After reading A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith, I am writing you to share what I see as the practical implications of your ideas within the context in which I minister.

I’m 30 and finishing seminary. I’m in the ordination process in the Anglican Mission in Americas (AMiA) and I intern at Desert Mission Anglican in urban Phoenix, giving 10 hours weekly to ministry.

I minister to Bhutanese refugees in urban Phoenix. These refugees are ethnic Nepalis who have been in refugee camps since being forced out of Bhutan in the years of 1990-1992. They speak Nepali, are Hindu, and are lower in the caste system.

We started out wanting to build relationships with this community, and quickly they asked us if they could come to our church. What happened next astonished us. Some of them reported experiencing something new while in church. One friend, 24-year-old Kumar, called his experience “miraculous.” We then bought a Nepali Bible and a few from the church started to teach them about Jesus. In March four households, including Kumar, decided they wanted to put their faith in Jesus.

What follows are a few implications I see your ideas having on this community.

Reading the Bible

As we teach them from the Bible, and teach them the Bible, I agree we have to our friend not to read the Bible as a constitutional document. Reading the Bible in that manner does not take into account genre and context (historical, cultural, etc). Our chapter and verse system can hinder our ability to read (or hear!) the Bible as a whole.

However, if we are to read the Bible honestly, in its literary parts and as a whole, I do not think we can throw out the theological implications of the New Testament. Reading the Hebrew narrative up to Christ is very helpful, but the New Testament, including Jesus, interpret the spiritual world and salvation in a non-universalist manner. God doesn’t appear to be a universalist in the Old Testament either, choosing judgment and mercy, not judgment then mercy.

I see you identifying discontinuities between the Hebrew Old and Greek New Testaments, but logically, discontinuities do not render one or the other invalid. I don’t see you identifying the continuities. Theos of the New Testament (and granted, the NT Theos may be different than the idolized Greco/Roman Theos you describe) is Elohim is YHWH. If not, why include the New Testament in our faith?

Understanding God

You make the observation that among the writers of the Bible there was an evolution in their understanding of God that is reflected in the narrative. This claim makes the writes the active force as observers, and this then diminishes God’s activity of revelation. Now the ability to understand God is dependant on one’s economic, political, and historical context.

What does this mean for my refugee friends? Do they have a deficient ability to understand God due to their context? Is it up to them as the observer of God as the revealer? I would argue that due to their testimony of the miraculous happening in a way no Americans observed, God as revealer is the active party, not the human as observer.

As I’ve identified some gaps in what you posit, I want to ask what you want say about those gaps. How does the New Testament contribute to the narrative that begins in Genesis? What can we learn about the character of God from the continuities and discontinuities between Elohim/YHWH and Theos?

Thank you for helping us thank more critically about our faith.

Thank you for your contribution to not only the emergent conversation, but to the global body of Christ as well. Your unshakable quest for truth, proactive love and compassion for the world, and courage to authentically live these out regardless of how others respond is both challenging and inspiring.

Responding to your newest book A New Kind of Christianity I will begin with the narrative question. You reveal the shaping influence of Greek philosophical categories and Roman social and political thought in relation to the development of Christian theology since it’s inception. You then show how this Greco-Roman paradigm was formative (and as a result destructive) for the establishment by the church of the six stage narrative of eden, fall, condemnation, salvation heaven, or hell. The exposing of the cultural forces that contributed to the formation of this narrative–whether people are ready to accept your proposal for a different shaping narrative or not–carries the potential to initiate and provide a beginning point for an important conversation about how culture influences our theology, and about how central narrative is for the life of the church. The exposing of how this specific six line rendering of the biblical narrative is held captive to a Greco-Roman framework will help me help others to be able to see how our church and our theology today is still held captive to not only this Greco-Roman paradigm, but to other cultural forces as well. Specifically the ones you mentioned in your introduction: colonialism, the Enlightenment, consumerist individualism, rationalism, and triumphant nationalism. I believe people need to be liberated from captivity to these forces, and I believe this narrative question could provide the key to unlock these chains while I move forward with this project.

