Brian McLaren On Orthodoxy
Is there really a historical orthodoxy or is there simply our impression of what we think is historical orthodoxy?
“I am deeply committed to doctrinal orthodoxy, meaning I want to be faithful to the truth and to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even if that puts me at odds at certain points with what this or that group has determined as doctrinal orthodoxy. For example, my Calvinist friends who claim orthodoxy need to remember that to the Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists are heterodox from the get-go, because they’re not submitted to the patriarchs and bishops of the One True Church. And my many Wesleyan and Quaker and Anabaptist friends who consider themselves doctrinally orthodox are only questionably so from the perspective of some of my Calvinist friends. And my Dispensationalist friends often speak of “historic orthodoxy” without noticing the irony that before 1835, their approach to the faith had never even been dreamed of. The same could be said in slightly altered ways for Adventists and Pentecostals.”
Brian McLaren, interviewed by Melvin Bray
Love him or hate him, Brian has a way of speaking what is one of the primary tensions in Christianity. There is so much orthodoxy, can we really say there is a historical orthodoxy?
A New Kind Of Christianity – Book Review Question 4 & 5
Title: Brian McLaren’s A New Kind Of Christianity, Ten Questions That Are Transforming The Faith.
Overview: As Emergence Christianity progresses, it becomes critical for voices to begin offering not just critique but alternative perspectives that make sense. Brian offers ten questions that begin to frame an alternative perspective to traditional evangelical orthodoxy.
Part 1: Question 1 | Part 2: Question 2 & 3
Question 4: Who is Jesus and Why Is He Important?
What I Hear Brian Saying: This is arguably one of Brian’s strongest chapter in the first section of the book. Brian attempts to reframe the question of God using Jesus as the lens. In other words, if we really want to know who God is, we begin with Jesus. This approach is deeply important because it follows the question, “Is God Violent”. We need Jesus to help clarify what God is really like.
My Response: Brian’s response to this question presents a very intriguing paradox to the traditional viewpoint of an angry God. By suggesting that we can fully know what we need to know about God through Jesus begs the question, “If God is like Jesus then why does God need violence to be satisfied?” If we assume God is being appeased, can we really make the claim that Jesus is the best reflection we have of God? This image diverges at the cross where we historically assume we see an angry God being appeased by the blood of Jesus. Brian’s point essentially asks how do we reconcile these two different images?
I think if this question does anything it will continue to stimulate the tension and dissonance we have with our traditional views of atonement. It will force us to continue asking questions and search for answers.
Question 5: What is the Gospel?
What I Hear Brian Saying: This question is going to frustrate a lot of people who really like Paul’s approach to the six line narrative. Brian suggest that we frame our understanding of the Gospel around Jesus instead of Paul. And as strikingly obvious as that would sound, it is the exact opposite that we typically (especially as evangelicals) approach our understanding of the Gospel. Brian suggests framing it around the Jesus’ “The kingdom of God is at hand”. Brian suggests that the kingdom is a “new Genesis…a new Exodus…and becoming a citizen of a new kingdom.” (p 140)
My Response: The tension I have with Brian’s response begins in his original assumption that there is no ontological shift occurring in Genesis. This presents a problem for the rest of the story. What do we do with the cross. Without a problem to solve, what is the point of the cross in light of the story? Brian seems to suggest something very similar to moral exemplary theory of atonement, which essentially means that Jesus provided us with a grand example of obedience to follow. Brian even explores his own tension with seeing Jesus as liberator and king under the traditional penal substitution theory, which is framed by the six line narrative. It is here that Brian is attempting to sit in the tension of what so many hold and find something new to grasp onto.
Brian also spends substantial time reframing Romans, which the traditional theory rests on. I really liked Brian’s approach, but at the same time I couldn’t help but wonder if Brian limited his view to only what he wanted to see. Brian is very comfortable with his approach (assuming no ontological problem) and he assumes his reader does too in many cases.
Section 1 Summary: These first five questions make up the bulk of Brian’s attempt at reframing of Christianity. His orthodoxy essentially begins with an assumption that many are suggesting is classic liberalism. And this brings out the tension for me. I liked the first five questions because we need a reframing. I still think and believe that there is a better way to reframe the story, what many would call the metanarrative.
Straight From The Horses Mouth
A guy I follow offered the following quote from Bill Hybels. I don’t have the exact source but I have to believe it is true.
“The local church is the hope of the world, and its future rests primarily in the hands of its leaders.” – Bill Hybals
Do you buy that statement?
What’s Your Intrinsic Mobilizing Story?
Do we have an intrinsic mobilizing story that compels us to follow?
This video by Francis Chan is interesting for several reasons. Francis talks about how we’re attracted to Jesus but not really willing to follow Jesus. We like what Jesus did, but we’re not willing to see Jesus as an action role model to emulate. The subtle tension is that our lack of action reveals a roadblock to following. Yet what is that roadblock? I would offer that it’s the way we approach the word “must”.
Francis shares Jesus’ own words that we “must” walk as Jesus did. I would suggest that “must” is true in the sense that we cannot realize the life of Jesus unless we actually follow. But the tension for me is seeing it as something we have to do in order to make grace true in a cosmic sense. This is the subtle tension I have with focusing on “must”. Its easy to hear “must” and walk away thinking, “If I’m not doing it God must be disgusted with me.” We can easily create a roadblock to experiencing life.
