Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

After insisting that a new kind of Christianity demands a new reading of the biblical narrative, Brian McLaren argues for a new approach to the Bible, because as he argues, “we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible.” (68). We are in trouble in three main ways:

1. Scientific—”Fundamentalism again and again paints itself into a corner by requiring that the Bible be treated as a divinely dictated science textbook providing us true information in all areas of life, including when and how the earth was created, what the shape of the earth is, what revolves around what in space, and so on…This approach has set up Christians on the wrong side of truth again and again, from Galileo’s time, to Darwin’s, to our own.” (68)
2. Ethical—”The Bible, when taken as an ethical rule book, offer us no clear categories for many of our most significant and vexing socioethical quandaries. We find no explicit mention, for example, of abortion…human rights…sexual orientation…global climate change…genetic engineering (among others). If we must steer our ship by wrestling biblical passages to bear on these issues in a simple “though shalt not,” way we will find ourselves stuck precisely where we are stuck now, and largely paralyzed in solving major life-and-death-of-the-planet issues and largely obsesses with narrow hot-button feuds that feuds…” (69)
3. Peace—”Many of us are afraid that the Bible is becoming a box cutter or a suitcase bomb in the hands of too many preachers, pastors, priests, and others. When careless preachers use the Bible as a club or sword to dominate or wound, they discredit the Bible in a way that no skeptic can.” He uses the the examples of pastors pulling verses to justify the preemptive strike against Iraq, declares you could “probably turn on a Christian radio broadcast today and hear a preacher deny human rights to Palestinians on…’biblical grounds,'” and trots out the example of “how the Bible was used by the defenders of slavery in contrast with the promoters of abolition” in Western Europe in general and American in particular.” (69-70)

In light of this “triplet of troubles” “we must find new approaches to our sacred texts (Interestingly, he doesn’t particularly identify the Holy Scriptures here, but generalizes it to, perhaps, include other “sacred texts,” like the Koran?)…” (70) In the end, “this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery, anti-semetism, apartheid, chauvinism, environmental plundering, prejudice against gay people, and other injustices to be legitimized and defended for so long…we still use the Bible in the same way to defend any number of other things that have not yet been fully discredited, but soon may be.” (76)

And what exactly is “this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible”? Reading the Bible as a legal constitution. This constitutional approach, used “especially in conservative settings,” is defined as: “looking for precedents in past cases of interpretation, sometimes favoring older interpretations as precedents;” arguing “framers’ intent” (or author’s intent in biblical hermeneutics terminology); approaching the biblical text “as if it were an annotated code.” (78-79)

Instead, we need to see the Bible as it actually is: “a portable library of poems, prophets, histories, fables and parables, letters, sage sayings, quarrels, and so on…it’s the library of a culture and community—the culture and community of people who trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical library is a carefully selected group of documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” (emphasis mine. 79, 81)

At this point, I want to ask Brian these questions:

1. Is the Holy Scripture authoritative for defining how we are to relate to God and others?
2. Is the Holy Scripture God’s Textual act of Divine self-disclosure?
3. Are there other texts through which God reveals Himself?
4. Is the Holy Scripture Christocentric? Meaning: Does not the whole of the Holy Scripture center exclusively on Jesus Christ, rather than simply “the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.”

Let’s see how Brian answers these questions:

“The biblical library has a unique role in the life of the community of faith, resourcing, challenging, and guiding the community of faith in ways that no other texts can. It is uniquely valuable to teach, reprove, correct, train, and equip us for love and good works, as the apostle Paul says. It provides a kind of encouragement that is central and unique to the community of Christian faith.” (emphasis mine. 83)

He then goes on to acknowledge that Plato, Muhammed, and the Buddah “all say interesting and brilliant and inspiring things,” and he can “learn a lot from their words,” as much as from Clement, Luther, Calvin, Borg and Crossan. “But to say that God inspired the Bible is to say that, for the community of people who seek to be part of the tradition of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob, Moses, Ruth, David, Amos, John, Mary, and Jesus, the Bible has a unique and unparalleled role that none of these other voices can claim.” (83)

OK, Brian, but why does it simply have a unique role? And why does it have a central and unique role only for the Christian faith? Why isn’t the Holy Scripture the sole textual authority for the entire world?

