Todd H Dow

While I do value the dynamic nature of McLaren’s system, I am concerned with how it is conceived. McLaren’s grounding is not clear. Are we to start with scripture? If so, how are we to interpret it? Or are we supposed to start with our own intuition? Or do we abandon established belief in favour of a new mash-up that includes socially acceptable rules while doing away with the more unpopular ideas?

I do support the idea of cross-denominational collaboration. And by extension, I also support the idea of inter-faith dialogue as well. McLaren’s approach lends itself well to generating the kind of humility that is required to open up a positive dialogue between competing denominations. The current decentralized model of Christian ministry and mission are valuable in terms of covering a wide variety of causes and needs, but I often wonder how much more effective some Christian ministries would be had they aligned or pooled their resources with other Christian denominations to accomplish the same goals. The impact of these “coalitions” would be tremendous.

And while I do appreciate McLaren’s attempt to adapt Christian thought with contemporary issues like postmodernism and secularization, I do find myself drawn to the “Radical Reformation” approach of the Anabaptists, whereby they forgo many of the progressive technological advancements in favour of a simpler way of life as a conscious decision to focus more on community than on “speed, style, technology, convenience, efficiency and mechanization” (McLaren, 230). To me, the Anabaptist approach of making Jesus Christ central and keeping uncluttered lives makes a great deal of sense. And, that ideal seems to be unchanged over time, which suggests that theological adaptations to contemporary issues are not required.

The urgency of discerning an appropriate worldview has recently been on the front burner for me. My father has been struggling with a blood disorder for the last year and it has just recently manifested itself in acute leukemia. This affliction is terminal and it will soon result in my father’s death. Thus, the need for “an accurate orthodoxy” in my life is quite pressing. Ultimately, we cannot be certain of any of our beliefs. McLaren offers a hopeful enterprise by suggesting that we simplify our approach to theology by focusing not on the divisive aspects, but instead focusing on the similarities of different denominational attitudes. I like this approach, as it suggests an inclusiveness that we can all participate in. I find this particularly settling for me as I contemplate my father’s destiny as he negotiates his peace with God.

I believe that McLaren’s strategy is viable, helpful and constructive. It provides an inclusive nature in which anyone can recognize their own denominational strengths, while also marginalizing their weaknesses. One can only hope that the strengths continue to be accentuated while the weaknesses are actually suppressed. As a whole, I enjoyed the book. It does present a tension that cannot be easily settled, but I believe that this tension is part of the beauty of the book. Without addressing the tension between denominations, the hope for interfaith fellowship cannot be attained. And without a central discussion, the kingdom of God cannot be fully realized nor can Jesus’ directive to live in love be fully experienced.

Todd Dow

toddhdow Uncategorized christianity, evangelism, philosophy, religion, review, tolerance

McLaren’s response to these critiques is contained in the closing paragraphs of his final chapter, entitled “Why I Am Unfinished.” (McLaren, 339):

So here’s the tension: we must always be discontented with our portraits of orthodoxy, but we must never, in frustration, throw the Subject of our portrait out the window. Otherwise, the revolution fails and falls, sprawling facedown in the dirt, and the whole whirling adventure is over. Until God’s kingdom comes in fullness, the revolution of generous orthodoxy must continue: “In the upper world, hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration”. And so for this reason also, the adventure of generous orthodoxy is always unfinished (McLaren, 339)

Thus, McLaren avoids condemnation by claiming that his theology is always unfinished, a veritable moving target that pursues Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom without abandon. This makes McLaren quite slippery because it leaves him unable to be pinned down or typecast. But is this really a bad thing?

There are advantages to this approach. McLaren speaks of a tension between different views of orthodoxy. This tension is present with all claims of knowledge. How can one discern whether or not the claim is in fact truthful? Perhaps the answer is to live in tension. Rather than striving for black and white answers, why not live in shades of grey? The tension experienced when one gives up any claims to absolute truth can be discomforting at first, but over time, it can become a comfortable place to exist. Without the chains of absolute claims of divine truth, the individual is free to explore various experiences of God using various different methods of worship and revelation.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some people cling to their denominational beliefs out of a sense of fear or insecurity about giving up their particular grounding in faith. McLaren suggests that some Christians carry on the Protestant ideal of protesting in an effort to “prove themselves right and others wrong” (McLaren, 138). Regardless of the motivations, many people cling to their denominational affiliations in order to remain validated in their Christian walk. Leaving the comforting confines of a congregational confession of faith suggests leaving behind the protection, purpose and destiny that is offered by that particular worldview. Should denominational change be viewed as a step backwards, or is denominational drift an acceptable part of the Christian faith?

