A while ago I decided it’s not possible to know with certainty what is true about the Bible or God (or even whether God exists).
What I care about is whether the stories people tell about the Bible and God motivate people to make the world a better place. I like Brian’s stories because I believe that’s the effect they have on those who are open to them. Brian’s stories encourage people to make Christlike love the goal of the church, to share with those in need and to be less wasteful with limited global resources. If people do those things, that will wonderfully contribute to improving the world we live in.
Some of Brian’s stories in his latest book line up with the conventional conservative Christian theology I learned. Others differ significantly: for example, Brian rejects the conventional narrative ascribed to the Bible. He depicts it with this diagram
Brian comments
this master narrative starts with one category of things—good and blessed—and then ends up with two categories of things: good and blessed on the top line and evil and tormented on the bottom.
He continues
Can we dare to wonder, given an ending that has more evil and suffering than the beginning, if it would have been better for this story never to have begun?
Indeed. I have dared to wonder that and it’s very refreshing to see that I’m not alone.
Brian rejects this narrative because it is more influenced by Greek Platonic thought than by the collection of writings which comprise the Bible. Reading Brian’s reasoning was an “Aha!” moment since the conventional narrative does not seem very ‘Jewish’ to me based on my knowledge of how Jewish people view the world.
Instead Brian draws a narrative from the Bible about ‘God the creator, liberator and reconciler’. Brian leaves many things more open-ended than the theology I was taught. He writes “history is not pre-recorded”. He doesn’t specific the extent of God’s reconciliation (unless I missed it), but his emphasis on the verse in Romans “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” leaves the door open for universal reconciliation.
Later, Brian provocatively states: the ‘ultimate revelation of God [is] not [seen] in the Bible, but in Jesus’.
Why not the Bible? Because Brian believes the Bible is a collection of writings which reflect an evolving human understanding of God. This gives him the freedom to reject troublesome Bible passages such as those about God being violent. Jesus was not violent, so the authors who wrote that God was must have had a flawed understanding of God.
I particularly enjoyed Brian’s comments on the book of Job. I appreciate reading different thoughts and ideas about Bible stories I’m familiar with.
I expect people happy with conventional conservative Christian beliefs will ignore what Brian has to say (or write critiques detailing where they think he is wrong). But Christians who have become troubled by those beliefs just as Brian became troubled – and I think there are many – will appreciate this book. I expect they will find some of their own questions and journey reflected in his, just as I did. And receive validation, reassurance and hope for the future.
I wonder how an ending whereby evil is banished from God’s kingdom can be seen as something evil.
What kind of person would think that way?
I wonder what kind of a person would see any plan of God’s as being evil.
Among the many thoughts that this book has provoked in you, were either of these included?
thesauros, no, I didn’t have those thoughts.
If by ‘evil being banished from God’s kingdom’ you’re referring to real human beings suffering eternal conscious torment, I do see that as evil and I don’t believe that, if God exists, it can actually be his plan.
As for seeing a plan of God’s as evil, I don’t think Brian ever says that. What he does is reject some plans as being based on a (partially at least) wrong understanding of God.
That’s very different from saying God’s plan is evil. Although I suppose that’s what people will hear who disagree that the plan is based on a wrong understanding of God.
Hi Helen,
Good post, the book sounds interesting. I agree, if that is the only way that God can dispel evil from his kingdom – by sending people to eternal hell – then what kind a small God is that? Even in that conception God is smaller and weenier than the man Jesus, who was willing to take on and absorb evil in himself and thus transform it.
The theology that condemns “evil” people to hell while all the good ones who believe correctly creates “good” people who behave in awfully evil ways. Is there not a correlation between this kind of thinking and the scapegoating that creates segregation (and the slavery that began it in the first place), wars, rape, and all the other things that make living in the world such a struggle? Seems to me that Christianity has taught Christians to suppress the evil within them – the evil that is within all of us, being people prone to weakness, and fear, and abuse by others. Suppressing the evil because it might be evidence you are hell-bound just creates monsters.
