AN OLD KIND OF CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORICAL THEOLOGICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN ALBRECHT RITSCHL AND BRIAN MCLAREN

Introduction
On Human Nature and Sin
On The Person and Work of Christ
On Salvation
Conclusion

This is a short series based on a 30-page paper I wrote for my ThM in Historical Theology. I set out to compare the theology of Brian McLaren to Albrecht Ritschl, a German liberal theologian who was the successor of Friederick Schleiermacher, the father of modern day liberalism. The reason I chose to do this type of theological comparison is because I want to bring the lens of historical theology to bear on contemporary theological discourse. People have said McLaren is a liberal theologian along the lines of Schleiermacher, and I wanted to see if that’s true. Here are the fruits of that labor.

This historical comparative examination has sought to examine and compare elements of McLaren’s theology to Ritschl along three lines of reasoning: the problem of sin, the person and work of Christ, and solution of salvation. In concluding this examination, perhaps Ritschl’s theology is best summarized by his definition of Christianity:

Christianity, then, is the monotheistic, completely spiritual and ethical religion, which, based on the life of its Author as Redeemer and Founder of the Kingdom of God, consists in the freedom of the children of God, involves the impulse to conduct from the motive of love, which aims at the moral organization of mankind, and grounds blessedness on the relationship of sonship to God, as well as on the Kingdom of God. ((Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation, 13.))

According to Ritschl, the Christian religion is based on the life of Jesus as a sort of ethical redeemer and based upon him as the founder of the Kingdom of God. It also consists in five things: freedom of the children of God, presumably from—as we have already seen—the world and web of sin through an ethical elevation and lordship; the compulsion and encouragement to act out of love; the aim of creating ethical boundaries for moral organization; blessedness in one’s sonship and daughership to God by attaining the Kingdom of God through right living and ethical practice. This definition fits within the three paths of examination for both Ritschl and McLaren.

For them, the problem with humanity is not the nature of individuals themselves, but ethical. Both McLaren and Ritschl reject the historic doctrine of original sin, rejecting the transmission of both personal guilt and divine wrath and the individual necessity to sin by nature. Instead, both agree that the systems and stories of the world are to blame for the evolving human condition. While the first parents began innocently enough and were created with the capacity to freely choose the highest common good, their evolution brought them to higher planes of moral consciousness, contributing to alienating acts.

Now humans are caught: in the words of Ritschl we are caught in a whole web of sinful actions and reactions; in the words of McLaren we are caught in an avalanche of crises that are the result of dysfunctional systems and destructive stories. Both presuppose a collective “selfish bias” conscious that is the result of external ethically bad systems and stories in the world impinging upon the individual and collective humanity. This web of systems and stories have coagulated to form a power of united sin that falls upon every person, moving us to act badly. The problem, then, is outside of us, and for that we need a better ethical system and a better ethical story.

McLaren and Ritchl both believe the solution to our problem is found in the alternative system and story of the Kingdom of God, which represents the highest, perfect ethical common good after which all of humanity is supposed to strive. Both also believe that one human was sent and commissioned by God as a conduit for this solution: Jesus Christ. Both Ritschl and McLaren believe the inherent value in the person and work of Jesus Christ is entirely ethical. Because the problem of humanity is ethical, the means by which that problem can be solved must also be ethical. Thus, they envision the person of Jesus as the prototype for the best possible way to live as a human; Jesus was a master of life and lived it in such a way that teaches all the world how to live. While they do not believe Jesus was God Himself, they both maintain His possession of the Godhead attribute is the result of His ethical service and actions; Jesus’s ethics were Divine and He revealed the character of God. Thus, because He was full of God because of His loving, high righteous ethics, humanity can find salvation from the bad systems and stories of the world.

There is a sort of yin-yang relationship in their theology between the person and works of Jesus: Because Jesus is full of God and sent by God to found the Kingdom, we find in His life and teachings the highest, perfect common ethical and moral good; because He acted loving in the face of hatred and suffered in the face of imperial abuse, Jesus shows and reveals the character of the living God and He Himself participates in the Godhead. Jesus shares in the Divine because He is ethical; Jesus is ethical because He was in some real way chosen by God and possessed a strong connection to the Divine. Because of this connection and because of his higher divine consciousness He belongs to an order higher than all humanity.

Out of this connection, consciousness, and order, Jesus has enabled humanity to find salvation, primarily in attaining the Kingdom of God which He Himself founded and taught. As a chosen conduit who had a unique relationship with God and one who participated in the Divine through founding, teaching, and living the highest ethical common good of the Kingdom, he shows the way and leads the way of liberation from the bad systems and stories of the world. This display and liberation culminated at the cross, the ultimate showdown between the contrary ways of Kingdom of the World and Kingdom of God.

