Do I Stay Christian? Pondering McLaren’s New Book

In an appendix to the book that I wrote telling the story of my life up to my 82^nd birthday, I have several “top ten” lists, including one of “theologians and/or philosophers.” Although he is neither a professional theologian nor philosopher, the youngest person on that list is Brian McLaren (b. 1956).

Currently I am slightly revising and updating that book I wrote for my children and grandchildren, and I have just added McLaren’s 2022 book, Do I Stay Christian? A Guide for the Doubters, the Disappointed, and the Disillusioned, to my list of top ten 21^st century non-fiction books. 

No, I am personally not considering giving up being a Christian. Neither do I include myself among the doubters or disillusioned, although I am often disappointed with how so many Christians have lived and are living.

But certainly there are many thoughtful people now who have already left Christianity or are seriously thinking of doing so. With my lifelong interest in Christian apologetics, I was most interested in seeing what McLaren would say to those who have left, or would like to leave, the Christian faith.

The book has three parts: the first is “No,” ten chapters giving reasons for not staying Christian. Part II is “Yes,” ten chapters giving reasons for staying, and Part III is “How.”

There is much of considerable value in McLaren’s book, but I am not attempting to review his book here or to summarize the wealth of ideas worth thoughtful consideration. (I have made a page containing some of McLaren’s important statements, which you can access here.)

The ninth reason McLaren gives for not staying a Christian is “Because of Christianity’s Great Wall of Bias (Constricted Intellectualism.”) Although he has brief paragraphs about seven other biases, in that ninth chapter he mainly considers the “confirmation bias,” and it is worth pondering.

“Confirmation bias names our brain’s tendency to reject anything that doesn’t fit in with our current understanding, paradigm, belief system, or worldview,” writes McLaren (p. 67). This bias, he contends, has skewed the thinking of many Christians about nuclear war and ecological crises.

Perhaps this is the reason Mommsen failed to deal with ecological overshoot, which I wrote about in my July 5 blog post.

Mommsen, the able editor of Plough Quarterly, certainly is not “guilty” of the errors of the conservative evangelicals who believe the (eminent) “second coming” of Jesus will take care of the problem of ecological overshoot (although they haven’t used that term).

As far as I know, Mommsen has not written about the “rapture,” which has been emphasized in much conservative Christian eschatology. nor does he write explicitly about the second coming of Jesus. ⁺⁺

But perhaps Mommsen’s belief in rather traditional ideas about God acting in “supernatural” ways to consummate the world as we know it, maybe even in the lifetime of people now living, is the reason he overlooks overshoot—and the same is likely true for most traditional Christian believers.

On the other hand, perhaps it is Mommsen’s belief in the Kingdom of God (KoG) that blocks his acknowledgment of overshoot.

Emphasis on the KoG has been a central emphasis of the Bruderhof from the beginning, although he/they have not committed the “liberal” error of thinking that if we just work hard enough, we humans can “bring in” the Kingdom of God on earth.

Perhaps “confirmation bias” of Mommsen and others, traditional and liberal, has prevented serious consideration of the collapse of the world as we know it.

That collapse is projected by scientists based on their investigation of facts rather than theological (or ideological) beliefs that would skew their thinking because of confirmation bias.

(Of course, scientists are also sometimes biased, but generally they are far quicker than religious believers to recognize and correct those biases.)

In his next-to-last chapter, McLaren begins a prayer for overcoming the confirmation bias with these words: “Source of all truth, help me to hunger for truth, even if it upsets, modifies, or overturns what I already think is true” (p. 210).

This is my prayer also.

_____

⁺⁺ My March 25, 2015, blog post was titled “Do You Believe in the Rapture?” and it has had more than 3,000 pageviews (!) as well as far more comments than usual.

** Some of you may be interested in watching (some or all of) a YouTube interview of McLaren and his book I have introduced above: Do I Stay Christian with Brian McLaren: One Question with Pastor Adam.

