i think you’re spot on. since reading mclaren’s latest, i’ve become very interested in these “framing stories” and how influential they are and have been. there are variants of the two you mentioned, but you’re right, i think they are basically two, everything else is just x’s and o’s so to speak.

for some–and i think this was evidenced your conversation with derek–the even deeper determinant is scripture: it’s authority and how it should be interpreted. in the conventional view everything hinges on the literal interpretation of scripture whereas with this emerging view scripture is seen, by and large as a group narratives written by pre-modern people about their experiences with god. for conventionalists, the most important question is: is scripture historically verifiable? that is, is scripture historically true and accurate? in this view, it seems, the answer must be yes or everything begins to completely fall apart.

conversely, the overarching question in the emerging view is: what experiences did those pre-modern peoples have that inspired them to write such a story? in other words, what is the deeper truth (not historicity) of the narrative and what does that mean for persons living in post-modernity; how does our story fit within the Story?

spot on blake.

especially with the deeper truth vs. historicity. the better question for me is what did these stories mean and tell about god? at that point, the “meaning” means more than any argument over whether or not it’s all literal or somewhere in the middle.

“1 view is all about a legal transaction with god acting like a judge with our crimes. and the other is about a god seeking to fix the human condition. in 1 view he fixes the human condition by force. and in the other he fixes it by dying the ultimate death, a death that exposed the powers and principalities of the world for what they were.”

In my view, the Bible describes both. God is not only a judge, but there is a coming judgment. It’s not enough to view this in legal terms, though, which is why my summary was different from your conventional summary.

I appreciate what the emerging view adds to the discussion. My problem with emerging views tend to be that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water - and it in order to justify it, it goes too far in question the authority of scripture and it requires downplaying (or ignoring) other parts of scripture. This is subjective, of course, and that statement is based on my rather limited understanding of where the emerging viewpoint is right now (since I wouldn’t say it’s settled into anything formative yet).

But probably my biggest bone to pick with your summary is with this part:

“the larger cultural narratives that framed people’s story didn’t like jesus messing with theirs so they killed him.”

While not wholly inaccurate, this is not why Jesus died.

but i think that is why he died. it’s not that he didn’t have a choice in the matter. but ultimately he died as a counterpoint to the existing framing story. one of retribution, vengeance, selfishness, resentment, idolatry, etc.

his death is less about some legal transaction imparting salvation and more about providing the gateway to a different possibility.

I think Derek is correct. One of the worst things we do theologically (and it’s been done for 2000 years) is embrace one view and exclude all others. There is value to both views described here (even if the conventional view is at least a little caricatured). But, the Bible definitely describes God as loving Father, coming to rescue His children, and the judge of all mankind. The swing too much toward the “conventional” leads to the radical conservatism that has made the church out of touch and is beginning to sound foreign to modern (or postmodern, or postpostmodern, or whatever the !@#$% we want to call it now) ears. The latter, however, is on the way to revive Schleiermacherian liberalism, which did some good things socially, but created a dying church.

And, really, the “legal” model is not entirely legitimate without a more subjective model, as the more subjective model doesn’t stand without a legal model. In a purely legal model, there is actually very little grace, but without it altogether, one has to wonder why sin is anything to worry about in the first place. This is simplistic, but I think it gets the point across.

fair enough. but what if we have a bad understanding of “salvation”. what if “salvation” has nothing to do with “personal sin” and everything to do with restoring globally what was once lost in genesis 1 with created intent?

i think almost everything begins and ends with our interpretations of genesis and the garden. and what all went down there. and depending on your interpretation there, you end up with one of two logical conclusions for the last few chapters of revelation. and then jesus, OT, NT, and everything else makes sense in however you interpret those beginning and end points.

“but i think that is why he died… ultimately he died as a counterpoint to the existing framing story.”

Sorry, but no.

Christ died because He was being obedient to the Father. There are more meanings, and some difficult discussions, behind why God sent Christ to the cross, but in the end, Christ had the power to avoid it. He temptation trials proved that. He could have stepped off that path at any time. He was clearly troubled by the path that was laid before him (I’ve never sweat blood before), but in the end He did it to be obedient.

