I’ve just finished Brian McLarens “A New Kind of Christianity”. I’ll get straight to it:
ANKoXy is seminal. Radiant, packed with promise, extraordinarily incisive. It is a work of profound deconstruction and even more profound rebuilding. It takes particular care with the devils found in detail, while managing the sort of overview only angels might enjoy. It gathers from the most erudite minds in history, and delivers, without dumbing down, something for everyone.
This is a work for the 21st Century, complete with generous pipes leading from the well of history, especially the history of Christianity, and in holding together tremendous, age old tensions, it manages to purify the aquifers of Living Water of toxins that have been running rampant through our blood for 1600 years.
Many people will write many words issuing from McLarens swathe of theses. I won’t do that here; I want this not be to a review as much as an appreciation for what he has achieved. There are a few small problems, I grant (not defining “death”, p 49; some fuzziness around the 3D narrative, chap. 6; and pejorative use of “tribal” chap. 11), but their import is totally eclipsed by the singular integrity of ANKoXy.
But this integrity is not merely “systematic”: it is more the wholeness of the fruit of its own liberation, brimming with clarity, packed with sparkling and practicable ideas, and thoroughout maintaining focus on the central issue – The Love of God and how to experience and share it – while hosting a veritable library of current topics. And rather than further talking about cliches like “post modern” and “emergent” (3 or 4 mentions only) with which his name has come to be associated, Brian McLaren rather shows us aftermath of emergence. It is a land of fruitfulness, regeneration, and of transformation. No, more: it holds the potential to completely transfigure Christianity itself.
McLaren can be positioned on a passionate quest for the radical centre. He avoids the reactionary tendency, by living the questions, by a life discipline of “repenting” – becoming pensive again (rather than being filled with shame) – and by viewing the good of all in the light of God’s overarching purposes. Though challenging, and certainly revolutionary, Brian McLaren could be described as the ultimate conservative, learning from and following in the best in Christian tradition (particularly when stripped of the problematic framework picked up in the 4th century).
For me, the two standout achievements of ANKoXy are the description of the “Greco-Roman” narrative shape, and the reframing of the bible as an inspired library as opposed to divine constitution. And on top of these architectonic foundations, whole new continents of faith can emerge.
As a South African, I am deeply moved his embrace of Ubuntu – the African philosophy of 
community – as a good word to describe the mature stage of this quest. But more than that, Brian has managed an incredible feat of inclusivity, as the wonderful tome of footnotes attest, in showing us just what shared life is about. In them a dazzling array of sources, resources, references and anecdotes which underscore not just the depth of “A New Kind of Christianity”, but the authors life as lived as well.
Sound and Silence 
I can see (even without having read the book) why McLaren’s presence is of such import to you. I think that basically you were already there. Perhaps waiting for someone to elucidate, to expound for you what you already sensed. I think perhaps McLaren has done that for you. I look forward to reading the book and possibly experiencing a small bit of the obvious elation with which you have received this information. It seems to agree with you. That’s a good thing. Blessings my friend.
I think this is one of the most challenging and thought provoking books to come out in years. To write this book of is dangerous mistake, to not engage these questions seriously through a new lens…Christianity will continue to erode to being absolutely irrelevant. Brain McLaren has traveled globally meeting, listening to the pulse of what is happening in the space between the church, and humanity. For the New Testament theologian who is processing scripture in the sterile vacuum of academia…to write Mclaren’s theology off is a huge mistake. Look around humanity, the church are at a tipping point…this book, these questions may offer a way forward. Brian writes with a sense of urgency, I would hope we would read it with a sense of urgency. Read it once, read it again. We can write the book off…but these questions will not go away. They will haunt us, even long after the church becomes a ghost town. I think it will be challenging for most theologians who have embedded themselves into the methodology of systemic analysis to critique it fairly. To pull yourself out of that to look at everything with a new lens…is a scary perspective. We may not like Brian Mclaren’s theology, there is something very Jesus in the questions. I really believe this book offers not only a new hope for the christian faith, but for all religion…and humanity. Some my toss it all out…believe me this will not go away.
Thanks Ron, I quite agree that whatever we make of it, we should not “write it off” – that’s willing ignorence. As I see it the book invites conversation, so let us converse: we do not have to agree.
Perhaps you may want to read the article in the following link.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/lighthousetrails/09/5-mclaren-vs-believers.htm
Hi Thomas
I did. Thanks.
Do you have anything to say about either the Crossroad article, or my posting?
I thought it was quite evident. One link is better than a thousand words.
I am deeply concerned about our young clergy who are increasingly being deceived ever so subtly by the Brian McLarens, Rob Bells, Ron Martoias, Leonard Sweets, Rick Warrens and Tony Campolos of this world. They are being processed, prepared, groomed, brainwashed and sensitized to accept and welcome the coming Antichrist.
Hi Thomas. I think I understand where you are coming from, as I once thought like that. If your vision of God is true, you are quite correct to be concerned.
But by grace, and by consistant (30+ years) commitment to Jesus Christ in all His fullness via the Holy Spirit, I have been shown a generous, open, loving and inclusive God in whom there is no fear.
