You are hereBrian McLaren: Q1 – The Narrative Question

Brian McLaren: Q1 – The Narrative Question

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 16 February 2010

In A New Kind of Christianity McLaren quickly introduces two very important ideas: the six-line narrative and reading the Bible frontward instead of backward. This seems to be in line somewhat with the Preterist approach to the Biblical narrative; any thoughts on this from anyone? Is mainstream Christianity even aware of these possibilities?

I would love to hear people's thoughts on how the outlook on the narrative spins their theology and defines where they are today in their faith.

Sam's picture

In my commentary on the Psalms series, I am trying to be conscoiusly aware of the "time" of David. One, he is clearly refering "back" to Genesis and the "history" of Israel. Psalm 2 has II Sam. 7 in mind. Psalm 3-6 is written in the time of Abasalom's rebellion. But, even more to the point, David's terms "grace", "righteousness", "evil doers", "holy hill" "righteous sacrfices" are all to be defined in terms of the old covenant. As many commentators have asserted, the psalms are very much concerned with the "here and now" and "life in the land of the living." This "righteousness" is one who performs the covenantal stipulations - one who seeks after God in terms of the Law. That's who God protects.

However, there is a much deeper thing going here. David, who was exiled and replaced as king (by Absalom), still clings to his faith IN SPITE of the fact that outwardly, he is a man on the run and without material provisions. These things mark the "blessed" man (in terms of the covenant) - but David is without them. Here, he is able to peer, just a little, into "true faith". Faith is not in "things seen" - it in things "unseen."

By not reading the Psalms from the perspective of the NT, a whole new way has opened up that causes a greater appreciation for the NT - a LOOKING FORWARD to its arrival to releive the unbearable tension David is facing. Is he not one of the "righteous"? Then why does he have "enemies"? Isn't that a curse (Deut. 28)? Why so mournful? He rails against the sinners in Psalm 5, but isn't he one of "them"? One can see where Paul, a Hebrew who has memorized these psalms, sees such a theological richness in them.

Virgil's picture

Where are you posting the commentary? I am sure people here would like to follow it. :)

davecollins's picture

When did common sense stop being common? All good stories have a beginning, middle, and end. To ignore the first part is to miss the middle, and to miss the middle may make you a pre-millenial dispensationalist, which would make you very comfortable in asssemblies who do not begin at the beginning;) I love this stuff!! Thanks Virgil

Virgil's picture

Glad you enjoyed it; get the's better than the movie :)

Sam's picture

You always have to be careful, it seems, when you say you agree with Brian McClaren, but this video demonstrates the whole point of RCM: FORWARD READING, starting in Genesis, and reading forward. Not backward.

This was the method of Paul: I teach NOT ONE THING that is not taught in the Law and the Prophets. Paul taught from the SCRIPTURES - he didn't ADD anything, and he didn't TAKE ANYTHING away.....He taught what has been there all along, plainly - it was missed only because A VEIL of hardness and UNBELIEF was over the heart. There is no problem with the text. There is not need to "reinvent" or "reinterpret" the OT. Read it as it is....That's been my approach in the Psalms commentary series. I agree, so far, with Mr. McClaren here.

Virgil's picture

"I agree, so far, with Mr. McClaren here."

Well, I hope you realize these words are gonna come back and bite you. :)

Sam's picture

haha, that's why I wrote, "one has to be careful" and "so far" - I mean, who can say that EVERYTHING he says is wrong? lol. I am learning to guard what I write so that no bufoon can come back and say, "Sam is a McClarenite!"

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43