Don’t make it more ambiguous than that. It was chosen for Him by God, and He chose to be obedient to it. And that path was laid before Him for a very specific reason - so that we would have the ability, through the power of that act, to be holy, righteous, and spotless. There is absolutely no way, scripturally, you can avoid this very simple, central truth. It is, in fact, the very definition of the gospel.

OK, I’ve typed up a response about 5 different ways, and I really don’t want to leave a whole post here in your comments. So, I’ll try to give my briefest thoughts.

I think you are 100% correct, that however we interpret Genesis necessarily affects how we interpret Jesus and the end of the world (I’d say Revelation, but there are too many views on the “book” across the spectrum).

I think the problem is “personal gospel” vs. “global gospel.” Why must it be one or the other? The earliest Christians (whom I’ve been reading a lot of lately) saw both parts. Evangelicalism has been tending in one direction (Jesus came to pay for sins, end of story), and now, the Emerging movement (according to this post’s juxtaposition of the two views) is swinging the pendulum in the other direction. I hope it will stop in a place in the middle and include both (especially since I think the Bible includes both, and both sides will overlook parts of the Bible that do not fit their one-sided view of the Gospel).

So, I think we just need to get rid of the “either/or” mentality here and many other places (not to say that some things aren’t worth burning in the theological trash heap forever), and embrace both views here. And, I think the embracing of both views will actually give us an understanding of the human condition and salvation that looks strikingly more like the early church, with a very robust gospel.

derek. i’m not saying it wasn’t a choice. i wholeheartedly believe it was a choice. it being a choice further highlights the point for me. if people are trying to kill you and you choose to die for them anyway when you could have just opted out and ran away to france and hooked up with mary . . . you’re obviously doing something far larger and greater than what the guys killing you think you’re doing.

alan. i think both “starting points” have elements of personal/global and piety/social. so i do think it’s both/and. but i think the starting points are far larger than simply saying one is social and the other is spiritually salvific. or one is personal and one is global.

i think the different starting points make room for both. but i think ultimately that each starting point goes off in two different directions that have less to do with personal and global or spiritual or social and more to do with a comprehensive restructuring of the very way we do things.

in the conventional view. there is room for the “social” and global. but it never goes very far.

and in the emerging view. there is room for the spiritual, theological, and personal.

i guess my question is this . . . what results get produced when you begin and end with the conventional view and it’s framing story?

and what results do you get with the emerging view?

“derek. i’m not saying it wasn’t a choice. i wholeheartedly believe it was a choice. it being a choice further highlights the point for me. if people are trying to kill you and you choose to die for them anyway when you could have just opted out and ran away to france and hooked up with mary . . . you’re obviously doing something far larger and greater than what the guys killing you think you’re doing.”

It really is all in what you emphasize, though. If your summary distills the point down to “people got angry with Jesus because He was challenging their point of view, so they killed Him,” you take the very heart out of the gospel.

And you miss the point of the 1st coming. And you miss the reason why the 1st coming is different from how the early church expected the 2nd coming to be. These were the people who saw Jesus rise up to the heavens, with an angel then telling them that this is the same way Jesus would return.

thats’ because we have different views derek.

i think your view takes the heart out of the gospel. you miss the point of the 1st coming. and grossly mis read the “2nd coming”.

see how it gets tricky?

touche

Here is my question reading through these posts and trying to understand how these opinions are formed.

What is the final authority on these ideas? Is the Bible the final authority or is it our own experience? How do you determine who is right and wrong. Do I believe Josh’s position because he says it or do I believe Derek’s and Alan’s?

Is the Genesis account just a story or did it happen? If it didn’t happen as it is written then why do we need to be saved at all?