Up next: “Personal Reflection and Final Wrap Up”

toddhdow Uncategorized christianity, evangelism, philosophy, religion, review, tolerance

The main problem with McLaren’s approach is that it fails to provide a concrete vision or set of beliefs that believers can attach themselves to. This “generous orthodoxy” turns into a “personal denomination” that is determined by individual preferences. McLaren does a great job of grabbing the good stuff from each of his denominational or thematic flavours of Christianity, while failing to address the shortcomings or contradictions that are bound to present themselves in such a model.

For example, McLaren offers competing stances on childhood baptism. In chapter 13, McLaren discusses adult baptism as a form of religious expression from the Anabaptist movement. He downplays the importance of the “how and when” of baptism in favour of the more important “why and whether you live the meaning of your baptism” (McLaren, 228). In this section, McLaren provides an encouraging place for Anabaptist beliefs to reside. And yet, in chapter 15, McLaren provides support for a catholic belief that subscribes to a sacramental faith and a respect for tradition that clearly, from a catholic perspective, supports infant baptism. McLaren clearly articulates the Anabaptist position pertaining to personal commitment, yet reinforcement of the catholic sacraments and traditions (without supporting each sacrament by name) does little to quell the uneasy cohabitation that this particular issue is bound to introduce.

Several other examples could be gleaned from the text, but for what point? It is sufficient to agree that Christianity has become segmented because of the sharp denominational lines that have resulted from the numerous protests that have brought us to this “Protestant soup” that we find ourselves swimming in today.

A second, and equally troubling problem for McLaren, is how to reconcile the postmodern bent that asserts, almost ironically, that absolute knowledge is unattainable. Early in the book, McLaren argues that “certainty and knowledge” are problematic in a postmodern worldview (McLaren, 28) and thus, one cannot be absolutely certain that they know right from wrong. This epistemological puzzle forces one to wonder how McLaren can be so sure that his solution is the right one. While McLaren does overstate his “completely unqualified” (McLaren, 38) status in the realm of theology, this does not excuse him from responsibility for his claims. At the very least, McLaren has provided the reader with a contradictory argument, first suggesting that we can know nothing with certainty and then offering a way forward that expects fellowship. Shouldn’t McLaren’s postmodern epistemological argument invalidate his suggestions entirely? How can his claims be discerned under this cloud of skepticism?

Thirdly, how would McLaren discern the conflicts and contradictions that present themselves in his “cherry-picking” of denominational best fruits. How can one be certain that McLaren was accurate in choosing certain denominational traits over others? And further, doesn’t this collection of denominational best practices contradict McLaren’s earlier suggestion to marginalize denominational distinctions (McLaren, 36)? Why does McLaren focus so much on those denominational best practices if his ultimate goal is to flatten the Christian experience into something that can be palatable to everyone?

Up next: “Responses to these objections”

toddhdow Uncategorized christianity, evangelism, philosophy, religion, review, tolerance

In this four part series, I’ll be providing a book review of Brian D. McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy“. Today, I’ll provide an introduction and overview of the book. Next, I’ll provide some objections. From there, I’ll respond to some of those objections. And finally, I’ll wrap up with some personal reflection and a summary. So, stick around and be sure to provide comments and feedback!

In the book “A Generous Orthodoxy”, Brian McLaren presents an approach to Christianity that is both positively refreshing and troublingly devoid of a solid doctrinal foundation. While McLaren can be applauded for his inclusive approach to Christian practice, this also appears to be his biggest challenge. McLaren’s writing highlights the tension between dogmatism and the freedom and variety of Christian expression. Ultimately, the book is an inspiration to those that appreciate the loving inclusiveness celebrated and championed by Jesus.

