Christianity Inside

Despite the attractive cover (I love celtic crosses and historically-rooted imagery), McLaren is at best–an expert marketer of books to trend loving emerging evangelicals–always on the prowl for a new version of Gospel. We have iPods, iPhones, iPads, iTouches, blue tooths and Blackberry’s. So it stands to reason that the Gospel must wear prettier clothes too. Right? Since we always must have something really ‘new’ (a ‘new kind of…[fill in the blank]–gadget, car, marriage, hairdo, gizmo, and message), what shall we do with that old, dated Gospel to spruce it up a bit? Should we get rid of the doctrines the masses really like (love, grace, harmony, unity, community) or get rid of the pesky doctrines [you know the ones Gen-Xers like me] don’t like (judgement, wrath, hell, elect/non-elect, authority etc). If rural, rapture-oriented fundies made the mistake of camping quickly on the latter ‘hard’ doctrines, we’ll correct them by only tolerating the former ‘soft’ doctrines. The result. A Jesus who no longer feels at home at Bison Breath Bible College in Alabama; A Jesus who now feels at home on the Oprah Winfrey Show, and sipping Pina Coladas in San Francisco Gay Dance Clubs. So what’s McClaren reap from all this “New Kind of…” books and theological cogitations? What’s in this for McLaren?

Lots of media attention (he’s a ‘gotta read’ guy for trendenistas, book $$$, new sermon ideas for latte-sipping, goatee-wearing uber-pastors, and the great, smug feeling [the backward ancients called it hubris/pride) that we are the correctors of every epoch of church history. McLaren’s a money-making genius. And if I were looking for a way to make a little cash at the expense of the truth, I’d buy his stock today! But since the Bible calls us to warn people who flirt with heresy, and call-out people who purvey heresy, let’s call a spade a spade–McLaren is just a new kind of heretic.
Rating: 1 / 5

This book basically preaches to the choir, with another of the millions of personal interpretations of scripture. The problem is, even in the bible itself, it says personal interpretation is inappropriate:

2 Peter 1:20-21:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

If your head seems like it’s going to explode, welcome to the club.

McLaren discusses ten key questions in this book:

The book appears to answer the following questions, but it does so within the narrow confines of the traditional Christian paradigm. A more useful book might expand into the realm of science and history:

* What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?

The bible is a collection of disparate scrolls spanning thousands of years, in multiple languages, from multiple cultures, translated and re-translated, derived from earlier mythology, ultimately assembled by a Roman political committee 700+ years ago. Suggesting there is a singularly-meaningful “overarching storyline” is presumptuous at best.

* How should the Bible be understood?

There are two disparate camps on this front. The author takes the traditional role of evaluating the bible from the “inside” with a plethora of preconceived notions that can only be accepted on faith and not actual evidence. Everything from the historicity of Jesus to the details of various miracles are presuppositions. Another perspective might be to examine all the available evidence in its context, which this book does not do.

* Is God violent?

There mere act of asking such a question either belies ignorance of scripture, or the entre into an elaborate stream of rationalization. The old testament is anything but ambiguous about the violent wrath of God. To suggest this is up for debate is intellectually disingenuous.

* Who is Jesus and why is he important?

This is undoubtedly the most important question, but the book does a disservice by making a number of presuppositions that are critical to understanding the nature of Jesus. Most notably, there are no contemporaneous reports of Jesus the man. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus were contemporaries. Any thoughtful examination which omits this important item is worthy of note.

* What is the Gospel?

One thing the author does not mention is that the Gospels are not eye-witness accounts.

* What do we do about the church?

With more than 30,000 sects of Christianity, this is a Pandora’s box.

* Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?

There is a better way to address human sexuality that has nothing to do with religion. If history has taught humanity anything, it’s that religion’s regulation of sexuality has not produced more moral and ethical sexual behavior. This is one of the many elephants in the room ignored by McLauren.

* Can we find a better way of viewing the future?

Again, another elephant which is ignored, is the value of secular philosophy in contrast with dogmatic thinking that has only changed slightly in the last thousand years. The author would be better-suited by comparing how Christianity has evolved in the last 1200 years, and note its continued progression towards less superstition and supernatural elements.

* How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?

This point of contention follows a strict pattern that corresponds with the variety of Christian sects and churches. Like every other theologian, from Mother Theresa to Fred Phelps, McLauren has his own, particular interpretation of scripture and God’s will. So now there are one-zillion-and-one ideas on what “real christians(tm)” are supposed to do.

* How can we translate our quest into action?

In other words, in a world where science continues to push dogmatic philosophies into ever-shrinking corners, how can these shadows be cast into ever-enlightened areas?

Rating: 1 / 5