Hi, I haven't checked in for a while... I'm hoping to have a bit more free time to participate in the forum once again.
Has anyone read Brian McLaren's latest book, A New Kind of Christianity?
I thought it was fantastic. Here's my review:
Brian McLaren has emerged as a voice that asks aloud the questions that many of us have wrestled with in silence. As a result, he has been lionized (and sometimes idolized) by those who find resonance with his theological ponderings. He has simultaneously been demonized and even slandered by those who are disturbed by his explorations into what it means to follow Jesus in the 21st century. He has become both an antenna and a lightning rod for the light and heat generated by the friction of Christianity's transition into post-modernism.
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.
The new narrative that Brian postulates is utterly Christ-centered. At its core is the idea that Jesus is the revelation of God. If we want to understand what God is like, we ought to give our primary focus to seeing what Jesus was like, and not lose sight of that. This book will either excite, edify and motivate you or it will scare you (because it challenges the status quo--as Jesus nearly always does).
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, 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.
McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Hi Danny,
Good to see you back. I've heard of Brian McLaren and that he is very controversial, to say the least. It is my understanding he would not agree with Peter's statement:
Acts 4:11-13 (New International Version)
11. He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' 12. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Is what I have heard correct?
Blessings, Homer
Good to see you back. I've heard of Brian McLaren and that he is very controversial, to say the least. It is my understanding he would not agree with Peter's statement:
Acts 4:11-13 (New International Version)
11. He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' 12. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Is what I have heard correct?
Blessings, Homer
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
I have not read this new book, but I read his earlier "New Kind of Christian" novel trilogy, as well as his book on the kingdom of God, "The Secret Message of Jesus." I did not read there much of substance with which to disagree (not more, at least, than I find in most authors). In fact, I found a lot of sensible thinking about the Gospel there.
McLaren is controversial because he is regarded by many as too open-minded, and too theologically flexible. Without reading this latest book, I would not be able to say whether he now agrees with Acts 4:11-14, but, having read the earlier books I mentioned, I would be surprised if he did not.
I think people may draw the wrong conclusions about his thoughts on this, just as some misunderstand my position when I suggest that there may be some outside the range of the proclamation of the Gospel who may nonetheless end up on good terms with God. The misconception that these people could be saved without Christ comes from the assumption that being saved by Christ always equates to having heard a clear proclamation of the Gospel and thereafter embracing it.
The question seems to me to be whether Jesus is able to save some who have never heard His name in this life. Perhaps not. But if so, this is not the same thing as being saved without Him. Jesus is Himself more than the mere syllables that comprise His name. He is "the true Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9)—many of whom, it seems, never hear HIs actual name in their lifetimes. However, condemnation consists in having the Light present and loving darkness more than light (John 3:19). Not everyone (even among those who have heard the Gospel) has the same amount of light, but everyone has the opportunity to respond one way or another to whatever light they possess. Those whose response to lesser light is equivalent to our response to greater light can hardly be condemned on the basis of Christ's words. I believe that this position is the current view of Billy Graham, and a great number of other evangelicals, as well.
If McLaren believes that those who have heard the Gospel in this life have no advantage in destiny or status in salvation over those who have not heard the Gospel, then I do not think I could go that far with him (for why, then, should we preach?). I don't know what he thinks about this point. My belief is that there is a certain destiny that is shared by those who hear of Christ and who faithfully suffer for Him in this life, which differs from the destiny of those who never do so (if I turn out to be wrong, this will not bother me). But this difference is not so great as that which many envision, who believe that an eternal hell is the only option for those who never hear.
It seems clear that my rewards in the resurrection will be very much less than those of Richard Wurmbrandt, Watchman Nee, or Paul—since I have suffered much less than they have (so far, at least). This does not disturb me in the least. In fact, I should have difficulty seeing justice in any other arrangement. Likewise, I suppose there may be many in the resurrection who have suffered less, or less faithfully, even than myself, and I would be surprised (but not displeased) were they to receive the exact same reward as myself. I leave it to the wisdom of God to dispense rewards, and will have no complaints about any arrangement that He may choose. However, I would think it very strange (and difficult) if everyone who had no opportunity to hear the Gospel were, for that reason alone, consigned to a cruel hell.
McLaren is controversial because he is regarded by many as too open-minded, and too theologically flexible. Without reading this latest book, I would not be able to say whether he now agrees with Acts 4:11-14, but, having read the earlier books I mentioned, I would be surprised if he did not.
I think people may draw the wrong conclusions about his thoughts on this, just as some misunderstand my position when I suggest that there may be some outside the range of the proclamation of the Gospel who may nonetheless end up on good terms with God. The misconception that these people could be saved without Christ comes from the assumption that being saved by Christ always equates to having heard a clear proclamation of the Gospel and thereafter embracing it.
