In this series of posts we are taking the questions Brian McLaren addresses in “A New Kind of Christianity” one by one. The method will be to ask the question, look at how McLaren believes Western Christianity answers the question, how McLaren answers the question himself and lastly how I would answer the question.
The Question: What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
Western Christianity’s Answer: McLaren writes that the main storyline as it has been understood traditionally is as follows: Eden–>the Fall–>Condemnation–and from Condemnation either to Hell and Damnation or to Salvation or Heaven. In other words, for the Christian, the storyline is Eden–>the Fall–>Condemnation–>Salvation–>Heaven. For everyone else the storyline is Eden–>the Fall–>Condemnation–>Hell/Damnation. McLaren argues that this storyline is too influenced by Greek philosophy.
The second key to understanding Western Christianity’s view of the storyline is that Western Christianity tends to read the Bible backwards, in this manner (although the specific names could change depending on different viewpoints): Jesus–Paul–Augustine–Aquinas–Luther–Wesley–Billy Graham–etc. When we view Jesus “backwards” in this manner, McLaren explains, we are really seeing Billy Graham’s view of Wesley’s view of Luther’s view of Aquinas’ view of Paul’s view of Jesus. We do eventually see Jesus, but we see him through a bunch of people’s interpretive lenses.
Brian McLaren’s Answer: One corrective McLaren offers is the idea of reading the storyline of the Bible “forwards” instead of “backwards”. Reading the Bible “forwards” looks like this: Adam–Abraham–Moses–David–the Prophets–John the Baptist–Jesus. The reason this is superior to reading the Bible “backwards” is because this “forward” order is exactly how the Bible presents itself. The storyline is one that climaxes and ends with Jesus.
The second corrective McLaren offers is a different storyline than Western Christianity provides. The storyline McLaren offers is a sort of “socioeconomic and technological” storyline in which each socio-economic advance is paired with a new level of loss of innocence. McLaren’s storyline reads as follows: Hunter/Gatherers–>Nomadic Herders/Shame and Fear–>Agriculturists/Murder–>City Dwellers/Corruption and Violence–>Empire Dwellers/Oppression and Genocide.
Chris’ Answer: I totally and without hesitation agree with McLaren’s first corrective. I think we would definitely benefit from reading the Bible “forwards” in the order that the Bible itself presents. Yes, there are different orders for the books of the Bible, but the idea is to read the Bible according to its own internal storyline. Where I think McLaren strays is in the storyline he offers. McLaren’s storyline, while it may be there in the Bible, it seems a bit forced.
What storyline would I offer as the main answer to the first question McLaren raises? Interestingly enough, it would be very, very close to the list of people (and thier stories) in McLaren’s first corrective. My storyline is as follows: Adam and Eve–>Noah–>Abraham–>Moses–>David–>the Prophets–>John the Baptist–>Jesus. There are two ideas that are key to understanding any ”overarching storyline of the Bible”: Covenant and Commandment. There are 5 Covenants in the Bible, each represented in my storyline by specific individuals: Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus (The Prophets and John the Baptist help to understand the context of the New Covenant that came to fruition in Jesus). I will be writing a more in-depth discussion of these covenants in a future installment of “Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible”.
The second key to understanding any “overarching storyline of the Bible” is the idea of commandments. The original commandments, and with them the fuller idea of the Law, was given through Moses. Many of us could quote many, if not all, of the Ten Commandments. The mirror image of these Ten Commandments are the Two Commandments Jesus gave: to love God and to love others. All of the Law and Prophets, Jesus said, are summed up in these two commandments.
In this new storyline, it becomes only natural to read the Bible forwards instead of backwards, because we are simply reading the Bible for what it is and for the (true) story it presents. I also think this new storyline covers every main idea in the Bible–certainly every idea necessary for salvation.
In our next post in this series, we will tackle McLaren’s second question: “How Should the Bible be Understood?” This deals with how we ought to understand the authority of the Bible. Stay tuned!
Your first of 5 covenants is with Noah. What about the covenant with Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Or do you define that differently?
Great to see you here, Edy!
I guess when I say “covenants” I’m think pretty specifically in the “promise” category. I wondered whether to include Adam and Eve as the first covenant, making 6 covenants total, but decided against it. It could go either way, and essentially is just a matter of wording and categorization. For some authors, it is questionable to talk about “covenants” in the same way before the Fall as after, and technically the command to not eat of the tree was before the Fall. After the Fall, the purpose of the covenants was to reconnect God with his people–to restore and repair right relationship between God and humanity. Before the fall, if we were to include Adam and Eve as a covenant, we would have to tweak our understanding of the purpose of the covenants. Again, though, I’m not a stickler to say that God definitely didn’t have a covenant with Adam and Eve. It’s just a matter of how one understands the categories involved.
With covenants, I’m specifically thinking of “promises”. So with Noah, it’s the promise to never flood the whole earth again, and of course the rainbow. With Abraham the covenant was to use Abraham and his people to bless the nations. (An interesting side note–even from the formation of the people of Israel, God’s purpose is already to bless those outside of the people of Israel. In other words, God calls Israel not simply for thier benefit, but for the benefit of everyone). So, Noah and no floods/rainbow. Abraham and the promise to use his people to bless the nations. With Moses the Law is the covenant. With David the covenant is the idea of the Kingdom, David being the king after God’s own heart, but the promise of the “ultimate King”, the “Messiah”, from the line of David, eventually fulfilled in Jesus of course. And with Jesus we have the New Covenant. Here I’m specifically thinking of the Last Supper, when Jesus is holding the wine and says “This is the New Covenant in my blood…” Jews hearing this would automatically flashback to these other covenants, probably especially the Mosaic covenant, and hear this as the New Covenant being in Jesus’ blood versus, say, the Old Covenant which was in the blood of the Passover Lamb, etc.
Hope I haven’t been too wordy! Like I said in the post, the idea of Covenant and the idea of Commandment will each get thier own post eventually.
Pingback: Question #4: “Who Is Jesus And Why Is He Important?” (McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”) « The Many Faces Of Truth