Dear Brain,
I want to first thank you for your willingness to directly address your most recent book: A New Kind of Christianity. Knowing that there has been significant response to this book and an abundant amount of criticism leveled at you, I am hoping you sense from the letters and follow-up comments posted on this blog a spirit of compassion and an appreciation for your vulnerability. After reading your book, many questions come to mind and I wish we could sit down over a cup of coffee and talk face to face. Since the likelihood of that isn’t realistic, I am grateful for this opportunity to “talk” via this blog. Also, because of the limit our professor placed on this post, not all of my questions or comments can be included.
In reading A New Kind of Christianity I found much that resonated with my spirit, some that caused me to stop and think which created tension, and then there were a few things I disagreed with—a mark of a good read! Your approach to “how to read the Bible” was intriguing and, I must admit, a concept I don’t completely grasp. Your take on Q & R made me wish I had read this 5 years ago when I was conducting very difficult congregational meetings as lead pastor. Approaching questions from the perspective of “response” instead of “answers” relieves an underlying pressure to be the “Shell Answer Man” in potential volatile situations. This is one thing I plan on utilizing in future meetings. I appreciated your treatment of Jesus being the “highest value” in scripture. What I am discovering is many “believers” place such a high value on scripture at the expense of Jesus. There is so much majoring on the minor issues within the church today, therefore your concept of Jesus being the center, or the spine, of scripture is a great word picture I plan on using in the future.
You stretched my comfort zone when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. I’m wondering how you process passages like: Romans 1: 26,27, I Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10? It seems scripture is clear as to the issue of practicing homosexuality. If we say practicing homosexuality is not a sin, then what do we do with the other sins listed in these passages? When the religious leaders confronted Jesus with the woman caught in adultery he first dealt with the arrogance and sin of the accusers. He then engaged her in conversation with compassion but ended with the statement: “go and sin no more.” Does this apply to the issue of homosexuality?
The area I disagreed with you was your treatment of the future. I understand your premise but you either glossed over or totally left out scripture passages that deal with prophecy. How does the book of Daniel play into your view? What about the many references to the Anti-Christ found in 1 and 2 John? Please know, I am not a dispensationalist and take issue with much of what is proposed by people who follow that train of thought.
Again, thank you Brian for this opportunity to engage in dialogue and thank you for challenging me to think. May God bless you as you continue your journey to be conformed to the image of Christ.
In Him,
Marty
Marty,
I too did not agree with the treatment of the treatment of the end times. The idea that humanity is to construct the good future, as Brian posits with the time travel metaphor, is the enlightenment myth of human progress, that together we can usher in the “millennium”. I appreciated that you brought up the gaps left in the eschatology offered.