Scan barcode
Reviews
A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith by Brian D. McLaren
cosmicbookworm's review against another edition
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
I chose to engage with McLaren's work because traditional perspectives on interpreting the Bible no longer work for me. McLaren's work is best suited for those open to exploring alternative viewpoints. I find his perspective refreshing and am thankful for his work.
cappellanus's review against another edition
4.0
Certainly challenging, not easy or comfortable reading for many but worth deeply reflecting on his thesis that Christianity must change. Our need is to rediscover what it means to follow Jesus and work for the Kingdom rather maintain a broken institution. A necessary book.
timhanstad's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
gbdill's review against another edition
4.0
"A New Kind of Christianity" seems to be a bit different than McLaren's previous works. Aside from a few ethical issues he touches upon (i.e. sexuality, pluralism), this work seems to be primarily about a new hermeneutic rather than emergent theology. I was struck by McLaren's insightful analysis of Romans, along with a cursory review of Genesis, Exodus, and Jonah. It quickly became obvious that McLaren seems to interpret Scripture from a metaphorical perspective rather than a literal interpretation commonly held by many evangelicals today. I believe this is a good thing since literal interpretations of Scripture have led to many evils wrought upon world history (slavery, Crusades, witch hunts, Manifest Destiny, racism, etc.) and not to mention the damage it does to the context for which the Bible was written (i.e. 1st century Judaism). Instead, McLaren encourages his readers to begin reading the Bible through the lens of a continuous story narrative rather than from a deterministic, Greco-Roman, constitutional style. Thus, allowing the Bible to essentially read us rather than us trying to read it with our own biased views. In most part I agree with his principles, however, I believe McLaren took license with some of his interpretations (i.e. associating the eunuch of Acts as a homosexual). I don't think this is McLaren's best work, but it's certainly not his worst. He put a lot of thought and effort into this work, most of which had an impact on the way I now view the Bible along with its meaning and application to my life. I didn't agree with everything (I never do with any book), but in typical McLaren fashion, there was a lot of fresh new insight into how we should live amongst other believers, what the kingdom of God should look like, and how we should incarnate that kingdom on earth... now.
mschlat's review against another edition
3.0
I don't think I get it. Maybe it's because I'm liberal, but much of McLaren's descriptions fit my current understanding of the Christian faith. His exposition of Romans fits my take on it. His discussion of hearing the word as opposed to just reading it fits what I know of living word in the Lutheran tradition. His take on Exodus as the informing story of liberation fits what I've learned from the works of Daniel Erlander.
McLaren's Christianity is often contrasted with the conservative strands of faith in the U.S., but much of it (I believe) is connected to and a continuation of more historical liberal thought. I do think that his emphasis on the kingdom now (rather than an end-time hope) is a new and different facet, but I expected to be rocked by this book and I wasn't.
Part of the problem (perhaps) is that I'm looking for much more foundational writing. I see that straight forward talk in Rob Bell's works, but I often felt lost in the schemas and metaphors of McLaren's rhetoric.
McLaren's Christianity is often contrasted with the conservative strands of faith in the U.S., but much of it (I believe) is connected to and a continuation of more historical liberal thought. I do think that his emphasis on the kingdom now (rather than an end-time hope) is a new and different facet, but I expected to be rocked by this book and I wasn't.
Part of the problem (perhaps) is that I'm looking for much more foundational writing. I see that straight forward talk in Rob Bell's works, but I often felt lost in the schemas and metaphors of McLaren's rhetoric.
