More McLaren

Finally finished a Generous Orthodoxy. There are far too many comments that could be made at this point. Any perusal of this book (and the thoughts of the author) needs to be addressed by far more than a blog. Where does one start? It would take a book by itself to respond to the author’s (Brian McLaren) thoughts. Since I am only starting to seriously address the current wave of emergent theology, and its subsequent impact upon Christian thought, I will refrain from any conclusions concerning the author or the movement as a whole. Problems arise, however, from the content of the book.

Let’s address one: It is the author’s (strong) tendency to surface straw dummies that are easily knocked over to draw conclusions that do not necessarily follow. If one absorbs the thought content of his eloquent writing style without critiquing those thoughts one would conclude, by implication, that orthodoxy constantly needs reinterpretation. The author rightly condemns the fact that Christianity in the name of Christ, and justified by orthodoxy, has mass-murdered, conquered, plundered, etc, etc (fill in the blanks). The straw dummies? Evil men (usually Protestant and white) have done evil things to innocent people in the name of Christ with orthodoxy and absolutes as justifications for their evil deeds. All this is true throughout history, by the way. The conclusion? Let’s advance to a more generous orthodoxy because our God is a loving God, disapproves of Pharisaic oppressions (in the name of orthodoxy, etc) and wants us to bridge the various divides of human interaction so that we might better be able to offer to the world this wonderful Jesus of ours.

Now the author would of course consider this response of mine to be shallow and perhaps even incorrect. But remember, I am addressing those (many) who engage his eloquent writings without critiquing them. The impact (the fruit of that tree) is to conclude by implication that we are in an ongoing conversation and that absolutes only inhibit us from this valuable dialogue. Are there absolutes in Scripture that demand responses within the Christian community? But of course. What are those absolutes that retard our community so much in his mind? The author does not address them. He does address distortions of absolutes and orthodoxies, but he does not name them. Absent, also, from the book is any attempt at exegesis. Now this is not a bad thing. It is simply not the intent of the book. However, I do have a problem with his excoriating his various straw dummies and thus concluding that their (unnamed) orthodoxies and absolutes are illegitimate without some attempt by him to engage Scripture. One would ask the author if there are any absolutes in Scripture. If so, what are they? Should we be generous about changing such absolutes and the orthodoxy that they inspire? It seems to me that there are two and separate subjects that are worthy of serious discussion. One is the distortion of absolute truth by evil men. The other is the absolute truth itself. It is worthy to condemn false teachers, etc, of doing evil deeds in His wonderful name. Those distortions do not however deny the truths that these evil men proclaim. Again, a distortion of the truth does not deny the truth. To the author I would ask, what are those orthodoxies and absolutes that you would like to converse about and possibly change? By the way, as we converse and change, does that change now become an absolute?

Joel Encapsulated

After prayer each morning, my wife and I will read aloud from the Bible. This morning it was out of The Book of Ecclesiastes. When we got to this famous passage my thoughts went beyond the normal wedding pronouncements that proclaim the eternal value of two becoming one in marriage. To review the complete thought, The Preacher said this:

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart. (4:9-12)

So where did my thoughts go? Well, they progressed actually. They first went to an expansion of the celebration of marital companionship and uplifting that was required by the passage. If one is required to, and privileged to, uplift one’s mate throughout the trials of life, isn’t this process also valued in our relationship to our brothers and sisters in Christ? But of course, one might conclude! As the trials of life increase and we come closer to the insanity of our current world-condition, who better to lift up and to resist those who would overpower us, and along with Christ establish a multi-stranded cord of faithful companionship than our family in Christ? Well, I couldn’t leave well-enough alone. My thoughts immediately went to the one chapter in the Bible that best mirrors the entire reason for this site, namely Jeremiah 12:5. For those of you who know me, you know that this is one of my favorite verses. I had not thought of this verse, however, as summing up the entire reason for my blog until this morning - at this reading. After the prophet laments and imprecates, the Lord interrupts and thunders out with these words:

If you have run with footmen and they have tired you out, then how can you compete with horses? And if you fall down in a land of peace, how will you do in the thicket of the Jordan?

