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.
Because Its Interesting
A New Kind Of Christianity – Book Review Question 1
Title: Brian McLaren’s, A New Kind Of Christianity, Ten Questions That Are Transforming The Faith.
Disclaimer: I think it is important to begin with a disclaimer for this book because I cannot deny that Brian has been somewhat of a mentor for me, if only through his writings. I have had the opportunity to meet and interview him and I walked away deeply impressed by his humility and dare I say radiance. I freely admit I began this book with a bias. I know that when Brian speaks, my ears prick up and I listen with more intent. But I also read this book with a critical mind. This is the first book I found myself not sharing Brian’s entire perspective, and in fact disagree with him on some fundamental points. But I also know Brian well enough to know he would invite that dialog.
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.
In this review, I’m choosing to directly address each question, summarize what I hear Brian saying, and then offer my response to his perspective. This is an important book because of who Brian is. People will look at this book for answers to long standing questions about emergence, so I think it deserves the time and effort of a detailed response. My hope in this review is to create dialog. As I said before, the most important thing Brian is doing is asking good questions.
1. What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
What I Hear Brian Saying: Brian suggests that we read the narrative of Scripture from a Platonic six line narrative. 1) Edenic Perfection – 2) Fall – 3) Condemnation – 4) Salvation – 5) Heaven for Believers – and 6) Hell and Damnation (i.e. “eternal conscious torment”) for Unbelievers. Brian calls this fall a shift of “state”. Brian suggests this is not an ontological fall, and that it can be described better as a coming of age story, suggesting, “there is not one isolated moment of ontological shift from state to story.” (p48)
My Response: This question had to come first because it frames the entire book. But this is the response that I had the most trouble with, not because Brian isn’t suggesting something unorthodox, but because in many ways it feels like he missed the very story he’s trying to argue for.
Beginning with Brian’s quote above, it appears Brian suggests that nothing significant happened in the Garden, when something clearly does happen. If this were a movie, the Garden would be the opening scene because it creates the tension. If the cross is the solution or resolution of the story, the Garden is the tragedy or the setup. From a storytellers perspective, this is the moment when our main character is captivated by something. To suggest that nothing happened just doesn’t resonate for me.
Brian does seem to contradict himself in back to back pages (p50-51) when he offers two charts; one ascending and one descending. He says, “But the ascent is ironic, 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.” (p50)
This is where I think Brian shoots himself in the foot. He suggests nothing is happening and then provides direct evidence that something is happening, and its downward. Instead of listening deeply to the story to ask what is the meaning of “death” in the text, he seems to excuse it away. His critique on p49 ends before it really begin. I say this because understanding the meaning of what God means by “death” is central to the story.
What this does is create a paradox for those who hold the more traditional view that something does happen. It makes one question what is the purpose of the cross and the atonement in taking on and solving death, which can only be answered if there is a problem. And I say this because these are deeply important parts of the story, not just state. If we read the narrative as story from front to back, without a Greco-Roman mindset, we still can’t help but suggest that God is solving a problem of death.
This also leads to the critique many will have of the book. If we remove the fall and the problem of death, we’re left with classic liberalism that Jesus was and is entirely about social justice. By framing it this way Brian will create a problem for himself and allow many to excuse the book out of hand. It seems like Brian’s response to the traditional problems of atonement is simply to say it wasn’t needed, although I don’t remember him explicitly saying that and I could be misreading him.
I would agree with two of Brian’s central points regarding the Garden. First, we need to frame the Garden as good, not perfect. When we frame it as perfect, we’re directly contradicting the text and ascribing something to it that is NOT there. Two, Brian argues that God never abandons humanity in the Garden. I loved this point and think it is one of the THE most important parts of the story, but wonder if most people will miss this important point because they are pushed back by his earlier arguments that nothing happened.
I would suggest the problem is dualism, which is represented in the Tree of Knowledge. But traditional evangelical Christianity, which is heavily influenced by Greco-Roman perspective locates the problem entirely wrong. If we understand the root problem in the Garden, it becomes easy to see how our historical perspectives of the atonement are a natural outcome of the fall. In other words, we locate the problem incorrectly because of the fall. I’m going to be speaking more about this in coming months and in my new book coming out this May. I am suggesting there is a six line narrative but not in the way we traditionally think. For now, it will have to remain a teaser.
More to follow on Monday.
A New Kind Of Christianity – Initial Thoughts
I finally finished Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind Of Christianity, Ten Questions That Are Transforming The Faith. I wanted to wait until I had read it until I made an remarks about it. I’m planning on writing a fairly developed book review next week, but I wanted to begin with some initial thoughts.
My first thought after closing the book is I think Brian is asking some important questions in this book. It will be easy to dismiss Brian simply because he takes a fairly nontraditional approach to answering the questions. Many have gotten outright angry at it. I can imagine a few people I know who will outright dismiss the book and throw it across the room after the second question. And this is the temptation with the book. To throw the book out is to miss the questions. One doesn’t have to ascribe or agree with Brian to appreciate the questions he’s asking.
My second thought is I think Brian missed several great questions that are infinitely deeper than the ten he is asking. Kingdom Grace took a stab at a different list. Phyllis Tickle said at her conference last year that her three questions were the nature of sin, the atonement, the reconciliation of denominations. But unless you are deeply involved in theological dialogs, Brian’s list might fly over people’s heads. At the ground level I am at, people are asking about the nature of suffering and evil. They want to know why God doesn’t rescue people and does God even care.
My last initial thought, which I will spell out in more detail in my book review, is this is the first book I’ve read from Brian’s that I didn’t find myself really following him lock, stock and barrel. I honestly didn’t resonate with this tension of the six line narrative. I didn’t resonate with the idea that there is no ontological problem. I am spelling this out in extensive detail in my new book that is coming out in May, and in my review. But this is what I love about Brian. Brian doesn’t need me to agree with him. He’s open to disagreement and people living in a different space. He’s graceful in his disagreement.
More to come soon.
