” 219; Blount, “A New Kind of Interpretation,” 125; and the accusations of Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, John Frame, and Michael Wittmer referenced in Burson, “Apologetics and the New Kind of Christian,” 151.
2. The abbreviations section for this book is an expansion and revision of those found in Burson, Brian McLaren in Focus, 9 and Reed, “Emerging Treason?,” 66‒85. Where needed, these modifications are meant to reflect a more precise, updated, and enumerated catalogue of McLaren’s publications.
3. This citation practice should not be confused with this study’s internal references to other sections of the book, such as the listing §7.4.1.2, which designates a particular subheading in chapter 7.
4. Quoted in Bultmann, “Introduction,” ix.
5. Merritt, “The Church’s New Foundation,” 45.
6. Van Biema et al., “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” 34‒45. In response to the Time magazine article, McLaren explained to Larry King Live, “I probably represent a lot of people who are not terribly comfortable with the direction that a lot of Christian discourse in relation to politics has been going in recent years” (McLaren, “America’s Most Influential