ANKofCty endeavors to consider 10 questions that Brian says are transforming the faith. Truth is, these questions are not transforming the faith, but Brian wants them to, and he’s right to want it. The ten questions: (1) The Narrative Question, (2) The Authority Question; (3) The God Question, (4) The Jesus Question, (5) The Gospel Question, (6) The Gospel Question, (7) The Church Question, (8) The Sex Question, (9) The Future Question, and (10) The Pluralism Question are good ones, and Brian hopes to help push us ahead as we think through them together.

At the heart of ANKofCty is what McLaren calls, the “Greco-Roman” reading of scripture. This, it seems, is the root of our collective problems in terms of church and culture. Brian argues that freeing ourselves from this narrative releases us to answer the 10 questions Brian poses more faithfully. Within the Greco-Roman reading of scripture, Brian argues, there is no room for story or development, which ultimately gives rise to a “six-line narrative” that prejudices our reading of scripture. McLaren argues the “six-line narrative” leads us to all the wrong conclusions about everything – which Brian endeavors to demonstrate throughout the remaining pages of ANKofCty. In the end, Brian argues that we have read the Bible backwards with our filter coming through Paul, the apostles, Augustine, Plato and the Platonism and philosophical systems that are foreign to the true nature of the scriptures. Therefore, our view of Jesus and the Bible is not the Jesus OF the Bible, but a character – or caricature – inherited by thousands of years of interpretation lodged and birthed by the Greco-Roman narrative and Greek philosophy. This is Brian’s central thesis and gives rise to his conclusions.

I think Brian is both right and wrong. In fact, having read nearly all his books, I have never felt more strongly that he is both right on and far off course. This is what I mean: In terms of McLaren’s analysis of the Greco-Roman reading, he is dead on. The problem is that there is no way to avoid this, no way to time travel back through scripture and get something other than what we already got. This is where Brian is right and wrong. Having been raised in a “Restoration” movement, I know all too well the nonsensical pitfalls of thinking you can just skip over history, doctrine, theology, and theological and ecclesial development and get back to “the real thing.”

It cannot be done!

At best you miss the richness of the tradition that has given life to the faith that gives us life, at worst, you become a partisan to largely uneducated, ununified and incoherent belief system. If we were able leap backward over the hurdles of history to uncover a new way – or the grand old way – to read and interpret text without the obstacles course of 2000 years worth of interpretation and thought, then we would be forced to just to pick a method, system or interpretive lens and go with it arbitrarily.

Been there. Done that. Thank you very much.

All of that to say this; even Brian is coming at the text from somewhere “post-Jesus” in terms of history. Is he right in arguing that the method we’ve chosen is bad for hosts of reasons? Yes. Is it possible for us to read and interpret Jesus the way McLaren wants us to, without the narratives that have been imposed heretofore? Unfortunately, no.

This means that all of our conclusions, even Brian’s, have to be held loosely, with epistemological humility. Perhaps it is my own ecclesial history, but something in my gut churns at the thought of dismissing church history and the schools of thought developed through it. For this reason, I’m open to the idea that I may be seeing shadows and experiencing paranoia where there need not be. I may be reacting to something not explicit in the pages of ANKofCty.

At the same time, Brian has offered the most helpful way forward on a number of issues that are becoming tremendously important to more and more people – sexuality, pluralism, etc…. He is far from convincing his critics or those entrenched in either/or, black/white, privileged / unprivileged thinking, but Brian’s conclusions, I think, are generally pointing the church in the right direction – though I need more convincing in some areas, myself. Both critics and fans of Brian know where he’s going with many of the issues addressed in ANKofCty before they turn the first page, but what is good about his work is that he provides a useable way forward for conversation (for those willing to have it). Using the Biblical text, McLaren at least gets the ball rolling and establishes what can become common language around these issues. This, I think, is the great service Brian has done for us.

In addition, Brian explores Romans in ways many will find broadening. In fact, I read ANKofCty with my Bible open. Trust me: this does not happen often! What more can you ask of a book? Brian forced me to look into the scriptures and I found myself looking differently. That alone is worth the price of purchase. I doubt that I’ll ever be able to read Romans the same way after engaging ANKoCty.

Likely the most out of character elements of ANKofCty comes in chapters 12 and 13 dealing with The Jesus Question. To articulate his vision of Jesus, McLaren takes on two vocal critics who happen to hold in common the ability to be consistently wrong and increasingly sought-after. For those in the know, the critics are fairly easy to recognize, though Brian does not name them. What is out of character is Brian’s pointed language. Having spent time with Brian multiple times, I’ve found him to be irenic and generous, these chapters weren’t. At the end of chapter 12, I wrote in the margin, “Bam! One in ___________ _______________’s kisser.”

Between you and I, the rebuke was long overdue. Overdue not because scores needed settling, but because this particular critic has, and often does, misread Jesus and the Bible, offering an alternative gospel, in my view. This critic seems to envision Christian leadership as a full-contact blood sport and Brian gives him what he wants. Brian skillfully disarmed the violent, warrior-only version of Jesus, which had the added benefit of fitting nicely into Brian’s overall aims in ANKofCty. At the same time, he gave one particular critic the only kind of conversation he seems to understand. Harsh! In this way, the rebuke can be described as incarnational – speaking to people in their own language.

If Brian’s goal is to get people thinking and talking, ANKofCty is a success. Clearly not all will embrace his vision, yet others will be freed to pursue the Spirit in wild and new directions. Ultimately, ANKofCty is more than worth the time. I suggest reading it community. Drink from it slowly and invest in the ideas, maybe even choosing one question and digging deep over time. This is not a book for singular and individual thought. Brian has returned to what he does best – challenging the church. And he does so brilliantly this go round.

I’ve just made my way through the first chapters that deal with the personhood and godhood of Jesus. I see why this book has been seen as dangerous to some, but overall, I think a lot of the reactions are really overblown.

Much has been made about the flimsiness of Brian’s Greco-Roman worldview that is visioned in the first part of the book. I find it quite dishonest of the critical reviewers who somehow pretend that Brian hasn’t acknowledged the shortcomings of this model within the pages of the book. It has usefulness, but like any grand schema it falls short when you subject it to scrutiny it wasn’t designed to withstand. Of course this is not a historical-philosophical model. It serves the purpose of distinguishing one reading of the Bible from Brian’s presented interpretation. If you want it to fall apart it will. So, I guess I say, good job, critics.

Anyway, that Greco-Roman narrative structure is hardly the thing that this whole book hinges on. Anyone who argues that is missing everything important here. Brian hangs his interpretation on the narrative story that he has studied the Bible through since before he wrote about it in The Story We Find Ourselves In. It doesn’t seem like much has changed from that second book of tales about Dan and Neil, but a lot of commentators like to suggest that Everything Has Changed.

