I have not had the chance to read Brian McLaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that Are Transforming the Faith" (primarily because I'm poor and none of the libraries around me has it), but as one who wrote his Advanced M.Div thesis on McLaren, I can certainly understand some of the things he writes in the book because they are really what he has been saying all along. Along with the release of his book, McLaren is releasing videos and study guides that go along with each of the 10 questions he raises in the book.Here is the video for the first question regarding the Narrative question:
What McLaren offers here is nothing new. Furthermore, the fallacy he offers is also the same. His argument is basically that we read and interpret the Bible, not as it is meant to be read and interpreted, but through the lens of particular cultures and influential theologians. In the video, he points out that when we see Jesus, we really see Paul's view of Jesus. But really, instead of Paul's view of Jesus, we see Augustine's view, Thomas Aquinas' view, Martin Luther's view, John Calvin's view, John Wesley's view, and so on.
What we must do, instead, is put Jesus in his native environment. So rather than see Jesus through ourselves, and our cultural and theological lenses, we must see Jesus as he was.
In response, there are a number of things to point out. First, we must view Jesus in light of His historical and cultural context. That is the very nature of exegesis. Until we understand the culture, the political background, the language, and tensions, the traditions, and the historical context of any given passage (not just the Gospels), we will not understand the text.
But I am left with this question: isn't that the point of commentaries, exegetical and language tools, manners and customs books, Bible background commentaries, study Bibles, etc.? Most good commentaries go into great detail in describing the background of the text for the purpose of drawing out the original meaning of the text, as it was originally presented, in order to have a right interpretation and thus a correct application. As a pastor, I spend more time understanding the historical and cultural background and studying the original language than I do in thinking about application.
Certainly there are some back interpretations and I am afraid that though McLaren raises a good point (but certainly not a new point), part of the movement he has led has only contributed to the problem. Postmodernity and Evangelical snobbery and laziness has read a text and then asked (and discussed) "what does that mean to me?" As a result, each person in a room have their own interpretations without ever considering the historical context. Isn't this the point of having a conversation; to share what theology, the Bible, salvation, Christianity, and Jesus mean to me?
Furthermore, though reading the Bible forward as to backwards is insightful, I am afraid that he mischaracterizes why people see Jesus and Paul through Augustine and Luther. These great theologians of the past did exactly what McLaren told us to do. Should we ignore the insight they gave? I love Martin Luther and have been greatly influenced by him, but I always take what he says and line it up with Scripture. I affirm his understanding of the gospel because that is what the Bible says. If we just listen to Luther or Wesley because we like them better than Paul, then we do have a problem.
The reason McLaren and company want us to rethink how we relate to these theologians is because he does not like the culture in which they lived. "The Reformation was relevant in the 16th Century, but the theology of that generation is no longer relevant today," they seem to be saying. This is arrogance to say the least. If Luther understood the gospel (which is transcendent) then his culture and my culture has nothing to do with it.
This brings me to another issue. McLaren doesn't want us to view Scripture and the narrative of God's story through these men, but he does want us to view God's narrative through men like Jacque Derrida and Marcus Borg and other postmodern and liberal thinkers and theologians. Emergents have long complained that we cannot interpret Scripture without our own cultural back age (which is why studying Luther and Aquinas is so important) and yet tell us to view the Scriptures in light of postmodern culture.
McLaren cannot have it both ways. Through postmodernism, McLaren has redefined Christianity and has come up with "A New Kind of Christianity." That has been his mantra for years now. In every book, he seeks to change the mind of the readers into a more postmodern way of thinking.
Finally, a word must be said about his raising of questions without any direct answers in order to stir a conversation. To raise questions is one thing and to claim that you only want to raise questions is one thing, but then to proceed to explain to us how we have answered those questions wrongly is to give us an answer that you promised not to give. Certainly McLaren dances around objectivity, but at the same time, those who read and follow him know what he believes and doesn't believe.
I look forward to round 2.
For More:
0 comments:
Post a Comment