Review of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (part 1)

It’s three months now since Brian McLaren’s latest book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope was released, and in the frenzied, web-driven world of emerging theology, three months is a long time. For all I know it’s not even his latest book any more. It has been widely reviewed, blogged on, commented on, pod- and videocasted about, facebooked, eulogized, trashed on the web. But I found it a highly stimulating read for all sorts of reasons and I think it’s well worth reviewing even at this late stage in the cycle of fashionability. The review comes in two parts: first, in this post a synopsis of McLaren’s argument in the book; and secondly, at some time in the near future, a critical evaluation in which I want to consider in particular how the category of ‘kingdom of God’ fits into a vision of social transformation, which seems to me to be the central theological question posed by the book.

Everything Must Change is nothing if not an ambitious book. It is conceived as a response to two ‘preoccupying questions’: first, ‘what are the biggest problems in the world?’; and secondly, ‘what does Jesus have to say about these global problems?’ (11-13). The questions are posed within the context of a personal narrative of dissatisfaction regarding traditional forms of evangelical Christianity and a search for an alternative expression of faith in Jesus that has the potential to make a ‘positive difference in the world’ (3). Beyond McLaren’s personal narrative is the growing recognition among ‘reflective Christian leaders’ that millions of young adults have dropped out of their churches in recent decades having judged Christianity to be a ‘failed religion’ because ‘it has specialized in dealing with “spiritual needs” to the exclusion of physical and social needs’ (33).

The mess we find ourselves in

McLaren answers the first question by describing the failure of the three major subsystems that together comprise our ‘societal machine’: the prosperity system, the security system, and the equity system. He argues that when these subsystems get out of control, the machinery becomes destructive rather than life-giving: it becomes a ‘suicide machine’. This is what is currently happening to the world. The machinery of human society has grown so large that the ecosystem within which it operates can no longer either meet its demand for resources or absorb its waste products. It is like a goldfish that has outgrown its bowl:

We have realized that our societal goldfish can get too big or too dirty for the goldfish bowl in which we live. We can arrogantly deny our limits as creatures and (in our eyes) become like gods – independent, beyond constraint, with nothing to fear, clueless about our stupidity until we have been banished forever from our fertile, well-balanced garden into a bleak world of thorns and sweat and gloom. (63)

The reason why the machinery has gone haywire is that ‘our world’s dominant framing story is failing’ (68). It does not inspire us to respect environmental limits in our headlong pursuit of economic growth; it privileges the wealthy over the poor, giving rise not only to great suffering but also to resentment and the likelihood of violence; and it promotes conflict between communities rather than peace. The framing story can take different forms. There are, for example, various ‘violent narratives’: victim and revenge narratives, warrior and revolution narratives, domination or imperial narratives. There are withdrawal or isolation narratives that work not with an ‘offense-revenge cycle’ but with a ‘fear-protection cycle’. And there are ‘theocapitalist narratives’, which ‘mythologize markets and their products with a divine power to bring happiness’ (71-72).

If the global crises that modern society faces are the product of a ‘dysfunctional framing story’, we cannot expect to solve these massive problems without overturning that story and installing an alternative narrative in its place. This is where the message of Jesus becomes relevant:

I am convinced that Jesus confronted the framing story that drove the society of his day and offered a radical alternative, seeking to turn their trajectory from a downward arc of self-destruction to an ascending spiral of transformation and hope. (72)

Which Jesus?

But at this point we must ask: Which Jesus? The modern evangelical Jesus who is interested only in the spiritual life and eternal destiny of the individual believer? McLaren argues that the ‘conventional view’, which restricts Jesus’ purpose to saving souls so that they might go to heaven when they die rather than experience eternal punishment in hell, must be replaced by an ‘emerging view’, according to which Jesus came to ‘save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil’ (79).

The conventional view is powerless to challenge the dominant framing story and indeed in many ways, with its narrow preoccupation with the soul and its orientation towards the afterlife, unwittingly supports it. The emerging view corrects this deficiency by relocating Jesus at the heart of the political-religious dilemma faced by first century Israel under Roman oppression. The ruling imperial narrative ‘promised peace, security, and equity through domination’ (83-84). The Jews had their own divergent and mutually incompatible counternarratives: the Zealot hope that God would support insurgency; the Pharisees’ belief that rigorous observance of the Law would persuade God to send a liberator; the pragmatism of the Jewish elites who saw accommodation with Roman power as the safest option; or the radical separatism of the Essenes in preparation for the final cataclysm.

