Showing posts with label McLaren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McLaren. Show all posts

Saturday, March 27, 2010

A Conversation about Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity

Remember to bookmark and visit my fresh new site at http://www.rpmministries.org/

I've posted twice as many free resources, daily blogs, book reviews, videos, and more, all because I know You Want to Change Lives!

A Conversation about Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity

Final Recap: Links to Responses to A New Kind of Christianity


Welcome: I’ve finished blogging my way through a series of responses to Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christianity. My focus has been on pastoral theology or practical theology response. As a pastor, counselor, and professor who equips the church for biblical counseling and spiritual formation, I was asking: “What difference does our response to each question make for how we care like Christ (biblical counseling) and for how we live like Christ (spiritual formation)?”

Final Recap: Word Document Format

I’ve created an edited version of my entire blog series in a Word Document format. It’s free, so I’ve posted it along with my other Free Resources (http://www.rpmministries.org/free-resources/). You can enjoy over 100 free resources for your life and ministry at RPM Ministries (http://www.rpmministries.org/).

Feel free to download and to share my final recap in Word Document format: A Conversation about Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity (http://bit.ly/b9FjP2).

Final Recap: Blog Format

If you’ve benefitted from this blog series, and if you think others would benefit also, please feel free to reference this series, link to it on your site, or post it on your site.

Here are all the links in my blog series on A New Kind of Christianity.

• Post # 1: Brian McLaren, I Accept Your Invitation http://bit.ly/a8D42I

• Post # 2: A Biblical Counseling Response to Brian McLaren http://bit.ly/dmXIll

• Post # 3: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 1: The Narrative Question http://bit.ly/d6XPTO

• Post # 4: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 2: The Authority Question—The Bible http://bit.ly/ctNf2I

• Post # 5: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 3: The God Question http://bit.ly/aUXFKr

• Post # 6: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 4: The Jesus Question http://bit.ly/a3JRHi

• Post # 7: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 5: The Gospel Question http://bit.ly/bOBn6e

• Post # 8: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 6: The Church Question http://bit.ly/cviqsN

• Post # 9: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 7: The Sex Question http://bit.ly/cs7BpU

• Post # 10: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 8: The Future Question http://bit.ly/bGM6pL

• Post # 11: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 9: The Pluralism Question http://bit.ly/bSuinZ

• Post # 12: Responding to Brian McLaren’s Q # 10: The What Now Question http://bit.ly/bscHA1

• Post # 13: Conclusion: The Final Word and the Word After That http://bit.ly/9RyERw

Six Views

I’ve also collated other responses and reviews to A New Kind of Christianity.

• 6 Views on Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity: http://bit.ly/cRfyfM

Join the Conversation

Which question do you think is most important and why?

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Brian McLaren, I Accept Your Invitation

Remember to bookmark and visit my fresh new site at http://www.rpmministries.org/

I've posted twice as many free resources, daily blogs, book reviews, videos, and more, all because I know You Want to Change Lives!

A Conversation about Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity

Brian McLaren, I Accept Your Invitation


Welcome:
You’re reading “Part 1” of my blog series responding to Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christianity. Many people have engaged Brian’s thinking—most focusing on a systematic theology response (you can visit here to see a boatload of links). I’m thankful for their foundational responses. My focus is on “pastoral theology” or “practical theology.” As a pastor, counselor, and professor who equips pastors, I’m accepting Brian’s invitation to interact about the implications of his views for the everyday life of one-another Christianity—“the personal ministry of the Word.” My posts will be “periodic” so that I can intelligently, carefully, fairly, and thoroughly engage Brian’s thinking.

Brian’s Invitation

Throughout A New Kind of Christianity Brian invites conversation. He calls it an invitation for discussion not a “debate that creates hate” (p. 17). Using a sports’ analogy, Brian writes about his views, “They are offered as a gentle serve or lob; their primary goal is to start the interplay, to get things rolling, to invite reply” (p. 23). Brian also notes concerning those who may disagree with him that, “We welcome their charitable critique” (p. 25). In summary he says, “This quest must instead work more like a wedding proposal, an invitation. It must be about free conversation, not forced conversion” (p. 27).