Brian cannot (bring himself to) say that the Bible is inspired by God and is the sole textual point of God’s divine self-disclosure, only that it has “a unique and unparalleled role.” He also cannot say the Bible is for the entire world, but only for the “community of Christian faith.” Somehow, God “breaths life into the Bible, and through it into the ‘community of faith’ and its members, and into my soul,” without even explaining what this even means. While it sounds nice, it makes no sense. How does God do this? What is he “breathing?” Is He Himself even saying anything? This leads to a more important, fundamental question: Is God Himself revealed through the Bible itself?

Unfortunately, according to Brian, no. “This inspired library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God, a living and vital civil argument into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed.” (83) The Living God then is not reveal through the Holy Scripture, but simply the “ongoing vigorous conversation” and “vital civl argument.” He says this very thing when he argues against reading the Bible in away that says “God’s message is supposed to be found in the plain words of the biblical text:”

“revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God. It happens in conversations and arguments that take place within and among communities of people who share the same essential questions across generations. Revelation accumulates in the relationships, interactions, and interplay between statements.” (91-92)

Pay attention to what Brian has said here: McLaren believes revelation is about human conversation about God, rather than God Himself revealing Himself to humanity. He says that in the Hebrew Scriptures “we have so many voices, and voices of different kinds…in the Christian Scriptures we have several gospels…and we have many other voices as well.” In an effort to push this conversational framing of the Text, he uses the Book of Job as a rhetorical device, wondering aloud, “Could Job be a fractal of the whole Bible, then: many voices arguing, debating, stating, and counterstating, asking and answering?” He goes on to say, “Could it be that God’s Word intends not to give us easy answers and shortcuts to confidence and authority, but rather to reduce us, again and again, to a posture of wonder, humility, rebuke, and smallness in the face of the unknown?” (93)

While the Holy Scripture certainly does not give easy answers and does leave us in speechless wonder, Brian completely dismisses how the Church has views God’s revelation for centuries: God is not unknown and has deliberately disclosed Himself to humanity; God Himself is deliberately speaking to us through the Text. The Bible is not simply a conversation among many different voices, but one Voice speaking to us in a variety of ways. I do agree with Brian that the Bible is unlike any other book: it is a very diverse body of genres and voices through which God is speaking. Far from being simply a “record of a vibrant conversation, and a stimulus to ongoing conversation,” however, it contains the voice of God itself as He has chosen to speak to us about Himself.

Though it will become far more apparent in the next question—at which point Brian blatantly says that “the Bible is an ongoing conversation about the character of God“—let’s be clear: from the looks of it, according to Brian the Bible neither contains the real voice of God, but rather the voices of individuals speaking about God, nor is it a real, single authority for understanding God properly, since it is merely an evolving conversation about Him in which varying people give varying perspectives.

The greatest travesty of Brian’s perspective is this line on page 81:

It’s the library of a culture and community—the culture and community of people who trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical library is a carefully selected group of documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.

Here Brian reduces the Christian faith to one among three who, “trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Furthermore, somehow Brian reduces the Church simply to a pluralistic “community of people who seek God, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” The problem with his logic is that for Brian the Bible is really all about God, not Jesus Christ.

Like the biblical narrative itself, which he fails to exclusively root in Jesus Christ, Brian refuses to root the Bible’s self-disclosure of God in Him, too. According to Brian, the “community of people who seek God” in the Bible apparently are not seeking it in Jesus Christ alone, but rather simply the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This allows Brian to include Jews and Muslims in his “community of people” tent of those seeking God.

Unfortunately for Brian, the Christian faith has insisted for generations that the God found in the biblical text is not simply “the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” The God found in the Bible is Jesus; Jesus Christ is the God of the Holy Scripture around whom the Text itself pivots. And unless someone acknowledges this, they really are not seeking after the one true God.

The one true God has supremely revealed Himself in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, neither the knowledge nor revelation of God can be divorced from the knowledge and revelation of Jesus Christ. Indeed knowledge of Jesus Christ is the ultimate, only access to the knowledge and revelation of God. Why doesn’t Brian acknowledge this? Why does he divorce the authority of the Text and revelation of God found in it from Jesus Christ Himself? Why does he not simply say, “The Bible reveals God, in the person of Jesus Christ”?

So far, it is apparent that for Brian the Story and Revelation of God is not really about Jesus Christ, but about a generic, vanilla World-Spirit god. This will become far more apparent when Brian discusses God Himself in question 3, The God Question. Using the question, “Is God violent?” McLaren reveals his belief that the Bible progressively reveals an evolved understanding of God, rather than God Himself. This view ultimately cashes out in the person of Jesus, who is simply an evolved likeness and revelation of the character of God, rather than God Himself.