But anyway, I’m halfway through the book. Every page is more exciting than the last. I just finished chapter 12 dealing with Jesus as pictured in Revelation. Brian does such an incredible job of laying out just why his particular reading of the Revelation Christ showing up as the slaughtered lamb whose power is found in his love is such an important (and, dare I say, True) reading.

By the way, I hate the book’s title. This isn’t a New Christianity. It is a Fresh Christianity. A fresh (and refreshing) way to live our devotion to the way of Jesus. I believe that Brian’s books must be read as a catalog with a trajectory. Not one of them should be read in isolation from the others. Everything Must Change is an important component if the New Kind of Christian series. A Generous Orthodoxy goes hand in hand with A New Kind of Christianity. This is a library of resources that has entirely refreshed my love and passion for living the way of Jesus in this world – along with having communities and friendships within which to interpret these contributions.

Wow. I sound like the biggest shill in the history of shills. But every generation has their prophetic texts. The don’t create a new Christianity, but awaken us to the best way follow, love and serve in our day as others have done in theirs. If you want to learn about some of those past visionaries I suggest subscribing to Brad Culver’s blog. So good.

Peace.

http://culturedrivenlife.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-kind-of-christianity.html

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2U4280930PCFE/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

http://thecommoncup.tumblr.com/post/445614700/a-new-kind-of-christianity-a-book-review

Reviewing the Reviews

As I was finishing the book, I watched as reviews began to pop-up on the internet. The less-than-surprising news is that hard-core Calvinists (including the “New-Calvinists”) hate it with a white-hot hatred they normally reserve for child abusers and made-for-TV movies on the Lifetime Network. Reading their reviews, you would think that Brian had done something to them personally, or had betrayed them in some sense (which is weird, sense they haven’t liked most of his books). I was disappointed to pick up on this vibe even in a review by Michael Wittmer, whom I had generally considered to be one of the more level-headed thinkers from that perspective. Scot McKnight, whom I have a great deal of respect for, and who is not really thought of as a Calvinist, wrote a review for Christianity Today that, while much kinder and respectful in tone, claimed that Brian wasn’t really saying anything new, but was simply re-packaging the Classical Liberalism that was typical of German Theology before the 2nd World War as typified in Adof Von Harnack. This struck me as odd, because Brian clearly intends to transcend such polarized categories (not merely repackage one category in a fresh way as “the right one), and the point at which Brian’s thought draws this criticism from McKnight, is actually closer to the much more contemporary (and 3rd-way) thinking found in the work of Peter Enns.

Most of the critics’ objections essentially stem from concerns about orthodoxy. Maybe it’s because I’m from a non-creedal tradition, but I’ve never quite resonated with the orthodoxy/heresy argument. (I realize I may have just painted a target on myself…but that kind of illustrates my point, doesn’t it). For starters, an enormous amount of what has historically been defined as “heresy” was so classified by people who were publicly executing people they disagreed with, in the name of the crucified Christ! I’m fairly sure that misses the point of the Gospel to a much greater degree than having different ideas about whether God and Jesus are made out of the same substance. Secondly, when certain subjects are off-limits for questions, it looks like we’re not actually interested in “truth”, but rather merely maintaining the status quo. Additionally, for large portions of church history, the “orthodox positions” were precisely wrong (Slavery, women’s rights, etc.) I could go on and on…but I won’t.

The Actual Book

A New Kind of Christianity, is the book that many of us have been wanting McLaren to write for years. Ever since he sparked our imaginations with the fictional conversations between Dan Poole and Neil Edward Oliver in A New Kind of Christian, we’ve been dying to see those ideas teased out in non-fiction. He structures the book around 10 crucial questions, identifying the first 5 as theological in nature, and the remaining 5 as practical.

1. The Narrative Question: What Is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?
2. The Authority Question: How Should the Bible Be Understood?
3. The God Question: Is God Violent?
4. The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and Why is He Important?
5. The Gospel Question: What Is the Gospel?
6. The Church Question: What Do We Do About the Church?
7. The Sex Question: Can We Find a Way to Address Sexuality Without Fighting About It?
8. The Future Question: Can We Find a Better Way of View the Future?
9. The Pluralism Question: How Should Followers of Jesus Relate to People of Other Religions?
10. The What Do We Do Now Question: How Can We Translate Our Quest into Action?

McLaren’s approach isn’t coercive. He explains that he isn’t attempting to answer these questions definitively but rather is responding to them and inviting us, as readers and willing participants into the conversation. He is seeking to get conversation out of the polarized deadlock that it is so often bogged down in, because of the bounded categories (liberal, conservative, etc.) imposed in modernity that serve to insure no real conversation can ever take place (which reminds me of the state of another country’s political system…but I digress).

What Brian offers here, in my opinion, is a beautiful way forward. Is it perfect? No, and he doesn’t claim that it is. Will his responses satisfy everyone? Ummm…I’ve never read any book that did that. Actually, I think it’s to his credit that he doesn’t pander to any particular category’s concept of “orthodoxy”. Does it transcend unhelpful categories and spark hopeful conversation that could point the way forward? It does (in my opinion)…if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

http://adamellis.blogspot.com

Do you remember the story of the man who was an invalid and waited by the pool called Bethesda for thirty eight years (John 5:1-15)? If you don’t, don’t feel bad, I had to look it up.

For some strange reason, I started thinking about this story in relation to my experience reading Brian McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind Of Christianity. It was as if I were that man waiting by the Sheep gate. Waiting for an angel to churn up the water and for someone to come along and throw me in so I would be healed.

Now you might be asking, healed of what?

Well, there are some things that make me uncomfortable… some questions floating around in my head that have never gotten a satisfying answer. Ten of these questions are addressed in this book. The funny thing is that the author doesn’t intend for his book to answer the questions. He wants us to listen to his responses and then perpetuate the inevitable conversation that will commence.

Below are the questions:

The Narrative Question: What Is the Overarching Story Line of the Bible?
The Authority Question: How Should the Bible Be Understood?
The God Question: Is God Violent?
The Jesus Question: Who Is Jesus and Why Is He Important?
The Gospel Question: What Is the Gospel?
The Church Question: What Do We Do About the Church?
The Sex Question: Can We Find a Way to Address Human Sexuality Without Fighting About It?
The Future Question: Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?
The Pluralism Question: How Should Followers of Jesus Relate to People of Other Religions?
The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question: How Can We Translate Our Quest into Action?

Whether you agree with Brian McLaren or not… Whether you like him or not… Whether you think he is dangerous or not… You have to admit he knows how to stir things up, and this book is no different than his others (If not more stirring).