While the historic Christian faith has pointed to the cross as the means by which people find salvation from the problem of natural, inherited sin because of the substitutionary role of Jesus’ sacrifice, Ritschl and McLaren imagine the cross plays a different role. For them, the cross is part of our salvation from the systems and stories of the world because of Jesus’ moral example of vulnerability, suffering, and love. Again, because our human problem is an ethical one, resulting from bad systems and stories, the ultimate solution must be, too. At the cross, Jesus shows God’s forgiving, rather than revenging, heart toward humanity. The cross is the window through which we see God rejecting the violence and dominance and oppression of the world over against the way of sacrifice and suffering of the Kingdom. In turn, Jesus’ example of death beckons humanity to die to the systems and stories of the world and the selfish bias that results from the web of those systems, while rising with him above them in loving, sacrificial triumph. By following after Jesus’ ethical example on the cross, we find salvation from our ethically bad world.

In the end, Ritschl and McLaren believe our salvation is ultimately found in the teachings of Jesus on the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom offers the solution to the problem that has plagued humanity, because it provides dominion over the world and provides an alternative system and story. Ritschl explicitly says the solution to the problem that has confounded humans for millennia is found in the Kingdom of God precisely because it offers an ethical ordering, dominion and rallying point over against the web of sin and sin of society that defines the world. And those who have committed themselves to this new ethical system and story are called to bring it into existence in order to solve our ethical problem and find ethical salvation. It is when one orients their life around the loving action of the Kingdom and cooperates with God’s Kingdom that one enters into communion with Him and is relieved of a guilty conscious. The salvation of the world and individuals is dependent upon humans actively bringing in the Kingdom through good deeds, which is why McLaren urges people of any faith and background to start doing good now and never give up until God’s Kingdom dream is realized, until Jesus’ alternative ethical system and story replaces those of the world.

Though this examination is not exhaustive, it should be clear that Brian McLaren’s own theology mirrors, and perhaps borrows from, the theology of Albrect Ritschl. In regards to the problem, McLaren follows in the footsteps of Ritschl by rejecting original, individual inherited sin in favor of the collective conscious of the world. This collective conscious has developed and grown into a web of sin and power all it’s own, which rests on every individual. Individuals do not sin by nature, but because of the dysfunctional systems and destructive stories of the world. McLaren agrees with Ritschl that our problem is ethical. Hence, our solution and its bearer must also be ethical.

Jesus Christ is envisioned by both theologians as a superman of sorts, a divinely appointed and endowed messenger sent by God to found the Kingdom, teach its alternative system and story, and live an archetypal life of righteous ethics. McLaren agrees with Ritschl that Jesus is not Himself God, but shares in His divinity and bears the attribute of the Godhead because he lived he “highest common good.” In words that mirror Ritschl, McLaren says that Jesus was the highest and deepest revelation of the character of God. It is this character that saves humanity, because it provides an alternative system and story in the teachings and life of the Kingdom. McLaren clearly shares in Ritschl’s soteriology by exalting the Kingdom of God as the solution to our ethical dilemma. Though the traditional Christian faith has called us to place our faith in Christ, McLaren joins Ritschl in calling people to place their faith in the Kingdom of God, for in its ethics lies our hope for salvation.

In his new theological treatise, McLaren maintains that he is offering hope and guidance for fellow sojourners through what he has often called theological terra nova. He believes that he and others are forging a new way through new territory through Christianity by offering fresh theological perspectives for the Church. This examination reveals, however, that his new way of believing and new kind of Christianity is recycled Ritschilianism. His definition of the human problem, offered solution, and description of the solutions bearer is nothing new. Instead, it is apparent that McLaren has repackaged liberal Christian theology and is now offering it to the masses as fresh, innovative, and alternative to what Christianity has been traditionally. This is simply not the case. Roger Olson maintains that “the story of Christian theology is the story of Christian reflection on salvation.” ((Olson, Christian Theology, 13.))

This examination makes plain that the reflection on the nature of salvation offered by the emerging church and its leaders at this junction in the story is repetitive and cyclical; rehashed theological liberalism is being paraded as newfangled Christianity. It’s time McLaren comes clean and acknowledge that he is a contemporary theological liberal who is refashioning contemporary Christianity in the tradition of Ritschl. Perhaps then a proper, honest dialogue can commence between him and others regarding his very old kind of Christianity and its diametrical opposition to the historic Christian faith.