The question seems to me to be whether Jesus is able to save some who have never heard His name in this life. Perhaps not. But if so, this is not the same thing as being saved without Him. Jesus is Himself more than the mere syllables that comprise His name. He is "the true Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9)—many of whom, it seems, never hear HIs actual name in their lifetimes. However, condemnation consists in having the Light present and loving darkness more than light (John 3:19). Not everyone (even among those who have heard the Gospel) has the same amount of light, but everyone has the opportunity to respond one way or another to whatever light they possess. Those whose response to lesser light is equivalent to our response to greater light can hardly be condemned on the basis of Christ's words. I believe that this position is the current view of Billy Graham, and a great number of other evangelicals, as well.
If McLaren believes that those who have heard the Gospel in this life have no advantage in destiny or status in salvation over those who have not heard the Gospel, then I do not think I could go that far with him (for why, then, should we preach?). I don't know what he thinks about this point. My belief is that there is a certain destiny that is shared by those who hear of Christ and who faithfully suffer for Him in this life, which differs from the destiny of those who never do so (if I turn out to be wrong, this will not bother me). But this difference is not so great as that which many envision, who believe that an eternal hell is the only option for those who never hear.
It seems clear that my rewards in the resurrection will be very much less than those of Richard Wurmbrandt, Watchman Nee, or Paul—since I have suffered much less than they have (so far, at least). This does not disturb me in the least. In fact, I should have difficulty seeing justice in any other arrangement. Likewise, I suppose there may be many in the resurrection who have suffered less, or less faithfully, even than myself, and I would be surprised (but not displeased) were they to receive the exact same reward as myself. I leave it to the wisdom of God to dispense rewards, and will have no complaints about any arrangement that He may choose. However, I would think it very strange (and difficult) if everyone who had no opportunity to hear the Gospel were, for that reason alone, consigned to a cruel hell.
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your thoughtful input. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote "I think people may draw the wrong conclusions about his thoughts on this..." McLaren's views are much more nuanced than his critics typically present them.
Hi Homer,
It's nice to be back. I'm hoping I can make more time to participate. I obviously can't speak for McLaren, but I suspect he would not so much question Peter's statement as he would question the way that you're using Peter's statement. The two links below might shed some light on what I mean, particularly the second link:
http://theooze.tv/brian-mclaren/brian-m ... ve-questio
http://theooze.tv/brian-mclaren/brian-m ... y-question
-Danny
Thanks for your thoughtful input. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote "I think people may draw the wrong conclusions about his thoughts on this..." McLaren's views are much more nuanced than his critics typically present them.
Hi Homer,
It's nice to be back. I'm hoping I can make more time to participate. I obviously can't speak for McLaren, but I suspect he would not so much question Peter's statement as he would question the way that you're using Peter's statement. The two links below might shed some light on what I mean, particularly the second link:
http://theooze.tv/brian-mclaren/brian-m ... ve-questio
http://theooze.tv/brian-mclaren/brian-m ... y-question
-Danny
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Hello all.
Hello Danny,
McLaren and his new book recently came up on another forum (Theologica). There, they linked to Scot McKnight's Review. After reading it I went to Amazon and read reviews, pro & con, including yours. I made one post @ Theologica that went something like, "It's as if reviewers aren't even reading the same book!"
I haven't read McLaren outside of a chapter or two from one book at the library some time ago (I don't recall which one). I've seen him in a a few vids, in which he seems easy-going, as even some of his opponents have noted (how he's a likeable man).
I watched the first vid you linked to (but had to find it on another site, it wasn't loading very well).
At any rate, if I were to go with what McKnight said concerning the concepts of a "Theos" (view of God) and an "Elohim" (view of God); well, this seems pretty odd. The "Theos" concept seems a lot like a "Demiurge" (view of God).
It seems McLaren is using "Theos" and "Elohim" for illustrative purposes, not to construct actual theologies from these concepts. Why I say this is obvious: "Theos" being the NT word for "God."
I really resonate with McLaren's "call" (so to speak) that we should view Jesus -- and God -- from a Jewish perspective, beginning with Abraham and moving forward to Jesus (in His real life setting). In this, McLaren is essentially saying the same kind of stuff N.T. Wright does: Jesus in context. The Bible in its narrative. Not the narrative of, say, Ignatius, ff.
If you think about it, a whole lot of beliefs come as much or more from Plato (ref. cit., Augustine) than the actual narrative of Scripture. If I'm understanding McLaren's "gist"; we need to move from Jesus backwards, rather than formulating our theology from the death of the last Apostle onward. Not that we can totally erase everything we've been taught. But we should definitely be rethinking our theology in light of what really happened....
I'm going to read this book -- as soon as I finish N.T. Wright's Justification!