Since reading the book, I find myself looking at things through a different lens. Of course, some would be afraid that looking at things through new lenses would be bad, however I tend to want to take off my rose colored ones every once and awhile and enjoy a new view.

I began reading this book with much excitement. I like to dive into a book like this and swim around. Straightaway, I realized that this was no casual dog-paddle. I also realized quickly that McLaren’s intentions are not subversive as some would paint them. I have to admit, some of the things the author said made me a little uncomfortable, but along the way, I tried to remember that comfort is excruciatingly over-rated.

It confounds me how many people set out to attack McLaren and his writings, yet spend little time merely discussing their concerns in a civil (non-confrontational) manner. I tend to be swayed by the pacifist in these kinds of situations. Whether they are right or wrong.

By the end of the book, I came to understand that the author’s intent is merely a humble response to questions as he sees them. Therefore, I recommend this book with a warning: If you have been waiting a longtime to have your healing pool stirred or waiting for some one to throw you in, this book might just say to you, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” In other words: “Join the conversation.”

Weak analogy? Maybe.

http://edan0889.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-kind-of-stirring-waters.html

I am one who has remained. In fact, I spent half of my seminary career learning about the emergent movement, and every time I mention the “E” word, I am mostly met with blank stares. No one left in the church has any idea what “emergent” is, and those who do seem to have a negative idea about it. And rightfully so. This movement has had the mentality that everyone can lead their own band, leading to a lot of bad music.

After reading Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, I have come to realize that those in the emergent movement might be viewed as marching to the beat of a different drummer, but wow is it one heck of a beat.

This book is not emergent systematic theology, but is simply a guide to taking off the multitude of smudged and dirty and coloured glasses through which we see the story of God who created all things good.

This book should be the first in every emerging library.

In short, I’d say to read it if you have any interest in religion. I haven’t really gotten into him before, but this one has helped me to see what all of the fuss is about. The book is a discussion of a series of questions that Christianity needs to address to continue to exist in a post-modern world. And they’re all good questions, and he points to good answers. He indeed does have his finger on the pulse.

In related news, my Facebook friend Wendy Johnson wrote a great post the other day about emergent Christianity and pluralism. This, I think, hints toward the biggest question for me (which is one that McLaren doesn’t get at directly in his book – though he does talk about related issues) – which is whether we should bother with reforming the traditional religions in the West, or whether they’re no longer playing an intended or valuable social role. That’s the big question for emergents. There might be some good answers. I’m not sure yet.

http://relativelyfaithful.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-kind-of-christianity.html

In A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren finally comes to the point. He’s no longer trying to express his beliefs and remain acceptable to fundamentalists (which wasn’t really working anyway). He comes right out and says that it doesn’t make sense for God to condemn the majority of people who have lived on Earth to eternal conscious torment. He says that homosexuality itself isn’t evil. And he’s still saying that everything must change.

That was his previous book, Everything Must Change, which I thought was terrific as well. But McLaren explains in this book that a lot of Christians still aren’t ready to address the issues in Everything Must Change (crises of prosperity, equity, security, and spirituality), and that that’s why he wrote this book. Here’s a description of what happened on his Everything Must Change book tour:

During the Q & R session, most questioners simply ignored the four crises I had talked about. Instead, they focused on arguing fine points of theology with me – all within their conventional paradigms. It was as if they said, “Oh, yeah, yeah, a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. But you’re decentralizing our preferred theory of atonement!”

And so he wrote a book directly confronting these conventional paradigms.

McLaren discusses ten key questions in this book:

* What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?
* How should the Bible be understood?
* Is God violent?
* Who is Jesus and why is he important?
* What is the Gospel?
* What do we do about the church?
* Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
* Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
* How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
* How can we translate our quest into action?

As a Christian, I’ve been asking myself these questions for a long time. And I’m actually pretty comfortable with my answers now (although perhaps that means those answers could use confronting, too). But these are also questions that I often hear non-Christians or marginal Christians asking, and maybe those are the people this book will really speak to.

I’m delighted that McLaren has written this book, and that more and more people are asking these questions.

• The Narrative Question: What Is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?
• The Authority Question: How Should the Bible Be Understood?
• The God Question: Is God Violent?
• The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and Why is He Important?
• The Gospel Question: What Is the Gospel?
• The Church Question: What Do We Do About the Church?
• The Sex Question: Can We Find a Way to Address Sexuality Without Fighting About It?
• The Future Question: Can We Find a Better Way of View the Future?
• The Pluralism Question: How Should Followers of Jesus Relate to People of Other Religions?
• The What Do We Do Now Question: How Can We Translate Our Quest into Action?

You can read the book or the reviews to find out the “what” that Brian is trying to say, but aNKoC’s true importance lies not in what Brian is saying but what he is doing with aNKoC. The real point of this book is to (1) recognize the real need to find language that is contextual yet faithful to Scripture & our deeper Christian tradition and (2) to guide actions into the kingdom/ethics/mission.

So what is Brian doing in aNKoC? He is giving Christians permission to reformulate doctrines in light of recent scholarship, conversations, cultural changes and most importantly mission. This book is both emergent and doctrinally focused (insert gasps here). And now more then ever with the growth of world Christianity and emerging, late capitalistic culture the church must learn to talk about doctrine in a healthy and humble way.

Bonhoeffer wrote, “it is only when one knows the unutterability of the name of God that one can utter the name of Jesus Christ” Thus what we DO know about God is that ultimately God is unknowable. So doctrine is not an end in itself, thus aNKoC is not an end in itself.

But the reaction and conversation on the blogosphere revolving around this emergent book of somewhat systematized theology of doctrines is symptomatic of the state of the church. First, these reactions reveal that doctrine is very important (it has fallen on hard times with all this pomo talk). In WWII, the Barmen declaration which deeply affirmed Trinitarian and Christological doctrines were used to attack the Nazi funded state church. Embedded in Walter Rauschenbusch’s theology are manifest destiny and nationalism. More recently, John Stackhouse has (wrongly) affirmed that God is in globalization. Doctrines are necessary for they reveal our convictions and ethics.

Second, doctrine is very important but we don’t know why. Liberals focus on the experiential kernel of doctrine, that we form beliefs off of hidden individual experiences. Conservatives focus on propositional, abstract truths that correlate to our doctrines, thus they believe what we say equals what is real. Both are wrong.

Doctrine is not an end in itself, but always exists to serve the mission of God. As Robert Louis Wilken writes, “Doctrines or theoretical concepts are never ends in themselves but always at service of a deeper immersion in the res, the thing itself, the mystery of Christ and of the practice of the Christian life.”