You might read my words to mean that I have been decieved into thinking this way. But ultimately, how we choose to interpret anyones world is our own responsibility. And please be cautioned: I am not merely sprouting “moral relativism” here, I am suggesting taking full reposnsibility for our hermeneutics, in the same way we take responsibility to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
Bless you in your work.
Nice response to Thomas, Nic. You continually amaze me with your calm, inclusive, loving attitude toward those of a different theological bent.
Aah Don, its the balm of friends like yourself that soothes …
I must say I admire your approach – sage meets sojourner, being an elder and a learner at the same time – that takes some humility, methinks.
We are commanded to speak the truth in love. (Ephesians 4:15). What is your opinion? Would you consider the following remarks as truth spoken in love?
Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. (Jesus of Nazareth. The Son of the Living God).
Luke 13:2-5 Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Jesus of Nazareth when He comforted those who grieved over their deceased loved ones).
Luke 13:32 Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal. (Jesus of Nazareth when He lovingly referred to another human being as a sly fox).
Matthew 8:11-12 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Jesus of Nazareth when He consigned the subjects of his Kingdom to an eternal punishment in hell).
Matthew 24:50-51 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Jesus of Nazareth who is going to punish the wicked servants by cutting them to pieces).
Matthew 23:33 You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (John the Baptist).
Galatians1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (doomed to destruction in hell). (Paul of Tarsus).
1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. (anathema – doomed to everlasting destruction in hell) (Paul of Tarsus).
Jude 11-13 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness are reserved forever. (Jude the brother of Jesus).
2 John 7-11 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. (John, the apostle of love who advised Jesus Christ’s followers not to greet or show hospitality to false teachers).
Thomas, this is an interesting array of texts, in fact serves as a “proof text” guideline to the doctrine of everlasting punitive separation aka hell. When I started to doubt the biblical veracity of this doctrinal framework, these were the very texts which challenged me.
You might note I am trying to conduct a respectful dialog with you. My feeling on the recieving end of your message is that you seem to have already, (knowing probably nothing about my life, nor what fruit God might have worked in it), decided that I am “anathema”.
Can I ask you as a brother and fellow human being to say it directly, not slyly, hiding behind scripture? And I think it would be better still to meet face to face were it possible – where are you based? Unless you are taking a hard literal line on 2 John, “do not take him into your house or welcome him”, in which case we could always meet at a neutral venue?
Nic, You are being a teeny-weeny over sensitive. I merely quoted those verses to prove that a “loving attitude toward those of a different theological bent” do not always come with a bouquet of roses. In fact the book of Wisdom clearly states “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs 27:6). True friends do not soft soap others.
Fair enough Thomas, I might be sensitive here. If you think I have reacted inappropriately, I apologise.
I *completely* agree that truth is not “soft soaping”. So, are you considering us friends, and are the verses meant for me as a rebuke?
And to ask once more, would you consider making this a face to face discussion?
This is the second positive review of Brian McLaren’s new book that I’ve read in the last couple of days (the other was at Bishop Alan’s Blog: Discipleship starts with 10 Questions), so I must look out for it.
I think I’d better try to answer McLarents 10 questions, and see if my answers change after I’ve read the book.
@ Ron Cole,
You’re making pretty bold statements about Christianity and church there (the church becoming a ghost town, Christianity eroding to irrelevance, etc.).
I feel like saying “hold on there tiger!” 🙂 I gather you’re speaking of experience and subjectively, but your experience all the same. My experience is different and leads me to not have the same opinion than you of the church and Christianity at all.
Hey Nic, I’ve added my perspective to the ten questions at my blog. Hope it’s not just a rant, although it may be slightly ranty — http://wp.me/p3HJq-3t
Posted to your blog:
Thanks Stray; Well I don’t see it as a “rant”, but your post is very high level and as such comes over a little dismissive of the whole point – to delve into what may at first appear obvious questions (especially to us (post)evangelicals).
McLaren’s work is in the messy detail of it all, and there seems to be tendency in many current spiritual circles to equate simplicity with spirituality and complexity with cerebral humanism.
There is no doubt in my mind that life progresses (or evolves) in a wave-like manner – from the simple to the complex and back again. Things in emergent culture are complex / messy / inconclusive at the moment, but much of this complexity is because hard deconstructive work needs to be done.
Apparently you do not agree that anything needs fixing, and while I celebrate your wholeness here, from where I am I see an awful lot of brokenness, not so much due to the world, as to the Christendom “Theos Machine”, or in Mclarens terms the “Greco-Roman narrative”.
My quest is driven by the heart’s cry for a “better way”, I am not ultimately wanting to forever discuss theology and philosophy. But until we agree that Christianity is in crisis, there is not much point in discussing “solutions” or ways forward.
Let’s seek to be spiritual, lets be guided by the Holy Spririt – of course! and amen! to that – let’s seek the simplicity of Christ; but I implore you, let’s not be simplistic.
Thanks Nic for responding. I’ve responded at my blog but also paste it here for conversation’s sake.
