Rating: 
Summary: Of little value.
Review: My guess is that this book will appeal to people who have not been sufficiently grounded in scripture, and whose daily religious experience is more "churchianity" than a passionate relationship with Jesus. In our day, where Biblical illiteracy among Christians is rampant, this book may very well appeal to a large percentage of its readers.What, specifically, do I find wrong in this book? Where do I start? First of all, McLaren & Neo, recommend that truth be deconstructed. The bible contains stories, "but not with all of the modern trimmings like a concern for factual accuracy" (p. 56). Do not let that slip by you! According to Mclaren, the Bible was written with no concern for factual accuracy. Does it occur to him that "a concern for factual accuracy" is not a modern development, as he claims? Luke, long before McLaren's time, asserts that he carefully investigated all of the data surrounding Jesus' life "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). McLaren would have to criticize Luke for being contaminated by a culture that did not yet exist. A desire for correction doctrine is also found long before the word modernity had a meaning. Paul exhorts Timothy to "watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16). Some of McLaren's criticisms of evangelical Christianity are valid, but most are forced simplifications. McLaren criticizes evangelicals' tendency to create doctrinal wars and divide people into "liberals versus conservatives" and "Christians verses heathens." In spite of his hatred of this type of "us verses them" posturing, he promotes exactly that same attitude in his depiction of modern verses postmodern Christians. He subtly, almost passive-aggressively, declares throughout "A New Kind of Christian" that a person who disagrees with him is a small minded, bad mannered person who desperately clings to modern Christianity. So he basically tries to emotionally manipulate the reader into the post-modern camp. Evangelicals are mean spirited people who only care about doctrinal arguments. Postmodern Christians are warm, mature, intelligent people. But it is all invented! He sets up a straw man, a bigoted evangelical/fundamentalist, and proceeds to knock it down. In the end, he accomplishes nothing. I could go on for pages, but that last sentence is a good conclusion for my review.
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed review.
Review: First, let me say that i think this book was very interesting. I also think that it gave some refreshing views on Christianity today. I am very new to the postmodern discussion so it may very well be that my views on this will change with time. But let me share some of my frustrations: 1) Neo, one of the main characters in the book, believes in evolution. I do not know whether this is McLaren's views or not. First of all, evolution is a fully modern idea. I do not see how it plays out in a postmodern context. Second, if you want to look at it from a modern point of view, I believe that there is a lot more evidence against evolution than for it. 2) The author focuses very little attention on Jesus or the Word of God. It seems to me that if one is going to try to convince those with an evangelical background of the positives of the postmodern view one is going to have to use more scripture to justify one's point of view. 3) Sometimes it seems that the author is preaching humanism. It seems that he is looking strictly at the physical issues that are going on in the world. While I also believe that we need to do that, I believe that first and foremost people need the gospel of Jesus Christ to change their lives. If all we do is take care of one's needs and don't change their hearts, the real battle has been lost. 4) The author puts the Word of God on the same level as experience, community, etc. While I do see the need for experience and community, I believe that the scriptures should always be our main foundation(I know postmoderns don't like that word.) Anyway, as I said, I am brand new in the postmodern dialogue. As time passes my views might change. Overall it was a very interesting read and I rather enjoyed it. I would recommend it for mature christians.
