Another day, another dollar, another soon-to-be-forgotten attempt to make Christianity more politically correct.
Brian McLaren has written a book titled "A New Kind of Christianity - Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith" which seeks to make adjustments to the Christian message so that it is more acceptable to modern people. Among other things, he does not want to think of Jesus as a sacrifice, but as a victim. (This is not too unusual; many groups that seek to change Christianity do so by saying that Jesus did not want to be crucified. Since that's sort of the whole point of the Bible, you can see what problems are created.)
The notion of this being a "new" idea is laughable. People like Oprah and the Unitarian types have been trying for ages to convince believers that traditional Christianity should be forgotten and replaced with something more acceptable to the masses. The problem is, when you take away or hide parts of a religion, you are not making adjustments to it - you are leaving it and starting a new one.
I wouldn't dream of asking a Tibetan Monk to stop searching for Nirvana and start praying the Rosary as a "new" form of his old religion. In the same way, Brian McLaren should be honest and tell us that he's promoting a religion that is antithetical to the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible that the church has always held to. This "new" Christianity is something other than Christianity and it is an insult to ask people to change their conviction just because they don't suit you.
In my "new" version of Christianity, we will follow the floating Ganesh. Wait...what do you mean, someone already thought of that? No, I'm not talking about Hinduism, I'm certain this is Christianity. It's not like this stuff is set in stone or anything...Do you think I would visit a local Bahá'í Temple and ask them to adjust their religion to my ideals in order to make people like me more comfortable? No, I would consider that to be rude and disrespectful. No one would put up with that, but since Christians are the designated punching bag for American commentary, no one really cares about respecting Christian faith.
If you don't like Christianity, Brian McLaren, just say so. Because it isn't the sort of thing that can be changed.
12 comments:
It is interesting that you use Buddhism as a counter-example. There is no better example of a constructed category that people understand as immutable which is in actuality, incredibly diverse and slippery.
I haven't read McLaren's book, but I am familiar with the emergent movement (so-called). In my experience, the call is not to just simply swap a wrong version for a right version of Christianity, but instead to recognize the complicated and imperfect nature of the Christian interpretive tradition.
And we should hang out sometime. This commenting on each other's posts isn't as fun as actually talking.
Remember that Christianity has MANY different forms. They differ far more than Catholics and Protestants (or Orthodox.)
Pentecostals usually believe that you MUST be Baptized in Jesus' name. Baptists do so in the name of the Whole Trinity. To a Pentecostal, that is a HUGE difference.
In the Church of Christ, no musical instruments (other than the voice) are used in worship.
Some Christians believe that the consumption of alcohol is a sin. Some get drunk at church.
Most of these Christians see these things as Fundamental differences straight out of The Bible.
...Buddhists....some of them are atheists, and some are not. That's a pretty big difference to Christians, but to them, it's not that huge.
It's a big ol' world out there and there is, in all honesty, a different religion for every person... That said. If there are 1 million different religions, then each one has an average of 6000 followers. Not many at all.
I'm not sure how emergent this fellow is. I think he's further outside than all of that. I have my own issues with certain emergents (there are many styles of emergent church stuff) but this is even radical for many of them. I wish folks like this would just join a unitarian church instead of trying to adjust mine.
Dustin, you're right about the variety of Christians, but McLaren's book challenges things that ALL of those varied Christians have in common - that is the difference between disagreeing with him and a Baptist disagreeing with a Methodist.
Do you want your savior hanging on a cross in church, or do you want it empty to signify that the story doesn't end there?
Both. Sort of a shadowy, mirage of Jesus over the cross. Also, He's bleeding AND He's not bleeding. I've got it all figured out.
(Still, these differences are minor compared to what McLaren proposes.)
To many Christians, that difference is HUGE. I understand your point, completely. I also understand what you were saying about the nudist church. I just would like to point out that something small to you may not be that small to others, and something this large to you doesn't seem to be so big to others.
It's all Point Of View. You and I have very different ones, but I can understand yours. I just like to pose questions. That's basically my religion...haha.
If the word "religion" comes from words that mean "to be bound to," I am "bound" to question....haha...a pun.
But the nudist church, the Roman Catholics, Seven Day Adventists, and the individual Christian hermit believe that their religion hinges on the sacrifice of Jesus - this book denies that. Movements like the one McLaren is trying to lead find no success because Christians actually end up unified in their decrying of them. I still think of different Christian sects/movements/denominations as "Christian." This book, however, promotes something that is not in line with any form of Christianity, only a belief system going by that name.
I'm normally the type to include others as members of my faith, and I'm not quick to judge certain people as "non-Christian." This book, however, describes a religion that is not described in churches, the Bible, or any Christian theological work. Thus, I find it accurate to say that it doesn't describe Christianity.
(It may be that the author is abusing the notions of such philosophers as Derrida and saying that anything can be called "Christian" because "Christian" is just a word. But the belief that I am a part of is fundamentally nothing like McLaren's.)
Precisely. Mr. McLaren is only the latest author who wants to change Christianity into something much less than it is, water it down and make it less powerful. I'll stick with the "old" Christianity. Great post
I can claim to be a really sexy swimsuit model -- and argue that differences like body fat, hairy chests, and male genetalia aren't that major, but i still ain't gettin' a photoshoot :-)
If MacLaren had started his book by saying "I'd like to change the definition of Christianity to whatever I think I want it to be," would the book have sold? So its popularity comes from an indirect methodology of some sort. What is that method, and shouldn't the method also be exposed? Is it just the attempt to redefine a word that has too much history of being differently defined? Isn't it also an appeal to make definitions that agree with our presuppositions? Isn't this part of the spirit of the times? I can think of many terms, such as "perseverance of the saints," or "justification," or even "salvation," that are being subjected to attempts at redefinition in the last 40 years or so, pursuant to the politically correct philosophies of the times.
Great post, your buudhism example is great.
Brian mclaren (who I just learned about) should just come out and say he's not a Christian.
Post a Comment