Brian McLaren, Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in 12 Simple Words (HarperOne 2011), 240 pages.
It’s been said that trying to define the emergent church, and those within the emergent church, is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall. It’s simply too loose to define. Many of the writings of those who classify as “emergent” leave the reader with more questions than answers. Brian McLaren’s new book, Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in 12 Simple Words, is no exception. In this book, McLaren attempts to provide religious people with a means of living life with God in a simplified manner. In McLaren’s assessment, too often we are clothed in garments of organized religion and symbolic rituals, so we need to disrobe before God and be free.
Many have talked in depth about the emergent church movement, so I won’t address that here. But like many precursors with dubious biblical warrant, there is some element of truth in many emergent critiques. McLaren—speaker, social justice activist, and former pastor—is no different. McLaren seems to understand that we are sinful people in need of repentance and confession (100). This is not the main thrust of the book, but he does devote two chapters to the necessity for acknowledging sinfulness in order to grow spiritually. This is a good thing. However, his solution for the repentant sinner leaves much to be desired.
He also seems to understand that this life is hard and not how it is supposed to be. McLaren recognizes that life is painful and difficult and can sometimes bring tremendous heartache (141-185). Unfortunately, his answers to hurting and suffering are unsatisfactory and leave more questions than answers.
McLaren is reacting to a Christian subculture that has not always done things biblically. This is not a new phenomenon. The problem is that in his reaction he has abandoned key tenets of the Christian faith along the way. Perhaps the most perplexing of all of his statements in this book, he is not consistent about whom the book is addressing. In chapter vie, “Here: Naming the Mystery,” he references the names for the god of Islam, in addition to the names for the God of Christianity (45-46). When he talks about the priority of God receiving our time and consideration in a weekly worship service, he lumps churches into the same category as synagogues and mosques (79). Attempting to pull from the compassionate examples of other religions, he discusses the good practices of Buddhists, Jews (in the Old Testament), Muslims, and Christians (in the New Testament) (127). This looseness regarding other religions is a common theme throughout the book. While he uses the Bible as a source for his arguments, his flirtation with the practices of false religions is dangerous and confusing. Common grace is extended to those who are Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim, but any good work or act of worship without exaltation of the Savior, Jesus Christ, is empty (Hebrews 11:6).
McLaren also misunderstands the kingdom of God. Though he rightly asserts that this world is fallen and needs redemption, his solution to the problem is incomplete. In McLaren’s understanding, naked spirituality would cause compassion and service that would alleviate the tremendous suffering in this world and inaugurate a more peaceful world (139-140, 237). A world where peace and justice reign forever sounds wonderful, but it’s not here yet. It’s coming. While we receive glimpses of the fulfillment of this kingdom, we cannot usher its consummation in on our own or even on this earth. Instead, Christ inaugurated the kingdom by his life, death, and resurrection and will be consummated in power when he returns. That is the Christian hope.
The most troubling piece of the entire book is not that he walks a fine line with other religions, or that he doesn’t understand the kingdom, though these are very serious matters. Rather, Christ is notably absent. Sure, Christ is mentioned as a great teacher and even as the Savior. But there is no bloody cross in this book. As he talks about petition and seeking forgiveness for wrongdoing, Christ is absent and replaced with our need for self-love and acceptance by God when riddled with guilt (110-111). McLaren is writing to people who need a more simplified relationship with God, but none of this is possible without the shed blood of Jesus Christ on their behalf. We come into God’s presence not because we say we are sorry or ask for help, but because Jesus is standing at the right hand of the Father saying “look at me when you see their sin. Let my atoning death be their cleansing gift” (Hebrews 7:25). Without that gift, there can be no deeper relationship with God.
McLaren’s book is edgy and hip. He walks on the edge regarding many hot button issues today and isn’t afraid to speak out against established religion and church as we know it. This gives him an audience with skeptics, at least. But while his book promises to provide simple ways to deepen your relationship with God, there is no suffering Savior in McLaren’s 12 words towards a simpler life with God. This is a book about a simpler spirituality, but it won’t bring anyone into fellowship with God. It will only do what McLaren is working so hard to avoid—create empty ritualistic religion.
