(RNS) Southern Baptist theologian Jim Hamilton doesn’t write a lot of parables. But he recently posted an original one on his blog in a bid to delegitimize a popular author who Hamilton says is falsely advertising himself as an evangelical.
In the parable, author Brian McLaren transforms a Whole Foods Market into a McDonald’s, yet misleadingly retains the “Whole Foods” name.
Hamilton says that’s exactly what McLaren is doing in his new book, “A New Kind of Christianity.”
In short, McLaren’s refashioning Christianity into something altogether different, but still claiming the “Christian” name, while leading the unaware astray, Hamilton said.
McLaren’s “is the same kind of `Christianity’ that colluded, went along with, Hitler’s program in Germany,” says Hamilton, associate professor of biblical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
“Leading theologians in that era of Germany regarded the Bible and history of the Christian faith in the same way as Brian McLaren does, which is: `This is outdated. Let’s replace it with something up to date.”‘
In attempting to marginalize McLaren, Hamilton has plenty of company. In March, the flagship seminary took the rare step of convening a panel to debunk a single book: McLaren’s.
Faculty members slammed McLaren, an English teacher-turned-pastor, for allegedly telling the God of the Bible, “you cannot be God.”
Bloggers, meanwhile, have described McLaren’s approach as “dangerous,” “seductive” and “heretical.”
In his book, McLaren, who says he comes out of a fundamentalist background, questions long-held assumptions of Christianity. He bristles at the notion of worshiping a God whose wrath sometimes appears unjustified. He engages the Bible as literature, in which God is a main character, rather than as an authoritative type of “constitution” for the church. And he suggests people need divine salvation from human evil, not from a sovereign God.
“There are a lot of people who can’t — for intellectual, ethical and other reasons of conscience — accept a lot of the assumptions that (fundamentalist Christians) demand that we accept,” McLaren said in an interview.
“I’m trying to be helpful to other people who will never fit in the conservative or fundamentalist framework.”
To explain why he’s so disliked, McLaren noted in a recent Huffington Post essay that his critics often share his views but won’t openly admit it. His reason: “Their consciences are in conflict with their beloved religious authority figures (and) the best way to stay out of religious trouble is to keep your opinions private.”
Observers, however, say the backlash to McLaren is about more than conservatives toeing the party line. In their view, there are big things at stake for theological conservatives, who fear McLaren might be just clever enough to lead a generation astray.
On one level, nothing short of the eternal destiny of souls hangs in the balance as conservatives fret about McLaren’s emphasis on social justice and de-emphasis of traditional beliefs, according to Christian Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame.
“In the end, it would be a matter of salvation (for concerned evangelicals), because you would have people in church for no good reason, who don’t really believe in the gospel or Jesus,” Smith says.
On another level, Smith adds, McLaren hits a sensitive nerve among conservatives who worry about consequences of eroding theological integrity. Always wary of encroachment from a hostile surrounding culture, these evangelicals fear that young Christians won’t grasp the tenets that make Christianity distinct.
McLaren’s formulation of a less doctrinal, more activist faith “is threatening because it’s attractive to a lot of people, especially young people,” Smith said. “What (McLaren’s critics) really don’t want to see is older evangelicals continue to be the kind of the people they are, and a new generation comes along and heads off in a different direction (with) very little clue that Christianity has content.”
Concerned evangelicals are firing back at McLaren for what they see as an assault that originated within their own ranks. Though McLaren still claims the evangelical moniker, many of his evangelical foes insist he’s no more evangelical than they are Catholic, Muslim or Jewish.
McLaren’s opponents speak of “McLarenism” or “McLarianity” to distinguish his teachings from those of orthodox evangelicals. Among those unhappy with the advancement of “McLarenism” is Kevin DeYoung, a Michigan pastor who regards it as a “theological innovation” that abandons Christianity by disavowing original sin, divine sovereignty and other essential doctrines.
“One of the frustrating things with reading McLaren is he can be rhetorically manipulative,” said DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Mich. “He paints himself as a martyr so that those who dare to disagree are just adding to his heroic defense of this new kind of Christianity.”
Yet not all evangelicals are resisting McLaren, who ranks as a leading figure in the amorphous “Emerging Church” movement, which claims no specific beliefs or organizational structure. It was standing room only when he spoke last December at Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif. While his theology may not have been entirely persuasive, his approach proved appealing, according to Kurt Fredrickson, associate dean of Fuller’s doctor of ministry program.
