A New Kind of Christianity (Brian D. McLaren) - Light metaphor

McLaren writes about a metaphor for understanding different theological lenses for different people. These lenses influence what each of us are “looking for” and “looking at” in terms of theology. The metaphor is one of a spectrum of light. There are different colors in the spectrum and no one color is more important than another, but all are needed to make the spectrum. He gives each color a particular theological bent so that the spectrum is accounting for as many people as possible. The following is just a part of the metaphor as it pertains to the violet and ultraviolet colors. I have added the emphasis.

Beyond our quest for survival (red), security (orange), power (yellow), independence (green), individuality (blue), honesty (indigo), and ubuntu (violet), I imagine there could be an ultraviolet quest for sacredness, a desire to live in a growing conscious awareness of the presence of God and the goodness of God reflected in all things.

==========

But here’s the rub: we are all at different places in this quest. Most of us—especially most of us in the Christian faith—are in quests for security (consider the prosperity gospel and certain magical forms of Pentecostalism) and power (consider some forms of strict hyper-Calvinism and other fundamentalisms, with their view of divine sovereignty as deterministic control exercised on behalf of the elect few). Or we’re in quests for independence (consider the many kinds of systematic theologies that pursue mastery of mystery through doctrinal systematization in almost the same way scientists pursue mastery over mystery through the scientific method) and individuality (consider the self-help focus of many megachurches, with their emphasis on “personal salvation” and its close cousins “personal spirituality” and “personal success”). That means that most of us really aren’t interested in a quest for “inconvenient truths” that might obstruct or interfere with our more immediate quests for security, power, independence, and individuality. Just as a young boy longing for a baseball glove or bicycle isn’t interested in a girlfriend or college major yet, we aren’t ready for the higher zones of our quest yet—which is why I call those truths “inconvenient.”

==========

The situation is unintentionally made worse by the small but growing minority of us who are entering the quest for honesty (many in the emergent conversation of which I am part would fit in this category).

==========

The indigo zone—while it’s great for raising honest questions—is not so great at reaching conclusions. In fact, indigo people generally seek honesty by critiquing the previous stages and by questioning the adequacy of their conclusions—something we have spent a good many pages doing in this book. But as any Ph.D. holder can attest, honest inquiry and thought do not necessarily lead to wise action. Sometimes (recalling Paul’s words about knowledge “puffing up”) our honest inquiry simply leads to conceit and a critical spirit.

==========

So those of us in the indigo zone commonly look down on red-, orange-, yellow-, green-, and blue-zone people and groups, calling them primitive, backward, immature, conservative, fundamentalist, and so on. We often “explain” their behavior with a kind of cool and elitist detachment, and in so doing we objectify and dehumanize them (as some of us may have been doing while reading this chapter so far). We in the indigo zone feel comfortable casually critiquing, relativizing, and deconstructing the very systems, structures, doctrines, and institutions that red through blue cultures have worked, lived, fought, and died to build and defend. So no wonder indigo people see others as obstructionists, and the others see them as terrorists or nihilists.

==========

In short, we in the indigo zone—just like those in the earlier zones—want to transcend and distance ourselves from everyone in earlier zones. And in so doing we resist our transcendence into the violet spirit of ubuntu, which seeks to close distance and be joined with others.

What color do you find yourself in at this day?

Preaching is like pitching

Recently it has been a new practice for me to preach more often at different worship settings. Until these recent changes I have felt like I was something of a relief pitcher brought in. What I mean by that is when asked to preach I felt, because I did not preach that often, that I had to "throw strikes" all the time. I could not afford the luxury of balls or walks or hits and especially not allowed to give any runs up. I only get to "see" each batter maybe one time and I have no real ability to set up hitters for the next time I see them.

I have come to realize this way of preaching for me is very unhealthy and frustrating for me. I notice in these past several weeks that it is much easier to preach every week than to preach every so often. It seems that I can get into a pattern/rhythm when I preach more often. When I preach often I also feel like a starter pitcher in that I can afford some balls, strikes and even a hit or run. More than that I also feel like I can set people up for the real "heaters". What I mean is I feel as I preach more often that I can use one Sunday to set up the next Sunday. So I can throw a "ball" on week and that is okay because next week I am brining the heat. And that second pitch could not have been as effective if I would have pitched it first. It seems like pitchers need other pitches to determine or set up the next pitch.

Preaching for me seems to be the same way. I find it helpful to build my pitches.

Of course, every now and again it is fun and a challenge to be a relief pitcher again...

Hold this baby. I think I see a leak.

Over the course of many conversations I have had with people who either do not know, do not understand, have an oversimplificational view or people who refuse to hear about the post-modern world view. Some of these conversations have been easier to have than others, but all of the conversations have been fun and fruitful for my development at a Christian. Of the many things that come up in conversation regardless of the type of person I am able to engage a conversation with, one objection stands out in particular.

While it comes in many forms, typically it is expressed that post-moderns/deconstructionalists are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps this is because of my lacking ability to communicate things that I am struggling with (such as Universal truth claims). Perhaps it is something else, but, for instance, when calling into question universal truth claims I am often met with a degree of astonishment and dismay that I could even make such a question. It is as though the very thought of discrediting universal truth claims under minds the entire society by which we stand. Thus, I hear that I am throwing the baby out with the bath water. By calling into question universal truth claims I am calling into question the ability for anyone to make any truth claim at all!

This is silly.

Of course we all make truth claims. Of course there are things that are universal (for instance, there are certain biological factors that must happen in order for a person to be able to stay alive on their own accord). I am not calling into question so much the act of making universal truth claims, but I am calling into question the truth claims which are seen by many as common sense or foundational for Christianity.

I do not think I am trying to throw the baby out with the bath water, rather I think I am setting the baby aside and emptying the water and examining the tub.

Does the bathtub hold water? Does it leak? Do we need a bigger or smaller tub? Has the baby outgrown this tub? Are there more than one babies we need to bathe?

It could very well be that the post modern experiment will return to all of the answers that we already have. And post moderns will be the first to admit the failure of the post modern quest. We will be the first people to say, "You know what, the tub is great and it will continue to work perfectly. Now where is that baby?"

Why some threatened by or concerned for those who want to examine the integrity of the bathtub?