God does call us to come to him unhindered and naked, but we can’t stay naked for long. He clothes us in the righteousness of his Son, Jesus. That is what we need for a simpler life with God—Christ alone. It is only then that we can say with the great hymn writer: “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy Cross I cling; Naked, come to thee for dress; Helpless look to thee for grace.”
Brian, like many of the emergent group, seems more interested in a social gospel thus the omitting of the cross of Christ. I’m all for helping the widow and orphan, I work in full time ministry to troubled youth, but not at the expense of the the cross and with a realization that there is and always will be trouble in this world until Christ returns.
Amen!
McLaren spoke at Taylor University when I was a senior there a couple of years ago. After he was done, a student asked him what he believed the Gospel was. He stammered, stuttered and danced around a bit.. but ultimately offered nothing concrete.
Don’t get me wrong, McLaren spent 35 minutes giving a very well-prepared analysis for what the world needs in terms of social changes. But my question is this: So what if these people have good health, a job, a nicer home, food on the table and 30 more years of life? When they do come to die (albeit 30 years later) they will still spend eternity apart from God in everlasting damnation if they do not know Jesus Christ personally. The Church cannot allow McLaren and co. to cause it to elevate temporary social concerns over the genuine unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/03/17/naked-spirituality-with-brian-mclaren-homebrewed-christianity-93/
Not that very many people who frequent this website are likely to even read Brian’s books, but for a fair overview, check out this podcast. It’s unfortunate that this review fails to consider Brian’s overall aim in the book. Courtney brings every one of her preconceived prejudices into this analysis. The reality is, there’s a lot of people out there who will never read anything that conservatives publish. Brian on the other hand is trying to reach the “spiritual but not religious” by giving them something that actually meets them where they are, like Jesus does. At the same time, unlike what this review suggests, he completely affirms all of the historic Christian creeds – just not the in exact same way that the narrow stream of conservative evangelicals and SBC folks want him to. If only we’d learn how to find the middle ground between generous and stingy orthodoxy. McLaren believes in the gospel that Jesus saves sinners. He just hasn’t created a club where only a few people are allowed to fit that into that category with the “right” interpretations – yes, interpretations – and biblical formulas. I don’t visit this site very often, because I would be depressed every day if I did, but every now again, silence is not an option. I pray you will check out this interview and really listen to an imperfect man who God is using in a way that is different from you, despite what you might be “certain” of.
Wow Bill that was a great interview!!!
Brian is awesome and so is the book.
@Courtney — Thanks for the fantastic review.
@Bill — Spiritual but not religious? I’m all for reaching those people, but if we’re going to claim to try to reach them for God, we must do so on His terms. His terms are repentance of sin by confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior and rely on His sacrificial, atoning work of the cross and His resurrection to save us. McLaren, and the rest of what I’ve seen of the Emergent Church movement, violates even the most basic laws of philosophy when they claim that everyone is right and has a way to Heaven. Either Christianity is right, and everyone else is wrong and on their way to Hell, or another religion or “spiritual faith” is right, and everyone else is wrong. Even those who say that everyone gets to God in different ways are saying that every other religion is wrong, and creating their own religion.
Don, based on what you’ve just said, to say that you have a superficial understanding of philosophy, theology, and certainly the Emergent Church movement would be an understatement. I don’t think a more reductionist statement could be constructed that what you have just supplied. I encourage you to listen to the podcast I posted before lashing out at me. Secondly, I challenge you to provide evidence for how McLaren denies the terms of repentance of sin, etc. And thirdly, even a brief survey of Christian history and all of its varied content will reveal that to speak of “Christianity” as something singular, total, and systematically succinct is impossible. Finally, please tell me where you’ve heard McLaren or anyone else in the so-called emergent movement say that “everyone is right and has a way to heaven.” He denies any such claims most explicitly in his book, “Finding Faith.” Very few people actually claim this. Rather, it’s what simple-minded folk “hear” when they don’t understand claims made by people who resist black/white characterizations of truth and the world in general.
Bill, I am sorry if you felt that I was lashing out at you directly. That was never my intention, and I only addressed you specifically to differentiate from my comment to Courtney.