This week while at ChurchWorks (or does it? as Bass reflected), Diana Butler Bass spoke to a group of Cooperative Baptists and said “Historians know that people only argue about something when it’s going away,” in reference to the national debate around the identity of the USA as a Christian nation. We argue about being a “Christian nation” exactly because we are no longer a Christian nation (as if we ever were…thanks Rauschenbusch). In this same way, we argue about doctrine because as McLaren writes, “the bad news: the Christian faith in all its forms is in trouble. The good news: the Christian faith in all its forms is pregnant with new possibilities (aNKoC, xi). “

The “doctrine police” would do well to hear Martin Kähler, “Mission is the mother of theology.” Why did Peter find transformation and new doctrine at Cornelius’ house? Mission. Why did Nicaea, Gregory, and the early church struggle with Christology and the Trinity? Mission. Why is the church in the Western context finding new doctrine? Mission. Why is world Christianity growing and creating new doctrine? Mission. Why is Brian McLaren writing a book called A New Kind of Christianity? Mission.

Mission serves the kingdom of God that Jesus was crucified for proclaiming and doctrine serves mission and the one who was crucified by pointing toward the significance of Jesus’ life, not the life itself. It is the Scripture and Holy Spirit’s work in community to reveal the life of Christ and doctrine’s work to witness to that significance.

Our cultural context is one of great upheaval and change for several reasons. Not least of these are the effects of globalized late consumer capitalism creating a homogenous experience of liberal individuals who simply do not experience the world the same way people did 100, 50, or even 10 years ago did. In this globalized world the church, especially in the West, must be faithful to God’s mission by allowing the gospel to sprout new life, language, and doctrine in its new setting. The church exists not for itself (just like doctrine), but must exist for the other, for mission encapsulated by hope, justice, and love.

Language is a tricky thing, but best understand by its performative intent. Does this statement mean you are grieving, want me to do something, rejoicing, sarcasm, asking for help, etc? In understanding what you mean by your words’ performative function, I can truly grasp what you are saying, what you mean.

Doctrine’s performative action is witness. It exists to point to God, the unknowable.

While I do not agree with many of Brian’s methods or assumptions behind the doctrine’s formulated in aNKoC like the recasting of church history as negative (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the Pope, etc) or his simplistic “bad guy:” the “Greco-Roman” reading of the Bible; I do find great hope in aNKoC. Let us remember that Brian IS NOT seminary trained. Brian is a Jesus follower with a heart for God’s mission and in wrestling with this mission he is forming doctrines in service of the church…not vice versa. The world will not be saved by the few elite, seminary trained professionals for God’s mission is too vast, wide, and deep to be limited to experts.

In the West, atheism is growing in interest, pluralism and “therapeutic, consumer deism” is on the rise. The church in the West is in decline. Doctrines serve mission and right now that mission is failing because we are not believing rightly.

As Catholic Baptist theologian Barry Harvey of Baylor says, “doctrines order our transactions.” People are turning away from the church because our actions and transaction are not rightly ordered. We need new doctrines birthed out of the deep and rich traditions of Christianity. We are wealthy with theological reflection, but we must mine the wells and give to those who are willing to give their life to God’s mission the freedom and space to create new doctrines, just as Peter did, just as Paul did, and as Brian is doing (hey, it’s a biblical idea).

In so doing the church will find the “crucial difference…between telling us a story differently and telling a different story.” (Nicholas Lash).

I highly praise Brian as a brother in Christ willing to be a scapegoat for many and a refreshing voice for others. A New Kind of Christianity only deepens my belief and hope for giving people the space to discover new language and ways of putting together our story of God’s great redemption of the world in Jesus Christ. Brian is a mentor and friend to those who are tired of the conversation and Christianity as only thoughts/ideals/belief, old doing things the way they’ve always been done (badly and often without civility), and ready to give their life to a Kingdom come, but not yet. aNKoC is not the last word or the word after that, but gives permission to live into Christ and rethink that which is trying to be born. So quit throwing stones and go do it, be it, live it, and order yourself and God’s people back into love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control so that God may be in all and known by all.

Joe is a baptimergent minister who blogs here:
http://www.joebumblog.blogspot.com/

I’ve reached the mid point in Brian McLaren’s latest musings, ” A New Kind of Christianity.” So this is likely a good place to pull over to the side of the road and digest, and put some thoughts to paper. My first thought is this book will get a lot of people navigating towards it just because of its title ” A New Kind of.” If anything, it was marvelous marketing strategy. To attract the fundamentalist, so they know what there up against; and the emerging conversation so they get a glimpse of what may be on the horizon. But the reality…it may be more old school, than new school.

I think his musings will be shocking for much of Christendom that still lives in the corridor of modernity, and will be seen as heretical by much of the North American Evangelical church. But, I think Brian McLaren draws a lot of his so called newness from an ancient well of wisdom of historic Christianity that the Evangelical church oblivious to. He draws from the apophatic theological influences in Christianity such as Miester Eckart, that drew – not only from Gospel and Pauline narratives, Peter Rollins draws a lot of wisdom from this well in his writings. Also from Neoplatonism, influential thinkers such as Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Eriugena. And also from a writer Percy Walker, his influence and interest in philosophy and semiotics.

So the fact all may not be ” new ” is ok, because I think Brian McLaren, in his musings takes us on an important journey to renewed paradox, tension, mystery, non-dualistic thinking…and profound redemptive imagination. In a moment where we find ourselves at the edge of religion, and science, if anything Brian McLaren helps us to re-imagine hope…a way out of the box of religion.

So., lets quickly look at the contents of Book One, ” UNLOCKING AND OPENING.” It is broken down into 5 questions, The Narrative Question; The Authority Question; The God Question; The Jesus Question; and the Gospel Question.

In the Narrative Question we discover the unspoken story line of the Bible that we explicitly taught- or implicitly taught that could be diagrammed by 6 lines. (1) Eden, (2) Fall, (3) Condemnation, (4) Hell, Damnation, (5) Salvation, (6) Heaven. He also talks about the Greco-Roman Narrative this mindset that gives us a skewed image of God that Brian McLaren says is similar in many ways to the Greek god Zeus. He calls him Theos who loves spirit, state and beings, and hates matter, story and becoming, since once again the latter involves change, and the only way to move from perfection is down ward towards decay. Anything that drops out of state of perfection must be destroyed, or made to suffer. Hence our six line reading of the biblical narrative. Brian, tells us it’s time to exit the Greco-Roman narrative to quietly and courageously walk out the door and leave it’s six lines behind. Then Brian takes us through setting the stage for Biblical narrative. The protagonist of Genesis bearing with a rebellious and foolish humanity time and time again. It’s a stage where humanity seems to rise in steps of worldly influence and power, but with each gain, humanity descends into loss. I think what will upset many is Brian Mclarens musings around Adam, Eve and the apple…

Notice the text does not say they will be condemned to hell, be ” spiritually separated from God,” be pronounced ” fallen ” or ” condemned “, or be tainted with something called the ” original sin ” that will be passed on to their children. There is only one consequence indicated in the text: they will die – not spiritually die, not relationally die, not ontologically die, but simply die.