And there can be no denying that Christianity has done that.
“No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people.”
Sorry for raving, it’s just that I find modern-day Christianity, and the whole eternal hell thing, just completely and totally abhorrent. A corruption by the powerful into something that is so distorted it would be best to just lay the whole baby down.
At least, those are my ill-formed opinions 🙂
Thanks for your comments, Sue. I think you’d like Brian’s book.
This is what I have thought for about 15 years or more
Thanks for your comment, Jim. If God exists, then that makes sense to me too.
I have quite a bit of questions after coming across your blog, and I hope you can give some insight. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond!
Didn’t Jesus talk about casting people into outer darkness, segregating sheep and goats, people running in fear when he returns, and a place that could only be described as Gehenna? Doesn’t he promise to punish servants who, while he is gone, fail to keep up “his house”? Doesn’t he say when he returns those servants will be severely punished? Doesn’t he say that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around someone’s neck and then be thrown into the sea, than to lead someone astray? Didn’t he say that most will find the broad path that leads to destruction? Where do we get the idea that Jesus was so inclusive while the Bible is not? The Old Testament never talks about a place called hell–it only refers to Sheol/Grave where both righteous and wicked end up. Jesus, on the other hand, seems to make God appear more judgmental/vicious after we die. He even says that how God is depicted in the Old Testament of destroying Sodom and Gommorah…it will be worse for his modern cities when the time of judgment comes, because they reject him. In light of these, and many other teachings of Jesus, why do we say that Jesus was the “nice guy” when it comes to God? Do we just assume that those were teachings that Jesus never said, and were edited in later? Or do we decide that they shouldn’t be taken literally? (It is hard to get around the implications of these things even if taken figuratively.)
I ask these questions not to shoot you down, but instead they are asked in all seriousness. Why make Jesus into Mr. Nice-Inclusive Guy, when that doesn’t seem to be his message? (I’ve only included a few of his statements along these lines. For example, while most people like John 3:16, they don’t realize that immediately following that it says that those who don’t believe in Jesus stand condemned and will not inherit eternal life. I could go on and on, as I’m sure you are aware.) I am asking these questions in all sincerity, because I cannot get the same picture of Jesus that you or Brian McLaren paint, no matter how hard I try. I can only do that if I eliminate quite a bit of his teaching or write it off. At that point, it’s no longer Jesus who is so nice, but it is me who has turned him into that kind of person.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Thank you so much!
Thanks for your comments, Tim.
It’s all about starting places. You and many others believe the Bible is an accurate record of Jesus’ words and actions and that Jesus is God therefore perfect.
I and many others believe that there must be a better way than hell and are open to the possibility that the Bible represents a flawed human understanding of God (in my case I’m not sure if he even exists). (See what I wrote on Why I don’t go to church anymore for more about how my beliefs are based on God, if he exists, being better than the best I can imagine, not worse)
Tim, I don’t expect I’ll change your beliefs and since I’ve heard what you have to say before and it didn’t convince me then, you probably won’t change mine. But I do appreciate you expressing your questions so respectfully and I hope I have been equally respectful in turn.
Thanks for replying, and thank you for understanding my position and respecting it, even though we disagree. Please know that I am not trying to convert you, but really want to understand where you are coming from, for various reasons. I think you are right that the difference lies in our understanding of the Bible. I am curious how either you or McLaren claims you can understand Jesus better than from what the Bible claims he taught and did. Is it based on human reasoning/conjecture of how he must have been and what he must have said?
I am focusing on McLaren’s statement: the ‘ultimate revelation of God [is] not [seen] in the Bible, but in Jesus.’
If we cannot trust that what the gospels say Jesus said and taught is accurate, where are we getting this “ultimate revelation of God” from Jesus? What other source is more trustworthy about who Jesus was/is? Our minds? Non-canonical documents such as the Gospel of Thomas? I am really eager to hear the reasoning! Thanks!
Tim, I would say all positions are based on human conjecture/reasoning, including yours. Can you prove otherwise?