To this generic invite, Brian adds a very specific invitation to pastors and counselors. When I read the following words, my ears perked up higher than Mr. Spock from Star Trek.

“This Greco-Roman framing may help explain why Christian pastors and counselors have such a hard time convincing Christians that God actually loves them” (p. 266).

Game On

Until reading that quote, my plan was to let the “theologians” converse with Brian. Of course, theology intimately relates to everyday life, so I should have been willing to join the conversation from the get-go. But when I read that quote, it was “Game on.” Brian had served up his “gentle lob” and I would volley back.

This is why the specific emphasis of my tennis match, er, conversation, with Brian focuses on:

What are the implications of A New Kind of Christianity for “the personal ministry of the Word”—pastoral counseling, one another ministry, soul care, spiritual direction, biblical counseling, spiritual formation, Christian counseling, pastoral care, spiritual friendship, personal discipleship, one another ministry?

Call it whatever you want. I’ve spent the past quarter-century in the trenches of pastoral ministry comforting grieving parishioners, counseling struggling Christians, equipping lay people, pastors, and professional Christian counselors for “the personal ministry of the Word.”

Brian’s “ten questions” deserve a “pastoral ministry response.” Game on.

A Few Ground Rules

Any good tennis match must have a few ground rules (even in post-modern tennis—sorry, I couldn’t resist!). Any healthy conversation ought to include some communication skills and relational competencies. I’ll “basically” let Brian set those ground rules.

Ground Rule # 1: Q and R (Sorta’)

Brian asks not for Q/A, but for Q/R. Q/A, of course, equals Question and Answer. Brian says he thinks most questions aren’t suited for a simple answer (I’m not sure any questions are suited for a simple answer…). So he prefers Q/R: Question and Response—stimulating, open-ended, conversations starters.

So here’s my intention:

To engage Brian in stimulating Q/R about how his ten questions relate to the personal ministry of the Word (pastoral care, small groups, personal discipleship, spiritual direction, biblical counseling, spiritual formation, spiritual friendship, soul care, one another ministry, etc.).

Now, that said, I will try to do not just what Brian said, but what Brian did. As much as Brian likes to focus on “responses,” his book is filled with his answers to his ten questions. That’s not a critique. It’s an observation. And…it set’s the ground rules fairly so that we’re both playing by the same norms. Yes, I will give my answers. And I’ll give them in the form I often tell my students, “This is my current best attempt to respond to this question.” So…please be charitable when you read not only “responses” from me, but also “answers.” I want to be like Brian.

Ground Rule # 2: “Charitable” (Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend)

Brian repeatedly asks that people who respond to him do so charitably. I want to do that. In fact, I hope I do it more consistently than it felt like, to me, Brian did it.

I don’t have the time or space in this first post to share the many examples of Brian’s less-than-charitable interactions throughout the book, but I will share a few samplers…to set the ground rules. Brian starts the book by illustrating his innocent speaking engagement being bothered by four people placing leaflets on car windshields talking about Brian as a “known heretic” (p. 1). He responds by asking the rhetorical question, “How did a mild-manner guy like me get into so much trouble” (p. 2)?

Now, now. Is that any way to start a friendly conversation? So…those who disagree or have different responses from Brian are illustrative of heresy hunters. Brian and those with views like him are innocent mild-manner guys. I know, it’s subtle (well, kind of). I know, Brian didn’t say everyone who disagrees is a “heresy hunter.” He didn’t say everyone who agrees with him is a good guy. But… come on… is that really an open-ended invitation to a charitable conversation?

But that’s topped by the page where Brian introduces the first five questions. The illustration now changes from parking lot heresy hunters to evil guards at a concentration camp (p. 31).

And who are these concentration camp guards? They are pastors (who disagree with Brian).

