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.

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.

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.

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.

“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!

“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!