Well, I’ll have to give you that one! 🙂
Actually, what I am trying to articulate is this: Whoever wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John–are you saying that they attributed teachings/sayings/stories to Jesus that he never said or did? If so, how can you make such conclusions when you are more than 2,000 years removed from when they all happened? While the authors of those books may not have been part of “The Twelve,” it is more than likely they had 1st-hand or 2nd-hand connection to either Jesus or the apostles–something we can only dream about today. Wouldn’t it be wiser to trust their account vs. trusting our own conjecture of what possibly Jesus claimed vs. what we aren’t comfortable attributing to Jesus?
It sounds to me like you are simply picturing in your mind what you would like God to be like, and anything in the gospels that lines up, you’ll accept it. Anything that doesn’t line up you’ll reject it. While you see great possibility that the Bible may be flawed in its understanding of Jesus, isn’t the possibility that your understanding of him is exponentially more flawed than the Gospels, being that you are so far removed from when he lived? This is what I meant by trusting our own reasoning/conjecture vs. trusting sources closer to the person.
For example, I can conjure up my own opinions of what I think George Washington was like. I can then go back to all the writings around his time or shortly thereafter that talk about the kind of person he was, and judge them based on my criteria. If they fit, I accept them. If they don’t, I reject them. But in the end, which will be more accurate–my conjecture/imagination or the claims of writings from around that time period?
Thanks again–I hope you know I’m not trying to put you down–I am glad to be able to ask you these types of hard questions without you thinking I’m trying to attack you. I am trying to discover where our disagreement in logic begins.
As I see it Helen correctly identifies the divide. It all comes down to how one views the bible.
If it is central then you end up with the questions Tim asks. If it is subservient ( to Jesus ) then Helen and Brian offer another way.
I tend to agree with you that it comes down to how one views the Bible. I just have a hard time reconciling your train of thought. If the Bible is subservient to Jesus, where do you get your understanding of who Jesus really was/is? I guess that’s at the heart of what I’m trying to understand. Thanks!
Tim, I’ve read this exchange between you and and Helen, and I do see what you’re saying/questioning. (I guess Helen does, too, but it sounds like you guys have done this before and may not have a lot more to say in that exchange.)
I hear you say, Well what, exactly, are you proposing as the starting place? If not the Bible, then what, exactly?
It’s a valid point. We’re sitting there reading those passages. What do we do with them? How do I reconcile Jesus saying in one place “Be merciful just as your Father is merciful” whereas he says in another place “an [the Lord] will say, I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from me, all you evildoers….there will be gnashing of teeth when you see…you yourselves being cast out.” (All in the same gospel.)
My starting place is, the Bible (or even, the NT) provides a context for knowing Jesus and God. But not facts, because it was written over many years by several different people who heard the accounts from eye-witnesses. And the arc of Jesus’ life and testament is something none of us can ever “know” as facts because it happened day after day, in a culture and in a time distinctly different from ours.
And indeed I don’t regard God as wanting us to get facts right. Rather, I see God wanting us to know him and his ways (justice, righteousness, love, mercy, goodness). And Jesus showed us in person and now empowers us real-time. And eternity is what comes after, but we also complete this life and this phase of the game (if you will).
So what are all the missionaries doing? I’m not at all dissing what they’re doing and they invest sometimes even their own physical lives in doing it. But parsing who’s in an out to me now seems very, very dangerous and unlike the Jesus I’ve come to know.
Hi Mary Beth,
Actually, I have not done this before, but I have given my faith quite a bit of thought over the years. In high school, one of my best friends was an atheist, so we had quite a number of friendly discussions and that started my journey into thinking deeply about my faith. However, I’ve never spoken to people who had an “ideal” Jesus, but disregarded the accounts of Jesus as factual. I kinda wish they would just stop using the name Jesus, and just say they have an ideal about what is ideal. I understand why they use his name, however, as he has come to stand for the “ideal” of who God is.
