Review: A New Kind of Christianity
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 4:00AM 
In the middle of A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren gives us a picture to describe how he thinks we need to change.
Before...we are like lawyers trying to save an old contract, adding more and more fine print on page after page, until the provisions are weightier than the original contract. (This is good work, I suppose, and must be done for a generation or two, but it is not the work to which I feel called.) At some point, though, more and more of us will finally decide that it would make more sense to go back and revise the contract from scratch. And that work has begun. It is nowhere near complete, but the cat is out of the bag...
And that cat is on a tear. McLaren attempts the impossible, essentially tossing out what you always thought was true, and starting again from scratch. The Fall of Genesis 3? That's really a coming-of-age story. The storyline of the Bible? It's really about the downside of progress, and about how good prevails in the end anyway. The Bible is a community library, and the violent, tribal God of the Genesis flood is "hardly worthy of belief, much less worship" - but those were early days, and our view of God is always changing. Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, nor is Christianity the answer in itself. In short, almost everything you know about God, the Bible, and Christianity is wrong, according to McLaren.
Disagree? It's probably because you have a Greco-Roman worldview, or worse. You may be someone who gets "authority and employment" from the old way of reading the Bible, which means you have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. To go back to McLaren's earlier image, you're maybe a lawyer who loves fine print and who hates cats being let out of their bags. You're probably like the theologians and pastors who:
...sew on a patch here, cover up that bit over there with some duct tape, put a nice coat of cheerful paint on that section over there, play really uplifting music to distract from that bit under there, move the furniture so that part doesn't show, and so on.
You're either misguided or have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Either way, it's hard to disagree without looking pitiable.
What to make of all of this?
First, I want to say that McLaren does make some good points. He puts his finger on some real problems. This isn't damning with faint praise. It's important, because it's what makes a book like this so compelling. Lots of people are going to buy what he says because they resonate with his critique.
Second, I'm grateful that McLaren has articulated his views. I suspect that there's going to be less guessing about what McLaren believes in the future. I don't think his views are a surprise to a lot of us, but they're in print now, and it's going to be a lot easier to talk about them.
Third, I'm going to predict that this book gets a lot of traction. I joined a conference call with McLaren last night and heard a number of people - including pastors - rave about the book. I think it's going to be one of those books in which the fans and critics speak past each other. The early reviews seem overwhelmingly positive. They won't be surprised if people like me don't like it. He takes some swipes at Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur, and sometimes comes across in a belittling way to evangelicals in general. He takes swipes at his critics sometimes that leave me gasping - and the fact that he does it with a friendly smile doesn't really help. This is going to be a polarizing book.
I really have to say that this is one of the most frustrating books I've read. I have a friend who says off-the-wall things. Half the time he's profound; the rest of the time he's just a bit random. I felt that way with this book. There are some potentially profound sections, but there's lots in the book that left me baffled. I can't remember reading any book that left me shaking my head so much. So much hinges on his assertion that we read the Scriptural storyline through a Platonic worldview, for instance, but I was far from convinced. His interpretation of Job, which he used to explain how we should read Scripture, left me scratching my head. His conclusions (or proposals) are so sweeping, and based on such baffling premises sometimes, that I hardly know where to begin.
Finally - and most importantly - this is not a minor tweak of Christianity. It is a repudiation of the church's understanding of God and the gospel. It really is tearing up the contract and starting all over again. McLaren says we've got the whole Biblical storyline, as well as our ideas of God and Scripture, all wrong. He'd rather be an atheist, he says, than believe in the God that many of us think is found in the Bible. You don't get any more basic. We are talking about two fundamentally different versions of Christianity and the gospel.
That's what makes this book so hard to critique. Supporters of the book will say that I'm critiquing it from a Greco-Roman mindset, using the Bible as a constitution text rather than as a community library. So my criticisms will be expected. McLaren's proposals go all the way back to the level of presuppositions, and unless you share his presuppositions it will be like complaining that the color red isn't blue enough. Fine, they will say, but it wasn't meant to be blue. He's not only giving us a new version of the Christian story, but he's making it very difficult to critique his new version using the resources of the old one. But I'm simply not convinced that he's made the case that he thinks he has.