 

Overlooking Overshoot

As most of you know, I am a big admirer of the Christian group known as the Bruderhof and am a regular reader of Plough Quarterly, their excellent publication. However, I have both appreciation for and some serious questions about their Summer 2022 issue titled Hope in Apocalypse. 

“Hoping for Doomsday”

Peter Mommsen, the great-grandson of Eberhard Arnold (1913~82) who was the founder of the Bruderhof, is the able editor of Plough Quarterly. I have often been helpfully informed and challenged by his perceptive editorials.

I was dissatisfied, though, with his six-page editorial in the current issue of Plough. It is titled, “Hoping for Doomsday: The times are troubled. That’s why we need the promise of apocalypse.”

While Mommsen writes some about the possible disastrous effects of climate change, he seems to think that it is less a threat to humanity than the potential destruction of earthly life as we know it because of nuclear war.

After briefly looking at those two apocalyptic threats, he writes,

one day homo sapiens will go extinct, with or without our help through carbon emissions or nuclear war, and the game will be over. At least that is what current scientific models foretell. Perhaps it will be at the next round of global glaciation, predicted in a hundred millennia or so . . . .

What he goes on to say in that paragraph is what I learned in the 1960s. But, and this was my dissatisfaction, he makes no reference to what some scientists (and others) have said in recent years about ecological overshoot.

In passing, Mommsen does mention Don’t Look Up! the movie I wrote about in my Jan. 25 blog post (see here), but he makes no reference at all to the frightening phenomenon of overshoot.

Ecological overshoot occurs when human demands exceed what the earth’s biosphere can provide through its capacity for renewal. According to some ecological scientists, the industrial world is nearing the overshoot apex and will soon begin to collapse, an irreversible phenomenon.

For a good introduction to this matter, see Michael Dowd’s video Overshoot in a Nutshell: Understanding Our Predicament and also YouTube talks (such as this one) by William Rees, professor emeritus of British Columbia University. These articulate what some scientistic models are now foretelling.

(Rees, b. 1943, is primarily known for creating the ecological footprint concept. Wikipedia, here, gives a good, brief introduction to Rees and his academic work.)

Mommsen’s failure to make any reference to the concept of ecological overshoot and the work of thinkers such as Dowd and Rees is a major deficiency in his editorial.

Why is Overshoot Overlooked?

A main reason is doubtlessly unawareness. In spite of valiant efforts by Dowd, Rees, and others to warn us of the perils of overshoot/collapse, there is little public awareness of that real and present danger.

My “Google alert” for overshoot in recent weeks has yielded surprisingly few “hits.” There are some pertinent articles found at EcoWatch (such as here), but these important essays are read by relatively few people.

Most, I’m afraid, don’t know (and don’t care?) about what is likely to happen before the end of the present century.

But some are aware (to varying degrees) of overshoot but find the idea unbearable. Some who do know at least something about overshoot just don’t want to think about it, because it is too upsetting to consider.

Perhaps a major reason overshoot is overlooked by many, especially serious Christian thinkers such as Mommsen, is that the possibility of such is unthinkable.

Earlier this year, Brian McLaren’s new book Do I Stay Christian? was published. While he does not say a lot about overshoot, he does mention the concept and makes a passing reference to Michael Dowd.

The seventh chapter of McLaren’s scintillating book deals with “Christianity’s great wall of bias, which includes the “tendency to reject anything that doesn’t fit in with our current understanding, paradigm, belief system, or worldview” (p. 67).

Perhaps this helps us understand Mommsen’s lack of serious attention to overshoot.

Much more needs to be said about this—and I plan to write at least a little more about it soon.

A New View of the Beatitudes

The most basic teachings of Jesus Christ are found in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in chapters five through seven of the Gospel according to Matthew. What is generally called the Beatitudes are found in that fifth chapter, and I invite you to consider, newly, those verses. 