Jesus, however, had a quite different solution to the problem – the kingdom of God as an alternative to empire: ‘“Don’t let your lives be framed by the narratives and counternarratives of the Roman empire… but situate yourselves in another story… the good news that God is king, and we can live in relation to God and God’s love rather than Caesar and Caesar’s power”’ (90). McLaren then puts forward an alternative hypothesis to the conventional reading of the Bible and of the Gospels in particular: ‘that the Bible instead is the story of the partnership between God and humanity to save and transform all of human society and avert global self-destruction’ (94). This hypothesis is defended, first, by consideration of twelve features of Jesus’ ministry that count as little more than ‘junk DNA’ in the traditional reading but which lend support to the view that Jesus was proclaiming a political-religious alternative to the destructive narrative of empire (94-100). Secondly, McLaren examines four pivotal episodes in the Gospels: the songs of Mary and Zechariah in Luke; the confrontation in the synagogue in Nazareth; Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ at Caesarea Philippi; and Jesus’ defence before Pilate (101-115).

The metaphor of the kingdom of God on Jesus’ lips signifies an inversion of the kingdom of Caesar; but the metaphor is problematic today, and McLaren suggests a number of alternative metaphors that Jesus might use to ‘help us envision a new framing story for our world, and so transform our suicide machine into a creative and humane society’ (128). Jesus might speak, for example, of a ‘divine peace insurgency’ that resists the tyranny of the suicide machine through mercy, wisdom, hope, generosity, etc. Or of ‘God’s unterror movement’ – people who ‘fly airplanes of generosity into towers of need and plant improvised encouragement devices by roadsides and in neighborhoods everywhere, seeking God’s kingdom and God’s equity’. Or of a ‘new global economy of love’ that ‘measures success in terms of gross national affection and global community’. Or of ‘God’s sacred ecosystem’, in which ‘Instead of pursuing our own selfish dreams… we seek for God’s dream of creation to come true’ (128-132).

McLaren then takes his reintroduction of Jesus a couple of steps further by considering, first, how the sermon on the mount can be read as ‘a radical inversion of the imperial narrative’ (134-139); and secondly, how New Testament language about a future ‘coming’ of Jesus might be understood not as a statement of eventual divine domination but as ‘a poetic description of the way the gentle First Coming Jesus powerfully overcomes through his nonviolent “weakness”…, a prince of peace whose word of reconciliation is truly mightier than Caesar’s sword’ (143-145).

How Jesus answers the world’s problems

The next three sections of the book explore in some detail how the three primary subsystems of human society might be rebuilt within the new framing story that Jesus called ‘the good news of the kingdom of God’. The security system first. Whereas religion has so often been associated with violence, according to McLaren’s ‘radical reassessment’, Jesus calls his followers to participate in a ‘peace insurgency’ – ‘to see through every regime that promises peace through violence, peace through domination, peace through genocide, peace through exclusion and intimidation’ (159). Reference is made to Grant LeMarquand’s intriguing, though not entirely convincing, exegesis of the stories of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and of the feeding of the four thousand in 15:32-39. McLaren believes that in these events Jesus ‘deconstructs the violent conquest narrative and suggests that the kingdom of God takes a radically different approach to “the other”’ (155).

So McLaren imagines a transformed world, rescued from its compulsive militarism by Jesus’ teaching which ‘challenges us to reject the deceptive, addictive emotions that forcefully drive us to war, and calls us to find new meaning in love, neighborliness, reconciliation, and the work of building vibrant, reconciled communities’ (182).

Secondly, the prosperity system. McLaren accepts the thesis of the Catholic theologian Tom Beaudoin that modern ‘consumer media capitalism’ performs the manifold functions of a religion, providing identity for its adherents, generating community, communicating transcendence, and so on. Hence the term ‘theocapitalism’, with its four spiritual laws of ‘progress through rapid growth’, ‘serenity through possession and consumption’, ‘salvation through competition alone’, and the ‘freedom to prosper through unaccountable corporations’ (190-196). Naturally enough, these laws are driving the world towards an apocalypse of ‘economic collapse from resources depletion, poisoning from waste buildup, or disruption due to environmental instability’ – and the conflict between communities and nations that will inevitably accompany this economic disintegration.

How does Jesus offer hope? He inspires his followers to ‘build a new kind of prosperity system that we have called God’s love economy, a new way of living as part of God’s sacred ecosystem’, driven by a radically different set of laws: ‘good deeds for the common good’, ‘satisfaction through gratitude and sharing’, ‘salvation through seeking justice’, and ‘freedom to prosper by building better communities’ (206-223).