Rating:
Summary: Postmodern Christinaity Not the Answer
Review: I cannot share the enthusiasm of many reviewers for this book. Though MacLaren does detail some of the problems in the modern church--consumerism, legalism, failure to include social compassion as part of its ministry, a sometimes over-rationalism -- he then "throws the baby out with the bath water" in proposing (using the device of his mythic friend Neo) that postmodernism is the great solution to all its problems. Hence the author has created a false dichotomy -- which may not matter to a philosophical postmodernist, but will to the average person. For McLaren it is either modernism and all of its evils -- many of which he has falsely identified with Christianity -- or postmodernism, which to him loosens those traditional rationalistic bonds that have chained Christians for so long. But this solution has many fallacies. First, historically, modernism is a product not of the Reformation, but of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment downplayed and re-defined Christianiy, even if it did not oppose it in a "pure" form. Orthodox Christianity in fact would have and does reject much of the Enlightenment agenda, though not all of it. Second, postmodernism is in reality an "anti-system." It appears to be aimed at undermining any "totalizing" truth. But if this worlview prevails, one then has to face the question (not really faced at all by McLaren): What replaces modernism? Chaos or anarchy in truth? How long could this situation be sustained in any culture, even the Eastern cultures with which the author through Neo has so much sympathy because of their alleged "less rationalistic" approach (not necessarily true either). The point is, postmodernism leads to radical pluralism without any semblance of order in epistemology or life in gemeral. Now many would like this, but, as McLaren unwittingly tells the reader, even postmodernism is tied often to fragmented "political" agendas. It is "us" against the modernist world, whether that is radical environmentalism, radical ideas of rights for every group, etc. Third, A New Kind of Christian itself is full of the very modernist ideas it purports to reject. Why for example is evolution the only apparent alterntive in terms of the faith/science debate? Was not evolution a long-term result of an Enlightenment worldview -- the shift from Newtonian mechanism to a sort of "deist naturalism" (God outside the box, intervening only to establish natural laws) to naturalism and its attendant "scientism" (the exaltation of science, whatever that term means to a person)? Why does Neo (MacLaren) insist on the validity of that worldview of the natural world when it itself is so rooted in modernism? It is as if he wishes to "pick and choose" his favorite theories and practices to fit his particular predilections. Fourth, for a Christian who uses his/her Bible, Neo's answers are simply too facile. Of course the Bible was not written as a systematic theology, but does that mean it then has only the meaning we choose to give it. Is the subject the only one that counts? The postmodernist would tend to embrace a non-objective and very subjective approach to it -- if he used it at all as authoritative -- but this means in the long run that any and all interpretations must be viewed as correct. Is this a recipe for stability of the faith? Finally, I liked Neo's veiled advocacy of some practices in the church, for example, liturgy and tradition, and also his disdain for evangelism that is not genuine and relational. But once again, he goes too far. What about the other means? Is preaching now to be eviscerated to be replaced by social issues? Is personal sin an anachronism, to be replaced by "social" sin? If people do bad things, why do they do them? Is it only their environment that produces this? If he says yes, he is appealing once again to modernism/Enlightenment worldview. In short, this book can only confuse the true seeker. It may make him or her happy, but is personal happiness the summum bonum of life with God? Even Neo answered no to that question. No, the goal of the "true Christian" (not the new Christian) is to glorify God and love one's neighbor, in that order, because without that order, no one can truly love one's neighbor. This new kind of Christianity may also stimulate some to become involved in social causes, but for what reason? They cannot truly understand how to love others until they grasp how to love God. If you want to discover how postmodern Christians think, read this book. If you want answers, you will, at best, find only short term ones here.
Marc Clauson
Associate Professor of History
Cedarville University, Ohio
Rating:
Summary: Postmodern Christinaity Not the Answer
Review: I cannot share the enthusiasm of many reviwers for this book. Though MacLaren does detail some of the problems in the modern church--consumerism, legalism, failure to include social compassion as part of its ministry, a sometimes over-rationalism--he then "throws the baby out with the bath water" in proposing (using the device of his mythic friend Neo) that postmodernism is the great solution to all its problems. Hence the author has created a false dichotomy--which may not matter to a philosophical postmodernist, but will to the average person. For MacLaren it is either modernism and all of its evils--many of which he has falsely identified with Christianity--or postmodernism, which to him loosens those traditional rationalistic bonds that have chained Christians for so long. But this solution has many fallacies. First, historically, modernism is a product not of the Reformation, but of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment downplayed and re-defined Christianiy, even if it did not oppose it in a "pure" form. Orhtodox Christianity in fact would have and does reject much of the Enlightenment agenda, though not all of it. Second, postmodernism is in reality an "anti-system." It appears to be aimed at undermining any "totalizing" truth. But if