we're so wonderful!!! ?????

As we look at the early signs of revival in our times, we should be more inspired than ever to see this move of God go to the deepest echelons of every society and furthest corners of the earth. Through this baptism of confidence wrought in the place of prayer and intimacy, we will awaken to the reality that we are the fulfillment of the glory of the Lord being poured out all over the earth. “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). As He shines on our hearts, we shine on the world, and the Kingdom that is “in us” is released everywhere we go. We are waking up to the reality that whenever we step out our front door, glory has arrived on the streets. Whenever we step off a plane, glory has arrived in the region. No matter how dark or hard it may be, this confident Bride filled with the power and glory of God will prevail.

Byrd, Andy; Feucht, Sean (2010-09-01). Fire and Fragrance (Kindle Locations 1500-1507). Destiny Image. Kindle Edition.

As a general rule, when someone takes a single verse like this, it's good to look at it in some context. So, here's some context for II Corinthians 4:6.

2 CORINTHIANS 4
Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with l ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ

.

A more telling example of the distance between the Bible and these Fire and Fragrance frauds could not be asked for. Concerning the F&F frauds, all they talk about is themselves and people like themselves, the supposedly radical and raw and extreme types. All they talk about is how superior they are to those who came before them. They brag about how they do things differently now, how their ways are superior to the old ways. They brag about how they preaching becomes secondary to them in their quest for experiences.

And Paul? He did not proclaim himself, and those with him did not proclaim themselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord. They were the servants of those they were preaching to for the sake of Jesus.

We do not see such arrogance in this biblical passage as Feucht and Byrd exhibit throughout their book, including the above excerpt. Can you imagine the overwhelming arrogance behind a statement like "we are the fulfillment of the glory of the Lord being poured out all over the earth"? And that they would try to take II Corinthians 4:6 to support that claim?

Let me give a bit more context.

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. 8 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. 11 For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death is at work in us, but life in you.

We are not the "fulfillment of the glory of the Lord being poured out all over the earth". Glory has not arrived when we go somewhere. That's arrogance. We are sinful people, jars of clay, earthen vessels. Whatever power we have is from God. And let us not think that this power will make us victorious, as the world considers victory or even far too many supposedly in the church. We will be mistreated, persecuted, and every day we come closer to death.

Finally, take a look at the earlier verses, where it is written "We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word". I would contend that the things Paul and those with him were refusing to do are the very things Byrd and Feucht are doing. They are trying to tamper with God's word, to put a meaning into the text that isn't there by taking a statement out of context and claiming to have found some strange, foreign meaning in that statement.

So, put aside these aberrant teachings that fill your ego and tickle your ears. Do not listen to those who lift you up in pride and arrogance, but rather to those who speak the truth to you, that you are a sinner, all of your works of righteousness are like the most vile of rags. You will never become righteous by trying to keep the Law. But there is a righteous that God has revealed to us, a righteousness that is not to be gained by trying to keep the Law, and indeed trying to earn it that way is doomed to failure. It is through belief in Christ that a person is given that righteousness. This is good news, but it isn't the kind of good news that makes us look at ourselves in arrogance at what fine persons we are, but rather it makes us look to God because of His great love for us, that while we were still sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us.

the connection is unclear connection

So, things are still going on over at the Emergent Village blog post about Process Theology. We all must, of course, be wary of how we interpret things there, because no one's interpretation is accurate without qualifications, especially if you are not a qualified emergent. But, here we go...

As far as your “plain meaning” goes, what do you think is the “plain meaning” of the ascension in Luke-Acts? Did Jesus float up into the sky and finally reach heaven which is just above the firmament? Or does ascension mean something else? It seems like the most plain reading of the ascension which is consistent with 1st century cosmology is one where Jesus could literally ascend to heaven which is literally up in the sky. So a “plain reading” seems to indirectly support an ancient, pre-scientific cosmology. If we are only relying on “plain meaning” (whatever that is), how can anyone take the Bible seriously? So when does plain meaning give to something else? Or are you stuck backing an ancient cosmology (along with many other problematic things) because of your insistence on plain meaning?