Thirdly, the equity system. Jesus constantly confronts and subverts the unjust equity system of his day by urging reconciliation outside the legal system, by telling stories about forgiveness and mercy and generosity, by commending the steward who cuts the debts owed by tenant farmers to avaricious landlords, by warning that people cannot serve both God and mammon, by denouncing the hypocrisy of the ruling classes, by inviting the excluded into the kingdom of God, and by rejecting the ‘chauvinism and eroticism that typically team up to reduce women to inferior status’ (238-242). We must realize that Jesus has as much to say about collective and systemic sin as he does about personal sin and must respond accordingly – by seeking to help the poor ourselves through generosity, by calling the rich to generosity, and by working to remove injustice from the system (242-246).

If extreme poverty is to be overcome, action will be required in seven areas: trade reform, increase in aid, debt relief, recognition of the natural limits of consumption, the establishment of an international minimum, and perhaps a maximum, wage, the development of credible justice systems, and the strengthening of communities. McLaren suggests that the catalyst for the sort of transformation required may be found in the ‘power of organizing religion’:

If there is a force in the world powerful and good enough to overcome the grinding, destructive momentum of the suicide machine, it is to found, not in organized religion seeking institutional self-preservation, but in religion organizing for the common good. (265)

A revolution of hope

This brings us to the final section of the book and some pretty big questions: ‘Can the suicide machine really be stopped? Can the earth really be liberated from the destructive framing story that drives it? Is Jesus’ healing and transforming story really powerfully enough to save the world?’ (269). We don’t know. McLaren suggests, however, that the message of Jesus presents the possibility of fundamentally changing public opinion through belief in a new framing story:

This is “salvation by grace through faith” in a planetary sense: if we believe that God graciously offers us a new way, a new truth, and a new life, we can be liberated from the vicious, addictive cycles of our suicidal framing stories. (270)

Through his death Jesus exposed the ‘vicious wolfishness’, the ugliness, the implausibility, of the ruling imperial power: ‘After all, they could no longer claim to be agents of peace and promise after torturing and killing a good and peaceful man so violently and shamefully.’ And his ‘quiet but real resurrection’ demonstrated to his followers that a revolution was in progress at the margins: ‘His resurrection told them that Caesar’s muscle couldn’t conquer God’s vulnerability, that Caesar’s spears couldn’t conquer God’s heart, and that Caesar’s whips and nails and crosses couldn’t overcome God’s way of love and reconciliation’ (272).

So the simple solution of Jesus to the world’s problems is to stop believing in the suicide machine and its framing stories and to believe instead the good news of the kingdom of God. But drawing on the ‘systems theory’ of Clare Graves, McLaren suggests that the kingdom of God should be understood as a ‘higher-order system that continually invites humanity to move upward in the “unfolding, emergent… spiraling process”’ (276). It is also an ‘agonizing’ process because Jesus’ followers are called to give up the life they could have lived and to live instead a ‘life dedicated to replacing the suicide machine with a sacred ecosystem, a beautiful community, an insurgency of healing and peace, a creative global family, and unterror movement of faith, hope, and love’ (277).

If the followers of Jesus are to offer a viable alternative to the suicide machine, they will have to do two things. First, they will have to recognize that the dominant societal system has a ‘covert curriculum’ that must be unlearned. In order to illustrate the power of this covert curriculum McLaren argues that both abortion and global warming are the product of the same presumption, namely that ‘we can engage in pleasurable or profitable behaviours with undesired consequences and either avoid the consequences or clean them up later’ (288).

Secondly, they will have to develop their own ‘creative counter-curriculum to teach people the art of living in this new way’ (284). So McLaren imagines a community of people who refuse to be ‘malformed by this powerful educational process’; who would persistently tell an alternative framing story; who would ‘develop practices of spiritual formation so they and their children for generations to come would be able to learn, live, and grow as part of the solution, not part of the problem; as agents of healing, not as carriers of the disease; as revolutionaries seeking to dismantle and subvert the suicidal system, not as functionaries and drones seeking to serve and preserve it’; who ‘through word and deed, song and ritual, holiday and daily practice, …would seek to be the revolution they wished to see in the world’; who would understand their ‘sacred and unique role as bearers of the revolutionary good news, the message of the hope: another world is possible, available now for all who believe’ (292).

