Remembered another interesting bit from Brian McLaren's talk last Thursday evening. Before we'd arrived, he had obviously mentioned that when both Jesus and Paul quoted the Old Testament they often left out chunks. Specifically the nasty judgement bits. Later on, someone asked why. He gave a few examples. The one I remember is where Jesus quotes Isaiah 61 in Luke 4 but stops half way through a sentence, leaving out the bit about the day of vengeance of God. Then there were 2 Paul examples, one where he quotes a psalm but stops before the violent crushing of people's heads bit, and another one where he talks about rejoicing with the Gentiles but leaves out the bit about God coming to wipe them out (that might be in Romans 15 where he quotes Deuteronomy 32 but my googling hasn't been helpful yet!)
His reason why, for Paul, was that Paul used to use what he read in the law to persecute Christians and when he met God, he realised that's not who God is so he stopped teaching that bit. Said we had to read all of the Old Testament through a "Jesus filter" to work out which bits were actually relevant for today.
His reason why, for Paul, was that Paul used to use what he read in the law to persecute Christians and when he met God, he realised that's not who God is so he stopped teaching that bit. Said we had to read all of the Old Testament through a "Jesus filter" to work out which bits were actually relevant for today.
That is so controversial yet what we all want to hear (apart from a few conservative-types perhaps?) He talks about it more in 'A new kind of Christianity' , which if you haven't read you should as it will give you (more) hope. The new kind is a kind that does not end the world shortly with God burning non churched but involves the churched working alongside the unbelieving to reach the shared goal of a just and Godly Kingdom on earth now, where Jesus is the head and the role model. The logical extension of that is some kind of universalism and even in MacLaren's case a question mark over heaven. Bell, Chalke and others have adopted a similar line and it neatly deals with the excessive judgement issues of God punishing remarkably good people for ever in agony because they never said the sinner's prayer.
For me this changes the whole way I think about the world, about what church is for, about evangelism and even about God. We still evangelise because Jesus tells us to in the great commission and because people need Jesus in their lives but we don't have a guilt labelled message of turn or burn' to scare them into the kingdom with, rather a 'turn and thrive because it's the right thing to do' message.
Question is whether the last 2000 years of Christianity have largely got it entirely wrong and were just a product of their crude and violent cultures or whether the New Kind is simply a woolly gay friendly misinterpretation born of it's culture mixed with too much liberal theology.
Perhaps only God knows, but I know which one I prefer.
For me this changes the whole way I think about the world, about what church is for, about evangelism and even about God. We still evangelise because Jesus tells us to in the great commission and because people need Jesus in their lives but we don't have a guilt labelled message of turn or burn' to scare them into the kingdom with, rather a 'turn and thrive because it's the right thing to do' message.
Question is whether the last 2000 years of Christianity have largely got it entirely wrong and were just a product of their crude and violent cultures or whether the New Kind is simply a woolly gay friendly misinterpretation born of it's culture mixed with too much liberal theology.
Perhaps only God knows, but I know which one I prefer.
No comments:
Post a Comment