I am now going to skip ahead to the Jesus question. You wrote, “We are all tempted to remake Jesus into just about anything we like…[and] too many of us, whether as individuals or groups, honestly–and naively–believe our view is “objective” and “true,” with no distortion at all” (121). You then name some of the Jesus’ people have believed in: the white supremacist Jesus, the Eurocentric Jesus, the slave-owning Jesus, the prosperity-gospel get-rich-quick Jesus, to name a few (122). The exposing of how many times we have created a Jesus in our own image, and the naming of different versions of this distorted and co-opted Jesus creates an opening for a broader conversation on the continuous need to re-think our views of Jesus. Using these examples as a reference point enables me to show others the need for re-thinking and rediscovering the Jesus of 1st Century Palestine that preached the good news under the shadow of the Roman Empire that was already preaching a form of good news, and who was proclaiming and embodying the Kingdom of God in an area that was dominated by the Kingdom of Caesar. Showing how as we have matured as the church we have had to let go of older, outdated and less Christ-like versions of Jesus will help reveal the need for this re-thinking as I help guide people through this process.

Brian, again, thank you so much for your faithfulness, selflessness, and courage to embark on and to continue this quest. It seems fitting to end with a couple “questians” I am left with. (1) How important is the dismantling of Western hegemony in theological discourse to this quest? (2) Do you believe that in the future the church will view our current relationship to the GLBT community like we view the church’s past relationship with slavery?

Sincerely,
Kevin

I’ve been a follower of your writings since “A New Kind of Christian” and though I haven’t quite read everything, your books have been extremely powerful in shaping how I approach theology, Scripture, disagreements, and a vision of the Kingdom.  In particular, Everything Must Change has challenged me in profound ways to begin asking the questions, and living the answers, of how Jesus speaks to the problems of the world, both on the global scene and in my local neighborhood.  Thank you for your seemingly tireless questions, and simultaneously the attitude of humility and grace that permeates your writing.

It was with great excitement that I picked up your latest book.  It did not disappoint.  Your writing clarifies and sharpens many of the ideas that seem to be flowing around emerging church circles.  Since I was reading it for a course in addition to my personal interest, I wasn’t able to read and digest quite as slowly as I would have liked, but I look forward to delving into the questions again in the near future, without assignments and other required readings applying pressure to me!

I found chapter 8, From Legal Constitution to Community Library especially fascinating.  Here’s why:  I work in a music instrument repair shop, with a number of men who have no interest in Jesus or the church, for various reasons.  Predominantly, I think the reasons are that they feel they already know the ‘gist’ of what the Bible says, and if they don’t, their experience with Christians, who have condemned them directly and indirectly, both through the media and in their personal relationships, has ‘clarified’ everything else for them.  As you say in the chapter, the Bible, when read as a constitution, can be (ab)used to justify a lot of different things, and I think these guys implicitly recognize that, and therefore wouldn’t begin to consider the Bible as an authority in ANY way, let alone in the constitutional way it is often held by Christians.  But if I begin to ask questions and suggest to them that the Bible be viewed as an inspired community library, the doors are blown wide open to all kinds of conversations.  Not even minding the details (which at this point, these guys are probably not interested in) this shift in understanding brings out the relational aspect of God, that He didn’t simply dictate rules and stories to be followed to a ‘T’, but rather desires and is present in the midst of conversation, disagreement, and tension (like you would find if you read all the books in any library).  I’m just beginning  this journey with them, and it’s too early to tell where it will go, but whatever happens, it will be great!