In the final chapter McLaren repeats his conviction that the framing story of the kingdom of God has the potential to reshape the world and then briefly sets out his eschatology. He believes that the vision of the ‘new heaven and new earth’ in Revelation 21 defines ‘not a different space-time universe, but a new way of living that is possible within this universe, a new societal system that is coming as surely as God is just and faithful’ (296). He is quite clear about what this means: the world that is dominated by the suicide machine will eventually give way to a ‘new generation of humanity’.

The message of the apocalypse is that the empire of Caesar, including the religious apparatus that sustains his system, will not last for ever, but that the empire or kingdom of this world (earth’s integrated political and economic and social systems, its principalities and powers, its societal machinery) will ultimately be transformed so it becomes “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever”. (297)

See also ‘Review of Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change (part 2)’. 

Re: Review of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (part 1)

That was a great review Andrew. It is a wonderful book and I think it really could change everything. McLaren seems to write to a group of people who are just now opening up to deeper understandings of scripture. His message is tactful and gentle. I think people are listening. His timing is right. Change is coming.

The most important points I draw from the book are:

A) The kingdom of God is not another place as the Evangelicals have suggested

B) The kingdom of God is not and inevitable supernatural rebuilding of the Earth as people like Tom Wright suggest

C) The kingdom of God IS a real transformation of our lives, communities, and political structures in line with the vision of Jesus. It is a possibility but not an predestined inevitable outcome.

Supernatural views of the kingdom lead to stagnant waiting on a divine solution. Understanding the kingdom as a viable possiblity could lead to real action. McLaren recognizes that in order for action to happen, we must reposition our theology to create a fertile ground for action. It may be that people continue to believe in a strictly theistic God, but unless they realize God isn’t going to solve our problems for us supernaturally, we will never act. Ancient worldviews and medieval doctrines are creating apathy and lethargy in the modern world. Brian is gently nudging Evangelicals to reconsider their understanding and giving them good reasons to change. Unlike secular liberalism, McLaren also shows how the Bible stands up to modern scholarship and holds its value in the absence of ancient worldviews and medieval doctrines. In fact, the Bible’s stories come to life when we stop guarding them from further investigation.

Re: Review of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (part 1)

This site seems to be a refuge for some people who define themselves, in various ways, by refuting a narrow version of evangelical theology and practice which, it seems, is much bigger in the US than the UK.

I haven’t yet read McLaren’s book; it looks very interesting. However, in response to the preceding post, it has to be observed that

- in point A: in 35 years I have never met an ‘evangelical’ who defined the kingdom of God as ‘another place’, and never read or heard it said that the kingdom of God was located anywhere other than in the midst of the world as it is;

- in point B & C, the ‘inevitability’ of the kingdom of God raises the question of what it is - and what is meant by its ‘inevitability’. If you mean it comes by passivity - obviously not;

- but the supernatural nature of the kingdom of God (clearly demonstrated in the NT in the ministry of Jesus, continued in Acts, and setting a trajectory for ensuing times) does not entail a “stagnant waiting on a divine solution”. On the contrary, it is the dynamic supernatural power of God working through those who actively put faith into practice in a multitude of ways.

Oddly, danutz wants a deistic God, who expects us to get on with things without Him, which seems to me precisely to encourage the apathy which he inveighs against. On the other hand a theistic God (the God of the bible), actively energises and works with and through those who co-operate with Him.

From what Andrew has summarised, I imagine I would agree with most of what McLaren says, and would also agree that he brings a timely emphasis. But he (McLaren) would also need to realise that Christians have been acting according to his vision for long before the ‘emergent church’ emerged and started rediscovering things. The ‘emergent church’ should not lose its sense of historical or global perspective. Social transformation is precisely what Jesus’s agenda was all about. Look at church history outside the USA, and you will see that the church has been the instrument of social reform across the world (in education, healthcare, and social justice, for instance).

But social transformation has always begun with personal transformation within the people of God. Or are we going to skip the supernatural ministry of Jesus, bequeathed to the on-going mission of the church at Pentecost? Personal transformation always addresses the heart of what needs transforming in a person’s life. Changed lives precede a changed world.

Actually this is true of the US as well. Maybe danutz needs to get out more! :)

Re: Review of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (part 1)

Peter,

Deistic God? I am no deist. I have no idea where you pull that from. Your view on God sounds more like a deist view if you expect God works by “motivating” people but doesn’t physically intervene. Is that what you are saying?

Listen, I really don’t care what motivates someone. I care about the results. If you hear voices or imagine that a theistic God is talking to you and leading you to take action then that is wonderful. Whatever it takes to get the action to happen. I’ll only warn about the dangers of that view. If you imagine God speaks to people then you open up your life to letting every personal want and desire turn into “God’s voice”. I’ve “gotten out” enough to see that happen in the church very often and it can be destructive.