Hello Danny,
McLaren and his new book recently came up on another forum (Theologica). There, they linked to Scot McKnight's Review. After reading it I went to Amazon and read reviews, pro & con, including yours. I made one post @ Theologica that went something like, "It's as if reviewers aren't even reading the same book!"
I haven't read McLaren outside of a chapter or two from one book at the library some time ago (I don't recall which one). I've seen him in a a few vids, in which he seems easy-going, as even some of his opponents have noted (how he's a likeable man).
I watched the first vid you linked to (but had to find it on another site, it wasn't loading very well).
At any rate, if I were to go with what McKnight said concerning the concepts of a "Theos" (view of God) and an "Elohim" (view of God); well, this seems pretty odd. The "Theos" concept seems a lot like a "Demiurge" (view of God).
It seems McLaren is using "Theos" and "Elohim" for illustrative purposes, not to construct actual theologies from these concepts. Why I say this is obvious: "Theos" being the NT word for "God."
I really resonate with McLaren's "call" (so to speak) that we should view Jesus -- and God -- from a Jewish perspective, beginning with Abraham and moving forward to Jesus (in His real life setting). In this, McLaren is essentially saying the same kind of stuff N.T. Wright does: Jesus in context. The Bible in its narrative. Not the narrative of, say, Ignatius, ff.
If you think about it, a whole lot of beliefs come as much or more from Plato (ref. cit., Augustine) than the actual narrative of Scripture. If I'm understanding McLaren's "gist"; we need to move from Jesus backwards, rather than formulating our theology from the death of the last Apostle onward. Not that we can totally erase everything we've been taught. But we should definitely be rethinking our theology in light of what really happened....
I'm going to read this book -- as soon as I finish N.T. Wright's Justification!
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Hi Danny,
Had the same problem as Rick but watched "the Authority" on U-tube. To me, the problem is not the constitution vs. library view of the scriptures. I believe Christianity is basically a simple faith and we can know what we are required to do without much trouble; all too often we just don't want to do it. Love God, love your neighbor, help the poor, live a moral life, get baptized, remember Him in communion, pray, & worship. There isn't much more to it. I fail to see the need for "another kind". The old path seems pretty good to me.
Baptism is objected to? There you go, you prove my point (couldn't resist saying that to a Quaker
) . Getting dunked isn't too much for the One who died for us to ask.
Mclaren obviously does not believe in the "orthodox" view of hell. He has made the following statement:
In the long debate here regarding hell the universalists, at least some of them, have taken the position that God punishes (excuse me, corrects) people in hell through a long period of severe correction. If this is not "coercian, violence, intimidation, and domination" I do not know what would be. I am assuming McLaren is a "no heller"? And his view of the atonement is that there isn't any?
God bless, Homer
Had the same problem as Rick but watched "the Authority" on U-tube. To me, the problem is not the constitution vs. library view of the scriptures. I believe Christianity is basically a simple faith and we can know what we are required to do without much trouble; all too often we just don't want to do it. Love God, love your neighbor, help the poor, live a moral life, get baptized, remember Him in communion, pray, & worship. There isn't much more to it. I fail to see the need for "another kind". The old path seems pretty good to me.
Baptism is objected to? There you go, you prove my point (couldn't resist saying that to a Quaker
) . Getting dunked isn't too much for the One who died for us to ask. Mclaren obviously does not believe in the "orthodox" view of hell. He has made the following statement:
I'm sure you are aware that the view of many thinking Christians is that the fires of hell are a metaphor since the scriptures also speak of separation and outer darkness. Maclaren appears to have set up a straw man here.In an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says....God gets His way by coercian, violence, intimidation, and domination.
In the long debate here regarding hell the universalists, at least some of them, have taken the position that God punishes (excuse me, corrects) people in hell through a long period of severe correction. If this is not "coercian, violence, intimidation, and domination" I do not know what would be. I am assuming McLaren is a "no heller"? And his view of the atonement is that there isn't any?
God bless, Homer
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Hello Homer
Here's the same vids:
Q1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqlOV2ZM24o
Q2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puB0lEen9yQ
(The Ooze wouldn't load on my computer).
Quick Q2 Observations
I'm reminded of a quote I gave some time back from N.T. Wright wherein he stated we've been accustomed to two types (or ways) of reading Scripture:
1) The Devotional - "daily readings" where we hope to hear something from God.
Nothing essentially wrong or bad in this, but it can become "dangerously subjective," Wright said.
2) The Proof-Texting Method - e.g., "the Westminster Confession"
Sees the Bible as a "puzzle" with "bits" here and there needing to be assembled into doctrines.
The Above w/r/t McLaren
Seems like he views the Bible as "Constitution" similarly as NTW sees "Proof-Texting" (essential agreement).
McLaren seems to point toward a more objective outlook with "Library."