cmcuffman's review against another edition
1.0
I could critique this book from about a hundred different angles. Like how I've never met a person in my life who believes the things about the Bible that he combats. Or how he uses some of the very methods that his own view of Scripture finds unacceptable to prove certain points. Or how he chooses to answer the questions he wants to answer, not necessarily the ones most people are asking. Or how he ignores almost every Scripture passage which his opponents would likely bring up to debunk his positions. I came away totally unconvinced that this man is truly interested in discussion, yet despite a very closed-minded view toward anything resembling a "Greco-Roman" narrative or a "constitutional" approach to the Bible, he claims that that respectful, open-minded discussion is only what he's interested in. It sounds more like he doesn't think he necessarily has the answers, but he sure as heck knows that no one else has them either--I mean, look at how people thinking they're right has turned out! I found him at times reasonable, but more often ignorant, presumptuous, mild-mannered yet arrogant. He claims that the narrative of Scripture and redemptive history "demand" to be understood a certain way, but his perception and the consensus of a few people (who were already inclined to be biased in a particular direction) are the only authorities he can really offer. Again, he ignores most of the questions which would be asked in response to his "self-apparent" assertions. He won't let Scripture be its own interpreter because of how people have misused Scripture in the past, so he forces his own protective mold over the text so that interpretation can never get out of hand. As a result, he ignores history and the millions of Christians who apparently were being told something completely different and completely immature by the Holy Spirit. This has become a rant, so I will conclude with the facts. McLaren sees the God portrayed in most of the Bible as the result of immature theology and completely unworthy or worship. His evolutionary approach to seemingly everything doesn't really necessitate God at all but only requires a good example of that into which humanity should grow. He believes that Scripture contains explicit and numerous falsehoods about the person and work of God and the nature of marriage; yet he seems confident that those things pertaining to the person and work of Christ (at least in the gospels) were recorded with integrity. He leaves one wondering why one needs God, the Bible, or even other Christians to lead a happy, productive, meaningful life. In short, this is not a "new kind of Christianity" being portrayed, but an old kind of (sloppy and decidedly liberal, while also--yes, I'll say it--nauseatingly heretical) Moralistic Theraputic Deism.
davehershey's review against another edition
2.0
I have found Brian McLaren's books both thought-provoking and challenging, from A New Kind of Christian to the Secret Message of Jesus. Maybe it is not surprising, looking at the trajectory of where his thought has been moving, but this book frustrating and disappointing.
McLaren argues that we are moving into a new age of the Christian faith and this book looks at ten questions which this new kind of Christianity is dealing with. He does not claim to offer answers, but rather responses to the questions. As I read I found many points where I agreed with what he was saying, but usually I would turn a page and read some point or claim he made that seemed to go off a deep end of sorts. Overall, I cannot recommend this book for I found the responses too often go beyond the historic orthodox Christian faith. Or rather than going beyond (as in saying too much), they fall short (as in not saying enough). I do not presume to question McLaren's heart and faith, but this book does seem to draw a line in the sand and his numerous shots at "religious thought police" and "seminary education" and the like show that it intends to be just that.
Right away in the introduction I was troubled, for he listed Marcus Borg as one of the trailblazers in this new kind of Christianity. Borg does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, which is really the deepest foundation and central point of Christianity. The simple fact is, can someone who does not believe in the resurrection be lifted up as an example of Christian living and mission? Without the resurrection, there is no mission. I think this demonstrates early on that McLaren's book is going to go farther than his previous books were.
The first question asks what is the overarching story of the Bible? Here he argues that the basic storyline of the Bible, as believed by most western Christians for millennia, is simply mistaken. It is mistaken because it comes not from the Bible, but from the adoption of the Greco-Roman narrative in which most of the early Christians lived. Now he does not make a good argument (or really any argument at all) as to how or when this happened; he simply displays Plato and Aristotle and declares their ideas shaped how we have read the Bible since about the year 400. If such an argument is going to be made, more evidence needs to be given, especially since many Christian writers have contrasted the Biblical narrative with the narratives given by Greek philosophy.
He argues that because of this marriage of the Bible with Greek philosophy Christians interpreted Genesis 1 as a perfect Platonic ideal world, substituting Platonic "perfect" for Hebrew "good". This is something I have pondered too: since when does "good" = "perfect". Many other Christians have noticed this throughout the ages though, including many of the church fathers. But McLaren takes this and uses it to completely reject the "fall" of Genesis, making it into something more about coming of age and the dangers of too much progress too quickly. This is a false dichotomy (Platonic "perfect" or coming of age) and really has no precedent in orthodox Christian tradition. Instead, as many of the church fathers said: perhaps the first humans were created "good" with the intention of growing into "perfection" but in their rebellion they "fell" along the way. This is not the fall from complete perfection (which McLaren says is from the Greek narrative) but nor is it a complete rejection of the fall, and thus all of church interpretive tradition (the direction McLaren goes).