My coming to this blog is actually a result of leaving my former church, and through research I came here. After leaving my church in January, I started blogging about my beliefs, and came across this blog while doing research on trying to understand where the leaders in my church are coming from. Although they probably haven’t read McLaren, I think they have similar beliefs.
I guess our main difference is that we both start with the Bible, but I also end with the Bible. I do believe that Scriptures lay out a genuine account of who Jesus is and what he taught and did.
I think that’s one of the unique things about Christianity: it’s validity rests on true history. If a man Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead three days later, it just becomes a set of values to live your life after. If however, Jesus really was like it is laid out in the Bible, the implications are enormous.
Lastly, I’d like to make a comment a little off-topic regarding the values I’ve read about here compared to what I’ve blogged on my own site. I get the feeling that people feel that if someone has strong convictions about who God is and the truth of Scripture, and then tries their hardest to help people see that “light,” in today’s world that person is seen as arrogant or self=righteous, etc. As a result, I think many of the people here would be put off by the content on my blog, as I just flush out what I believe and make appeals to readers to embrace it. (On this blog, I try to walk on pins and needles so as to be polite as possible.) I would recommend watching this video on youtube (the first 2 minutes are a little slow). It’s a celebrity, who happens to be an atheist, but shows what is I feel the best way for a non-believer in the Jesus of the Bible to respond to a believer.
And my final “lastly”…I’m starting to sound like a preacher who says “in closing” several times! 🙂 My definition of the world being a “better place” is going to be different than someone else’s. For example, I think the world would be a better place if everyone believed in Jesus of the Bible. Someone else thinks it would be a better place if all religions were eliminated and people stopped worshiping their God. This is a problem I see inherent in this line of thinking of only accepting things from the Bible that make the world “better.” By whose definition?
Didn’t intend on writing another comment, but wanted to respond to Mary Beth. Thanks again for reading!
Tim, one of my huge problems with your beliefs about the Bible is that in my opinion the Bible is way too inconsistent to give clear direction. I think Brian said you can pretty much prove whatever you want from it and I agree. I once held beliefs very similar to yours but over time became increasingly disturbed to see how few verses supported my beliefs and how many other verses disagreed. I came to the conclusion that human reasoning developed the belief system I held, based on human decisions about which verses took precedence wherever the Bible disagreed with itself.
And the disagreements have never been resolved – go to any Christian discussion board and the Calvinists are still going at it with the Arminians, throwing proof texts at each other, etc. The problem being that they prioritize verses differently, Each takeg some as primary to their doctrine and ‘interpret’ others in light of their primary ones. And since their primary ones differ, so do their doctrines. And who is right? We have a ‘by whose definition?’ problem already among people who all claim the Bible is factual and true!
I agree that ‘by whose definition?’ is a valid question. However, for the reasons I just outlined I do not think ‘the Bible’s’ resolves it. And I feel much safer including all the best compassionate thinkers of the 21st century in searching for the definition than saying ‘it has to be in this 2000+ year old book.’
One other point: when you say ‘human reasoning’ maybe I’m reading into that but it feels like a put down, as if ‘that’s only human where as the Bible is God’s words’. However, who are you to say that any given human reasoning today is not at least as inspired by the Holy Spirit (if he exists) as anything in the Bible? Can you be sure that it isn’t?
You mentioned arrogance; Brian alluded to this in his book also. It does sound arrogant when a person says what amounts to “I believe God but you are simply using human reasoning” to people who think it’s all human reasoning (or all has the possibility of being Spirit-led). I appreciate those who try not to sound arrogant but I don’t know how to avoid it while holding the viewpoint “I believe God but you are simply relying on human reasoning”. (Perhaps a good place to start would be admitting that no-one really can have certainty about God) Which is why I look at outcomes and appreciate how Brian’s outcome is likely to be a more compassionate world.
Thanks Mary Beth. I used to be where Tim is at but these days I don’t have reason to think your beliefs are less justified than Tim’s.
I expect Brian’s beliefs are similar to yours.