Following the Call: A Good Old View

On Jan. 2, the first Sunday of this new year, I started reading the book Following the Call (2021), edited by Charles E. Moore and issued by Plough Publishing House.**

There are 52 chapters in Moore’s new book (and I plan to read a chapter every Sunday morning this year). On the page before the first chapter, the “overview” begins with these words:

The beatitudes are a summary of the entire Sermon [on the Mount], shorthand for what is to come. They describe Jesus himself . . . . And they depict the character of those who strive to follow Jesus.

Each chapter of Moore’s book has one to four brief excerpts from the writings of a wide variety of notable Christians. Chapter 1 begins with words by E. Stanley Jones (1884~1973), the venerable Methodist missionary to India. Jones wrote:

Here is the key to the Sermon on the Mount. We mistake it entirely if we look on it as the chart of the Christian’s duty; rather, it is the charter of the Christian’s liberty—his [or her] liberty to go beyond, to do the thing that love impels and not merely the thing that duty compels.

American Saint: A Good New View

One of the intriguing novels I read last year was American Saint (2019) by Sean Gandert, about whom I was unable to learn much, even from his website.

The “saint” in Gandert’s book is Gabriel Romero, who was “raised in a poor neighborhood in Albuquerque by his mother and curandera [= medicine woman] grandmother” and who “grows up fervently religious, privately conflicted, and consumed by what he’s certain is the true will of God.”

Toward the climax of the novel, Gabriel preaches at the Sunday morning Mass in the unconventional (Catholic) church he started. In his sermon he paraphrases the Beatitudes, not as describing Jesus himself but rather suggesting what “love impels” (Jones). Here is what he says:

So who now, I ask, are those who Christ supports? Who are the meek, the hungry, the poor? Who are the pure in heart and the ones who mourn? I tell you they are the same now as they were two thousand years ago, and that God has not lost sight of them, no matter how much the rest of us have. God tells us this: blessed are the immigrants, for they shall find comfort in the land of God. 

Blessed are the homeless, for they shall find shelter. 

Blessed are the addicts, for they shall find relief. 

Blessed are those who suffer from racist oppression, for they shall find justice. 

Blessed are those who find themselves with child and choose not to carry to term, for they shall find compassion. 

Blessed are those whose lands have been stolen and colonized, for they shall own their own destinies. 

Blessed are the prisoners and the unjustly convicted, for they will find freedom. 

And blessed are those shunned because of their gender or sexuality, for they shall find love” (pp. 288-9).

Can We Agree with Gabriel?

As you might guess, some who heard Gabriel’s new view of the Beatitudes were offended and criticized his ideas as outlandish. In reflecting on that development, Anna, who was one of Gabriel’s most faithful supporters, declared,

You get a lot of hate for spreading a message of love. You get a lot of hate for acting out the words of Christ, who wasn’t particularly popular in His day either (p. 306).

So, what about it? Can we agree with Gabriel, or do we want to be judgmental of those who are hurting the most? Can we recognize and affirm God’s amazing grace?

_____

** (Moore, b. 1956, is a long-time Bruderhof member and currently is a member of the Durham House, a Bruderhof community in North Carolina. I first learned of him when I read Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Søren Kierkegaard, 1999, which he edited and which I highly recommend.)

The Bruderhof: Celebrating a Century of Christian Discipleship

In 1920, Eberhard and Emmy Arnold founded a Christian community in the Weimar Republic (Germany). That community came to be known as the Bruderhof, the German word meaning “place of brothers.” 

Emmy & Eberhard Arnold

The Bruderhof through the Years

The Arnolds started their first community in the little German town of Sannerz, about 50 miles northeast of Frankfurt. Amid their outspoken opposition to the Nazi regime in the 1930s, Eberhard suddenly died in November 1935 at the age of 52.

Because of their anti-Nazi stance, the Bruderhof had to leave Sannerz in 1937. They moved briefly to Liechtenstein and then to the Cotswolds in England. Since they were Germans, the Bruderhof faced harassment there in the early years of WWII, so they then moved to Paraguay in South America.

