Debbie
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:31 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: McLaren Reviews
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 10, 2005 13:17
Subject: McLaren Reviews
In "The Last Word and the Word After That," Brian McLaren completes his "New Kind of Christian" trilogy. Since McLaren describes his writing as "creative non-fiction" readers of this review should be warned--if you don't want to know how his narrative ends, stop reading now. I'd hate to spoil the plot for you. . .
"The Last Word" arrived today after lunch. I fully intended to return to my sabbatical Church history research, but couldn't resist reading the back jacket, then skimming the book, then reading the introduction. The next thing I knew, the afternoon was over and so was the book. In other words, agree with him or not, McLaren can write! His narrative is riveting, compelling, and gripping.
I found myself hunting for tissues when reading about Pastor Dan, his wife Carol, and the spiritual abuse that they suffered at the hands of their church board. I also found myself hunting for scissors at the biased portrayal of those who believe in a literal hell (more on this to come). And I found myself opening the window to scream at another failure to bring any closure to the discussion (I know, that's his point and his style, but still . . .).
If you want permission to think deeply about God, life, judgment, grace, and doctrine, then "The Last Word" will be a breath of fresh air. If you want to be given the research and resources necessary to intelligently ponder the doctrine of hell, then "The Last Word" may leave you wanting.
McLaren clarifies that his book is not truly about hell, but about what kind of God we believe in and what kind of purposes this God has for His creation. Still, for the first half of the book, his characters explore the doctrine of final judgment. Through their journey, McLaren provides a fair introduction to the more commonly held views about the final judgment, as well as introducing his own provocative perspective.
McLaren offers the caveat at the beginning of the book that "The Last Word" will purposefully under-represents the "traditional" view of hell as literal and eternal. Unfortunately, it not only under-represents it, it tends to misrepresent it. Three main characters hold to the traditional view. Carol represents the, "I don't want to think too deeply about it; I just want to love God" characterization. Gil epitomizes the, "I'm a cruel fundamentalist, ignorant Bible-thumper" depiction. Chip portrays the, "I'm a recovering fundamentalist; please be gentle with me while I find my brain and soul" caricature. The reader is left to assume that for the past 2000 years of Church history no thinking, loving Christian has ever held the "traditional" view of hell.
Other characters, presented with much more color--with mind and soul, life and personality--offer a composite view of what the final judgment might really be about. In the eyes of these favored characters, "hell" is not a literal place of eternal torment, but a motivational warning about a coming final judgment in which every human being stands stark naked before God to give an account of how well or how poorly she or he loved God and others and thus contributed or not to fulfilling God's shalom kingdom purpose of reconciliation.
The second half of "The Last Word" offers "The Word After That" which reads and feels like a separate book altogether. McLaren somewhat abruptly shifts from eschatology (the "doctrine" of the last times, especially of the final judgment) to ecclesiology (the "doctrine" of the Church). His characters speak of and participate in "deep ecclesiology."
One of the greatest gifts in the entire book is found here as McLaren shares the "five queries" that his "spiritual formation" group ponders together. They are well worth repeating: "How is your soul? How have you seen God at work in and through your life since we last met? What are you struggling with? What are you grateful for? What God-given dream are you nurturing?" As one of his characters would say, "That dog will hunt!"
This section also includes two questions worth repeating. They are questions that arise when we look at salvation not only as individual, but corporate: "If you were to live for another fifty years, what kind of person would you like to become--and how will you become that kind of person? If Jesus doesn't return for ten thousand years or ten million years, what kind of world do we want to create?" As another of his characters would say, "That'll preach!"
Overall, for a narrative of the story of life on planet Earth, McLaren's story-line sometimes rings a little Pollyanna. Do all, or even most, church conflicts end so perfectly for the "good guys"? I understand that McLaren's final vision for history moves toward reconciliation, but in this life?
By this tidy ending, and by what happens to and is said about "the good guys" and "the bad guys," an implication seeps out: "Anyone who disagrees with the outcomes of these theological probings is a witch-hunting, Pharisaical, hyper-fundamentalist, harsh, heretic-burning, unloving, unthinking, arrogant loser." That can feel a little like reverse spiritual correctness. As with the doctrine of final judgment, is it possible that thinking, loving Christians could actually disagree with the thought processes of the book in a thinking and loving way?
The same overly positive story-telling can be found throughout the trilogy in how people respond to Neo. As some "seeker" reviewers have noted about the first two books in this series, they would love to dialogue with Neo and don't think that they would "cave" so fast, or be nearly so enthralled.
Again, there seems to be a message here, a point being made by how people fawn over Neo. "This new kind of Christian stuff is incredible. It is so intelligent, so sensitive, and so unique. Brilliant. One in a billion." That doesn't quite convey the epistemological humility that post-modernism relishes.