I would like to ask you a question regarding the six-line, Greco-Roman narrative that you examine in the beginning of the book.  While I understand how this narrative has been abused within the Christian tradition in the ways you articulate, I wonder if that narrative is exclusive to the Greco-Roman (and it’s descendants, the West) view or if that is a more universal approach to life.  In a sense, isn’t this how problems are approached and resolved the world over?  What if, instead of applying the Greco-Roman understandings to this six-line narrative, terms were used that COULD include that understanding but don’t automatically?  What if we changed the terms to, from left to right, “Things as they should be,” “Whatever precipitates the problem,” “the current situation where the problem persists,” “proposed solution,” and then either “a worsening or persisting of the problematic situation” or a return to “things as they should be.”  Does this still represent an exclusively G-R or Western approach to not only theology but everything, or has it been sufficiently broadened?  While I admit my struggles to get outside of my Western, Enlightenment-influenced mindset, when I’ve talked to others from outside of my own context, they tend to evaluate problems and propose solutions in a similar manner.  I recognize that this kind of thing is inherently reductionist, but as a basic framework it still seems valid.  My concern with all of this is in regards to practical approaches to integrating and engaging A New Kind of Christianity with existing churches, structures, and mindsets.  While I’m ok with the concept of tossing out the G-R narrative line completely, I’m not confident that it is fully necessary.  I’m having trouble envisioning an approach to problems and situations that doesn’t look at least broadly similar to that six-line narrative.  Any thoughts or suggestions you have regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

Again, thank you for your tireless questioning.  It is a continual inspiration and encouragement, and I eagerly await your next book.

Sincerely,
Joe
Saratoga Springs, NY

I want to first thank you for your willingness to directly address your most recent book: A New Kind of Christianity.  Knowing that there has been significant response to this book and an abundant amount of criticism leveled at you, I am hoping you sense from the letters and follow-up comments posted on this blog a spirit of compassion and an appreciation for your vulnerability.  After reading your book, many questions come to mind and I wish we could sit down over a cup of coffee and talk face to face.  Since the likelihood of that isn’t realistic, I am grateful for this opportunity to “talk” via this blog.  Also, because of the limit our professor placed on this post, not all of my questions or comments can be included.

In reading A New Kind of Christianity I found much that resonated with my spirit, some that caused me to stop and think which created tension, and then there were a few things I disagreed with—a mark of a good read!  Your approach to “how to read the Bible” was intriguing and, I must admit, a concept I don’t completely grasp.  Your take on Q & R made me wish I had read this 5 years ago when I was conducting very difficult congregational meetings as lead pastor.  Approaching questions from the perspective of “response” instead of “answers” relieves an underlying pressure to be the “Shell Answer Man” in potential volatile situations.  This is one thing I plan on utilizing in future meetings.  I appreciated your treatment of Jesus being the “highest value” in scripture.  What I am discovering is many “believers” place such a high value on scripture at the expense of Jesus.  There is so much majoring on the minor issues within the church today, therefore your concept of Jesus being the center, or the spine, of scripture is a great word picture I plan on using in the future.

You stretched my comfort zone when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.  I’m wondering how you process passages like: Romans 1: 26,27, I Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10?  It seems scripture is clear as to the issue of practicing homosexuality.  If we say practicing homosexuality is not a sin, then what do we do with the other sins listed in these passages?  When the religious leaders confronted Jesus with the woman caught in adultery he first dealt with the arrogance and sin of the accusers.  He then engaged her in conversation with compassion but ended with the statement: “go and sin no more.” Does this apply to the issue of homosexuality?

The area I disagreed with you was your treatment of the future.  I understand your premise but you either glossed over or totally left out scripture passages that deal with prophecy.  How does the book of Daniel play into your view?  What about the many references to the Anti-Christ found in 1 and 2 John?  Please know, I am not a dispensationalist and take issue with much of what is proposed by people who follow that train of thought.

Again, thank you Brian for this opportunity to engage in dialogue and thank you for challenging me to think.  May God bless you as you continue your journey to be conformed to the image of Christ.

In Him,
Marty

I want to thank you for you commitment and sincerity as you continue to tackle the difficult and important questions that Christians face today.  I have just come back home from a four-day trip with my family, and we had great discussions about the topics in your book during our many hours of driving.  I really admire your courage to ask the questions when you knew you would be criticized and belittled, and encouraging Christians to look into our faith with critical and new eyes.

I want to tell you a little bit about our trip and the context of the people in the car.  Both my husband and I are missionary kids, and our families were in Niger and Portugal respectively.  We have collectively experienced and interacted with many cultures and religions from Asia, America, Africa, and Europe.  The conversation in the car (me, my husband, and my two in-laws) was inevitably about how your theses applied to these difference cultures, and our experiences.