McLaren's description of the overarching narrative of the Bible, including his interpretation of the Genesis story, seems too convenient in what it leaves out. In the next chapter he describes the narrative in three parts: Genesis (creation), Exodus (liberation) and the prophets (peaceful kingdom). This is interesting, because it skips over a huge portion of the story. McLaren argues we need to stop reading the Bible through the cultural lens of the Greco-Roman view. Then McLaren implies (though in other places he is clear that he is aware of this) that his reading is not cultural. But why reject one cultural reading to too quickly implement another (McLaren's) cultural reading? Does it not fit McLaren's tastes to skip from Exodus to the prophets, for we skip over a lot of violence (the Israelites taking the land). McLaren gives no good reason for why his view of the biblical narrative (Genesis-Exodus-prophets) is warranted, and the fact it skips from Exodus to the prophets should make us skeptical that it is any better or less culturally informed than the Greco-Roman one he rejects.
The second question deals with the Bible. Here McLaren rejects what he calls a "constitutional" view of scripture in favor of a "community library". This is a false dichotomy. What he calls the constitutional view is a view that I do not think many, other than maybe the most crazed fundamentalists, would adhere too. It rightly should be rejected. But it is not like McLaren is the first person to adhere to some form of progressive revelation: that God progressively reveals more and more of the truth over time as humans are prepared for it. This is the common view of how to understand scripture, even among evangelicals. Yet here again McLaren goes too far. His form of progressive revelation, similar to his explanation of the Biblical narrative, ends up giving him warrant to explain away things in scripture he does not like. So when he gets to the third question (is God violent?) rather than a thorough examination of what the stories that portray a seemingly "violent" God can teach us about who God is and who the Israelites understood him to be, the later, more evolved, understandings of God in scripture are practically set against these earlier ones. He is explaining away rather then an explaining.
When we come to Jesus (question four) I am disturbed not as much by what he says, but what he leaves out. This is where his narrative of the Bible comes into play. His reinterpretation of Genesis, with sin and rebellion out of the picture, makes me wonder what exactly Jesus is saving us from? Again, it is not that what he says is wrong, it is just not enough. In responding to people who say that Jesus only came to save us from hell, McLaren goes too far in the other direction where the gospel is only about social change.
In discussing the gospel (question 5) McLaren makes perhaps the most telling statement in the book. He writes, "at some point, 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 project has begun" (142). In other words, we can lay aside most everything in the Christian tradition and start over. Some seek to slightly modify the gospel message, but in doing so they are modifying an inherited Greco-Roman form of the gospel. This statement then, is a license to jettison what he doesn't like (what our culture conditions us not to like?) and start over with the gospel as we see it. It comes off as arrogant, regardless of how often McLaren claims to want to be humble.
All of these lines of thought come together in the chapter on sexuality. Besides the fact McLaren makes the weird statement that male/female duality is an inheritance from the Greco-Roman narrative, this chapter's arguments are muddled. Rather than try to argue for permitting homosexual relationships from a biblical perspective, his view of the Bible and its narrative allows him to simply say we have progressed or evolved to a higher understanding of human sexuality. So it really doesn't matter what the Bible says, for we now know that homosexuality is okay. At the end of the chapter he seeks to show that homosexuality is the least of our problems in terms of sexual issues; people get married later so the temptation to have sex before marriage is greater, divorce is more common, etc. Yet based on McLaren's arguments in favor of homosexuality, does this mean that we have progressed to a new understanding of human sexuality in these areas too? For example, the Bible does not permit sex outside of marriage in any form. But we live in a world where people do not get married until their late 20s, a world foreign from the Bible, so why not jettison that piece of Biblical morality too and say it is okay for people to have sex prior to marriage? I truly wonder if this is what McLaren would say, for he simply offers these other sexual problems without any comment. Is his point to simply say why worry about homosexuality when there are other, more important issues? Or is it to say the Bible is outdated in its sexual ethic on homosexuality and these other issues? And even if he does not want to go that far, perhaps someone else, with the tools he gave in questions 1 and 2, will.
