I might have given this a better review the first time I read it. I love McLaren's desire to question the status quo. But, like many questioners, he erodes many foundations with his inquiries and replaces them with absolutely nothing. This isn't entirely a criticism; deconstruction is the first step for any important movement. But in hindsight it seems like the Emergent movement was all about deconstruction and didn't really provide an alternative.

That said, I found myself often highlighting and writing the word, "YES" boldly in the margins. I appreciate McLaren but a good chef doesn't just bad mouth the food of others, he provides an alternative dish. ( )

"McLaren is a self-described follower of Jesus Christ. In his book he journeys through many of today’s Christian churches. He is both frustrated and hopeful in what he sees. He is both free with praise and criticism. However, foundational to it all is his commitment to the unity he sees that we should and must exhibit as true followers of Christ. He might make you angry but my guess is he will always extend his hand in fellowship and genuine love. If your frustrated with many of your experiences in church but needing encouragement in your spiritual life this is a good book to read.

Make no mistake; McLaren is one who states his belief in Jesus Christ as Savior. However, he quickly moves to that of Lordship and what he believes that should look like. Much of what he argues for is for Christians to acknowledge the distinctive and wonderful gifts that each tradition brings to the table. This is very important and sadly lacking in Christians today as we present ourselves to an unbelieving world.

McLaren is very much left of center in his politics. He claims not to be all that nice of a person. However, he believes that Christ is in the business of changing him and also requiring that he become nicer. He is a genuine proponent of a mature, vigorous and at times somewhat naive unity in Christ; a unity that is much deeper than doctrinal agreement, a unity that lifts up Jesus Christ while showing deference and the need to keep as a goal our requirement for a personal position of humility.

McLaren is not an Erasmus, Chesterton, or Lewis, but he does get it right on how we on a personal level should genuinely treat one another. If you don’t get that right as a Christian you just don’t get it." ( )

The title being based from G. K. Chesterton's classic Orthodoxy, McLaren in this work writes in a series of short chapters what he finds appealing in each Christian tradition. I think it gets to be a bit fluffy and that McLaren knows very little about many of these traditions and may actually stand in some opposition to them if he were more knowledgeable, but I really enjoyed the thesis and attempt. ( )

