A Hopeful Heretic

Chapter 16: Notes on Church Leadership From One Certified Nobody to Another

In the opening of the book’s last chapter Dan asks the hardest question of all for a pastor trying to navigate a church in the transition from modernity to postmodernity: how can he ask people to let go of Christianity as a modern construct when a better alternative has not fully presented itself? In essence, Dan would be asking his church to tear down their house without the materials available to rebuild it. How would you approach this dilemma? Would you?

McLaren speculates (through the messages exchanged by his characters in this chapter) that one mark of postmodern Christianity may be a return to ritual, liturgy and symbol. He also observes that many contemporary churches have painted these things as “wrong or evil” (page 147). How do you feel about these aspects of Christian practice?

Later in the chapter McLaren notes that there are several ways to “kill” the bible. It can be overanalyzed or broken into neat, “sharp-edged principles” or it can be demythologized; stripped of its poetry and stories. McLaren proposes a different way to encounter the bible; as a “pre-modern text emerging from a people who believed that truth is best embodied in story and art and human flesh rather than abstraction or outline or moralism” (page 159). Has reading this book changed your thoughts on how to approach the bible?

Chapter 15: Beginning The Journey Into Terra Nova

I find it interesting that Neo responds to his grief with a “compulsion to travel” (page 137). I know that this feeling gripped me in the immediate aftermath of my own grief last year. Do you think that this is common? Is this simply about escaping the sadness or is it possibly something more, something deeper?

When Dan comes to his decision to remain in professional ministry and try to lead his church into a “new path” he talks about his journey with his wife. He says that he started out seeing only two possibilities, staying and feeling less and less honest or leaving altogether. Through Neo’s counsel he comes to a third possibility. It strikes me as ironic that Dan’s initial view of his future was itself biased by modernity; he saw things as black and white, as polar choices. Is this a familiar tendency? Is it something to change?

Chapter 14: It's None Of Your Business Who Goes To Hell

• Neo says that hell is “a subject about which modern Christianity entrenched itself in some very ugly positions.” (page 125)  He goes on to explain a continuum of doctrines for the subject:
  Universalism says that Jesus is the savior of  the whole world and everyone is already saved regardless of whether they believe in him.
• Exclusivism says that Jesus is the only way and the Savior of the whole world yet affirms the possibility of rejecting the grace of God.  Salvation from hell extends to everyone who in some way (known only to God) accepts the grace of God in whatever way it presents itself to them, whether or not they have heard of and believe in Jesus.
• Pluralism and Relativism are “yoked together” as “popular approaches to questions of heaven and hell” that say there are many beliefs and that none has superiority over another.
• To this mix, Neo adds “predicamentalism” which he defines as a focus solely on one’s own eternal fate to the complete refusal to speculate upon anyone else’s.
  How do you feel about this idea that eternal fate is only to be considered for one’s self and not for others?

At one point Neo asks, “Do you think that God would want a heaven filled with people who cared more about being saved from hell than saved from sin?”  It is reminiscent of Groucho Marx: “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.”  The serious question is what kind of people do you believe God wants in heaven?  The hardest question of all is what are you doing about becoming that kind of person?

Neo goes on to question the “crossing the line” metaphor that is so common among Evangelical Christians, calling it “another case of modern reductionism.” (page 130)  It seems to me that with our minds so thoroughly trained in modern thinking it is very difficult to imagine other metaphors for salvation, metaphors that don’t involve some kind single point of decision.  We could call this “linecentric” soteriology (I give credit to my friend Scott Vaudrey for this expression).  Is this helpful or harmful in understanding salvation?

Neo also observes that the Bible tells us that God will “remember our sins no more.”  Neo speculates about what would happen to a person whose sin so outweighed everything else in them that there would be little for God to remember.  What happens to a person whom God has forgotten?

In a reversal of roles it is Dan who proposes an alternative view of salvation to Neo that defines Christian salvation not as being saved from something (hell) but rather saved for something (service to God in advancing His kingdom).  Is this a viable way of looking at salvation?  Does it strike you as “truth?”

Chapter 13: Spiritual Practices: Secret and Shared

In this chapter McLaren seems to take the reader on a hard left turn. The conversations between Dan and Neo work well to introduce one theological concept after another yet here McLaren chooses to make the characters far more human than previously. Neo’s grief is visceral and Dan’s immediate efforts to serve him are very realistic. Do you think McLaren is making a point about a “new kind of Christian” in his dropping everything to care for an aging parent? Is he making a point about what a Christian man would do for a friend in need? Is he making a point about a rare and unique form of male intimacy? Perhaps all of the above.

