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, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-H

Reviews (See all 321) Write a reviewfor this

It's a hit!

Wow what an amazing book... Brian McLaren does an amazing job here introducing the reader to variety of ideas that are beginning to come out of the... (show more)

Wow what an amazing book... Brian McLaren does an amazing job here introducing the reader to variety of ideas that are beginning to come out of the "emerging church" movement (or discussion, or community, or whatever you want to call it). It only really serves as a really good introduction though... I look forward to reading other books by the author to see if there's any suggested application of the ideas introduced here.

At any rate, definitely check this out... the chapter on why Brian is a "Green Christian" in particular is really interesting and has profoundly influenced my own theology.

- Dustin (show less)

 

 

by Facebook User

No, it's a flop!

I had such high hopes for this book, but it turned out to be a tiresome read sprinkled with only marginal payoffs. It feels like most chapters are... (show more)

I had such high hopes for this book, but it turned out to be a tiresome read sprinkled with only marginal payoffs. It feels like most chapters are reducible to "I understand what's wrong with all of those mean and stupid Christians out there; I, however, am a humble and well-intentioned Christian, so I can cherry-pick a few ideas from each of them and put them together however I wish", which is a surprisingly egoistic thing for a humble man to say. Postmodernism is not the panacea McLaren wants it to be; modernism may have enshrined one set of sinful values in the church, but postmodernism simply replaces these with a new set of sinful values that a future generation of books will lambast with equal vigor. (show less)

 

 

by Adam Davenport Bradley

More Reviews

• 
  

  I came into this book with a lot of assumptions and biases. Needless to say the majority of those assumptions and biases were debunked. But not all. This was a very honest attempt by a very honest Christian about his struggles and successes as a follower of Christ. He is open, honest, and at times not afraid to point out the mistakes critics have made about his views. I think that's great! It bothers me a lot when people caricature or fall into the fallacy of the straw man with people's views... (show more)

  I came into this book with a lot of assumptions and biases. Needless to say the majority of those assumptions and biases were debunked. But not all. This was a very honest attempt by a very honest Christian about his struggles and successes as a follower of Christ. He is open, honest, and at times not afraid to point out the mistakes critics have made about his views. I think that's great! It bothers me a lot when people caricature or fall into the fallacy of the straw man with people's views or certain positions. I agreed with much of what McClaron had to say and I now have a firm grasp on this controversial book/author/movement.

  All that being said, I disagree with McClaron on some very central things about his view and this book. I disagree with the premise of a "generous orthodoxy" and it steers dangerously close to "denominational pluralism" if I can coin a term. This is dangerous because the fact of the matter is that there are stark differences in many denominations. Picking out the good of each tradition seems great at first but what you end up with is in fact a plethora (pluralism) of doctrines. I'm not saying you should agree with everything your denomination is for/against, but I'm just saying that you almost becomes disunified (which is counter to McClaron's purpose of becoming a MORE unified Church) when you tell the Orthodox you like their prayers but not their liturgy, the Reformed you like their theology (but changing TULIP around to something that Calvinism is simply not) but not their stance on women in ministry, etc. etc. Those are just examples to prove a point.

  Lastly, I don't care how many times a guy can say he is not a relativist by being a postmodernist, that's just plain wrong. He explicitly says in a variety of places that it is okay to remain a Hindu for example, and still be a follower of Christ. No! He also makes the categorical and common mistake that Jesus didn't come to start a new religion. Yes, true. But rather he came to abolish religion. No, untrue. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, but by fulfilling the Law that does not mean to abolish it. Jesus was still a Jew the day he died and even the day he rose again. The religion of Christianity started out as an arm of Judaism and later separated into its own religion because of stark (obvious) differences. He didn't go into depth much about the emergent movement but from what I can tell (just from this book anyway) is that the emergent movement is lax on theological preface and a slap in the face to the Church of the past two millennia. Lest us not forget about the "democracy of the dead" as even McClaron quoted from Chesterton (who I believe CS Lewis also used the phrase).

  I could go on more about some of the things I don't agree with. But I am glad I read this book to hear "from the horse's mouth" about this emergent church movement and its being bedfellows with postmodernism. I will be doing more studying on this fad (as I see it, and hope to see it). But McClaron does say some real good stuff but be forewarned that this autobiographical sort of literature is lax on theological basis, Biblical/Traditional support, and objective truth (which he would deny exists anyway). (show less)

   

  by Facebook User on Feb 04, 2008 at 05:12AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  In the foreword, some writer compares Brian McClaren to Martin Luther which is a bit like comparing George W Bush to Thomas Jefferson. Sorry, but its true.

  McClaren has become the figurehead of post-modern Christianity but now post-modernism is starting to feel like a tired, old relic. While McClaren certainly has some interesting perspectives and arguments in his book, I can't help but sum this book up as a kind of "spineless theology". McClaren tries to be all things to all ... (show more)

  In the foreword, some writer compares Brian McClaren to Martin Luther which is a bit like comparing George W Bush to Thomas Jefferson. Sorry, but its true.

  McClaren has become the figurehead of post-modern Christianity but now post-modernism is starting to feel like a tired, old relic. While McClaren certainly has some interesting perspectives and arguments in his book, I can't help but sum this book up as a kind of "spineless theology". McClaren tries to be all things to all perspectives and tries to believe in most everything it seems...even when the belief in two logically inconsistent ideas would cause a problem with...well logic. The book has a very wishy-washy feel and the reader frustratingly wants McClaren to stand for something- anything- but he seemly never does except for standing strong for his own "it could be this- or that- or this". This read grows incredibly tiresome with all the post-modern rhetoric. (show less)

   

   

  by Dave Lester on Apr 27, 2009 at 07:30PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review