I will admit that I was ranting about some of the things that you said in the first chapter, but from the little bit of experience I have from your previous books, (and with encouragements from my husband who has read most of your books) I knew and appreciate that you are a writer who builds his arguments throughout his book, and doesn’t settle on one-liners.

None of us in the car disagree with your critique of the Platonic framework that pervades Christian narrative, and we commented on how we have seen an uncomfortable dissonance when this kind of Christianity is introduced to other cultures.  I also agree with you on the problems of the Western Church, and the arrogance and ignorance with which we do the opposite of love within our communities and beyond.  I also fully agree with you on the matters of social justice and environmental responsibility.   I really appreciate your practical focus on how we should treat the LGBT community as a church, and agree that we as Christians are first to love and not judge.

At the most basic level, I have questions about your views on sin and Jesus’ role in that sin.  While I understand your problems with the concept of the “Fall” I do wonder about your views of sin and God’s continual response to this sin.  I agree with you that Jesus is the full manifestation of God.  I believe that Jesus shows us how much God loves us, and his wish to literally be Emmanuel.  I do agree with you that Jesus is not just a concept that we can change according to our convenience, and that he came to forgive, reconcile, and free the oppressed.  I agree with you that Jesus calls us to follow him, and that the kingdom of God is here now, but my question to you is, what about the problem of sin?  Even if one has issues with the concept of original sin, what about the day to day sin that distances us from God?  What about the sin of rejecting God, hating and hurting others, oppression, and judgementalism?  I really appreciate your analysis of Paul’s writing and your emphasis of his focus on love, but wouldn’t you agree that Jesus’ love was shown on the cross by the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation of humanity to God?  If we’re reading the Bible “front to Jesus” within the stories of the Jewish tradition, can we ignore the tradition of the sacrificial lamb and the atonement of sin throughout the Old Testament?  I think you would agree that this would not be a part of the character of “Theos.”

I would really like to write more about the many things with which I agree and disagree, but at this time I am limited on my word count.  While I disagree with some major things, I really wanted to say that I appreciate your work so much, and thank you for making me and many others think about these very important issues.  May God bless you and your work as you continue to engage us with this ongoing conversation.

God Bless,
Hi Uan

I recently read you newest book “A New Kind of Christianity” and found it very interesting. The questions you asked are ones that need to be asked in this changing culture and times.

Specifically, I really liked your focus on challenging the Gnostic thought patterns within modern Christianity. It is sad to think that Christians have become trapped by this heresy, claiming that the ‘material world’ is bad and the ‘spiritual/immaterial world’ is good. Unfortunately, this mindset has caused many believers to consider environmentalism as ungodly. By the grace of God, I have had the blessings to be a part of a movement of Christians that seek to be good stewards of the environment – both for the glory of God and to help our fellow humans.

I also enjoyed reading your response to the question “How Should the Bible Be Understood.” This is a hugely personal issue for me as I face criticism about how we are to read the Bible on a weekly basis. Every time I try to explain the cultural and historical background of a Bible passage, the men in my Bible study shoot me down. To them, each word in the Bible was written in such a way that they should mean the same thing forever – forgetting that the Bible is a collection of letters written to different people at different times among different cultures using multiple genres. Hopefully, the Lord will show them one day that the Bible is not a database of statements to be grabbed and shoved together in order to ‘prove’ whatever action/thought/idea/doctrine they want.

I must admit, however, that I struggle with some of your conclusions. You quote Isaiah, Micah, Joel and Hosea at length, yet only the parts where they are talking about the blessings of God. Nowhere in your book did you discuss the consequences of not following Jesus. It sounds as if you assume that everyone will want to jump on board and follow this new way. Yet, there are those who enjoy getting rich off the sufferings of others. What will happen to these people?

This may sound like a theoretical question, but it is actually quite practical. I have seen first hand the sufferings of the poor at the hands of the rich and powerful. What am I supposed to tell these people – that God is going to welcome these evil doers into His house without repentance? What about the justice of God? To me, if there is no justice, then grace is nothing more than a cheap word. As hard as it may be, I believe that we must re-frame the biblical narrative in such a way that it remains true to all of Scripture, retaining the fullness of both God’s grace and justice.