I agree with you that on several issues, the Bible can be interpreted several ways, such as Calvinist vs. Arminian. And I also agree that the Bible can be used to support all kinds of contradictory things. The same can be said of my words on this blog or yours. Yet the fact remains that you are indeed trying to communicate “some”thing (and not all things), and while I try to interpret it, I may not always get it right. But I believe they are your words and not mine, so I try to listen and understand what you are saying, so that I don’t misrepresent it. I’m not perfect, so that will never happen, and I think the same is true for me trying to interpret Scripture.
Obviously, a major difference between me and you is that I believe that beyond the human writers of Scripture, God in the end authored it. I do believe he inspires today as well. In order to help us determine what is authored of God or not, we can look to Scripture as the benchmark to help us in that determination. In other words, I look to build on Scripture rather than stray from it. No, this isn’t perfect, I realize that. We all have differences of what Scripture says. But I do believe we should be in dialogue w/each other to help correct our thinking, or at least to see why we differ. That’s part of the beauty of different denominations–we all get some things right and some things wrong. I do wish that denoms would dialogue w/each other though instead of segregating so severely.
Regarding your last point, I do think it’s hard for either side to avoid sounding arrogant. Just because something sounds arrogant doesn’t mean that the person is arrogant, however. Sure, a Christian who firmly believes that the Jesus of Scripture is the only way to God may sound arrogant, but it also sounds arrogant when someone says that they have found a better way than Scripture. A way that is more compassionate. Or a way that is less arrogant. In other words, I understand that you feel your way is superior to mine–and I think it’s absolutely correct for you to feel that way–otherwise, why believe it? We should only believe what we feel is the most superior way. But I don’t think you’re arrogant for believing your way is superior. I can tell by your writing that you desire humility and compassion.
I am just requesting that people don’t label me as arrogant or in-compassionate for firmly believing that my way is superior. Although I feel it is, I do so respectfully and out of the motivation of love for God and my fellow man.
I think that if someone cannot see this in me, it is they who have become close-minded, arrogant or judgmental. This is why I find it ironic that it has often been the case for me that those who champion tolerance or not judging seem to use the accusation “arrogant” quite a bit. Like I said, I don’t see you that way, but I do see that often from people who are on the opposite side of Christianity, which to me is just as hypocritical as your stereotypical Christian. It seems to me that Christians aren’t the only ones walking around with logs in their eyes! 🙂
As I Lutheran, I have never read the Bible through the “constitution” lens, aka “the Bible as Owner’s Manual.” It is vital to read the scriptures through the Christ/Gospel lens. When one does this many things begin to change…
From “Holy War” to “war against sin and demonic powers”
From “Temple-building-holy place focus” to “living Temple made up with people and Christ the Cornerstone”
From “inflicting violence against the evil ones” to “absorbing and transforming violence”
From “scaring the hell out of people” to “loving the hell out of people”
From “serve us” to “service”
From “arguing over who is the greatest, including religions” to becoming the “least of all and servant of all”
From “hostility” to “hospitality”
From “measuring up to achieve God’s love” to “being a complete mess and God’s love finding you”
From “aggression” (= differentiate by attacking others) to “assertiveness” (= differentiate and honor others)
From “tribal god” to “abba of everyone”
From “idolatry of being right” to the “human, holy divine way of being love”
From “shun the losers” to “table fellowship with the losers”
My bottom line reading… God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us the most. (And God loves everyone like this!)
Thanks, Helen, for calling us to a healing way of reading, interpreting and living faith, calling those who practice the Jesus Way to do better!
Thanks Tim – yes it certainly makes sense to me that God would love us at least as much as the person who loves us the most.
I like your list of from…to.
As someone who would probably be labeled as a person who reads the Bible as an “owner’s manual,” I too agree with and champion everything on your list! I don’t think that the Bible teaches otherwise.
If there is agreement on the points of this list, then why does it matter what one does or does not believe about god or Jesus?
Another Tim: Shhhh! (spoken in a whisper) You’re suggesting that “believing” is overrated 🙂
Eavesdropping person: What’s that?
Another Tim: Nothing, nothing, say no more
Justification, vocation.
