Blog

Very perceptive review. If an overarching story line is assumed that has nothing more to solve than the downside of progress then most of Paul's interpretation of the atonement (and of the early apostolic proclamation) ends up being a misinterpretation. And I would be deeply suspicious of a narrative that is being adjusted and “purged” by criteria not found in the story itself (something akin to Bill Kinnon's remarks yesterday regarding the kind of God who would appeal to us most).

It almost seems like Brian doesn't want to read the narrative the way you are suggesting because the rest of the chain that followed this pattern historically has to be avoided at all cost. I personally don't see it this way. The clues to read the story better than before do indeed lie in the narrative itself. But a lot depends on a deeper reading and understanding of the atonement rather than a necessity to get rid of the classical concepts themselves. And I would argue that the same applies to our understanding of judgment and hell as well.

Here's an alternative proposal where to start in the quest of understanding the story line: instead of working our way from the present backwards (which Brian opposes too) or from the very beginning forward (in a strict sense), let's start with the middle and focussing center (according to the apostolic witness and Christ's own words): the person of Jesus – in His words and works, and the supreme values and transforming power of love and grace.

I always found it fascinating that both at the beginning and at the end of the Bible we find trees of life. And right smack in the middle of that arch spanning from creation to re-creation we find the tree from which all life and connectedness flows: the cross.

I haven't read the book, only your review, so this may be totally off. I wonder if he's not discounting the Fall, but writing from a perspective that it's not historical. In other words, the Fall is what is happening now. It's not the beginning of the story but it is our story now. Then death/injustice/hell are perhaps all the same thing. I'm not saying there is no final heaven and hell, although I think the Bible is not entirely clear. I think many of the passages in the Bible that we traditionally have taken for the beginning and end of the story are really about right now. This doesn't lessen the drama, but it puts the entire drama in our laps (unlike a big story that began long, long ago in Eden and ends in the distance future in a country far, far away). Having the story in my lap is much more exciting and interesting, and makes my faith in God more, not less real.

Anyway, maybe this is not in his book at all….?

Josh, its an interesting idea but as I said in the review I think we have to start from the beginning of the story to understand the cross. To me it comes down to understanding the ontological meaning of the Garden and death.

I actually think a lot of people start from the middle trying to understand both ends and it creates more problems than it solves. It's like watching the middle of a movie, the end, and then the beginning.

But hey it worked for a Quentin Tarintino movie. ;-P

For me it comes down to the word ontological. It seems to suggest that he's saying nothing happened. But I'm totally open to the idea that I'm misreading him.

I would say that the “Fall” happened and is happening. When we understand what is happening, it changes our perspective of the root problem.

I don't see it actually as an “either – or” choice. Understanding will be fostered by coming fom all three directions. I just don't believe that an isolated reading of Genesis will provide the actual depth of what “death” means ontologically and relationally – without seeing and taking into account the developing repercussions and the rather shocking solution in the atonement.

I totally agree with you. Understanding requires the whole.

Jonathan – I'm not really understanding well how Brian “suggests that nothing happened” at the fall – can you clarify that please?

Possibly, he is suggesting the fall was not the binary switch that the traditional reading likes (hence the first right angle in the 6 part diagram) but a gradual process of descent. I really liked his social evolutionary alternative (Hunter/Gatherer – Empire dweller), and although read in isolation it might seems overly humanistic to some, it ultimately serves to bring the text back into repute, for me at least.

See my NKoXy contribution on http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2010/02/26…

Nic, like I said to Andy, for me it comes down to the word ontological. Brian states that there is no shift in state, (I quoted him above) but the story pretty clearly indicates that something does shift in state, at least from my perspective. So the key for me is reconciling our understanding of “what” that shift is that would produce a downward shift.

And I will tease you with this. This is the argument I'm making in my book. ;-P I break down the ontological problem. It's why this question tended to rub up against me a little.

What I do agree with Brian is what he's rubbing up against as the shift in state. The problem is not with God, which is what our historical approaches state, specifically penal sub atonement theory.

I'm with Nic. I don't think Brian said “nothing happened”. That bit of your review really has me scratching my head. I think he said “something different happened than what we typically think.” As you point out, the difference is with the word “ontological”. Something changed after the Garden, but was it an ontological change? Is something in our very “being” altered because of what happened in the Garden? It's an interesting philosophical question, but where do you find any suggestion of this in the text? Ontology itself is a Greco-Roman concept, not a Hebraic one, so how could the text be speaking to this?