I also noticed that when you talk about God redeeming this world it is always in conjunction with humanity without a personal touch or action from God Himself. When I read the Bible, I see a personal God who is actively involved in the lives of each of His followers. Sometimes this personal activity comes in the form of signs and wonders, as in the miraculous healing of the body. Do you see God still doing this? Or do you see Him mainly working through the hearts of humanity?

In wrapping up, I must thank you again for starting the conversation. The questions you ask are valid questions, ones that we, as followers of Jesus, will need to answer as we make our way into the next phase of history. I look forward to the dialog generated by your book and this letter.

May the grace and peace of God be upon you,
-Joshua

A New Kind of Christianity is the first book I have read that you have authored and I have to admit that you accomplished something that very few authors have – I was captivated and unable to put the book down!  I will readily admit that I am not an avid reader so this was no small feat.  I found that the book challenged my thinking while at the same time engaging my interest and even made me laugh sometimes!  I especially liked your comment about “waking up and smelling the Ben-Gay” and the reference to Talladega Nights! It isn’t often that I read a book on an important topic and get a surprise chuckle.  So, thank you for an incredible book, for your heart and passion for God and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

So much of what you said in this book really resonated with my heart and soul and it was in a very real sense liberating to realize that I am not alone in how I am thinking and feeling about so many of these issues.  For a very long time I have believed we were reading and interpreting the Bible “backwards”  or maybe just “wrong-wards.”  When I read your approach to reading the Bible and the parallel’s that you drew throughout the book between Jesus and the many stories in the Old Testament, I found myself feeling refreshed and enlightened.  It connected so many dots for me that for so long were right in front of me but were blurry. The three dimensions of the Biblical Narrative really opened my eyes to a way of thinking that was refreshingly new to me.  At the end of Chapter 6 you asked the question “Does anyone dare say “Amen”?” but the truth is, I was already saying that!

One of my favorite chapters, for completely selfish reasons, was Chapter 16 “What Do We Do About the Church?”  Even though I am a seminary student, I find that I unfortunately resonate with those that are simply leaving the church.  I absolutely love Jesus but the Church has left me feeling disappointed, empty and asking more questions than it answers.  I am not in ministry – I am just your average Christian who is trying to live a Christian life and went to seminary because I felt led by God to be something more than just a body sitting in my pew every Sunday or attending a Bible Study.  If I were to make any criticisms of the book, which would be difficult, it would be that I wish you had spent more time on this subject.  I have not read your other books so forgive my naiveté if you have in fact written on this subject in more depth.  But if you haven’t, let me strongly encourage you to do so!

I especially appreciated the last chapter in the book where you answered questions, some of which I have recently grappled with in my own life in how I should proceed with the church that I am in or in starting something.  There seems to be so many people just walking away and starting churches and I am somewhat hesitant to do that, especially when that specifically doesn’t feel like my calling.  I am very interested in para-church ministries and while you touched on that, I was wondering what kind of advice you would have for someone interested in starting something like that as opposed to a church plant?

I am also wondering about the idea of formal theological training.  I entered seminary with the hope of growing in my knowledge of God.  But in reading your book, I find that maybe formal training is the problem and more thinking outside of our traditional boxes is what is really needed. I have seen a recent trend towards church plants with pastors that have no formal training and have always been somewhat concerned as to their ability to lead and teach without that.  But after reading your book, I am wondering now if actually they might be in a better position and was wondering what your thoughts were on formal training versus no training?

Finally, I was very challenged by the idea that hell as we think we know it might actually not be the way it really is and that there may not be any eternal damnation.  But I never quite saw you specifically state that an unbeliever, or atheist specifically, would be saved or not.  I am really curious as to your thoughts on the subject because I come from a family of atheists and selfishly, would love to know that there is hope for them.

Thank you for this book and for opening my heart and soul and breathing new life in me.

In Christ,
Kellie

I hope that this note finds you well. I am writing you for an assignment at Fuller. Because of a limit of 600 words, I will share brief thoughts about A New Kind of Christianity in hopes that this will be the beginning of a longer conversation with you. First, thank you for this and many other enlightening and encouraging books. I truly appreciated your kindness and hospitality the times we met in Colorado Springs, and your books reflect both.

