The Logic of Intersubjectivity. Darren M. Slade

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ McLaren, “Q and R: When Do I Leave.” McLaren writes elsewhere, “The ugliness of this ungenerous pseudo-orthodoxy is driving young people away from faith in unprecedented numbers, and it threatens to leave major sectors of organized religion a bastion of regressive and reactionary angry old men, along with the women and young people who defer to them” (McLaren, foreword to Generous Orthodoxies, xvi).

      45. See Henry, “Who are the Evangelicals,” 69‒94; Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, esp. 2‒17; Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 1:13‒18; and Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story, 17‒25.

      46. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 4.

      47. McCune, “The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,” 9‒34; Balmer, “Critical Junctures in American Evangelicalism,” 55‒66; Blythe, “Missouri Synod,” 31‒51. Cf. McLaren, “A Brief History of the 21st Century,” 16.

      48. Cf. Rodes, “Last Days of Erastianism,” 301‒48; McMullen, “Institutional Church as House Church,” 1‒18; Schmitz, “The Authority of Institutions,” 6‒24; and MacCulloch, Christianity, 112‒54. According to McLaren, this “organizationalism” is the mechanistic process of making believers mere cogs in a larger assembly line of commercialization. Promoting Christianity as an “organized religion” becomes the bête noire for those who simply want to join a “spiritual community” (COOS1 §12c, 196).

      49. Huntington, “Robust Nationalism,” 31‒40; Aronowitz, “Considerations on the Origins of Neoconservatism,” 56‒70.

      50. What is deemed neo-Evangelical in this study is often identified merely as “Evangelical” (capital ‘E’), the “Religious Right,” or “fundamentalist” throughout McLaren’s corpus. Significantly, McLaren still identifies as an “evangelical” (lowercase ‘e’) in the sense of being committed to the canonical Jesus’ preaching of the evangelium (cf. §7.4.2). “I am happy and honored to consider myself an evangelical . . . the more modest ‘small e’ evangelical” (GO §6, 116). For him, if other “evangelicals” behave in ways contrary to the good news of Jesus Christ, they become “betrayers” of the gospel (AMP §Intro, 12). See also, McLaren, “Between Mixed Martial Arts.”

      51. See Marsden, “Fundamentalism and American Evangelicalism,” 22‒35; Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming, 15‒26; Catherwood, The Evangelicals, 91‒144; Collins, Power, Politics and the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism, 54‒86; Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals, 5‒17; Fitch, The End of Evangelicalism?, 48‒122; and Balmer, “Critical Junctures in American Evangelicalism,” 67‒75.

      52. Streett, “An Interview with Brian McLaren,” 8.

      53. McLaren, “Making Waves,” 29. As McLaren remarks, “[Evangelical] activists may use the word ‘love’ to justify their behavior, but those who disagree with them are seldom treated with love. Many of us have already faced the scorn of the activists who promote this chosen lifestyle and defend it as legitimate and even godly. For doing so, we have received hate mail peppered with a wide range of threats and abusive speech” (NKOCY §17, 174).

      54. Cf. Pettegrew, “Evangelicalism,” 175; Woodbridge, “Evaluating the Changing Face,” 185‒205; Horton, Christless Christianity, 64; and Rhodes, “The Maze of Mysticism,” 7.

      55. See for example, Geisler and Howe, “A Postmodern View of Scripture,” 92‒108; Gray, “The Emergence of The Emerging Church,” 27‒62; and Johnson, “You Can’t Handle the Truth,” 219‒45; Dixon, “Whatever Happened to Heresy?,” 219‒20.

      56. Burk, “Editorial,” 3. Cf. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant, 86‒87.

      57. Winner, “Houses of Worship.” Significantly, McLaren does disclose to his readers that he intends to create controversy in order to challenge the semiotic paradigms of conventional Christianity (COOS1 §Pref., 8; GO §Intro., 22‒23).

      58. Jones, The New Christians, 51. See also, Christian Century, McLaren Talk Canceled, 15.

      59. Cf. McLaren, “Seeking to Do One Thing Well, 121‒40 and “An Interview with Brian McLaren,” interview by Rachel Held Evans.

      60. McLaren writes elsewhere, “I’m not by nature a controversialist, so I didn’t look forward to a hornet’s nest being stirred up” (McLaren, “Brian McLaren’s Post”).

      61. Mohler even complains, “This author’s purpose is transparent and consistent. Following the worldview of the postmodern age, he embraces relativism at the cost of clarity in matters of truth and intends to redefine Christianity for this new age, largely in terms of an eccentric mixture of elements he would take from virtually every theological position and variant” (Mohler, The Disappearance of God, 99). See also, Hagerty, “Jesus, Reconsidered” and Murphy, “Evangelical Author.”

      62. McLaren, “Instead of Ruling,” 228.

      63. McLaren and Schaeffer, “Brian McLaren Talks with Frank Schaeffer,” 00:14:14‒00:14:28.

      64. McLaren writes, “Originally, as an author, I used social media as a way to communicate between books and about my books. Gradually, as I began to see my role as a ‘public theologian,’ I sometimes felt that my social media work was as important as or more important than my published work. Now I feel that much of my work is movement building, and for this, social media is paramount” (McLaren, “Public Theology,” 290). As Robert Webber explains, “The new postmodern shape of communications. . . .is knowledge gained through personal participation in a community” (Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 24). See further, McLaren, foreword to The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, 9‒11.

      65. Cf. Swanson, “Bibliography of Works,” 223‒29.

      66. Section numbers (§) to other portions of the book are also included in this literature review to identify those portions of the study that directly relate to or address the contentions of these interactions with McLaren’s writings. For an extended literature review, see Appendix A at the end of the study.

СКАЧАТЬ