A New Kind of Christianity: The Second Question

OK, so it’s been over three weeks since I have blogged about A New Kind of Christianity. If anyone has lost sleep, anxiously waiting what I would say next: 1) I apologize. 2) Please seek professional help.

McLaren’s second question is The Authority Question. Specifically “How Should the Bible Be Understood?” McLaren begins his exploration of this question by discussing some of the problems fundamentalism has had with its practices concerning the Bible. McLaren uses, as a prime example, the pro slavery argument of the 18th century as an example of how some will misuse the scriptures to make a political or personal point. He concludes that ‘very few Christians today, in my experience anyway, have given a second thought to – much less repented of – this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery, anti-Semitism, apartheid, chauvinism, environmental plundering, prejudice against gay people, and other injustices to be legitimized and defended for so long’ (76).

McLaren progresses to examine the root cause of the above mentioned problems. He believes that we (US Christians) have been taught to read the Bible as a “legal constitution.” This leads us down the path of believing that the Bible was written with the specific reason for establishing rules and precedents for belief and behavior. (The point McLaren makes here reminds me of reading Erwin McManus, when he speaks of our faith not being all about “sin management”.) McLaren argues that this is simply a distortion of the nature of the text. “Whatever the Bible is, it is simply not a constitution… it is actually ‘something far more interesting and important: 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’ (81). He continues saying: “A culture, then, is a group of people who say different things about the same things. They propose a variety of answers to the same questions…”seen this way, the Bible would be expected to contain the very opposite of the internal consistency we require in a constitution…”(82) McLaren then adds a very interesting quote from a friend of his: “The Bible isn’t meant to be read.” (McLaren suggests, as do I, that we should ponder that statement for a moment before moving on). “What he is saying is that the Bible is meant to be heard.”

In the third part of his response to the authority question McLaren explores the conversational model of divine revelation. He suggests that the book of Job ‘provides an excellent case study in approaching the Bible in a postconstitutional way’ (87) – in effect, a model for biblical revelation as a whole. McLaren claims: “I can conclude that neither Deuteronomy nor Job speaks nonsense, but rather we speak nonsense when we practice verse snatching from Deuteronomy, the middle of Job, or anywhere else. Why? Because revelation doesn’t simply happen in statements. It happens in conversations and arguments that take place within and among communities…” (90)

Yes, with out a doubt McLaren will be accused heresy once again. I think that he goes a bit overboard with his example of pro-slavery Northern American Fundamentalists. I think he is spot on to bring into light to the truth that the Bible is a problematic text in the postmodern world. He is also right to argue that some new way of reading is necessary if Christianity is to have a viable future. I have long thought that the idea of the Bible being an answer book for all of life’s problems was quite flawed; After reading these chapters from McLaren my resolve is only stronger.