Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am a missional +evangelical +post/protestant +liberal/conservative +mystical/poetic +biblical +charismatic/contemplative +fundamentalist/calvinist +anabaptist/anglican +methodist +catholic +green +international +depressed-yet-hopeful +emergent +unfinished Christian (Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 2004), 297 pages, ISBN 0310257476

No reader of this book will finish it unaffected. Critics of McLaren or the emergent conversation will have more disdain and “ammunition” for their polemics. Leaders—especially those aware of the shift from modernity, colonialism, Enlightenment thought to a pluralistic culture—will be informed and challenged by the contrast of values he identifies with.

More clearly presenting his beliefs here than in his narrative trilogy that started with A New Kind of Christian, McLaren draws out the strengths and biblical emphasis he finds in the breadth of Christian traditions—giving us one of the longest subtitles since the 18^th Century. Or to put it another way, this book provides an answer for many criticisms fielded against McLaren’s emergent views while offering a more generous expression of orthodoxy.

In the chapter “Jesus: Savior of What?” McLaren writes, “Salvation is what happens when we experience both judgment and forgiveness, both justice (exposing the truth about our wrong) and mercy (forgiving the negative consequences we deserve). Without both we don’t end up with true salvation. … Forgiveness without conviction is not forgiveness: it is irresponsible toleration. It doesn’t lead to reconciliation and peace; it leads to chaos” (95, emphasis and parenthesis are his). In “Why I Am Emergent,” McLaren addresses relativism, “… I and others, while we aren’t ‘for’ pluralistic relativism, do see it as a kind of needed chemotherapy. We see modernity with its absolutisms and colonialisms and totalitarianisms as a kind of static dream, a desire to abide in timeless abstractions and extract humanity from the ongoing flow of history and emergence, a naïve hope to make now the end of history (which sounds like a kind of death wish or millennialism)” (256, emphasis and parenthesis are his). Of course, many Christians remain unconvinced that absolutism is a cancer to be expunged from the body of Christ.

“Jesus debated the Pharisees not so that his super-orthodoxy of the exclusively right could finally prevail over theirs, but so that his generous orthodoxy of God’s saving love for all could open wide the doors to God’s house, with a special welcome for the poor, the brokenhearted, the prisoners, the sick, and yes, even the mistaken” (295, emphasis his). Therefore McLaren’s lengthy subtitle may also be a symbol of challenge to all, especially those who value distinctions that set them apart from other Christians.

While I disagree with McLaren over some points, I deeply appreciate the generous invitation he has extended to join the conversation about what it means to be telling the story of Jesus with our whole lives.

Reviewed by Raul Mock

Preview this book in GoogleBooks: http://books.google.com/books?id=MUtyY3jweI0C

Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis, eds., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 294 pages.

This book is a fine addition to Zondervan’s Counterpoint series, in which controversial theological issues are examined from a variety of stances by reputable scholars and/or denominational leaders. This particular book offers a variety of perspectives on the relationship between the evangelical movement and the oldest Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Respected evangelical scholar J. I. Packer writes the forward and five pastors and theologians, some evangelical and some Orthodox, offer answers to the question of whether Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible. All five present their answers (yes, no and maybe) and the other four are given the opportunity to respond to the presenter. The presenting writer is then allowed to respond to the respondents.

Bradley Nassif, an Orthodox theologian with an extensive background in evangelical higher education and ecumenical activity offers the sole affirmative response for the compatibility of these two Christian traditions. Nassif demonstrates not only a thorough grasp of his own tradition but an impressive comprehension and positive assessment of evangelicalism. His primary thesis is that Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible because Orthodox theology is evangelical, whether or not Orthodox adherents and church leadership care to identify it as such. Nassif uses David Bebbington’s fourfold definition of evangelicalism to show Orthodox and evangelical compatibility. First, both groups emphasize “crucicentrism” (centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Christ), “biblicism” (commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture), “conversionism” (personal commitment of one’s life to Christ) and “activism” (witness and holy living). Nassif grants that both Orthodoxy and evangelicalism do not often emphasize specific doctrinal elements contained in these basic agreements to the satisfaction of each group, but the agreement is nonetheless there in principle.

