Brian McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christianity'
Brian McLaren has grown tired of evangelicalism. In turn, many evangelicals are wearied with Brian. His most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (HarperOne), must be understood as his latest iteration of a project of deconstructing the old and reconstructing a new kind of Christian faith. In it, he poses a question that this review will seek to answer. It is a question he asks of himself: "How did a mild-mannered guy like me get into so much trouble?" Or, as he asks one page later, "How did I get into this swirl of controversy?"
As a friend and a chronicler for two decades, I have watched Brian's work. Generous Orthodoxy gave us a critique of both sides and some glimpses of a third way, even if the book frustrated to no end by leaving too many loose ends dangling. I thought both The Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change provided us with what could become an evangelical social gospel. Along the way, Brian has poked evangelicals in the eyes and chest by fixating on sensitive spots that bedevil them—not the least of which is the uneasy connection between the "spiritual" gospel and the "social" gospel. If evangelicalism is characterized by David Bebbington's famous quadrilateral—that is, biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism—then Brian has poked and, to one degree or another, criticized, deconstructed, and rejected each.
Some of the pokes, if we are honest, have been deserved. He keeps on poking in A New Kind of Christianity—harder than before, in fact. For example, the chapter on how evangelicals defended slavery skewers a problem in their biblicism. In his (unsatisfying) chapter on homosexuality, McLaren writes about a movement he calls "fundasexuality."
But I want to turn the following comment from McLaren back on him: "Sociologists sometimes say that groups can exist without a god, but no group can exist without a devil." Brian's devil is Western evangelicalism, which he caricatures often, and his poking is relentless enough to make me say that he needs to write a book that simply states in positive terms what he thinks without using evangelicalism as his foil.
Bigger fish to fry
Brian is not only poking evangelicals, he is also calling everything about Christian orthodoxy—from the ecumenical creeds through the Reformation and up to present-day evangelicalism—into question. He thinks there are four crises facing the world and therefore the church today:
- prosperity that is ecologically unsus-tainable;
- equity shifts that are widening the gap between rich and poor at record levels;
- security in a world with escalating violence; and
- a spirituality crisis, since the world's religions are not adequately addressing the first three crises.
Brian blames what he calls the "Greco-Roman narrative," summing up his complaint like this: "I realized that my conversation partners [his evangelical critics] simply couldn't address life-and-death issues like poverty, the planet, and peace within the conventional paradigms they inherited. … The Greco-Roman narrative, founded on a constitutional reading of the Bible … rendered those life-and-death issues invisible, insubstantial, and unaddressable." Thus, the Greco-Roman narrative "needed to be confronted, questioned, and opened up, which then shaped the direction this book has taken."

Grieving with the Good Friday God
La complejidad hispana: Todo cambió en el 2012

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).













Comments
Displaying 13 of 84 comments
See all comments
DAVID HATTON
Thanks for saying what I was thinking about this book. This brother's contrived "Greco-Roman" idea of evangelical faith was a "straw man" set up and knocked down to validate all his points. The repetition got to be annoying. Then, with his "narrative" theory of God's revelation in Scripture, he swept aside centuries of devoted work by saintly theologians who stood within the safety of orthodoxy in studying God's Word. Truly, the church needs perpetual reformation in line with that Word, but not in the pattern of 19th Century critics who questioned the manner and authority of its writing. Brother Brian should have learned from thinkers like C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Bonhoeffer, E. Stanley Jones, and others, that you can safely and effectively wrestle with the church's deficiencies and failures only by standing within the traditional view of Scripture. Jesus truly is the lens of our faith, but this is where He Himself stood and where He is continuing to build His Church.
wonkang lee
McLaren sees God as a “character” one that evolves from less mature to more mature. He calls the story of Noah “genocide” of immature God. I think he does not know what the real problem of human being is. I wonder how he understands the redemption of Jesus Christ. Our root problem is not misunderstanding but sin. If we do not have awareness of sin, then we can misunderstand God as an immature and dogmatic being. He might believe that he leads many people to the real truth, which can liberate people. His intention is not bad, however, he cannot be justified by his good intention, because it is not based on the truth itself. He may open the way to be liberated in this world but he puts obstacles before people for eternity.
Ben Griffith
I read this review when I was about half way through the book. I was right with everything you were saying. I see your points. But having finished the book, and then reread this review, I wonder if you even read the book. The points that you have made the crucial points to his argument are aspects of the book, but certainly not his thesis. The Greco-Roman narrative permeates the whole book, and while overstated, is still a legitimate concern (which Mclaren pointed out as problematic when Christianity becomes the religion of the state that killed the Christ). But the question about the evolution of God, which you make paramount, takes up only a few pages of the argument and is rarely relied on to discuss any of his other issues. I thought that the second half of the book was by far the best. He offers conversation starters for these crucial issues, but you ignore any praise for his real goals with this book?