I Want To Announce My Presence With Authority

In one of the greatest scenes in movie history LaLoosh is on the mound and after being shaken off, Crash Davis, comes to the mound.  LaLoosh will only throw his fastball and Davis wants him to throw something off speed.  But LaLoosh demands to throw it to "announce my presence with authority".  Davis tips the batter as to the pitch and here is what happens... httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20NEbFeXU7w LaLoosh didn't have authority. What about our faith? Do we have any authority? Is there any authority over us? "In Christ" and "sovereign grace" two huge topics that we have tried to summarize briefly through their ramifications in our lives.  Hopefully we were able to somewhat answer the "so what" of these issues.  I just realized that another central issue is our view of the Bible.  Is it authoritative? Is perfect? Inerrant? These questions and so many more fly about in conversations in coffee shops all over the place. I want to take a little different angle on this question.  I am more concerned about whether or not the Bible really is the history and narrative of the people of God.  If it is then it truly informs us our past and gives us insight into our present and future. It speaks to us in a way that nothing else can. How we deal with this issue determines much about how we interact with the Bible and how we understand ourselves. To begin with we must ask - Is there continuity in the Bible? Is there one dramatic line of thought from beginning to end? If there is, then we have a text which is timeless and provides us the guideposts and direction we need.  If not, then what we have is a loose collection of interesting writings, but nothing truly authoritative. I tipped my hand.  Authority of the text, in my opinion, comes from its internal consistency.  If it is not internally consistent then it cannot be trusted to be authoritative. The Bible is the means by which we come to an understanding of who God is and what he wants from us. If it's found to be without consistency how do we know anything? If it's found to be consistent then it demands from us something more than an hour or so a week.

Who's the Boss? or The Authority Question

[caption id="attachment_771" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Well that's not quite how it works..."]
Media_httpdanielmrose_ggwhf
[/caption] This is the second post interacting with Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts.  The first will be a summary of McLaren's discussion and the second will be my reflections. The Authority Question: How should the Bible be understood? As with the narrative question, McLaren, sets up two opposing views of how to understand the Bible.  The first is what he calls the "Constitutional View (78)."  He sees this view as the cause for three critical problems he highlights regarding our use and understanding of the Bible:
  1. The scientific mess (68)
  2. The ethical mess (68)
  3. The peace mess (69)
We come out on the "wrong side" of these issues over and over again because we have missed the very nature of the Bible. McLaren argues his case by using the issue of slavery and comparing how Christians in the South used the Bible to defend slavery.  As a result, "We must find new approaches to our sacred texts, approaches that sanely, critically, and fairly engage with honest scientific inquiry, approaches that help us derive constructive and relevant guidance in dealing with pressing personal and social problems, and approaches that lead us in the sweet pathway of peacemaking rather than the broad, deep rut of mutually assured destruction (70)." McLaren goes on to argue that as a result of our understanding the Bible in a constitutional matter we read it like lawyers in a courtroom.  In so doing we create a case for a particular and then look to find how to support our case by the precedents found in the text. This approach, it is argued, creates tensions in the text that have to be reconciled and in so doing damage is done to the Bible.  The greatest problem is that unlike constitutions which can be amended, the Bible is the word of God and therefore cannot be. This is in opposition to the nature of the Bible that McLaren proposes, that of a library of culture and community.  This means that it is a "carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus (81)." The Bible then should be expected to have tension and even contradictions. Why? Because it is a library with different works of literature that are coming from different perspectives. This is what we expect in any library and the biblical library is no different. Internal discrepancies within a constitution are great problems but they are signs of "vitality and vigor in the literature of a culture (82)." How does then apply out to understanding the issue of authority?  If the Bible is not full of propositional truth, then how does revelation work?  It works, says McLaren, through conversation.  The basis for his argument comes from the book of Job.  He sees in Job proof that, "revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God, we might say (italics original, 89-90)." How does he get here?  He does so by seeing that Job's companions are chastised by God even though they were quoting from the Bible in their responses to Job. Job is not chastised and yet he was the one questioning God.  The problem continues for McLaren because in Job we have Satan speaking and God speaking and these other characters.  Are their words inspired by God?  Certainly not, McLaren says.  These words are used by God to draw us into conversation with the text to leave us in a place of wonder. He contrasts his view with conservatives who seek to "put us 'under' Scripture (96)." He also contrasts his view with liberals who seek to "put us 'over' Scripture (96)."  McLaren's desire is to "put us 'in' Scripture (96)." Reflections I really appreciate the call that McLaren makes in regard to how we understand the Bible.  I have seen this constitutional view in action and it is disheartening.  I also appreciate how he desires us to come to the Bible with awe and wonder.  This is good, nay, very good.  I really like how he closes this section out, "I hope this approach can help us enter and abide in the presence, love, and reverence of the living God all the days of our lives and in God's mission as humble, wholehearted servants day by day and moment by moment (97)." Any approach to the Bible that short circuits this response is flawed and yet often times the lack of this response is not due to our approach but to our hearts. I think that where I struggle with McLaren's approach is that, in my opinion, he does not give the Scriptures their due.  It seems that he has made them less than what they are.  To relegate them as  a mere conversation partner in our spirituality pushes them to the periphery, by definition.  Looking at Job it seems that revelation comes through God's self-disclosure, not as result of conversation.  The Scriptures are a special revelation of the transcendant God to his creation and in so doing help us experience his immanence.  It is here where our sense of awe is derived, the immanence of the transcendant God before us in the Bible. When we read the Bible we interact with God.  We must ask questions and seek him in the midst of this.  We must engage fully.  Dare I say even converse? Yes.  In so doing though we must acknowledge that this interaction is more along the lines of a student conversing with a professor as opposed to a peer.  The Bible is not an ongoing conversation.  It is not changing.  When the authors wrote they wrote with purpose.  They had an intended meaning.  We engage with the Bible and ask questions to understand this meaning, then we must understand how it applies to our world now.  This process does not change the Bible.  It changes us.

