janean
When you finish this undertaking, I would be interested in reading it. But I have to wonder if you are trying to reinvent the wheel. In other words I would be surprised if this undertaking hadn't already been done.
When I read this:
"Modern people believed that they could create a nice framework that would pigeonhole everything. "Remember that the Pharisees were the great pigeonholers and that Jesus told them that many who came out last in their framework would come out first in his."
I couldn't help but wonder why he would have a problem with a good systematic theology. Without a good systematic theology, we basically end up with the Bible conflicting with itself in many places. Taken as a whole, this problem is resolved.
What does he think systematic theology is anyway? It is not abstract; it is taking the Bible as a whole and working out through context etc…, to determine doctrine. A good exegete is careful that they understand fully what the author is actually saying, before they embrace what they believe it to be saying. When we fail to do this we become guilty of esogesis.
"read the Bible as a pre-modern text, emerging from a people who believe that truth is best embodied in story and art and human flesh rather than abstraction or outline or moralism. We relieve the biblical writers of having to conform to modern expectations. ....According to the Bible, humans shall not live by systems and abstractions and principles alone but also by stories and poetry and proverbs and mystery."
Although there is SOME truth to this, in that the Bible is not a modern book, it is not true that the Bible is not systematic, nor is it true that we shouldn't read the Bible through a good systematic. If we fail to do so, all kinds of problems occur.
In a way, even what he is asking us to do, is a systematic in itself. A wrong systematic, but a systematic nun the less.
Although the Bible does have story, art, poetry and proverbs and is written with the personalities of each individual author. It seems to me that what McLaren is asking us to do is deny that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant.
In case you don’t understand why I included that last sentence, I did so because reading the Bible the way McLaren asks us to read it, the Bible becomes errant.
Many post moderns (don’t like that term) like McLaren, believe that the Bible can be inspired by God while at the same time be errant, because of the infallibility of the human author. (Please note many claim to believe the Bible is both inspired and inerrant, but in practice sometimes without even knowing it deny it.)
This however, is denying that an omnipotent God is capable of using infallible humans to accomplish the writing of His Word.
This is not to say that God didn’t allow the personalities of each individual author to accomplish this, which should be obvious when reading each book. But, if God allowed the authors to be errant, by necessity Scripture would not be trust worthy, thus it would not be inspired.
What I am talking about is called verbal plenary inspiration, as opposed to verbal dictation inspiration (the belief that God used humans as human dictation machines).
Tom
