Category: Brian McLaren
A Discussion on Scripture in Society
Marc Cortez alerted me to a really great discussion between Brian McLaren, Alister McGrath, Tim Keller, and Fr. Dempsey Rosales-Acosta on the role of Scripture in society. The three majo0r areas of interest related to the doctrine of inerrancy, hermeneutics, and how the Scriptures are to be used as related to social policy. Also, McLaren, McGrath, Keller and Rosales-Acosta provide for very interesting angles on these questions with one being part of the emerging church movement, one being an academic theologian from the UK, one being an evangelical pastor, and one being a Catholic pastor. You can find the video here.
Interreligious Fellowship: Albert Mohler versus Brian McLaren
Should Christians join Muslims as Ramadan fasting partners? This is the question asked in an AP article by Eric Gorski. Brian McLaren and Albert Mohler were discussed in this article. As regards McLaren the author writes,
In announcing his Ramadan fast plans on his blog last month, McLaren wrote, “We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them.” The goal is to join Muslims in the observance as “a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship and neighborliness,” he wrote.
As regards Mohler’s reaction he writes,
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, said the idea of Christians fasting at Ramadan appears at first to be neighborly solidarity, but it’s more than that.“The logic of Islam is obedience and submission,” Mohler said. “It’s by following these practices that a Muslim demonstrates his obedience to the rule of the law through the Quran. For a Christian to do the same automatically implies a submission to the same rule. And beyond that, it’s an explicit affirmation that this is a good and holy thing. From a New Testament perspective, it is not a good and holy thing.”
Others to weigh in include Mark Driscoll, Ben Reis, Eboo Patel, and Monem Salam. To read the article click here. Also, do feel free to leave a comment with your perspective on this post.
Green Day Concert
Yesterday afternoon while leaving DMV (which was a bad experience by default but a good experience as aligns with standard DMV visits) I saw an old friend from college standing over by the hot dog vendor (yes, our DMV on Fell St. has a hot dog vendor; and the lady who runs it actually attends our sister Spanish congregation). We began talking and at one point he went off on the war protest last weekend. Which, I will admit, was a little absurd. As I have said before, only in San Francisco do people think they can stop a war by running around in their underpants (or dressed like nuns). But as he began going off on all the “anti-American; anti-Bush” events from last weekend, he included “Green Day with their stupid CD, American Idiot.” Well, I happen to like the CD American Idiot. Now, I am not a Green Day groupie but I do appreciate their raw sincerity (and their alternative views to say, oh, Pat Robertson and Co.) and I think they are one of the greatest rock bands ever. But, I wasn’t going to argue with him. I just made an effort to change the subject.
Why? Well, I didn’t have time and I didn’t feel it was important enough to address. I don’t support the war, at least the way it is being done, but I am not a total pacifist (ie. If someone slapped my girlfriend or mother I would kick their ass) but I am very wary of war as a method of bringing good. I know sometimes it is vital (ie. WWI and WWII) but I also know sometimes it is useless (ie. Vietnam) and I know it is always scary when one leader throws the name “Christ” out there with “pray” and “war” in the same breath. That is right there my biggest concern. As the leader of the United States, do we go to war? I am open minded. But do we quote Jesus or mention his guidance? Be careful because Jesus never seemed to approve of war as a method of overthrowing Rome. Actually, that is why he angered so many and was seen as a pseudo-Messiah. He would us the term, metanoesein kai pistos emai genesesthai (“Repent and believe in me”) while addressing ever group from the Pharisees (bring in God’s Kingdom by purifying Israel of their sins) to the Essenes (bring in God’s Kingdom by becoming “holy” and “seperating” ourselves in the desert) to the Herodians (become friends with Rome, become like Rome, and see what happens). N.T. Wright mentions Josephus used this term when he was attempting to convince a group of Galiliean rebels to trust his way of handling Rome (which was a quasi-submission). Jesus on the other hand was using it to tell his people to trust his way, yes, of handling Rome, and life, and everything.(Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, pg. 44). And his way was not that of the Pharisees, the Essenes, the Herodians, the Zealots, but of His Father. As Wright mentions, Jesus’ way was to become “the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a city set on a hill” but Israel did not see their role as a suffering servant to be a valid example of these things. So, Jesus, according to Wright, took on Isaiah’s suffering servant for Israel upon Himself embodying their call and accepting it as his call–solo.
Jesus method of defeating Rome and “bringing in the Kingdom” included a pacifistic, suffering, crucified, prophetic method. And God proved His method to be right, and that He was Messiah, when he raised Jesus from the dead.
So, is war the answer? Probably not. Though the paradox continues when we consider God commanded Israel several times to go to war and even to kill women, children, and animals. This is so contrary to Jesus that it leaves a lot of questions and not too many answers except maybe the point that Brian McLaren makes in that if God did not command Israel to fight, in a time when humans where barbarian and the survival of you people/nation demanded that you fight, Israel, as a people, would not have lasted long enough for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham that through his seed (the apostle Paul saw this as Jesus Christ) the whole world would be blessed. And God saw the destruction of some pagan nations as a fair trade in that it would keep Israel existent and allow the plan to come to fruition.
But whether or not we can totally explain God’s Theodicy with Israel and His commands for war it is imperative that we make an effort to know God through Christ first. Which, as mentioned, leaves some questions that lack sufficient answer but Christ is God’s image to man which means we must first understand God through Christ and let the rest work itself out over time. And if Christ didn’t se war as a primary option than neither should we.
And so, yeah, I think tonight I will probably not mosh, and I may not totally hate Bush (but I don’t like him at all), but I think I will enjoy a little Zealot ralley. And no, I still love and support out troops (my brother is becoming one) but I question our leaders.
Jesus’ involvement in political matters is an interesting one. But also an awkward one in that it was deeper than mere political squabble. It had a divine purpose (not like radical evangelism or Islam) to see all the world reconciled to God if they would. Ah, too much to handle….
Celebrity Interview
…or not. At this point a job interview is just as exciting. I vowed I would never get into retail again and as usual I was wrong. I dropped off an application at Banana Republic and the girl that took it told me to wait. Then the manager came out and asked if I could come in for an interview tomorrow (now today) at 2 PM. That is about an hour and a half away.
If they pay well and hire me full time I will take the job, work hard, and see how things go. Plus it will be my financial door into SF. I already have a place lined up.
I am about two weeks or less from moving in over by SFSU. I am very excited and at the same time very nervous. This whole adult thing is real and kind of scary.
Yesterday I purchased the final installment of McLaren’s New Kind of Christian series. Thus far the second book hasn’t been as interesting as the first one theologically anyways. A lot of dealings with evolution, symbolism in Genesis and so forth. Maybe if I read a more scholarly book on Genesis that proposed the positions of “Neo” I would think it more stable but I don’t have a problem with the literalness of the narratives. Yeah, they birth a lot of questions but it is better than trying to guess the “symbolism” of Noah’s flood or whatever.
Still my favorite aspect of McLaren’s books is how theological questions are explored in a narrative that looks like real life. I just finished my BA where everything is classroom based and I realized that conclusions and answers that make sense in the classroom don’t always make sense in the real world. This narrative avoids the text book feel that I am burnt out on.
Anyways, on to the rest of my day. I am not sure what my schedule is going to look like. If I get that job today I could quickly find myself living a schedule that I didn’t plan on facing for a few more weeks. Thats alright though, all this extra sleep bores me.