In 1954, the Bruderhof moved again, this time to New York, and the number of their communities began to expand. After moving to the U.S., they were headed by Eberhard and Emmy’s son Johann Heinrich from 1962 until his death in 1982 and then by grandson Johann Christoph from 1983 to 2001.

The Bruderhof Today

Currently, there are 28 Bruderhof settlements on four continents with about 3,000 members. They are all trying to live out the vision that the Arnolds began with in 1920.

On their www.bruderhof.com website, the Bruderhof introduces their communal way of life and their Christian vision:

Love your neighbor. Take care of each other. Share everything. Especially in these challenging times, we at the Bruderhof believe that another way of life is possible. We’re not perfect people, but we’re willing to venture everything to build a life where there are no rich or poor. Where everyone is cared for, everyone belongs, and everyone can contribute.

We’re pooling all our income, talents, and energy to take care of one another and to reach out to others. We believe that God wants to transform our world, here and now. This takes a life of discipleship, sacrifice and commitment; but when you truly love your neighbor as yourself, peace and justice become a reality. Isn’t that what Jesus came to bring for everyone?

The Bruderhof’s Plough

In 1920, Eberhard Arnold started a publishing company that has long gone by the name Plough Publishing House. In the early years of the Bruderhof, their livelihood was supported by the books written and published by Arnold. 

Now located in Waldon, New York — and on the Internet at www.plough.com —Plough has published numerous worthwhile books, and since the summer of 2014 has also published Plough Quarterly, an outstanding periodical. The current editor is Peter Mommsen, a great-grandson of Eberhart and Emmy.

Two of my favorite books published by Plough are Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard (1999) and The Gospel in Tolstoy (2015), which I read before posting my Nov. 20 blog article about Tolstoy.

I am especially fond of the Quarterly, and early this week I received the Winter 2021 issue (No. 26); the theme is “What are Families For?” The ecumenical nature and diverse viewpoints presented in each Quarterly make it a valuable publication, and I read it “from cover to cover” each time.

The delightful new issue contains six main feature articles written by a New York Times columnist, a female member of the Bruderhof in Australia, a Catholic Cardinal, a Haitian woman poet, a teacher of Christian history, and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who died just last month.

The issues of Plough Quarterly now have 112 pages and contain many beautiful images and appealing artwork. Thus, it affords much viewing as well as reading pleasure.

In addition, each morning I enjoy reading Plough’s “Daily Dig,” short meditations that Plough sends by email—and which can be subscribed to (here) for free. This week’s “digs” have included brief passages by Karl Rahner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Madeleine L’Engle.

Hearty congratulations to the Bruderhof for their century of faithful Christian discipleship! 

Is Utopia Possible?

Not many books on my “To Read” list are 500 years old, but Utopia was on that list until I read it recently. “Utopia” was a term coined by the author, Thomas More, for his book with that title published (in Latin) in 1516.

Introducing More

Many of you probably remember that More was a staunch Catholic who opposed King Henry VIII breaking away from Rome and declaring himself the head of the Church in England. Accordingly, in 1535 More (b. 1478) was convicted of treason and beheaded.

A few of you also may remember that “A Man for All Seasons” was the movie which won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1966. That is a fine film about Thomas More, a fine man.

During the seventeen semesters I taught one of the required theology classes at Rockhurst University, a Jesuit school in Kansas City, Thomas More was always a part of my lecture about the beginnings of the Church of England. I would always tell my students how I admire More because he was a man of great integrity.

It is hard to know what to make of his Utopia, though

More’s Utopia

“Utopia,” from the Greek words meaning no place (ou topos), is said to be a pun on the Greek words meaning good place (eu topos). The first definition of utopia in the online Miriam-Webster dictionary is “an imaginary and indefinitely remote place.” But when capitalized, it means “a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions.”

The island of Utopia in More’s rather complex book was inhabited by people who lived quite differently than people in England—or in other parts of the world, for that matter. It was a socialistic society where people lived with little interest in gold (and all that that represents) and with a high level of equality—and satisfaction. 