Loved people, love people.
Hi – thanks for the review.
Looking through the feedback, I’d say that just getting that conversation happening, with respect and interest in raising our better selves (or fighting evil, if that’s where it starts) is probably a pretty good achievement of Brian’s (and this blog).
Cheers. Eric
Thanks Eric. I do think it’s good to consider how we can raise our better selves/fight evil.
Tim (the first Tim), perhaps you could reread how I started my review. It’s all stories to me; if they make the world a better place I like them. Period.
Gotcha! Even though we disagree, I respect your openness. I think my question is probably better asked of McLaren, since I don’t think he agrees with your position on the Bible. To open up a little, the reason why I probed this way is that I just left a church who would seem to be in line with McLaren’s philosophy and his rejection of the diagram you provided in this post. Yet, they claim that they are not rejecting the Gospels as being authentic witnesses of who Jesus was. I can see how someone in your position can agree with that philosophy, but I always understood McLaren to view the Gospels as more than just stories. Perhaps I have been wrong. Maybe I should direct the line of questioning to him. Thanks for hearing my questions! God bless you!
Thanks Tim. I think you’re right that Brian doesn’t regard the gospels as just ‘stories’.
Btw, Helen, I hope you don’t feel I have sabotaged your blog. Wasn’t my intent. My initial intent was to try to better understand where my church was coming from. They wanted to say that they believe that the Jesus of Scripture was as you or Brian depicts him (i.e. rejecting the diagram you’ve provided). Now that I’ve learned where you are coming from, I think your reasoning makes complete sense, if you reject Scripture as accurately depicting who Jesus is and what he taught. I don’t think your belief system is flawed, if you assume that the Bible is just stories.
My confusion lies with people who continue to affirm that they believe in Jesus as depicted in Scripture, yet believe in a Jesus like you present. I can’t do that without eliminating quite a bit of Jesus’ teachings as mentioned in the Bible; I wish they would acknowledge this flat out! Maybe they are on the journey to becoming like you are, and they just don’t realize it yet. I think they would disagree with me on that, however.
Tim, I don’t mind you asking questions here but since your goal is to understand where your (former?) church is coming from I’m rather surprised you’re not asking them. Are they not approachable? Have you tried having this conversation with them?
As for what people do or don’t acknowledge, do you acknowledge that the Bible is inconsistent and your beliefs are based on making certain verses ‘key’ and others that contradict those ‘secondary’ (i.e. to be explained in light of the ‘key’ ones). For example I expect you explain the Sheep and Goats passage ‘in light’ of other passages rather than taking it at face value and saying “Wow, it teaches that heaven is attained by good works [acts of compassion] and faith is irrelevant!”
By the way I strongly doubt most people who are where Brian/your (former?) church is at will end up where I’m at. (So I guess I would disagree too :)) I know lots of people with views like Brian/that church who have held them for a while and don’t show any signs of losing their belief in Jesus. It may seem like a slippery slope to you but from my perspective there seems to be a pretty wide ledge where they’re at! I went relatively quickly from a conservative Christian faith to being uncertain God even exists. For me I guess it was indeed a very steep slippery slope but for many many followers of Jesus it doesn’t seem to be.
Quite frankly, a lot of the Bible is rather perplexing, confusing, and disturbing:
rape of the Levite’s concubine” from Judges
slaughter all the Canaanites (men, women, and children)
post-exile Jews married to “foreign women” must divorce them and get rid of children born from these relationships
weeping and gnashing of teeth
lake of fire
So Brian McLaren’s questions about the Bible’s narrative and authority are necessary. Certainly there are passages that seem at face value to make God look like a terrorist. I choose to interpret these passages from the “abba” perspective, as I said, God loves everyone at least as much as the person who loves us the most. Yet there is a lot of biblical “evidence” which seems to go against my assertion. So I think Helen is exactly right. The verses you make “key” and the verses you say are “secondary” makes a big difference. And, it seems to me, we all pick certain passages as more central than others. For example, “nothing can separate us from the love of Christ…” is central to my reading of the Bible.