On page 112 the characters touch on the subject of giving and tithing. Dan observes that Neo is living on only seventy percent of his salary, saving five percent and giving away twenty-five percent. Does this sound realistic in today’s economy? Neo sounds almost counter-counter-cultural when he says Dan should preach on giving more, not less. How do you feel about that?

In other conversations about money Neo describes a Bible college that is “stuck in the 1940’s or ‘50’s” because it is a “hostage to money.” (page 115) What do you think churches and other Christian institutions would do differently if they were not concerned about money at all? Do you think that this is possible? Neo observes that postmodern Christian practices may look more like medieval and ancient practices than our modern church services. He notes that we may see a return to liturgy and saints and holy days. How does this prospect strike you?

Through Dan’s questions McLaren roots around in some sacred ground for many modern Christians, especially Evangelical Protestants – he questions “quiet time” and “praise and worship” practices. While he seems very respectful, even apologetic, it is clear that he has concerns about these spiritual practices. Have you ever shared Dan’s concerns (page 120-121)?

When Dan recounts the spiritual experiences that have had the greatest impact on his life he finds that they all have one thing in common, what he calls intensity. Neo observes back to him essentially the same thing he noted earlier, that these experiences liken back to medieval and ancient practices. For example, short-term mission trips are approximations of Paul’s missionary journeys and retreats are essentially monastic experiences. Do you think that this makes sense?

Chapter 12: French Fries and the Kingdom of God

For my men's group guys, here's the notes on the next chapter.  This whole subject of evangelism has a lot of stuff tied up with it so I look forward to our conversation about it in addition to catching up on D's trip west, H's home projects and J's trip south.

For anyone else who might be jumping on at this point, welcome.  I apologize if this seems weird to start a blog in chapter 12 of a book review but that just happens to be where I started the new service.  I hope to publish the previous chapters of our group's notes so that they are available to anyone who might be interested.  But let me be clear, I welcome comments from anyone.

French Fries and the Kingdom of God
Driving home from the soccer game, Dan makes an interesting observation to Neo.  He says, “I seldom felt as comfortable with non-Christians as he seemed to be.”  Dan goes on to say that, as a Christian, he has always thought of people in terms of categories.  This is a common theme, not just for Christians but for the modern worldview in general: believers and non-believers, saved and not, liberal and conservative, Democrats and Republicans, north and south, black and white.  Is this human nature, something that we can’t overcome?  Is this something of the “flesh” (to use the Apostle Paul’s term) that we could put behind us if we live “according to the Spirit?”  Should we try to change this?

Neo speaks candidly about the fear of “being pulled down by their bad behavior.”  (page 103).  Is this a concern for you in friendships with non-Christians?

Through Neo’s monologue McLaren makes a great point about the expression, “born again.”  Even though it’s somewhat of a detour, it would be important to understand the scriptural context for the term.  It comes primarily from John chapter 3 when Nicodemus comes to Jesus to get the straight scoop on what he is all about.  Bear in mind that Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the ruling Jewish council and he is coming to Jesus at night so we might infer that he is sincere about his questions and, perhaps, afraid of what others will think of him if they know that he is.  Nicodemus acknowledges to that he believes Jesus is a teacher who has “come from God.”  It is in this context that Jesus tells Nicodemus, “no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”  Because Nicodemus doesn’t have a clue what Jesus is talking about, he goes on to explain.  It doesn’t do justice to the explanation to summarize so I’ll leave that to you.  However, it brings up some important questions to ponder and discuss.  First, how does the current use of the expression, “born again” differ between Evangelical Christians and “others?”  In other words, what does “born again” mean to someone who claims that status and what does it mean to someone who does not?  Most important, how do these two definitions of the expression differ from that of Jesus in John 3?

When Dan asks Neo to define the gospel he says that it can’t be simply summarized but when pushed he says that it means that “the kingdom of God is at hand.”  However, he also goes on to say that he doesn’t recommend using this exact language even though this exact language is used in scripture.  What’s wrong with using this terminology in our current-day context?

Neo sums up the difference between modern and postmodern approaches to evangelism this way, “stop counting conversions and start counting conversations.”  How does this approach feel to you?