This web site is simply saying this: We Christians in North America are currently running with footmen. The day is soon to come when we will be required to compete with horses. We are ministering (and being family members) currently in a land of peace. The day is soon to come when we will be backed up into the thicket of the Jordon. Now is the time to be family. Now is the time to lift up our companions and to resist those who would overpower our brothers and sisters, and now is the time to establish a tested cord of koinania-like relationship within our local communities - while we are running with footmen; while we are in a land of peace. The day may soon be upon us that… the tree has born its fruit. The fig tree and the vine have yielded in full. (Joel 2:22b) TAFTCom.

Expelled

Just went to see Ben Stein’s “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed”. Good Job. What the man has done is to force this documentary-like expose into the community when those who control the information-flow would restrict such information. So what’s it about?

First of all, Intelligent Design is an ongoing effort to research and explain the scientific evidence that posits that the incredible complexity of life on this planet can be best explained as the result of intelligent design. This, of course implies a designer. Secondly, it is being claimed by the documentary that such a scientific effort is being suppressed by many in the Darwinian/scientific community. Most of us in the Christian community don’t know that a controversy exists regarding the origins of the material universe, the creation of life, and the reason for existence in general. I think that we are comfortable in ignoring the claims of Evolution because it would strain our belief that “in the beginning God...” Well, this expose is not so much about there being good science that refutes the claims of Neo-Darwinian Evolution, and there is certainly very good science that does just that, but rather that there are those in the “scientific community” that are actively engaged in suppressing such scientific endeavors.

There are several posts commenting on the documentary found at Uncommon Descent (April 19). If you are saving to your address book such sites (that deal with the ID/Creationism debate) this is certainly one that you must have. This site is world class. Dr. Demski and friends comment on matters that reflect Intelligent Design as causation of much of the phenomena that manifests our universe. To those who are inclined to personify that Intelligence as the God of Scripture go to the site dedicated to such things at The Institute for Creation Science (ICR). Neither site will insult your intelligence. These are world-class scientists who deal with the rote data of science and justify their claims within the confines of that arena. While we are at it, here is a book that deals with the fossil record from a creationist standpoint: Evolution: the fossils still say NO! (Duane T. Gish, ICR, 2006). Are you a little nervous as a Christian to get into this area? Don’t be. The rote data is on our side. If I were a neo-Darwinian scientist, I would be embarrassed by the fossil record. I suppose that is one of the reasons that some in that community must suppress the claims of ID/Creationism as valid science.

Anyway, go see this doc. Take some friends. We will discuss this large issue much more in the future.

God A

Brian McLaren from A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004)

Again, beyond these masculine/feminine issues, the experience of God in Jesus was so powerful that it forever transformed what followers of Jesus meant when they said the word God. What was God like? What was God about? When they thought about what they had learned, seen, and experienced in Jesus, their understanding was revolutionized. Eventually, after a few centuries of reflecting on God as revealed and experienced through Jesus (in the context of some major controversies with varied forms of Greek philosophy), the church began to describe God as Father-Son-Spirit in Tri-unity or the Trinity. For them, God could no longer be conceived of merely as “God A,” a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will, but as “God B”, a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love.

Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God A created it: a universe of dominance, control, limitation, submission, uniformity, coercion. Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God B created it: a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality, freedom. I’m not sure which comes first – the kind of universe you see or the kind of God you believe in, but as a Christian who believes in Jesus as the Son of God, I find myself in universe B, getting to know God B.

This is why, for starters, I am a Christian: the image of God conveyed by Jesus as the Son of God, and the image of the universe that resonates with this image of God best fit my deepest experience, best resonate with my deepest intuition, best inspire my deepest hope, and best challenge me to live with what my friend, the late Mike Yaconelly called “dangerous wonder,” which is the starting point for a generous orthodoxy. (pp. 84-85)

Apparently, the author believes that it took the church “centuries” to discover that God was a good guy. By implication the god that the church believed in was dominant, coercive, and controlling, but then after dealing with some major controversies and with some Greek philosophy to help, the church discovered Jesus, the loving God B. I’m sorry, but I don’t recognize this God A. It seems to me that He is a construct of the author based upon a distortion of the God of the Bible generated by shallow and dishonest men. Somehow, it seems difficult to believe that the first century Christians would recognize this God A, either. I’m beginning to sense that this entire book is designed to set up straw dummies so that they may be easily knocked over. The author's God A is a straw dummy, is he not?

