I suppose I can understand the phrase “our God” in at least two
ways. One interpretation is that we are claiming God for “us” and not
for “them”. In other words, God is on our side. Another
interpretation is that we have willingly placed our lives under the
authority and direction of God, meaning he is truly the lord of our
lives. We could say that we have placed ourselves on God’s side.
Of course the way I’ve stated these two views is very dualistic. But
then again Jesus himself said, “those who aren’t against me are for me”
and “those who aren’t with me are against me” (my paraphrases).

Is it necessary to use the phrase “our God” at all? If we believe in One
True God, then what distinction are we trying to draw? It is like we are
affirming that there are other Gods competing with “our God”? Certainly
there are many gods but only one God. Many, if not most, of the
references to “our God” could be replaced simply by “God”.

Maybe this is no big deal. I am not trying to be critical, but I find it
increasingly difficult to sing songs that are literally full of personal
references to ourselves—mostly unnecessary references in my opinion. I
have a growing sense of uneasiness with the high emphasis we place on
the personal nature of God (we want to know God’s will for our
lives, and know him as our personal Savior). But what about
Christ as the Savior of the world? What about God’s will being done in
every nation on the earth?

McLaren raises interesting questions about the Bible’s portrayal of
God. It should be clear to anyone who reads the Bible that God’s
character seems to be quite different depending which Scripture you turn
to. In one passage He is wiping out entire nations for their
disobedience, but at other times He appears to be gracious, merciful and
patient. How should we understand this?

McLaren’s interpretation, as I understand it, is that the Bible reflects
a maturing view of God’s character, which developed over the course of
history. Therefore, the “God” that is described in much of the Old
Testament is really the (mis)understanding of God’s character, reflected
in the writings of the people who lived during that time. This view
certainly alleviates much of the tension we feel when we read about the
things that God did or condoned in the Old Testament.

In my opinion, this interpretation introduces other difficulties. For
instance, if we cannot trust the Bible to accurately portray who God is,
then can we trust the rest of the Bible? McLaren rightly says that
Jesus, being God made flesh, is the greatest image we have of what God
is like. I agree that we should look to Jesus to know God. But is the
information recorded about Jesus in the gospels supposed to be
self-sufficient? Jesus himself referred to the Old Testament scriptures.
Much of the New Testament was written shortly after Jesus was on earth,
and if anyone understood his message it should have been those who
walked with Jesus or learned from those who did. Surely we don’t think
we are in a better position to understand Jesus’ core message than they
were.

I thought McLaren was setting the stage to dismiss the idea of
justification by grace through faith, which we often consider to be a
major theme of Romans and Paul’s other writings. Thankfully, he did not
dismiss this concept, but instead he says that this is not the main
“tagline”, if you will, for the gospel as proclaimed by Jesus. McLaren
seems to hold to grace through faith, but not in the context of the
“six-line narrative” as he calls it (ad nauseum).

Some other random thoughts:

What does McLaren believe about evil in the world, and specifically
spiritual forces of evil (he alluded to the fact that the concept of
Satan is not in the Bible, but came from the Greeks (or Romans, I can’t
remember at this point)?

Does he believe that our current experiences can trump what is found in
the Bible, as long as it is not found incompatible with Jesus’ message?

There are other questions I could ask, but my goal is not to criticize or
throw darts at what Brian McLaren has to say. I want to be open, yet
somewhat guarded, to new ideas. How can I presume to have “arrived”?
I plan to keep these new ideas in mind as I read the Scriptures, trusting
God’s Spirit to lead me into God’s truth.

Overall, I enjoyed Brian McLaren’s book, “A New Kind of
Christianity”. At the least, it spurs us on to put our faith into action.
But it does much more than that—it encourages to re-evaluate everything
that we have been taught about the message of the Bible and of Jesus.
And this, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. When we come to God’s
Word with fresh eyes, we often see things that we were unable to see
before. Who of us cannot benefit by asking the Holy Spirit to open our
eyes, to teach us, and to reveal ways in which we have failed to see or
live out God’s Truth?

May God give us wisdom as we strive to follow Christ.

On a related note, I believe we are too quick to pick out isolated
verses as promises to be claimed, when in fact they are general guiding
principles or statement regarding specific people or people groups at
specific times. McLaren doesn’t mention this, but I believe it is
related to the “constitutional” approach to the Bible. We look for
little promises everywhere, so we can hold God hostage. “God you have to
do this for me, because you promised it here in your Word!”

