• Summary
• Full Review
• Our Rating of this book

Summary

Camel Disabler

Book Description:
"Pastor Dan Poole returns with another personal and theological crisis in this final installment of McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian trilogy, which again features fictional characters engaged in nonfictionish theological dialogue. This time around, Poole has been granted an extended leave of absence from his conservative church as it investigates what it believes to be his liberal theological leanings, especially regarding the doctrine of hell and salvation. In rather predictable fashion, Poole finds himself questioning his own beliefs about hell and God’s goodness, and just as predictably, Poole’s friend Neo gently shepherds Poole away from the traditional doctrine of hell by pointing out that salvation is not just an individual matter but a communal one as well..."

As readers may know, I do not hold any truck for the view of hell as eternal torture. I wish to emphasize this because of the perception that may arise that I am trashing McLaren because of he is "watering down" hell. That is false; and I might well be accused of doing the same. Rather, I am trashing McLaren because he is an irresponsible manipulator.

I read about 60 pages of the book before I got sick enough of it to stop reading. It was bad enough to have to endure yet more of McLaren's tedious, passive-agressive manipulation-by-whimsy-and-sympathy narratives; and it was also a disgrace to see him trying to refute the usual view of hell (which, I again remind the reader, I do NOT endorse) with emotional rhetoric rather than reason and/or exegesis. Neither of these, however, was the straw that broke the camel's back. What did THAT was his irresponsible scholarship, and particularly, his giving credence (by presentation in the mouths of characters) for ideas that resurrection was borrowed from Zoroastrianism and that the name "Pharisee" came from the word "Farsi, or Persian". [59]

It does not matter in the least that he also presented the correct view [61] of the definition of "Pharisee" or that his lead character said the "Farsi" interpretation was disputable (while also saying that if it was legitimate, "it's very significant".) Christian postmodernism operates under the pretense of having a "discussion" and while discussion is hardly a bad thing, when it is used as a cover for ignorance, it is appalling.

As readers may also know, I have done my homework on Zoroastrianism and Judaism. I have also looked into the issue of Judaism and the afterlife. It is this research that shows me that in presenting both views as though equally valid, McLaren writes in ignorance and that his cover of "discussion" is indefensible. As one who has already said that he finds debate over doctrine nauseating, it is clear that this is merely an excuse for not being able to do critical research -- whatever the reason, whether his own dyspepsia or his lack of critical capability.

Put this one, and the rest of postmodern Christianity, into the trash where it belongs.

Discuss this review here.