Well, let's see the passage or two in question.

Luke 24
50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

Acts 1
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

So, I'm wondering, what exactly about these accounts is suppose to be refuted by the knowledge that the earth goes 'round the sun? So far as I can tell, nothing.

Notice that the EV blog poster adds to the passage, obviously trying to turn the argument in his/her favor. There is nothing in the passage about Heaven being "just above the firmament".

The word translated "heaven" in the Luke 24 passage has the meaning of sky. Jesus ascended, then obviously He went up into the sky. No problem there. It is also the same word used in Acts 1. While the word can also seem to mean Heaven in the sense of the spiritual Heaven, the primary meanings seem to be rather more material.

Ouranos

The EV poster tries to use this passage as a weapon against a "plain meaning" of Scripture, I would suppose to support some kind of non-plain, metaphorical, basically dismissive reinterpretation. But the attempt simply falls flat.

But one can see the kind of esteem this EV poster and others there hold our Lord and His Word in by some of their statements, as quoted below from a few different comments there.

just as an aside i have no problem with jesus floating up and being hidden by clouds. The geezer had just risen from the dead so a little bit of levitation doesn’t sound so hard. It doesn’t mean heaven is in the sky, it’s just a cool way to exit and for the people watching it would have made complete sense :)

Did he do these things? Totally, yes. Does it matter if he didn’t? Not to me in this lifetime, no. It’s an odd thing to say but my faith isn’t actually dependant on the literal existence of Jesus… :)

That’s good. Faith that is rooted in such historical contingency as the resurrection of Jesus is misplaced...but whether Jesus existed or not should not affect one’s faith if one’s faith is truly rooted in God.

...Anyone wanting to appeal to both “straightforward meaning” and the divine origin of Scripture must conclude that either modern cosmology is wrong and heaven is actually just above the clouds somewhere OR that God wasn’t really on his game when he was divinely inspiring this particular passage. Otherwise, the proponents of a plain reading of Scripture must admit that careful interpretation is necessary.

But as far as Jesus floating up into the sky…I agree, at some level, that if Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead, the gospel account of his ascension wouldn’t be nearly as troublesome an event to imagine. Yet even if one accepts the resurrection as historical, the account of the ascension still can be questioned as historical.

Funny, though, how in that last comment, it is admitted that Jesus' resurrection is true, than His ascension is not all that troublesome. Funny, too, that the poster in question is the same who went on about the the ascension in the first place.

But that's just my interpretation of the whole thing. And not being a registered and certified emergent pomo, my interpretation must be taken with qualifications, because I am not qualified.

they're the good guys, of course

So, back to McLaren's flavors of Bible reading...

2. Reading the Bible conversationally:

Which means...what, exactly.

If a culture is a community of people who converse (or argue) about the same things across many generations, it makes sense to learn the contours of the main players in the conversation.

Oh, yes, because, of course, the Bible is a conversation. Yeah, Right.

For example, in the gospels, Jesus enters ongoing conversations among Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Herodians, priests, scribes, prophets, Roman authorities, excluded sinners, and the poor.

Really? Jesus just kind of threw out his thoughts about things, like your typical coffee house denizen at a jaw session, just kinda making a point, giving his opinion, let's have some feedback and maybe he wasn't really right or anything?

I rather think that Jesus was doing more than just entering into and joining some kind of antenicene form of the emergent conversation.

Across the Hebrew Bible, there is a persistent tension between priests (who are the institutional caretakers of what we might call “organized religion”) and prophets (movement leaders who critique the very status quo of ritual and sacrifice that the priests work so hard to defend from the forces of chaos and compromise).

Now, I think I know the Bible pretty well. Maybe not as much as scholars do, but fairly well. And I haven't noticed this "persistent tension" McLaren claims is there.

First, let's consider his characterizations of priests and prophets. Were priests the institutional caretakers of the organized religion of ancient Israel? Perhaps that's not a wrong description, though it is rather simplistic. Plus, given that it's McLaren saying it, it carries a certain slam with it. Priests were, first of all, established by God, and their function was very important.