For Brian McLaren, the Biblical narrative, God’s unfolding drama is nota narrative shaped by the 6 lines of the Greco-Roman scheme of perfection, fall, condemnation, salvation and heavenly perfection or eternal perdition. It is a narrative about the downside of ” progress “- a story of human foolishness and God’s faithfulness, the human turn toward rebellion, and God’s turn towards reconciliation, the human intention towards evil and God;s intention to overcome evil with good. We might say it’s a story of goodness being created and re-created.Is this Pelagianism, shadows of Charles Finney, Asa Mahan, or Winkie Pratney. I applaud this bold, imaginative reading of the narrative. For some it will be a huge leap,a non-duality interpretation might be too much paradox, to much mystery. But, in it there is a redemptive imagination that will attract the mind of all humanity, not just the religious.

Brian McLaren then asks the Jesus Question. I think a lot of people are going to find his image of Jesus is too toned down. Not being as powerfully portrayed in the creeds, and as in some of the Pauline narrative, people may be confused by where Brian is going. It is all narrative, Brian attempts to sew the eternal mystery, that incarnational thread that is Jesus from beginning to end. Jesus is the center, or backbone of the story. Jesus holds the story, and all creation together. Brian McLaren’s Jesus is seen in the Genesis story of creation and reconciliation; the Exodus story of liberation and formation; and the Isaiah story of new creation and a peace-making Kingdom…and as NT Wright says, the inauguration as seen in the gospels. Is Brian McLaren’s Jesus too small…

In this light, Jesus’ offers of ” life of the ages ” and ” life abundant ” sparkle with new significance. When Jesus promises ” life of the ages ” ( a better translation of the Greek zoein aionian, I believe, than, ” eternal life “, the meaning of which is poorly framed in many minds be the 6 line narrative ), he’s not promising ” life after death “, or ” life in eternal heaven instead of eternal hell.” Instead Jesus is promising a life that transcends ” life in the present age ” an age that is soon going to end in tumult. Being ” born of God ” and ” born again ” or ” born from above ” would in this light mean being born into this new creation. So again, Jesus is offering life in the new Genesis, the new creation that is ” of the ages “…meaning it is part of God’s original creation…( page 130 )

But even these few examples, selected from so many more, make it clear that Jesus, contrary to my dear loyal critic’s assertion, did not come to save souls from hell. No, he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new Kingdom as the Prince of Peace. ( page 135 )

So is Brian McLaren’s vision of the Kingdom verses heaven drastically different from Bishop NT Wright’s in Surprised by Hope,… christians wrong about heaven, says bishop.

For Brian McLaren, it is absolutely clear, the gospels, the good news is about ” the Kingdom.” But readers will be challenged by the openness of the ” New Kind of Christianity ” Kingdom message, for many it may be to pluralistic, almost bordering ” universalism.”

Beyond that, I always assumed that ” kingdom of God ” meant ” kingdom of heaven “, which meant ” going to heaven after you die “, which required believing the message of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which I understood to teach the theory of atonement called ” penal substitution “, which was the basis for a formula of forgiveness of original sin called, ” justification by grace through faith.” ( page 138 )

An increasing number of us, when freed from the constraints of the 6 line Greco-Roman narrative and associated constitutional reading of the Bible, gain courage to speak what has become joyfully clear to us in this fresh reading of the gospels: Jesus did not come to start a new religion to replace first Judaism and then all other religions, whether by pen, the pulpit, the sword, or the apocalypse. …

Instead, he came to announce a new kingdom, a new way of life, a new way of peace that carried the good news to all people of every religion. A new kingdom is much bigger than a new religion, and in fact it has room for many religious traditions with in it. ( page 139 )

Even with in the context of the 6 line Greco-Roman narrative, I’ve always been mystified that the redemptive story seems to go back as far the Exodus story, where God liberates his people. But in the context of the Genesis story, to the original sin which initiates the first line, this is the embryonic origin of humanity void of any religious label. So even in a narrative reading as Brian lays out, and even in the 6 lines…Jesus should be seen as liberator, reconciler for all humanity…outside the context, and inside the context of all religions. So Brian McLaren’s offers a hope for all humanity, a redemptive imagination that should rekindle hope, and a way forward beyond religious exclusiveness.

Christian universalism musings are not new, there have been many passionate followers of Jesus that have explored this theological understanding. Brian McLaren just awakens us again to it’s redemptive imagination.

So I know pull back out onto the road and read Part Two, and I look in the rear view mirror and exhale. Many in the church will be repulsed by ” A New Kind of Christianity “, but I wonder how many who have left the church in the last 10-15 years will be attracted by this message. I think Brian has given us nothing new, it comes from depth of ancient wisdom… he gives us a breath taking image of an ongoing relationship between God and humanity.

Review Part 2 … ANKoC

So I’m just closing the back cover of A New Kind of Christianity, and Brian’s tweak of Luther’s introduction and Thesis 1 of his Ninety-Five Theses, could be a synopsis and forecast of future faith conversation and practice…

Out of love for truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following proposal is offered…Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when he said Poenitentiam agite , willed that the whole history of the Christian faith should be repentance, rethinking and quest.

Book Two, ANKoC is titled ” Emerging and Exploring ” and is broken down into five parts; The Church Question; The Sex Question; The Future Question; The Pluralism Question; The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question.

In the first two parts there really isn’t, at least in my mind much new thinking. For those you have followed the emerging/missional church conversation, Brian reinforces much of what has been said in recent years…diversity of forms, structure, practice.

What if the Christian Faith is supposed to exist in a variety of forms rather than one imperial one? What f it is both more stable and agile–more responsive to the Holy Spirit–when it exists in many forms. And what if, instead of arguing about which form is correct and legitimate, we were to honor, appreciate, and validate one another and see ourselves as servants of one grander mission, apostles of one greater message, seekers on one ultimate quest. That, I’d say, sounds like a new kind of Christianity. ( Page 164 )

Again, if you’ve read ” The Emergent Manifesto of Hope ” or Ryan Bolger’s and Eddie Gibb’s, ” Emerging Churches “, Brian reinforces the reality that a lot of this has been evolving for the past few years. And the reality, I believe it will continue to play out in the way of Mega churches, fluid and highly small emerging/missional communities…to highly interconnected networks.

