"A New Kind of Christianity"

The above heading is the title of a new book by Brian Mclaren, outlining his revolutionary ideas concerning a radically new type of Christianity.
The first few chapters are an attempt to completely rewrite the essential narrative that has always undergirded the message of Christianity.  Gone are the doctrines of Creation and the Fall.  There was no primeval falling away from God.  The usual narrative of the temptation and the fall into sin is interpreted in a totally different manner.  Rather, it is  mankind's stumbling and often rebellious coming-of- age, the gradual transition of the hunter gatherer to a pastoral society.  All the previous ideas are alien importations from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.  All the ideas that have been around for two thousand years must go, all the doctrines of the fall, redemption and the notions of heaven and hell .  They are the constructs of the the Greek God Theos, as opposed to the more natural narrative of the Hebrew God Elohim.  This is rather strange: the Greek term Theos is the word for God used hundreds of times in the New Testament.
When asked to define what exactly is the Gospel, Mclaren avoids any text in the epistles and goes back to the words of Jesus in Mark chapter one, "The kingdom of God is at hand". P. 184.  (Note his omission of the the verb repent in the imperative voice) .  The Gospel is defined on the next page in the following terms. "God's new benevolent society is among us" (British readers beware - think not of the Prudential!)  While it is very true that Christianity involves benevolence to all men, I think that it is a one-sided definition. It is too humanistic. He goes on to say that Christian benevolence will bring in peace and justice and the final abolition of poverty and oppression.
I have two criticisms to make.  I think his whole approach is basically  horizontal.  There is very little of the vertical aspects - the divine forgiveness as a result of repentance and faith and the freeing of humans from the power of sin and bondage to demonic forces are omitted.  It is too humanistically optimistic.
There is little in the New Testament about the Gospel bringing peace on earth.  This is usually based on a mistranslation of the verse in Luke where the angels say, "Peace on earth and goodwill to all men."  Luke2:14. All modern translations, based on better manuscripts, read as follows,  "Peace to men on whom his favour rests"  
Peace is not simply and universally dolled out: it is a gift based on grace for those in a right covenant relationship with God.  In fact Jesus said little about societal peace.  Jesus said these disturbing words in Matt 10:34, " I am not come to bring peace but a sword"  He then goes to describe how the gospel will divide families and the closest relationships. This has been true whenever or wherever the gospel is truly preached.  It always divides, it always provokes fierce antagonism   There is something in the Gospel that is profoundly threatening to the human heart. Voltaire was wrong when he said that if there was no god it would be necessary to invent him.  No one in his right mind would invent the Christian God.  He is too disturbing to our selfish independent existence.
The essential problem, one that is glossed over in these new theologies, is the problem of human sin and rebellion.
This a very unpopular topic at present.  The New Testament presents us with a not very optimistic picture.  This is illustrated by a verse in one of the prophets that seems to me to sum up the matter.  "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" or desperately sick or wicked.  (Jer. 17:9 _NIV)  The only cure is a radical presentation of the Gospel; all other remedies are spiritual elastoplasts.


Note: I feel sorry for poor old Plato, that brilliant but dreamy philosopher who believed that the world was an illusion and that the only realities were the eternal 'forms' existing in heaven and who believed that knowledge was a recapitulation of previous existences.  He is often derided by people who have never read a word of the Republic or any of his dialogues.