Some examples come to mind. “I can do all things through Christ who
gives me strength.” Is this a promise, or a truth that is demonstrated
as we walk humbly with Christ? Are we supposed to “name it and claim
it”, or was Paul referring to the natural outcome of living this life in
relationship with the Living God? I don’t see any problem with taking
comfort in these words, but they will only be fulfilled if we are truly
drawing strength from Christ.

What about Jeremiah 29:11, a frequently-quoted verse? “‘For I know the
plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not
to harm you…’” What about the AIDS or cancer victim who claimed this
“promise”, but died a painful death? What about a Chinese pastor who
endured torture for Jesus’ name? What about those who follow Christ but
live in poverty and starvation? Why didn’t God follow through on His
promise? Could it possibly be that this was never meant to be a
universal promise after all? Did Jesus offer prospects of prosperity or
persecution to his followers?

I agree with McLaren that there are many questions left unanswered in
the Bible. I don’t believe God intended for us to have a definitive
answer ready for every situation. We can be far too quick to “verse
drop” or respond with a quick unsatisfying answer when faced with a
challenging question or issue. But I believe that the fact that God has
left us to wrestle with some unanswered questions is in fact a blessing
in that it requires us to live in a vibrant relationship with Christ and
our fellow believers. I certainly believe that we can know some
things with certainty, and we should not be ashamed to confidently hold
on to these. But there are other things that are shrouded in mystery,
that are meant to keep us wondering, keep us from becoming arrogant,
remind us of the greatness of God, and remind us to look to him and not
to our own wisdom and intelligence.

This would be a good place to stop and start a new post, in which I will
continue my thoughts on Book One of “A New Kind of Christianity”.

McLaren starts by painting a picture of the Biblical narrative as most
modern-day Christians (supposedly) interpret it, and presents his view
that this interpretation is based on Greco-Roman tradition more than the
Bible itself. It is essentially the story of creation, the “fall” of
man, and redemption. But presumably in an effort to strengthen the
contrast between this view and his “new” view, he emphasizes Modern
Christians’ (supposed) view that God’s original creation was an
unchanging state of perfection with no “story” to be told.

I, for one, do not buy this characterization. To the contrary,
I believe that Eden describes a perfect (McLaren may object to the use
of this word) world where man enjoys unhindered fellowship and
relationship with both his Creator and the whole of Creation. A world
where man cares for and cultivates the natural environment in
which God has placed him, and in which he enjoys the eternal bliss of
experiencing and exploring the wonders of the Creator.

As far as life after death is concerned He also asserts that most
Christians believe in an eternity in heaven, in a disembodied state. I
concur that a sterile view of disembodied spirits floating on clouds and
playing harps, or a city made of gold and jewels (devoid of any of
anything organic, or the remarkable Creation that we enjoy in this
world) makes me want to hurl. But I would hope that most Christians who
have read the Bible do not hold that view of eternity. Isn’t our
“eternal destination”, if you will, a “new earth” where there is
complete restoration of the way things were in the beginning?
Isn’t Eden a picture of what God intended his Creation to be?

Despite his condemnation of the dualism that characterizes the modern
mindset, McLaren seems to take a dualistic approach to scriptural
interpretation (specifically the Genesis narrative). Either you take it
literally or you take it figuratively; there is no room for a literal
interpretation of the larger story, with latitude in interpreting
specific details being interpreted as figurative language. For example,
concerning God’s promise that on the day they eat the fruit they will
surely die, McLaren inists that this is interpreted as immediate
physical death. He condemns any other interpretation, such as spiritual
or “inner” death, or the onset of aging and decay into Adam and Eve’s
physical bodies. He also states that it would be impossible to fulfill
God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth from
within the Garden. Give me a break! Can’t we read this literally, yet
consider that the Garden is like a seed which would spread and multiply
and fill the earth with goodness? Not only mankind but every plant and
animal would have the ability to reproduce and advance the Beauty of the
Garden to the entire earth. In fact, isn’t this a picture of God’s dream
for the world?

As for McLaren’s view that Genesis is a fictional “coming of age” story
that describes the ups and downs of human progress, I can barely take it
seriously at this point. Maybe it’s the image that comes to mind when I
think of one of the many coming of age stories I’ve seen on the silver
screen. While I agree that there is the theme of a loving, gracious and
merciful Father relating to his children who are continually messing up,
I see this more as an indicator of our insufficiency to live out God’s
original dream, and as setting the stage for the later unveiling of the
culmination of this dream, brought about by the hand of God and not the
efforts of man (which have been shown to be insufficient over and over
again). Is this just another coming of age story passed down in Jewish
tradition, or is it THE Story, the story that underlies our very
existence, and the reason why the countless other stories resonate so
deeply with us (John Eldridge’s “Epic” comes to mind)?

