Another word on the last word

This is my second post on Brian McLaren's book The Last Word and the Word After That - see earlier here.

I finished the book in June before going to Cambridge, but haven't had time to post further since then, until now!

I find the narrative style of this book and others in the New Kind of Christian Trilogy both engaging and frustrating. It is an easy to read kind of book, even if the characters are one dimensional serving clearly defined narrative roles. I continually want to say things like, 'Yes, I know some evangelicals have treated people badly, but we aren't all like this'. See McLaren presentation of Dan's treatment by the church leadership and Jess' experience at Campus fellowship in chapter 4. You can't dismiss evangelical Christianity by picking on its worst examples and tarring the whole with that brush!

I do like and appreciate McLaren's questions and challenges, see earlier post.

I really liked the exchange on pages 178-179
[Neil tells Dan] "Truth be told, these are the people I know with."
"'Know with'?" I [Dan] asked.
"Haven't you noticed how learning and knowing are ultimately communal experiences, social experiences?" he [Neil] asked in reply.

Yes, I give thanks to God for communities in which I have learned and in which I continue to learn.

A last word then. I'm not sure what this book actually concludes about hell. I think McLaren seems to suggests that whether you believe in hell or don't doesn't really matter so long as you don't make hell the main thing in your scheme of Christian doctrine. I suspect that if you began in a different place from this narrative, let's say a consideration of justice, you might end up with a different answer.
I'm hoping to read Rob Bell's book Love Wins sometime soon so no doubt will have further to post on this in future.

First Word on The Last Word

I'm reading Brian McLaren's The Last Word and the Word After That, which I know will cause some of you to stop reading already ... your loss then!

In his commentary on the text I found the following which I offer with only one brief comment of my own:

Regarding homosexuality and the polarization it is causing in the Christian community, I would ask two sets of questions, one of each side:

If you take the "conservative" position, assuming you are right, how do you believe homosexual people should be treated? Should they be constantly shamed? Made to live in secret or hiding? Deprived of basic human rights, equal pay, housing, and so on? Accepted, but on some second-class status that would treat them differenly from other people? And if you cannot accept homosexual people in your midst, can you accept those who do, or must you reject (on some level) both homosexual people and those who accept them?

If you take the "liberal" position, assuming you are right, how do you recommed we decide what is right or wrong sexually? Does "anything go," and if not, how do we decide how to identify any sexual behaviour as wrong - on what basis? What are the personal and social consequences of a lack of moral clarity on sexual issues, and how can those consequences be avoided or dealt with? And if you accept and affirm gay people, how will you deal with those whose conscience will not allow them to do so? Does your acceptance of gays require a rejection of those who do not agree with you, and if not, how will the difference be dealth with? (page 254-255)

My brief comment: does anyone else think having meetings in Scotland to answer these questions would be better than the meetings we are presently organising and being invited to?

Love your neighbour - all your neighbours

Over at God's Politics Brian McLaren has a good post with a link to a USA Today editorial by Jonathan Merritt.

I very much agree with the conclusion of Merritt's editorial that our Christian duty is to love our neighbour, all our neighbours, perhaps especially those with whom we disagree. Too often debates about human sexuality become offensive name-calling exercises which display nothing of the love of Christ or the grace that should characterise Christian living. This is espeically important for those claiming the title of Evangelical as we should be people who not only preach grace but live graciously.

I generally don't like theological slogans, which are often theological reductions. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' is one of those slogans I find less than helpful.

'Love your neighbour as your love yourself' is not a slogan of this type, it is a command of the Lord Jesus. I think it would make a real difference to our debates if we committed to this love of neighbour. If we recognised and confessed that too often homosexual people have suffered abuse and found only alienation from the Church and Christians we might understand our duty to be loving towards such sisters and brothers - even if, as I understand the Scriptures, we must seek to show them that we believe God has a better way for them to exercise their sexuality.
It is not loving to allow someone to continue on what you believe is a wrong path. It is also not loving to so speak to someone, or speak about someone, in ways that are rude and offensive.

Love your neighbour as your love yourself.

Everything Must Change

Holidays are a great time to finish reading books.

I got stuck in the middle of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change. Not that it's a difficult book to read, just that there is only so much of Brian's writing I can take at the one time.

Everyone should read this book and think deeply about the issues Brian raises. The picture of the suicide machine is very powerful and well used to describe the system and processes that are ruining our environment, communities and relationships.

I'm just not convinced that Brian's analysis of how Jesus is the answer to the suicide machine is radical enough. The Jesus presented in this books reads a bit like a very clever social analyst who has offered a very profound answer to a complex problem. Brian, correctly, identifies God's Kingdom as the solution to the suicide machine, but I'm not clear about what he thinks Jesus role in God's Kingdom is? Is Jesus a teacher of the way to God's Kingdom or is Jesus the way? Is Jesus the divine King in God's Kingdom or a human subject of God's Kingdom?

These criticisms should not deflect from the powerful call to change, the challenge to step outside of the destructive systems that are entrapping us and enslaving our discipleship to serve a suicidal system.

Everything must change, but change begins when we submit to Jesus as Christ, the King in God's Kingdom who alone is the Way we can enter this new, subversive Kingdom of God.

Audio and Video of Brian McLaren

From the front page of the EA Scotland site you can listen to Brian McLaren speaking at St Paul and St George's on Love Came Boldly (1 John 1:1-4) and view a video of Brian, a podcast recorded during his visit to Scotland in Dec 08.

Both well worth checking out.

Listening to Brian McLaren (3)

This is the last of my posts on my 24 hours with Brian McLaren. Thanks to Keith, Alistair of the New Evangelical Theological Symposium for the opportunity to be with you all.