McLaren's characterization of prophets is rather more problematic. They weren't "movement leaders". And their job wasn't some kind contra-priests thing, where they just went around being subversives of the things the priests did, and being OT anarchists who were only trying to cause trouble.

Perhaps someone else has a better definition for what the prophets did, but so far as I can tell, their messages were mostly to political leaders of Israel and Judah, sometimes to other nations, and on occasions to all the people of Israel or Judah as a whole. They primarily dealt with sins, personal and national, calling the people to repent of those sins, and at times telling them what judgment is coming if they don't repent. There is also a far future element to their prophecies, where God reveals things to them about what will happen at the end of days, both the horror and the final deliverance.

Finally, there just doesn't seem to be this "persistent tension" McLaren claims. Yes, sometimes the prophets spoke against the priests, but they did so because the priests weren't doing right. Samuel, for example, was given a prophecy concerning Eli because Eli was simply not being a very good priest--he was, for example, allowing his sons to abuse their positions, and they were sexually immoral. But the prophet Zechariah has a prophecy of good to the high priest Joshua, in Zechariah 3.

There's more that McLaren says, maybe I'll get back to it later, but for now, I'm content enough to put paid to the ways he's tried to revise history, to make the relationship between priests and prophets in ancient Israel into something similar to his take on the current emergent church movement, with of course the emergents being like the good-guy prophets who went around causing trouble and making outrageous statements and basically being anti-establishment for no better reason than being anti-establishment.

a ball of confusion

Ok, so, here's the first of McLaren's flavors of Bible reading.

1. Reading the Bible narratively: This means reading the Bible in context of the nested series of stories it is telling. For example, if you’re reading the Epistle to Philemon, you need to read this letter within the story of Paul’s fourth (probably) missionary journey, which unfolds within the story of Paul’s life and ministry, which unfolds within the story of the early church, which unfolds within the story of Jesus and his mission, which unfolds within the story of Israel under the Roman empire and the empire’s economic dependence on slavery, which unfolds within the story of the Jewish people, which unfolds within the story of economic systems that use slaves to advance their ends, which unfolds within the story of humanity, which unfolds within the story of creation. Every word we read in the Bible needs to be seen in the context of local and larger narratives like these. To do otherwise – which we do when we read and use the Bible as a timeless constitution or legal code - would be like trying to understand Dr. Martin Luther King without understanding the larger stories in which his story was nested – including the stories of the United States, the African slave trade, the African American church, the Civil War and Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws and segregation, the Social Gospel movement, and the global post-colonial movement for human rights that emerged in the aftermath of World War II and the holocaust.

Wow. So, did you get all that?

Now, I'm all for taking context in consideration. Context is good, context is our friend. Knowing the context in which Paul wrote this letter to his dear friend Philemon and his family is no doubt very helpful.

But, really, we need an in-depth knowledge of the Roman economic system in order to understand the little book of Philemon? Really? We have to consider all the things McLaren mentions in order to understand Paul's message to his friend, asking him to forgive the slave who stole from him and ran away, and to welcome him back as a brother and fellow believer in Christ?

The need to forgive those who have wronged us is a fairly universal experience. We can understand very well Paul's call for his friend to forgive the thief, because we've had to forgive others who have wronged us.

More than that, we have all needed forgiveness. From each other, of course, but more importantly, we have needed to come to God, repent of the sins we have committed, and receive the forgiveness Christ provided for us through His sacrificial death.

We can know all of that, without having to research the Roman Empire in-depth. We need only read the Bible.

What do Brian McLaren and Baskin-Robbins have in common?

So, I've found this document, given to us by the great (post)enlightened one, Brian McLaren, so that we simple simpletons may in our simplicity know that we do not read the Bible in an acceptable way to this oh-so-great (post)enlightened one and his cohorts, but we must read it, well, the way of pomo-complexity.

A New Kind of Bible Reading
It must be said the the ways of Brian McLaren do come a little short of the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins. He gives us simple simpletons only 15 ways that we must read the Bible so that we too may become great (post)enlightened ones, though the 15th is complicated by three sub-practices.