What I see instead is a social/relational change. What happened in the Garden didn't affect our “being”, it affected our relationships, with God, self, others, and the world. As I understood him, this is what Brian was describing, and, as he points out, this wasn't a one-time event. The Genesis narrative seems to describe a progressive degeneration of our relationships with one another, which is what I think Brian was getting at.

Anyway, this is just my perspective. I do appreciate your friendly pushback on Brian's book though, and I look forward to reading your own.

Peace

Mike, thanks for chiming in.

I think the tension I described and the point you brought out about “nothing happened” is somewhat the problem I wrestled with. Brian specifically states there is no shift in state onotologically. So when you and Nic state that it is a loss of relationship with the four relationships, which I totally agree with, that is an ontological shift in state.

Its important because his argument lays the foundation for understanding the first five questions. I just wish he had spent more time addressing it other than it was a downward shift. Like I said above, the story clearly indicates God speaking a change, “The man has now become like one of us.” I think this is the pivotal moment in the story and I think Brian essentially skips over it.

Hey Jonathan,
Sounds like we're just using the term “ontological” differently. I'm thinking of it in terms of Greek/Western philosophy where it has to do with our “being”, which in antiquity (and up through the modern era) is typically our static “essence”, what is true of us when you strip away all other “incidentals,” e.g. our bodies, our relationships, our embeddedness within particular contexts, etc. I'd argue that this is generally the kind of thing early Christian theologians have in mind when they talk about an ontological Fall.

On the other hand, I can definitely see how you might argue that our “being” really does include relationality, in which case a relational “fall” could also be an ontological fall. The question then becomes both, is this what Brian means when he talks about an ontological Fall (i.e. does the conception of ontology he is critiquing include the concept of relationality), and also, would the Greco-Roman narrative that Brian is critiquing have defined their ontological Fall primarily in terms of broken relationships? If not, then I'd suggest that perhaps you and Brian might not be talking about such different things – maybe you're just using the words differently.

Just my .02

Mike, I was kind of thinking we might have been approaching it a little differently. I am using the term to mean the nature of our existence, which is inclusive of our relationships. This is the problem. Brian spends no time breaking it down and its the crux of his response, so it created problems for me.

Ontology for me is the nature of our existence. It's our understanding of the most basis elements or essence. For me, what changed is not our true essence, but our perception of that essence. This is the argument I am going to make. So something did happen, but not in the way we traditionally think. I would also argue that our bodies are corrupted, or bent towards getting ontology incorrect. This is he downward projection. But it doesn't change God.

This is my tension. Something does change, but we locate it in the wrong place.

I also kept wondering if we were saying the same thing but in different ways. This is why this critique was so hard. My concern is that I'm getting him wrong.

okay… what I think I hear you all talking about here, when you discuss the existance of an “ontological” change, and what McLaren meant by it, is really just the question of whether or not man became sinful when eating the fruit….

That's the real question, and the answer to it changes our understanding of Christ, the cross, salvation, etc., etc…. Like you said, he is framing the entirety of his book with this point, and even though he is trying to then preserve all the traditional teachings, (only seen in a “new light”), he is effectively just trying to defend a “Christianity” that has jettisoned the reality of sin….

That is why our understanding of the root problem is so important. What is the nature of what is really happening? Phyllis Tickle called it one of the three most important questions we can ask.

But we don't need to go searching for new teachers in order to get answers to this question! The Bible answers it over, and over, and over again!

Why did God give the Law to Israel?

What was the whole recurring theme of the Hebrew temple, and the sacrifices, and the altar?

What does the Bible tell us about the signficance of Noah's Ark and the Flood? (as it relates to Christ…)

What does the scripture teach as the significance of the ram caught in the thicket, which served as the substitute for Isaac?

What did Jesus Himself teach???

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

If it is to be concluded that sin is not the root problem, then it would be much better than to simply throw out the Bible altogether, rather than to mangle it so grossly in order to try and make it say the very opposite of what it clearly teaches…

That is why I think our understanding of the problem is just as critical as our understanding of the cross. If we get the former wrong, we will likely misunderstand the latter. It's how we end up with Ransom theory and Penal sub theory. This is why I don't buy these theories anymore. It doesn't jibe with the rest of the story.

