By Aaron Gaglia (@GagliaAC)
A few weeks ago, I started reviewing Brian McLaren’s book, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World. After a bit of a delay, here is the rest of the review. As I covered the first two parts in the previous review, I will resume with part III, “The Liturgical Challenge.”
In part III, Mclaren seeks to remove “[t]he vestiges of Imperial Christianity” from the church’s praxis. “Racism, colonialism, exclusivism, elitism, and other members of the hostility family often hide camouflaged in songs and hymns, devotionals and prayers, sermons and Sunday School lessons” (168). He begins with the church calendar. He proposes such changes as devoting Holy Saturday to doubt, “the day at which we listen to agnostics and atheists and remind them, and us, that they too have a place among the people of God” (174).
He then reformulates the sacrament of Baptism as “a sign that one is repenting of all hostile identities, knowing that those identities can only lead to violent cataclysm” (185). He sees this type of baptism as John the Baptist’s reformulation of temple baptism. Citing the work of Peter Rollins, he sees being immersed into Christ as not receiving a new identity but rather the removal of all identity (citing Galatians 3:28). “To follow Christ is to share in his radical divestment of identity” (186).
He then calls for a reformulation of Christian teaching, songs, and Holy Scripture itself. “We must have the humble courage to side with some verses, prayers, and other liturgical resources and against others—not in an oppositional or a hostile way, but in a constructive, identity-forming way” (192). In speaking of Scripture, he cites Jesus’ and Paul’s quotations of the Hebrew Scripture as proof of picking and choosing, of a reformulation of the Scripture in light of the Gospel. “We will pick all passages that advocate hostility, vengeance, exclusion, elitism, and superiority to remind us of where we would be and who we would be if not for Christ. And we will choose all passages that advocate reconciliation, empathy, inclusion, solidarity, and equality to remind us of where we are going and who we are called to be in Christ—a precious identity indeed” (207).
He then reformulates the Lord’s Supper away from seeing Christ’s death as a sacrifice–away from “the gospel of penal substitutionary atonement”–to seeing his death as “the sacred self-giving of a gracious God” (210, 212). Thus through the Lord’s Supper, “we identify with it [Christ’s death], and we let our lives be reshaped by it into cruciformity so as to lay down our lives for others just as Jesus did for us all” (214). Though it is very important to see the cross as “sacred self-giving”, we cannot do this at the expense of understanding the cross as an atoning sacrifice.
Mclaren then ends the book with part IV, The Missional Challenge. In this section, he reformulates the mission of a Christian—how they live and interact with the world—in terms of love and solidarity with the other. His comments on the reformulation of evangelism sum up the spirit of these chapters. Calling Christians to a mutual conversion with the other, he writes, “This shared journey is not the call to convert from your religion to mine. It is, rather, the invitation for both of us to seek a deeper conversion that begins in our deepest religious identity and transforms all of life…We still cherish our distinctive religious identity, but we abandon what my friend Samir Selmanovic calls religious supremacy. We are converted from hostility, from seeing the other as a threat to be feared, pitied, eliminated, or refashioned into our image. We are converted into hosts and guests, practicing and receiving hospitality, sharing our treasures as gifts “(256, emphasis original).
Though this section, especially chapter 24 on “subversive friendship” presents some inspiring thoughts on multi-faith relations, sadly this model calls for interfaith relationships at the expense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mclaren presents the church with something that is much needed, but simultaneously removes the very truths that makes up the essence of Christianity. St. Paul makes it very clear in his second letter to the Corinthians that one of our roles as Christians is the role of Ambassador: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:20-21, ESV). Yet we must remember also that our religion is worthless without love (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). We must be Christians who are characterized by love as we bring the radical and demanding Gospel of Christ to a world. It is inclusive in that the call is open to everyone, yet it is exclusive in that it calls those who would receive it to repent and change both their belief and actions.
So is it possible to have genuine friendships with the other while still holding to the Gospel? Yes! If you survey a room of orthodox Christians, the vast majority will have either family or friends who hold different religious beliefs than them, yet are close to them and cherish them as a person. We have friends and family that may be offended and repulsed by our exclusive beliefs but still love and cherish us as we also love and cherish them. We must continue this tradition and take it a step further by actively seeking such relationships.
So what does such an interfaith relationship look like? It looks just like most other relationships. It includes having a genuine interest in them as a human just as you do with all of your friends. It means loving them as you love yourself. It means experiencing life with them and being there for them. It means respecting their religious beliefs and not being afraid to affirm that there is truth and common ground between your two beliefs. Yet it also includes showing them their eternal need for our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.
I am not going to deny that exclusive beliefs may cause tension, but it is a tension we must accept. We must seek to minimize the tension through our love, but not through changing our beliefs. Let us seeks authentic and meaningful relationships with those of different faiths while maintain a fervent belief in Jesus Christ and his Gospel.
Comment by ericvlytle on March 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Brian McLaren does not have ideas, he he has stances.