My only concern was I thought Brian’s question of ” What do we do about Church ” lacked a critique and vision around leadership, education…and seminaries. He asks the question, ” How does spiritual formation in the way of Jesus differ from religious education in the way of Christianity?” He seems to leave it dangling, and intentionally or unintentionally walks away from it. In a ” Google ” age our access to knowledge is limitless in terms of quantity, and terms of speed it is blindingly fast. To ignore this the church will join the dinosaurs in the ice age…becoming petrified, fossilized left for the digging of future cultural archaeologists to dig up.

The Web has pulled the global village closer together, Skype, numerous forms of social IM services connect us with one click. It is a very pluralistic world, high tech, a highly digital world of telecommuters…almost anywhere, any place from the palm of our hand we are joined. This the rapidly changing landscape of the world in which the church must not only live…but flourish. What kind of leaders can navigate the gospel message through its interconnected maze, and what about seminary training models…are they keeping up with the rate of change? Any kind of a new Christianity must seriously engage these questions. Brian scratched the surface, my hope is new voices will take us on a deeper quest.

Again it is with the human sexuality question, ” Can we find a way to address human sexuality?” In the laboratory where I work on certain instruments we have a ” panic button ” that we cover in a thick gage plastic so it can’t be pressed. For much of Christianity, human sexuality is a ” panic button ” covered secure, and to be avoided at all costs. Or, if it is pressed there is only one outcome…abandonment, cast out, condemnation, and a hell bound future. Brian engages us in an other way forward…

By coming out of the closet regarding their homosexuality, gay folks help the rest of us come out of the closet regarding our sexuality. And that is important, because the longer we hide from the truth of our sexuality…all of its beauty and agony, in all its passion and pain, in all of its simplicity and complexity…the sicker we will be, as religious communities, as cultures, and as a global society.

As in so many areas, we must blaze a new trail into that terra nova beyond binary and reactionary ideals of sexuality repressive funda-sexuality, on the one hand, and sexually unrestrained hedonism, on the other. We must pursue a practical, down-to-earth theology and an honest, fully embodied spirituality that speak truthfully and openly about our sexuality, in all it’s straight and gay complexity.( page 189 )

In the question, ” Can we find a better way of viewing the future?”, Brian moves of beyond the eschatological theory of dispensationalism to a vision of a future that is continually unfolding, expanding, and opening all flow from a generous, creative and liberating God. At every moment, creation continues to unfold, liberation continues to to unshackle us, and the peaceable kingdom continues to expand with new hope and promise. It is the mind boggling reality of ” May you Kingdom come, on earth as in heaven “, it is the final emergence of the two becoming one…the Kingdom fully coming into being.

But this is not a future we sit idle-ly for, like pedestrians sitting at a train station waiting for that final glory bound train for heaven. As, Brian beautifully puts it, it is a participatory future…

We could borrow from Hans Kung and others and call it an ” improvisational eschatology “. We could also call it ” participatory”. In a participatory eschatology, when we ask, ” What does the future hold? ” the answer begins, ” That depends. It depends on you and me. God holds out to us at every moment a brighter future; the issue is whether we are willing to receive it and work with God to help create it. We are participating in the creation of what the future will be.” ( page 196 )

Or from the words of Eugene Peterson’s The Message in Colossians, ” He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he’s there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.” As heirs to the Kingdom, we are called to be co-creators in the building of the new creation. A new kind of christianity is to live faithfully, actively involved with God in an unfolding future of hope.

And of course, who can look at the future with out having the judgment seat looming big on the center of stage of life’s grand finale’. Will it be the elevator to the ground floor, the depths of a burning inferno in hell; or will it be the escalator, up, past the pearly gates, ambient harp music, angels bringing cocktails and appetizers…to heaven.

Brian says, as a first step we must see judgment in our new eschatological context. We must stop defining it as condemnation. God’s judgment is far higher and better; it involves ” putting wrong things right.” It means reconciling and restoring, not merely punishing; healing, not merely diagnosing; transforming, not merely exposing; and redeeming; not merely evaluating.

Whatever the final judgment will be, then, it will not involve God ( please pardon the crudeness of this ) pulling down our pants to check for circumcision or scanning our brains for certain beliefs like products being scanned in a grocery checkout. No, God, will examine the story of our lives for signs of Christ-likeness…for a cup of cold water or a plate of hot food given to one in need, for an atom of mercy shown to one who has been unkind of unthoughtful, for a visit to a prisoner or an open door and a warm bed for a stranger, for a generous impulse indulged and a hurtful one denied, like Jesus. These are the parts of a persons life that will be deemed worthy of being saved, remembered, rewarded, and raised for a new beginning. All the unloving, unjust, non-Christlike parts of our lives…and of our nations, tribes, civilizations, families, churches and so on…will be burned away, counted as unworthy, condemned ( which means acknowledged for what they are ), and forgotten forever. ( page 204 )

A new kind of Christianity’s vision of the future…is challenging…it is an eschatology of re-creation, of liberation, of redemption, of restoration, of anticipation, of hope…a future in which we actively participate…Now!

“We wish to have Christians and Muslims come together to proclaim before the world that religion must never be a reason for conflict, hatred and violence.”

“…in this historic moment, humanity needs to see gestures of peace and to hear words of hope.”

“It is urgent that a common invocation be raised from earth to heaven, to implore the Almighty…the great gift of peace, the necessary condition for any serious endeavor at the service of humanity’s real progress.” ( Pope John Paul II )Nov 18, 2001, at meeting of world’s religious leaders, announcing International prayer meeting to take place in Assisi.

peoples of all faiths must shun the path of isolation and division

I use the above quotes from the late Pope John Paul II, to lead us into Brian’s question on pluralism, ” How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions ?” Brian leads us through the gospel narrative a fresh to help break us free from the checklist, the fragmented reading where we soul-sort…who’s in and who’s out. It becomes fascinatingly apparent that when Jesus pitched his tent in the midst of humanity, he never did it in the midst of one religious camp. Could it be that Jesus pitched his tent in that liminal, that trans-formative space between all religions. What would happen if the wind of God was moving us in a new direction?

We Christians could offer Jesus ( not Christianity ) as a gift to the world, and we would no longer consider it a requirement of faithfulness to insult other religions and call their founders demonic. We would no longer envision a day when all other religions would be abolished and only our own remain. We would no longer consider ourselves as normative and others as ” other.” We would stop seeing the line that separates good and evil running between our religion and others. We would be freed from the tendency to always think ” insider/ outsider ” and ” us/ them.” We would learn to discover God in the other, and we would discover a bigger ” us “, in which people of all faiths can be included.