My hope is that we interpret the Bible, life, reality in the most healing way possible.
Helen, I resigned from my former church because I felt our disagreements were so severe. As you can tell, it would be hard for you and I to work together in a church, or Brian McLaren and I. I still desired an amicable departure, and worked to that end, but that desire was not returned. I was told that, unlike me, they think about their faith. I was told that I was an arrogant person for feeling the need to resign (even though I tried to do it graciously). I felt it would be better to talk to people who weren’t involved in the situation, so I could get more objective results. This has helped.
For what it’s worth, I interpret Jesus’ teaching about the sheep and goats to mean that not everyone who claims to have faith in Christ are actually sheep–some are goats (which look kinda like sheep). And then in this passage Jesus demonstrates one way He’ll judge those who claim to have faith in him. I don’t think that story makes faith in him irrelevant. In other passages, he illustrates other ways He will judge those who claim to have faith in Him (Luke 12:35-48). Jesus also says that not everyone who calls him “Lord,” will get into heaven. I think all these stories make it pretty clear that there are devastating consequences if you are a goat or a wicked servant, etc. Yes, I don’t like to hear about such punishment, but that’s kinda what I like about the Bible, and why I think it has more validity: It doesn’t always tell me what I like to hear. I think it’s also pretty honest about its “heroes.” It seems real-life to me. No pretentions about how David, Abraham, Paul really were–great triumphs, but also serious, major faults.
Sounds like you tried to be honest, gracious, and respectful in breaking with your former congregation. In this conversation your words have come across as thoughtful, humble with definite convictions. May we all, as the title of this blog states, learn the More Excellent Way.
Tim, I’m sorry to hear that your former church reacted as they did to your difference in beliefs and your resignation. I don’t know if this is any consolation, but Brian does urge Christians who believe like he does not to have a ‘superior’ attitude to those who believe as you do.
It’s ironic actually – the people I’ve encountered with Brian’s beliefs have been the ones who had to leave. It’s good to be reminded that it can cut both ways and sometimes those with more conservative beliefs end up as the unwelcome outsider.
In fact I would say based on what you shared that that church is not quite where Brian is because he is not afraid of questions and differences. If he has a fear it’s of the Bible being misused to hurt people and the environment.
I’d like to think that although Brian’s beliefs differ somewhat from yours, he would be sorry to hear how your former church treated you.
And I hope that the interaction here has at least shown you that disrespect towards you doesn’t have to go hand in hand with beliefs like Brian’s – even though that’s what you experienced from your former church.
To be clear, they didn’t ask me to leave, but I felt because of my convictions that I needed to be part of a church that saw things in a similar way as I do.
I have no problem with McLaren thinking his way is superior to my way. I would hope he thinks this way–otherwise, he should be in my camp! I only ask that others be ok with me feeling my way is superior to theirs without them feeling that’s arrogant.
I have indeed felt respected here, and hope you feel I respect you.
Wow, I really love this particular blog! For one, it’s hard to find people who are good writers and like to blog like this. (OK, I am arrogant on that one.) If we all went to Starbucks and sat there for two hours, we’d all probably have a really good conversation! Better than I have with a lot of people I know. (Although if I couldn’t talk about March Madness, I’d probably feel a litte lost.)
From ’91 to about 2003 I participated in Brian’s church. I read his new book and I feel like I’m sitting there with him in a small group — it’s a very familiar feeling. (Or with him at the lectern … his style didn’t seem to change regardless of the venue.) Of course, I had many, many opportunities to talk with him in person over those years, work on various ministries, etc. and the CHURCH he led really transformed and healed me. (Well, God through the church he led.)
At the risk of sounding trite, this conversation on this blog is so consistent with the kinds of conversations we had with people that came to church. Whether at church, in restaurants, at people’s homes, wherever. (Even at Brian’s home.) Not just Brian….his church attracted all sorts of people (leaders) who supported this kind of journey. (I consider us on a similar journey, even if we aren’t agreeing on dogma here.)
