Thanks for posting the Youtube links to those videos. You are right when you say that McLaren used the names "Theos" and "Elohim" for illustrative purposes, not to construct actual theologies. He used the two names as labels to encapsulate two different sets of common theological views of God.
Based on what you've written here, I think you'll find a lot of resonance with McLaren's new book. You might find McLaren's response to McKnight's review interesting: http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/bl ... ani-8.htmlIf you think about it, a whole lot of beliefs come as much or more from Plato (ref. cit., Augustine) than the actual narrative of Scripture. If I'm understanding McLaren's "gist"; we need to move from Jesus backwards, rather than formulating our theology from the death of the last Apostle onward. Not that we can totally erase everything we've been taught. But we should definitely be rethinking our theology in light of what really happened....
Hi Homer,
I agree that Christianity is (or ought to be) a simple faith. No doubt you've heard the story of one of the 20th Century's greatest theologians, Karl Barth, when he gave a speech towards the end of his life at a university. After his speech, during the Q&A, he was asked what was the greatest theological insight he had had over a lifetime of study. He paused a moment to reflect and then replied "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."To me, the problem is not the constitution vs. library view of the scriptures. I believe Christianity is basically a simple faith and we can know what we are required to do without much trouble; all too often we just don't want to do it. Love God, love your neighbor, help the poor, live a moral life, get baptized, remember Him in communion, pray, & worship. There isn't much more to it. I fail to see the need for "another kind". The old path seems pretty good to me.
On the other hand, there are layers and layers of depth which have kept great minds like Barth, Wright, et al occupied and which provide grist for theological forums such as this one. The "New Kind of Christianity" that McLaren speaks of is really an "old kind of Christianity." The idea is to go back to Jesus as a starting point and then examine and perhaps jettison some of the baggage that has been picked up along the way. For example, McLaren draws some fascinating parallels between the metanarrative of Neoplatonism and the metanarrative of Western post-Augustinian Christendom.
...had to get a better one!