Review: DP808
A New Kind of Postmodernist
This book review first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 25, number 3 (2003). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
A prospective student recently wrote Denver Seminary concerned that our Web page mentions the seminary’s mission to defend “absolute truth.” He was put off by this emphasis, reasoning that those who believe in absolute truth think they have all the answers and are not receptive to dialogue with others who disagree with them. He wrote that his thinking had been influenced by Brian McLaren’s book, A New Kind of Christian. This is not surprising, because McLaren’s book is an unabashed apologetic for importing postmodernism into evangelical Christianity. A hardy emphasis on objective truth and apologetic engagement are two of the book’s main targets. McLaren’s book received an “Award of Merit” in the category of “Christian Living” in the 2002 Christianity Today Book Awards.
McLaren uses the vehicle of a narrative in which one character, Neo, argues for a postmodern understanding of Christianity. This narrative approach makes the material more lively for those not inclined to read weighty treatises and allows the writer to suggest controversial ideas through his literary characters without forthrightly stating them. This book complements the postmodern approaches to theology and culture articulated by writers such as Stanley Grenz, Leonard Sweet, and Nancey Murphy (all mentioned in the book’s footnotes), but without the academic air of their works.
After the book’s introduction, we meet a pastor named Dan who has become burned out from ministry and is considering becoming a high school teacher. Dan in turn meets Neo, a fascinating man from Jamaica with a doctorate in the philosophy of science, who is currently a high school science teacher. We learn that Neo was once a pastor but left the ministry just as Dan is considering doing. Despite Dan’s initial skepticism, through his relationship with Neo he is brought around to a new way of thinking about the role of Christianity in the postmodern world. The book concludes with Dan revitalized and ready to be “a new kind of Christian” in ministry — thanks to his friend’s sagacious advice. What is this “new kind of Christian”? It is a postmodern Christian.
Neo claims that he is speaking only of accepting the conditions of postmodernity without invoking the philosophies of postmodernism, such as those of Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Fish, and Baudrillard. Neo is attempting to formulate an approach to Christian ministry in the postmodern world without imbibing postmodernism as a philosophy (19). The distinction is legitimate, but things are not that simple. Although he doesn’t cite the secular postmodernists, Neo’s proposals exude a postmodernist philosophy concerning theology and ministry.
Much of the book’s appeal lies in its portrayal of evangelicalism as ineffective in the contemporary world. Neo and Dan lament this throughout the book. Many evangelicals concur with this frustration. Astute thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, and David Wells have tackled these issues in our generation, but McLaren would likely reject their approaches — which emphasize the centrality of propositional truth, biblical inerrancy, and sound doctrine as the basis for action — because he views these proposals as mere “modernism.”
Modernism is the bogeyman for Neo: it is evangelicalism’s unreflective alignment with this outmoded way of thinking that has impoverished it in the postmodern world. Modernism is the worldview of the modern period. There are no generally accepted dates, but Neo places the beginning of modernity at a.d. 1500 and the transition to postmodernity at a.d. 2000 (15). What bothers Neo about modernism in the church is that it focuses on matters not deemed pertinent to the postmodern world. Unless we refocus and readjust the Christian message for the postmodern world, we will fail our mission. He lists nine features of modernity, but I will mention only two, since Neo’s reaction to both is central to the book’s thesis.
Neo describes modernity as “an age aspiring to absolute objectivity, which, we believed, would yield absolute certainty and knowledge” at the expense of poetry, narrative, religion, and the arts. It was also “a critical age” (emphases in original). If you believe in “absolute, objective truth, and you know this with absolute certainty, then of course you must debunk anyone who sees differently from you” (17). Neo believes that evangelicals have adopted modernism (despite its criticisms of religion) in that they underscore the notion of objective, absolute, and knowable truth and the need to refute those who disagree with it. This modernistic residue, according to Neo, must be rejected.