Michael Horton, a Reformed evangelical theologian, writes next, denying the compatibility of the two traditions. Horton begins by appreciating the areas of commonality between the two, such as a high view of Scripture and conservative Christology (doctrine of Christ’s person and work). He finds problems, however, with the high view of church tradition espoused by Orthodoxy in relation to Scripture, finding there the same problem he perceives with the Roman Catholic view. Even more fundamentally, however, Horton alleges that Orthodoxy does not possess an adequate view on issues of sin, free will and salvation, particularly with regard to justification and sanctification. He contends that, due to Orthodoxy’s stress on sanctification, it promotes a salvation by works that fundamentally denies justification by faith alone. He claims that the evangelical view denies any role of the human in salvation and that this, in contrast to the Orthodox view, is the true Gospel message.

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 291 pages.

Post-modernism is a philosophical perspective many Christians are now embracing in order to overcome the debilitating effects of modernity on the Christian church. What is refreshing about James Smith’s book is that he questions whether this approach is as helpful for Christian theology as it first appears. In fact, Smith proposes that post-modernism is in reality a continuation of the modernist project. This book offers an overview of the place of radical orthodoxy (RO) within the context of a post-secular/post-modern theological landscape. His aim is to draw together the thematic strands of RO in order to appraise its contributions to the theological enterprise and critique the misaligned assurance in the supposed neutrality of the modernist and post-modernist paradigms.

The book is divided into two sections. The first provides a map for understanding RO within the context of current theological trends. Smith suggests that four theological schools of thought have come to prominence. (1) The correlationist project emerged out of Tübingen (Germany) and made its way into the US through Union Theological Seminary (NY), The University of Chicago Divinity School (Chicago) and even ironically the fundamentalist school Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas). This approach tries to correlate revelation with cultural, political and economic systems, and assumes the neutrality and universally accessible methods of the so-called “secular” sciences. (2) The Revelationist school is Barthian at root and has made its way from Basel (Switzerland) to Yale Divinity School (New Haven), Princeton (NJ) and Duke University (Durham, NC). This school highlights the antithesis between the gospel and culture, and therefore subverts all secular frameworks. The tendency in the Revelationist approach, though, is to jettison the secular sciences as irrelevant and focus exclusively on revelation claims. (3) The Neo-Calvinist school emerged in Amsterdam and has made its way into Calvin College (Grand Rapids) and the Institute for Christian Studies (Toronto). This approach represents an early post-secular critique, which is deeply suspicious of secular methods for arriving at knowledge and calls into questions the “sacred” tenets of modernity. (4) Finally, the Cambridge phenomenon of RO likewise emphasizes the antithesis between revelation and culture, but unlike the Barthian project’s abandonment of the secular, RO maintains there is no secular because even these methods presuppose faith commitments. For radical orthodoxy, all nature and culture is graced, but in need of redemptive transformation. RO is therefore critical of post-modernism because it is in reality a continuation of modernity.

Smith then outlines the theological contours of RO, which includes an ecumenism that transcends confessional boundaries, a retrieval of pre-modern sources and a hermeneutical disposition that seeks to be unapologetically confessional. Moreover RO is critical of modernity as a flawed system, because it reduces truth to a single system based on a notion of universal reason; RO is post-secular in the sense that it identifies secular reason as myth; as a theological movement it emphasizes participation and materiality, meaning that creation has to be understood as participating in and suspended from transcendence. This position fights against modernist and post-modernist notions that the world is self-contained and therefore without the need for the divine. In other words, nihilism (e.g. lack of transcendence) is questioned because it assumes that the universe is isolated and self-supporting. RO also emphasizes the sacramental, liturgical and aesthetic modes of worship as a consequence of the incarnation and participation in the divine. Finally, RO offers a cultural critique of the world in the hope for its redemptive transformation in all areas of language, history and cultural. Throughout the discussion, Smith draws upon the Dutch Reformed tradition to voice his agreements and disagreements with RO, arguing that the two disciples would benefit from fruitful dialogue.