The Logic of Intersubjectivity. Darren M. Slade

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 Evangelicals”).

      7. Burk, “Why Evangelicals Should Ignore Brian McLaren,” 212. See also, MacArthur, “Perspicuity of Scripture,” 143‒44; King, “Emerging Issues for the Emerging Church,” 34; and Sinitiere, “Embracing the Early Church,” 27.

      8. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 28, 157. See also, Mayhue, “The Emerging Church,” 191.

      9. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals, 92; Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique,” 38; Taylor, “An Introduction to Postconservative Evangelicalism,” 22‒24.

      10. McKnight, “McLaren Emerging,” 62. R. Scott Smith concurs, “I also would love to see McLaren discuss the philosophical views that inform his own views. I think he owes his readers a candid discussion of them, as well as an assessment of where they might lead for the faith” (Smith, “Some Suggestions for Brian McLaren,” 85). These annoyances are also echoed by Reed, “Emerging Treason?,” 76‒77 and, ironically, McLaren himself in McLaren, foreword to The Holy No, ix‒x.

      11. Allison, “Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet,” 19.

      12. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; cf. NKOCY §2, 14‒19; SWFOI §31, 229‒30.

      13. See Tickle, The Great Emergence, esp. 13‒40. For McLaren, these negative reactions are reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s rejection of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) or Protestantism’s resistance against the abolition movement. For him, Christians are still following their predecessors by staunchly defending outdated paradigms (FOWA §14, 133).

      14. Smith, “The Work of the Holy Spirit,” 20‒31. See also, Jenkins, The Next Christendom, esp. 79‒105 and McLaren, “Brian McLaren on How to Build the NSP,” 67‒68.

      15. Howard, “The Religion Singularity,” 77‒93. McLaren appears to recognize this same trend, “The existence of thousands of denominations today is in part the fruit of this Protestant dividing frenzy” (GO §7, 125). See also, Smith, Christian America?, 88 and McLaren, “Interview: Brian McLaren on Anglicans.”

      16. Brow, “Evangelical Megashift,” 12‒14; Neff, “Has God Been Held Hostage by Philosophy?,” 30‒34; Streett, “An Interview with Brian McLaren,” 10; Tomlinson, The Post Evangelical, 69‒84; Stewart, In Search of Ancient Roots, 12‒13.

      17. The State of the Church 2016 (Barna Group).

      18. Religion (Gallup, 2018). Cf. Kohut et al., Some Social Conservative Disillusionment, 35. As one 2009 Newsweek article explained, the percentage of people who believe religion benefits humanity is at an historic low of just under half the population (Meacham and Gray, “The End of Christian America,” 34‒38).

      19. See Bass, Christianity After Religion, esp. 11‒99. For McLaren’s perspective on this disdain, see McLaren, “Beyond Business-as-Usual Christianity.”

      20. McLaren, “Brian McLaren on Outreach,” 122‒23; “Church Emerging,” 149.

      21. Fowler, Stages of Faith, 117‒213. As Kathleen Berger explains, “If Fowler is correct, faith, like other aspects of cognition, progresses from a simple, self-centered, one-sided perspective to a more complex, altruistic (unselfish), and many-sided view” (Berger, The Developing Person, 531).

      22. McLaren details some of this maturation process, “First they lose faith in the 6-day creationist god, then in the bible-dictation god, then in the male-supremacy god, then in the European-supremacy/western-civilization/colonialist god, then in the anti-gay god, then in the pro-war god, then in the American-exceptionalism/manifest-destiny god . . .” (McLaren, “Ask Brian McLaren. . .”).

      23. McLaren explains further, “Questioning widely held assumptions about God can СКАЧАТЬ