McLaren has written a brilliant treatise that speaks to those who value the spiritual gifts of Christianity but who frown upon the doctrinal divisions that have split the church. McLaren speaks to the postmodern objection to certainty and knowledge by inviting a spectrum of religious worship in its many forms, perspectives and expressions of faith. McLaren argues that Christian orthodoxy, defined as “right thinking and opinion about the gospel” (McLaren, 35), is to be humble, charitable, courageous and diligent (McLaren, 34). The goal of this “generous” inclusiveness is to affirm “the importance of orthodox doctrine” (McLaren, 36), while placing doctrinal distinctives “in their marginal place.” (McLaren, 36) This “generous orthodoxy” not only encourages cross-denominational Christian discussion, but it also extends the olive branch to other faiths, allowing for interfaith dialogue and collaboration.

McLaren’s Christian vision centres itself on the understanding of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels. This view minimizes the doctrinal and theological extensions that have been generated through centuries of theological discourse and gospel-filtering. This vision demands that the practitioner appreciate the truth claims in competing religious experiences. McLaren, speaking of the “Seven Jesuses he has known”, asks:

Why not celebrate them all? Already, many people are using terms like post-Protestant, post-denominational, post-liberal, and post-conservative to express a desire to move beyond the polarization and sectarianism that have too often characterized Christians of the past (as we’ll discuss in Chapters 6 and 7). Up until recent decades, each tribe felt it had to uphold one image of Jesus and undermine some or all of the others. What if, instead, we saw these various emphases as partial projections that together can create a hologram: a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus? (McLaren, 74)

Instead of focusing on the differences as divisive details, McLaren suggests that we embrace the differences, wrapping ourselves in a quilt of diverse and multifaceted perspectives. Ultimately, according to McLaren, we should “enjoy the feast of generous orthodoxy” (McLaren, 74) that such an all-encompassing perspective generates.

Up next: “Objections to McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy”

toddhdow Uncategorized christianity, evangelism, philosophy, religion, review, tolerance

• Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
• Crossan, John Dominic, Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
• Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History. Paul L. Maier, ed. Kregel, 1999.
• Funk, Robert W., Hoover, Roy W., The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? the Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
• Funk, Robert W., and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.
• Gonzalez, Justo L., The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: Volume One: The Early Church to the Reformation. New York, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984.
• Onfray, Michel, In Defense Of Atheism. Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Group, 2007.
• Powell, Mark Allan, Jesus As A Figure In History: How Modern Historians View The Man From Galilee, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
• Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette, Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1998.
• Witherington III, Ben, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2001.
• Zondervan TNIV Study Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 2006.

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion

Finally, Onfray argues that the New Testament is full of contradictions and improbabilities. Onfray calls into question the differing details pertaining to the wooden tablet, or titulus, that was attached to Jesus at the crucifixion. Onfray provides two potential areas of conflict here. First is the differing understanding of how the titulus was attached: was it nailed to the wood of the cross above Christ’s head, as per the description in John or was it hung around his neck, as per Luke’s description? And second, what was the actual text that was written on the tablet? All four gospels record slightly different wording for the charge that was affixed to the front of the titulus. Onfray argues that contradictions like these are numerous in the New Testament, which calls into question the validity of the New Testament as a whole.

Further, Onfray asserts several improbabilities as well. Onfray is adamant that Jesus was never crucified. He argues, “at the time Jews were not crucified but stoned to death. […] The fact is that Rome could have cared less about this business of messiahs and prophecy. Crucifixion implied a challenge to the imperial power, which the crucified man never explicitly posed.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 128.]

Onfray is correct to highlight some inconsistencies between different Gospel accounts of the same story. However, this in itself does not make the stories invalid. If we look at the stories, there is a great deal of similarity. In fact, The Gospel of Peter [Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings, 124-126.], which was not included in the final canon, affirms many of the points made in the passion story, out of which this current debate arises. Robert Funk of The Jesus Seminar suggests that many of the specific elements included in the passion narrative were in fact fictitious, included merely to “reinvent the scene.” John Crossan agrees, suggesting that the passion event itself may have been historically accurate, but Crossan stays close to The Jesus Seminar opinion that the details were a combination of fulfillment of scripture and narrative dressing to paint the scene. [Funk, The Acts of Jesus, 156.]

