Continuing in Brian McLaren’s latest book in my quest to see if he’s finally “jumped the shark.” And thus far he’s kept mostly on pretty solid ground (at least in my opinion – some readers may have already closed the book by this point, especially those who are new to McLaren’s style of thought.)
But now we begin to cruise into potentially more treacherous waters as Brian starts looking at the Bible itself – how we read it and in what way is it authoritative for us today.
He starts off in chapter 7 by expressing his personal deep love of the Bible, before discussing some of the ways in which Christians have abused the scriptures over the years – from using it as a science textbook (the examples he gives are the faulty condemnation of Galileo, Darwin, and modern psychiatry), an ethical rule book, and as a justification for all sorts of violence and injustice. He then gives a detailed example of how the Bible was used to justify slavery before and during the American Civil War.
“In case after case in the past, there is a kind of Bible-quoting intoxication under the nfluence of which we religious people lose the ability to distinguish between what God says and what we say God says.” (p70)
In the next chapter McLaren looks at how Christians today tend to view and use the Bible, with a predominant approach being to read and use it like a legal constitution. This approach lends itself to a variety of misuses and abuses. McLaren proposes an alternate way of viewing the Bible :
“So whatever the Bible is, it is simply not a constitution. I would like to propose that it is 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.” (p 81)
McLaren’s position is that a culture is defined in many ways by the questions it asks and argues about, and the library that we have been given in the Bible is our resource to wrestle with the most important theological questions. In the following chapter Brian looks at the book of Job and contrasts his approach with a (rather caricatured ) constitutional approach. He makes the important point that sola scriptura just doesn’t seem to work if the Bible is viewed in this constitutional fashion. How many differing interpretations, denominational splits and worse have we seen since the Reformation?
“Does the Bible alone provide enough clarity to resolve all questions, as a good constitution should? No. We have no reason to believe it was ever meant to do that, as much as we’ve tried to force it to do so. From all sides it becomes clear that the Bible, if it is truly inspired by God, wasn’t meant to end conversation and give the final word on controversies. If this were it’s purpose, it has failed miserably. (This fact must be faced) But if, instead, it was inspired and intended to stimulate conversation, to keep people thinking and talking and arguing and seeking, across continents and centuries, it has succeeded and is succeeding in a truly remarkable way.” (p92)
I won’t go on because it’s hard to summarise what Brian is saying without regurgitating the whole chapter, but ultimately he presents us with a Bible that leads us to an encounter and experiencing of the living God. This is where he finishes up :
“This approach, if you haven’t realized it yet, defies both conservative and liberal categories…But here’s what I hope: that this approach will not try to put us under the text, as conservatives tend to do, or to lift us over it, as liberals often seem to do. Instead, I hope it will try to put us in the text—in the conversation, in the story, in the current and flow, in the predicament, in the Spirit, in the community of people who keep bumping into the living God in the midst of their experiences of loving God, betraying God, losing God, and being found again by God. In this way, by placing us in the text, I hope this approach can help us enter and abide in the presence, love, and reverence of the living God all the days of our lives and in God’s mission as humble, wholehearted servants day by day and moment by moment. Even now.” (p 96-97)
I’m sure many will not agree with McLaren’s approach, and he acknowledges as much in the text, but it does seem to be a useful way of thinking about the Bible, albeit possibly unsatisfying to our modern minds. Some may say he’s already become the shark’s breakfast, but from my perspective McLaren is far from jumping just yet.
As I wrote this post, this song by Bruce Cockburn came on my iPod, which seemed kind of appropriate :
I read the Bible often
I try to read it right
As far as I can understand
It’s nothing but a burning light