Josh for like the third time you have accused me as not well read except for the bible and few hermeneutical books that I have formed my Christian world view. I find that insincere because you have never asked what I have read and just assume.

never said you wes. i said “guys like you” which i assume are the “fundamentalist” type.

for curiosity’s sake, what books have you read on epistemology? what books have you read on certainty, objectivity, subjectivity, and reason?

in a paragraph or less could you give me a short definition of the enlightenment and it’s role in history? a paragraph on the shift between a verbal culture and a print-based culture? perhaps a short overview of the role rome played in the formation of christianity and then juxtapose that against st. patrick, the celts, and the barbarian hordes. it would be great if you could talk about the eastern orthodox church as well and share their contributions with us?

or something simpler . . . how about discussing “new paul”? do you even know what “new paul” is? anything intelligent you can add from the historical, literary criticisms?

what books have you read on those things?

not trying to sound like a pompous ass, but come on. reading velvet elvis doesn’t count or reading an article on don miller in christianity today is not what i’m talking about.

It is funny you mentions that since I have been digging into NT Wrights Paul: In Fresh Perspective.

And since I want to be fair and balance I also got Piper’s rebuttel to NT Wright which is called the Future of Justification. Have you read that one yet?

Again let me ask it more slowly for you. Who gives final authority on the Genesis account? Your opinion, Alan’s or Derek’s or the Bible?
Since this was the discussion at hand. We can take my essay assignment offline.

Who at the end of the day gives final authority on these things?

Forgive me for my sarcasm about asking it more slowly. I am reacting to your insinuations that I am a buffoon and have no knowledge what I am talking about, but I am really trying not to stoop to that level.

Sorry. I will just ask my questions and try to see what I can learn and add to the discussion.

for the 2nd time, the community is my umpire. borrowed from tony jones.

http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/08/14/the-evolutionary-trajectory-of-the-story-of-god-3/

that’s my authority. the community as guided and shaped by the spirit and scripture.

not some detached black and white words on a page.

and if you want to have a discussion like you said, then give me your feedback on the questions i asked. if not, please visit someone else’s blog besides mine.

Is the Bible the final authority or is it our own experience?

The problem with this dichotomy that you have created is that it is impossible to not interpret the Bible through your own experiences, cultures, biases, etc.

Hell… the Bible was written in the context of different men’s experiences, cultures, biases, etc.

Even if I agree that the Bible is the “final authority,” I am pretty sure that you and I are going to come to different conclusions about what it says.

I will say this - the Bible is not my God.

Josh,

Thanks man you show your true colors. I hope your readers see how you really love your enemy. You are a hypocrite with what you espouse. I asked a few questions and you went on the personal attack again.

Dave,
I agree, we read the Bible and we may put our subject truths on top of it. But do you think scripture is an objective truth that we try and read from it or does the Bible actually have different meanings for different people? Or does it have a single meaning for all people?

I agree the Bible is not my God but a letter to tell me who God is and what His will is.

The community is the umpire. I wonder how women in Saudi Arabia feel in an Islamic state. It is legal for men in that community to beat their wives if they don’t submit. What do you think about that community?

i’m obviously talking about the community of christ you dumbass. quit being such a d-bag. what the fuck are you trying to prove by coming on here and being the devil’s advocate for every single point made?

i’m serious. i’d really like you to quit coming to my blog.

Maybe you should just turn of commenting and you can opine all you want without anyone challenging your views.

I am sure there is little hope for you changing your opinions but you have some readers who are probably seeking after truth. Unfortunately I haven’t found much truth so I thought I would try and help them think about why they believe what they believe.

So much for conversation. So much for your “christian” community. So much for your “christ” like love.

Oh and by the way I didn’t quote one piece of scripture in this thread. I was asking questions seeking truth. Why does that make you so mad?

Think about how you look right now Josh.

Maybe you should just turn of commenting and you can opine all you want without anyone challenging your views.

There are ways of challenging views without acting like a condescending and arrogant ass.

Just saying.

I hate to tell you, but I find it deeply ironic that you are calling Josh out and claiming that he is not acting “christian” enough or “christ like” in his love. Because you sure as hell (but not necessarily a literal hell) haven’t demonstrated much “Christ like love” either.

Dave,

Thanks for the feedback I appreciate it.