For Brian, the reason others are not on his quest is because they’ve been locked in a closet, cell, or concentration camp by guards (pastors) motivated by a desire to keep people under their control by making them fearful of the real world. These guards (pastors) are like Satan masquerading as an angel of light. “We see our guards not as guards at all, but as pleasant custodians in clerical robes or casual suits. They’ve been to graduate school (seminary) where many of them mastered the techniques of friendly manipulation…” (p. 31, parenthesis added).

Brian, come clean. That’s not a shout out, is it? That’s a bit of an introductory dig. We’ve been dissed, right? Is this really how we want to invite charitable conversation?

So…now…if I “respond” to Brian with any difference of opinion, that puts me in the camp (remember, he said “many of them” not a few) of those manipulative pastors who seek to control their congregations through fear (techniques learned in “graduate school”—where do pastors go for graduate school?—seminary). So I’m in a double-bind because I’ve pastored three churches and I now equip pastors at a seminary.

The examples could go on and on. These are simply two of Brian’s somewhat subtle illustrative introductions. Read the book and you’ll stumble upon a batch of specific less-than-charitable statements about those who disagree with Brian.

They don’t feel like a “gentle lob” in tennis. They come across like the gauntlet being laid down in a jousting match, like an En Garde” in fencing, like a “glove slap” in a duel, or like a Klingon Bat’leth line-up (you have to be a Star Trek fan).

I’m going to try to follow Brian’s ground rules of charitable conversation, but hopefully more as a friendly tennis match than as, “I challenge you to a duel!” Perhaps the imagery from Proverbs fits best, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). Some of Brian’s words are biting, wounding, sarcastic, in-your-face (yep, mild-mannered Brian). I’ll try to take them as faithful wounds from a friend (believing the best about Brian’s intentions). So…when I’m a tad playful, or sarcastic, or telling-it-like-it-is, please allow me the benefit of the doubt, also.

The Rest of the Story

In “Part 2,” I’ll further explain my focus—what I’m calling “the personal ministry of the Word.” In relationship to Brian’s ten questions, I’ll introduce two themes—the sufficiency of Scripture and progressive sanctification—as they relate to “biblical counseling” and “spiritual formation.”

Join the Conversation

What implications do you see for “the personal ministry of the Word” from Brian’s ten questions in A New Kind of Christianity?

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Is the Emergent Church Theologically Healthy?


Theological Insight into the Emergent Church Movement

Book Review: By Robert W. Kellemen, Ph.D., LCPC, www.rpmministries.org

Classic Book Review Date: 2005

Book Author: D. A. Carson

Book Publisher: Zondervan, 2005

Because the Emergent Church Movement is new and so disparate, a brief primer is necessary to intelligently review D. A. Carson’s groundbreaking work, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications.

The Emergent Church began to emerge in the early 90s (to the extent that a date can be affixed) through the writings of authors such as the late Stanley Grenz, Brian McLaren, L. Newbigin, N. T. Wright, and Don Miller (to name a few). In his first chapter, Carson provides a summary of his understanding of the Emergent Church.
“At the heart of the ‘movement’—or as some of its leaders prefer to call it, the ‘conversation’—lies the conviction that changes in the culture (post-modernism) signal that a new church is ‘emerging.’ Christian leaders must therefore adapt to this emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation.”

D. A. Carson (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. In February 2004 he presented the substance of this book as three Staley Lectures at Cedarville University. (Readers interested in a review of Carson’s original lecture series, can visit http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/millsd/ the home page of David M. Mills, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Honors Program Director, Cedarville University.)

Carson’s core premise is that we must not only be aware of and interact with post-modernity, but also have our assessments of it and responses to it shaped by biblical theology. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church assists readers to understand and evaluate the Emerging Church and its response to post-modern culture.

In his Preface, Carson explains how he plans to accomplish his purpose.
“Whenever a Christian movement comes along that presents itself as reformist, it should not be summarily dismissed. Even if one ultimately decides that the movement embraces a number of worrying weaknesses, it may also have some important things to say that the rest of the Christian world needs to hear. So I have tried to listen respectfully and carefully; I hope and pray that the leaders of this 'movement' will similarly listen to what I have to say.”