Throughout I found many of his arguments weak. He sometimes argues that we need to set Jesus above Paul as if the two conflict. Instead, maybe we have to seek a better understanding of Paul that puts him in line with Jesus. I agreed with much of what he wrote about finding a better eschatology (question 8), but some of his argument just didn't make sense. On one page he seemed to reject the idea that history was going somewhere, moving forward (as if on a line), but on the next page he said history is going somewhere. His discussion of other religions at times appear to keep Jesus Christ in the center as Lord and Savior, but at other times seems not to. Again, at times I wonder if he is explaining or just explaining away.
At the very end of the book McLaren writes that sin is "ultimately a refusal to grow". Combined with his reinterpretation of the Genesis narrative, I think we can believe he really means this. For McLaren sin is not disobedience to God or rebellion or anything else, it is a refusal to grow, to progress. If we progress and grow to a place where whatever form of sexuality you desire is fine, or that all religions basically teach the same thing, then refusal to get on board with that is sin, according to McLaren. But ultimately, this quest looks very cultural. We live in a pluralistic world that tells us no religion is better than others and that whatever morals you choose are right for you. McLaren seems to be pushing many of our cultural norms under a Christian guise. So call me brainwashed by the Greco-Roman narrative if you will, but I am just as skeptical by the post-modern, pluralistic, American narrative that McLaren seems to adhere to.
In the end, I think McLaren's book does ask important questions. And I find many of his responses thought-provoking and even pointing us in the right direction. But much of what he says and much of what he leaves out makes me skeptical of his "responses". There is a better way more faithful to scripture and to the historic Christian tradition. I do not claim to have all the answers either, but in seeking them we must submit to the whole Biblical narrative and to Jesus Christ, the king, Lord and Savior who shakes up all cultures and all people. Often, this book appears more to put our own feelings or our own cultural norms above Jesus and scripture.
McLaren argues that we are moving into a new age of the Christian faith and this book looks at ten questions which this new kind of Christianity is dealing with. He does not claim to offer answers, but rather responses to the questions. As I read I found many points where I agreed with what he was saying, but usually I would turn a page and read some point or claim he made that seemed to go off a deep end of sorts. Overall, I cannot recommend this book for I found the responses too often go beyond the historic orthodox Christian faith. Or rather than going beyond (as in saying too much), they fall short (as in not saying enough). I do not presume to question McLaren's heart and faith, but this book does seem to draw a line in the sand and his numerous shots at "religious thought police" and "seminary education" and the like show that it intends to be just that.
Right away in the introduction I was troubled, for he listed Marcus Borg as one of the trailblazers in this new kind of Christianity. Borg does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, which is really the deepest foundation and central point of Christianity. The simple fact is, can someone who does not believe in the resurrection be lifted up as an example of Christian living and mission? Without the resurrection, there is no mission. I think this demonstrates early on that McLaren's book is going to go farther than his previous books were.
The first question asks what is the overarching story of the Bible? Here he argues that the basic storyline of the Bible, as believed by most western Christians for millennia, is simply mistaken. It is mistaken because it comes not from the Bible, but from the adoption of the Greco-Roman narrative in which most of the early Christians lived. Now he does not make a good argument (or really any argument at all) as to how or when this happened; he simply displays Plato and Aristotle and declares their ideas shaped how we have read the Bible since about the year 400. If such an argument is going to be made, more evidence needs to be given, especially since many Christian writers have contrasted the Biblical narrative with the narratives given by Greek philosophy.
He argues that because of this marriage of the Bible with Greek philosophy Christians interpreted Genesis 1 as a perfect Platonic ideal world, substituting Platonic "perfect" for Hebrew "good". This is something I have pondered too: since when does "good" = "perfect". Many other Christians have noticed this throughout the ages though, including many of the church fathers. But McLaren takes this and uses it to completely reject the "fall" of Genesis, making it into something more about coming of age and the dangers of too much progress too quickly. This is a false dichotomy (Platonic "perfect" or coming of age) and really has no precedent in orthodox Christian tradition. Instead, as many of the church fathers said: perhaps the first humans were created "good" with the intention of growing into "perfection" but in their rebellion they "fell" along the way. This is not the fall from complete perfection (which McLaren says is from the Greek narrative) but nor is it a complete rejection of the fall, and thus all of church interpretive tradition (the direction McLaren goes).
