Teetselberry, eat your heart out.
Brian McLaren came and spoke at LaSalle Street Church last weekend. We had an all-day conference with him on Saturday (10-4) at which he talked mostly from his new book, A New Kind of Christianity. McLaren has received A LOT of flack about this new book, even more than his previous ones, and has really peeved off a number of evangelicals. The book is structured around 10 questions about Christian faith and praxis. He spoke to us mainly about the narrative of the Scriptures, the authority of the Bible, how Jesus and other religions interact and a bit on how we move forward as a community.
On the Bible, McLaren's main points were that we read the Bible through a Greeco-Roman lens, specifically a 6 line narrative, influenced VERY heavily by the debate between Plato and Aristotle that was at the philosophical heart of Greeco-Roman culture, where the story goes like such: Perfect Unchanging Garden, Fall, Condemnation into Change/sin, Salvation to Unchanging Heaven or Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell. At first read, this seems fine. However, McLaren suggests that we are reading this structure onto the Bible, that it really isn't there in the text (Imagine that! We bring baggage and bias to the text! Anthropology wins again!). He suggests a much different narrative, one that has the Exodus story as the main narrative, the Genesis story as a prequel and Isaiah and the Prophets as a call to a coming Kingdom of God or peaceable kingdom.
Really, what McLaren is offering us in how to read the Bible isn't anything new. At least for Catholics. For Protestant, especially Caucasian American Evangelicals, it is something a bit new. (Yes, a few have heard of this type of stuff before, but as a whole church, we are unaware). What McLaren is suggesting is that we read the Bible as the liberation theologians do, as Rabbis do, as progressive Catholics and mainline protestants do. God created a good world. It was a world filled with possibility, change and evolving creatures. After sin entered the world, God saved his people in the Exodus, where he definitively sides with the oppressed, downtrodden, etc. The prophets give us a hope for the future, one in which we can imagine a new world of peace, wholeness, shalom.
Another bit of wisdom McLaren offered was that we stop reading the Bible like a constitution and start reading it like a cultural library. Initially when I read this in his book, I didn't like this. Now, however, I love it. Constitutions are meant to be sited and used to defend agreed upon statements. Libraries are meant to be used to see the diversity of views and become a part of the conversation that is continuing. When we read the Bible like a constitution (something that wasn't around in 'Bible times') we pull out verses and paragraphs to defend and back-up certain claims, like slavery is right, men are better than women, and a host of other things. McLaren suggests that the Bible isn't meant to be used this way, and shouldn't be. We should see, read and use the Bible as a cultural library. One that has great power to instruct and was inspired by God, yet isn't 'perfect' as a constitution is, but as a library is. We should instead use the stories of Scripture to continue the conversation between humans and God and live our lives from that relationship.
McLaren also spoke of other religions and their place in the kingdom of God. I won't write much on this, since I was busy making coffee during this point and will probably expand on this in a later post, but will put out a few things I loved. One thing he said that he isn't so much interested in Buddhists and Muslims and Atheists becoming Christians, per se, but all people, including Christians, becoming fervent lovers of Jesus. Following Jesus doesn't necessitate following a certain religion. Not to say that a Buddhist that loves Jesus wouldn't change some of their practices and/or beliefs, but then again, Christians that pursue the life of Jesus would probably change a lot of their practices and beliefs too!
Overall, I think A New Kind of Christianity and the one-day conference with McLaren awoke in me my desire to explore these topics more. And that I'm super progressive. Even if I am a Calvinist. :)
Peace,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very cool!
I think I should read this book. Since I haven't, I may be misunderstand McLaren's point, but on first blush it seems to be a mistake to place the Exodus at the center of the narrative. Shouldn't we read the entire thing with Christ at the center? Placing the Exodus where Christ should be seems a form of idolatry. The entire Bible is the story of God glorifying himself by restoring the world to himself through Christ. The exodus is part of God's story, but it is not the center of it.
Teetselberry here... And proud to have nagged Devin into this post. Very proud.
McLaren is nothing if not tantalizingly unorthodox...
As I half-jokingly have said before, I think most of what you described is what I would fairly call heretical. Placing it alongside mainline (aka liberal) denominations and Catholicism is hardly a point in favor in my esteem.
Also, why is McLaren allowed off the cultural-anthropological trappings hook? Oh, that's right, I keep forgetting that the social scientists have trapped us all in the inescapable cortex of either admitting the ignorance of our white privilege and adapting to liberation theology or forever being blinded by hegemonic goggles.
The Exodus as central narrative makes no sense. God didn't save the people from sin - he saved them from slavery. McLaren may equate the two, but we shouldn't. Exodus is the story of God's constant love and provision for his chosen people and of the repercussions of their faithfulness or disobedience. In this, it is a picture of His love and provision for us. I hardly believe this orthodox understanding could be hindered by cultural blinders, as it has been understood as such by Christians around the world for centuries.
Suffice it to say, I'm glad you're blogging again my boy!
Okay, so I have no idea what Eric said in the post above. I'd like to say I used to in my Wheaton days, but I doubt that.
Anyways, I thought I'd jump in with an aside comment. I find McLaren's perspective and the whole emergent type movement interesting, but not all the impressive. I'm just waiting for what action it produces. Whether it's the emergent church, the conservative church, or anyone in between. I'll believe it when I see it.
Read it again Ariah, it's not that complicated.
I don't understand how you don't already see a church in action? Where are you looking, exactly? The church is in action EVERYWHERE.
hegemonic goggles.
inescapable cortex
cultural-anthropological trappings
Had to look that stuff up, more work then I'm used to for a blog comment.
And yes your right, the church is in Action, I should have clarified that a bit. I agree most people aren't just sitting on their butt doing nothing. However, I see church people as a whole doing barely more then non-church people. So by "in action" I mean the church looking and living like Jesus did and talked about doing, not relative to sitting comatose.
Yea, I played a little loose with the English language there. :)
I just don't see the relative inaction that seems to bother you so much. Maybe it's because I make a distinction between "church people" and "Christians." Lots of people go to church every week and don't let it make an impact. These folks tend to be part of the mainline denominations, but it's certainly fair to say there are such fakers in every church. On the other hand, those of us who get that faith results in love and action tend to be just those things - LOVING and ACTIVE! Maybe it's circular to reason that real Christians are active and so you can't criticize the church for being inactive. Oh well.
Post a Comment