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.  In this post, we will address the 3rd question McLaren mentions in the book.

The Question:  Is God Violent?

Western Christianity’s Answer:  McLaren doesn’t really have much to say about how Western Christianity has answered this question in the past.  He talks about how certain groups of many different religions have read their holy books in a constitutional way and have used their respective holy books to justify violence, but McLaren in no way indicates that he thinks this is normative of Western Christianity.  (For more on what it means to read the Bible in a constitutional way, read the post on Question 2: How Should The Bible Be Understood?)

Brian McLaren’s Answer:  In short, Brian McLaren’s answer to the question “Is God Violent?” is “No.” 

The obvious next question, then, is “What about all those stories in the Old Testament where God seems to command and/or approve war?”  McLaren’s answer is, essentially that we need to remember to read the Bible in light of the overall storyline.  The overall storyline is that everything in salvation history is working towards Jesus.  Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.  What we have in the Biblical authors’ writings throughout the Old Testament, then, is an evolution of their understanding of God.  As the storyline gets closer and closer to Jesus, God’s self-revelation gets more and more clear until finally, we meet Jesus, who is the ultimate revelation of God.

This might throw some red flags.  Does this mean we can’t trust those earlier revelations of God?  Were the writers of those earlier books lying?

Let’s look at a metaphor that McLaren uses, because I think it is very helpful.  Think of a series of Math textbooks ranging from 1st grade to 6th grade.  In the 1st grade textbook, we learn that you cannot subtract a larger number from  a smaller number.  Ok.  That makes sense.  You progress through the textbooks, though, and you later learn that indeed, you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number, and when you do, you end up with a negative number.  Were the authors of those first textbooks lying?  Should you throw away everything else that is in those early textbooks?  No.  Of course not.  It’s just that you needed to be taught more basic principles before you move on to more complex principles.

The same is true in God’s revelation of Himself.  He needed to reveal to us basic principles first, before we could understand what it means to “love our neighbor” or “love our enemy” or that the greatest love one can have is to lay one’s life down for someone else.  Because of humanity’s lack of understanding, God had to reveal more basic principles before He could reveal more complex ones.

Chris’ Answer:  Again, with this question I agree essentially with McLaren’s understanding.  I do think there is merit to a sort of progressive understanding of revelation.

Having said that, once again, I think McLaren is at risk of taking it too far.  McLaren goes on to say that because revelation is progressive, we must not assume we have already arrived.  In my reading, McLaren is somewhat vague in what he means by this.  I agree if McLaren simply means that in our personal lives, we are not perfect in lining up our lives with the revelation of Jesus.

I strongly disagree, though, if McLaren means that we ought to be expecting even more revelation before Heaven.  Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.  Scripture is clear on this.  Scripture is also clear that when Jesus returns, we will see things more clearly.  But until then, we have all the revelation we are going to get in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, in short, I agree that a helpful way to understand violence in the Bible (or slavery or women’s rights, for that matter) is to understand revelation in a progressive way.  We just have to keep in mind that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, and our lives and understanding need to line up with Him.

This emphasis on Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God leads perfectly to Question #4–”Who Is Jesus and Why Is He Important?”  Stay tuned!

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.  In this post, we will address the 2nd question McLaren mentions in the book.

The Question:  How should the Bible be understood?  McLaren calls this the “authority question”.

Western Christianity’s Answer:  McLaren thinks Western Christians read the Bible primarily as a constitution.  During a sermon or debate, a Western Christian tends to sound very much like a lawyer does in a courtroom.  A lawyer cites prior case-law, precedents, etc that may be found in court transcripts in order to prove his or her case.  Similarly, when in the midst of a discussion, Western Christians cite book, chapter and verse of the bible in order to prove whatever point they are trying to make. 

Brian McLaren’s Answer:  McLaren proposes that “we read the Bible as an inspired library”.  He goes on to say that we need to pay attention to the context and genre of what is being written.  We should not read poems, parables, letters, proverbs, histories and prophecies the same way.  Each genre requires a different type of reading.  McLaren uses Job as a test case.  Because of context, we can’t read each of the speeches in the book of Job as equally truthful.  We can’t pull a verse out of one of Job’s friends’ speeches because within the context of the story, what they are saying is not true. 

Chris’ Answer:  This is the question that I agree with Brian McLaren the most on.  While he does take it a bit far in some of his examples, I agree with the point he is trying to make.  When we read a proverb, we have to remember that it is a proverb, not a promise.  A promise from God will happen.  Period.  A proverb, however, is just a statement of how things generally work.  It’s important to keep our genres clear if we are to interpret the Bible accurately.

Not only do we need to keep genres clear, we need to keep contexts clear.  Because of this, we should not practice “verse snatching”–taking a single verse to mean something apart from its context.  For instance, we often quote the verse from Matthew 18 that says “Where two or more are gathered…I am there among them” in relation to prayer.  There’s only one problem–Matthew 18 is not talking about prayer.  It is about conflict management among fellow Christians.  The verse isn’t about prayer–it’s an assurance that in times of trial where it seems one Christian has let another down, God is there in the midst of the hard circumstances, helping to mend the situation.  This verse is a pretty clear example of how “verse snatching” can rob us of the original meaning of the verse, even if the “added meaning” is true also.

Stay tuned for McLaren’s third question: “Is God Violent?”  It’s a biggie in today’s world!  Stay tuned!

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!