So, yes, if you thought that you could just pick up a Bible, and start reading it yourself, and end up getting a pretty good idea of what it's teaching us, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!!!!! That's right, no more just reading the Bible for you!! Oh, no, if you're not reading it with a bunch of other people (preferably emergents), if you're daring to read all those laws and ordinances as if they were really laws and ordinances God really expected people to obey (you know, like a constitution), if you're daring to read the Bible as if God cares more about people's eternal souls and that they be forgiven for their real sins instead of realizing that God cares only for the here-and-now and the forcing of the agenda of the Democratic Party upon the stupid simpletons of the United States and other parts of the world, if you're daring the read the Bible as if it were the Word of God rather than Jesus being the Word of God (as if those ideas are mutually exclusive), then...

SHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAME!!!!

No soup for you.

If I weren't already trying, in my still limited time, to comment every now and again on Rollin's delirious heretic, I'd have some more fun with this, because it is so full of fail. Maybe that time will come.

adding to Jesus' words

In Rollins' clever little story and commentary, "Turning the Other Cheek", pp 19-23 of The Orthodox Heretic, he takes what we call the Sermon on the Mount, and in a telling display of unwisdom, he adds to it. In this story, he has the Sermon addressed specifically to only certain people, "...the sick the dispossessed, the widow and the orphan, the ones without a voice and without hope". But then, Rollins has Jesus address another group of people, "we who have the power, who have the authority, and who have a voice". Jesus' words for them is "Do not be mistaken, these words are not for you", and so Rollins has Jesus give these people a different message. It has less to do with what they should do than with what will be done to them.

Jesus finished addressing them with this message, "These people (the one's first addressed) are my message to you. Heed this message, and you will live. Ignore it, and you will perish".

In the commentary, Rollins says that things like the Sermon on the Mount were not addressed to everyone. "However, these teachings were not given to people like us (by us I mean people who can afford to buy this book and are educated enough to be able to read it). These were not spoken primarily for the powerful to apply as middle-class moral platitudes. For us, these words can "become little more than advice on how to treat the shop assistant or a passerby".

Because, of course, how we treat shop assistants and passerbys (or is that passers-by?) is just not so important, is it?

But are Rollins' claims about Jesus' words true?

Matthew 5 begins the Sermon, but the last part of chapter 4 may give some context for it. "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him."

So, the multitude Jesus spoke to did likely have many people who either were sick or had been healed by Jesus.

Matthew 5. "Now when he say the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him and he began to teach them, saying..."

Notice what is missing from the biblical account? We have no mention of the social standings of anyone in the crowd. While no doubt those who were sick may have mostly been poor, we know that diseases are rather equal-opportunity--they don't go around asking the class status of those they infect. So, if we accept that Rollins was likely right about the mix of classes being present when Jesus was preaching, we have to accept that Jesus was talking to everyone, giving them the same sermon, and that it was as applicable to the rich and powerful as it was to the poor and sick.

Mr. Rollins' attempt to make Jesus a party to class warfare is clever, but it doesn't work.

I'm not saying this. maybe.

There is this to be said about reading books written by emergents--they are good ways to build character. One must learn to control the impulse to hurl them with vigor and force against an available wall, then put on steel-towed boots and jump up-and-down on them with all the enthusiasm one can muster.

Take, for example, this little excerpt.

In response to the ideology that we simply listen to what the Scripture says about an issue, Dale Martin, a professor of New Testament at Yale, comments:

The text cannot interpret iteself. I sometimes illustrate my point when asekd to speak aobut "what the Bible says about homosexuality." I put the Bible in the middle of the room or on the speaker's podium, step back, and say "Okay, let's see what it says. Listen!" After a few seconds of uncomfortable silence and some snickers, I say, "Apparently, the Bible can't talk." This is not the frivolous gimmick it may initially seem. Our language about "what text say" tends to make us forget the expression is a metaphor. Texts don't "say" anything: they must be read. And even in the reading process, interpretation has already begun. And if we want to move on from reading the text out loud, say, to paraphrasing it or commenting upon what it "means," we have simply moved further into human interpretation.