Carson begins by defining the Emergent Church as a protest movement against modernist churches and pragmatic mega-churches. In this section, Carson offers a perceptive introduction to the movement and its leaders and begins his critique of what he sees as troubling weaknesses of the movement. He style is frank, thoughtful, and fair throughout. He constructs for readers a list of Emergent Church core principles in the form of contrasts, such as narrative over against propositional truth, and experience over against rational insight. While Emergent Church writers would say that they highlight a both/and approach (such as narrative and propositional truth, the emotions and affections and rational truth), Carson adeptly reveals extremes in these contrast areas.

After providing his list of emphases, Carson offers observations on several praiseworthy aspects of the Emergent Church. These include areas such as valuing authenticity, understanding the need to read the times, reaching out to those who are left out, and exploring the degree to which traditions now followed may or may not be biblical. This section is an example of Carson's desire to present a fair and balanced portrayal of the Emergent Church Movement.

In the next section, Dr. Carson focuses on whether or not the Emergent Church is seeking to reform the Modernist Church through the Word of God (as Luther and Calvin sought to reform the Medieval Church with the Word of God). Noting the complexity of the movement, Carson offers specific critiques including: the Emergent Church does not truly understand post-modernity, it does not assess modernism and the Modern Church accurately or fairly, it tends to cater to post-modernity rather than confront it, and it fails to capture a balanced fully-orbed biblical theology instead choosing proof-texting (a very modern method). Carson provides logical argument and biblical theology to support his assessments throughout each of these areas of critique.

Finally, Carson presents his own positive view on a biblical theology of integrating truth and experience. This section is vital since many authors critique opposing views without ever presenting a biblically thought-through, real-world-relevant alternative. Here he also emphasizes the role of historical theology in developing current models of biblical theology and church methodology. This, too, is an often missed aspect in the Emergent Church Movement and in those critiquing it.

It’s difficult to overstate how important this discussion is. The Emergent Church Movement is a watershed issue at an epic time in Church history. D. A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church truly is a “must-read” for those who want to biblically ponder how to do ministry in today’s culture and how to develop a theology of how to do ministry in any culture.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., LCPC, is the author of Soul Physicians, Spiritual Friends, Beyond the Suffering, and Sacred Friendships.
www.rpmministries.org

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Just Where Did the Emergent Idea of Salvation Emerge From?

Just Where Did the Emergent Idea of Salvation Emerge From?

Recently Moody Press released Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. The “Emergent Church” (EC) is a name given to a loosely knit "group" of Christians who see the church emerging out of its tryst with modernism and emerging into and beyond the post-modern era. Because of its very post-modern way of thinking/being, definitions become nebulous. If you want to learn more, read the book. I highly recommend it.

Salvation and Eternal Life

My thoughts today relate to one aspect of emergent thinking: salvation and eternal life. As is true with much in the EC, they tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Listen to what one EC leader, Spencer Brooks, says about salvation. “I am discovering to my wonder, joy, and amazement that I have mistakenly placed the emphasis of the good news on the eternal. In the Gospels . . . people could become a part of the Kingdom of God . . . not a heavenly dwelling but the place where God is King.”

Let that quote percolate in your mind while we read what another EC leader, Brian McLaren, shares about the kingdom versus salvation. He claims that the stuff of our evangelistic tracts—“God’s grace, God’s forgiveness . . . the free gift of salvation”—is, at best, only a “footnote to a gospel that is much richer, grander, and more alive, a gospel that calls you to become a disciple and to disciple others, in authentic community, for the good of the world.”

Come Let Us Dialogue Together

I could dissect these quotes (excuse me, in the EC, people don’t dissect, they dialogue and converse—so I could converse about these quotes) from many perspectives. However, given my passion for church history and given the EC’s hatred for modernity, here’s the point. The EC would have us believe that the church’s focus on salvation as something you get in the future rather than as something you are now is a result of Enlightenment modernism.

