Initially, Lincoln’s statement seemed rather innocuous and predictable. The more I thought about this statement, the more profound it seemed to me. How often don’t we live our lives by living out the expectations of others? As young parents we worry about whether or not our child is developing normally and we enroll our children in everything from “books and babies” at the public library to parent-child swim lessons at age 2. As our kids get older, we enroll them in every summer program, extra-curricular activity, and private lessons because our kids must be in good in something. After all its all about image. Instead of letting our children discover their potential on their own, we choose to orchestrate our child’s social life so they won’t appear different than the other children. Its all about image. Even as adults we get “hung up” on image. We spend a great deal of money on our make-up, on our hair, and on our clothing. It’s all about image. We have to own the newest car, the best gun, the biggest house, or have a home theater and entertainment center installed in our basement. All of this is about image — an image that binds the spirit within us and pushes the sacred and the real further and further from the Creator God who lovingly and carefully created us. Instead of freeing the God-gifted spirit within us, we bind up our spirit with material chains that keep us from warmly and lovingly embracing the spirit within.

Lincoln shared openly her struggle of coming to peace with her own skin — her own spirit. She never really felt comfortable with the ‘acceptable image’, the one her audience expected of a singer and song-writer. Her struggle with image eventually led her to shift from night clubs, jazz venues and formal concerts to songs that reflected the human struggles of the world. She wrote songs about justice, songs about peace, songs about responsibility and song of social consciousness that often reflected upon the struggles of African Americans. It was only when she found the strength to forge her own image that she was able to embrace the God-gifted spirit within her. Are we comfortable with our skin? The one that God breathed into us or are we strung out on an image that satisfies the expectations of others?

And so I babble on. I babble on about image an image that we believe we must project for our neighbors and friends because we are so afraid of the God-gifted spirit within — the One who formed our inward parts and knit us together in our mother’s womb. Are we afraid to come face to face with the spirit within us and so we create an alternative image that keeps us safe from facing our emptiness. What chains bind our spirits today? Are we able to embrace the God-gifted spirit within us? Or will we continue to fill our spiritual emptiness with images that make our neighbors smile? The answer is in you.

Initially, Lincoln’s statement seemed rather innocuous and predictable. The more I thought about this statement, the more profound it seemed to me. How often don’t we live our lives by living out the expectations of others? As young parents we worry about whether or not our child is developing normally and we enroll our children in everything from “books and babies” at the public library to parent-child swim lessons at age 2. As our kids get older, we enroll them in every summer program, extra-curricular activity, and private lessons because our kids must be in good in something. After all its all about image. Instead of letting our children discover their potential on their own, we choose to orchestrate our child’s social life so they won’t appear different than the other children. Its all about image. Even as adults we get “hung up” on image. We spend a great deal of money on our make-up, on our hair, and on our clothing. It’s all about image. We have to own the newest car, the best gun, the biggest house, or have a home theater and entertainment center installed in our basement. All of this is about image — an image that binds the spirit within us and pushes the sacred and the real further and further from the Creator God who lovingly and carefully created us. Instead of freeing the God-gifted spirit within us, we bind up our spirit with material chains that keep us from warmly and lovingly embracing the spirit within.

Lincoln shared openly her struggle of coming to peace with her own skin — her own spirit. She never really felt comfortable with the ‘acceptable image’, the one her audience expected of a singer and song-writer. Her struggle with image eventually led her to shift from night clubs, jazz venues and formal concerts to songs that reflected the human struggles of the world. She wrote songs about justice, songs about peace, songs about responsibility and song of social consciousness that often reflected upon the struggles of African Americans. It was only when she found the strength to forge her own image that she was able to embrace the God-gifted spirit within her. Are we comfortable with our skin? The one that God breathed into us or are we strung out on an image that satisfies the expectations of others?

And so I babble on. I babble on about image an image that we believe we must project for our neighbors and friends because we are so afraid of the God-gifted spirit within — the One who formed our inward parts and knit us together in our mother’s womb. Are we afraid to come face to face with the spirit within us and so we create an alternative image that keeps us safe from facing our emptiness. What chains bind our spirits today? Are we able to embrace the God-gifted spirit within us? Or will we continue to fill our spiritual emptiness with images that make our neighbors smile? The answer is in you.