Maybe you need to get out more if you are not aware of fundamentalist Christians who view the kingdom of God as something that will happen supernaturally at the “end of times”. If you are unaware of the left behind series of books that sold many millions of copies, then you are very much in need of “getting out more”.

I don’t think McLaren or I claim that this progressive Christian view is “new”. But it is new to the vast majority of Christians in America. I won’t try to speak for parts of the world outside my own.

results and story

The trouble is Mike, ‘results’ are largely a function of what ‘motivates’ people. And so we can’t divorce motivation (the story that drives us) from action (the pieces of that story). Viewing God as ‘the ground of all being’ hardly qualifies as ‘theism’, so I’d be interested in hearing how you would describe your own view of God, since you don’t like the label ‘deism’.

Further, I think you misunderstanding McLaren. Since ‘Everything Must Change’ is, by Brian’s own admission, ‘The Secret Message of Jesus part 2’, you must have overlooked Brian’s insistence in the Secret Message of Jesus that Jesus’ ‘signs and wonders’ cannot be understood within a naturalistic worldview. As far as I can tell, Brian is walking pretty much in step with NT Wright. Sorry… :-/ I think you must have misunderstood one or the other of the two.

If the Creator does not care enough about his Creation to empower his followers to genuinely re-create reality… how is that not deism? And how is that a reason to act?

Just pushin’ back a little bit… ;-)

 Cheers,

 -Daniel-

  

Re: results and story

Daniel,

Re-create reality? I guess I agree with that, but I’m not sure I know what you mean. Would creating a system that gives everyone health care be “re-creating reality”? If so, then I agree that is very much possible. If you are talking about physically changing the atomic structure of the universe into some kind of “other-worldly” state of existence where people live forever and angels float around either as ghosts or super-human beings, then I completely disagree.

What do you mean by re-create reality? This is where NT Wright always falls down for me. He never provides a good description. He stops at the metaphorical level, and rejects those who might try to articulate what that metaphor might look like if it becomes reality.

I agree with McLaren that “…signs and wonders’ cannot be understood within a naturalistic worldview”. But what I mean by that (I won’t speak for Brian) is that we shouldn’t try to come up with a natural explanation of how those miracles physically happend. We should not try to create a naturalistic explanation like “these people had epilepsy and the miracle was a natural healing” or “these people had mental problems and Jesus helped them heal themselves by giving them hope”. Using those natural explanations was the mistake of modern liberalism. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t do the story justice. WE now have another option of how to see the stories as “true myth”.

Instead, we should realize the narrative isn’t a historical retelling. It is a mythical story. In the world of myth, miracles happen all the time. They don’t need an explanation. Within a mythical narrative, they tell us all kinds of things as symbols for what the overall message of Jesus is about. For example, the myth that Jesus cast out demons was a symbol for his purpose of opposing the evil investation of pagans in Israel. That may not be what Brian means but I can’t speak for him.

The “what is God” question is bigger than this conversation so I won’t go into it here, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

'miracles' and recreation

Shane Claiborne, in his ‘The Irresistible Revolution’, tells a story of when he was serving at a medical center for the poor (I don’t remember if the story takes place in Calcutta, during his time with Mother Teresa, or somewhere in Central America for some reason). He and his team were treating the poor and needy as they came in, but they ran out of supplies. The only thing they had left was a bottle of Pepto-Bismol. So they just kept giving people Pepto-Bismol. Here’s the thing: people kept getting healed. Here’s the other thing: they never ran out of Pepto-Bismol, even though the bottle should have been emptied several times over with the amount they were giving out.

I submit that this is an instance of God’s will for the recreation and restoration of the world being manifested in an act of faithfulness. It is, in spite of all post-modern pussyfooting around the possibility, a miracle. Must we consequently conceive of God as a cosmic vending machine? No. Must we conceive of the finished task as being a "state of existence where people live forever and angels float around either as ghosts or super-human beings"? No. But I’m stuck with the fact that God created. That the creation is broken. And that it needs more than just human cooperation, even on an imaginative global scale, to be put right. Or at least, to be put profoundly right. And yet this is precisely the hope of resurrection.

You may say "we shouldn’t try to come up with a natural explanation of how those miracles physically happened," but to relegate them to the ‘true myth’ bin seems to me to be essentially the same thing. Instead of trying to explain how the miracles happen, you say they didn’t really happen.