I am encouraged that your writing communicates the priority of love for people over traditions that are “evolving, embodied, situated versions of the faith—each of which is unfinished, imperfect and sometimes pretentious, and each of which is often beautiful and wonderful, renewable and serviceable too.”[1] Your perspective is refreshing, and you continue to inspire Christian charity and kindness in my language, prayer and thought. Thank you!

In The God question, (Ch. 10) I understand a priority of fidelity to God in social justice and worship, and through traditions, old and new, not in spite of traditions. This perspective discourages criticizing others’ (or my own) traditions and encourages revealing treasures old and new. The final chapter points forward in a practical way by affirming both institution and movement, which are often in tension. I should be sensitive to see God at work in other traditions and introduce them into our community, so that we may experience the life-breathing Spirit in new ways in our meetings, where we typically do not experience liturgy, the Church calendar, hymns, meditation on scripture and many others. I will practice this in smaller settings.

It was too difficult for me to come up with any serious critique, so I will simply ask your advice. In my specific context of ministry, a mega-fellowship with 25 years of history, we have 1/3 new members in the past three years after experiencing three major traumas (scandal, murder, and major leadership changes). In the midst of this change, our leaders are casting vision to become missional in our daily life. As far as I can tell, no megachurch has successfully transformed to become missional on a large scale. I think your book describes the missional life in many ways, and yet, as one who wants to affect large-scale transformation, I know our leadership (including myself) must first change.

However, beyond this obvious point, do you have any recommendations? After reading your hope-filled view of the present and the future, I assume you believe the transformation is possible. How might I take some practical steps to help guide our culture in this direction? Are there specific pitfalls to avoid, which might help us navigate this cultural transformation with grace? I immediately think of story, and how great stories have power to change the world. As mustard seed can grow to move a mountain, and one transformed life of faith can influence the masses. I’m convinced that we begin with small, passionate and personal transformations, and the people will speak for the movement. I seek your advice and look forward to any ideas you are willing to share.

I am grateful you have shared your life and wisdom in your writing, and I am more filled with hope. Thank you for sharing your gifts generously in this book. With a thankful heart,

Matthew

I started reading your books just after I graduated from college. Since that time, I’ve read just about everything you’ve written. What I love about what you’ve written is that in reading, I constantly feel challenged, but seldom feel condescended. I find that this is rare in contemporary Christian literature. Don’t get me wrong, a fair amount of conviction and reflection is healthy in the lives of all of us, especially as we pursue the throne of God, but setting aside a book and feeling contemplative rather than depraved is a refreshing change.

In A New Kind of Christianity, you’ve done from cover to cover what I’ve loved about reading each of your books: you’ve asked questions. I find that remarkable not because of the questions you ask, per se, but because you provide an answer while leaving room for for other lines of thought. That openness is refreshing, though some have seen it as passive. I appreciate that I can disagree with you, but still see things from your perspective. Your writing allows room for that and it’s a rare thing indeed.

Part of me wishes that you’d take a harder line on Christology or ecclesiology so that more Christians would be open to hearing what you have to say. Through the years, I’ve appreciated the way you deal graciously with those that ridicule or rebuke you, but simply explaining that your Christology falls somewhere in between hippie Jesus and warrior Jesus (like most of the Christian population) might alleviate some of the anxiety the traditional church feels in interacting with those of the emerging movement.

You’ve entitled your book A New Kind of Christianity, but in many ways, what you’re explaining is an ancient kind of Christianity. In the chapter entitled “What is the Overreaching Story Line of the Bible?” you talk about understanding Christ not through the lens of church fathers like Paul, Luther and Billy Graham, but through the narrative of his own ancestors and biblical fathers of the faith like Abraham, Moses and David. Much is made today of being like the early church, of being like the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch found in Acts 2. Do you see the church today taking these steps? How do you see that we could improve this process of becoming more authentic followers of Christ and less indoctrinated to our own meta-narrative? The story you tell is about reconciliation with God and pursuing His will and glory. I appreciate that your explanation Greco-Roman viewpoint of salvation, not because I necessarily agree with your take about sanctification and atonement, but because it further fleshes out a thought you began in me when reading The Story We Find Ourselves In: that my impetus to share my faith shouldn’t evolve out of a fear of hell, but out of a love of Christ. You’ve challenged my missiology to be about loving Jesus and wanting others to love Him too, rather than worrying about the flames. I wonder how different Christians would be if we stopped to reflect that the real torment of hell is not the fires of the book of Revelation, or Dante’s frozen levels, but the inability to love Jesus. Inability to love and be loved is such a real fear for people in this present life, why do we question that that will translate to eternity?

