Keeping up the Sojo tradition of supporting every book of questionable theology out there so long as it supports their leftist agenda, here we have Sojo interviewing Brina McLaren about his new book. Here are some excerpts, with comments.
But I think you can make this very fragile generalization: before the Enlightenment, authority resided not in books, but in divinely ordained people.
First, if a 'generalization' is 'fragile', is it really worth making? And is it really worth anything?
Second, one of the aspects of the Bible is that it was based on what was recorded and written, not on the divinely ordained people (which I guess he means a pope, perhaps among others). Moses gave the people the law, but he did not create the law. When Jesus confronted Satan's temptations, He asnwered with statements beginning "It is written...".
McLaren's 'generalization' is so much 'fragile' as it is a lie.
Protestants, at least, dispensed with the divine right of popes and cardinals, and we shifted our authority to constitutions — doctrinal statements and systematic theologies — which we claimed were derived from and legitimized by the Bible.
Again, wrong. Doctrinal statements and theologies were around long before the Catholic Church and popes and other such things. One can find them in the New Testament and in the writings of the Ante Nicene church writers.
My proposal is that we’re moving from courtroom to quest as a primary metaphor.
Sure, because when you're losing in the courtroom, nothing seems better than to go on the lam. And when the Bible is so against all the things you want to be true, than you have to keep going until you find a way to make the Bible agree with you.