Before I reflect on Christian community as a partial answer to the Christian faith, I will need to give the reader some context for the question. As a child, I remember being fascinated with ancient wars such as the ones fought throughout ancient Greece. How many times didn’t I use the lid of a garbage can for a shield and a broken tree limb as my weapon of choice as I fought the great battle in my own imagination. As I moved from the childhood years to the adolescent years, I remember how much Greek mythology fascinated me. I enjoyed reading about the great battles, sometimes the battle between the Greek gods and sometimes real battles fought in the name of mortal Kings and ancient nations. In Greek mythology such wars were depicted in the same way as my imaginary battles of childhood — I fought them with shield and sword. Not long ago, I watched the movie, 300. This was Hollywood’s rendering of an actual battle between the Greeks and the Persian empire that history knows as the Battle of Thermopylae. In this historical event, Sparta sent 300 men to guard a narrow pass through the mountains preventing the Persian Empire from advancing deeper into Greek land. Although grossly outnumbered, the Spartans through their superior discipline and a phalanx of men standing shoulder to shoulder with overlapping shields and layered spear points, created an impenetrable wall for the King Xerxes and his army. In the end, thousands of Persians were killed while only 2 or 3 Spartans met their death on the battle field. More on this later.

The second idea that our tour guide presented was the issue of democracy. We know from our own history that democracy was not an invention of America, but it was the way ancient Greece governed its people throughout most of its history. In every ancient Greek city we visited, we saw the ruins of churches and buildings, but we also saw theaters and public forums — public places — where the people would gather and where decisions were made. Throughout our tour of Greece, it was made very clear that people willingly participated in building the cities, the temples, and the public places. We know from ancient manuscripts that those who assisted in building these beautiful buildings and spaces were paid for their labors. All things were done together for the good of the whole community. The thinkers, statesmen, and leaders of ancient Greece believed that they were stronger as a nation if “the body” or the gathered community voluntarily worked together. Although Athens was eventually captured by the Persian army, thus putting an end to democracy until 1960 — 300 men standing shoulder to shoulder with their shields at the Battle of Thermopylae did hold off the Persians for a time.

The Apostle Paul knows how to talk to the Greco-Roman world. Just as Greece and later Rome believed in the importance of “ekklesia”, the meeting of the people. The Greek word “ekklesia” was later used to identify the church, however, it is important to know that originally it meant “a summons to the citizens to gather.” It was the ekklesia that met together in a public place and debated and made important decisions. On his many trips to the Grec0-Roman world, the Apostle Paul draws upon this same image as he talks about Christ’s church and how he addresses conflict among opposing groups. In his letter to Corinth he writes, “Now I appeal to you,brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind the same purpose.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

Did the shield create democracy or did democracy create the shield? In the end it doesn’t matter because what matters are the virtues and principles behind both democracy and the shield. If either are to be used effectively they must be used as a group. An individual in a mountain pass will not survive the battle. One person’s interest does not make up a democracy and a divided congregation compromises the integrity of the whole church. And so I babble one with a question that is not so much about what came first, but a question that calls upon the virtues of working together as the body of summoned and passionate people to meet in the public forum and to willingly and openly debate the issues and the solutions. A public forum is not to prove who is right or who has a more superior idea. Rather, we are called to the public forum to find the unifying theme that summons the body together to find the best solution to important issues that unify rather than divide. Such was the way of ancient Greece and so may it be among the church today.

Why would I reflect upon this particular event? Well, I’ll tell you that once we got on the ferry we met so many other young people — each of them from the many corners of the world, each of them bound together by a common purpose, to experience a world where our nations were historically divided by power, greed, religion (particularly Christianity), and a myriad of cultural differences. Each of these young people knew intuitively that if we are to have a safe, healthy, and happy future we could no longer hide behind our boundaries, our dialects, and our language, our futures must be experiences that bring people of all nations together. These young travelers chose to do what many of us are afraid to do — travel, meet new people, appreciate different cultures, and learn about the people of this world who are more than the folks in the United States, Indiana, or Evansville. These young travelers will be the ambassadors of tomorrow’s world and because of their travels, their courage, and their willingness to engage the world in acts of kindness, charity, and understanding, I believe the future will be more hopeful than the present.

There is a song that I remember learning as some U.C.C. gathering some time ago. The song or hymn, if you like, is entitled, “Walls that Divide”. Here is the refrain of this wonderful song:

I’ve thought of this song often as we traveled throughout Europe. The people we have met, the young people we have talked with, the experiences we have had, reminds me time and again that our world is not so large that we cannot take the time to understand the people of the world. We study the same history, we listen to our music, the universal language of love and understanding, we rejoice and we suffer the same way, and our hopes remain — our hope for a better tomorrow, a future that knows unity and liberty, that walls are broken down and the things that hold us back, the chains we’ve willingly put upon our own wrists and ankles will one day be broken and our hearts will sing of justice and unity, righteousness and love. Lao-tzue once said: “…a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.”