However, the subjective element and/or how to keep from being overly subjective isn't defined.
(Not in this vid anyway).
His comment on using scripture as "proof" (in and of itself) was a rejection of Presuppositional Apologetics (as per Lee Strobel and others). Interesting point there.
His postmodern emphases seem a tad outdated (I heard postmodernism is dead)....
Just some thoughts.
Here's the same vids:
Q1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqlOV2ZM24o
Q2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puB0lEen9yQ
(The Ooze wouldn't load on my computer).
Quick Q2 Observations
I'm reminded of a quote I gave some time back from N.T. Wright wherein he stated we've been accustomed to two types (or ways) of reading Scripture:
1) The Devotional - "daily readings" where we hope to hear something from God.
Nothing essentially wrong or bad in this, but it can become "dangerously subjective," Wright said.
2) The Proof-Texting Method - e.g., "the Westminster Confession"
Sees the Bible as a "puzzle" with "bits" here and there needing to be assembled into doctrines.
The Above w/r/t McLaren
Seems like he views the Bible as "Constitution" similarly as NTW sees "Proof-Texting" (essential agreement).
McLaren seems to point toward a more objective outlook with "Library."
However, the subjective element and/or how to keep from being overly subjective isn't defined.
(Not in this vid anyway).
His comment on using scripture as "proof" (in and of itself) was a rejection of Presuppositional Apologetics (as per Lee Strobel and others). Interesting point there.
His postmodern emphases seem a tad outdated (I heard postmodernism is dead)....
Just some thoughts.
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
In the long debate here regarding hell the universalists, at least some of them, have taken the position that God punishes (excuse me, corrects) people in hell through a long period of severe correction. If this is not "coercian, violence, intimidation, and domination" I do not know what would be.
I believe this is Paidion's view yet at least IMO we don't know what happens in the lake of fire or what the duration is. My own view is that it is for the sake of justice not persuasion and it is likely different lengths of time depending on the depths of ones transgressions, as in few stripes verses many stripes.
I believe this is Paidion's view yet at least IMO we don't know what happens in the lake of fire or what the duration is. My own view is that it is for the sake of justice not persuasion and it is likely different lengths of time depending on the depths of ones transgressions, as in few stripes verses many stripes.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
Overture to discussion: What is the function of << punishment for the sake of justice >> ? What is its purpose? What role does it play?Homer wrote:
In the long debate here regarding hell the universalists, at least some of them, have taken the position that God punishes (excuse me, corrects) people in hell through a long period of severe correction. If this is not "coercian, violence, intimidation, and domination" I do not know what would be.
steve7150 wrote:
I believe this is Paidion's view yet at least IMO we don't know what happens in the lake of fire or what the duration is. My own view is that it is for the sake of justice not persuasion and it is likely different lengths of time depending on the depths of ones transgressions, as in few stripes verses many stripes.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: McLaren - A New Kind of Christianity
I don't know about this. These are merely some speculations...
It seems possible that there is a cosmic "justice deficit" caused by wrongdoing—just as there is a cash deficit caused by stealing. There may be a need that all accounts ultimately be balanced, whether the doing of it results in tangible benefits (recognizable to us) or not.
We tend to think that the only value in punishment is some perceptible benefit that results in the future. In other words, we regard the possibility of rectification in the future to be the only time-referent sufficient to justify present unpleasantness. What if (in reality as God sees it) the rectification of the past is as necessary to the obtaining of ultimate justice as is future improvement?
If (as some suggest) God dwells in a timeless eternity, where past, present and future are equally meaningless (and equally meaningful), then God's view of all human history may be offended by the awareness of any justice deficit, in any dimension, which fails ultimately to be redressed.
Though God is hardly to be viewed as primarily vengeful, there is still the guarantee (found in both testaments): "vengeance is mine; I will repay," to be factored into our view of ultimate remedies.
It seems possible that there is a cosmic "justice deficit" caused by wrongdoing—just as there is a cash deficit caused by stealing. There may be a need that all accounts ultimately be balanced, whether the doing of it results in tangible benefits (recognizable to us) or not.
We tend to think that the only value in punishment is some perceptible benefit that results in the future. In other words, we regard the possibility of rectification in the future to be the only time-referent sufficient to justify present unpleasantness. What if (in reality as God sees it) the rectification of the past is as necessary to the obtaining of ultimate justice as is future improvement?
If (as some suggest) God dwells in a timeless eternity, where past, present and future are equally meaningless (and equally meaningful), then God's view of all human history may be offended by the awareness of any justice deficit, in any dimension, which fails ultimately to be redressed.
Though God is hardly to be viewed as primarily vengeful, there is still the guarantee (found in both testaments): "vengeance is mine; I will repay," to be factored into our view of ultimate remedies.