I have news for them . . . long before the Enlightenment, Christians focused on both—salvation as a future gift and as a present reality. Again, I could share much more about this both/and focus. But since the EC denigrates the focus on salvation-equals-eternal life, and since they claim this is a thoroughly modern facet of Christianity (and, therefore, evil to its core—bad, really, really bad), dialogue with me as we briefly focus on their historical fallacy.

Historical Fallacy

As many of you know, I have studied church history for over a quarter century. The church fathers, the desert mothers, the medieval scholastics and the medieval mystics, the Reformers and the Counter-Reformers, men and women, black and white and brown all lived today in light of tomorrow. They all emphasized salvation as the future hope that sustains us now. Yes, the Kingdom had already broken in. Yes, they wanted to live differently now. But, they only survived and thrived because they remembered the future—salvation as their future, eternal hope.

Writing Sacred Friendships: Listening to the Voices of Feminine Soul Care-Givers and Spiritual Directors, my co-author, Susan Ellis, and I have over 1,000 pages of research notes. More than 1/3 of those pages highlight salvation as our future, eternal, heavenly hope. Now, it is possible, I suppose, that all of these godly women, living pre-Enlightenment, could have all gotten it wrong all the time. But that’s not really the point. The EC folks insist that salvation as eternal life later and not only or primarily as eternal life now, is modern. That is, it started in the 1700s with the Enlightenment.

Hmm. Someone should tell the female martyrs of the first and second centuries, like Perpetua, that they were impacted by a movement that did not start for another 1,500 years! Someone should tell the desert mothers of the second through fourth centuries that they were influenced by a movement that did not start for another 1,300 years! Someone should tell the women of the Reformation that they were infected by a movement that did not start for another 100 years!

Before we contextualize the nature of these women’s eternal hope, dialogue with me about another group of historical believers who also focused on salvation as eternal hope. Many of you know that I co-authored with my African American friend, Karole Edwards, Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction. Granted, some of these African American believers lived after the Enlightenment (though some lived before it). However, historically there is no evidence that enslaved African American Christians had any exposure to Enlightenment thinking. But guess what? These non-Enlightenment African American believers highlighted salvation as a future eternal hope.

Situational Pomposity

Now, let’s contextualize this motif of salvation as future eternal hope. In letter after letter, in journal entry after journal entry, in martyrdom report after report, in repeated conversion narratives, in repeated slave narratives—in other words—everywhere, suffering women and African Americans looked to their future eternal salvation as their only hope to survive and be sustained through the horrible abuse they were enduring.

Now, here’s the point. The leadership of the Emergent Church is predominantly lily white, upper class, affluent, well-to-do, country-club-like, and male. In terms of their experience of life, they have had it made in the shade. They have lived the good life. So, it is so easy for them to say, “Thinking about salvation as future eternal life is selfish, shallow, and modern!”

Well, historically it is hardly modern.


And personally, experientially—it is hardly shallow.

Instead, for the oppressed, the suffering, and the persecuted it is pre-modern and it is deep. It reaches from before the dawn of time into time to give all those who are currently oppressed a future hope so they can draw a line in the sand of retreat, so they can survive, and, yes, through Christ’s grace, so they can thrive.

Biblical Sanity

Eternal life for the great masses of persecuted and suffering Christians has always been both/and. It has always been salvation later and the strength to live for Christ now in light of the future hope.

Isn’t it fascinating that this emergent idea of salvation only as a now thing did not emerge from an oppressed people. It is easy for those living a life of ease to say that “the free gift of salvation” is only “a footnote to a gospel that is much richer.” Oh yeah? Take some time to read the plethora of primary sources where pre-modern, non-Enlightenment Christians clung to the biblical view of salvation as an eternal future that gives hope for today.

So perhaps when you mix one part life-of-ease and one part historical-inaccuracy (and one part diminishing-original-sin . . . but that's a blog for another day) you bake a fluffy cake that claims it is sinfully modern and shallow to emphasize the Gospel as focusing on eternal salvation later. But let the yeast of suffering and history infiltrate that mix, and your cake crumbles.

Applying Church History to Ministry

What has motivated my twenty-five-year study of church history? My passion for relating truth to life. I want to learn from that great cloud of witnesses how they applied God’s truth to human relationships.