Martin affirms the point that reading the Bible as the Word of God is never as simple or as straightforward as looking at words on a page. Instead of viewing Scripture as a flat collection of words that provide a secure foundation from which to build our theologies and worldviews, we have to understand that we must interpret those words. And we believe that this interpretation happens best when the body of Christ, the church, discerns the word of God together.
Conder and Rhodes, Free For All, p 50

For all that this guy Martin that they quote says he isn't doing some 'frivolous gimmick', in reality that's all he's doing.

It is a common practice for us to use to word "say" when refering to what is written. When we play sports and games, we ask what the rules "say", and usually refer to a written version of those rules. When, for example, we may be driving and looking for directions, we may ask what the road signs "say". It is a word even used in art, where one may talk of what a painting or a photography "says".

Martin's little word game, then, becomes nothing more than the "frivolous gimmick" he says it isn't. It is perfectly legitimate, by the common usage of the word, to use the word "say" when refering to what is written in the Bible. The Bible does say things. Martin should be ashamed of his amateurish, asinine argument.

It's always amazing the kinds of arguments emergents use to try to justify their twisting of Scripture. Scripture isn't a "flat collection of words"? I suppose one could wonder what is meant by that phrase, if it isn't a bit of distracting nonsense--the pomos seems to be good at making those kinds of nonsense statements, unlike most of the rest of us.

And Scripture isn't "a secure foundation from which to build our theologies and worldviews"? I suppose they have better suggestions? Maybe the Discworld novels? Tea leaves? Flipping coins? How about we settle questions of theology with some games of 3-on-3 basketball, and worldview with a bit of flag football?

Nah, someone would complain that it wasn't futbol. I mean, soccer.

No, I guess they want us to settle those questions via emergent group-think.

looks like i wasn't the first...

...to notice the "Bible idolatry" argument some like the emergents are starting to use.

And, thankfully, some better able to form arguments against it have done so.

A Thought on Bibliolatry

The Psalmist is a Bibliolater?

From the second link...

Those who use it often draw a false dichotomy saying we should follow Jesus or God but not be enslaved to a book. A simple response could be: which Jesus? Whose God? How do I know them. To say we should follow Jesus and not the Bible or Jesus more than the Bible is a radical dichotomy of the worst sort. Jesus teaches us that all of the Scriptures point to Him. Jesus Himself uses the Bible authoritatively--i.e. in a way that those leveling the charge of bibliolatry consider idolatrous. In fact, the Bible is the only infallible marker to Jesus Christ. It is a covenant treaty that is given to God's people...almost like a marriage certificate. It is a treaty from our Great Kind announcing to us that He is reconciling Himself to the world in the person of Jesus Christ. In short, we have no kingdom charter without the text of Scripture... no way of being sure if the kingdom of God has indeed dawned in the Son

This link is found in the second link above.

Is Bibliolatry Possible?

A fine theologian of whom I asked the question thinks that bibliolatry is possible and that the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of it. Now we must guard against laying all the intellectual sins ever conceived at the feet of the poor scribes and Pharisees. They have quite enough sobering problems. But were they bibliolaters to boot? Well, they did highly honor the words of Scripture. Whatever else you say about scribes and Pharisees, they knew the Book. Look, for instance, at those of whom Herod inquired regarding the Messiah's birthplace. "Bethlehem of Judea!" they snapped off, "For so it has been written by the prophet, 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah...'" Let me ask you. How well do you know Micah's prophecy?

But it is a tragic fact that the scribes and Pharisees, though knowing the words of the Book, knew not its Author. "You know neither me nor my Father," pronounced Jesus. Perhaps it is bibliolatry to know the Book but not its Publisher. To know dead precepts, but not the living God. "Thou shalt love the Bible thy Book with all thine heart, soul, and strength. But God is expendable." However, let me ask you this: How did Jesus answer the bibliolatrous folk of his day?