this worlview prevails, one then has to face the question (not really faced at all by MacLarn): What replaces modernism? Chaos or anarchy in truth? How long could this situation be sustained in any culture, even the Eastern cultures with which the author through Neo has so much sympathy because of their alleged "less rationalistic" approach (not necessarily true either). The point is, postmodernism leads to radical pluralism without any semblance of order in epitemology or life in gemeral. Now many would like this, but, as MacLaren unwittingly tells the reader, even postmodernism is tied often to fragmented "political" agendas. It is "us" against the modernist world, whether that is radical environmentalism, radical ideas of rights for every group, etc. Third, A New Kind of Christian itself is full of the very modernist ideas it purports to reject. Why for example is evolution the only apparent alterntive in terms of the faith/science debate? Was not evolution a long-term result of an Enlightenment worleview--the shift from Newtonian mechanism to a sort of "deist naturalism" (God outside the box, intervening only to establish natural laws) to naturalism and its attendant "scientism" (the exaltation of science, whatever that term means to a person)? Why does Neo (MacLaren) insist on the validity of that worldview of the natural world when it itself is so rooted in modernism? It is as if he wishes to "pick and choose" his favorite theories and practices to fit his particular predilections. Fourth, for a Christian who uses his/her Bible, Neo's answers are simply too facile. Of course the Bible was not written as a systematic theology, but does that mean it then has only the meaning we choose to give it. Is the subject the only one that counts? The postmodernist would tend to embrace a non-objective and very subjective approach to it-if he used it at all as authoritative--but this means in the long run that any and all interpretations must be viewed as correct. Is this a recipe for stability of the faith? Finally, I liked Neo's veiled advocacy of some practices in the church, for example, liturgy and tradition, and also his disdain for evangelism that is not genuine and relational. But once again, he goes too far. What about the other means? Is preaching now to be eviscerated to be replaced by social issues? Is personal sin an anachronism, to be replaced by "social" sin? If people do bad things, why do they do them? Is it only their environment that produces this? If he says yes, he is appealing once again to modernism/Enlightenment worldview. In short, this book can only confuse the true seeker. It may make him or her happy, but is personal happiness the summum bonum of life with God? Even Neo answered no to that question. No, the goal of the "true Christian" (not the new Christian) is to glorify God and love one's neighbor, in that order, because without that order, no one can truly love one's neighbor. THis new kind of Christianity may also stimulate some to become involved in social causes, but for what reason? They cannot truly understand how to love others until they grasp how to love God. If you want to discover how postmodern Christians think, read this book. If you want answers, you will, at best, find only short term ones here.
Marc Clauson
Associate Professor of History
Cedarville University, Ohio
Rating: 
Summary: This is not orthodox, evangelical Christianity, Beware!
Review: Song of a "New Kind of Christian" Are you stuck in a fundamentalist fraternity,
prisoners of your own philosophical modernity?
Then friends, join me, for I have seen the light
and you know what? I think I'm right. Of course, you too may be right
if the search is within your sight.
It's all a matter of existential wanderings
filled with lofty thoughts and ponderings.
Just follow Derrida's tautology
and you may stumble upon some satisfying theology. And if truth is not within your reach
so much the better for you to teach
others to have an open mind.
For happiness is in the search, not in what you find. I reject the fathers of church history
for we can't know truth, it's a mystery. Don't tell me that the Bible is inerrant
It has good things to say, but we must be tolerant.
God will understand that we have reached a new plane,
one too intellectual and philosophical to explain. Don't bother me with your jargon and hobby horses.
I would rather follow the novel courses.
One in which I never take a stand
Unless of course it is to help my fellow man. I am a Christian of the Newest Kind
Searching for something I will never find.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Waste Your Time
Review: This book is just not good. I can see McLaren's appeal to those who feel burned or burned out by nominal, legalistic, political, and number-driven "Christians." He recognizes this weakness in mainline Christianity, which is a good thing. But the answers he gives as a reformation for the survival of Christianity is a Christianity is not worth saving. He spends the whole book explaining how "modern Christianity" has sold out to the "modern mindset," and then buys in to the "post-modern" (existential) mindset wholesale. How is this not just making the same mistake? He talks about how there are all these questions that no Christian is asking or can answer. He never really mentions what exactly these questions are (except that we should embrace evolution - whatever, nobody cares), he just starts throwing out old false teachings under the guise of being "new". There's a strong anti-intelligencia mood in the book, as McLaren never gives sources for his data. It's almost like he wants you to believe that he's a genious that came up with all this new information. Yeah, right. But here's the real problem: McLaren in this book tires to lay out a whole new way to be Christian. That's really lofty. In all of this, he never:
1)discusses the person of Christ,
2)discusses justification (the doctrine that sparked the Reformation), or
3)discusses the letters of Paul (or any other scripture in depth).
