A Reflection on the Criticism of I Was a Born-Again Mormon

Criticism is an inevitable part of any individual’s journey toward truth. Blair Dee Hodges’ review of Shawn McCraney’s book I Was a Born-Again Mormon: Moving Toward Christian Authenticity raises many valid points, particularly when viewed through the lens of where Shawn was at that time in his theological journey. This reflection seeks not to rebut these critiques, but rather to explore them in the broader context of religious evolution, personal faith, and the ongoing work of The Great News Network.

The Context of Shawn McCraney’s Early Work

When Shawn McCraney wrote I Was a Born-Again Mormon, he was navigating a profound and deeply personal spiritual upheaval. His transformation began with a roadside born-again experience while still an active member of the LDS Church. Unlike many who leave Mormonism for secularism, atheism or plain evangelicalism, Shawn attempted to reconcile his newfound faith in Jesus Christ with the institutional structure of Mormonism. However, he soon realized that these two paths were incompatible—the very nature of institutional religion, including Mormonism, is designed to resist such a fusion.

Hodges’ review rightly points out that McCraney’s early theological work was inconsistent and, at times, lacking in biblical literacy. This is not a flaw unique to McCraney but a reality for many who undergo a radical faith transition—Mormonism, especially at that time, deemphasized a knowledge of the Bible. He was learning, growing, and attempting to articulate a newfound understanding of faith in real-time. It is easy, in hindsight, to look at I Was a Born-Again Mormon and critique its theological positions, but its principles stand very strong in their motivation, especially from the perspective of The Great News.

Criticism as a Sign of Religious Expectations

Hodges’ review seems to suggest that McCraney followed a common “ex-Mormon exit narrative,” wherein a former believer rejects their past faith in favor of evangelical Christianity, often while misrepresenting aspects of their former tradition. While elements of this critique hold true—early Shawn McCraney was certainly wrestling with defining himself in contrast to Mormonism—the deeper issue is not unique to his story. Rather, it is a reflection of the way religious institutions function.

Many who leave structured religions do so with deep emotional and intellectual struggles. They are caught between the desire to remain in their familiar faith community and the realization that their convictions no longer align with it. McCraney’s book, then, was not simply about criticizing Mormonism but about trying to bridge the gap—something that neither the LDS Church nor many in the evangelical world found acceptable.

This is a central issue that The Great News Network continues to address today: the notion that faith is deeply personal, subjective, always evolving. If this is true, what role do institutions play? The traditional model of religion demands adherence to fixed doctrines, creating division between those who comply and those who do not. The Great News Network argues that faith should be based on an individual’s relationship with God, not on the approval or disapproval, alignment with or preference of a specific religious institution.

The Core Issue That Remains Today

The criticisms that were valid against I Was a Born-Again Mormon—inconsistencies in doctrine, a lack of scriptural depth, and a reliance on personal testimony over theological precision—are the natural growing pains of someone earnestly seeking truth, and unlike what is suggested in this essay, they all have a place in this life. What is more important, however, is recognizing the underlying issue that McCraney was attempting to address: religion often becomes more about division than unity.

When someone leaves a faith tradition, they are frequently labeled as “apostates,” “heretics,” or “misguided”, all of which are effective thought-killing cliches. This reaction is not exclusive to Mormonism but exists in nearly every religious institution, as McCraney became very aware of in his public search for truth. Even as McCraney moved beyond evangelical Christianity, reexamined his beliefs, and ultimately developed what is now The Great News, the criticism remained (and was far worse). His doctrinal shifts were seen as instability rather than as the natural evolution of a seeker who refuses to be confined by rigid theological categories.

The Great News Network continues to work against this deeply ingrained religious impulse to divide. Whether through fulfilled eschatology, subjective Christianity, or the rejection of organized religious control, TGNN promotes an understanding of faith that is fluid, deeply personal, and centered on the fundamental belief in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. While doctrine can (and should) be discussed and debated, it should never be the determining factor in whether one is welcomed into the faith… so why is this so uncommon?

A Journey of Faith, Not an End Point

Hodges’ review may critique the inconsistencies of early Shawn McCraney, but in doing so, it unintentionally reinforces the very issue that I Was a Born-Again Mormon sought to expose: the expectation that faith must be static, fully formed, and neatly categorized. The reality is that faith is a journey. McCraney’s early work was a beginning, not an end, and heavily continues today.

Today, The Great News Network has moved beyond many of the theological assumptions present in his first book, but the heart of the message remains unchanged: faith is about a personal relationship with God, not about allegiance to an institution or doctrinal system. If anything, the criticisms of McCraney’s early work only highlight the need for what TGNN continues to do—encourage individuals to seek truth beyond institutional boundaries and embrace a faith that is dynamic, subjective, and ultimately liberating.

Conclusion: A Reflection on Growth

In the end, I Was a Born-Again Mormon represents an important moment in Shawn McCraney’s journey—a moment of trying to reconcile institutional expectations with personal faith. While the book may have contained errors, inconsistencies, and a still-developing theological framework, it was a necessary step toward a larger realization. The criticisms of the book are, in many ways, accurate for the time in which it was written. But the greater question remains: Should faith be judged by where it begins, or by where it leads?

The Great News Network exists because faith is an ongoing, personal pursuit. It does not belong to institutions, nor should it be limited by doctrinal disputes. Whether one agrees or disagrees with McCraney’s early work, the message of The Great News remains clear: faith should unite, not divide, and the journey toward understanding God is one that should be open to all.