A New Kind of Christian(ity) – Part 2
by MW Cook
There were a lot of things that I hadn’t considered about the Jesus life before reading these books.
First, and perhaps most foundational, I was convinced that our way of looking at the Bible is wrong. McLaren argues that the Bible is not a constitution, answer-book, love letter from God or instruction book for life. And he’s right. It’s a divinely-inspired library of God’s dealings with man. To view it as a constitution is dishonest and, it seems to me, just as bad as the way liberal scholars view it as a dead scholastic work.
Second, I was convinced that his model of Christian education is far better than the models we have been working with so far. Our models focus on knowledge as paramount. Jesus’ school focused on living with and following Jesus. On doing things, not just learning things. If you have A New Kind of Christian you can check out his view of seminary starting on pg. 232.
I was convinced that, generally, instead of looking straight at Jesus in the Bible, we look a Jesus first through the lens of Paul. And we look at Paul through the lens of Augustine. And we look at Augustine through the lens of Aquinas. And we look at Aquinas through the lens of Luther or Erasmus, depending on where our denomination lies. And down the line until we get to whatever preacher is our hero today. And I was convinced that this was a very, very bad thing.
In short, I do not call these writings dangerous. I call them helpful. I call them insightful. I call them off-base here and there, but not dangerous. Not damning. Not worth calling someone a son of the devil.
Would I recommend the books? To some people. Not all. The problem with books by famous people is that there will always be a large group of people who only pick up a book in order to discredit it. They have the attitude that says “I am going to put down this book with the same beliefs I had when I picked it up.” So I could not, with a clear conscience, recommend these books to people who think this way. It would be a waste. It would do nothing but create more bad feelings. And the Christian community has enough bad feelings already. But for anyone else, for anyone with a mind to learn and a heart to move forward in their understanding of Jesus, for those people I say “Don’t be afraid of these books. They won’t hurt you. Use your mind as you read them. Take profit from the things you judge as true. Toss out the things you judge as false. Don’t be distracted by the things that don’t matter. You’re clever enough to do that. You don’t need to be afraid of being put under an evil magic spell.”
I get that a lot of folks will disagree with me. That’s fine. I’m betting the coming comment discussion will be informative for everyone.
It’s funny, though. One of the accusations that people who don’t hate McLaren and the Emergent conversation get is that they are trying too hard to be politically correct. But, in the circles I have grown up in and still live in, the most politically incorrect thing I can do mention these books without condemning them.
Matt W Cook 
Like you, I find Brian McLaren helpful sometimes and concerning at others. That puts him into the same category as everyone else I read, and know! He’s one voice, and I don’t think we should become his disciples nor demonize him. Listen to him, learn from him, evaluate him, pray for him, . . . . the same way we should treat every other person, influential or otherwise. I don’t like how people, Christians included (maybe even, especially!), get on a bandwagon and either ‘love’ or ‘hate’ a particular author or system. Matt, thanks for offering some grace-filled, wise words here.
I haven’t read any of McLaren’s stuff yet, but I’d be interested to hear you expound a bit on how you view the bible.
Lately I’ve been starting worship/teaching times with a three-fold reminder for how to read scriptures: (1) the number one (2) a hand and (3) a tree.
First: One God, one truth, one message, one scripture. If something from one prophet seems to contradict another, then you’re reading it wrong. Everything revealed by God is taken together with the rest of revelation.
Second: a hand. Hold your hand in front of a light (or the sun) and look at its shadow. Scripture is a shadow – pointing to the reality of God himself. We love scripture because through it we know God better.
Third: a tree. God didn’t make the tree for one reason – but for many. It makes oxygen, provides shelter from rain, home for insects and birds, materials for building furniture and houses. With scripture: the literal meaning is certainly one purpose – but I think the bride of God has understood for centuries that there are many ways He uses scripture in our lives. If you stop looking at the literal meaning, I think you’re missing much additional depth that God has for you.
Jeremy, I like what you’re saying, but I don’t think McLaren, or Matt I guess, would agree with you. McLaren is against this “constitutional” kind (his term) of interpreting the Bible(the kind that shuts down what he is saying, I say). He teaches the Bible as a library (whatever that means). Of course, it’s a library! It’s a collection of books.
I think your points are great, especially number One. I find that using the law of non-contradiction is the only way to come to true interpretations of the Bible, especially when McLaren, and others, are making the claim that all interpretations are relative and therefore secondary, or background noise. Yet he continues to offer us yet another interpretation…?
Bottom line: all interpretations cannot be right, or all interpretations are right. I believe McLaren’s interpretations are off in too many ways to put him in the ranks of other books that are faithful and sound (though not perfect, I know), especially since he is dealing with the core issues of the faith.
