The Mind of Brian

I have heard Scot McKnight speak, used some of his more scholarly works, and followed his blog for a few years now. I like him; he’s a provocative and relevant speaker as this is true of Blue Parakeet in the Lisle Library, as I could now read it for myself. As I suspected, it is clear (it has a great structure, essentially intro and then two parts, with those parts subdivided well), full of good scholarship (though more aimed at laity, it is published by Zondervan/Willow Creek) as well as helpful in use of illustrations and pictures (the whole idea of a “blue parakeet” comes from a story about an escapted pet blue parakeet that Dr. McKnight saw; this becomes his controlling metaphor as he seeks to help us “unleash” the Bible and rethink how to read it). I liked it on the whole, as his approach to Scripture is much like mine, while it would seem that using a similar approach, we come to different conclusions. I concur with much of the message of the book, though I have a few critiques.

The introduction of the book deals with the fact that, whether we admit it, we all pick and choose what we apply from the Bible (except in really extreme causes!). The question is, how do we justifiy this sort of “picking and choosing.” In many ways, that is the purpose of the book. McKnight then uses a metaphor that we often cage the “blue parakeet” of the Bible, either by rigorously seeking to apply it or holding it captive to tradition. Instead, we need to read it as it stands on its own, as well as in conversation with others in history (reading with tradition). There are three elements that McKnight wants to impart in regards to approaching reading and appying the Bible. The first is that the Bible is not an instruction manual/rule book, mysterious puzzle with a code to be solved, blessing book, reader response/inkblot test, or having one privileged portion; it is a story. I affirm; I have taught this persective many times. We need to read it as the story of God’s redemption; McKnight modifies the usual Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration to Creation, Crack, Community (Israel), Christ, Consummation. Not sure if I will adopt this view (I have more of a view that would talk about redemption through a people failing (Israel) and moving into a person (Christ), but I affirm it. The second part tells us that the goal is to listen to God; to listen and obey God. The goal is not to obey the Bible but the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. While this might sound a bit too neo-orthodox for some, this is something that I have taught as well (even using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well), viewing the Bible as a way to a relationship with God. The Bible is His inspired Word but knowing it is not an end but a means to an end: knowing Him. So far, so good!  

The third part of approaching the Bible–discerning–and then the case study–women in ministries–is where Dr. McKnight and I seem to differ more; I don’t think in principles as much as in application of principles. The idea of discerning is that through the Spirit and the historical/cultural context of our faith, we must see how the Bible patterns our life. This is where the rubber hits the road and where it gets messy. One critique I would give this book is that not enough time was spent on how to “discern,” which is understanding God through His Word and then applying it to our world today. This process means that we must understand what it said it its day (Moses’ ways in Moses’ day–careful Bible study) as well as what our world is really like today (I don’t know if Dr. McKnight cover much about how to “exegete the culture”). This is more difficult than Dr. McKnight seems to mention, as both processes are very complicated. He tries to do so with a case study, but this case study seems to lack much exegetical discussion of culture (furthermore, his approach to the discussion does not seem that different from others who have not advocated his same approach to Scripture). In some ways, McKnight does not mention how we must analyze culture to see where it is neutral to God’s created order and where it is in opposition to God’s created order–we must embody the gospel in the culture but this also means that we must confront the culture and transform it.  A way that I see this having implications in his case study of women in ministry is the issue of whether we have an increasing androgynistic culture, if there are connections between feminism and the new “Roman woman” that he talks about in 1 Timothy, the variety of cultures/heritages/perspectives in our culture today (is there an “American culture” or “cultures in America”) and whether there are other paradigms (household of faith) that affects how we view church leadership (we also differ with how we see the created order affecting the issue, are the differences of men and women tied to the fall or creation?). Furthermore, it is much more difficult to exegete the original meaning, as we seem to differ in some readings concerning 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We are never going to have unanimity in these issues, which should also lead to some humility; perhaps there is a place for both. Something I definitely think that people should take away from this section, though, is the question of what minstries we see women doing in Scripture, as opposed to seeing what they might not be allowed to do. I am not quite where he is in terms of overall practice, but I think he has some insights we need to keep in mind.

The conclusion of the book in some ways moves to a “contextualization” of Christianity in each culture; we will live it out our faith differently in different times and places. I do not have a problem with that (must be my missiological training), within reason; this seems to be what happens in the Bible (though I would say that they contextualized under the inspiration of the Spirit; we do so under the guidance). There is diversity in Scripture; while I do not go as far as Ehrman and others and say that the 4 Gospels are 4 different religions, I do think that each community had its emphases and uniqueness, which affirms the validity of some differences in practices within the heart of the gospel (say Apostles’ Creed). But are these totally different cultures–or manifestations within sub-cultures? Does the “melting pot” feel of America mean that we have many different cultures or that we can have the gospel manifested differently within our nation because we are merging it? Is this why we have Willow Creek and the Episcopal church? Dr. McKnight mentions how he enjoys both of them and thinks that we need both; might the same be said in other areas of doctrine–such as the one of women in church ministries, which McKnight discusses (baptism, church order, worship styles, etc.). He does not seem to point to the fact that we could have a plurality of practices within a diverse culture–making the stance of something like the PCA vs. that of Willow Creek or other churches not in opposition but reflecting different ways of discerning in a multiplex culture.

As I said, a good, thought-provoking book. A good conversation piece. It corrects some mistakes that we make in reading and thinking about the Bible. I like it; however, it needs to be read in conversation with other books in Bible study (exegetical and cultural)