McLaren has produced a work that will leave no middle ground. It is love or hate. He is reaching out to all those who share some of his concerns and offering them a potential solution. It is one that he is wrestling with. McLaren sees the church as lost in modernity. Its beliefs and practices are wrapped up in a worldview that is quickly fading away. He is seeking to construct a postmodern church for the postmodern world. However, is it possible to do so? Is postmodernism even compatible with the claims of Christianity? I would say that it is not (just as modernism is not. Premodernism is the only solution).
In the introductory material, McLaren anticipates some of the responses the book will bring and apologizes in advance. For those who sympathize with him, it is a clever tactic that will make him appear big hearted and humble. For those opposed, it is false modesty. I cannot perceive the motivations of the author, but the tactic is of limited value (which probably reflects my bias). I believe it was Chesterton who remarked that our age has incorrectly moved the organ of modesty from our ambitions to our convictions. If McLaren has something to say that is worth listening to, then say it. His lack of confidence calls into question his ability to proffer answers . Questions are cheap. The right questions are better. The right answers are best.
As part of the introduction, McLaren recounts the seven Jesus traditions that he has encountered. The result of these exposures is that he has regained a simple and full understanding of Jesus, similar to the one he had as a child. He is correct in noting the different emphases from different groups. However, in all cases, Jesus has to be mediated through the text of Scripture. There is then a preliminary question as to who's Jesus is right or wrong, who's handling of the text is right or wrong? McLaren gives equal authority to all which is incorrect. Some are more accurate than others; some are not accurate at all. He concludes by stating that "Christians of each tradition bring their distinctive and wonderful gifts to the table." This assumes that all are Christians. McLaren concedes too much.
As he continues, McLarens proceeds to provide further definition to Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. This designates that He is fully God, the very essence of God. The discussion concerning God's transcendence of gender was misguided. It is true, God is beyond male/female distinctions. However, God chose to be denoted as male. New Testament Greek has a neuter case, yet God chose male. McLaren hints that he may develop this idea later. The point of this discussion of Jesus is that our perception of Him redefines our understanding of God. Jesus aligns with God B (social, interdependent, loving) more than God A (dominating, powerful, controlling) in his mind and soul, so God is more A than B. McLaren has a very high view of his experience and intuition. Furthermore, there is a potential that he has created a false dichotomy.
McLaren is better when he discusses Jesus as Lord. I believe he is correct in noting that this idea has been universally downplayed in favor of our "Buddy Jesus as Savior." He develops three ideas of Lord: king/servant, master/slave, teacher/student. It is questionable whether these all of these can be found in the New Testament (option two most definitely is). Also, McLaren ambiguously hints that Paul improperly developed the ideas of Jesus, a complete rejection of inspiration and authority. Yet, he puts the questionable passage in the context of another person's idea. McLaren can simply state that it is not his personal belief. It is a very poor practice. However, the thesis of the chapter is essentially correct. Jesus as Lord has been neglected in favor of Jesus as Savior since the former makes more demands on living than the latter.
Before he moves on to the meat of the book, McLaren takes time to address the nature of salvation. He begins by advocating a theology that grows out of experience. That will undoubtedly lead to failure. Theology grows out of exposition. Certainly, personal experience shapes that exposition. That is why Osborne strove for the hermeneutical spiral. However, the text, God's self-disclosure, must be the starting point. McLaren wants to reimagine salvation as less personal and more universal. A personal salvation is inherently selfish to him. The problem is that the text of Scripture advocates a personal salvation. It presents hell. Judgment is not just what is found in Psalm 98 (which discusses righteousness, a point McLaren overlooks) but also what is found in Revelation.
The first term McLaren defines himself as is missional. This means that he is seeking to express love to the whole world. It is beyond self. It is beyond questions of heaven and hell. He holds that question as irrelevant for the time being. We are called to be a blessing, and that is the sum of our concern. There is no distinction between evangelism and social concern, mission and ministry. It's all about manifesting God's love. I think a serious question arises as to the priorities of blessing. Are sharing the gospel and giving the thirsty a drink equally valuable? Often, the thirsty cannot think of anything until they have satisfied their thirst. The Gospel would be ignored. Fundamentally though, the Gospel is of infinitely greater value than food or clothing. Therefore, the question of heaven and hell is appropriate right now. There are distinctions to be made. All else must serve evangelism. In fact, Christ mocked the crowds that followed Him simply for the food. He told them of that which will always satisfy, namely Himself. Being missional is a poor substitute for being missionary.
Next, McLaren is evangelical. He draws attention to the little "e," not big "E." He identifies four necessary attributes to evangelicalism which may or may not be accurate. The current use of the word is so flexible as to be worthless. McLaren's emphasis is not so much on beliefs as attitudes, namely passion. He admires the evangelicals for their passion when it is used appropriately. It is not McLaren's fault that he is identified as evangelical. It is a reflection on the state of the "movement" that he can be considered one of them. While I disagree that the primary virtue of the evangelical is or should be passion, I do agree that passion should be integral to the Christian experience.
The following word is Protestant. McLaren presents two potential meanings for the word. However, the second one is his own creation and is not at all reflected in the history of the idea. He, for the most part, is accurate in his assessment concerning the birth of the movement. However, he does not understand the significance of the salvation issue to the Reformers for he emphasizes their flaws. The sins that they did commit (which were many) were not as grievous as a failure to rightly understand salvation. McLaren's inability to come to the same conclusion calls into doubt whether or not he can be considered Protestant.
Next is liberal/conservative. McLaren seeks to offer a third way. He feels that both of them have failed since they both began by embracing the "I" of modernism. There is truth to what he says. However, he is just as wrong. He lauds the liberals for their work concerning evolution, race, and poverty. Where does the authority for that judgment come from if not "I"? He criticizes the conservative dependence upon the Scripture mediated by the interpretation of "I." Yet the fact that he even wrote a book means that he believes accurate communication can happen in spite of the distance between speaker and receiver. "I" can be partially overcome. The polarization does not need to be overcome because they are not equally wrong.
