A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey [Hardcover]

 

 

Create your own review

Brian Mclaren believes that the church, thoroughly enmeshed as it is in modernism, is becoming increasingly irrelevant to a culture that is moving away from modernism and toward a new paradigm of postmodernism. To be able to speak to a culture that is well underway in making the transition, he argues that the church must also embrace this worldview.

The problem is, he never gives us anything close to an adequate description of postmodernism. He doesn't tell us that its main feature is the repudiation of truth, the common-sense notion that we have access to a mind-independent reality "out there"; rather, we create our own model of reality by our use of language. We are stuck in a bubble, the walls of which are mirrors that reflect only ourselves. There is no truth in the sense of correspondence with reality; there is only "truth" in the sense of coherence between the ideas in our story. Thus there can be no conflict between the "truths" of one community and those of another. Christians have their story, Muslims have their own story, and so on for every conceivable group. Each is "true" insofar as it is true to itself. Postmodernism, then, has no use for the idea of "metanarrative", a story which claims to actually be in contact with reality and thus is true for all peoples in all times. This is, of course, a perfect description of pluralism.

A second, related feature of postmodernism is that there is no singular, correct meaning in a text established by the intent of the author. Instead, there are as many meanings in a text as there are communities, be they Marxist, feminist, Southern Baptist, or any other group, ad infinitim. To say that one interpretation is correct is oppressive, because what's at play here is power, not truth.

Now, it is critical to realize that notions of truth and knowledge are not features of modernism. For almost two thousand years prior to the modern era, people took for granted ideas that postmodernism would have us jettison. These would include the idea that there is a mind-independent world, the basic reliability of our senses and reasoning capacities to obtain truth about that world, and also that God could reveal his Word to all peoples through the pages of the Bible. Though we might disagree among ourselves, it was thought that there was a singular meaning to the text and that it was reasonable for us to put our best efforts in disputation and exegesis in order to discover that meaning.

Thus Mclaren would have us repudiate not only modernist thinking, but premodernist and ancient thinking. This would cut the legs out from under Christianity. For two thousand years, and not just since the modern era, Christianity has understood itself as proclaiming a metanarrative, a singular gospel of salvation through one Saviour.

Mclaren plays his cards close to his chest on the issue of religious pluralism, perhaps anticipating resistance if he too quickly endorses it. But he does seem to reveal this postmodern commitment in a few places. On page 140 a character declares that Christianity doesn't own God, and that God is at work in the lives of non-Christians as well as Christians. That second statement is ambiguous: Christians have always affirmed that God works in the hearts of non-Christians in order to bring them to saving faith. But I get the feeling that this is not what is meant; in light of the odd statement that "Christianity doesn't own God" I think what is being communicated is that other religions are just as valid as Christianity in bringing people to God. My hunch is confirmed in the endnotes, on page 169, where Mclaren credits someone "for his insight that pluralism (recognizing the world's many diverse religions) means seeing the world more the way God has always seen it."

Truth (correspondence between a thought and the way the world really is) and knowledge (justified true belief) have no place in postmodernism because they presuppose access to the world. Mclaren doesn't openly denounce these but he does seem to downplay them in a way that is consistent with postmodern denial. For instance, he declares that the theological distinctions between evangelical and liberal, Calvinist and Arminian, and Protestant and Catholic, are modernist notions and thus to be dispensed with in the postmodern era: "Modern Protestant seminaries are still fighting the battles of yesterday, like the Protestant Reformation and the liberal-fundamentalist debates. Somebody tell them those wars are over" (p.145). He doesn't appeal to the Bible, he just waves his hand in dismissal. It seems to me that he views these "warring" theological camps as different communities, who because of their distinctive use of language, construct their own truths so there's no way to adjudicate between them. Indeed, since the time of Christ there have been "twenty centuries of Christian universes" (p.162).

I am not defending modernism, regardless of whether or not the case against it might be overstated. Its enthronement of reason, its banishment of God and establishment of a religious belief/knowledge dualism, its consumerism, radical individualism, and the inauthenticity and hypocrisy that can result - these are all valid critiques that contemporary Christians need to face squarely. But if there is a sense in which the contemporary church is like a sick patient, embracing postmodernism would be a treatment that actually kills the patient. Efforts to contextualize the gospel to a changing culture must not result in changing the gospel itself.

The bottom line that illustrates the danger is this: Does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we know it to be so? Is truth correspondence? Or does Christianity just tell us a story?

We ought to learn from the example of the first-century church, which was almost destroyed by absorbing the worldview (gnosticism) of the surrounding culture. In our case, Ravi Zacharias warns that postmodern pluralism and denial of knowledge is going to "produce a generation of people who will not be able to handle the challenge of Islam and other major world religions." When doctrine is dismissed as "too dogmatic" we lose the ability to distinguish between the real thing and a counterfeit.

To conclude, in the words of Greg Koukl, "There is no virtue in this view, only danger. If you are convinced there is no truth, there is nothing to protect you from being destroyed by lies; there are lies, and they do destroy. Truth and knowledge are essential to Christianity. Postmodernism denies truth and knowledge, therefore postmodernism is a philosophy that is not in accordance to Christ. It is a philosophy we should not only defend against but we should be tearing down."