Jesus answered wrong users of the Book with the Book. Is bibliolatry possible then? Not easily, but yes, I suppose bibliolatry may possibly occur in some extreme cases. Yet is it bibliolatry to hold to a high view of Scripture or to attribute infallibility or other divine attributes to God's Word? How about substituting God's actions with the Bible's record of his acts? "The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. . . ."

No, what some may call bibliolatry is not always- indeed, is rarely such. Let us truly love the Lord our God with all our hearts and worship him only. But "to reverently esteem" the Book, "the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole...is to give all glory to God." 3 Even to love God's Word has good precedent in our Lord Jesus himself: "Oh, how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day long...I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law...But these things were written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life."

I now call on those who posted on this blog, and accuse me of bibliolatry even if they did not use that name, to respond to these things I've posted here. Put up or shut up.

getting it mostly right 1

Tony Campolo is, in many ways, a rather frustration person. I could rather like him, and could think that in many ways he's right. On the other hand, in those ways I can't agree with him, I would think those ways are pretty important.

If I could put it a particular way, I think he's trying to hang out in the enemy's camp, hoping to make them somehow better. I don't think it's working; rather, I think they are influencing him more than he them.

Still, he's sometimes not too far out there, at least in the book "Adventures in Missing the Point", which he kind of co-wrote with McLaren. McLaren wrote a chapter on the Bible, which may well provide some material for here later. Campolo has a brief but pointed response at the end of it.

One thing the emergents and pomos try to do with downplay the idea that the Bible is a place to find answers or doctrine. Campolo makes a comment on page 83 of the book about that.

Brian is quite right when he tells us that the Bible should not be considered a mere repository of propositional truths. But certainly we must be aware of those sections of the Bible that do contain propositional truths, and of the importance of analyzing those doctrines...

I agree with him here. The attempts by emergents to overplay the story and poetry aspects, among other things, at the expense of doctrine is not wise, and is already starting to bear bad fruit. Consider the post a few weeks ago, where an emergent pretty much says that if the Bible disagrees with him than the Bible should be scrapped.

And I haven't seen anyone sum the postmodern tendency to relativize texts better than this.

They tell us to see in the text whatever meaning we want to impose on it. They tell us that no single interpretation should be considered objectively valid. The text, say these postmodernists, has a life of its own--and once it is written, the reader provides the meaning. To me, that approach to the Bible has inherent dangers.

I couldn't agree more. If that is what they are pushing for, than the postmoderns are simply leaving themselves open to another disaster, one they thought to avoid by going so extreme relativistic. If postmodern was in part a response to the Nazis and the extermination camps, as McLaren says elsewhere, than how can they hope to avoid that again if someone wants to say that their interpretations are for such things? If interpretation is something read into a text, rather than taken from it, than Pandora's Box is truly open, and all the evils are loose.

Better by far is a solid hermeneutic and interpretation, based on what the Bible is really saying, over any attempt to put our own meanings into the Bible.

word games with the Word

...Also by the way, "the Word of God" is never used in the Bible to refer to the Bible. It couldn't since the Bible as a collection of 66 books hadn't been compiled yet.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 181

So, when scripture tells us "all Scripture is inspired by God", that doesn't refer to the contents of the Bible? Or is this just a game these people play, like saying "Jesus wasn't a Christian"?

Because this is a moot point, a point that is essentially pointless, a subtle means to undermine the rightful authority of the Bible. If the Bible is the collection of those writings that are the Word of God, then trying to say what McLaren says here simply clouds the issue.

undermining the Bible

He (Neo) continued, "What if the real issue is not the authority of the text on this line, but rather the authority of God, moving mysteriously up here on a higher level, a foot above the ground? What if the issue isn't a book that we can misinterpret with amazing creativity but rather the will of God, the intent of God, the desire of God, the wisdom of God--maybe we could say the kingdom of God."
McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, p. 51

The error here is subtle, but it is there.

On the one hand, McL wants to leave open the idea that we can know "the will of God, the intent of God, the desire of God, the wisdom of God...", but on the other, he wants to call into question the authority of Bible, which would be the means by which we would come to know those things.