Wait… Now I'm a little confused… You don't see the cross as a ransom for our sin, our a substitution for our transgressions? Maybe I'm just getting confused by the terminology you are using… Not sure. I guess I'm just wondering, do you sympathize with the overall framing of the problem that McLaren employs, or no?

What about verses like Mark 10:45? For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many…

Daniel, this is what I'm exploring in my book. I've spent the last seven years exploring the root problem and ended up coming up with what I think is a new atonement theory, one that is much more restorative. When I got Brian's book and he talked about exploring the narrative in the story, I honestly wondered if he had come to the same conclusion. My hope is much the same as Brian's, which is to reframe Christianity, but in a way that integrates with our historical understanding.

And yes, there is a ransom, and there is a substitution, but not in the way we traditionally think.

Thanks for you honest answers Jonathan, I really appreciate that. Though at this point I'm still unsure where that leaves you at this point, probably mostly because I wouldn't be able to guess what you mean by “the way we traditionally think”. I can't really speak for others, and I'm certainly not trying to look at it all through the lens of centuries of academic speculaton on the part of theologians! My vantage point pretty much only incorporates my own life experiences, and what I find when I open up the pages of scripture. In my life, I have been brought to a place where I have seen my own, ugly, sinful nature inside of me, and that sin is a reality that permeates this entire earth. I know from my own experience that my righteousness is like filthy rags, and that I have no business being in the presence of a holy God. But in scripture I also see Jesus, the Lamb of God, who was slain for the sin of the world. I'm not sure what you mean by “much more restorative”, and I'd be left to guess that maybe you mean a gospel that does not merely save some, but all? Are you talking universalism here, or am I misreading you? I'm not sure of any other reason for using a phrase like, “more resorative”… Cuz if there is a vision of the gospel that is more “restorative” than one that includes the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and new earth, and an eternity that is spent with the Creator and of His Children, then I'd be at a loss to know what it was! This seems to be the major stumbling block for so many out there, who like McLaren are embracing some form or another of the social gospel, the simple fact that they cannot accept a God who would allow people to go to Hell…

Of course, I understand that discomfort, and that internal conflict full well, but what I don't understand, is how people can reject hell, but then insist on clinging to the Bible or Jesus in any way… It's like they want Jesus, but want to pick and choose what they will hear, and how they will hear it. Jesus is not permitted to speak freely and boldly, which is really the only way He speaks! He never tickles our ears, or gives us false comforts. He speaks the truth, even if it means we walk away from Him…

Hopefully I'm going to be able to answer some of your questions over time Daniel. By more restorative I mean that once we understand the root problem it actually invites us into participation with God. It leads to an understanding that does create paradox, as do the traditional theories.

Jonathan,
I thought I would enter into this discussion here. As I said on FB, I see the story as one of the change in state of humanity from animal to conscious humanity, from grazing in peace in the garden, then partaking in the tree of knowledge and becoming conscious humanity. We have spend 10,000 years coming to grips with this transition and some see it as a fall and some see it as a move upward and forward, but of course with many problems in coming to grips with this new found state of understanding and responsibility.
We are now no longer animals living on basic instincts, but have choices and decisions and temptations and feelings, etc. We have not yet come to grips with this new way of being in the world and being with God. Jesus came to teach, and show and die for this new way but we reject it and fight to live out a shadow of our new found Godlikeness in unhealthy ways: individually, selfish, uncaring, brutal, short term thinking, exploitative, etc., etc.
This is not a fall, but a new chapter of growth that is still playing out. I think this is what Brian is stating in the book also.
Bob

Bob, I respect your understanding but I just don't come to the same conclusion. As I said in the interview, Brian seems to avoid the entire narrative in the Garden when he makes his assessment. And it was curious that he spends so much time talking about his background in literature and then skips all of the evidence regarding the traditional understanding of the fall. Much love my friend.

J, regarding our earlier Facebook exchange about Brian's book, I think Mike Clawson makes a good point. Here's what he posted on Jesus Creed:

“Ben (#83) – You said:
“Mike asked what it was, exactly, that people found specifically unorthodox about McLaren. (Correct me if I'm wrong). I would say that, first and foremost, McLaren's denial of any kind of historical Fall is an obvious departure from what has been considered crucial to the faith. His interpretation of Genesis as indicating a “coming of age” story is a perfect example of liberal theology at its worst. Without the Fall, you have no Christianity.”