Any orthodox Christian who reads McLaren’s book is going to react in one of two ways: believe all his slanders about us, and turn against the faith, as he has done; or, get really mad because his book is not an attack on the evil intolerant Christians in the world, it’s an attack on evil intolerant Christians who exist solely in the imaginations of atheists and agnostics. This very libelous book has some shocking, heart-rending revelations about “nice” Christians who really aren’t nice at all. The book claims that lots of Christians hate people of other religions. In fact, they hate them enough to commit acts of violence. And in the rare instances they are cordial to people of other religions, it is only a sneaky ruse to get them to convert to Christianity. The hostility of Christians is a huge social problem. It’s amazing that people of other religions keep coming to this country, given the constant acts of violence perpetrated by intolerant, hate-filled Christians.
Does the book cite examples of this widespread hostility toward other religions? No. “Our root problem is the hostility that we often employ to keep our identities strong.” Any evidence for that? Sermons? Church websites? Christian books? I would have loved several good examples of this Christian hostility – and they should have been easy to find, since any problem that calls for an entire book must be very pervasive. (On p 18, he cites the “evil” example of a pastor who predicted the world would end on May 21, 2011. I’m still puzzling over how that shows hate for other religions.) He challenges the reader to be like Jesus – meaning, to treat people of other religions with consideration and tolerance. OK – but where is his evidence that Christians are abusing people of other religions? The statement “old-fashioned nastiness can lurk within that old-time religion” sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even if Christians aren’t actually persecuting Muslims, they just might be planning to.
Christians are, the books says, “uneasy” about our faith, and this leasd to violence. Examples? No. “The stronger our Christian commitment, the more we emphasize our differences with other faiths.” Really? When was the last time you heard a sermon on Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam? How many books have you read that encourage Christians to despise other religions? For someone who brags about having high scholarly standards (page 12), he is shy about documenting the evils that he discusses.
And when Christians are friendly toward people of other faiths, it is only a “pretext” – they want to convert them to Christianity. Isn’t that horrid? When Jesus told the apostles to go forth and preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19), he didn’t mean it, right? And Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles – why did we make a saint out of this guy who spent most of his life trying to convert people? This author (who seems to be able to read people’s hearts and see things that aren’t even there) says we love people of other faiths only “in spite of” the differences. Is he so certain that when Christian Bob smiles and says “good morning” to Muslim co-worker Fayez that he is thinking, “Well, gosh, I sorta like that guy – but only in spite of his religion. And I wouldn’t be friendly to him at all except for the necessity to convert him”? MacLaren’s straw-man evangelical exists in fairyland, not reality.
He approvingly quotes novelist Anne Rice – who went from vampires to Christ in her fiction after her supposed conversion. She now renounces any connection with Christians, who are (she says) “anti-life,” and several other antis. McLaren invites the reader to join him, and one of the world’s best-known writers, in distancing themselves from “those” Christians, those “haters.” It appears he and Rice don’t see the contradiction. They hate people who disagree with them, yet they condemn hate. He condemns those Christians who “develop an oppositional identity,” those who “know who we are because we know whom we oppose.” (Pot says to kettle . . .)
I never read a more fact-challenged “expose.” It is worse than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its libel of faithful Christians.
Comment by fairfaxian on March 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Aaron, you’ve done another bang-up job reviewing this book. There are so many areas of McLaren’s book to pull apart.
Brian McLaren puts forth this lunacy: “To follow Christ is to share in his radical divestment of identity” and then follows it up with “We must have the humble courage to side with some verses, prayers, and other liturgical resources and against others—not in an oppositional or a hostile way, but in a constructive, identity-forming way” The only thing we learn is that Brian McLaren can’t hold a consistent point over six pages. Should we have an identity or not? His point that Christ had a radical divestment of identity is incredibly false. In Luke 9, Christ asks His disciples who they think He is. When Peter answers that He is the Messiah, Jesus doesn’t deny it — He tells Peter to not tell anyone since it’s not yet time to announce that — but He doesn’t deny His identity. Or take Christ’s baptism in Matthew 3, God declares that “This is my Son, in whom I am most pleased.” Christ knew who He was, and it was because He knew who He was that He did what He did for us on the cross.
But Brian McLaren doesn’t like that. He doesn’t like that Christ would pay the price that we owed. Yet, if Christ wasn’t paying the price for our sin so that our relationship with God could be restored, why did Christ come down and agree to die on the cross for us? Why would He endure hours of horrendous pain, humiliation, and ultimately death through crucifixion if He wasn’t redeeming us? If a penal sacrifice wasn’t necessary and wasn’t what Christ actually accomplished (as McLaren asserts), why did He go through it? It makes no sense.
“We are converted from hostility, from seeing the other as a threat to be feared, pitied, eliminated, or refashioned into our image.” Nice strawman. No Christian would want to refashion anyone into our image. We realize that without Christ, our hearts are wicked. Christians merely wants to introduce to the author of life and the only One who can offer us salvation and restore us to our Heavenly Father. We don’t brag and boast for what we’ve done but what God has done in and for us…of course, McLaren doesn’t appear to listen to the Bible anymore, so Paul’s point on this is either lost on McLaren or ignored by him.
So many other things to reject here, but McLaren’s already taken up enough of my time. No serious Christian should take his writings serious anymore, he is beyond the pale in his beliefs. Aaron, again, well done on your review.