Neo tells Dan that evangelicals are too focused on being right and proving others wrong; instead, they should put their effort into being good. He says, “Dan, when it comes to other religions, the challenge in modernity was to prove that we’re right and they’re wrong. But I think we have to have a different challenge in postmodernity” (61). If we put the effort into being good that we put into being right, says Neo, “somehow I think that more people would believe we are right” (61); moreover, “I feel that my goal in life is to help people love God and to know Jesus, not to hate the Buddha or disrespect Muhammad” (60). When Dan raises the question of truth, Neo replies that “old notions of truth and knowledge are being…deconstructed” and “new understandings of truth and knowledge that might improve on them haven’t been fully developed yet” (61). “Truth means more than factual accuracy. It means being in sync with God” (61).
These portentous statements need to be disentangled, because as they stand they are one sided and misleading. First, Scripture always challenges us to be both good and right, to let our light shine before the world (Matt. 5:13–16) through character, community, and confession. This sometimes requires “loving confrontation” (Francis Schaeffer) with unbelief through our apologetic efforts (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). The confrontation between Christian belief and unbelief is not limited to modernity, but is a central feature of the New Testament, a premodern document (2 Cor. 10:3–5; Jude 3; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 2:23–26; 1 John 4:1–4).
Second, Neo’s talk about Christians disparaging Buddha and Muhammad misses the point that an integral part of Christian apologetics (an imperative for Christians — 1 Pet. 3:15) is the refutation of false philosophies (2 Cor. 10:3–5; Col. 2:8). Neo implies that criticism of Buddha or Muhammad is hateful in itself. This is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that either we don’t offer arguments against other religions at all or we become guilty of lambasting them. One may, in fact, avoid caricaturing these religious founders and misrepresenting their teachings, yet still level moral and philosophical criticisms of their views, as well as demonstrate that their worldviews are incompatible with biblical theism. Buddha, for example, was an atheist or agnostic and Muhammad denied the Trinity. Muhammad is not above moral scrutiny and should not necessarily command the “respect” of Christians for those questionable aspects of his life (e.g., polygamy and war).
Third, and most importantly, Neo’s cryptic and dismissive comment on the notion of truth is a philosophical landmine. If any point in this book needs careful development, it is this. There is, instead, one short and inadequate paragraph. The great emphasis of both postmodern culture and postmodern philosophy is the “deconstruction” of the notion that truth is objective and can be defended rationally. Neo doesn’t explain the idea of deconstruction, but says knowingly, “We don’t need to get into all that vocabulary.” Not so! We desperately do need to understand the postmodern rejection of objective and rational truth if we are to have any hope of maintaining a credible Christian witness. Neo’s dropping the philosophical ball here is akin to a Christian who is a scientist mentioning Darwinism and then remarking, “But we don’t need to get into all that stuff about natural selection and mutation.”
The postmodernist deconstruction of objective truth and rationality amounts to this: truth does not lodge in statements that correspond to reality. That modernist notion, says postmodernism, needs to be deconstructed or reduced to its “true” elements. Truth is a matter of perspective only; it is something that individuals and communities construct primarily through language. If this postmodernist view is accepted, objective truth is ruled out in principle. Truth dissolves into communities, ethnic groups, genders, and other contingent factors. No one “metanarrative” (or worldview) can rightly claim to be a true and rational account of reality.
Against the postmodernists, the vast majority of philosophers have held to the correspondence theory of truth, which asserts that statements or beliefs are true only if they correspond to (agree with) reality.1 Various groups may accept different things as true, but truth itself is unified and cannot be contradictory. What is true, therefore, does not depend on individual or collective opinion, tradition, or perspective. As Paul says, “Let God be true, though everyone a liar” (Rom. 3:4). The primary words used for “truth” in both the Old and New Testaments, while quite rich in meaning, all affirm that truth is a matter of conformity to fact.2 Scripture affirms that the truth that God reveals is knowable and should be defended rationally. God says, “Come let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18; see also Acts 17:16–31).
Neo, nevertheless, attacks the factuality (or truthfulness) of Scripture. The Bible contains history, he acknowledges, but lacks the modern “concern for factual accuracy, corroborating evidence, and absolute certainty” (56). Dan claims we should read the Bible “less like scholars and more like humble seekers trying to learn whatever we can from it.” We should be less critical and read it in a “postmodern fashion,” which is “postanalytical and postcritical” (56). Neo also asserts that the Bible is not our “foundation” (53), nor is it “authoritative” in the modern sense. It is, rather, a collection of useful stories to guide us (52). The old theological distinctions between liberals and conservatives, who fuss over biblical inerrancy and authority, no longer matter. What matters is seizing the postmodern moment (148; see also 145).