But is the multiplication of Pepto-Bismol a ‘true myth’? If so, I think Shane will vehemently protest. If not, then perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to exclude the multiplication of the bread and fish…

 Cheers,

 -Daniel-

Re: 'miracles' and recreation

Daniel,

You said: “But I’m stuck with the fact that God created”

Fact? Exactly what do you mean by “fact”?

You also asked if the multiplication of Pepto-Bismol is a ‘true myth’. My answer is yes. That sounds exactly like what it is. Some people were healed just like they are healed every day (that is the true part). Then a mythical explanation is applied (that is the myth part).

Is healing a miracle? I guess it depends on how you define miracle. In my book, it is a miracle no matter how it happens. Every time I cut myself it magically spiritually heals in a couple of days. Isn’t that a miracle? It is truely amazing and completely beyond my capability to explian! In the abscense of concrete explanations, people usually create mythical stories and interpretations to explain those healings. For example, you have created a myth by suggesting that God intervenened to heal those people. The healings were literally true, the mythical explanation is dependant on how you tell the story.

You also once again (as you have in many of our conversations) use the languange that I “relegate them to the true myth bin”. You always seem to suggest that myth is not as good as history. That is a product of modern training to think that only history is valuable while art, story and myth is a lower form of communication. I completely disagree. I would suggest that we can RAISE THE STORY TO THE PROFOUND AND LIFE CHANGING REALM OF MYTH! History communicates events, but myths can change lives by giving meaning. Which is better? I’ll go with myth every time. I’m motivated by a mythical character. I follow him, devote my life to him, and seek to be transformed into his likeness. I really don’t care how much or little of him is history.

For me, your response points to exactly what McLaren is warning us about. He is asking us NOT to try and come up with natural interpretations. We get into problems when we try to read into the myths an idea that they may have actually happened. I don’t think any of the miracles literally happened but I wouldn’t totally discount that some of them point to him being a “healer”. I think they were mythical stories created to make larger statements about the purpose of Jesus’ life and message.

Re: 'miracles' and recreation

"We get into problems when we try to read into the myths an idea that they may have actually happened."

My point is precisely that Shane’s story happened. There is a difference between the Genesis Creation stories (assuming that Adam and Eve didn’t literally exist) and the Shane Claiborne story (who obviously does exist). The former are myths, the latter is not. If you want to prettify it all by saying ‘true myths’, fine, but don’t mangle the English language by calling a story about a healing ‘mythical’, when it clearly happened. I submit to you that you likewise do violence to Jesus’ story when you say it didn’t really happen. New Creation means nothing if it is not actually happening. And if it’s ‘actual happening’ only means a bunch of people getting along, passing good healthcare legislation (good things, mind you), then we’re not talking about New Creation. We’d be talking about ‘nature made over’, not ‘Creation made new’. The latter necessarily involves everything you don’t like about a transcendant’s God’s involvement with the world.

My two cents,

 -Daniel- 

Re: 'miracles' and recreation

Daniel,

As always, I really enjoy our conversations and it might seem bitter to some looking in, but it is very helpful for me (I hope for you too). I do have a couple of issues with your last statement:

1) I never said this story didn’t happen, but I do mean to say that it becomes a “myth” when an interpretation of meaning is applied and the story is shared. It likely even grows to help emphasize one meaning or another. I bet if you chase the story back and could get to its roots you would find that it has already morphed as it was handed to you and then to me. I don’t say that to belittle the story, but to suggest that this is a very normal way that humans apply meaning to life’s events. The events are history but we don’t have a video recording of the history. We need to distinguish between retelling the historical events and creating the mythical explanation of the events meaning. Even in modern times when we do have video, the same thing happens as people apply their own meanings and morph the story to fit their intentions. Try asking 10 different people about the events in the civil rights movements. You are likely to get 10 different myths.

2) You said: “I submit to you that you likewise do violence to Jesus’ story when you say it didn’t really happen”. I never said it didn’t happen. What I’ve consistently said is that we ONLY have the mythical explanations of Jesus life. We have no historical video tapes or eye witness notes taken at the time. I leave room for the likelyhood of historical roots to the myths. The mistake of fundamentalism has always been to confuse the 2 different forms of communication. The insistence on making these stories into historical facts for the last few hundred years has caused many generations of people to lose touch with the “more than literal meanings”. Fundamentalists mistep when they assume the gospels are the facts and we are only now applying interpretations. That isn’t how it works. The Gospels were ALREADY later interpretations. That is why they differ so much.

