Reflecting on Brian Mclaren and Small Business School

I received a comment from Small Business School in response to Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity. It made me think about the image of the church in terms of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. I've tried processing what this person was trying to describe as he writes about the relationship of perfection and business that incorporates religion.

After one week, I've tried to reflect upon it here. Thank you Small Business School for your comment and your article.

I want to say that I did like your article. It was certain that the boundaries that was set within McLaren's book does not pertain to the whole in terms of philosophy, theology...Christianity. It disrupts continuity in the sense that it feels like a step backward in the evolution of Christianity. It looks unsymmetrical in its relationship, and creates a form of chaos that does not reflect the harmony of Christianity.

An initial observation from a religious stance is that the three factors of religion that you describe is very Buddhist in its nature. Which is fine, but the argument that you put against McLaren seems to be just as restricting when you describe religion in three purposes. It is as if a Muslim argued against a Christian for not thinking past the Bible, but then uses the Koran for their argument. I don't think it promotes the best dialogue because I there needs to be an understanding that both come from different paradigms. Be as it may, I wanted to try to interact with the three factors that Small Business School had mentioned in their article.

• Continuity - I would like to say that the history of Christianity has always shown and promoted times of discontinuity. In the Bible, if Moses conformed with what he was given, would he have ever freed the Jews? Jesus' life is based upon defying those who were the religious leaders of his day, and if he were to have continued that life there would have been no such thing as Christianity. In a more tangible sense, Martin Luther's life was criticized for going against the Christian norms, but in many ways, he along with many others including John Wesley led to the creation of protestantism. a few centuries later, a man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. will also defy millions of Christians to fight racism. On a bird's eye view, Christianity has evolved and been continuous towards perfecting life. It is also certain to say that life is not perfect. At all. Therefore, there will be a need for those within Christianity to show various insights of the world - some will look radical and will cause an uproar like McLaren's book. There can also be an argument that perfection in a continuous sense is subject to the paradigm/viewpoint it was formed within; as we move towards a deeper sense of perfection, there is more difficulty to bring everyone together. I don't expect everyone to be on-board with McLaren, and if it is not to succeed then I will let God make that call. Rather, using his book as a springboard into the issues for today's Christians will give those dividing answers of what people really believe what perfection is. I believe what McLaren is trying to do is simply to show us where the problems/"forks in the road" where Christians do not agree with each other.
• Symmetry - A symmetrical relationship in terms of religion seems to be the most confusing, as I was not sure if it was meant in terms of vertical relationship between God and person, person-to-person, or in other relationships with church and God, church and people, etc. Truth is, we live in a society where relationships are becoming...something not traditional? I'm confused too. I think that there's a point to Small Business School where symmetrical relationships are important. To add onto that, I want to say this: how do Christians define a symmetrical relationship to God, the church, and to the world? I personally think that many Christians do not understand their relationship with the other OR the relationship has been unsymmetrical and always biased towards one side.
• Harmony. My first sermon was based upon a story of Jesus where he describes himself not to come down to this earth to bring peace, but to divide nations (here's the best way I can describe this). I concluded that this may also deal with the creation of paradigms. You can create harmony, but it is always contained within the paradigm itself. Paradigms shift when this harmony is conflicted, either with the problems associated with the paradigmatic viewpoints, or with the solutions associated with the problems. I believe that Brian McLaren's book was not meant to bring peace to Christians...but to just think of what issues the world has to offer. A person may his/her answer in the Bible; others may find it in community of Christians, or in the relationship with nature, science, culture, society, or in prayer. It reaffirms the paradigm they are within, or it sparks a new paradigm, creating that continuity that religions provide, but the beginnings of a harmonious relationship that needs to be more clearly defined both in reflective understanding and practice of faith.
  

I think a more systemic issue pertaining to the contributions of the article for business that relates to religion is that religion is a business. I think you can find some pastors who would admit that administratively, the church is a business that provides an exchange of services. My argument is that the church should have never adopted this understanding. There is a need for the church to provide services in order to stay afloat. It makes the church safe and comfortable. Keep in mind that I have no background in business. But I would hope just like in business, for the church to take risks in order to achieve greater continuity, symmetry, and harmony.

I hope this spurs all Christians and non-Christians to comment on this post. Thank you very much.

Let Brian McLaren's voice be heard again!

This is the second part of trying to uncover what Brian McLaren has done in his book, A New Kind of Christianity. This post goes into depth the last 5 questions that his book covers. Before that, please

Question 6: What do we do about the church? – My classmate Min Ho did an awesome job about writing on this question from the book, which you can read here. For those who would call themselves Mainline Protestant, I suggest you read some of the comments on that post. Min Ho’s blog just puts it bluntly: how do we turn our presently broken churches into a house of Christ-like love?

Question 7: Can we find a way to Address Human Sexuality? Simple, have classmate Bob Rhodes blog about it here. I won’t lie, the first page or two of these chapters will catch you offguard, but how can you not like this: “Fundasexuality is rooted not in faith, but in an orientation of fear” (175). Why not put the two most personal things together in dialogue within the church: God and Sex.

Question 8: Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future? I hope so. In simple terms, I can’t see Jesus and the rapture being the “way to go” in 2012. Rather, can we understand that God and the universe are in relationship with us. Mclaren, have you ever heard of process theology and John Cobb Jr.? You get hints of it from the first chapters, but there is this line that I think you hit the nail on the head: “God is like a parent guiding a child with a will of her own.” (196)… “The future is open, because the compassion and care of God are unconstricted, open wide for us to turn and find a better life than we’re now experiencing by taking a better path than we’re now walking.” (203)

Question 9: I think my classmate Jan Thomas can give the best perspective, because she is an advocate for inter-religion and unity. There’s a book written by Paul F. Knitter who describes how Christians have/will relate to other religions. I suggest you read it so that you can at least identify where you are. But like McLaren, interacting with other religions has more than just religious importance (208). I personally have came to my own conclusions through my own family: although I may not fully understand or agree with those who are not Christian or a derivation of it, I know that they are family (both personal and under the umbrella of “human family”) and will love them indefinitely.

Question 10: How Can We Translate Our Quest Into Action? Classmate Angelina Duells’s blog posts describe the how Brian McLaren writes about the different quests of Christianity. Please take a look at her rainbow diagram, which by the way, is awesome J. What I liked most is what she quoted: “When the head, heart and hand come together...then faith, reason and tradition will come together too, and personal and social holiness will be for us two expressions of one great love.” (227)

Angelina made one last blog post about this book, commenting that this book doesn’t really bring a new Christianity. To some extent, I agree: we still use the same tools of Christianity we were given before. However, I would like to add that Brian is redefining a new relationship: something that is in the process and will never finish unless we (as people, religious leaders, and Christian shepherds/pastors/leaders) actually engage in it. Maybe McLaren is not posing something new about Christianity, but something new in relationship to Christianity: redefining our relationship with God, Jesus, the Bible, with Christians and other religions, with ourselves, with our worship, with life. He started the book saying that we are Christians living in a “comfortable captivity” (31). I think its time for all Christians to start engaging in dialogue: not one-sided or gender/racially/socially-biased, but to bring to light what the rest of the world has been feeling for years. The kingdom of God is near: let us all bring a new relationship of Christ into full light. Amen.

Let Brian McLaren's Voice Be Heard!

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.