Since McLaren has already diluted the biblical notion of truth, he must redefine the nature of Scripture accordingly. If his postmodern reading of Scripture undermines its full inspiration, truthfulness, and authority, then he merely holds to a liberal doctrine of the Bible — that it contains errors and outdated ideas. If so, he has not really transcended the old debates on biblical authority, as he claims.
Contrary to McLaren, the Bible is our theological foundation because it is the written revelation of God (2 Tim. 3:15–17; 2 Pet. 1:12–21). Jesus declared that His words (now recorded for us in Scripture) would not pass away (Matt. 24:35) and that they are the only foundation (or rock) adequate for the storms
of life (Matt. 7:24–27). Jesus certified the authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17–20; John 10:35), as did Paul (Rom. 3:1–4, 19). The church is referred to as “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) only because it is rooted in God’s revelation (Gal. 1:11–12). Paul was concerned with corroborating evidence for the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–22), and Luke mentioned the detailed research behind the writing of his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4; see also John 19:35; 21:24). The Bible is not merely a collection of truths, or even a theology textbook; it is a book of letters, narratives, poetry, and wisdom accurately revealing God’s plan for history, from which we derive our theology and ethics.
When Neo rejects the idea that the Bible is “God’s answer book,” he seems to be rejecting its timeless and didactic (instructional) authority. Scripture does need to be interpreted properly and not manipulated to answer questions that it does not address; yet if the comprehensive truth and authority of Scripture is negated, the basis for theological and moral judgments shifts completely. The question of the Bible’s truthfulness can never be transcended, whatever developments may be occurring in the contemporary world.
Neo further wants the church to relax its concerns over who is going to heaven or hell. In a chapter called, “It’s None of Your Business Who Goes to Hell,” Neo argues that we should stop trying to identify the heaven-bound and the hell-bound and instead focus on our own salvation. He argues that the dynamic of God’s kingdom involves more than individual salvation, but addresses all of life. Yes, the Kingdom does include more than personal salvation, but the apostles would be horrified to hear that we should not concern ourselves overly with the eternal destiny of others (Matt. 10:27–28). Our evaluations of who is or isn’t redeemed are indeed imperfect, but Scripture nonetheless repeatedly claims that all are accountable and guilty before God on the basis of general revelation (Rom. 1–2), that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) as the one mediator between humans and God (1 Tim. 2:5), and that those who fail to follow Christ are eternally lost (Matt. 25:31–46); hence, the urgency of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8).
That urgency is lacking in McLaren’s book. Neo speaks of “justification by grace through faith…along with the atoning death of Christ and all the other doctrines our good evangelical brothers and sisters think constitute the whole gospel” (108). The fact that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ’s atoning death and not our works (Eph. 2:8–9) is not part of the Gospel, it is the Gospel! The Christian worldview involves more than the Gospel, of course, yet McLaren’s book says little about this stupendous central truth. It is almost dismissed in the passage mentioned above. A “new kind of Christian” apparently isn’t consumed by the wonder and glory of God’s amazing grace in Christ.
There are many other objectionable items in this small but dangerous book, including its flippant advocacy of evolution (155), its unorthodox speculations on heaven and hell as not being separate places (91), its uncritical endorsement of computer technologies to replace libraries and classrooms in seminary education (162), and much more. There is just enough truth mixed in to make the errors seem more attractive; however, the wise reader will note every questionable claim and then examine the arguments given by McLaren to support it. In this way, one is less likely to be swept along by the force of the narrative and more likely to see the deficiencies of this book’s ideas for what they are — harmful to the cause of Christ in the postmodern world.
1. For a philosophical defense of this view against postmodernist challenges, see my Truth Decay: Defending Christianity against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), chap. 4.
2. See ibid., 60–64.