McLaren is also mystical/poetic. In much of this discussion, he is correct. The systematization of theology has destroyed the beauty. A good theologian must have the heart of a poet. But before a poet can appropriate communicate affections for something, that poet needs to understand it. Good theology and good poetry should walk hand in hand. Without poetry, theology is cold. Without theology, poetry is pointless.
McLaren is biblical. The word has almost no meaning, so McLaren is free to craft his own. He emphasizes the need to interpret as narrative. This means seeing development and progress from the "ethnic cleansing" of Canaan to the command of Jesus to love. This protects the interpreter from imposing meaning. Unfortunately, it means that McLaren is in the position of being the ultimate arbiter of ethics. He sees development because violence bothers him and love does not. In many ways, McLaren's approach is highly individualistic and, at its core, arrogant. He is right in affirming that the Bible is narrative, yet it is more than that. It is history, it is a moral compass, and it is the revelation of God.
Next comes charismatic/contemplative. McLaren is grateful to the Charismatics for their contribution to his spiritual journey. However, he seems to find more solace in the contemplative meditation offered by the Catholics. He calls it "practicing the presence of God." It is this life habit that gives a deep sense of contentment and joy. I think that almost all believers today can profit with this practice. Creation is God's work of art, and we would profit by quietly drinking it in.
Concerning fundamentalism/calvinism, McLaren is not worth listening to. His understanding of fundamentalism as a movement and an idea is so errant that it is better off ignoring. The same can be said of the straw man of calvinism that he destroys. In doing so, he apparently embraces open theism, a heresy worthy of its own book. On a related note though, McLaren is remarkably confident of his own intuition and understanding of God. The God he knows would never create man and then determine destiny. That would be beneath the dignity of God according to McLaren. At best, McLaren is unintentionally arrogant in the extreme, just like every other postmodern.
McLaren is also anabaptist/anglican. Once again, his understanding of history makes interpretation difficult. He is correct that the anabaptists were the most radical of the reformer, but it was not because of some conscious rejection of modernism. Some of the characteristics he identifies are true and virtuous, but they are not exclusively anabaptist. The same can be said of the anglicans. The anglicans were not consciously striving for a third way between Catholicism and Protestantism. Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and those that came after him did not want that much change. Furthermore, the unity of Anglicanism that he lauds is fracturing day by day. Method is important. Theology is too. Some Anglicans are learning that. McLaren has not.
Next is methodist. McLaren appreciates the focus of the Methodists not just on right thinking but also on right practice. The Methodists were early advocates of in depth discipleship that went beyond inculcating knowledge. Their early vision faded however as the adopted a redeem and lift approach to sanctification. A return to the former passion is what McLaren recommends and with which I would agree.
In keeping with the diversity of denominations, McLaren is also catholic. He identifies several characteristics that he believes are laudable. At this stage of the discussion, it is appropriate to wonder what constitutes salvation. McLaren has accepted everyone who claims Christianity as genuine. His soteriology is so broad as to be non-existent. All are saved if they say they are. They are all part of the Christian community and come as equals. However, this is in stark disagreement with the New Testament. Galatians strongly condemns those who err concerning the nature of justification and sanctification. One of the points of Catholicism that he appreciates is sacramentalism. For McLaren to do so means that he does not understand it, or that he does and rejects "by grace alone through faith alone."
He is also green. This is certainly a popular cause. Undoubtedly, McLaren is correct in much of his criticism. Christianity has treated creation in a way that is inconsistent with the expectations of God. In making his case, McLaren overvalues creation and understates the seriousness of sin. All creation is the product of God, and it was all declared good. However, all things were given to man and were placed under his dominion. Creation is a stewardship is be wisely employed, not worshipfully preserved. McLaren's practices are probably worthy of emulation, but his motives are wrong.
Next comes incarnational. The failures concerning missions that McLaren speaks to are quite legitimate. However, his proposed solutions are just as wrong in different ways. The concept of the undercover Christian is not one which the New Testament recognizes or allows. The same can be said of the unchurched Christian. A believer who professes publicly his faith and then attaches himself to a local church is not a western imposition that can dispatched with. They are Biblical necessities essential to growth. Also, McLaren grants too much grace to non-Christian religions. We do not share the same God, we are not traveling the same path. They desperately need salvation, not affirmation. Undoubtedly, this impacts the shape of any potential dialogue because it preserves the conflict. According to the message of the Gospel, the conflict is necessary.
McLaren also describes himself as depressed yet hopeful. He briefly rehearses some of the many atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ. He advocates repentance which is the Biblical response. There can be no excuses for the evils that have been done. I think McLaren has genuinely felt the pain of the sin to his credit. They are black marks upon the church.
McLaren next is emergent. He is entirely qualified to speak to the term since he was instrumental in coining it. He believes that the emergent church embraces all that has come before it and moves forward. It is not a rejection so much as a development. He believes most of the polarizing struggles of the modern era can be solved by an "above and beyond" solution. Emergence is that solution, a continuing solution that sees no end.
Finally, he is unfinished. The process never ends. All of the beauty cannot be grasped, so the effort never stops. All truth has not been expressed, so the effort never stops.
In the epilogue, McLaren briefly addresses his feeling concerning the book and its development. He answers his critics, especially the ones who have not understood him because they have not taken the time to read in depth. It is a fair charge. Unfortunately, he plays a significant role as well since he is so vague. In summary, McLaren is a gifted communicator who is leading a growing movement within Christianity. He is often intentionally ambiguous which gives him the flexibility of passing off criticism as misunderstandings. More than that, he is heretical, a charge that would not bother him greatly since he probably holds that it is a modernist virtue to be so concerned with right thinking. His understanding of Jesus Christ, salvation, sin, man, the Bible, and the church are all very deeply flawed. His influence and impact will certainly be great; it will not be for the good. ( )

One of the forwards suggests that this book could be the equivalent of Luther's 95-point theses for the emerging church. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but its a provocative starting point for a provocative book. For those of us who feel that the organized church has polarized into two unbalanced entities, picking and choosing limited parts of the good news of Jesus Christ, this book offers a middle path. You are never sure the extent to which McLaren emphasizes to make a point, but I urge readers to have an open mind. ( )