A New Kind of Christianity - Brian McLaren [136]
6. In previous chapters, we considered the profound argument between Plato and Aristotle. Western culture at its best has preserved that tension, not sought to resolve it. We haven’t decided Plato was right, so Aristotle should no longer be taught, nor have we done the reverse. We have realized that each is more interesting and provocative in light of the other, and that we are better off for having both voices than for sanctioning one and silencing the other. When we see the Bible as library, we can see similar tensions between priest and prophet, Paul and James, Jesus and Moses, and so on.
7. I’m aware that I’m bypassing arguments about canonicity, the process by which certain documents were included and others rejected by the church for inclusion in the biblical library. Those arguments are important and fascinating, but peripheral to our line of thinking here apart from two brief observations. First, the process of including or rejecting articles in a constitution is very different from the selection of documents in a library. The former requires that uniformity and consistency be maintained, and the latter that an adequate range of voices and perspectives be maintained. Second, to understand the canonized texts in a small library like the Bible still requires reference to thousands of other texts not included, because the words and imagery used in the canonized texts can only be fully understood and appreciated by consulting their use in other texts outside the canon. A canon (or standardized list) of texts, then, is not a hermetically sealed universe; it is more like a city defined by prescribed city limits. A city is not independent of the surrounding suburbs and countryside; rather, they all have an interdependent relationship.
8. For a groundbreaking book that addresses this issue brilliantly, see John Franke’s Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009).
9. For highly accessible treatments of these important matters, I again recommend John Franke’s Manifold Witness, and his and Stanley Grenz’s Beyond Foundationalism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001).
10. For convinced Bible-as-constitution folks, I offer this question: If the abolitionists read the Bible correctly and proslavers didn’t, what can we learn from the abolitionist way of reading? An informed reply would include these four guidelines. First, they valued the general over the specific: “Do unto others…” carried more weight than the verses typically quoted by proslavers. Second, they read the Bible narratively, as an unfolding story. This led them to expect a rising ethical standard over time. Third, they read the Bible Christocentrically, which means they gave the words of Christ more weight than, say, the words of Leviticus. Fourth, they read the Bible relationally as a book about love rather than analytically as a book about law. This led them to ask not simply whether slavery was permissible to a law-giving God, but whether it was desirable to a slave-loving God—considering that the slave is also God’s child, and so (in the words of the revolutionary Christmas hymn “O Holy Night”) “the slave is our brother.” For more on guidelines for reading the Bible, see my Web site, www.brianmclaren.net.
Chapter 9: Revelation Through Conversation
1. For more on the use of torture by Christians, see Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), chap. 4. Also see Spencer Burke’s four Interludes in A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), and Harvey Cox’s The Future of Faith (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009). For more detailed treatments, see James Haught, Holy Horrors (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1990), and Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (San Rafael, CA: Morningstar Books,