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz suggest that the inscription mentioned in Luke 23:38 may have been a historical fact. They detail numerous sources that mention the placement of placards, or titulus, above crucified individuals detailing the reasons for their punishment. Theissen and Merz do mention though that this custom was not performed “so frequently that it could have been invented by any narrator as a natural element in an execution” [Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 458.]. Theissen and Merz further argue that since Luke’s Gospel focused on the Jewish refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah, there was no motivation to invent the political title used in Luke 23:38 to further Luke’s argument against the Jewish elders. Theissen and Merz’ earlier proof of Roman labeling of the accusations, combined with a lack of motivation to make up this fact make it entirely likely that this may have been more than random filler to help make the story seem more real.

Ben Witherington III also defends the historical accuracy of the placard.[Witherington, New Testament History, 158.] Witherington argues the same case that Theissen and Merz present, offering that the similarities between the three Gospel accounts, combined with the understanding that other Roman crucifixions of the time used tabula, are sufficient to defend the historical credibility of the details presented in the Gospel texts. Witherington concludes that “All this material contains the telltale signs that a historian looks for to discern whether a story has historical plausibility. The story of Jesus’ demise has many such features.” [Witherington, New Testament History, 159.]

Additionally, using Powell’s “Criteria of Authenticity” [Powell, Jesus As A Figure In History, 46-50.], we can easily see that multiple attestation is present, the content is memorable in the repetitious title of “King of the Jews”, there is appropriate language and environment, an adequate explanation is provided for this particular detail and the story coheres with the surrounding historical understanding of similar circumstances. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the titulus did in fact exist, even though the specifics of the item are under scrutiny. These arguments easily counter Onfray’s opinion that contradictory stories should be discarded as false.

One final thought on Onfray’s argument that Jesus was never crucified: Onfray’s argument is perplexing as Onfray contradicts himself. On page 118, Onfray himself provides examples of Jewish prophets and other rebels who were beheaded and crucified. Thus, not only do Crossan, The Jesus Seminar, Theissen and Merz, and others agree that the crucifixion happened, but Onfray himself also suggested that crucifixion wasn’t that uncommon. Yet, he argued that Jesus was not crucified. This contradiction further weakens Onfray’s writing.

Onfray’s attempts to discredit Jesus are disappointing. He provides no new scholarship nor does he cite any existing scholarship to support his claims. His arguments are weak, they lack and in some cases misinterpret available historical evidence and his arguments sometimes contain contradictions of their own. Thus, Onfray fails to deliver a coherent, valuable and honest discussion pertaining to the validity of the historical Jesus.

Up next: “Bibliography“

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion

Next, Onfray questions the validity of the process that went into creating what we know as the New Testament canon. Onfray asks, “Why were some texts left out.” He responds with the following: “Who put together the corpus and decided on the canon? The church, its councils, and its synods toward the end of the fourth century of our era.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 127.]

Onfray’s understanding of canon formation is poorly understood. The New Testament as we know it today was fairly complete by the end of the second century, which is one hundred years prior to the life of Constantine, who played a key role in organizing the first church councils and synods. And, the final works that were included in the New Testament were readily understood, in the first and second century, to be written by someone who could have been alive during the time of Jesus. Thus, the final canon was considered to be as accurate as possible.

The formal canonization of this already accepted package of writing came at the Council of Hippo in Africa in 393. The Synod of Cartage in 397 listed the New Testament books in the order that ours are in today. And, the final canon was reaffirmed in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The Gospels and Paul’s writings were never disputed. Some books were debated, but they were not debated based on political motivations. They were debated based on their Catholicity and value to the truth of the Church. This conflicts with Onfray’s version of events considerably. Why doubt Onfray’s version? With two councils and a synod separately documenting and validating the same list that had been used for quite some time, it makes it quite difficult to ignore this evidence. Councils and synods were convened for special purposes and their findings were documented quite meticulously. It would be quite difficult to forget these results, especially when considered against one another and against the multiple sources that exist to attest each individual council or synod. So, the overwhelming evidence dismisses Onfray’s claim in this regard.

Up next: “Contradictions and Improbabilities“

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion

Next, Onfray likens Jesus to the numerous prophets and zealots of the time [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 118.], suggesting that later Christian writers expanded his role to include Messianic expectations. Onfray goes on to suggest that the Gospel writers attached to Jesus a great deal of supernatural elements that were commonly associated with venerable mythical figures of the time, including a virgin birth: “Plato too was born of a mother in the prime of life but endowed with an intact hymen.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 122.] Onfray infers from this that Jesus was a product of fantasy and not fact due to the numerous similarities to existing myth.