The question for me is where does our motivation reside. Do we follow because it’s the right thing to do? Or do we follow because its the most valuable life to live? It’s really easy to see following as an extrinsic cosmic rule isn’t it? In other words, its easy to develop a extrinsic story that has no personal motivating value in our lives. We assume we’re supposed to follow because it’s the “right” thing to do. We even agree that its right as though it sits on a shelf waiting to be picked up at some point in our lives. And suddenly we’re sixty and its still sitting there.
The question is then what would make us pick up that call to follow?
I would offer that we need to shape our stories as something intrinsically valuable. To follow is to live. We don’t have to follow in order to be loved. God loves us before we were born. But we do have to follow in order to experience that love. See the difference. One is a conditional requirement that makes it true in a cosmic sense, or from God’s perspective. One is conditional requirement that makes it true in a personal sense, or from our perspective. Legalism continually focuses on the former, where I think Jesus saw it as the latter. We follow to realize the love of God in our own lives, not make it true in God’s perspective.
We need intrinsic mobilizing stories. We need to see that God’s love is not something we earn by doing the right thing, which is an external motivator. God’s love is something that is simply true, but can only be experienced by following. The difference is light years apart. I see so many people wanting to love God but their stories are deeply shaped by something they have to do “in order to” receive love. I’m suggesting that we reframe our stories based on something we “get to” in order to intrinsically experience God’s love.
A New Kind Of Christianity – Book Review Question 2 & 3
Title: Brian McLaren’s, A New Kind Of Christianity, Ten Questions That Are Transforming The Faith.
Overview: As Emergence Christianity progresses, it becomes critical for voices to begin offering not just critique but alternative perspectives that make sense. Brian offers ten questions that begin to frame an alternative perspective to traditional evangelical orthodoxy.
2. How should the Bible be understood?
What I Hear Brian Saying: In this second question Brian tackles how we approach Scripture as authority. He addresses the historical nature of approaching the Bible as a legal document, which creates a kind of fundamentalism that people end up defending at the expense of the very people it attempts to transform. He suggests shifting our understanding of the Bible from legal constitution to community library.
My Response: From my perspective, this section will be seen as perhaps the most Emergent of chapters. Brian is clearly suggesting that we move out of a legal understanding of Scripture and one that is more wholistic in nature. He is able to do this because of the way he approaches the problem in Question 1. By removing the historical understanding of the fundamental problem and shaping the narrative as both upward and downward progress, there is essentially no need for what most fundamentalists seek, which is justification.
And herein lies the tension with this chapter. If one still holds onto the idea that there is an ontological problem created in the Garden, one can’t abandon the need for a legal document because the problem of justification still exists. One can easily begin to ask Brian what is the need for the cross, which I felt myself asking at times. I think this is what many of the critics are harping on. Brian has essentially created a different camp that doesn’t seem to need a legal document. If you, the reader, identify with the previous category, and are seeking out the nature of justification, it creates a strange polarization that can be biting.
Brian calls out the oppressive nature of fundamentalism (in any form) that is created when we shape the narrative as legal document and does so without prejudice. Brian pulls no punches in this section and it can feel harsh. Some of this is justified. He highlights the way some (not all) see Scripture as something to create a context for justifying oppression. Although the evidence is clear in history, especially with slavery and women, by calling it out, one can easily assume Brian is suggesting anyone who sees the Bible as authority will use it this way. This is to me the strongest point of the section. His critique of the outcome of seeing it as a legal document is extremely valid. Although Brian has essentially crafted a stereotype, one which clearly exists, Brian helps creates the polarization with the way he’s set up camp.
2. Is God Violent?
What I Hear Brian Saying: In this section Brian wrestles with the nature of God’s character in the narrative, especially the issue of violence. He calls out the brutal nature of the Flood and asks, “Is God violent”. He suggests that the writers of the narrative are approaching it with a limited understanding of who God is, something like a first grader approaches math. Over time the writers begin to see God differently and with more maturity, something like a high school student approaches math. What Brian seems to be saying is that what we read in the story is a developed approach to God’s character, as opposed to a true view of it. So when we read about who God is, we’re seeing it through the lens of the writer, not from a divine revelation of what is actually true.
My Response: Unfortunately, I didn’t resonate with this chapter the way I had hoped. I didn’t share his tension with violence as much as he did. I think this comes from the fact that I have wrestled with this issue in very deep ways and come to an entirely different conclusion about the problem and the reason for God’s responses in Scripture. [Note: I deal with this fairly deeply in my new book. ;-P] I think what we see throughout the entire story is a whole picture of God. So the problem is once again not God, but how WE see God.
I did agree with Brian that Jesus is the best revelation of God we have. But if we begin with Jesus and look backwards into the story, I don’t see the two differing. And the reason is that I frame the problem differently. This is the strange nature of the way has crafted this book. Brian leaves very little room for disagreement because of the way he’s crafted HIS understanding of the problem. If you don’t agree with it, you will find yourself disagree with many of the assumptions that follow.
One idea that hit me as I finished this chapter is Israel’s need for a violent God. In a culture shaped by violent gods, would the Jewish people have even listened to a God that didn’t display power. The plagues were displays of power over other gods. God’s initial wrath is a response to the people’s stubbornness and immaturity. Would they have followed a God that initially called for meekness and love, at that time. I kind of doubt it. In other words, Brian may be getting it right in a different way than I think he might be saying. The people’s idea of God changes over time in response to how they experience God, but God fundamentally doesn’t change.