So, fifteen hours on a ferry seems ludicrous and one that seemed forever ago, but while we journeyed across the Adriatic and Aegean Seas, the magic of community was shaped and formed and we left the ferry, not only renewed and refreshed, but confident that the younger generation will show the world a different way to love. And so I babble on — I babble on about ferry magic, about community, and about a moment in time when we experienced the shrinking of the world and with all creation proclaim with God — it is good! May God continue to bless our world with young, courageous, ambassadors that can experience the cultures of this world and show us how to love.

In his book, A New Kind of Christianity, McLaren addresses in a new way many of the questions that postmodern clergy, church people, and congregations have been asking for a generation or more. A little background about McLaren would be appropriate as we put into context his ideas that I believe have some merit and begin to formulate a theological, biblical, and ecclesiastical argument for a new way to understand the Christian faith for a new age.

First, it is important to know that McLaren has not been formally trained in a theological institution that has shaped generations of theologians throughout the ages. This is by no means an evaluation upon McLaren’s work as he has thoughtfully and skillfully put together an argument for change that has some relevance for us today. McLaren was trained as a teacher and out of a quest for spiritual understanding revisited his own evangelical upbringing only to find its theology lacking and meaningless to a new generation of seekers and believers. In this quest, he and his wife began a small house church that continued to grow, but a lingering tension remained for him and his growing congregation, “The tensions between something real and something right in the Christian faith.” After many setbacks and soul-searching, McLaren concluded that it was “the search for something right in the Christian faith” that kept him going and from this tension McLaren skillfully creates a philosophy, a theological system that has found its fruition in his most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity.

McLaren’s book is filled with thought provoking and an energy and excitement that compel the reader to engage in his or her own system of beliefs that have been, for generations, thoughtlessly accepted as orthodox or right thinking. McLaren challenges the understanding of beliefs that have been a part of church life for thousands of years and is courageous enough to write and speak about a new way to embrace the meaning and life of Jesus Christ without the layers of doctrine and dogma that has defined the faith for two thousand years. McLaren raises five critical questions that are worthy of discussion and I will do my best to summarize. Although McLaren takes these six questions and tests them against some of the more controversial and dogmatic issues of our time, I will not address them in this review as they are better discussed in small groups rather than in the context of a review.

The six questions McLaren raises are 1) the Narrative question, 2) the authority questions, 3) the God question, 4) the Jesus question, 5) the Gospel question, and 6) the question of the church. Let’s begin with the first question, the narrative question. What is the overarching story line of the Bible? McLaren makes the point that most people ‘read the Bible as a series of disconnected quotes and episodes yielding maxims, rules, formulas, anecdotes, propositions and wise sayings.’ [McLaren, Page 19] McLaren argues that years of biblical interpretation has been done through a Greco-Roman lens as opposed to the understanding the bible as a Hebrew account of a dynamic God who continues to develop and evolve with God’s creation. This is to say that the Western church has understood that the earth and all its creation was created perfect and it has been the choices of humanity that have corrupted creation and has made the earth imperfect. The Greco-Roman understanding of this is to believe that imperfection is evil and therefore created the notion of Hades as a place where evil would be punished. In the Hebrew understanding of the biblical narrative, the world continues to evolve and develop as both God and human beings mature. McLaren would argue that Hebrew notion of creation is creating towards perfection and was not created perfectly in the beginning. By subscribing to this notion of God and creation, we admit that our The second question relationship to God, to one another, and to all creation continues to evolve to a more perfect union which we may want to understand as the Kingdom of God or God’s heavenly realm. By approaching the Bible in this way, we are clearly co-creators with God and neither the creation of the earth or humanity is complete and perfect – we are still evolving and becoming and so is God.

The second question is the authority question. In this chapter, McLaren makes a distinction between reading the Bible as a legal constitutional document or if we read the bible as a community library. The distinction that is being made is that when we read the Bible as a legal, constitutional document, we are being unfaithful to the Bible. Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify everything from multiple wives, to slavery, and violence to humanity and the earth. When we use the Bible to squelch our differences and cut off debate, we create walls as barriers that divide and destroy. McLaren believes that if we keep our arguments alive and continue to talk about our differences, we will be more faithful to the intent of Bible and stories that have shaped the Christian community. McLaren believes that the Bible as an inspired library preserves, presents, and inspires and ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God, a living and vital civil argument into which we are invited and through which God is revealed. [McLaren, Page 83] Given this notion, one could conclude that Biblical authority comes from the community of the faithful. What has been deemed authoritative by the community is what is accepted. In addition to authority given by the community, McLaren also believes that revelation through personal conversion is also authoritative. He believes that the Bible is an invitation to enter into a conversation with the ages and find God in new ways.