Attempts to create Utopia

Since the time of More’s intriguing novel, there have been several actual attempts to create a utopian community. One such example was New Harmony, which I mentioned in my Aug. 20 blog article. Started by one idealistic group in 1814, the whole town was sold to Robert Owen, a wealthy Welshman.

The Wikipedia article about Owen (1771–1858) says, “In 1824, Owen travelled to America to invest the bulk of his fortune in an experimental 1,000-member colony on the banks of Indiana’s Wabash River. . . . New Harmony was intended to be a Utopian society.”

But guess what? It didn’t work. In spite of all the grand plans and lofty ideals, they were unable to create a utopian society—and so has been the case of similar experiments throughout the last 500 years.

Pride, greed, sloth, and other inherent human weaknesses (sins) seem to have doomed most (all?) attempts to create Utopia.

The best examples I know of utopian societies that have existed for any length of time are those which did not seek to form Utopia but rather simply to follow the example of Christians in the Book of Acts.

For example, the Bruderhof, the Hutterites, and to some extent the Amish all seem to have been successful, at least to some degree, in creating utopian communities. Those groups all have roots in the Swiss Anabaptist movement that began in 1525, just a few years after More wrote Utopia—and a movement he would have opposed.

Does More’s Utopia, or especially the groups I just mentioned, have anything to teach us today? Most likely—if we just had the will to put the needs of all ahead of the privileges of the few.

Is Politics Trumping Mercy?

In this age of the demise of many magazines because of the great growth of information on the Internet, a small Christian community in New York known as the Bruderhof has bravely begun to publish the Plough Quarterly, an excellent new publication said to be “breaking ground for a renewed world.” 

The theme of the Winter 2016 issue, which I received earlier this month, is just their seventh one, and it is a good one. Each issue has a theme expressed in one word, and the theme of the new issue is “Mercy.”

A week ago, on the 50th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council (about which I wrote in my previous article), the Jubilee Year of Mercy began in the Catholic Church. 

Back in April, Pope Francis issued a public statement that the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy would begin on the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. And he went on to declare, “The Church feels a great need to keep this event alive.” 

I don’t fully understand all that is meant by the Jubilee Year, but I do comprehend that Pope Francis is calling upon Catholics, and all Christians, to “live lives shaped by mercy.” 

According to Catholic teachings, seven types of actions are called “the corporeal works of mercy.” They include the seven things you see in the following image:

So even though they are on a vastly different scale, a small Protestant group and the large and powerful Catholic Church are emphasizing mercy at the very same time. That seems to be highly appropriate, for in the Bible the prophet Micah spoke these powerful words about God’s desire for us humans: 

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (6:8, NIV)

Acts of mercy are central to the Christian faith.

One definition of mercy is “compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.” The dictionary’s third definition of mercy is “compassionate treatment of those in distress.” 

As I understand it, the Bible’s emphasis on mercy is particularly of the latter type—and that is the type of mercy found in the Catholic Church’s list of “corporeal works of mercy.”

Recently (here) I was critical of Kentucky’s new governor and the other (mostly Republican) governors who are so negative about accepting Syrian refugees. Of course there has to be extensive checks on those coming into this country and the safety of U.S. citizens must always be a matter of great concern. 

But why does anyone think the President or the (mostly Democratic) governors who want to receive Syrian refugees are not concerned about the safety issue? Of course they are. 

Like so many other current matters, the acceptance of Syrian refugees into this country is to a large degree a political issue. 

Among other things, the Republican presidential candidates have greatly exaggerated the number of Syrian refugees being considered. Donald Trump even charged that the President wants to bring 250,000 into this country. But the real figure under consideration for 2016 is around 10,000. 

It is a real shame that politicians (and the segment of the public supporting those politicians) put politics ahead of mercy. I have it on good authority (see Matthew 5:7) that it is the merciful who will be blessed; for to them mercy will be shown.