I wanted to take just a minute and thank you for writing chapter seventeen, “Can We Find a Way to Address Human Sexuality Without Fighting About it?” While I think that the method by which you introduce the chapter may come across to some as needlessly confrontational, I think you say things that the church needs to hear. My heart is for young adults, and sexual brokenness, be it homosexuality, abuse, gender identity or a myriad of other options, is one of the main challenges facing young adults. While in seminary, I’m working for the online portion of a high-end fashion retailer. 70% of the men in my office are gay, but sadly, it’s challenging to invite them to attend church because homosexuality has become the one sin that the church acts like God isn’t big enough to handle. Alcoholism? Divorce? Come lay that on the alter and Christ provides healing. Homosexuality? You’re going to need to get that straightened (pun partially intended) out before God can deal with you. Thank you for addressing this chapter as a chapter about sexuality. You made it a bigger issue than gay or straight and thus added more perspective to a topic that so easily divides. Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Ethiopian eunuch all offered new perspective and food for thought to this issue that I believe will be one of the primary issues that will define the church in the 21st century.

Mr. McLaren, thank you for being a voice who’s challenging the discourse. Thank you for challenging us to question and evaluate why we believe what we believe. Though they’ll never admit it, I think your voice in the darkness has even challenged the Reformed amongst us. While they find themselves stridently opposed to virtually everything you say and stand for, it’s been you and those like you that have challenged a new generation of leaders to let the Bible rather than Milton’s Paradise Lost, or Dante’s Divine Comedy, or Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, to dictate theology. Isn’t that what we all hope for: that we will step out of ourselves and our own biases enough to let Christ and his narrative speak for itself?

Again, thank you for your questions and your willingness to leave the answers open-ended.  I am not sure this is a book I can recommend to many friends, as I’m not sure all of them will be able to look past the areas where they disagree with you theologically in order to see that you’re asking great questions, but I’ll try to make sure that the right questions come up in conversation. The challenge you provide to contemplate and reevaluate is a welcome change of pace and a constant source of encouragement to me.

His~
Loni
Arlington, Texas

I appreciated A New Kind of Christianity very much. I found your proposal for shifting our hermeneutical paradigm from a “constitutional” reading to that of a “portable library” very compelling. As a church planter, I think this may be the single most important shift we make as we help people engage with the Bible in ways that don’t predispose us to the historical abuses you’ve chronicled.

I also appreciated your perspective of Christ as the “hinge” point of Scripture. In fact, I think you’ve indicated a way in which we can present Christ to the world as a practical means of reconciliation, peace-making, and hope, and I can see how that would have immediate relevance to the community in which I minister – specifically, with regard to racial tensions and socio-economic hardships.

I do have a few questions that require a bit of setup – so please bear with me.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the film “The Answer Man” (2009). The main character, Arlen Faber (played by Jeff Daniels) is considered the world’s leading authority on God. But he has a secret: He hasn’t “heard” from God in 20 years. As an aside, he also loves old classic Hollywood monster films and collects model figures of these monsters. There’s a scene where Arlen is talking to a young man named Kris, and answering his questions about God:

Kris: So what’s the deal with heaven and hell anyway?

Arlen: I’ve seen hell, and it’s name is Reno, Nevada.

Kris: I can’t believe God would punish people for not believing in him.

Arlen: Ah, the rapture.

Kris: What’s that?

Arlen: Well, I like to think of it as a monster movie. The monster destroys some people and spares others.

Kris: So who is the monster?