First, yes, I do have a basic knowledge of philosophy, and probably a basic knowledge of theology as well. I realize the Emergent Church’s goal is to reach those who would claim to be “spiritual but not religious”, and that is a very good goal. I’m not going to go into why I disagree with much of what they believe, namely because this isn’t the forum for that, and men much more capable than I have already done so, particularly concerning Rob Bell’s latest book.
Second, truth is truth. Either a statement is true, or it isn’t. It is black and white by nature. There isn’t a blend of gray where black and white meet, white is white and black is black. Truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood. Any attempts to mix the two strays from the truth and becomes falsehood, hence the phrase “a partial truth is the worst kind of lie”.
Third, I hold to orthodox Christianity. I believe God created all that was created, that man fell through sin, that Jesus’s atoning, redeeming work on the cross is the only thing that can restore creation, and that only those who come to Jesus and confess Him as Lord, Savior, and Treasure will come to experience glorification at the second advent. If you consider that reductionist and/or exclusive, I’m ok with that, because Jesus Himself said that there are few who walk the narrow road that leads to life. If that’s not exclusive, I don’t know what is.
Don – I have no problems with your Christian confession, as I share it with you, but what you lack is humility about truth claims, which indicates little awareness of your own finitude and historical conditioning. One must make a distinction, not between whether truth exists, but between how much we can comprehend and exhaust that truth. Just because we have an authoritative revelation in the Bible doesn’t mean we have pure, objective, absolute knowledge of ultimate reality. Your comments reflect a degree of epistemological arrogance in my view. Truth is best conceived on a spectrum, not in categories of true and false. Why? because we do not have access to these categories. Look at Job for instance, or any hymn attesting God’s sovereignty. Language and time especially limit our ability to say what is true with empirical certitude. We can “see” it with our hearts, but that does not mean we have earned the right to so quickly and clearly delineate what is in/out or orthodoxy/heterodoxy. This is not to say, however, as Mohler has about McLaren, that we can’t approach truth. Indeed we must. But to lay final and normative claims on that truth as if it has been grasped is sheer offense. This is why faith is so beautiful – it is childlike and trust. It does not master. I hope you are able to appreciate this distinction. Lastly, there’s a difference between “degrees” of truth, and “partial” truth – neither has to be a “lie”. We hope we move toward absolute truth, but we never “know” this for sure. As Paul says, we see through a “glass darkly,” a “dim mirror,” for now . . . but there will come a day when this will no longer be so. That is the promise we believe in. If you take this seriously, a black and white worldview crumbles more and more with every good and honest question. Such simplicity does tremendous disservice to the wonderful complexities of life.
Bill, I am thoroughly confused in reading this conversation. You might feel like you’ve beaten this to death, but I would like to ask a couple of questions that would help me understand you better.
It seems like you believe that objective truth exists – and that partial instances of that truth are completely “true” even if the whole is not revealed. Yet, you place “truth” on a “spectrum” and reject the categories of “true” and “false.” Maybe my historical conditioning is much too Western/Platonic for me to understand that comment, but it seems to come into real conflict with, what sound like to me, exclusive statements made by Jesus himself regarding an “inside” and an “outside” to the kingdom of God.
First, would you be willing to elaborate on how your view of a “spectrum” of truth – one which does not exist within the categories of “true” and “false” – exists in light of Jesus’ words from John 14, especially in light of 14.6 (I understand that verse numbering of Bible translations is not indicative to the manuscripts or original intent of the writers. I use them here for their ease of specification). I believe this is an interesting discussion in which Jesus does not provide “exhaustive” truth regarding the exclusive qualities of his kingdom, yet he does provide “a truth” about exclusivity which would not seem to become “false” given the revelation of more “truth.” To see how you interact with this discussion might help me to better understand your position.
Thank you for your time.
Bill–
Your response to Don is hilarious for two reasons.
1) You accuse Don of “lacking humility” with a level of arrogance that only YOU don’t seem to notice.
2) You attack Don’s truth claims with a bursting quiver full of you own truth claims!
Are really this self-unconscious or are you an Emergent parody? Just asking. Really.
Chris –
Not all truth claims are equally audacious. Nor do all truth claims carry the same “burden of proof.” I make a distinction between people being humble and describing the humility of their epistemology. I don’t know Don, and I’m certainly not accusing him of lacking humility as a person. Let me illustrate what I’m saying with this comparison:
If I believe, based on a certain interpretation of Scripture and a certain kind of trust in its authority, that only people who hear the Gospel have any chance of being saved, then I’ve made a very threatening claim that has potentially devastating effects for billions of people. Unless I am pretty much absolutely certain that this must be the case, then I find this claim to be untenably arrogant.