What's the Story Jack? or The Narrative Question

Media_httpdanielmrose_dtvax
This is the first of ten posts on Brian McLaren's, "A New Kind of Christianity".  As we begin this little quest of ours I want you to know that I am not commenting on the introductory chapters and just diving into the "red meat", so to speak. Also, I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts.  The first will be a summary of McLaren's discussion and the second will be my reflections. Without further ado...

The Narrative Question: What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?

For us to make sense of any book we must come to some conclusion about what is its main idea.  We do this so that we can make interpretive decisions regarding a text's finer details. To answer this question McLaren contrasts two ways of understanding the overarching storyline.  The first way is that of the "Six Line Diagram": [caption id="attachment_762" align="aligncenter" width="410" caption="Six Line Diagram (34)"]
Media_httpdanielmrose_gfudb
[/caption] This diagram, states McLaren, is the dominant understanding of the Bible from the "fifth or sixth century" (33). He argues that this storyline is brought about through isogesis by forcing upon the biblical texts "the Greco-Roman narrative" (37). What exactly does this mean?  Succinctly, it is the application of Platonic thought to the Bible and specifically taking the cave illusion and adding biblical themes.  He goes on to argue that the god that is represented by this story shall be called, "Theos" who "loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story, and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward into decay. (42)"  Theos is the christianized version of Zeus. In this context McLaren argues against the concept of "the Fall".  This is because the term is never used in the Bible and is inherently "un-Jewish (en 15)."  Theos stands at the ready to destroy because people are changing and becoming and imperfect.  Salvation then is the return to perfection and to stasis.  Those who are not saved are eternally punished because Theos will not destroy the Spirit. To summarize, the good news in the six line diagram is, "Theos, plus perfected souls of the redeemed in heaven, plus everyone else suffering the absolute, 'perfect' torment of eternal, unquenchable, pure, and unchanging hate from Theos, getting what they deserve for being part of the detestable fallen universe. (44)" McLaren provides a counter-story.  He argues for developing the story by reading "forwards through Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets to Jesus. (46)"  For the sake of his text he focused on Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah to grasp the story arch of the Bible which can be understood in three dimensions. The first is found in Genesis.  Genesis sets the table for the rest.  This first dimension is "Creation and Restoration".  Here, McLaren argues that what we see in the Creation narrative is the Jewish concept of "goodness" as opposed to the Platonic "perfection" (47).  Goodness, it is argued, is a relative term as opposed to the absolutism of perfection. It is from this platform that McLaren argues against the ontological fall (i.e. original sin). To that end he states that what is seen in Genesis 3 is a "coming of age story" (49). In this story Elohim gives his daughter greater and greater freedom and she responds with greater and greater foolishness.  His response is not judgment but a patient lovingkindness (this is seen in the fact that Adam and Eve do not actually die on the day they eat the fruit contra God's own words earlier in Genesis 3). The movement throughout the story of Genesis is from garden to city.  This could be understood as "development" or ascending in progress.  However, it is an ironic ascent "because with each gain, humans also descend into loss. They descend (or fall - there's nothing wrong with the word itself, just the unrecognized baggage that may come with it) from the primal innocence of being naked without shame in one another's presence." It is in the story of Abraham that we see this reversed.  It is ultimately experienced through the life of Joseph and the reconciliation that he makes with his brothers. The second narrative dimension is the Exodus' liberation and formation.  The people are liberated from their city-dwelling bondage and returned to the primal wilderness where they are formed.  This narrative "situates us in humanity's oppressive, resistant world in which God is active as liberator - freeing us from external and internal oppression forming us as the people of God. (58)"  This narrative ends in progress. The third narrative is exemplified in the prophet Isaiah.  It is the narrative of "the sacred dream of the peaceable kingdom.(59)"  The dream becomes ever more encompassing as time goes by and moves from a physical concept to that of the "Day of the Lord".  Here we experience the liberation and reconciliation and the return to the good.  This narrative, McLaren argues, free us from a deterministic future and draw us into a realization that, "history is unscripted, unrehearsed reality, happening now - really happening. (63)"

