Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

A significant factor in how much you enjoy this book will depend on how carefully you read the author's introduction. If you identify with any number of his specific 'experiences' and also find yourself within the demographic of his assumed readership, then my feeling is that you'll be able to get something out of this book. If not, you may not be able to get past the weak plot device used to illustrate his thesis.

Personally, I was in a category that enabled me to enjoy this book. While I found the characterization to be an insipid obstacle, the meat of the argument provided for quite the page-turner. This was another one of those "read in one night" books. So, what was the meat? I found the chapter "What a Difference a Worldview Makes" to be illuminating. Modern-day evangelicals would be well-served by the sense of humility and caution ascribed to Neo. What is defined as 'Christian' can be severely undercut by cultural prejudices, a fact that is forgotten too often is these polarized times, both in liberal and conservative Christian ideologies.

This book is an accessible read and has generated some good discussions in my circle of friends and seekers: faith as a web, evangelicalism, literalism, and world view transitions. While not well-written, it concedes it at the outset so look at the 'forest for the trees'. Indeed, McLaren's greatest strength is knowing his limitations...a point he attempts to remedy by heavily borrowing from C. S. Lewis. In fact, the most important lesson this book taught me is that I simply *must* be reading something by C.S. Lewis at all times!

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. New Kind of Christian is not written as a theology or 'God book', it is written simply as a conversation between two friends. It is this gentle and amicable attitude that McLaren keeps throughout the novel and is one of the great reasons why this book is so readable and lovable. Even greater than the style, New Kind of Christian is a great book because it tackles some of the most serious issues of Christianity in a blazingly new light. Numerous topics, from salvation to evolution are discussed and evaluated. Most of all, all the hype, consumerism, hierarchy, and superficiality of the modern church is exposed for what it is, filth. That filth is then replaced with a faith so warm, endearing, friendly, and hospitable I was honestly in tears at times.

This book is a challenge for people entrenched in the modern Christian system, but for anyone feeling burned-out, used-up, dumbed-down, and stifled by modern Christianity; this book is a breath of life.

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. I think what I liked the most about this book is that the author himself doesn't necessarily agree with everything he wrote. But he found it important to include certain ideas to cause us, the readers, to think. I found it very challenging and refreshing. Definitely worth a read!

This book made me mad at first, then made me curious, and I ended up thinking about things from a whole different perspective.

Mclaren's writing style is engaging, helpful, and confrontational...but in a way that moves the discussion along a helpful path.

You must read this book!

PASTORPRENEUR
www.pastorpreneur.com

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. Having read the book, I can say that you'll probably find here what you're looking to find here. If you want something to bash because it's not conservative Evangelicalism, you'll find it. If you want something encouraging because you're tired of Church(TM), you'll find it.

This book is about the questions. McLaren is long on questions and short on answers. (For more of McLaren's answers, check out the follow-up book The Story We Find Ourselves In.) If questions make you uncomfortable, skip the book. McLaren asks a lot of questions that may not have easy answers - at least, if you're willing to be intellectually honest - and, often, he avoids answering those questions directly himself. (Taking the time to read the introduction will allow the reader to avoid some of the erroneous assumptions that have been made by its detractors, namely that McLaren's personal opinions can be easily identified with those of a particular character.) The book is about generating thought and conversation rather than providing a neatly packaged solution. Personally, I found myself both agreeing and arguing with the characters at various points in the book, which was, no doubt, the author's intention.

You will not be able to read this without reacting to it - either negatively or positively. It will force you to think about your understanding of Christianity. Ultimately, it seems that stimulating thought is one mark of a good book - not simply whether one agrees with its contents.

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.

A false Christ, that is so very likable by those into self-worship and ultra-hip ways of the world.

Not much decreasing, or dying to self in these pages. Paul saw the cross and knew that he died with Christ on it. This book looks at a super-highway to an abundant, freeing earthly life.

This world is about sin and death, and our distrust of God. Seek God in prayer for your answers, but do not seek this book.

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 passionate relationship with Jesus. In our day, where Biblical illiteracy among Christians is rampant, this book may very well appeal to a large percentage of its readers.

What, specifically, do I find wrong in this book? Where do I start?

First of all, McLaren & Neo, recommend that truth be deconstructed. The bible contains stories, "but not with all of the modern trimmings like a concern for factual accuracy" (p. 56). Do not let that slip by you! According to Mclaren, the Bible was written with no concern for factual accuracy. Does it occur to him that "a concern for factual accuracy" is not a modern development, as he claims? Luke, long before McLaren's time, asserts that he carefully investigated all of the data surrounding Jesus' life "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). McLaren would have to criticize Luke for being contaminated by a culture that did not yet exist. A desire for correction doctrine is also found long before the word modernity had a meaning. Paul exhorts Timothy to "watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16). Some of McLaren's criticisms of evangelical Christianity are valid, but most are forced simplifications.

McLaren criticizes evangelicals' tendency to create doctrinal wars and divide people into "liberals versus conservatives" and "Christians verses heathens." In spite of his hatred of this type of "us verses them" posturing, he promotes exactly that same attitude in his depiction of modern verses postmodern Christians. He subtly, almost passive-aggressively, declares throughout "A New Kind of Christian" that a person who disagrees with him is a small minded, bad mannered person who desperately clings to modern Christianity. So he basically tries to emotionally manipulate the reader into the post-modern camp. Evangelicals are mean spirited people who only care about doctrinal arguments. Postmodern Christians are warm, mature, intelligent people. But it is all invented! He sets up a straw man, a bigoted evangelical/fundamentalist, and proceeds to knock it down. In the end, he accomplishes nothing.

I could go on for pages, but that last sentence is a good conclusion for my review.