My apologies to everyone.

I am trying to examine what I believe and why I should continue to believe it. I thought maybe you guys could soften the edges around my attitude about the emg*** church. Oh well back to my simpleton life of reading the bible and loving God and always asking for lots of forgiveness.

Here is my prayer for all of us. Dear Heavenly Father, you are the God of this universe, you are the God that created each one of us so uniquely. Father please forgive us if we have sinned against you trying to hold up the truth. I pray specificaly for my heart Lord. That I can love these men. Forgive me for my attitude in certain situations over the past week. If I have caused anyone to stumble forgive me Lord. Forgive me a sinner who deserves to perish. But I thank you for Your grace and mercy. For a sinner such as myself. I pray that Your truth pervails Lord and that Your will is accomplished through imperfect human beings. I pray that whoever reads this turns from their own ideas and ways and turns to the living and true God. I pray these things in Your precious and holy name. Thank you Jesus Amen.

Peace out Josh and Dave and all those who read this. I have lots to learn.

Wes

again wes . . . kindly leave.

“…being the devil’s advocate for every single point made?”

Of course, from your perspective it might seem like I do that a good bit here, but it can still be done in a… shall I say, more civilized manner.

“So much for conversation. So much for your ‘christian’ community. So much for your ‘christ’ like love… Think about how you look right now Josh.”

Wes, I’m saying this as someone who would most likely agree with you a lot more than I would with Josh. Read what you wrote. Nearly everyone who has read it is thinking three words: “kettle, pot, black.” Seriously.

You’re on someone else’s blog. It’s like you’re at someone’s house, in their living room, and you’re yelling and whining and screaming, complaining about someone who is tired of you yelling and whining and screaming. They’ve asked you to leave. You really have two choices - leave, or apologize and change your tone.

Those are exactly the same choices Josh gave you earlier. You’d expect no less from someone displaying this kind of behavior in front of your family and friends. Show some humility and respect.

Better yet, show what you’ve been writing in these comments to your best spiritual mentor. If he/she doesn’t whack you over the head, then get a new one. Your attitude doesn’t help you convince others that you’re right.

And listen, I say this as someone who has been told nearly the exact same thing before. I fully expect you to flame back at me, because that’s what I would have done back then.

Dang man. I go out for the afternoon/evening and the conversation gets good.

Josh, I’d kind of like to get back to the actual discussion on this post for a moment, if that’s still OK.

I’ve been reading a lot about patristic Christianity. One thing I’ve noticed is what I’ve been saying–that the gospel (”story” or whatever you want to call it) is big and comprehensive enough to include both ideas–legal and more organic (for lack of a better term). Why do you suppose we find ourselves at a place where we (the West, basically, especially evangelicals) hold to that legal view, and only that legal view, to the exclusion of a more organic view? (I think the opposite is true for many, but we find ourselves in a western, Protestant dominated society, so I am more concerned with this for now.)

I think the “emerging view” is a good thing to fatten the gospel back up, but it seems that some (many?) are categorically dismissing it. I have some thoughts, but I’d like to hear what you have to say (not for the purpose of arguing with you, either…). Of course, this may be getting ahead of your series, too. In which case, I’ll be looking forward to reading that soon.

derek. thanks for riding to gondor’s aid. and that’s my whole philosophy on blogs. the analogy of a house. it’s like a living room. but i didn’t write that because i was tired of trying to rationalize with the kid. thanks for chiming in.

and your point about the mentor got me thinking myself. i spent way too much time entertaining this guy instead of just walking away. something i tried to do earlier in the week. but alas i got pulled back in.

anyway, thanks. you’re a perfect example of why i don’t mind people who are different than me. and having conversations with them. while it may get heated (animated is probably a better word) between us at times, i respect your position and know that you’re more than intelligent enough to have these conversations and understand both perspectives.

anyway . . . that’s probably as close as we’ll get to sharing a blog hug.

Eric will be proud.