“A lot of evangelicals who are now students have grown up in a situation where they were not allowed to question or to doubt,”
Frederickson said. McLaren “is saying, `I know you have questions about issues. The world is not as simple or black-and-white as people may have taught you growing up. … I want to create a safe space for discussion about this.’ And he’s not saying this as a doubter or an atheist, but as a convicted follower of Jesus.”
By G. JEFFREY MacDONALD
Copyright 2010 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



posted May 4, 2010 at 7:14 pm
The bible clearly warns of false doctrine and seduction of the young. Not allowing the bible to be rewritten has always been hard work.
posted May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm
We are known by our friends and by our opponents. In this case, I think Mclaren’s credibility is being reinforced by the very people who are trying to tear him down. I have not been a great fan of his, but given this much negative attention I may give him another consideration.
posted May 5, 2010 at 9:09 am
His fundi critics are going to drive people to support him. Like me. I’ll buy his book and read it, for sure. GO McClaren!!
posted May 5, 2010 at 10:02 am
Comparing McClaren to Hitler is one sure way for his critics to alienate the intelligent and compassionate younger generation of evangelicals. Al-though I don’t always appreciate McClaren’s style, he points the way to more inclusion and humane treatment of our neighbors. Oh, Southern Baptists–aren’t they actually more Hitler-esque, shunning those of races other than Caucasian for many years?
posted May 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@ Arun Dev. How true! I’m so sick of weak attempts at winning an ill-supported argument by claiming they are Hitleresque or Naziesque. A socially maladjusted way to try and shut down debate! That’s something that anyone following such ‘leaders’ should be wary of and does a great discredit in suggesting that what they want you to accept as truth is undefendable by any other means.
Whether these critics like it or not, their church has changed and is always changing. To deny change also outlaws a greater personal understanding of ones faith. All things need to be considered carefully before they are accepted or rejected. Why would we be endowed with exceptional powers of reasoning if we weren’t intended to use them.
posted May 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Who needs theology when you can have an appealing approach?
posted May 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm
WT quote, “Why would we be endowed with exceptional powers of reasoning if we weren’t intended to use them”
“exceptional powers of reasoning is arguable when we are destroying the earth and the percentage of people who live comfortable compared to the percentage in abject poverty is so unbalanced.” Getting boob jobs and sexual reassignment is more important than feeding the hungry I don’t know about that being exceptional powers of reasoning.
posted May 6, 2010 at 7:50 am
To quote D.A.Carson: “as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and [Steve] Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel” (D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, (2005), p.186).” The only reason McLaren is even considered an Evangelical is because the term has been so watered down and abused that almost anybody can be considered an Evangelical. The term is basically useless now but this is nothing new it’s just repackaged Modernism the same type of thing J. Gresham Machen fought in the 20s and people like B. B. Warfield and G. Campbell Morgan decried in The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth. In a coupleyears when everybody is done being “emergent” and asking questions and not really having answers those that may finally see the light will be clamoring for the Theological certainty of there so called “fundamentalists” because you cant build a relationship with God based on the void of Post Modernism.
posted May 6, 2010 at 11:06 am
Aaron wrote:
“…this is nothing new it’s just repackaged Modernism…”
and
“…you cant build a relationship with God based on the void of Post Modernism.”
So which is it, Modernism or Post-modernism?
posted May 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm
There are people all over the web denouncing McLaren as everything from a heretic to a “true Son of Lucifer.” But none of them seem to be able to refute McLaren’s book on its own terms; they have no counter-argument, just name-calling.
Usually, when someone offers an argument and the opposition responds with name-calling instead of refutation or counter-argument, it usually means the opposition’s position is weak. Hamilton, DeYoung, Albert Mohler and all the rest are basically demagoging a man simply for making a good argument.
If they can compare McLaren to Hitler or worse, it seems fair–for the sake of contrast–to compare him to, say, Socrates, Galileo and even Jesus.
All three were condemned for the crime of blasphemy (a form of heresy). Socrates and Galileo were especially known for asking tough questions the established authorities didn’t like, and Jesus was certainly a critic of the religious authorities of his day. The parallels between these three to McLaren are much more tenable than comparing McLaren to Hitler. McLaren’s book bears no essential resemblance at all to the doctrines and practices of the Nazis.
There are billions of people on the planet who don’t believe the Bible, but that doesn’t make them Nazis. Disbelief in the Bible was not essential to Nazism and it doesn’t make anyone a Nazi to disbelieve it, despite what Hamilton tries to claim.
However, the response of certain conservative evangelicals to McLaren does seem strikingly Pharisaical in tone, style and substance.
References:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2010/05/evangelicals-take-aim-at-one-o.php
posted June 14, 2010 at 8:25 am
If only more than 27 people could read this..