The third question is the God question. He raises this question in the context of history in which nearly all religions of the world have evoked God’s name to justify killing people and each other. The question he raises about God is a question of violence, is God violent and genocidal? McLaren goes back to his earlier argument about the Greco-Roman God Theos who is constraining and violent. McLaren argues for a God who continues to evolve from a God who is largely distant or absent to a God who is not so interested in manipulating us to fulfill his desire but to be a God who is present in the world to guide and empower people to do good. McLaren makes this point about God’s evolving character, “…in some passages God appears violent, retaliatory, given to favoritism, and careless of human life. But over time, the image of God that predominates is gentle rather than cruel, compassionate rather than violent, fair to all rather than biased toward some, forgiving rather than retaliatory. In this more mature view; God is not capricious, bloodthirsty, hateful, or prone to fits of vengeful rage. Rather God loves justice, kindness, reconciliation, and peace; God’s grace gets the final word.” [McLaren, Pp. 101-102]

The fourth question McLaren raises is the Jesus Question. The Jesus presented by most churches today seem to be a version of the Christ that is more of a turn off to new believers than one that draws people into the Christian story. We are faced with the challenge as to which Jesus is more trustworthy, more faithful to the gospels. McLaren believes that Jesus came to announce a new kingdom, a new way of life, a new way of peace that carried good news to people of all religions. McLaren will argue this question by suggesting that Just as the Hebrew people ended the book of Genesis with Joseph’s act of reconciliation with his brothers, Jesus comes to reconcile God with humanity. McLaren uses the story in John where Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him and in this act, reconciled Jesus with his disciples and so Jesus is God’s act of reconciliation with our imperfections and through Jesus gives us “life abundant” or perhaps better translated as “life of the ages.” Jesus is a summons, an invitation to humanity to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, an opportunity to be new citizens of a new kingdom.

The fifth question is the gospel question. McLaren uses the Hebrew prophets and Paul’s letter to the Romans to show how the gospel is more prophetic than dogmatic and more inclusive than exclusive. In the context of the prophets, the gospel is not about what will come but what is already at hand. What is at hand had been the cry of the prophets and was inaugurated by Jesus. Jesus talked about how the dream – the kingdom of God is happening in our midst. McLaren then makes a shift, arguing that Paul, in his letter to the Romans made something that the Hebrew people made inaccessible to accessible. Paul does this brilliantly in a series of seven moves. First, he reduces Jews and Gentiles to the same level of need. Second, he announces a new way forward for all – the way of faith. Third, he united all people in a common story with four illustrations, the Adam story, baptism, slavery, and remarriage. Fourth, he unites all people into a common struggle and a common victory. Fifth, Paul addresses Jewish and Gentile problems by showing God as the God of all. Sixth, he gives both the Jews and Gentiles a common life and mission, and ending with the seventh theme of unity.

The sixth and final question McLaren addresses is the question of the church. McLaren, like many new thinkers believe that the hope of the church lies in its diversity. He believes that diversity must be celebrated if we are going to find solutions to common problems facing all the earth’s people and its religions. He believes that the church must exist to form Christ-like people with Christ-like love. Returning to McLaren’s earlier thought of a maturing and evolving God-human-earth relationship, McLaren believes that there will be no maturity without love. Paul says this throughout his letters and McLaren continues to develop this Pauline theology. When our churches misunderstand the meaning of love, we will continue to be immature in our understanding of the meaning of church and the gospel. The church, above all, must train people in the way in love and McLaren, like Paul, believes that love is more important than knowledge.

In summary, McLaren’s book, A New Kind of Christianity, raises for me and for the Church some important questions that need to be addressed by all of us. His book leaves one with the notion that we are on the brink of another reformation – a return to a more faithful understanding of theology, scripture, Christ and the church. For any serious Christian, this book is worth reading and studying. In the spirit of McLaren’s book, I would like to invite you into a discussion, a dialogue into a new understanding of the Christian faith that may just bring a skeptical, spiritual seeker back to the Christian faith.