|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "A New Kind of Christianity" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 997 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125165061&ps=cprs
Author: Brian McLaren
McLaren writes: "The view of the cross that I was given growing up, in a sense, has a God who needs blood in order to be appeased," McLaren says. "If this God doesn't see blood, God can't forgive." McLaren believes that version of God is a misreading of the Bible. "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2619 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Do you a thought on this Hooah? Opinion?
Obviously I have a problem with this guy's "theology" but I'll wait to see what you and others have to say about the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 4046 Joined:
|
I honestly don't see how some of this guy's opinions fly with the actual text of scripture. It flat-out contradics several bits of very clearly stated dogma in the New testament itself, and conflicts with the Old Testament god as well.
Some of what he's saying rings true:
quote: That certainly meshes with Jesus words in the Bible. Jesus' primary human adversaries were the Pharisees, the established Jewish religious leaders, because his teachings ran afoul of their rules. He very obviously identified more with "victims," the weak, the poor, the sick..."What you do to the least of these, you do to me," and all that. It would certainly be nice if more of the evangelicals would remember those bits. But it's very clear that only those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah get to go to Heaven. You can't accept the Bible (at least the modern canon) as authoritative on the matter of salvation and simultaneously believe that anyone is going to Heaven without believing in Jesus. The only way to make all of that work would be to take the Bible as a fallible work written by men, one that is useful as a teaching aid for morality, but that not every word of the text is literally true. A liberal Christian who already takes the more fanciful bits (Genesis, Exodus, etc) as metaphor (or at least highly modified and exaggerated myth based on vaguely similar historical fact) and not literal historical truth might be able to get away with this. Anyone who takes the Bible as even remotely literally true with not like this one bit. The Gospels specifically state that none will enter the Kingdom of God except through Jesus. That's hard to take as other than "Only Christians may enter."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2619 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Pretty good post Rahvin. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as Christian theology goes. One has to wonder if this guy has read ALL the words of Christ or if he just picks the one he likes....
In the book of John, Jesus makes no bones about how to get to heaven. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me". If one is to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, it's quite clear how to get to heaven. The biggest issue I have is it sounds like the author feels that the Bible is changeable with the times. I don't agree with that. Again, if you truly believe Christian theology, the Bible and Christ's words are unchangeable no matter the era of history. There is some truth in what he (and you) say about the poor, the needy, the widows, ect....Christ clearly was harsher in life with the Pharisees and rightfully so. They were entrusted to train and teach the Old Testament teachings but had clearly become legalistic about the Law. Same can be said today of some preachers. My .02 cents. Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 997 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I haven't read it yet, but it looked like a good read.
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2619 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Ok...I wasn't sure if you had read it or not yet. I read the link you posted...certainly looks interesting, if not controversial to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4566 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
I honestly don't see how some of this guy's opinions fly with the actual text of scripture. It flat-out contradics several bits of very clearly stated dogma in the New testament itself, and conflicts with the Old Testament god as well.
Is one saved through grace (by trusting the Father) or by way of works (a ritual atonement killing)? Many of us find it equally challenging to percieve how various predominant doctrines of christianity mesh with the actual texts of scripture. There is a strong sense that Joshua himself is identified as a continuation, and even fulfillment, of the radical stream of prophets within these texts; this concept is strengthened by taking note of the consistent appeal, found within the church testaments, to previous members of the prophetic tradition. And so, chrisitianity - at it's roots, is a tradition founded in the tenets of the radical prophetic tradition. That said, it seems christianity has always been, from its very conception down through the ages, a religion of priestly opinion that contradicts numerous messages handed down by the prophets. 1 Now, when 'harmonizing' or perhaps nullifying challenging prophetic discourse, hasn't fundamental Greco-Roman christianity itself - as a whole, flat-out contradicted swaths of 'very clearly stated dogma' found within its borrowed Yisraelite and Yuhdean scriptures texts? An issue here may be that attempts to reintegrate 'dangerous' prophetic declarations are often seen as thorns (dissent), rather then figs (restoration).