Let me say that I share Alan’s position. That many times, when corrections need to be made, people look at the mess of things and take it too far the other way. That’s something I’m trying to be critical of myself with house church, for example — there are benefits to larger organizations out there doing good things. But on a personal level there, I need to be somewhat distant from it for awhile, to figure this stuff out.

Maybe that’s where you’re at. You just have to be distant from the legal stuff. Meanwhile, I’m the advocate trying to point out, whenever I feel that it might add to the discussion, the problems of where that can take you. Kind of like what I do when you make accusations against capitalism, and they tend to sound like the very things that led to socialism (another great example of an over-correction).

I do think the over-emphasis of the church over hundreds of years on the legal aspects, focusing on the church organization and structure, clergy, power, domination, etc., has left us with this mess. I think we’re all trying to figure out how to appropriately find balance as we shift our thinking from what the church has been to what the church should be.

This stuff is important, and I believe in a judgmental God, but our view of God’s mercy and our own limitations should always keep us humble in our insistence that our way is the absolute right way.

alan. that’s a great point about the western vs. eastern church. i have to be careful with what i say because my friend seth (whose e. orthodox) might jump in and go into his whole spill. but you’re right. we live in 2 totally different cultures. and i get what you’re saying. we might throw the baby out with the bath water. or just ignore the legal side of thing to everything else. and i certainly understand that concern.

i think the legal side is there. i just don’t think it’s the prominent side. and ultimately, i don’t think it addresses the problems in genesis 1 and 2. i’ll say this . . . i’d be more on board with the legal metaphors if there wasn’t a literal “2nd coming”. there’s still a huge disconnect for me on what the point is of the time between the “1st coming” and the “2nd coming”. i’m just not sure what the point of the cross is and the ministry of jesus if he’s coming back again to take everybody away and destroy what’s left. but i’ve already covered that ground.

i’ll say this, i think emerging theologians get a bit of a bad reputation. they’re seen as throwing the baby out with the water. ignoring everything, including the contributions of the last 400-500 years of protestant theology. but i disagree with this assessment. i just think they’re trying to be fair and balanced with everything that is in their hand. i’ll speak only for the tradition that i’m familiar with, but most of them have no idea how much augustine influences their interpretative grid. or how the western culture has. or even how rome played a role in it.

their interpretative grid (on the timeline) begin with calvin and luther. and they hold the streams that emerged from them exclusively in their hands.

while i think the emerging guys are not only trying to recover deeper roots, but point out the local and contextual nature of their theologies. and even moreso . . . rediscover the original contexts. the way it would sound to hebrews. what it would mean to ancient romans.

as we rediscover it in this ancient jewish/roman light . . . we find that it almost has to get read differently than the conventional view. salvation wasn’t personal and heavenly. but global and worldly (in the sense of location). scripture wasn’t literal. but literal and allegorical. there is no way in god’s green earth that a 1st century christian would have read revelation literally. they would have read it as the recovery of and fulfillment of daniel. same goes for the cross. it wasn’t seen as some sort of initiation into a life of holiness for a couple of thousand years until the initiator decided to come back again . . . but rather as a holistic way of being made right with god to the point of resisting the framing stories of violence and retribution, selfishness and fear. the things that god jesus killed.

i’m not saying there aren’t elements of the conventional view that don’t have a place at the table. i just don’t think there would have been much room for the conventional view in the years before Christ or the first couple hundred years after Christ. it would have been looked at as odd, foreign, roman, amongst other things that i’m sure they wouldn’t be aware of unless in hindsight.

sorry josh… i will quit kicking the anthill.

[...] Josh Brown juxtaposes the major competing narratives sourced in contemporary interpretations of history, Jesus, the church, and salvation. If you are looking for an explanation of the differences between the “Emerging View” and the “Conventional View” then read The Consumptive Church: Different Starting Points. [...]

[...] few posts I read last week (here, here, and here) got me to thinking about biblical proof-texting and why I believe it is [...]

[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points [...]

[...] a great timeline on end times. This is another reason why I don’t hold to the conventional view. It’s too damn complicated. (click to [...]

[...] Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged [...]

[...] Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The [...]

[...] Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The [...]