3) You said: “New Creation means nothing if it is not actually happening”. I never said it wasn’t actually happening. I do think creation is always being transformed. I have tremendous faith it will continue to be transformed. What I suggest is that the transformation is a change of our hearts, minds, communities, nations, and environment that is accomplished through humans doing this work. We can say that God is the spirit of change in us, or that God is a set of ideals that drives us, or that God is the mythical figure that motivates us. Any or all of those definitions can work as explanation of God’s involvement. But I think it is damaging to insist that the only valuable image of God is one as a alien being living on another plant that has magical powers to beam down to earth and manipulate our world. It turns our faith into a joke when we try to force that ancient understanding of the universe down the throats of modern people. If Jesus was interested in change on a spiritual level then no Empire or Temple system would have objected. If Jesus assumed God was going to do the change him/her/itself then why did Jesus tell people to make changes? Why would he need to confront any authorities if he didn’t expect those authorities to make changes to the sytems under their control? The stories of Jesus don’t paint a picture of a person who was waiting for God to magically impose his change no matter what any human did? If Jesus had taken that approach then I doubt they would have killed him.

4) You continue to ignore my request to explain how “creation is made over”. Is that a molecular change? Would the world still be a “physical thing” or would we all exist in a dream like mental/spiritual state? Do people continue to reproduce but not die? If so, how long can a planet survive that process? Are we still “human” or is it the next step in evolution? Do people still get sick but we have all the tools to heal every disease or do people just stop ever getting sick? I have yet to see you explain this but you seem to have problems when I explain my views.

It seems like you (and Tom Wright as well as many fundamentalists) are stuck on the surface level of the metaphor and you despise anyone actually talking about what those metaphors mean. If you have a better explanation of how this transformation can happen, then please let me know.

on the how of new creation

Mike—you know I enjoy our conversations. I also hope no one thinks we’re bickering.  :-)   In my opinion, strong continued disagreement is actually an affirmation of the worth of the other, since his or her opinion matters enough to interact with. The final form of disdain is not conflict but rather disregard, and the ignoring of the other. As long as we’re talking, I think we’re ok.

Here’s how I heard your comments. Feel free to correct me.

1. The pepto-bismol didn’t actually multiply. It didn’t actually heal anyone in an unexpected way. I can’t help but experience that as condescension towards Shane. This isn’t a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away. This is a Princeton educated (though not graduated) 20-something brother in Philly. Have you read any of his books by the way?

2. Your distinction between history and myth is questionable. Surely every telling of history is story-laden. So if I tell you the Civil Rights Movement changed the U.S. for the better, I am referring to historical events through the lens of my worldview (where racism is a bad idea). That’s one distinction (call it ‘mere history’ vs. ‘interpreted history’—though all we can ever talk about is the latter). If I say the Civil Rights Movement happened in Ukraine two years ago, and Dr. King was an ardent Muslim, then I am not ‘interpreting’ history, I am falsifying it. Factual claims must be closely grounded (not loosely grounded) in fact (interpreted though it may be). So then if Jesus did not in fact raise Tabitha and Lazarus from the dead, then the biblical writers made it up. And if they made it up, they’re guilty of falsifying history, no matter how fuzzy it makes us feel.

3. You’re making a false distinction between ‘new creation’ as social change (and you know I’m all for, at least certain kinds of, social change) and New Creation as an outlandish other-worldly doctrine. This is a false dichotomy. There are real forces keeping us in bondage. Sometimes these are political orders, sometimes these are ‘laws of nature’ (or call them quasi-personal ‘powers’). New Creation encompasses both. As the new political order of God (the Church) is formed, the old nature (of humanity and of the world) falls away. The old nature says ‘if you have two fish and five loaves of bread, you can’t feed a crowd’. New Creation says ‘God is generous, and if we are faithful he will provide’. This is not other-worldly, it is new-worldly.

4. I ignore your request to explain ‘how’ creation is made new because I have no idea how it’s done. I just know that it is. Amputees regrow limbs, cancer is cured, the hungry are fed, Jesus walks through locked doors. How does it happen? Damned if I know! There’s undoubtedly some sort of molecular change, undoubtedly some sort of something going on, but I don’t know what it is. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to presume I know that such things can’t happen, or that there’s nothing more to be learned about the infinite weirdness of the cosmos. If I had to understand how water turns to ice at 32 degrees before I could enjoy an icecube in my Coke, man I wouldn’t have had anything cold to drink until high school!

