Today is the day after Epiphany. When I preached on epiphany last Sunday I mentioned that there are two main definitions. One is theological and that is something divine that breaks through into our ordinary lives. The second is seeing something in a new way that has been there all along. As I continue to read Brian McLaren’s new book, I am reminded that even in our faith we can see something new in the way we perceive ordinary tasks. This can apply even to the way we read the bible.
The first question that McLaren would pose in our need to rethink Christianity is, “is there an overarching theme in the bible?” He brings out some interesting thoughts that have been an epiphany for me. One is that we tend to read the bible backwards in time. That is we read the scriptures based on the lenses of those who have come before us. For instance, we read through modern theologians, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine etc. that have led to doctrines that influence the way we read and understand. An example he uses focuses on original sin and that Plato and Aristotle philosophical ideas influence that doctrine which is not mentioned in scripture at all. In fact if we read about Adam and Eve when they were told that if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would die. Yet when they did God did not kill them but instead made clothes for them. Same was true for Cain and Abel. When Cain murdered his brother, did God demand his life? No not only did he not but he even protected him from others who might.
I find what McLaren has to say interesting. What he proposes is that we read the scriptures forward and in that way witness to the narratives and stories that led to Jesus. I know that I feel that for any Christian to truly understand the gospels and the Christian scriptures they need to understand the Hebrew scriptures which was what informed the writers of the New Testament. There is value in seeing how the early stories of Israel lead to Jesus.
McLaren also warns about taking scripture piecemeal. In seminary we called that proof texting. One needs to be familiar with the whole story not just the parts that support one’s particular belief. An example he uses is the pro-slavery and abolitionist debates. Many of those who favored slavery would use scripture to support their beliefs. It was not until events proved them wrong did people change. McLaren suggests that debate continues whether dealing with women in ministry, dealing with sexual orientation, torture, war, abortion, we continue to proof text to support whatever side of these debates we want to believe. His concern is that by doing do we continue to fracture the Christian community.
Whereas he brings up some very interesting points, I feel we need to continue to debate the issues. At the same time, we need to be careful about how we go about it. Based on the previous post remember that when we think we know the absolute right answer, we are wrong. Is there a right way of looking at these? I believe we need to continue to dialog with one another with respect of others points of view. Then and only then we will reach a consensus that approximates where scripture leads us.
No comments:
Post a Comment