A New Kind of Christian: Thoughts on Brian McClaren's Book
Brian McClaren has written a new and fascinating book entitled A New Kind of Christian. I have a deep affinity with what Brian has both attempted and accomplished here. Brian has stood upon the ramparts, seen the battle around him and is pointing to a new way of being Christian in the 21st century. He is motivated by nothing but love for Christ and his kingdom. He understands that the old wineskins have burst, and that the long-suffering Spirit of God is now pointing out a new way forward. Yet, for all of that - Brian's work is not all of one piece. It is both a thoughtful investigation of evangelicalism's failure to recognize the transition from Modernism to Post-modernism, and also an unsatisfying solution to the problems posed by that shift.
From the very beginning of the book, Brian's observations are unassailable. Post-modernism is a new era - one that has dawned with force in Western culture. Christians aboard the cultural ship of state today watch wide-eyed as the moral machinery of their worldview is getting heaved overboard - piece by piece. They find themselves on a cruise they never imagined. Brian argues effectively that the comprehensiveness of this change is frightening. And yet, like any new era, although the transition is filled with painful changes, it is also filled with unimagined opportunities.
To best make his point, Brian casts his views in the form of a fictional narrative (the lingua franca of Post-modernism!). The protagonist of the narrative is a wizened person of color, appropriately named Neo. Neo is a "new kind of Christian", stuffed full of fresh insights in how to navigate the waters of Post-modernism. In the seminal central chapters of the book, Brian has Neo lay out his central argument to a hypothetical campus Christian audience. It is an argument from history. The sum of the argument is this: just as the transition from medieval Catholicism to the Reformation created a new kind of Christian, so now in the shift from Modernism to Post Modernism we need A New Kind of Christian.
So far so good.
But if we tease apart the analogy, how far can it go? It is the aptness of Brian's analogy that is at issue here. The very real question we must ask ourselves is whether Brian is flushing out the doctrinal baby with the cultural bathwater.
Underlying Brian's argument is an unspoken assumption, namely, that every new major epoch in history is not merely evolutionary - it is revolutionary. Each new era creates by necessity a new paradigm, and that paradigm sweeps away the preceding era. Hence, he argues that just as the Reformation and scientific Modernism swept away medievalism in the 1500's , now Post-modernism is sweeping away Modernism - along with its quaint tools of analysis and logic.
After all, nothing is quite as dated as yesterday's insights. Right?
But wait a second.
Is it really true that ALL the constructs that Modernism affirms must be superceded? When Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life", we can be confident that his statement was both timeless and transcultural. It was not intended to be shelved when the next intellectual purge rolled through history. Jesus' truth claims, both relational and logical, made it past the shift from Pre-modernism to Modernism, at least among orthodox Modernists in the church. Likewise, when Jesus said, "I tell you that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - He meant it. The truth of this statement is not diminished because once upon a time Christian Modernists believed it. For Brian, then, there seems to be a curious inconsistency of indebtedness to the prior era. If the content of a former era speaks to spiritual formation, it seems, Brian adopts it. If it uses analysis and logic, he drops it. Even an Hegelian view of history grants to any new era (the synthesis) more indebtedness to its prior era (thesis) than Brian does.
We are left with an unsatisfied feeling after closing the book. We want to celebrate Brian's brilliant observations and teach them to a sleeping Modernist church - but we feel we cannot - at least not in their original form.
Why?
In sum, two problems dog Brian's view of history. First, there is a naďve optimism apparent here. Historical progression, does not necessarily lead to progress. A synthesis (even an Hegelian one!) may lead downward rather than upward. Consequently, we can't agree with Brian's inference that Postmodernism is necessarily better than Modernism because it has superceded it. Postmodernism, we would argue, is doubtless a better way to live - but just as certainly - it is a poorer way to think.
Second, liberal theologies throughout history have spent their energies dichotomizing truth. That is, they separate spiritual truth from the world of verification and analysis. The well-intentioned thinking behind this, is that this kind of surgery is necessary. It saves both the text and faith itself from methods neither was designed to withstand. The end result is that two realms of truth are created. Spiritual truth dwells in the realm of the unverifiable, while physical truth lies in the realm of verification. For those that adopt this dichotomy, matters of faith live and breathe only in the heart - and there they stay. Years ago, Francis Schaeffer called this "upper story" versus "lower story" thinking. And this, unwittingly is where we are lead by Brian's treatment of history. After reading A New Kind of Christian, we are left with the impression that the spiritual truths of Scripture and the factual/logical statements of Scripture are not woven seamlessly into a single cloth.
Let's look at two examples. We waste our time, according to Brian, if we argue against evolution. Second, we worry too much, Brian says, about using the (apparently anachronistic) tools of logic and analysis. Yet, is this split between the "Modernist" tools of logic and analysis (which, incidentally, predate Modernism) and the "spiritual" truths of Scripture really necessary? The Jesus of Scripture is both the one who wept over Jerusalem and outgunned the Pharisees in brilliant logical argumentation. The One who called all men to come to Him, is also the One who made logically exclusive truth statements 25 times in the gospel of John alone. He is the One who is both above all things (transcendent) and yet by Him all things hold together (immanent). The Jesus of Scripture, then is multifaceted. He is both perfectly and completely relational and also the Lord of all rational truth, including logic and analysis. For this reason, He can speak to both the relational Post-Modern and the analytical Modern.
Our challenge is to learn to do the same.
