In my Theology after Google class, I was assigned to blog about Chapter 8 of Brian D. McLaren’s new book, “A New Kind of Christianity”
In this chapter, The Authority Question –From Legal Constitution to Community Library, McLaren writes “…we read and use the Bible as a legal constitution…as a result; we turn our seminaries and denominational bodies into versions of a Supreme Court…” He uses the constitution as a metaphor for how some – specifically those from “conservative settings” (his heritage) -- approach biblical text as if it were “annotated code”. His point is finally made when he recommends we should read the Bible as:
“…an inspired library” that …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”.(Page 83)
I don’t want to be impertinent, but I wonder if Mr. McLaren truly believes this approach is a new revelation?
Another question: Why were guidelines for reading the Bible buried in footnote 10? Why not in the body of the book? I think many will agree with them, but I don’t think they have been said often enough or loud enough, communicated effectively or taken seriously. Maybe the internet and Mr. McLaren’s web site will help remedy that. Maybe the new thing is how the message is packaged and disseminated.
Hi, I am Jae Seon, a student of the same class.
ReplyDeleteI think he understands "the constitution" in functional way. To use his terms, "the constitution that preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous endeavors for keeping the consevative values" But, I think his idea of "an inspired libaray" is also very functional and very humanistic. The transcendental, or revelatory, aspects of the Bible are easily ignored.
Jae Seon, I think you are correct. I really don't agree with his stance on the how the constitution should be read, so I thought it was a poor example. I believe that it is also an inspired document, and like the Bible open to being interpreted in light of new knowledge and applied to today's context. I could go on and one, but that's another argument. Thanks for your response.
ReplyDelete