This argument is really a straw man type of argument. Logically, the argument doesn’t hold up. Onfray basically claims that since he can find similar stories that resonate with the Gospel story, that makes the Gospel story inauthentic. While the similarities are interesting, this is extremely weak logic that doesn’t prove anything.

I expected at least a partial acknowledgment of the possibility of the validity of the Christian texts, rather than the dismissal of the Christian writing because it mirrors ancient myths so closely. Yes, Onfray’s argument does imply that the similarities between Christianity and other ancient myths are too similar to be coincidence, but Onfray doesn’t give any credence to any opposing points of view. The coincidental (or not) similarities to other myths does not in itself invalidate the possible accuracy of the Christian story.

And, discounting the New Testament based on Onfray’s argument of similarity discounts all of the evidence in support of Christianity, including the eye witness accounts documented in the Gospels and in Acts, along with the commitment of the martyrs to follow the faith that they experienced personally even when threatened with death.

Up next: “Politics of the New Testament Canon“

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion

Onfray begins his critique of the historical Jesus by arguing that the documents that pronounce Jesus’ existence are forgeries. Onfray challenges, “Jesus’ existence has not been historically established.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 115.] Onfray further suggests, “Nothing of what remains can be trusted. The Christian archives are the result of ideological fabrication.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 117.] Even the historical documents of Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are, to Onfray, of questionable accuracy. Ultimately, Onfray charges that the winners throughout history have been guilty of manipulating historical records to suit their own needs.

It is important to note that the New Testament actually did not go through numerous revisions. In fact, many of the books of the New Testament were originally collected as letters that were sent to various Christian Churches. Revisions were not made to these letters over time. Archeological research and comparison of ancient documents has proven that the New Testament is extremely accurate when compared to fragments that date from the earliest sources. Thus, the Christian archives are not as unreliable as Onfray would have his reader believe.

As an example of the accuracy of the New Testament Gospels, consider the Dead Sea Scrolls [Ehrman, The New Testament – A Historical Introduction, 237-240.]. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain hundreds of documents that scholars estimate have been hidden away since the middle of the first century. These documents are over a thousand years older than the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that were previously available. Comparing these older documents showed that “for the most part, they did” [Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction, 239.] match up with the newer documents that were previously available.

Similar comparisons have been done for the historical writing of Josephus, for the Gospels and for the rest of the canon as well. This means that there is little debate over the literal accuracy of the texts themselves. Thus, Onfray’s point about forged documents is really a red herring with no evidence to support his claim.

Next up: “Jesus as Fantasy“

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion

In a recent series that I wrote entitled, The Atheist Delusion - Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts, by far the most popular post was Part 5: The Historical Jesus. I don’t feel that I did this post sufficient justice. So… I’m now providing a follow up series that provides more detail pertaining to the Historical Jesus.

In this series, I will be using a book by one of Dawkins’ contemporaries as my starting point:

Michel Onfray, in his recently published book, In Defense of Atheism, attempts to discredit religious worldviews through a systemic critique of modern faith traditions. In the section of his book entitled “The Construction of Jesus” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 115-129.], Onfray suggests that the historical Jesus is a mythological figure who is revealed within a flawed set of documents. After closer inspection of Onfray’s claims, it becomes apparent that his perspectives on the historical Jesus are both uninformed and speculative and his argumentation collapses.

Here are the topics that I will be discussing, in order of their appearance:

1. Historical Jesus Part 1: The Source Documents Are Forgeries
2. Historical Jesus Part 2: Jesus as Fantasy
3. Historical Jesus Part 3: Politics of the New Testament Canon
4. Historical Jesus Part 4: Contradictions and Improbabilities
5. Historical Jesus Part 5: Bibliography

Stick around and enjoy the ride. For those that criticized my last foray into this topic to be too light or not sufficient in its level of detail, this paper should be right up your alley. In this paper, I use many of the expected academic techniques to examine the evidence.

Note: I will be providing brief bibliographical information throughout the paper [in brackets] and I will provide a complete bibliography on the last day of this series. I’m just mentioning this up front in case anyone is wondering about specific sources.

And please do provide comments and feedback. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic further.

Todd

toddhdow Uncategorized atheism, christianity, Jesus, religion