Like McLaren, I believe we need to honestly examine our beliefs and practices, making corrections even when it's costly and uncomfortable. I believe that every generation needs to rediscover the gospel. But unlike McLaren, I'm not ready to toss the creation-fall-redemption storyline, or think that I've moved on from the God of Genesis 4-6. I'm simply not ready to say our old understanding of the gospel is wrong. We may need to rediscover it and be changed by it, and grow in our understanding of it. But that's different than tearing up the contract and starting all over again.
A few years ago, I was struggling with some of the issues McLaren raises. But I found that some of the answers being proposed were less, not more, satisfying. I believe that our biggest need is not for a new Christianity, but instead to rediscover some of the contours of the gospel we may have forgotten. We don't need a new contract; we need to "guard the good deposit" that's been entrusted to us (2 Timothy 1:14).
We really don't need a new kind of Christianity. We need to do a better job of rediscovering, and living in light of, the one we already have.
Update: Again, Mike Wittmer has a great post on the book. Well worth reading.
Reader Comments (19)
Very insightful review, Darryl. I'm grieved that there were pastors raving about the book on this conference call, especially given the assessments both you and Mike Wittmer have given the content. Thanks for taking the time to write this review.
You know, I felt the same way about McLaren. In seminary I wrote a paper comparing Liberation Theology to Emergent Church and so I had to read a few of McLaren's books. At places I thought "he has a good point!" and at other places I wanted to dump the book in the trash. He is alternately helpful and harmful but I'm glad to see that he's claiming to start a new kind of Christianity. He is after all.But it isn't new. It is old school Liberalism wrapped in torn jeans and a worn t-shirt. There is nothing new under the sun.
Can you go into more detail about his presuppositions? What are some of the stances he repudiates?
Brian McLaren claims that if you disagree with him then "You may be someone who gets “authority and employment” from the old way of reading the Bible"Clearly McLaren is someone who gets his authority and employment from promoting his "NEW" way of reading the Bible.
Eric:At the root, though, there's a completely different set of presuppositions about Scripture, God, and the storyline of Scripture. It's hard to appeal to Scripture to critique his book, because McLaren will say we have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what Scripture is in the first place.
Darryl, as usual, you are able to give a very strong and pointed critique while remaining fair, gracious and affirming. Oh that more bloggers & writers would follow your example! So, to start, thank you.I pre-ordered this book, then canceled the order when I was promised a review copy. I then learned I would not be getting a review copy, so had to consider re-ordering. In the end, I have decided to wait- either for a used copy or a borrowed copy. That is, if I read it at all. McLaren is an important voice in shaping my faith and ministry, something for which I will always be grateful.While I have concerns with Belcher's Deep Church, I share his sense that emergence Christianity is at its strongest in its critique, but less so when offering alternatives and/or solutions. My deepest hope is that emerging Christians who disagree with Brian will talk about it (in the manner you have here). I still identify with emergence Christianity, but what you describe here (and what I have read myself) is not part of that identity for me.Thanks again.Peace, Jamie
Orthodoxy requires a big trash can.
Thank you, Triple-D. Well said.The church needs to get over its affair with Plato....
Good stuff, Darryl. I'm only 22% of the way into the book (the one advantage of reading on Kindle--you always know exactly where you are) but am already seeing that this is a complete and total rewriting of the Christian faith. I will be shocked if, at the last click of the Next Page button, there's anything left.
Thanks for this review Darrell. I think Jamie has a lot of wisdom in his take on Belcher's Deep Church. Brian's books have really helped open my eyes to a lot of problems with Christianity, but I have found folks such as Shane Claiborn more helpful in offering a path forward. I share a lot of foundational reading with McLaren such as Leslie Newbigin and even some solid liberation theologians such as Justo Gonzalez. I look forward to one day reading McLaren's book for myself and comparing his conclusions to those offered by the likes of Claiborn, Newbigin, and Gonzalez.