I can’t deny that we as Christians have erroneously used the Bible to
defend our own agendas. I have to admit that I have favored condemnation
over love and justice at times. And there are times we (the Church) have
stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our understandings of Scripture
must be reexamined. It may be due to a new awareness of our cultural
biases, new discoveries about our world, or a realization that we have
over-emphasized some parts of the Bible while neglecting the more
important parts. I am a firm believer that if the Bible is the inspired
Word of God, it must be true to what we see and experience, and resonate
with this world that he has created.

In my mind, the problem is that once we start dismissing large portions
of Scripture as fictional, it becomes very easy to mold our concepts of
God based on our culture and our ideas about “the kind of God I want to
follow”, rather than letting God inform our views of Him, our culture,
and the world in which we live. (How many times have you heard someone
say “MY God would never do that”, or “I just can’t believe in a God who
would…”?) For some reason we seem to think that our individual beliefs
determine reality, and that we have the ultimate say on what is “good”
or “just”. We live in a culture where the meaning of a writing is
increasingly determined by the reader and not the author (in one sense,
this is necessarily the case, since “meaning” to the reader must be
based on his own understanding).

Every one of us is biased in some way (“many ways” would probably be
more accurate) due to our unique upbringings, whether we choose admit it
or not. We must wrestle with the tensions that arise when conflicts
arise between our experience and our faith as we know it. I would like
to see us leave behind many aspects of the dogmatic modernistic mindset
which is woven into the fabric of many Western Churches. We are too
often characterized by condemnation of sinners and a tendency to isolate
those that we supposedly intend to reach. Yet I fear for a future where
we deconstruct the faith as we know it, only to erect a new faith in the
image of our postmodern culture. Will this new faith commit the same sin
committed in past generations: namely, invoking the Bible where it is
convenient, or fits nicely into our cultural paradigm, while dismissing
the parts that do not?

I look forward to reading the rest of McLaren’s book. I just hope he
will resolve, or at least address, some of the seeming inconsistencies I
see with his alternative view of the Biblical narrative. Numerous
Scriptures came rushing to my mind as I read McLaren’s interpretations.
These included words of Jesus and writings of Paul that do not seem to
fit within the framework described in the first seven chapters of “A New
Kind of Christianity”. Will McLaren find a way to fit these nicely into
his alternative interpretation of the Biblical narrative, or will he
find a reason to dismiss them?

The most amazing part is that it did not feel like more effort than
previous runs I’ve had at much slower paces. Part of that may have been
due to the beautiful weather conditions—or maybe to the hot dog I ate 90
minutes before my run. In any case, I am becoming more and more
convinced that speed is not a by-product of larger or stronger leg
muscles. Rather, it comes with the mental and physical stamina to hold
oneself together for longer and longer distances, and at higher
speeds. When I am able to keep my body aligned and my body moving in
sync, the effort level to run fast seems nearly equal to the effort it
takes to run slow.

It’s been well over a month now since I started my running
experiment. Other than a few minor aches here and there (and I attribute
those to the process of training my body to do something new), things
have been really fantastic. I am fully convinced that learning
how to run was always my problem. That includes the physical
form, as well as the mental stamina that it takes to run far and run
well. I’m looking forward to where this journey will lead me.

I’ve been plagued with knee and hip troubles whenever I try to increase
my distance, so I’m willing to try anything reasonable at this point. I
was intrigued by the theory that overly-cushioned and supportive running
shoes actually cause us to run in a way that our bodies are not designed
for, and weaken the muscles we would naturally use for running. With all
this extra stuff on our feet, our body cannot sense when we are doing
something wrong and send the appropriate signals to adjust our gait.

So to put this theory to the test, I went out for a 3.5 mile run in our
local metropark. Since I have been changing to a forefoot strike (rather
than heel strike), I wasn’t bothered by the lack of cushioning in the
heel of the shoe. The thinner sole definitely allowed my foot to respond
to the terrain better than with a thick sole. I felt a couple twinges of
pain in my knee and hip, but mostly when I got sloppy and came down on
my heel. I finished up the run feeling great, despite the fact that I
had been sick and out of commission for a few days.