McLaren's description of the overarching narrative of the Bible, including his interpretation of the Genesis story, seems too convenient in what it leaves out. In the next chapter he describes the narrative in three parts: Genesis (creation), Exodus (liberation) and the prophets (peaceful kingdom). This is interesting, because it skips over a huge portion of the story. McLaren argues we need to stop reading the Bible through the cultural lens of the Greco-Roman view. Then McLaren implies (though in other places he is clear that he is aware of this) that his reading is not cultural. But why reject one cultural reading to too quickly implement another (McLaren's) cultural reading? Does it not fit McLaren's tastes to skip from Exodus to the prophets, for we skip over a lot of violence (the Israelites taking the land). McLaren gives no good reason for why his view of the biblical narrative (Genesis-Exodus-prophets) is warranted, and the fact it skips from Exodus to the prophets should make us skeptical that it is any better or less culturally informed than the Greco-Roman one he rejects.
The second question deals with the Bible. Here McLaren rejects what he calls a "constitutional" view of scripture in favor of a "community library". This is a false dichotomy. What he calls the constitutional view is a view that I do not think many, other than maybe the most crazed fundamentalists, would adhere too. It rightly should be rejected. But it is not like McLaren is the first person to adhere to some form of progressive revelation: that God progressively reveals more and more of the truth over time as humans are prepared for it. This is the common view of how to understand scripture, even among evangelicals. Yet here again McLaren goes too far. His form of progressive revelation, similar to his explanation of the Biblical narrative, ends up giving him warrant to explain away things in scripture he does not like. So when he gets to the third question (is God violent?) rather than a thorough examination of what the stories that portray a seemingly "violent" God can teach us about who God is and who the Israelites understood him to be, the later, more evolved, understandings of God in scripture are practically set against these earlier ones. He is explaining away rather then an explaining.
When we come to Jesus (question four) I am disturbed not as much by what he says, but what he leaves out. This is where his narrative of the Bible comes into play. His reinterpretation of Genesis, with sin and rebellion out of the picture, makes me wonder what exactly Jesus is saving us from? Again, it is not that what he says is wrong, it is just not enough. In responding to people who say that Jesus only came to save us from hell, McLaren goes too far in the other direction where the gospel is only about social change.
In discussing the gospel (question 5) McLaren makes perhaps the most telling statement in the book. He writes, "at some point, 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 project has begun" (142). In other words, we can lay aside most everything in the Christian tradition and start over. Some seek to slightly modify the gospel message, but in doing so they are modifying an inherited Greco-Roman form of the gospel. This statement then, is a license to jettison what he doesn't like (what our culture conditions us not to like?) and start over with the gospel as we see it. It comes off as arrogant, regardless of how often McLaren claims to want to be humble.
All of these lines of thought come together in the chapter on sexuality. Besides the fact McLaren makes the weird statement that male/female duality is an inheritance from the Greco-Roman narrative, this chapter's arguments are muddled. Rather than try to argue for permitting homosexual relationships from a biblical perspective, his view of the Bible and its narrative allows him to simply say we have progressed or evolved to a higher understanding of human sexuality. So it really doesn't matter what the Bible says, for we now know that homosexuality is okay. At the end of the chapter he seeks to show that homosexuality is the least of our problems in terms of sexual issues; people get married later so the temptation to have sex before marriage is greater, divorce is more common, etc. Yet based on McLaren's arguments in favor of homosexuality, does this mean that we have progressed to a new understanding of human sexuality in these areas too? For example, the Bible does not permit sex outside of marriage in any form. But we live in a world where people do not get married until their late 20s, a world foreign from the Bible, so why not jettison that piece of Biblical morality too and say it is okay for people to have sex prior to marriage? I truly wonder if this is what McLaren would say, for he simply offers these other sexual problems without any comment. Is his point to simply say why worry about homosexuality when there are other, more important issues? Or is it to say the Bible is outdated in its sexual ethic on homosexuality and these other issues? And even if he does not want to go that far, perhaps someone else, with the tools he gave in questions 1 and 2, will.