Guess what? With suffering people 100% of the time soul physicians helped them to find healing hope by looking candidly at misery now in light of a future where there will be no more tears.

The EC in all things claims to want to be relevant. Relevance has been elevated by the EC to God-like status.

Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is relevant to suffering people to jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective?

The EC also claims that in all things they want to express concern for the least of these. In fact, they correctly define one aspect of kingdom living as active compassion on the least of these.

Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is compassionate when the “most of these” (the affluent) jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective that for 2,000 years has been the only perspective which has brought sustaining comfort and healing hope to “the least of these”?

Truth Really Does Matter

You see, truth really does matter. Historical truth matters. Biblical truth matters. I have no qualms with the EC folks reminding me that salvation ought to impact how I live today. I agree 100%.

But I have big problems with anyone telling me, and telling suffering Christians that our future salvation, our eternal life are the crumbs off the table. I’m sorry, but those “crumbs” have nourished hurting hearts and hungry souls since the Cross.

Take away “God’s grace, God’s forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation” and you rob and abuse every sinner who ever lived—which is every person who ever lived except our Savior—the one who promised us eternal life for now and for forever.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Unveiling the "Secret of Jesus"

Unveiling the Secret


I've been asked frequently, "Bob, what do you think of Brian McLaren's latest book, 'The Secret of Jesus'?" Here's my response/review.

As an English major, genre is rightly extremely important to author Brian McLaren. Before interpreting any book, a reader must understand the book’s nature, purpose, and audience. Such is certainly true with “The Secret Message of Jesus.”

Once a reader understands McLaren’s intended audience and purpose with that audience, McLaren’s consistent emphasis on the “newness” of his interpretation begins to make more sense. Here’s his message (stop now if you don’t like the end of the story being ruined by a reviewer): Jesus was a revolutionary who spoke not only about life in heaven later, but also about life on earth now, and not only about individual life now, but about corporate life, societal life, national, political life.

Here’s the thing. I kept reading and thinking, “Yeah, so, how is that novel?” In the Evangelical circles in which I travel, this is simply not the “neo” or hidden message that McLaren makes it out to be. Yes, in these circles Jesus offering eternal life in heaven is an oft repeated refrain. However, equally vital in these circles is the fact that Jesus has a message for us today—a message about how we live together individually and corporately.

So, the secret message of Jesus is not nearly so secret even in the conservative Evangelical circles that McLaren is prone to critique. In fact, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, in Mainline Protestant Churches, in the Catholic Church, in Charismatic Churches, in African American Churches, and even in Conservative Protestant Churches, Jesus is often preached as a Revolutionary whose message mandates societal change now. The Gospel, in these groups, has both individual-salvific and a socio-political ramifications.

Undoubtedly, McLaren disagrees with my assessment, especially of Evangelicals, as the message of this book and most of his recent works makes plain. Perhaps that’s one reason why some Evangelicals feel a tad confused and even unfairly judged by McLaren. He doesn’t like their myopic, judgmental, exclusivistic ways (as he perceives them). However, it does feel a bit attacking to be called such, especially if you have, in fact, been trying to humbly live the beautiful, magical God life in all its fullness just as much as McLaren has. . . . Perhaps they haven’t missed the point quite as much as McLaren suggests. Perhaps, instead, they have pursued the point in mysterious, subtle ways in their homes, churches, neighborhoods, and places of employments—in ways that gentler eyes might see if they had eyes to see. . . .

So, what gives? Why the build up about a new, secret understanding of Jesus? “It’s the audience!” McLaren wants to reach a secular, educated, somewhat liberal audience that has been turned off by their image of Jesus either as an other-worldly Savior or a this-world Pharisaical Judge. McLaren wants to entice these folks to reconsider the stereotype of Jesus that has offended them. I applaud his efforts. And, I encourage readers and reviewers to read McLaren’s message in this light. Otherwise, you will likely be scratching your head with me wondering why this message seems much less secretive than McLaren stresses.