After the run, my calves and arches were pretty sore, but not in a bad
way. I was aware that the changes I am making (i.e. landing on my
forefoot) would use my calves more heavily than my previous
heel-striking stride, and that my arches might get tired due to the fact
that my other shoes may actually have been weakening my feet. Tomorrow
will be the real test, because I’ll have to spend more time on the
pavement. But if our bodies really were designed to respond to different
terrains without the need to put something artificial on our feet, then
this should be no problem (other than sore feet and calf muscles until I
get them back in shape). We’ll see what happens, but for now I am
encouraged!

Take this moment, for instance. I could spend another fifteen minutes
writing about this topic, or I could just come to the realization that
writing this blog post is not a priority, and that if I’m going to focus
on the things in life that I really value I need to minimize the amount
of time spent on things that don’t really align with my life’s vision
and purpose.

So, with that, we stop here.

Here’s the link

Now in the grand scheme of things, this issue does not compare to the
things many people are going through around the world: death,
starvation, persecution, etc. Yet it is important to me, as it affects
the way my child will be educated in his first year of school. If this
small burden weighs so heavily on me, I can’t imagine the weight upon
people who are making life-and-death decisions, or decisions that affect
the lives and livelihood of hundreds or thousands of individuals?

I was reminded this morning that the burden is not mine to bear. If I
believe that the outcome of every situation depends on my ability to
act and respond perfectly in every circumstance, then all hope is lost!
I am thankful that I have hope in Someone else; someone who is bigger
and stronger and more powerful than myself, or anyone else for that
matter.

Now does that mean that things will always work out the way I want them
to because “God is on my side”? Of course not! But knowing that I am not
in control (and that I’m not supposed to be) frees me from the
anxiety and guilt I might otherwise feel. I only need to do what I am
able to do and leave the results to Him. And I know that whether He
intervenes in the way I want Him to or not, I can rest in the fact that
He will provide the guidance and strength to navigate any situation in
which I find myself.

With that hope comes true peace.

So we signed up our son for half-day kindergarten several weeks
ago. Just this past week, the district announced that pending board
approval they will be switching to an all-day, every-other-day format
for half day kindergarten. One possible schedule even changes the days
each week: Monday, Wednesday, Friday one week and Tuesday, Thursday the
next. Is it just me or is there a little bait and switch going on here?

Apparently, a subtle name change takes care of things. It will no longer
be “half day”, but “part time” kindergarten. Call it what you will, but
a half day is not the same as a whole day. In fact this schedule is as
if someone thought, “What are all the reasons someone would choose
half-day kindergarten?” and then created a schedule that accomplished
the exact opposite objectives.

So why did we choose half-day?

I felt that a half-day schedule would help my child adjust to a daily
schedule, while providing a more gradual transition from his current
routine compared with a full day in an academic environment. It will
also allow him to participate in some daytime activities he enjoys at
the YMCA for one more year. I’ve noticed that my son enjoys learning his
schedule, and knowing what he’s doing each day is developing a sense of
confidence and independence.

The new “part time” schedule not only does not acclimate the student to
a daily routine; it does the exact opposite! He or she only attends
school 1/3 of the days in a given week, and the schedule will
potentially change from week to week. Forget about scheduling weekly
activities outside of school with that kind of schedule.

Now let’s compare the part-time schedule with the full-day kindergarten
schedule (which, incidentally is only available to families that can
afford an extra $300/month). My understanding is that the full-day
students spend half the day on core curriculum and the other half on
enrichment activities. The traditional half-day student is expected to
learn the same core curriculum in a day, but does not receive the
additional enrichment. The new part-time schedule, on the other hand,
will require two days’ worth of core curriculum to be taught in a single
school day. That means my child is expected to absorb twice the
information as either the full-day or “true” half-day student.

Unfortunately all of the studies I found comparing the various schedules
are either inconclusive or are based only on academic measures. As far
as I know, there is very little information on the effect this schedule
may have on the many other important developmental factors in a child.

This change will save the district $100k, or about 1/4 percent of its
operating budget. Is it really worth making a fundamental change to the
way we educate the students who are just being introduced into our
schools in order to save 1/4 percent, when we don’t fully understand the
impact it may have on them and their families?

I appreciate the need to “tighten our belts”. I lost about 7% of my
income last year due to “difficult but necessary” actions by my
employer. So what did I do? Did I substitute potato chips for fruit in
my kids’ diet to save a few dollars? Of course not. Instead I cut out
things like trips to the ice cream shop.

I hope that as our district weighs its options, it will effectively
distinguish between those things we can truly do without (either
temporarily or permanently), and those that are core components
of the education we have come to expect from our outstanding
school system.