We would consider it a matter of faithfulness to show the same respect to other religions and their founders that we would wish to be shown to our own. We would envision a day when members of all religions, including our own, learned to be reconciled with God, one another, and all creation. We would see that Jesus and his message of peace and service were right and true after all, and that Jesus was not a gift to one religion, but the whole world. We would consider all people God’s beloved, as neighbors in God’s world, loving them, serving them, enjoying them. ( page 215 )

For anyone not familiar with Brian McLaren this might not be the book into which you are first introduced to one another. For me this book was the culmination of a life’s journey as a passionate follower of Jesus. It is a mature, radical, revolutionary voice…with a profound sense of urgency. This is the closest I think I’ve seen Brian come to nailing his theology to the Castle Church door at Wittenberg. He digs deep into the fullness of the Biblical narrative, bringing to fruit the embryonic musings of his earlier book, ” A New Kind of Christian ” and from the themes of later books. The fruit of many years of listening, thinking, reflecting are fully ripe, ready to be picked, eaten…and digested.

Digestion, indigestion, heartburn, vomit…there is much to chew on in this book. I found at some points, I felt like a wall plug with too many things plugged into it…almost circuit overload. It’s almost as if you sense an urgency in Brian’s writing, that the Christian faith is at a tipping point. I think many of us have been living a parallel journey with Brian, and have been living in and out of the same questions. Brian brings them out into broad daylight, for us ” all ” to wrestle with.

Paradigms and dogma can be defended and enforced with guns and prisons, bullets and bonfires, threats and humiliation, fatwas and excommunications. But paradigms and dogma remain profoundly vulnerable when anomalies are present. They can be undone by something as simple as a question… ( page 16 )

I think of the fictional wise sage in Tolkien’s ” Lord of the Rings ” Gandalf, who Tolkien described ” seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning on a staff” and ” the greatest spirit and the wisest “, and so it is with Brian McLaren as he invites us to cross the threshold on an epic new quest. But in the back of my mind, there is anxiety and fear for my friend, I remember all to well what happened to Tolkien’s Gandalf…Yet it is said that in the ending of the task for which he came he suffered greatly, and was slain, and being sent back from death and was clothed then in white, and became a radiant flame.

I have no doubt Brian will face a lot hostility around A New Kind of Christianity…but I think future generations of passionate followers of Jesus will thank Brian for being bold enough to open a door of a deeper quest into the Christian faith…and inviting us to cross the threshold.

http://thewearypilgrim.typepad.com/the_weary_pilgrim/2010/02/an-ancient-recipe-with-a-new-labela-new-kind-of-christianity.html

http://thewearypilgrim.typepad.com/the_weary_pilgrim/2010/02/a-new-kind-of-christianitycircuit-overload.html

http://treehousemonastic.com/2010/02/24/a-new-kind-of-christianity/

However, I find in A New Kind of Christianity a more adversarial tone which belies it’s stated intent to “further the conversation.”…continue reading review at http://bigfishministries.com/kristine/?p=2689

I have just finished reading McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity. Having read several of McLaren’s other books, I would consider this one to be essential. I mean “essential” in two different ways:

1. “Essential” in the sense that A New Kind of Christianity is a streamlined and tightly focused distillation of ideas that McLaren has explored elsewhere. This book seems to contain the concentrated essence of what McLaren’s theological labor has produced thus far. I often found points which he had sketched out in previous books now re-drawn in sharp, clear and muscular form. As a result–at under 300 pages–this book packs a great deal of theological, intellectual and inspirational punch.

2. “Essential” in the sense that A New Kind of Christianity is *the* Brian McLaren book to read, whether you haven’t read anything else by him or whether you have read everything else by him.

A New Kind of Christianity is built around the exploration of ten important questions that Christians throughout the world seem to be asking more and more and with greater urgency. These questions are:

1. What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
2. How should the Bible be understood?
3. Is God violent?
4. Who is Jesus and why is He important?
5. What is the Gospel?
6. What do we do about the Church?
7. Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
8. Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
9. How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
10. What do we do now? (How do we translate our quest into action?)

McLaren doesn’t so much provide pat answers to these questions as give thoughtful responses which leave the door open for further exploration. His tone throughout is humble, circumspect and low-key. This is not a book for people who want a pedagogue to tell them what to believe. Rather it inspires you to bring your own theology into the light and take an honest look at what you believe, why you believe it and if, perhaps, you ought to rethink a thing or two (or ten).

As an example, early on McLaren provides a brilliantly simple visual representation of the Biblical narrative according to Western “Greco-Roman” Christianity (aka Catholicism & Protestantism). He then proceeds to carefully deconstruct that “Greco-Roman” narrative and present an alternate “Hebrew” narrative which is vibrant, hopeful, appealing and, frankly, makes a whole lot more sense. One begins to realize that this “New Kind of Christianity” is also very ancient.

As a Quaker, I found myself surprised at the parallels to Quaker theology which I found all through this book. I had an opportunity to ask Brian about this on a conference call and he responded very enthusiatically. He is quite familiar with the theology of Friends and spoke in glowing terms of Quakers. Perhaps George Fox & Co. were at the far bleeding edge of what has come to be called the Emergent Church Movement! In the book, McLaren refers to those throughout Church history who, like the Quakers and Anabaptists, provided a “minority report” on what it means to follow Jesus.

On that same conference call (courtesy of The Ooze), McLaren said that it took him far longer to write this book than any other book he has written. It shows. Now that I have finished reading it, I plan to begin re-reading it immediately. This is an extremely important book. Buy it. I am not exaggerating when I say that if I could afford to, I would get a copy for every Christian and every spiritual seeker I know.

When I read A New Kind of Christian trilogy several years ago, I was in the midst of a spiritual and emotional depression. I was, in McLaren’s words, “between something real and something wrong.” I had begun to question a lot of what I had been taught, a lot of what I preached, a lot of what gave me identity as a Christian and as a pastor. And I knew that if I expressed my questions and doubts, it would cost me my job. A New Kind of Christian gave me the courage to step out and journey onto some terra nova, leading eventually to the launching of Vintage Fellowship, the emergent faith community I have the inexpressible privilege of shepherding.

For me, Brian McLaren’s books are like a turn-by-turn GPS, always one step ahead of me, guiding the way. In the same way that A New Kind of Christian charted the path I would journey, so now, I believe A New Kind of Christianity will chart the path that Vintage Fellowship is journeying.