For point 3, all McLaren does is make passing (proof-text) references to sayings of Jesus. McLaren's Jesus sounds more like something out of Harold Funk than the Bible. Also, he sets up this New Way to Be Christian based solely on his ideas. He gives the reader no tools for growth, rather he cuts out the legs from his readers by veering them away from scripture (our only true tool for the knowledge of God). Honestly, I think the reason why he steers away from Paul is because of Paul's warnings in Galatians and Timothy and Corinthians warning against teachers who come preaching a new Gospel contrary to the one we have recieved in scripture. Yes, I think McLaren is that bad. On a lighter note, I was struck by how much NEO (stupid stupid stupid character name, btw) sounds like Wilson from Home Improvement. I kid you not. Read the book, then watch Home Improvement. They are one in the same. If McLaren is right, Wilson is our new paradigm for the Christian life. Kinda scary.
Rating: 
Summary: My perspective
Review: This book is currently making the rounds among leaders in my church. First, about me - a prodigal son who was "raised" in the church, left the church, lived quite the hedonist lifestyle for more than a decade, then realized that something was missing during a particularly hard time in my life and returned to the church of my youth. I've spent the last 15 years re-learning what it means to be a Christian, and discovering that I really never knew what it meant. I've read and studied the entire Bible - meaning I really read all of it and studied it with a group of fellow believers, most of it facilitated with the Disciple Bible Study curriculum. Plus my daily devotional reading and prayer. Meanwhile, I am called to take on more of a leadership role in my church, as a Bible study leader, and later, lay leader. Then my co-lay leader hands me this book and says that the Pastor and others have or are reading it - during a time when we are seeking a future direction for our church. So I read this book and I see several things. I see reflections of the writings of other Christians I've read, from C.S. Lewis to Oswald Chambers. I see hunches and feelings I've had about the Bible and today's form of Christianity, but I've been afraid that maybe I'm not right about these feelings because after all I'm still learning, and probably always will be. I find a lot that I agree with in McLaren. I still have questions about what McLaren believes about truth and the Bible. I truly believe that you can put the truth into different cultural contexts, and it's still the truth. If the truth were unable to remain the truth through the lens of different cultures, Christianity would not have spread throughout the world, indeed, throughout the ages. Unfortunately we Americans tend to think our cultural lens is the "right" cultural lens, and any other contexts for the truth are "wrong." Try to explain that to a South American Christian, or an African Christian, or even a Native American Christian, etc. etc. If God's truth is the absolute truth (which it is) then it will withstand whatever culture we humans build around it. I have no issue with McLaren's "fictional" style. It's merely a device to present his questions. And questions are indeed what this book is about. Ultimately, the premise of this book is that Christianity-the-religion needs to change - again, as it has changed again and again in the last 2000 years - so let's begin the discussion.
Rating:
Summary: A new kind of dialogue
Review: Using the vehicle of a new friendship between a pastor with doubts, and "Neo" an explorer on the religious terrain, this book prompts many questions about Christianity's place in a post-modern world. Perhaps initially readers, as perhaps does the character, pastor Dan Poole, may look to their own "Neo" for answers, but I think the ending of the book, points out that it is more useful to look for questions than dogmatic answers. Certainly some paragraphs were added to provoke (for example: "I'd have to say that the world is better off for having these (Other) religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours".) Embracing the doubt (see Paul Tillich - The Courage to Be) is scary. One challenge is how far to remove oneself from a mainstream, while still maintaining important fellowship. I think the discussions on "The Church" versus "The Kingdom", and individuality are challenging, and perhaps more accessible (if not as deep) as Kierkegaard. I'll also want to read C.S. Lewis' the Discarded Image, for understanding of how Christianity went from the Middle Ages to more modern times. Reading about pre-modern Christians, such as the Desert Fathers might also help understand the post-modern.
Rating:
Summary: OK
Review: The reason this book is so popular among some Christians is it speaks to them where they are and encourage them to stay where they are. It gives them the impression that they are on the cutting edge of Christianity. You feel good when you can label anything you don't like "modern." It does make some good points here and there. But our hearts and minds really need to be transformed by the Spirit to indentify what points are good in this book. There are better books on postmodernism and Christian faith. The question is, can most "postmodern" Christians handle them?
Rating: 
Summary: Thank God For Brian McLaren
Review: He puts into words what has been on my mind but never felt the freedom to express within the tradition I was raised in. This is the perfect transition book from modernism to postmodernism. But be ready if you are a true modernist. It will be rough, but stick with it and consider the thoughts for years to come and your mind will open into the awesome reality of freedom.
|