I wish there were a way for bloggers to connect outside the Internet, but for now I guess it’s the best we have. The in-person encounters add so much. For me, I’ve spent the last few years integrating more body-centered exercises into my spirituality and life, and it’s opened up a whole new dynamic and awareness. But it’s hard to describe it in a blog.
Anyway, I guess I’m saying, Wow, this blog is amazing. You’re the only people I can have this discussion with right now (because no one else wants to blog about it, at least, not that I’ve found!).
Thanks Mary Beth!
Tim, how do I find YOUR blog?
I too have appreciated this discussion. I don’t know if anyone else has ever read this book, but “The Myth of Certainty,” by Daniel Taylor really helped me along my spiritual journey and still does today. It is written for “reflective” Christians who find themselves living among and caught between close-minded conservative Christianity and a post-modern world close-minded toward God. According to the book a “reflective” Christian is someone who doesn’t feel like certainty can be attained about anything, so they tend to be more open-minded. Yet both the conservative Christian world seems so certain/clear about so many things about God, while the intellectual world seems so certain/clear that Scripture is yesterday’s news. What to do? Those are my last parting words–gotta job and family to tend to!
God bless, and thanks again for helping me along!
Thanks for all the interaction Tim. You raise a good point that certainty is also found outside conservative Christianity.
Before you go completely (unless you have already) did you see Mary Beth’s question asking where your blog is?
I’d like to pass on a suggestion that I picked up from Marcus Borg and Dom Crossan (though many employ this technique in studying the Gospels). Putting together parallel passages and reading them comparatively while thinking about the context & audience of each gospel can be very enlightening. It is particularly helpful to see how the material evolved as the gospels were being written. As a really quick example: when Jesus mentions “gnashing of teeth” it will generally (maybe always) be from Matthew. It was this authors inspired way of adding emphasis that was not in the account in Mark, etc. Looking at a number these passages can help us work backwards through the experiences and struggles of the community towards the core of the story. [As an aside one of the chapters from Brian’s book asks us to stop looking backwards for a minutes and charts the development of scripture & understanding of God towards Jesus which is also an excellent perspective shift]. I’m not looking for this technique to prove any particular version of Jesus, but it really does help to open up the inspired literature that we have been given as our primary source material for understanding Jesus.
This is an excellent dialog.
Thank you.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin. I think that’s an interesting way to study the gospels too: comparing what’s in one and not the others.
I also noticed Matthew does seem to use phrases about hell the other gospels don’t use.
What really stood out to me when I studied the hell passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke nine years ago was that it was designated as the place for evildoers, rather than unbelievers.
John Crossan does this very well, IMO. His stuff is really thick to get through — it’s written for mainstream but really can get bogged down academically. But it is the most balanced study I’ve seen, using the approach you describe, Kevin.
The other thought I’ve had (not just recently) is as follows. I assume that God exists and he wants to communicate with people through Jesus. Now I’d like to put myself in God’s shoes for a minute (all humour aside). If I’m God, and “text” and getting “text” right is so important, by golly I’m going to wait until at least the 20th century to introduce Jesus. In fact, by then, we have multimedia to capture everything Jesus ever said or did — literally, word for word. All that’s left up for grabs is interpretation, because we’ll know exactly what he said
Someone might say, Well, God didn’t want to wait/couldn’t wait another 2000 years. I might say, He waited at least that long before he introduced Jesus! Surely He could have waited longer if he wanted to and needed to. Imgagine….the disciples following Jesus around with laptops, cameras, cellphones, capturing everything word for word, blogging it real-time, multicasting it real-time. The text would be 100 percent accurate. No debate there.
I’ve also thought this way: What if “text” weren’t written words. What if it were pictures, or sound, or….whatever. The list could go on and on. Just where did this darn insistence on the written word = truth come into play?
I struggle with that one. It seems like we (humanity) placed this construct called The Written Word over Truth, like a cloak, and said The Only Way To Truth Is This Darn Written Word. Ugh, it feels very narrow to me.