Arlen: God. God is the monster.

While Arlen is clearly mocking the “soul sort” narrative you condemn, Jeff Daniel’s plays it more beautifully nuanced than that. Arlen also seems to have a deeply ambivalent frustration and affection for God as “the monster” that echoes his affection for those classic monster films. It immediately made me think of the refrain in The Chronicles of Narnia that Aslan is “not a tame lion.” I can’t help but wonder if you’ve largely dismissed this aspect of God.

For example, when you represent the questioning of Job by God, you interpret this to be a demonstration of God’s openness, but you ignore the dramatic climax of those questions: “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” (Job 40:2). In other words, God’s answer to Job is exactly the “might makes right” argument you condemn (178). This doesn’t come from a “constitutional” reading; it’s the literary reading of the poem.

Moreover, I don’t see how this can be an evolutionary vestigial tail of the Old Testament because it is also Paul’s exact argument in Romans 9: “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (Rom 9:20). It seems to me that mercy and wrath appear throughout scripture alongside one another, with no pattern of evolution, and with Jesus as the chief expositor of both.

1. If God is God and I am not, shouldn’t I expect to find some divine attributes to be personally objectionable?

2. Isn’t there some sense in which God must always be “the monster” or else cease to be God?

3. Is there room in your theology for God as “the monster” alongside God as the merciful liberator? If so, how?

I have read many of your books, and I want to thank you for teaching me how to embody a compassionate and healthy view of questioning. I appreciate your pastoral heart, and it comes through in your writing. A New Kind of Christianity has aided my thinking about how we do ministry in the local church. I am involved in a church plant in downtown Long Beach, California. We are trying to figure out how to embody the kingdom of God in Long Beach through engaging the local community, loving one another, and working through the “attractional versus missional” situation. I thought part two of your book was especially helpful and significant because it gave me insight into the practical implications of part one. The two questions that were most important for my life and ministry in Long Beach are “Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?” and “How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?”

Long Beach is a highly diverse and eccentric community (I mean that in the best way possible). It has a high population of the LGBT community, and many people from different walks of life, especially those espousing New Age religions. In regards to your chapter on human sexuality, my desire is show God’s love to people who have been abused by Christian fundasexuals and those failing to see the beauty of diversity in a non-Greco Roman worldview. Our postmodern culture is increasingly blurring the lines in the binary opposition of male/female. You explain this nicely in chapter seventeen (175-176).

The chapter about religious pluralism was helpful for me because it reminded me that the Christian community should show charity and love to everyone who is “other,” not just people from other faiths. Unfortunately, I have see the phrase “Jesus is the only way” used as a propositional weapon that ostracizes people rather than welcomes them into the kingdom. I do not want to swing the pendulum to the opposite end to say “anything goes.” I identify with the ambivalence you point out regarding this situation (208).

I have a couple questions after reading your book (mostly good ones that I will be working through for a while!). First, in footnote #7 for chapter 5, you note that you do not intend to sanctify Aristotle and replace a Platonic framing of the biblical narrative with an Aristotelian one. What would the danger be of viewing the biblical narrative from an Aristotelian perspective? Is the Jewish view of “good” that much different from an Aristotelian view of becoming?

Second, in the conclusion you asked what might be included in the next round of questions. Have you developed or nuanced any new questions since the publication of this book? Have you added any questions that would serve as a good 11^th question, or as helpful addendums to thinking about the suicide machine? Thank you again for your willingness to lovingly question the dominant theological paradigms of modern Christianity. You have set a great example for future followers of Christ.

Much love,
Jamey

Many responses to Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith, have been less than even-handed and more bothersome, almost completely devoid of Christian charity.

This blog and the letters it will contain are an effort to counter that trend.  The letters offered here are the fulfillment of an assignment for the class, “The Emerging Church in the 21st Century,” offered through Fuller Theological Seminary in the Spring of 2010.

The goal of this blog and these letters in 3-fold.

1) To encourage students to respond to the author, an actual person, of the book.

2) To give students the opportunity to critically think through the practical implications of this book for their lives and ministries.

3) To write with Christian charity in regard to problems or disagreements students may have with the author’s perspective.