Throughout I found many of his arguments weak. He sometimes argues that we need to set Jesus above Paul as if the two conflict. Instead, maybe we have to seek a better understanding of Paul that puts him in line with Jesus. I agreed with much of what he wrote about finding a better eschatology (question 8), but some of his argument just didn't make sense. On one page he seemed to reject the idea that history was going somewhere, moving forward (as if on a line), but on the next page he said history is going somewhere. His discussion of other religions at times appear to keep Jesus Christ in the center as Lord and Savior, but at other times seems not to. Again, at times I wonder if he is explaining or just explaining away.
At the very end of the book McLaren writes that sin is "ultimately a refusal to grow". Combined with his reinterpretation of the Genesis narrative, I think we can believe he really means this. For McLaren sin is not disobedience to God or rebellion or anything else, it is a refusal to grow, to progress. If we progress and grow to a place where whatever form of sexuality you desire is fine, or that all religions basically teach the same thing, then refusal to get on board with that is sin, according to McLaren. But ultimately, this quest looks very cultural. We live in a pluralistic world that tells us no religion is better than others and that whatever morals you choose are right for you. McLaren seems to be pushing many of our cultural norms under a Christian guise. So call me brainwashed by the Greco-Roman narrative if you will, but I am just as skeptical by the post-modern, pluralistic, American narrative that McLaren seems to adhere to.
In the end, I think McLaren's book does ask important questions. And I find many of his responses thought-provoking and even pointing us in the right direction. But much of what he says and much of what he leaves out makes me skeptical of his "responses". There is a better way more faithful to scripture and to the historic Christian tradition. I do not claim to have all the answers either, but in seeking them we must submit to the whole Biblical narrative and to Jesus Christ, the king, Lord and Savior who shakes up all cultures and all people. Often, this book appears more to put our own feelings or our own cultural norms above Jesus and scripture.
briannadasilva's review against another edition
3.0
This book explores ten questions that many Christians are asking about our faith, and then the author describes his "responses" to those questions.
I appreciated that he called them "responses" rather than "answers". He did not try to imply that he had everything figured out, but rather invited readers to begin a conversation with him.
The humility in that gesture was refreshing.
Nonetheless, while I did feel that the ten questions of this book are important for Christians to be asking and exploring, I ultimately disagreed with many of the author's "responses".
The main areas where we differ include our approaches to Biblical prophecy, and the fact that the author is a pacifist, and I, well, am not.
Still, I learned some things from this book, and even found parts inspiring. For example, I thought the author's approach of reading the Bible like a "library" instead of a "constitution" was brilliant, liberating, and immensely eye-opening.
Also, his perspective on bringing beauty and redemption to the world, as a mission of Christianity, was stirring... even if parts of it were far-fetched and impractical in my mind. But it's become something for me to think about.
I don't fully agree with this author, but I am grateful for the conversation he began. It's a conversation I definitely intend to continue engaging in.
---
(P.S. I was unsure how to rate this... I might say it's a 3.5 for me. But my feelings and opinions on this book are pretty mixed, so any rating feels somehow inaccurate.)
I appreciated that he called them "responses" rather than "answers". He did not try to imply that he had everything figured out, but rather invited readers to begin a conversation with him.
The humility in that gesture was refreshing.
Nonetheless, while I did feel that the ten questions of this book are important for Christians to be asking and exploring, I ultimately disagreed with many of the author's "responses".
The main areas where we differ include our approaches to Biblical prophecy, and the fact that the author is a pacifist, and I, well, am not.
Still, I learned some things from this book, and even found parts inspiring. For example, I thought the author's approach of reading the Bible like a "library" instead of a "constitution" was brilliant, liberating, and immensely eye-opening.
Also, his perspective on bringing beauty and redemption to the world, as a mission of Christianity, was stirring... even if parts of it were far-fetched and impractical in my mind. But it's become something for me to think about.
I don't fully agree with this author, but I am grateful for the conversation he began. It's a conversation I definitely intend to continue engaging in.
---
(P.S. I was unsure how to rate this... I might say it's a 3.5 for me. But my feelings and opinions on this book are pretty mixed, so any rating feels somehow inaccurate.)