Название: The Logic of Intersubjectivity
Автор: Darren M. Slade
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Религия: прочее
isbn: 9781725268852
isbn:
Fundamentalism (Christian): George Marsden defines Christian fundamentalism as “a loose, diverse, and changing federation of cobelligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought.”46 Militancy, sectarianism, and dogmatic absolutism are its most distinctive characteristics (AIFA, 131; FFS §3, 92).47
Institutional Christianity: organized religion or “belief-system Christianity” that is often reluctant to change the status quo (FOWA §6, 52‒53; GSM, 3, 13, 180). Institutionalism is a form of faith that has a highly developed sense of doctrinal standardization, particularly within each denomination’s ministerium hierarchy, doctrinal or creedal adherence, sanctioned cultic practices, and prescribed social mores.48
Intersubjectivity: empathic communication; the sharing of subjective experiences, thoughts, and emotions among people within a group, which works to co-create the group’s perception of objective events and ontological reality (see §8.2.1).
Neoconservatism: Whereas classical conservatism intends to curb impulsive societal changes, dogmatic conservatism adds an unhealthy veneration for previous eras, most notably when white heterosexual males dominated the economy, government, and culture. Neoconservatism is the renewal of this dogmatic strain in the form of obstructionist policies, inflexible absolutism, refusal to compromise with opposing viewpoints, and a goal to revert society back to antiquated power structures (GSM, 41‒42; LWWAT §2, 14).49
Neo-Evangelical/Neo-Evangelicalism (capital ‘E’): popularly labeled “fundegelicals”; in this book, “neo-Evangelicalism” is the continuation of fundamentalist militancy, sectarianism, and absolutism with the addition of neoconservative 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 СКАЧАТЬ