Turning Jordan

I just visited the local Barnes and Noble to do some reading and was perusing the “Christianity” section when I noticed Brian McClaren’s new book.  I had heard some fairly negative things about it, and from earlier reads of McClaren books I assumed, at the outset, that they were probably right.  But, being the reader that I am, I decided to flip through it.  As I did, I became rather intrigued with his first chapter.  And, I will say, agreed in large part with much of what he said in that chapter.  Essentially, McClaren argued that the typical understanding of the Bible’s grand narrative is corrupted by a Greco-Roman mindset.  For him, looking at Jesus through the eyes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, or Isaiah is different than looking at Jesus through the eyes of Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, or Luther.  He argues that looking back at Jesus through Greco-Roman eyes leads to a different understanding of the Bible’s grand narrative than looking forward at it from Hebrew eyes.  Generally, over the past several years studying Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible in-depth, I myself have begun to understand concepts such as righteousness and election in a more Hebrew mindset than the typical Roman mindset taught to us by many NT professors and pastors.

So, I became excited.  Maybe McClaren would do the unexpected and surprise me with a view the Bible’s larger narrative from a Hebrew mindset that made sense of the whole of description.  I mean, he was asking the right questions and began in the right place.  BUT, I shouldn’t have let my heart go.  When I began to read what McClaren suggested to replace the typical biblical storyline, I was let down, but not completely.

The first part of the story McClaren addressed was creation.  Here, I thought he presented a good view of the difference between Jewish “goodness” and the Greco-Roman idea of “perfection”.  Building off of this, he placed the right emphasis on the Fall, that is was not a fall from perfection, but from goodness.  After this point, however, my reading became more scattered and I became less interested.  (Again, I’m not doing a book review, but an account of my perusing at Barnes and Noble.)

In somewhat typical fashion for the more moderate-liberal Christians these days, McClaren began to attack the view of depravity that the Bible teaches throughout, the view of divine justice that the Bible teaches throughout, etc.  In his version of the story, God is not the judge who punishes sin, but the dad who keeps forgiving despite our rebellion.  Now, certainly God did have great compassion and mercy with the patriarchs, and certainly lived up to the epitaph of being “slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love,” but McClaren’s version of the story *conveniently* makes little of the Flood and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Again, certainly God is merciful, but God DID wipe out nearly every animal and every human being with the Flood.  Note: McClaren takes these stories as that, stories – not true, and certainly not believable in any literal sense.  So, maybe its easier to conveniently skip over parts of the story that don’t fit into one’s larger picture.  But even so, judgment is part of the narrative, regardless if *you* think it’s true or not — the author certainly thought it was true!

Anyways, I was let down.  The substitute story, while maybe being more Jewish than Greco-Roman, certainly wasn’t biblical.  I, as some of you know, am fully open to a more Jewish story.  But I don’t think a story that makes what Jesus and Paul believed about the Hebrew story look idiotic and naive is ever going to captivate the hearts and minds of the Church.  If it does, we’re certainly in a lot of trouble. Rather, Jesus and Paul rightly understood the story, told it from a Jewish mindset, and celebrated it as part of their true identity.

Jesus read about the Son of God, the Holy Seed, Immanuel, the Mashiach, the Suffering Servant, the Root of Jesse, the lion of the tribe of Judah, and understood his mission as fulfilling those roles for the salvation of many.  He wasn’t naive about divine justice either.  It was manifestly made known to him at his crucifixion, and was manifestly conquered at his resurrection and ascension. McClaren’s story (at least the beginning of it!) will, in my best guess, not make any sufficient theological sense of the cross.  If God’s divine justice for sin was not met in Jesus’ sacrifice, then why did Jesus have to die?  If we’re not all “dead in our sin” and if Jesus was wrong about the separation of the sheep and goats, then I suspect we’re the most pitiable of all people, aren’t we?

Andy

PS. I’m still a fan of B&N, and also recommend reading books you don’t agree with.  They sharpen your mind.  The end.