The problem with your potshot at NT Wright about being stuck on the ‘surface’ of the metaphor, is that you’ve ignored that some (not all) metaphors purport to describe the world as it is. Or perhaps more precisely, some symbolic acts carry symbolic power (e.g. Rosa Parks on a bus bench) precisely because they were in fact historically executed. Take Rosa off her bench and you can talk about metaphor all you want, but you can no longer make claims about ‘the beginning of the end of Jim Crow’ (or what have you). So the point is the meaning, but the meaning only comes if you have the thing that means. Know what I mean?

Cheers,
 -Daniel-

Re: on the how of new creation

This is very fruitful conversation Daniel. It probably gets deeper into this issue than most conversations I’ve had or read.

I still hear you clinging to the modern mentality of needing every story to contain exact facts or it’s worthless. I suspect that is based on socialization and worldview issues more than anything. I realize our worldviews are not easily overcome. That is exactly why Andrew has stated several times that the best approach to take for biblical myths is to look at them AS IF they are not literally true so that we can see their deeper meanings. He took a great deal of heat for that suggestion, but I think he was correct and offered a way out of the division.

As for your story about the pepto-bismol, you are correct to assume I don’t believe it multiplied. I do believe a single bottle was rationed in order to help everyone. Is that the same thing? I will always stick to the best scientific evidence we have about how the universe works. If this pepto-bismol did multiply then I would suggest your friend submit a article for peer review in the scientific community and once it is established that the particular attributes of pepto-bismol lend to multiplication and new theories are tested I’ll add that to my worldview. Otherwise, I’ll take the most probably answer to the question which is clearly “NO, that didn’t happen”. I’m open to proof and retooling my worldview as needed.

You are wrong to assume my attitude is one of condescension towards Shane. I do think he firmly believes that happened. But what I realize about reality is that it is ALWAYS interpreted and he was interpreting his reality right on the spot. When I look at the yellow coffee cup in front of me, I see a yellow coffee cup. This is not a clear statement of reality. The reality is that there are billions of atoms moving around at various speeds and because of how I interpret reality, I interpret that to be a yellow coffee cup. If I was color blind I might not interpret reality that way. If a stranger walked in and didn’t realize I had just finished the coffee inside they might not qualify the description with the word “coffee”. They might also call it a “mug” or assume it was for tea. How else does a ouija board or palm reading work? They work because people go into the experience with an explanation set as a possiblity and as they experience the event they interpret it based on their worldview and assumptions. When I was younger I believed in miracles and I saw them. When I believed God spoke to me in dreams, I had God given dreams. I still have the same dreams and see the same occurances, but I no longer make the same interpretations.

A proper historical account of Shane’s experience would list exact dosages, exact symptoms, timelines, and clear results. We don’t have a historical account. What we do have is a 2nd or 3rd hand interpretation of the story along with its meaning/explanation. We can prove that similar effects happen with placebos all the time. We have scientific evidence which actually proves my interpretation as a high possiblity. We have zero evidence that your interpretation is ever possible. The best I can do is weigh the results and make my best judgement based on the best evidence.

Rosa Parks provides a great example. We today cannot separate her actions from the metaphorical meanings of those actions. We interpret them through the entire history of the civil rights movement. The individual act did nothing independently to create civil rights. BUT, many people saw the more-than-literal meanings of her actions and then played out the meanings of her protest on a large scale. Only by real people living out the meanings of the story was the story able to become a transformative myth. If you asked her at that moment she might have said (and I think she did actually say this when interviewed) - I was just tired and fed up so I refused to go to the back. That doesn’t make for a great story and it doesn’t change systems. Now in hindsight, we retell that story as a grand myth about how one woman changed a national system of civil rights and liberated millions of african americans from racist oppression. There is real history and there is a mythical retelling of the story. Both are truth-filled but only the myth can continue to change lives and can stand the test of time to transmit that truth to future generations. Myth is “history + meaning” not “history - facts”.

Not all life-changing myths need a history behind them. Many fables and children’s stories inspired me. “The little train that could” inspired me and millions more to give our best. I could go on.

On “new creation:

What I hear you suggesting is that you have no clue what this “new creation” is, but you are very certain it is not what I suggest. That seems very divisive. Why can’t this new creation mean individual character change, social change, government change, national peace and justice, and environmental cleanup and renewal in real physical terms. You seem to be adverse to anyone attempting to describe what “new creation” is and how it could work. Why? If you have a better explanation then by all means please describe it. I don’t think it is fair to suggest that just because you can’t describe it that I can’t attempt to describe it and draw a clear direction about how to make it happen.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.