As for the message itself, as always Brian McLaren uses his English major writing skills quite well. “The Secret Message of Jesus” is a page-turner. Even though his message will not be novel to many who will end up reading this book, the author does present it in a captivating way.

As example of his fluid writing style, consider chapter 7 (“The Demonstration of the Message”). I have never read a more engaging, thought-provoking, and enlightening discussion of “miracles” (signs to signify and wonders to make us wonder) and their relationship to the kingdom, then I read in this chapter.

Chapter 18 (“The Borders of the Kingdom”) is another penetrating, helpful, insightful, and practical chapter. I won’t spoil this one for you, but if you’ve ever wondered about the exclusive message of the kingdom (“Repent!”), the inclusive message of the kingdom (“All you who are thirsty and sick, come and drink and be healed”), and how this seeming paradox relates, then read this chapter.

What, then, is this radical “kingdom now” message of Jesus? It has current application individually and societally. Individually, according to McLaren, it focuses on an “interactive relationship with God” through Christ. This is why, in McLaren’s eyes, Jesus spoke in parables. He wanted to use cryptic images to spark our imaginations and prompt our curiosity so that we would humbly engage God, and be engaged by God, in dialogue about how to live the God life.

Corporately, the message is a scandalous call to changing planet Earth now. CEOs cut their mega-salaries and hike the salaries of entry level workers. Corporations care more about product safety than profit margins. Politicians wonder more about how their policies impact world peace than how their sound bites affect poll numbers. Soccer moms care less about their daughters’ playing time and more about being a playful secret agent of the kingdom.

Hmm. In a sense, isn’t this Charles M. Sheldon’s “In His Steps”? We individually ask, “What would Jesus do?” Our individual responses light a candle that causes an epidemic of “passing it on” to others, eventually resulting in world-wide change as the kingdom reign of Christ becomes a practical reality.

One area that many will likely struggle with, both conservative Evangelicals and liberal seekers, is McLaren’s attempted descriptions of heaven. Since the “kingdom of heaven” for McLaren is this-worldly, he must address the obvious question, “What then of the future heaven, of future life?” In chapter five, McLaren briefly discusses the phrase “eternal life” making it about entering now into the abundant kingdom life that Jesus inaugurated. In chapter twenty, he focuses on the eternal, after-life heaven. He tells us what it is not: harps, clouds, ethereal, disembodied. This is vital. But, he does not really tell us what it is. If this is intended to entice seekers, based upon a multitude of conversations with intellectual seekers, I doubt that it will allure them.

For those interested in a thoroughly biblical, captivating, and motivational view of the after life, I highly recommend Randy Alcorn’s opus, “Heaven” (a one-word title, but a 500-page masterpiece). “Heaven” makes heaven, well, very earthy. Alcorn’s descriptions so powerfully portray the next life that they change the way we live this life. In fact, his application is similar to McLaren’s: live now for the least of these.

Whereas “Heaven” is Alcorn’s epic about the next world, “The Secret Message” is McLaren’s classic about this world. He says it best in chapter 9 (“You Can’t Keep a Secret”). “Jesus was master of making the music of life—not just with wood and string, tuners and frets, but with skin and bone, smile and laughter, shout and whisper, time and space, food and drink. He invited the disciples to learn to make beautiful life-music in his secret revolutionary kingdom-of-God way. He helped each of them learn the disciplines and skill of living in the kingdom of God” (p. 77). Much like Dallas Willard, McLaren is reminding us that kingdom-living then and now involves interacting with and imitating the life of Jesus. (For in-depth, theological, and practical discussions of kingdom living now, read Willard: “The Spirit of the Disciplines,” “The Divine Conspiracy,” and “Renovation of the Heart.”) Though possibly not quite so secretive as suggested, the message is well worth knowing, living, and sharing.

Yes, know, live, and share the message of the kingdom of God. It is, as McLaren poetically recounts, the dream of God, the revolution of God, the mission of God, the party of God, the network of God, and the dance of God. Who in their right mind would choose to evade such an invitation?