A New Kind of Christianity has framed the ongoing discussion our faith community is having. It’s like Brian has been having coffee with us. He asks 10 essential questions:
-What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?
-How should the Bible be understood?
-Is God Violent?
-Who is Jesus and why is he important?
-What is the gospel?
-What do we do about the church?
-Can we find a way to address human sexuality?
-Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
-How should the followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
-How can we translate our quest into action?

McLaren engages each question thoughtfully, opening up a space for discussion, dissent, and development. I am sure my fundamentalist friends will not be OK with his questions, let alone his proposed answers. But I am no longer a fundamentalist, and I love the space to explore and wonder. Many times throughout the book, I felt affirmed, reading a perspective on a question that I shared. Many more times, I was challenged to look at a question from a new perspective. And what a blessing that space is.

As tremendously important as McLaren’s framing of the quest for a new kind of Christianity is, maybe his most important contribution to the discussion is his gracious and gentle manner. He describes some of the reaction his teaching has engendered. And he responds to some of his critics. He could have reason to come on strongly, defensively, and argumentatively. He never does. He maintains the kind of irenic spirit that I think makes God proud. I hope that I can emulate it.

Constantly searching for metaphors to help map the territory ahead, McLaren describes the maturation process of humanity in general and religious thought in particular in terms of the colors of the spectrum. As I read his description of the movement from red to yellow through green and blue to violet, it was as if I was reading my own story. In short, reading A New Kind of Christian and launching Vintage Fellowship was my journey into the indigo shade of honesty. But I am ready to move beyond honesty to peace. I am ready to continue my quest. I am not confident of much, but I am confident of this: A New Kind of Christianity will be a map I return to again and again as I seek to lead myself, my family, and my church into the violet horizon of a hopeful, peaceful future.

Thanks, Brian, for doing it again.

I think I’ve read each book that Brian McLaren has authored. I’ve certainly reflected on a few of them on this blog. Between his books, and hearing him speak, and even a brief conversation or two, I’ve always been drawn to his genuine, and generous, spirit.

While McLaren has garnered plenty of critique (and that’s putting it mildly), I have appreciated his posture and willingness to bring difficult questions into public dialogue. And through all the critique, it has seemed to me that most of his work has been about asking questions while implying, or sometimes gently suggesting, a few challenging answers. He’s done a lot of asking, “What if?”

There is a shift in McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind of Christianity. There are reviews around the internet and few are fully embracing McLaren’s latest work. Most suggest that he has gone too far as reviewers distance themselves. My take, as the title of this post suggests, is that the gentle proddings of his “what if?” questions have become a more assertive “what if…” set of suggestions, or as he would say, responses.

I want to read this book as an open and expanded understanding of Chrsitianity — one that will broaden and challenge my own thinking. It certainly seems like the quote I posted from his introduction last week invites that very thing.

But, in his most assertive book, Brian isn’t just inviting an expanded understanding of Christianity. In this book, he states that he is looking toward something different than most North American evangelicals have experienced. He suggests that those, like me, who try to stand with one foot in what we have known as orthodoxy, while broadening our views of Christianity, will be unsuccessful.

I guess it must be that I don’t take things as far as he does, because I don’t agree with him on this point. In the last five years, I’ve grown to a broader and richer understanding of the Christian faith than I’ve ever had, while still standing firmly within a creedal understanding of Christianity. I have authors like NT Wright, Dallas Willard, and even, um, Brian McLaren, to thank for this.

I’m not entirely sure what Brian was hoping for in this book. Time will tell what he accomplishes, but those who read should read with discernment. Of course, those who read any book should read with discernment.

Viewed in this light, the debate about McLaren, the emergent church movement and a “new kind of Christianity” is the theological equivalent of intramural flag football. You got a lot of guys on the field but none of them are particularly fit or skilled. And certainly none of them play at a professional level.

To push the analogy just one more step, the professional level that McLaren and his critics merely imitate, is the catholic tradition of theological orthodoxy of the Church Fathers and the sacramental, liturgical and ascetical practice of the historic Christian Church. Whatever our differences, this tradition is to be found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately McLaren and his critics are estranged from these Churches and this matters because the further one travels from the canon of faith and practice embodied in these two Churches, the further one travels as well from the Gospel.

For all their theological differences, qwhat McLaren and his critics do share is the lived conviction that the catholic tradition of theological orthodoxy is not incarnated in any single Church. They do not so much read the Fathers as skim them and so protect themselves from the ecclesiological conclusions that would, necessarily, undermine the notion their faith in the Church as an invisible collect of all believers everywhere rather than an historical, visible society, with shared faith, lead by a common episcopate and which meets together in the one celebration of the Eucharist.

Whatever else McLaren and his critics may disagree about, they agree in rejecting the understanding of the Church that informed the faith and practice not only of the patristic era but the contemporary Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The judgment is not mine to make, but they are, I hope, men who love Christ and are sincere in their desire to live the Gospel. But in the end in having separated themselves from the Church (and for the context of this argument, we can put on hold an adjudication of the truth claims of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches relative to each other), they lack the one thing needed to bring their faith to fruition.

When I was ordained to the priesthood, Metropolitan MAXIMOS told me that I must have a special care for those who love Christ and lack the priesthood. His Eminence went on to explain that without the priesthood, there could be no sacrifice of the altar–that is there could be no celebration of the Eucharist. And without the Eucharist, without this rational and unbloody sacrifice, love, while real, would be stillborn.

It is this the cry of this stillborn love that I hear in both McLaren and his critics.

This no doubt sounds harsh. And it sounds so because it is. McLaren and his critics are not arguing over the Catholic and Orthodox faith but market share. They stand within traditions that are built on the more or less intentional rejection of the normative character of the first 1,000 years of Christian Tradition, from Church Tradition. Apart from this Tradition, however, they have no standard to adjudicate their claims relative to each other.

The tragedy of their debate, the reason I find it stillborn, is that to accept this standard, means to undermine the very thing they are debating: the post-Reformation Protestant-Evangelical-Fundamentalist vision of the Christian life.

But this is after all a review of McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. So let me end with a word about the book.

McLaren is not presenting us with a new kind of Christianity but simply a re-working of Evangelical Christianity. While he claims his work is post-modern, it isn’t. For that we should look to the works of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and David Bentley Hart. Read these theologians and the intellectual and spiritual poverty of McLaren’s work and the emegent church movement is clear.

Whatever good points there might be in his re-working, in the end McLaren’s “new kind of Christianity” demonstrates the inherent and internal theological and spiritual weakness of the Reformation in general and of Evangelical Christianity in particular. That weakness is the weakness of a merely partial faith, a faith that is not orthodox (or Orthodox) because it is not catholic (or Catholic) and not catholic (or Catholic) because it is nor orthodox (or Orthodox).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory