Unease with the evangelical model of proclaiming the gospel has deepened. Many evangelicals have been looking for an exit from the "accept Jesus into your heart" box for years now, and the unease surfaces in many theological traditions.

Decades ago, the seeker sensitive movement rejected the Christianese of typical invitations, and tried to find words that communicated effectively with unbelievers. We need, said this movement, to throw away language that is no longer clear. How do you explain to unchurched Mary what a personal savior is?

For reformed believers, the problem wasn't the words evangelicals used but their theology. The grace of God is what saves a person, not an individual's decision to believe God.

Those of the Lordship salvation group (not necessarily the same people) said that praying the sinners prayer was no substitute for repenting from sin and following Christ in obedience.

Movements to revive meditation practices from medieval and ancient Christianity have joined the criticism of the simple evangelical conversion model. It's not enough to pray the prayer, they would say. God's presence needs to permeate your whole being, and spiritual disciplines teach you experientially how to yield to him.

The nature of personal salvation in Christ has become problematic.

Brian McLaren, in A Generous Orthodoxy, asks the question, "Jesus: Savior of What?" He says evangelism's focus on the individual has created a me-centered gospel that is the opposite of the one Jesus offers.

"I used to believe that Jesus' primary focus was on saving me as an individual and on saving other ‘me's' as individuals. For that reason I often spoke of Jesus as my ‘personal Savior,' and I urged others to believe in Jesus in the same way." He still believes Jesus is "vitally interested in saving me and you" individually. "But I fear that for too many Christians, ‘personal salvation' has become another personal consumer product . . . and Christianity has become its marketing program." (pp 98-99)

McLaren proposes that we think of salvation more broadly. God saves, McLaren says (pp 93-97), when he brings clarifying judgment, or conviction of sin; when he brings forgiveness, or release from the guilt of sin; and when he brings teaching, or the revelation of how to unlearn sin. All of these are saving acts of God in Jesus, by which he moves us from sin to righteousness.

McLaren also proposes that the individual is not the end user of the gospel (pp 97-99). "I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world. By ‘the world' I mean planet Earth and all life on it, because left to ourselves, un-judged, un-forgiven, and un-taught, we will certainly destroy this planet and its residents."

What do we make of these proposals? I am tempted to embrace them. I like them. I like both the criticisms of me-centered Christianity and the comprehensive view of personal salvation as a kingdom tool for kingdom purposes. I like them because I see them as deeply biblical.

McLaren's ideas here are part of the larger unease with the simplistic little world of evangelicalism, and the unease is a feeling I share.

But I have pesky questions. When he says Jesus saves "the world," by which he means "planet Earth and all life on it," does he mean that every human being will be saved in the end, or only those who believe in Jesus? In other words, is McLaren a universalist? Before I buy into his formulations, I want to know how he answers relevant queries.

His answer is (p 112), "Does trying to fit what I'm saying into one of your categories distract you from considering a whole different way of categorizing?"

Nice. When questioned, stigmatize. Attack the questioner's attitude.

As so often happens when I am confronted with McLaren's need for rhetorical control, my interest dwindles.