A New Kind of Christianity - Brian McLaren [138]
6. Words like “best,” “must,” and “only” in these sentences suggest that all this was according to a predetermined plan, but that’s not the only way to see it. You could say that the learning process works like a seedling that always moves toward warmth and light. If a rock or log accidentally falls on the ground directly above it before it germinates, it will eventually curve around the obstacle, drawn toward warmth and light. Similarly, our religious histories may move not according to a plan determined in the past, but according to a purpose that draws them toward a future in full sun.
7. The idea of stages in our growth is suggested in 1 John 2:12–14. The idea that we love and know God in the other is reflected throughout the letter: 2:3–6; 2:9–11; 3:11–19; 4:7–12; 4:16–21; 5:1.
8. Several writers have helped me think in these developmental terms, notably developmental psychologist William Perry, Christian theologians Walter Brueggemann and N. T. Wright, Jewish lawyer Alan Dershowitz (The Genesis of Justice [New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2001]), philosopher Ken Wilber, and pastors and authors Bruce Sanguin (The Emerging Church [Kelowna, BC: CopperHouse, 2008]) and Richard Vincent (Integral Christianity, available through http://christianfutures.com/books8.shtml). Thanks to Dr. Jay Gary for his contributions to my own thinking about the future.
Chapter 11: From a Violent Tribal God to a Christlike God
1. See Sarah Dylan Breuer’s helpful chapter in a book I coedited with Elisa Padilla and Ashley Bunting Seeber called The Justice Project (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009).
2. See my Everything Must Change (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007), chap. 19.
3. We might say that this willingness to learn, grow, transcend, and “trade up” distinguishes “belief” from “make-believe” or “good faith” from “bad faith.”
4. Let’s keep in mind the Greco-Roman tendency to eliminate complexity and diversity and reduce everything to the one “right” line, and let’s also remember that we’re only working in two dimensions in this diagram. In the eighth question, we’ll consider a more three-dimensional way to conceive of the biblical narrative.
5. To fine-tune the point, we would also need to say that Jesus must first and foremost be understood in terms of the history in which he was raised and the times in which he lived, rather than in terms of controversies or issues of the fourth, fifth, sixteenth, or twenty-first century.
6. This flat reading was expressed quite clearly in an online debate about gay marriage in late 2008, hosted by Newsweek. The conservative spokesperson argued: “When one puts the teachings of Paul on the same authoritative ground as the teachings of Jesus, one must conclude that God does not condone homosexual behavior. The Bible does not suggest that there are two levels of spiritual authority in the Bible—the more authoritative teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul and the other New Testament writers. They are all equally authoritative. Consequently, I cannot see any biblical justification for condoning homosexual behavior” (http://www.newsweek.com/id/175223/page/2; accessed 17 December 2008). His transparent willingness to grant Jesus no more authority than Paul renders me speechless.
Chapter 12: Who Is Jesus and Why Is He Important?
1. See, for example, A Search for What Is Real: Finding Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999, 2007), chap. 8; A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), chap. 1; Everything Must Change (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007), chap. 18; The Secret Message of Jesus (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2006).
2. The clip can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKDC2iBQTYg.