So what do I REALLY think? Is McLaren a breath of fresh air and a post-modern Reformer? Or is he a little leaven and a post-modern heretic. Or something in between? Or neither? Or both? In the genre and spirit of "The Last Word and the Word After That," I'm not telling. Develop your own interpretation. Construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct your own view of McLaren and "The Last Word and the Word After That." That's certainly what Brian would want you to do.
Reviewer: Dr. Robert W. Kellemen, author of "Soul Physicians" and "Spiritual Friends."
Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
A fitting end to a worthy journey., April 6, 2005 Reviewer: Benjamin Shobert (Indianapolis, IN United States) - See all my reviews
Brian McLaren's newest book, The Last Word and the Word After That, is a superb final book in his New Kind of Christian trilogy. My only regret is that the series is over; however, I hold out much hope that this trilogy will continue in other forms as the trilogy parallels his own spiritual development through the use of story. What I love about McLaren is his willingness to write about his doubts and the areas where he has divested himself of American evangelical thinking. What I get frustrated with McLaren about is that he seems to stop short of what the logic of his various arguments would require (his treatment of the Canaanite genocide in A Generous Orthodoxy is one such situation). But here I have to see the beauty I want others to see in me as I wrestle with my own doubt: I want those more mature or simply more gracious to let me wander, to encourage my seeking, and to love me while I go on my journey. I hope so much that he will continue to write about his spiritual journey, realizing that he is making more friends than he is losing, that he is touching lives the church has done a poor job of reaching.
McLaren's first book introduced us to Pastor Dan, who is wrestling with questions over pluralism, the argument that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and general ideas about what Jesus meant when he talked about the kingdom. Dan meets Neo, a Christian who has been through similar questioning and has found a certain peace in these new answers. The second book in the series focuses on Dan wrestling with the debate between creationism and evolution, and again the underlying ideas about the identity of the Bible that are an implicit part of this debate. Within the second book, Pastor Dan is put on forced hiatus by his church because of some of his changing teaching. The final book brings the church crisis to a head but first forces Dan to deal with the most painful part of the Christian story - the teachings of Jesus on hell.
For me, this third book may be one of McLaren's best. Christians who want to be honest about their struggle with the idea of a loving God sending those who have never heard of Jesus to an eternity of torment in hell will find this book provocative and helpful. I would caution those new to McLaren's writing to not begin with this book, but with the first book in this series. To begin with McLaren's teaching on hell builds a house of cards where a firmer foundation should be built with his teaching on the mechanisms by which the Bible should be interpreted. If we start with McLaren's third book we jump right in to his teaching on hell without dealing with the searching that led this point or the logic that makes his argument sustainable. Christians who see nothing needing to be explained within the doctrine of hell will find McLaren's book heresy. Upon publication of this book, McLaren is going to find out who his real friends are, who the real Christians in his midst are, and who he has helped the most with his teaching.
McLaren makes what I believe is probably a conscious choice to focus on what Jesus really said and as a result what Jesus really meant when he spoke about hell. Because it is a contextual evaluation, many will be frustrated that he sees a layer of complexity where the fundamentalist position on hell needs no such exploration (left largely unspoken in McLaren's book is why some are so comfortable with this idea - something our society may have to wrestle with implicitly in the coming years). This presentation allows him to avoid the more divisive question of why hell is such a central issue for contemporary Christianity. To me, these type of decisions folded delicately within the tapestry of his writing, suggests that his voice belongs most within the church. I believe that many people within the church do not really buy into much of the church's teaching on creationism, the environment, politics, the end-times, or hell. McLaren's voice echoes through the church graciously and eloquently stating that you can be a believer without accepting all that is held within the Christian faith. Does McLaren's voice echo as much outside the church as it does within? I believe that in large part, yes, it does. Many people, even those familiar with the writing of atheists like Bertrand Russell, will find that Russell's denial of Christianity (which he based in large part based on the fundamentalists' presentation of Jesus' teaching on hell) falls apart when McLaren's discussion on hell is presented. This is why McLaren needs to be encouraged to have a broader voice than he now does; this is why I buy his books and share them frequently with family and friends. People need to know that you can be a Christian without believing in eternal torment. People need to know that you can be a Christian without being comfortable in an idea of God that accommodates eternal torment.
Jonathan Hughes Supervisor of Application Support Kingsway Financial 905-629-7888 x. 2471
-----Original Message----- From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 12:30 PM To: Hughes Jonathan Subject: Fw: My Question
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: April 10, 2005 12:20 Subject: My Question
Lance,
Did you find my question on "God for us" and "God for them" too flippant? Or some kind of cheap shot at non-universalism? It was not meant to be.
It was simply to point out that a change has taken place. On this side of human history, there seems no distinction (between for us and for them), but on the other side, there will be that distinction. So to whom do we attribute that change? Us? Or God?
Adam Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any
dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended
recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation
in connection with the above.
Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sây rattachant contiennent de lâ
information confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le
destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par
retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique
ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une
personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale.
Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