Thanks for the review and recommendation Matt. If this book and discussion opens peoples eyes to the reality that Pharisees were not just people in the time of our Lord but exist both within ourselves and the Christian community then I applaud it.
Conversely though it concerns me in that there is so much moving away from, accepted, time tested biblical truth these days.
Perhaps I just need to read the book….
Matt, thanks for sharing these thoughts. One question though. Maybe this is already your topic for Part 3. If not, maybe you can address it below.
You’ve mentioned the areas where you agree, but in what areas would you consider him to be “off-base here and there”? I don’t ask this to be contentious, but seeing as how you are reviewing him, it seems important to give the good and the bad, as you did with “The Shack” review. (I just read it. Solid stuff, by the way, and a very good analysis.)
Hey everyone! Thanks for all the great inter-acting.
I had originally conceived this review to be in three parts. Part one touching on the things he proposed that I had already been convinced of. Part two being the things he himself convinced me of. And part three being the things he tried to convince me of, but was unable to.
The problem is, however, that the things he seemed to say but couldn’t convince me on were side-issues. Sometimes things that were more implications than actual points. For example, in A New Kind of Christianity he (rightly) pointed out the tendency for the religious right to show little concern for the environment and weapon stockpiling. Also that when it’s time to go to war, the religious right is usually the first to say ‘aye’. He suggest (again, rightly I think) that this unfortunate habit is due to their understanding of the end times. Dispensational theology suggests that the world is going to get much worse before it gets better. The religious right takes that and decides that care for the planet is not important. But then McLaren suggests that the solution is a new view of the end times. And he couldn’t convince me of that. I think the solution is a more holistic view of love.
But that’s a tiny issue! Hardly worth the time it takes to disagree with it. And he has unconventional views on hell and evolution. I know that a lot of people have very strong opinions attached to those things, but I don’t. And since I don’t, it felt … difficult to write another post about it.
Jeremy and Shane, I think you’re three-fold reminder can be helpful. What makes you think I’d disagree with with it? Maybe you’re suggesting that I (and McLaren) don’t take the Bible literally? Because we do. Except where it’s not meant to be literal, of course ;)
I wasn’t thinking you’d disagree with the three reminders, I was just throwing them out there because it’s something new and I’m still trying it on for size. I was fishing for reactions. :) They are in-part a reaction on my part to perceived shortcomings in our view of the bible (especially among my more “conservative” bothers who I worship and teach with).
You said in your post: “I was convinced that our way of looking at the Bible is wrong.” You mentioned the bit about looking “through the lens of Paul” and then others. I’d be curious to hear more along these lines, of how *you* look at the Bible.
Admittedly I’m not sure I see your point… basically all these writers were writing about Jesus – so if you read their stuff, then naturally you’re reading their “lens” on Jesus (and the gospels). That seems normal to me, not problematic. And they were smart guys, so I take what they say with gravity, though certainly not as inspired or perfect.
Seems like there’s a lot of talk in the world these days about “kingdom-centered theology” and “Jesus vs Paul”. Personally I don’t really buy that this is so “revolutionary”… I think it’s not really anything new and it’s been in the church all along. And I don’t think there is or ever has been a conflict between Jesus and Paul – partly because of the “oneness” principle which we’ve _always_ had. But I think it’s fantastic (and needed) that the gospels are back in vogue in public discussion.
When I suggest we look at Jesus through the lens of Paul I mean that we view Paul as the explainer of Jesus. As if Jesus’ words were complicated and we needed the clear and simple Paul to explain and shed light on them. My contention is that Jesus’ words ought to be the foundation and Paul ought to be interpreted in HIS light. Paul doesn’t shed light on Jesus. Jesus sheds light on Paul. Jesus first.
I have never suggested that we don’t consider or read others. I just think that sometimes we try to fit the Bible into our favorite authors and theologies, instead of the other way around. Don’t you agree there is a tendency to do that? When I was a Calvinist I know I did that. And that’s not meant as an argument against Calvinism, it’s just how I dealt with it.
There’s nothing wrong with checking out lenses. I just want to endeavor to make my lens the clearest and thinnest it can possibly be. Recognizing that I may be using the lens of my denomination or theology is the first step in removing it.
But none of this, of course, is anything and anyone would disagree with, is it? I just gotta communicate better, eh?
:)
“Paul doesn’t shed light on Jesus. Jesus sheds light on Paul.”
