Hmm… There’s no way in which I can write all my thoughts about Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity. In what has began as a class project, I would like to speak on behalf of someone who supports what Brian McLaren is proposing in his book. Type McLaren’s name into Google and you will find that this pastor and his book has been described as a “heretic” from the right side and repetitive from the left. I hope that through this post (and the next…) you would feel compelled to read this book. This post will try to expose your mind to the first 5 questions, with insight from my classmates and other bloggers.
Question 1: What is the storyline of the Bible? What we have come to understand is that the way we see the Bible has been interpreted over and over, largely in part towards Greco-Roman influence and superiority. If we strip away what we have understood as the six-lined narrative, we can see God and the purpose of Jesus in a new light. We are a product of 2000 years of being shaped into Christianity, emphasizing all the “good” and ignoring/killing/excommunicating the “bad”, “indifferent”, and “marginalized”. I suggest you watch McLaren’s answer. Chad Holtz gives an insightful perspective of what McLaren is trying to do in the first couple of chapters and in this first question here. Scroll down halfway.
Question 2: How should the Bible be understood? McLaren suggests that scripture could be, and has been used to defend and advocate any position like constitutional law (78-79). Rather, think of the Bible as an “inspired library” that has kept track these conversations so that we can continue them (83). My classmate, James Kang, takes a different direction in his blog, asking, “when will BIBLE 2.0 come out?” Chad Holtz explains his take as well.
Question 3: Is God violent? Depending on what chapter, verse, or book in the Bible can give you a range of depictions of God. You could potentially choose who you would like to pray for, as McLaren mentions Ricky Bobby as a sad example (first 2-3 mins). McLaren poses that the negative images of God need to be understood as the best depictions that our Christian ancestors could describe with words (103) and that the full image description of God has been in constant transformation to something that is culminated into what we know and to believe is Jesus.
Question 4: Who is Jesus and why is he important? McLaren is so focused on the issue that Christianity has heavy Greco-Roman influences because Jesus’ life was based upon moving away from the Greco-Roman life (126). Using the book of John, McLaren describes Jesus as the new Adam bringing a new Genesis to the world (135).
Question 5: What is the Gospel? McLaren uses Romans as the moving point: to understand the gospel that Paul preached, we have to understand the gospel that Jesus preached, which in its most raw form, it is to know that the Kingdom is at hand (138). This Kingdom, as McLaren brings to life through Romans shows that it is the presence of everyone and everything being encompassed underneath God. The Kingdom is now.
I will leave you with this until next time. Mike Morrell wrote a blog in defense of what McLaren is trying to do, which McLaren appreciates as well as I. Here is a few things of what he said:
…From my vantage point, Brian is now doing what many wish Obama would do: Grow a pair and say “You know, my message isn’t for everybody. I’ve been very diplomatic for years, but that hasn’t gotten me very far with those who continue to loathe me and my message. So now I’m going to speak plainly to those who like these kinds of conversations, which can still be all kinds of people. Except for those who, by general disposition, are inclined to (yes) ask “Is it acceptable to my religious/ideological community or belief system?” before they ask “Is it possibly true, valuable, and worth exploring?”…
Like Mike Morrell, McLaren is not above criticism. In fact I believe he wants constructive criticism. That’s the whole point. Lets actually talk about the things that we put our entire faith into.
1 comment:
The accent is off. To make this "dialogue" work at all, the first principles by which we understand space and time need to be on the table. Most theological discussions start with Newtonian presuppositions. Thus, though the conclusions may be OK within a limited parameter set, they do not work well outside of it. Here is my attempt at defining first principles that cross party lines: http://smallbusinessschool.org/page869.html
Post a Comment