Andrew’s review and critique of ‘Everything must change’ is entirely consistent with his own novel take on eschatology - good for him. A short sentence in his review leapt out for me, however: “But we transform on the basis of having been transformed.” As yet, the principal weakness, it seems to me, in Andrew’s theological system, is that it gives no hint of how people outside the immediate 1st century beneficiaries of Jesus’s death and resurrection, are to be transformed. There are no grounds for such a transformation within a system that relegates most of the biblical material, the events in the life of Jesus especially, to a particular people at a particular period in history.

Having explored the various synopses and reviews of McLaren’s book referred to, I think I would find equal mixtures of things to agree with, and things to disagree with. Most of all, I think I would agree with his analysis of the framing narratives of our (modern, developed) world, and the hi-jacking of religion to reinforce, rather than challenge, the narratives.

To bring such a challenge, we need, of course, more than narratives - though perception of the narratives in need of subversion and challenge is the first step. Changed lives, followed by changed lifestyle, is what Christianity has always offered, and to which it has always returned in various recovery movements through the ages. At the centre of this argument is the person of Jesus, for whom the cross was the defining feature of his life, lifestyle, mission and ministry - challenging individuals to enter his new society, based on inner transformation.

How much can we expect to change? This is an issue which has more recently been raised not only by Liberation Theology, but by movements such as ‘Transformations’ (George Otis, Sentinel Ministries etc). But how much can we realistically expect to change in the world? Millennial theorists have been arguing the case for at least the last 200 years. I take the view that we can be more optimistic than many, but less universalist than some this side of the return of Jesus.

A dream of a better society begins in the practical and often sacrificial decisions of those who believe that dreams can be fleshed out in action. A more comprehensive global and historical perspective of church history here would be of help. The anabaptists, and communal expressions of the radical reformation and beyond, continue to be pointers to social transformation. But overwhelmingly, the evangelical pioneers of the 18th century onwards have been the major engines of social change both at home and through mission, across the world (through healthcare provision, education, social welfare, social justice etc).

Methodism was theologically an evangelical movement with social justice and reform in its roots. The so-called Clapham Sect set the wheels in motion for the abolition of the slave trade, and ultimately slavery in the western world. Shaftesbury was an evangelical who initiated major social reform through acts of Parliament in Britain in the 19th century. Rowntree, Fry and Cadbury had a huge influence on philanthropic reform, providing model communities which have influenced town planning to this day, and prison reform continues to be the subject of the Rowntree Trust. William Booth was a Methodist who worked to a major blueprint for social reform, set out in his “In darkest England, and the way out.” Booth was theologically an evangelical par excellence. Booth’s book draws attention to Livingstone’s “In Darkest Africa”, which it consciously echoed, and Livingstone is himself remembered as an evangelical missionary whose major contribution to the world was the exposure of the slave trade in Africa, and ultimately its end. To this day, his statue at Victoria Falls is one of the few public monuments to white pioneers which has not been destroyed or removed.

In more recent times, there has been a huge surge in social activism from the stables of the evangelical church. In the UK, we have the various branches of ‘Care’, focusing on public and family life issues. I received this morning a briefing from Care about the forthcoming Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which is passing through the UK Upper House on its way to the House of Commons. Care has been incalculably influential in lobbying for and amending legislation such as this over the last 30 years. We have Steve Chalke’s Oasis Trust, which in this country and overseas provides many ways of engaging faith with social issues and action. Local councils and police authorities are welcoming with open arms movements known as Street Pastors, or Street Angels, who provide a non-statutory presence on the often violent and drunken streets of our town centres in the night time ‘Dr Hyde’ transformation from their ‘Dr Jekyll’ daytime face and personality. The evangelical church community is behind this movement. Christian youth movements are being directed to summers of service in the lost housing estates of our big cities, which are developing into a longer term presence. In Manchester, the Worldwide Message Tribe has provided a model of youth engagement with society which has been a major influence on schools and inner city housing areas. This influence is in itself only a more recent development of the on-going and increasing work of Youth for Christ across our British towns and cities.

I could go on and on, but it would be extremely rare these days to be in any British city or town of any size where there was not some form of active social engagement taking place, sponsored especially by the practitioners of an evangelical faith which, it has been implied, is either moribund or ineffective.

All of this does not amount to a wholesale transformation of society; neither does it necessarily bring into the frame a challenge and alternative to the controlling stories of our culture, which negatively influence Christian lifestyle and practice. But such challenges are bring brought, and they are not the sole prerogative of the so-called emerging church. In the USA, I would have thought one of the most effective sources of challenge to culture and government has been Jim Wallis’s ‘Sojourners’ movement. Wallis’s book, ‘God’s Politics’ became a bestseller amongst all types of books sold in the US - and deservedly so. McLaren, and his latest book, are heavily promoted on the Sojourner’s website, and clearly McLaren and Wallis have much in common. Perhaps in time, McLaren’s theological innovations will settle down into something more in line with mainstream belief - which has produced a Wallis, and maybe in the end will prove that a ‘Left Behind’ premillennial pessimism and withdrawal from the world was an aberration which needed to be spewed out.

So should there be an ‘emergent’ critique of church and theology? Yes to both - because times of cultural change such as we are profoundly experiencing, need radical reappraisals of our belief and practice. But for me, the catchphrase tends to hold good: that the antidote to abuse (theologically, ecclesiologically) is not non-use but correct use. In other words, highlighting and rejecting theological or ecclesiological distortions should not lead us to dispose of the real thing - no matter how profoundly or extensively our reasons for such a disposal may be argued.