Consider this possibility: God B has already created this “universe B”. It was called the Garden of Eden. Something bad happened there if I recall. Now, I fully expect to participate in this ideal state-of-being someday, but please understand that if God B creates it without dealing with evil, then we will do the same thing over and over and over again. Perhaps we need to consider that Brian’s God A and God B are the same God, but God A is not described correctly by the author’s pejorative-like adjectives. There will be a day when God A can no longer contain His rage, will turn to His Son God B and release Him to return with the armies of Heaven to deal with the enemies of His beloved Church, and we who belong will forever dwell in Brian’s Universe B.

A distortion of the Truth does not deny the Truth. God A hates evil.

From John to Brian

We recently posted re. John Franke’s forward to Brian McLaren’s book a Generous Orthodoxy. See post on March 21. I’m finally getting into the book proper, so let’s go from John’s views to what Brian is actually writing. Regarding his being enriched by the views of various major denominations and their beliefs concerning Jesus, he says this about The Eastern Orthodox Jesus:

For the first time, through the Eastern Jesus, I began to have a glimpse of how Jesus could indeed be the Savior of not just a few individual humans but of the whole world. I began to see the wisdom, the necessity of the incarnation, and its expanding impact – not just beyond this life and this history, but within it. And somehow I began to see how my personal salvation was not apart from the salvation of the world but was a part of it. The more I learned from Jesus “the ways of the king,” the more I could influence others in his ways, too, and the closer we came to the salvation of the whole world. This dynamic, transcendent, and cosmic Eastern Orthodox Jesus opened the door for three more. (pp. 65-66)

God’s life, love, joy, and power are so great that all our death, hate, pain, and failures are eradicated, swallowed up, cancelled, extinguished, and overcome by being taken up into God. In this way Jesus will ultimately bring blessing to the whole world, to all of creation…Second, as humanity (and all creation) enters into God through Jesus, God also enters Jesus’ people, species, and history. And by entering all creation through Jesus, God’s heart is forever bound to it in solidarity, faithfulness, loyalty, and commitment. God will never give up until all creation is healed of its diseases, cured of its addiction, retrained from its foolishness, reclaimed from its lost state. Jesus saves by coming, by being born. (pp.63-64 - emphasis has been mine)

I will withhold assertive conclusions about any of the author’s spiritual world views until a later date. One of the areas of interest to me will be in the discerning of his degree of possessing a koinania-like love for human kind and in a discerning of just how that love is supposed to impact world society. He seems to feel that as we learn “the ways of the king”, to that degree we will impact the world for good and help bring about “the salvation of the whole world”. God’s love is so powerful that death is going to be “swallowed up” by being “taken up into God”. Further, “God will never give up until all creation is healed…”

Let’s stop here. Books can be written regarding this page alone. To those of us who are animated in any way to serve Christ, questions demand to be asked, and answered:

Where is The Second Coming in all this? His first coming (incarnation) should indeed impact society as we live, but is that process going to swallow up death by “being taken up into God”? If there are many who are going to enter in by the broad way, and there are few who are going to enter in by the narrow way (Mt. 7:13-14), then a little more sobriety needs to be exercised here, don’t you think? It seems more likely that death is going to be swallowed up (destroyed) by the coming of a great king outraged by death and all that it (he) entails. As previously alluded to, He is not going to negotiate with bad people, the Church is not going to turn the world around, niceness is not going to win the day. The Second Coming of Christ with the armies of heaven is going to win the day!

Now here is the question that the 800 pound gorilla demands be answered by all who proclaim the name of Christ: Is it the eschatological intent of Christ through history to heal a community (the world), or is it His eschatological intent to call out a remnant people uniquely unto Himself (the Church)? Eternal life and death may be in the balance!!