Anyway, two things. If my post comes off as trying to be simplistic I apologise. I’m obviously not writing a book and am trying to condense everything into a blog post. I agree with you – let’s seek the simplicity of Christ, but not be simplistic, as that isn’t helpful. We need simplicity with depth, which is how Jesus is.
You said: “But until we agree that Christianity is in crisis, there is not much point in discussing “solutions” or ways forward.”
This is perhaps where we disagree somewhat. I think to say Christianity is ‘in crisis’ is taking it too extreme. Christianity is reforming and should continue to reform, something the reformers themselves taught us and taught. But the church is too diverse and widespread to claim it is in ‘crisis’.
Take for instance the amazing reports we hear happening in the eastern world. House churches, in particular, are booming that side of the world. Here in Johannesburg we’re seeing some truly wonderful things happen. Churches are working with government to find solutions to problems; churches are extending themselves into the inner city despite the dangers; there’s a new passion happening and I’m seeing some great stuff emerging.
I would have probably agreed with you three or four years ago on Christianity being in crisis, because of where I was at perhaps and because there was quite a doldrum period, at least in my own circles. But I’ve since come to realise that actually my experience is not the church’s experience as a whole. Some churches are in crisis, others are flourishing, still others are on the peak of crisis while others are coming out of it. So, if you ask me, it is not in crisis as a whole. We may say it needs to be reformed in many respects, or even better some branches need to be pruned and reformed, but not all of it.
It’s all a body after all, and I don’t believe the whole body is sick.
So I’m happy to discuss ways forward and solutions to problems, but I think it’s extreme to say the whole thing is a mess and we need to start from the bottom up again. Many of our solutions to these questions are going to be within our context and the next generation will without a doubt find our solutions irrelevant and out-of-date. It’s inevitable.
I think deconstruction can work very well for our own personal lives when we’re in crisis, but I’m not so sure as to whether deconstruction taken to a maximum level works well for our Christian theology as a whole. I support diversity in ideas as long as it’s focused on relationship with Jesus and I can see the value in some deconstruction, but we have to be balanced with it. We must stand on the shoulders of giants before us while deconstructing what are clearly secondary issues, formed as doctrine perhaps because of their context (like the doctrine of an eternal hell, for instance).
So it’s not that I don’t think anything needs fixing, I’m just saying that not everything needs fixing. 🙂
Thanks Ryan I appreciate the constructive approach here. I have said it before – you and I are involved in an “interfaith” dialog, or rather maybe an inter-paradigm one. Our “witness” is based on whether we can continue talking despite our at times fundamental differences.
On aspect of Brian’s book I really like is his question of Jesus: here he asks “which Jesus?” To you this might make no sense, but where I am coming from is critical. See http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcicfe_brian-mclaren-q4-the-jesus-question_news – Ryan, if you doubt the centrality of Jesus for McLaren, you might well be surprised.
Anyhow in his book he suggests perhaps 25 descriptors for Jesus.
What he is suggesting of course is that our views of Jesus are subjective, cultural and entirely bound up in the framework with which we read the scriptures.
The modernistic approach with its implicit trust in “objectivity” (and its charismatic cousin “revelation”) assumes there is only one view of Jesus. In the postmodern approach however there are a plethora, and we are responsible for understanding our own cultural and religious bias.
I urge you to read at least chapter 1 – The Narrative Question, all else flows from this.
Great vid! And illustration! Enjoyed that. I’ll look into seeing if I can get hold of chapter 1.
Hi, I am from Australia.
Unfortunately this book is just more of the same old self-serving nonsense that has mis-informed, and crippled, the intrinsic Spiritual impulses of the peoples of the West for for-ever and a day.
That having been said please check out this set of references which really deconstruct all of our usual presumptions about everything.
Such deconstruction being the necessary basis for a truly authentic life in 2010, and beyond.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/art_is_love/index.html
http://www.adidaupclose/FAQs/postmodernism2.html
John from Australia, if you are expecting anyone to follow up your links, and to hear your POV, don’t you think you might substantiate your claims about the book first?
I am at a loss to understand how ANKoXy is in any way “same old”, “self-serving”, “nonsense” or mis-informing. How is it crippling the spiritaulity of the West? What might our “usual presumptions” be?
At this point, your assertions are too vague and your tone rather too judgemental for conversation.
“Self-serving” is suc h a useful word, isn’t it? Using it means you don’t have to substantiate a thing.
And, as you say, the presumption about usual presumptions.
I don’t know if anyone looked at those links? I giggled, in a manly way of course.
Ryan – Yes, I started. Here are two quotes I cut from “The Avatar”:
Reality Itself Is the Only God There Is; “All the mere ‘God’-ideas are reflections of the human entity, the human ego, the body-mind-‘self’.”
Conventional ‘Religion’ Is Inherently False. “No form of conventional ‘religion’ is ‘It’ — and, indeed, conventional ‘religion’ never was ‘It’.”
Discuss.
(And John, please feel free to comment…)
I really should order this book… You should expect a call today Nic 🙂
it is interesting to read thru all the comments after now reading the book. I am stil on the same page as you and have felt such a beginning of a birthing process.