Well, lets clarify this. Of course we don’t have anything Jesus wrote directly. We have Paul, Luke, John, Matthew and Mark (possibly via Peter). They each took different approaches to teaching us what Jesus was about. They each had an agenda (yes even the gospel writers). The gospels don’t “expain Paul” — or the other way around. We can’t elevate one author of scripture above another like that. IMHO, Jesus “sheds light on paul” through Holy Spirit. The Spirit explains each gospel and epistle — and each book stands independently (yet together).
At least, this would be my take. :)
“I was convinced that, generally, instead of looking straight at Jesus in the Bible, we look a Jesus first through the lens of Paul.”
Principle 2: the hand. Scripture points to the reality (God). Every book of the bible – old and new testament – is a “lens” through which you can see Jesus (God’s self-revelation). The gospels writers are each a lens too. Each has a unique agenda, perspective, worldview (just like Paul). Important to remember that.
My contention would be that this “lens” business is a post modern thing to do, and has been filtering down through the academic disciplines since the 1960s. I was bombarded with this stuff in university. And now it seems some Emergent writers are trying to bring this type of “seeing” to the Bible. One big difference: the Bible is divine, and it is written by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21) therefore, it is objective. It is absolute truth. The Apostle Paul and Augustine are in no way to be compared as different lenses. Paul is absolute; Augustine is relative.
The atheistic academic establishment, and now a lot of our culture, does not agree with me on this, but I thought the Christians would. I regard all Scripture as co-equal and co-authorative. It is all from the Holy Spirit. A coherent interpretation is the best interpretation. If you can argue along these lines, then we are still in the same “paradigm.” If not, we are no longer comparing apples with apples, but apples with oranges.
“I regard all Scripture as co-equal and co-authorative”
Funny, but I don’t think that’s a Biblical way of viewing scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed, but that does not mean the same thing as “co-equal/co-authoritative”.
That’s all well and good to say, but you should at least try to explain why you think its not biblical to view all scripture as co-equal and co-authoritative.
I feel like I’m not explaining myself properly. Let me try again.
All Scripture is God-breathed. If I did not think that I doubt there would be a foundation for our conversations to spring up from.
I am suggesting, as we read the Bible, that the words of Jesus in the Gospels should be the most foundational, rock-solid parts of our faith. So when I see difficult passages or seemingly contradictory statements between Jesus and other prophets, Jesus’ words are the rule and foundation I judge by. Extreme example: God commands his people to kill Ammonites wherever they find them. Jesus commands his people to love their enemies. I take the words of Jesus as more foundational, judge the command to kill Ammonites in the light his statement, and love any Ammonites I happen to find. That’s just an extreme example. I don’t expect you to agree, just to understand where I’m coming from.
You suppose the ‘lens business’ is a post modern thing to do? You don’t think that socialists have a socialist view of the Bible? You don’t think that capitalists read the Bible in a capitalist way? Each person is tainted and moved by whatever political, philosophical, ethical views they already hold. The struggle is to whittle those pre-existing beliefs and biases and bring them into submission to the words of Jesus and the prophets. I am trying to remove that bias and bring the focus of the whole Christian life back to the foundational words of Jesus.
Jesus words came from Jesus, and Jesus words came from Paul, and Jesus words came from Moses is what I am saying, and context and testament guides us as to interpretation. What McLaren is doing with his anti-constitution / library thing is trying to knock out the idea that we can have a true interpretation, as he says “it is neither Calvanism vs. Arminianism, nor hell is eternal vs. hell is annihilationist, but, he says, the answer lies somewhere above these arguments – whatever that means. I think he is dangerous because he is trying to change how we approach the Bible, which will change everything. Please note that I do not fight on FACEBOOK against any other writer, so I don’t consider myself argumentative, just scared for my kids in 10 years.
As for the lens comment, my comment was that Paul was absolute; Augustine was relative. You tried to merge the two, and I disagree. Yes, I believe we all come with a lens to the Bible, from Augustine down to me, but isn’t that the whole point of careful, prayerful Bible study? I think careful, prayerful, honest, Bible study is enough. So yes, to use your words, I am trying to “bring into submission my pre-existing beliefs and biases to the words of Jesus.” I just don’t think Brian’s way is healthy at all. The whole reason I am against McLaren is because he is against me (evangelicalism) which I think is a great expression of Christianity, far better that Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, which McLaren is all for.
By the way, I do not think Ecumenicalism is a healthy choice either, which is another reason I would never endorse McLaren’s books.
“What McLaren is doing with his anti-constitution / library thing is trying to knock out the idea that we can have a true interpretation.”
Not true. He’s just saying that many might not have a true interpretation, not that it can’t be had.
“I think he is dangerous because he is trying to change how we approach the Bible, which will change everything.”
Exactly. Hopefully for the better. Hopefully so that we start to take James 1:27 just as “literally” as a passage on headcoverings.