[...] read some negative reviews of Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity and of course that has [...]
I'm glad Brian has outlined his thoughts...there are too many pastors who don't say what they believe or worse, say one thing in private and another from the pulpit.Rob
Hey Daryl, thanks for taking this one on. As you probably predicted i am one of those pastors who found the book liberating. I find Brian helpfully articulate. I appreciate your gentile critique, as our theology is so connected to our identity, to trash anothers theology is often dehumanizing. Dialogue is important, if it's to discover more of a person and God rather than just stand over the other in judgement.In this book Brian captures so much of what i and many of my friends are becoming convinced of. So let's be thankful that when we pray 'Our Father..." the real scandle is in the biggnes of the 'Our'
I have not been able to read the book yet... I find the idea that Genesis 3 is a coming of age story very interesting because that is exactly what Philip Pullman leads the reader to conclude in "The Golden Compass" (U.K. "Northern Lights"). That part was not really included in the movie as the screenplay ends about two chapters too soon.
Maybe we should find the old EmergentNo folks and let them know they were right all along. ;)As one who derives little authority and no employment from the system I must say that my view of the gospel isn't a whole lot different than yours.In the last two years I've spent most of my writing energies addressing a false teaching more prevalent in charismatic circles. While I intentionally tried not to be like certain heresy hunters out there I learned that there is a biblical case for taking a hard stand against false teaching.2Jn 1:8 Watch out, so that you do not lose the things we have worked for, but receive a full reward. 2Jn 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. 2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 2Jn 1:11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.At some point we do have to say enough is a enough.
To me, the emergence/emergent/emerging movement (how 'bout if I just call it e-movement!) is a nowhere NEAR ready for any one person to nail a "95 theses" to a door, if that's even what this movement is called to do. Brian's book establishes where HE is at on his journey, but I never get the impression that he presumes to speak on "behalf" of the movement. It is unfortunate that he has been cast in the role of "elder spokesperson" by some people (though I can see how that tends to happen). To ME, I have been invigorated by all the NEW voices entering in! The e-movement is no longer a post-evangelical movement - it is much larger than that - Richard Rohr and Philip Clayton, for example. My point is that as I read Brian's book, I find lots that resonates and lots I have to pull back on, but I read it (as I read ALL books) as HIS journey and not ALL journeys. To me, this is the excitement of "Theology after Google" (to borrow a phrase) where we are no longer limited to the theology we were raised with - we can explore other theologies that have been out there this whole time. To me, it's kind of ignorant to think that as one voice in the movement speaks, all will follow like little sheep. I know there are other movements (esp. political) where that is the case, but it is pretty short-sighted to think that's what is going on here.
I think in reading and following McLaren and others in the same stream of thinking. Your verse is Timothy is very relevant except in McLaren's point of view, we have squandered the deposit and used it for our own greed, power, wealth, excuses to hate, judge, condemn and even kill other humans. And it is time we ask God to forgive us and redeem us and reinstill in us the deposit so that we can invest it well.This is a conversation. A large global family arguement. Are we truely seeing, believing and living all of who God wants us to be as his children? Is there a way to make that possible that works, is admitting that the reformation made things better a bad thing? Is admitting that now is a good time to look at our faith criticially again and talk about possible fundamental changes a good idea?The first step is admitting you have a problem. Until that happens many Christians will live in denial. I admit we have a problem, we as a faith are not living the greatness that Jesus had intended.
The whole "viewing this through Platonic/Greco/Roman understanding" thing is silly.Show me a verse where the classic understanding of salvation goes away with a new filter and interpret the verse with the filter to see if it makes sense.The classic understanding is based on an accurate understanding of the text an unlearned high school drop out can pick up on with a straight reading of the New Testament. Just read through the Acts of the Apostles. Can there be fuller and deeper understandings? Sure. But the old paradigm remains.Based on what I'm reading it looks like McClaren is getting closer to rejecting the Bible out of hand. Fine.But if so, let's not pretend he isn't a heretic.
Good and fair review. I have been forced (reluctantly) to grapple again with this book recently. Your points are on the ball.