At every turn, we approach the biblical text as if it were an annotated code instead of what it actually is: a portable library of poems, prophecies, histories, fables, parables, letters, sage sayings, quarrels, and so on.
[McLaren, Brian D. (2010). A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (p. 79). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition.]
McLaren asks some very relevant and fascinating questions about the lenses through which we read the Bible, and particularly the way we interpret Jesus. His analysis of the difference between the “Bible as Constitution” that comes from the Greco-Roman First Century C.E. Middle Eastern politics and culture and the “Bible as Messy, Complex Narrative” that comes from Hebrew Second and Third Century B.C.E. politics and culture resonates with modernity’s struggle with preaching. It is uncomfortable for our logical, linear culture to be left hanging with stories that defy specific understandings and questions that refuse simple answers, and yet that is precisely what both the Bible and Jesus give us.
Somewhere in my multiplicity of Bible studies I was told that what troubles us most about the Bible's content is not so much what we do NOT understand but everything that we DO understand. We would much rather be the little children climbing into the lap of Jesus to listen to his stories than to be the adult disciples that He needs us to be in order to keep His message alive. Savor your sabbatical so that returning to your local congregation does not fog your newly cleared lenses!
ReplyDeleteMcLaren's reading is in line with our belief in progressive revelation -- that God is not finished speaking, and that, as we move along in communion with God and each other and our fore-parents, we should be able to hear God's unchanging message -- but in our own language, time and place. It's the crucial difference between religion as fossil and religion as living experience.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of books, I'd love to see your reading list -- have you posted that anywhere?
ReplyDelete