“The Fall” is a doctrine that has evolved over time in Christian theology, most notably within the theology of Augustine. Note, for instance, how it is never mentioned in any of the great ecumencial creeds. Nor does the Eastern Church hold to the same sort of Augustinian view of the Fall that you would probably consider “crucial” to the faith.

Nevertheless, if you are insistent on that term, I think it would be fair to say that Brian does in fact believe in a “Fall” of sorts. Yes, he describes the Genesis narrative as a “coming of age”, but also points out how this was in fact a kind of “descent into evil” (Brian's words, see p. 51), or “fall” if you will. The difference, of course, is that this is a gradual fall, and one that involves the whole of humanity, as opposed an ontological Fall committed solely by Adam and Eve and then somehow transmitted (spiritually? biologically? “representatively”? – we don't really know how) to the rest of us.

I will also note the other main difference between Brian's account of progressive descent into sin, and the conventional version of one-time ontological Fall, which is that Brian's version is based solidly on the biblical narrative as it actually unfolds in Genesis, whereas the idea of an ontological Fall is not actually found in scripture, but is based largely on philosophical/theological speculation about what might have happened when Adam and Eve sinned. That being the case, it seems rather unfair and inaccurate for you to claim that “Without the Fall, you have no Christianity.”

I guess, for me, this begs the following question: how much of our reading of scripture is *unknowingly* filtered through the theological ethos of our upbringing/tradition? By that I mean, sometimes we can believe something is *really* there – in the text, but when others, from other traditions, read those very same parts of scripture, and come to different conclusions, it should, if nothing else, give one pause.

Thoughts to ponder further over coffee!

Darren, for me it comes down to the text. I think the beauty of it is that we can deal with the text and begin to strip away our understanding of it from a historical lens. We don't have to approach it through Augustine or even Plato.

But when we do, I just came to a different conclusion that Brian. Like I said to Bob. I think if Brian and I sat down and talked, we'd actually come to a similar understanding. What I think Brian is pushing back against is not my understanding of ontological but a historical one.

my main problem with a moment where there was an ontological change in humanity is that I don't know how to reconcile that with evolution and I think that is maybe the wrestling that brian and others are engaged with. sudden epochal shifts don't work well with the science of evolution. i guess there are those moments environmentally speaking.

And i'm not sure that reading genesis as the place where everything 'happens' is correct from a historical jewish understanding either. the jews believe that the story begins in exodus and everything before that is setup. I don't think there needs to be anything other than creation and continuing crisis (and promises of restoration) in order for genesis to be complete.

this is where i think brian is much more in line with certain orthodoxies than many are giving him credit for. Jesus and God's redemption are not answers to what happened only in the garden, but the spiraling crisis of genesis and much more importantly as the coming of the ultimate joseph or moses. i spelled that all out very badly and broadly, i'm sure.

A couple of points and I do not exactly know where these are leading.nnWe do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. It has always been a curiosity to me that, from all indications, neither chose during that time to eat from the tree of life. If they were there but a day or two, excuses can be made. Yet if longer…. Is this as telling as eating from the tree of knowledge? nnThe command NOT TO, as we know from Paul’s comments on the nature of The Law, entices rebellion, a statement either of autonomy or expression of freedom. We see this natural movement toward autonomy in the psychological development of children. Disobedience seems vital to gaining a sense of self. Their “no” to a parent is a “yes” to their “I am.” No harm is intended. nnIn a mature relationship between two people, when one realizes they have wounded another their love drives them to a quick and sincere amends. When God gently chided (or lovingly joked), “Who told thee thou wast naked?” they hide. What does this apparent immaturity mean about the nature of man? (And it is plain that shame is enemy of love; sorrow is the appropriate response for harm done another.) nnWe also see from the text that the love seems to flow in one direction: God to man. There is no indication that either loved God. When Eve was made from his rib, Adam did not honor the gift with praise to God but saw her as an extension of himself. What does this seeming lack of gratitude or wonder say? Is this absence telling?nnWe are reminded in the beginning of Genesis5 that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. This is curious. After all that has transpired, this seems where the point about succeeding generations suffering the effects of the Fall should be made. Instead, we are told Adam was made in God’s image and his descendants in his. What is passed on to all humanity is imago Dei.