Some of what he's saying rings true:
quote: That certainly meshes with Jesus words in the Bible. Jesus' primary human adversaries were the Pharisees, the established Jewish religious leaders, because his teachings ran afoul of their rules. He very obviously identified more with "victims," the weak, the poor, the sick..."What you do to the least of these, you do to me," and all that. It would certainly be nice if more of the evangelicals would remember those bits. What may prove interesting is to consider why these important tenets of the faith have been overshadowed by - and in favor of, more 'mysterious' and less knowable faith based conjectures. In what ways has this dynamic benefited and/or undermined christianty, as well as entities contemporary with the faith?
I contend the answers to questions of this nature are not a mystery at all, but are rather clearly stated by those within the prophetic tradition. As they recognized, and as later history demonstrates again and again, the role of religious propaganda was, and is, to bring people into subjection to political authorities. But it's very clear that only those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah get to go to Heaven. You can't accept the Bible (at least the modern canon) as authoritative on the matter of salvation and simultaneously believe that anyone is going to Heaven without believing in Jesus. The existence of 38,500 (and 1) distictly different christian sects seems to suggest that there is relatively little in regards to christian dogma that is 'very clear'. For instance, a few church testament authors seem to suggest one may be forgiven for speaking over and against the Son of Man ... Joshua's favorite title for himself as found within the passion narratives.
The only way to make all of that work would be to take the Bible as a fallible work written by men, one that is useful as a teaching aid for morality, but that not every word of the text is literally true. A liberal Christian who already takes the more fanciful bits (Genesis, Exodus, etc) as metaphor (or at least highly modified and exaggerated myth based on vaguely similar historical fact) and not literal historical truth might be able to get away with this. This appears to be the veiw espoused by Joshua, Paul, Isaiah, Yirmiyahu, Hoshea and a number of others found within the radical prophetic stream. However, one may be well advised to consider what fate these men met by continually expressing and promoting their anti-sola scriptura veiw. One may do well to remember the concept of 'infallible scripture' is, after all, a relatively new invention dating back only a few hundred years. The same can be said of the modern christian theory of atonement.
EvC Forum: Heaven: How to Get In EvC Forum: Heaven: How to Get In EvC Forum: Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired? EvC Forum: If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible Anyone who takes the Bible as even remotely literally true with not like this one bit. The Gospels specifically state that none will enter the Kingdom of God except through Jesus. That's hard to take as other than "Only Christians may enter."
While I'm often dismayed by the practice of cherry pick'n bible verses, I'm curious as to what the verses below may suggest to others ...
quote: quote: quote: quote: 1 ie. Salvation is accomplished by the Father's sovereign authority to display grace. vs. Salvation is accomplished by the venemous ritual atonement killing of the Son of God, loosely based on the murderous legal code found within ToRaH. Dear friend,    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ... Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 |
I read this book from cover to cover and wasn't at all impressed. McLaren makes broad sweeping assertions which in most cases are made without any scholarly support. He consistently attacks the straw man of fundamentalist Christianity without any acknowledgement that the vast majority of Christians have most of the same difficulties with that view of Christianity that he does.
Throughout the book he constantly labels those who don't agree with him as being fearful and non-thinking. I found that the arrogance displayed in his writing was extremely disconcerting even when I agreed with him, which I quite often did. The title of the book is "A New Kind of Christianity" but at no point in the book does he address of the question - who was Jesus. Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah - God incarnate - a prophet - a philosopher or the ancient equivalent of Gandhi? I was left with the sense that his conclusion was the latter which would mean that his new kind of Christianity isn't Christianity at all but either a Jewish sect or something closer to the Rotary club. There are many writers who are able to use far better scholarship to address the issues that McLaren raises. Two suggestions would be, N T Wright and Marcus Borg, both mentioned by McLaren in this book. Wright provides an orthodox view of Christianity whereas Borg provides a view which is probably closer to McLaren's views. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024