Reflections

So what do we do with all this?  I am thankful for McLaren's gracious and creative approach to the storyline of the Bible.  I appreciate that he desires to moves us away from a purely propositional reading of the Bible.  This approach is the product of modernist epistemology (whether we want to admit it or not, it's true).  He also does a nice job of helping to move us from a foundationalism that is unhelpful when one considers the depth and interconnectedness of the biblical narrative. I also think that McLaren has hit on significant themes: Creator, Reconciler, and Liberator. I am grateful for his deconstruction of the modern isogesis.

I do have some concerns.  Firstly, I am concerned with the move away from an ontological fall.  I agree with McLaren that the six line diagram is overly simplistic, however, I think that we can rightly understand Genesis 3 as an ontological fall if we choose to take a nuanced view.  What I mean is this: while we as people on this side of Genesis 3 are indeed born into sin we are also born as image bearers of God.  This means that while we are radically corrupted we also bear the marks of our creator. I think that McLaren falls prey to his own critique here in that while he seeks to move away from a Platonic reading he simply substitutes it with the Aristotelian. To argue away the ontological fall one must deal with Romans 1-6 and he does not.

Secondly, I think that he needs to do more with the issues of justice.  While Theos is first-rate tool, McLaren's Elohim is a spineless parent who chooses not to discipline his children.  The pastor to the Hebrews in his sermon says, "It is for discipline that you have to endure.  God is treating you as sons.  For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons (Heb 12:7-8). " It is notable that McLaren chooses not to discuss the slaying of animals on behalf of Adam and Eve and that in so doing God made a way to atone for their sin.

Finally, I am concerned about the fact that McLaren seems to be using the fundamentalist Christian movement as his foil and lumps all of Christianity from the "5th or 6th century" on into that same category.  I would argue that Edwards, Calvin, and the like had much more nuanced understandings of the story line of the Bible than what is presented in the six line diagram.  I would also argue that what we find in the writings of those doing work in the field of social identity theory provide for us this nuanced vision that we need (for a great example see Dr. J. Brian Tucker's work).

The Blue Parakeet - A Review

First, Dr. McKnight and Zondervan thank you for the advance copy. -- The Blue Parakeet is a text that discusses how we actually read the Bible. Dr. McKnight brings up two key ideas throughout his short work. His first organizing principle is the concept that the Bible was written in a certain period's time and ways. The second is that we are to read the Bible alongside of tradition as opposed to through it. Dr. McKnight seeks to challenge some of the assumptions that we have regarding how we read the Bible. He begins with a discussion of his own history where people would "read the Bible and do what it says" even though as he began reading the Bible for himself he realized that they did not do all it says. This then leads to the dominant question that he seeks to answer: how do we read the Bible in our times and our ways? The book is divided into four parts, "What is the Bible", "What Do I Do with the Bible", How Do I Benefit from the Bible", and "Women in Church Ministries Today". The first section provides Dr. McKnight's organizing principles. The second and third sections discuss the proofs and ramifications for his new hermeneutic. The fourth section provides an application to a particular issue within the Christian church. Dr. McKnight writes an engaging book. I think that he has provided a useful challenge to the assumptions with which we tend to come to the Bible with. He also provides a wonderful framework for understanding the Bible as story. Many, no doubt, will struggle with his section on women. I am not sure that he proves his point fully. I would like to see this section developed more in a future work. In conclusion, I would recommend this text for those who are thinking about how to read and understand the Bible in a post-modern, post-Christendom context. I would caution the reader to read with a critical eye as it easy to get caught up in Dr. McKnight's winsome prose. This will be a text that will be at the center of the conversation for some time to come.