Brian McLaren on the Big Questions
Speaking to a gathering of over 100 Brian addressed the big questions. He opened with an illustration from his time as a youth leader. He asked the young people what were the questions occupying their church groups, and then he asked what questions they discussed at school with non-Christian friends. The two lists were completely different and there could be no doubt which one was the more significant list. The point is that not only are our ‘church questions’ not relevant to our community beyond the church they are insignificant before a holy God who loves this world.

Brian has been studying the global problems we are all facing and asking what does the message of Jesus say about these problems. You can read of this in Brian’s book Everything Must Change. Brian has identified four global crises:
1) Our prosperity system can’t stop growing beyond the limits of sustainable growth,
2) The growing gap between the rich and the poor is stretching our equity system to breaking point,
3) Our security systems can’t cope with the anger of the poor and the fear of the rich,
4) Our world’s religions are failing to provide a story capable of dealing with the first three crises.

Does our telling and re-telling the story of Jesus and the good news of the Kingdom of God address these pressing crises? If it does not have we misunderstood the message of Jesus? Are we in fact misrepresenting the good news of the Kingdom which Jesus came to announce?
Clearly Brian is not replacing a set of irrelevant questions asked within our churches with a set of culturally relevant but equally irrelevant questions. Every culture does have its own irrelevant questions and the church exists to challenge these with the questions posed by the announcement of the Kingdom. Identifying these crises in this way may well be an example of how God uses such crises to recall his Church to a faithfulness to the good news of the Kingdom from which we have slipped. These are the big questions we must answer, knowing that Jesus and his message of the Kingdom provide the answer for us.

One of Keith Green’s songs had a line about how Jesus rose from the dead but the church is asleep in the light. Brian McLaren should serve as an alarm call to us. If we read or hear what he says we are challenged to reflect upon how we live and tell our Christian story. Even if we do not agree with Brian and find we need to change our thinking about the gospel, our serving of the mission of God in the Kingdom will be more faithful for having reflected upon a challenge offered to us from a brother engaged upon a common quest with us of serving Christ in our generation.

Listening to Brian McLaren (2)

More from 24 hours with Brian McLaren

Before you read my thoughts, take a moment to read Brian's meditation on this inauguartion week - Inaugural Week Meditation: So Happy

Let's keep on praying for Obama and the USA.

Brian McLaren on the Biblical Narrative
Brian holds that Western Christianity (i.e. Northern Europe and North America) is not the religion of Jesus but a synthesis of Judaism and Greek-Roman philosophy. In particular the Biblical narrative many of us have grown up with is flawed by this influence. Our received Biblical narrative is in six parts: Eden, Fall, History, Redemption, Heaven, Hell. This narrative pattern is read in terms of Platonic/Aristotelian ideals. Brian suggests that the Exodus provides a more Biblical narrative shape: Creation – Liberation – the Peaceable Kingdom. The question then is what happens to Jesus and the message of Jesus when we read it in this narrative shape? The characteristic message of Jesus about the Kingdom of God suddenly takes a more central place than in the received six line Biblical narrative in which the Kingdom is pushed forward in to Heaven.

I am grateful to Brian for this challenge to think more deeply about the received shape of the Biblical narrative which is so prevalent within our evangelicalism. However, Brian is very anxious to remove the Fall from his narrative shape and I would prefer he spoke more clearly about what we call Redemption. Even if we talk about Liberation on what basis is someone liberated and what about those who resist or reject any offered liberation? We might not like the answers Brian gives, but if we are to hold onto this traditional form of understanding the Biblical narrative we can’t do that because this is the way it has always been, we have been challenged to articulate a more meaningful and Biblical reason for reading the Bible in this way.

No one reads the bible without prior influences or presuppositions. It is time to be honest about this. What are our presuppositions as we approach the bible? How does our cultural background influence our reading of Scripture? These questions have been brought with increasing force before us over the past 30 years or so, it is time to work out some answers.

Listening to Brian McLaren

24 Hours with Brian McLaren

At the beginning of December around 30 of us gathered in Perth to meet and discuss theology with Brian McLaren. Brian is a theologian who arouses strong passions and opinions all over the world; no one it seems is lukewarm towards Brian. I found him to be a most gracious and humble scholar, in this a real example to us all as we engage with one another, especially when we disagree with one another.

Brian McLaren on the Bible
For many evangelical this is the shibboleth question, what do you say about the Bible? Brian spoke of three ways in which the Bible can be read and suggested a forth which he preferred. Some people read the Bible flat, like a legal constitution; it doesn’t matter which bit you pick up it all has the same value and legal significance. Some people allow the Old Testament to set the framework within which the whole Bible is read, others allow the New Testament to dominate and read the whole Bible through this lens of the New Testament. What happens if we recognise the unique role of Jesus as the Word of God and read both the Old and New Testament in the light of Jesus and his revelation of God?

This is a real challenge to us, do we allow Jesus to be the hermeneutic which governs our reading of the Bible or do we allow the Bible and our way of reading the Bible to govern what we think about Jesus? I would have liked to have more time to hear Brian giving examples of how this different hermeneutic works out in handling specific passages and across the sweep of the whole Bible.

For example, how do you read the OT with Jesus as the controlling hermeneutic without abusing the OT? Certainly the OT finds its fulfilment in Jesus but how do we read that in the OT?

The major question for me here is this, which is the touchstone for us the bible or Jesus? The principal element in our Christian faith must be this Jesus who is proclaimed as Christ and Lord, to whom the Scriptures bear witness. No one is saved by what they believe about the bible, but by Christ.