I on the other hand, am making no such claim, so I do not think my “bursting quiver” is nearly as problematic as Don’s. Let’s say that instead, as an inclusivist, I believe that there is an unlimited wideness in Christ’s love and mercy such that I have no right to say who will or will not be saved, and only God judges hearts. I’m still making a very exclusive claim – namely, that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and all who are saved are saved through him – but I’m supplementing that claim with a very specifically qualifier that is much less ideologically oppressive, though still quite bold and faith-based.
So I don’t really understand why what I said was “hilarious” or why there is a need to accuse me of being “self-unconscious,” etc.
“…so I do not think my “bursting quiver” is nearly as problematic as Don’s.”
Naturally.
This is a great question Mike. And no, this has not been “beaten to death” at all. You seem to be aware of the issues in a much more nuanced way (your comment about a Western/Platonic lens, for instance). There is no conflict, I don’t think, between what I’ve said and what Jesus claims in John 14:6. Of course as Christians we affirm that Jesus represents, communicates, and is, all that is absolutely true, objectively. But in human, finite terms, we cannot fully appreciate this. Rather, because we stand in history and not above it, we strive toward it, moving ever closer in understanding and discipleship/formation (i.e., spectrum). In doing so, there is never an attainable viewpoint that can make ultimate categorical statements about truth and falsehood as far as the truth value in other religions. At the same time, insofar as these religions disagree with our Christian claims, we confess them to be in error, but there can still be much good in them that is consistent with Christian truths as well (love God, love neighbor in Islam, for instance – pretty big similarity . . . the massive differences notwithstanding). In other words, everyone who is saved is saved through Christ, and all truth belongs to Christ – definitely. But that is not the same thing as saying that we master truth with theological formulas, though of course creeds and doctrinal are still incredibly important. Rather, however, getting back to the idea of a spectrum, we are either closer or farther away from that truth depending on what we are claiming (our on-going conformity to Christ, in knowledge, word, and deed, constitutes the degree of proximity to truth). This knowledge, however, is not confined to rational/philosophical terms like Don seemed to be implying above. Let me know if that helps clarify or not. In sum, I feel that what is lacking in many Christian camps is the essential component of epistemological humility with belief being understood as faith and profession, not empirical fact. This is consistent with a thoroughly classical, orthodoxy conception of Christian creeds.
Bill,
The Scriptures use both “faith” and “the faith” to refer to different things. The first is our subjective response to the second which is objective truth.
We should be humble, for we are saved by grace and only by the sovereign mercy of God.
Some things are quite clear in Scripture, and our “exegetical humility” seems like an excuse to waffle and side-step issues. Those things that are often repeated and central to orthodox Christianity (things being held for nearly 2,000 years by Christians in a variety of cultures and philosophical backgrounds so forget the conditioning) are among those that are quite clear and part of the Faith given to us for which we must contend. These are the very things the emergent church obscures, de-emphasizes or sometimes denies.
While we do not understand the truth exhaustively or comprehensively, we can know it certainly. Our epistemological humility before God (the Creator-creature distinction) doesn’t permit us to play these kinds of word games. God, the author of special revelation, has spoken to us in keeping with our nature and limitations.
I suspect John, Peter, Moses, Abraham & Paul would laugh hilariously at the notion that the faith was not empirical fact. Like the Exodus generation they saw, heard and felt that God was real and said particular things. This is the whole idea of witnesses.
You make a good point Steve, especially about the idea of witnesses. How that has anything to do with empirical fact, however, I have no idea. I do think we can have certainty though, but not empirical certainty, which is the way you seem to using the word. If there is any certainty, it is through the eyes and light of faith, not because of precise doctrines – the importance of doctrines notwithstanding.
It blows me away…that there are so many…like Brian Mclaren that are teaching a false doctrine…and the Bible is very clear on that issue…
They have chosen tom worship man and feely good stuff….and ignore the Gospel….or worse try and make it a wonderful myth…
Just”…….wow
Hoot