As such, then, McLaren seems to undermine his own argument. He wants to make it about those things, but in calling in to question the Bible as authoritative, he calls into question whether we can rely on it to be the source for us to know and understand those things.

But then, maybe that's the point, or at least has become the point. The book is, after all, several years old, and McLaren has moved on and into other things, one of them being the current comtemplative and mystical movement.

Whether such statements of his as are above were made intentionally by him to leave the door open to mysticism, or if such ideas left him open to them, at the least that does seem to be where they go--when the authority of the Bible is undermined, then man will look elsewhere for authority. Even into the mystical, which has to be one of the most subjective and dangerous things people can get involved in.

spinning Christ's tempations III

...and refuses to indulge in spectacle to prove himself (which would subvert Gods natural system of being proven through trials and experience).
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139

And the verses...

Luke 4
4:9 And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
4:10 for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, to guard thee:
4:11 and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

As in the other two, there is no hint from the context of the verses of what McLaren is trying to make the verses say. From the nature of the temptation and Jesus' response, one may well see it as something similar to the first--a temptation to presumption, to act without the Father's approval.

Further, just as Jesus several times provided provisions in a manner "which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service", at least to McLaren's mind, so too were many of His miracles very public and witnessed by many. He even saw them as being proofs of who He is, as for example here.

John 11
41.So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
42.I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
43.When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!"
44.The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."

And there are these words from Peter at Pentacost.

Acts 2
22."Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

If the temptation was that if people were to see Jesus doing something miraculous then they would believe, His life showed otherwise. In fact, it was the very public raising of Lazarus from the dead that sparked this on the part of those who were against Him.

John 11
45.Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him.
46.But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
47.Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs.
48.If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
49.Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all!
50.You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51.He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,
52.and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
53.So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Whether that was the nature of the temptation, though, is unclear. Nothing is said by either the devil or Jesus about people's reactions; rather, Jesus responds only to the temptation to act presumptuously, to simply do whatever or anything in the expectation that the Father will bail Him out.

spinning Christ's temptations II

...refuses to take a religious shortcut to authority and kingship (which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service)...
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139

And the passage referred to...

Luke 4
4:5 And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

It's simply...incredible, the fact that Mclaren here makes no mention at all of the nature of the temptation, that the devil's demand was the Jesus should worship the devil instead of the Father.

But to look at it in a more (post)modern-day way, please look at what McLaren himself says here.

Emerging church leader Brian Mclaren on Lambeth, mission and reconciliation

And fourth, I think our future will also require us to join humbly and charitably with people of other faiths - Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, secularists, and others - in pursuit of peace, environmental stewardship, and justice for all people, things that matter greatly to the heart of God.

Jesus refused to worship anyone or anything other then His Heavenly Father, even if it meant that the devil keeps authority over the kingdoms of the world. McLaren, on the other hands, encourages compromise and even acceptance of those in false religions in order to accomplish what is in his mind an improving of the world.

The difference in these two views can hardly be more different.

spinning Christ's temptations I

For Jesus, God's natural ecosystem is not only one of care, but also of limits. So when Jesus is tempted (Luke 4:1-3), he refuses to turn stones into bread (which would subvert God's natural system of provision)...
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139

So, what does such reasoning do to, let's say, the time Jesus turned water into wine? Or fed several thousand people with one child's lunch? If one goes back to the Old Testament, what about when God fed Israel in the wilderness with manna, and provided water for them? Or when He provided water for Ishmael and later Samson? Or when He gave food to Elijah before having him take a long journey?

Take a look at the passage, which to his credit he does reference though I contend misinterprets and misapplies.

Luke 4
4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness
4:2 during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered.
4:3 And the devil said unto him, if thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread.
4:4 And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone

I see nothing in that which says that Jesus didn't do it because it "would subvert God's natural system of provision". Considering how often Jesus did provide such things through miraculous means, I think we should look elsewhere for the reason He didn't do so here. Very likely, since it was a temptation, then Jesus' fasting was in obedience to His Father, so the temptation to eat was a temptation to be disobedient.