I have just finished this book and it was so poorly written, cliched and smugly arrogant that it was a truly painful read.
McLauren paints "the modern church" (meaning churches like ones you and I probably attend) as horridly insulated, bigoted, racist, anachronistic and Pharisaical, institutions that eat their young, shoot their wounded and make idols out of systematic theology. And that's on their good days. His protagonist, Dan is a woefully ignorant provincial pastor-guy who's never gone to an ethnic resturant on the wrong side of the tracks, watched soccer in a language other than English, read "Celtic Evangelism", or quaffed a Pete's Wicked Ale, and seems pretty innocent of church history to boot. Danny boy sits wide-eyed and adoring at the feet of Neo, who embodies the "New Christian" of the title.

Ubermensch, Neo (and,for mercy's sake-could we dispense with the tortured amaturish allegory, and just get to the honest presentation of ideas?) is an Episcopalian who doesn't believe in Hell, isn't comfortable with the term "born-again", can't explain or defend the Gospel message,doesn't understand why the inerrancy of Scripture is essential and mishandles the few Scripture references he does cite. His ethnicity and psuedo-intellectual ramblings are meant to buy him street cred., and convince the reader of the validity of his ideas. Foremost among them is the concept that you can't really define anything substantial about the faith without offending someone- which is apparently the only Postmodern sin. Sadly enough, I think I've met this "new kind of Christian" before; one who has managed to drift him or herself clean out of the historic faith, into a cafeteria-style spirituality that has no saving or redeeming power.
Don't waste your time on this book. Spend it discovering-or rereading- John Piper, J.I. Packer,R. C. Sproul or C.S.Lewis, and rejoicing in godly minds with the gift of communication and teaching. McLauren is also the author of "A Generous Orthodoxy". Judging from this book, he is neither.

I had been hearing a little bit about this book, and since I live in an extremely conservative part of the country, not a lot of what I was hearing was positive. I decided to read this book just to see what it was. Overall, I was pleased with the book (not a huge surprise since I normally disagree with the people around me). A New Kind of Christian may certainly help many Christians into a period of growth.

I did have a few problems with some of McLaren's ideas, though that's not a problem itself. Who am I going to agree with on everything? What's important is that there is dialogue, and that's a point that McLaren himself makes in the book. The tone he sets in the dialogue is pretty refreshing, too. McLaren isn't combative; this is a discussion more than a debate. The format of the book isn't a problem either (though for some people it seems to be something hard to get used to). In the postmodern world, telling a story and allowing the reader to search for the meaning is definitely the best way to present ideas. My problem with the story/dialogue format wasn't in the format itself but in the way it was carried out. The writing was is, at times, horrid. It's often corny and overly sentimental. The writing's just awful sometimes, and it distracts from the message. Nevertheless, the ideas do come through, and the writing isn't nearly bad enough to make this not worth reading.

It should also be mentioned that this is kind of a beginners guide to postmodern Christianity. Early in the book, the character Neo (terrible name) says that he's trying not to explain philosophers such as Foucault, Derrida, Fish, and Baudrillard, and he doesn't mention any of them again. If you've studied these philosophers before reading A New Kind of Christian, there's is going to be a lot of simplification and repetition. There are some true insights in this book that I thought made it worthwhile, but a lot of it was old to me. That's not a bad thing because McLaren's target readership hasn't read much postmodern philosophy, but those who have may want to read something else. McLaren's aim is to create an introduction to postmodernism, and in this, he was a success. This is a great beginning to a dialogue that must continue.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 69 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Not a Bad Start
A significant factor in how much you enjoy this book will depend on how carefully you read the author's introduction. Read more

Published on May 28 2004 by Jacob Reidt

5.0 out of 5 stars Articulating all that I have felt for years!
In Brian McLaren's book, A New Kind of Christian, McLaren explores how Christianity has been influenced by modern culture and how it must change in the light of post-modernism... Read more

Published on April 21 2004 by Stephen Thurnau

4.0 out of 5 stars A New Kind of Christian [Book]
It was so refreshing to read a book by a Christian author that was not a "5 steps to _______." In fact, I don't think this book offered any answers - just questions. Read more

Published on April 11 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars Will tweak your categories!
This book made me mad at first, then made me curious, and I ended up thinking about things from a whole different perspective. Read more

Published on Mar 23 2004 by John Jackson

5.0 out of 5 stars A theological Rorschach test...
I find it fascinating to read the reviews posted for this book. By and large, reviewers (with some exceptions) have rated the book on how much they agree with the contents... Read more

Published on Mar 17 2004 by Scott Berkhimer

1.0 out of 5 stars Baal
This is a made-up god. It has little to do with the Christ who died on the cross as sin, so that we could have the Tree of Life come near us again. Read more

Published on Mar 7 2004 by Wisconsin Dad

2.0 out of 5 stars Of little value.
My guess is that this book will appeal to people who have not been sufficiently grounded in scripture, and whose daily religious experience is more "churchianity" than a... Read more

Published on Mar 5 2004 by Michel T Hendricks

5.0 out of 5 stars If This Doesn't Challenge Your Thinking, Nothing Will......
Brian McLaren has writen a great little book here- Whatever your oppinion is about post-modernism, its undenyable that culture is changing and McClaren contends that the church... Read more

Published on Feb 20 2004 by Nathan I. Stromberg

3.0 out of 5 stars Mixed review.
First, let me say that i think this book was very interesting. I also think that it gave some refreshing views on Christianity today. Read more

Published on Feb 10 2004 by Travis M. Brown

2.0 out of 5 stars Postmodern Christinaity Not the Answer
I cannot share the enthusiasm of many reviewers for this book. Though MacLaren does detail some of the problems in the modern church--consumerism, legalism, failure to include... Read more

Published on Feb 2 2004 by Marc Clauson

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 69 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!