“Please note that I do not fight on FACEBOOK against any other writer, so I don’t consider myself argumentative, just scared for my kids in 10 years.”
…and fighting on Facebook is going to be the deciding factor in your kids remaining “in the faith” a decade from now? Are your kids going go see your love for Jesus in the way you argue against heretics, or in the way you show practical love for those around you? Many evangelicals talk about Jesus, but how much do they conform to his likeness? 2000 years ago lots of Jews talked about God, but how much did they conform to his holiness as they were supposed to? Jesus himself says several times that the only way people will know we are of him is by our love. I’m all for arguing for the truth, but I don’t believe that your kids are going to care a bit about your arguing if you neglect “the weightier objects of the law”.
“The whole reason I am against McLaren is because he is against me (evangelicalism) which I think is a great expression of Christianity, far better that Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, which McLaren is all for.”
How do you define evangelicalism? Because McLaren calls himself an evangelical in “A Generous Orthodoxy”, so as he’s obviously not against himself, there must be some definitions he agrees with and some he doesn’t. Perhaps he (and I) are against an evangelicalism that focuses its resources on buildings, legislation (anti-abortion/anti-gay marriages.etc). But perhaps we are for an evangelicalism that feeds the poor, welcomes the sinful, searches for the lost sheep, puts others needs before its own.
“By the way, I do not think Ecumenicalism is a healthy choice either, which is another reason I would never endorse McLaren’s books.”
How do you define Ecumenicalism? If you define it as throwing out all truth and singing kumbaya in a circle with a bunch of Anglicans who pray to mother earth (which, by the way. is not what all Anglicans believe) then I’m with you! (And so is McLaren by the way). If you define it as great men of the faith such as E Stanley Jones (I HIGHLY recommend his book “A Song of Ascents”, and if you email your address to Matt I’ll mail it to you!) then ecumenicalism becomes not a melting point for truth and denominational distinctions, but instead a means by which different Christians from different traditions work together for the building of the kingdom.
“an evangelicalism that focuses its resources on buildings, legislation (anti-abortion/anti-gay marriages etc)”
Hey Naet – that comment just reminded me of an interesting American journal article I recently read on the same topic.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380
Interesting.
Steve thank you for the wise words. Truly encouraging. Wish most of us could have that attitude! Thanks.
Yi. Probably one of the scariest notions out there now in modern Christendom is “Jehovah/Jesus” dichotomy. The thinking goes that the wrathful, angry, judgemental, genocidal Jehovah of the Old Testament has been replaced by the meek and mild humanitarian Jesus of the New Testament. Thank goodness we live in the Age of Grace right?
If we are to accept what the Bible in fact teaches us of the Triune God we worship we come to a difficult realization. There is one God. What does that mean? Well, it means that Jesus was there at Creation. Most of us take no issue with that. It also means that Jesus commanded the destruction of the Ammonites. Jesus didn’t take a day off when God commanded the people of Israel to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan. To “devote them to destruction”. The God-Man Jesus IS the God of the Old Testament. THAT is a very difficult thing many modern believers to accept, and indeed has cost many their faith. It is perhaps one of the greatest things I have struggled with in the study of Scripture.
But I think the shock comes from our truncated view Jesus. It’s popular to view Jesus as a Pharisee embarrasing, tax collector loving, sickness healing Mother Theresa. And don’t get me wrong, He is all of those things and thank God He is. But He is much more. The Gospels don’t tell the whole story of Jesus, in fact in a way they just give us the preface. To see Jesus with an eternal perspective, we go to another book. Revelation. And while many believers cast Revelation aside as mystical, nonliteral, and nonuseful for daily life, Revelation gives us a vital snapshot of how the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jehovah of the Caananite conquest come together sharply.
I guess what I’m saying is, if we are going to claim that we are in fact followers of Jesus but just the parts of Him we’re most comfortable with – we decieve ourselves.
Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is a fuller and more complete picture of what Jehovah is like than how he reveals himself in the Old Testament. He is the exact image of God. Therefore that image of God serves as my foundation for understanding the rest of the Bible. So I don’t use God’s command to kill to further understand the character of Jesus. I use the character of Jesus to understand God’s command to kill.
As to revelation, to be utterly honest, I don’t understand most of what goes on in that book. But the gospels are crystal clear, so I must make them the foundation and look at the rest of the Bible from that perspective.
Hey Matt,
I think I understand better where you’re coming from now. I would definitely agree that the Gospels grant us a much clearer picture of what Jesus expects of US (His followers) if not a complete picture of who Christ is in His person. There are aspects of the character of God that only become truly apparent to us (humans) in the incarnate manifestation and work of His Son.