The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren (April 2007)

[MarkLee]

April's selection should lead to some interesting discussion. Brian McLaren is author of books like "A New Kind of Christian" and (with Tony Campolo) "Adventures in Missing the Point". You will probably find yourself challenged, and you may or may not agree with everything presented. But if you're like me, reading McLaren will make you rethink a lot of things that need to be rethought anyway.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about it...

[middletree]

Wow. Brave choice. Lots of people have a lot of problems with the Emergent Church, and McLaren is the unofficial leader of the movement. I am intrigued by it, myself, but I can understand the objections of some who feel it's about throwing out perfectly good traditions that were there for a reason.

I just wanted to throw that in. I cannot read the book this month, as I am reading two others (one of which is Emergent Church-related), and two is my limit. But I will watch this thread to see what others have to say.

[Godgrl Gomer]

If you go to Brain McLaren's web site you can download his study guide to this book and a bonus chapter "The Prayer of the Kingdom".
Thought you would like to know....
Blessings.
Joan

[woman4life]

Hmmm... reminds me. I"m still waiting on the last book... taps toes, fingers drumming on desk. They said 4-5 days, so hopefully it's here. I haven't heard so I guess I'd better call tomorrow. I will be playing catch up.

--Melanie

[Godgrl Gomer]

I am told that I should be able to pick up The Secret message of Jesus on Tuesday, after Easter Monday. woohoo....

So do we read the book during April and then discuss in May? Or do we read and discuss in April?

I also read the bonus chapter made available at Mclaren's website. Its an interesting take on the Lord's Prayer.

May God's blessing be poured out upon you in abundance this Easter.
My hubby is preaching again on Sunday. We found out YESTERDAY!
ARGH!
haha I see it as God's way of honouring John, having him preach to the people on Easter Sunday. Its a real honour.

[MarkLee]

Looks like we'll be reading and discussing in April.

If you don't finish in April, feel free to discuss whenever you do finish. That's why we leave all the threads open...

[Godgrl Gomer]

Looks like we'll be reading and discussing in April.

If you don't finish in April, feel free to discuss whenever you do finish. That's why we leave all the threads open...
Thanks Mark!
Have you seen the bonus chapter on the Lord's Prayer?
That is the only part of the book I have read thus far.

I found it interesting that Brian included Political Theory in with the analysis. I wasn't expecting that.

I wonder if Jesus would have deliberately been addressing their current Political situation as well as speaking on Spiritual things or if that is just the viewpoint of Worldly thinking?

[BJ]

What happened to March's book? :confused:

[Godgrl Gomer]

I dont know...:confused:

[Mandy Robbins]

I checked it out at the Library today.

[wannabaRSgirl]

I am just a wee bit into this and I am already appreciating "The Bronze Bow" and the background information it provided me with about the Zealots,
Pharisees, Saducees, etc. I am hoping to get into it more soon.

I feel like I have to read it on guard for what might be questionable or against my normal thinking.

[Mandy Robbins]

I am just a wee bit into this and I am already appreciating "The Bronze Bow" and the background information it provided me with about the Zealots,
Pharisees, Saducees, etc. I am hoping to get into it more soon.

I feel like I have to read it on guard for what might be questionable or against my normal thinking.

That's how I went in to it too!

Cautious open-mindedness.

[Godgrl Gomer]

I picked up my book from the store today. :)
I have only read the 1st chapter (plus Intro). Elijah and Caleb are both in bed now, so I am looking forward to getting into it. I will also keep my Strong's Concordance near by along with my Bible. I feel like I am about to start a real adventure.
I was not brought up in the church, but still I know that I have ideals that have been formed by traditional teaching that has happened over the centuries.

This is exciting!;) :cool:

[Mandy Robbins]

I'm on chapter 4. So far, so good.

[MarkLee]

I definitely have some things I'd love to discuss regarding this book, but I want to give everyone some time to get into it first. In the meantime, I'll let you in on how I came to this book. In the wake of the Da Vinci Code hysteria, I had thought that somebody should do sort of a book that sort of "reaches out" to people who are researching the topic. While there were several books with names like "Da Vinci Code Uncracked" which sought to debunk the theories presented in the book/movie, none of them really answered the question of why people were so fascinated with the subject. It's as if people wanted to believe in Christ, but weren't satisfied with the Christ portrayed in most churches today so were looking elsewhere. As is often the case with so-called Christian responses to mainstream fads, we gave them a head response to heart questions.

Then I saw this book. The cover is vaguely reminiscent of the Elaine Pagels book which much of Da Vinci was based on. Instead of trying to dispel the myths, however, McLaren presents us with the real scandal. Take out the events celebrated at Christmas and Easter (McLaren isn't saying they're not important - he's just not focusing on them here b/c that's the extent of most people's knowledge of Christ), and you're left with a very radical and scandalous message, which is far more pertinent to our time than anything Dan Brown or Ron Howard can conjure up.

Looking forward to hearing what you thought about it...

[Godgrl Gomer]

I am intrigued for the very same reasons. Thanks for sharing, Mark.

It is so easy to get caught up in traditions, especially if they have been going for centuries. Sometimes we forget to ask the question 'why'?
And Jesus is often portrayed as this pushover when He is exactly the opposite.
My Pastor told me something a few years back and it stuck with me. Often when Jesus is described as meek and mild, He is seen as weak. My Pastor gave me an analogy for meek: a draft horse allowing you to put a bit in its mouth and lead it around. At any moment it could trample you with its incredible prowess. Meek is extraordinary power being voluntarily self-restrained.

I thought that was very significant.

Anyway - back to the book. We are on a journey and I think that this book could possibly open many doors in our lives - spiritually. I would like to extend my hand and let y'all know that should you need to talk about anything that is challenging you, that I am here as I know Mark and the other Gomers are. I am hoping that this is a safe environment and people should feel free to share honestly should they/we be challenged by the Lord.

God bless y'all.
Joan

[jabob]

I have finished the book. Is anyone ready to dive in? Mark, do we wait for you to pose topics and questions; or should we just use the study guide on McLaren's website?

[Godgrl Gomer]

I havent finished yet - not that it is a hard read, but because I hadnt picked it up for a few days. A Mama's work is never done! ;) :D

But I wouldnt mind starting discussion...chapter by chapter, or themes, or topics, or whatever.
:cool:
Blessings
Joan

[woman4life]

I haven't been able to start any of the books yet. I just received them in the mail yesterday, except Girl Meets God, which was at Barnes & Noble.

I am at the tail end of reading, "Body Piercing Saved My Life", so I should start one of books tonight or tomorrow. I'm still debating which one to start first.

[Godgrl Gomer]

Would you prefer us to hold off on discussion then, for you?:)

I have a few comments about the Parables chapter. I too majored in English lit at University. I loved how he said that we are taught to do what most have accomplished at grade two and that is to read. lol.
That was so funny.;)

[MarkLee]

I have finished the book. Is anyone ready to dive in? Mark, do we wait for you to pose topics and questions; or should we just use the study guide on McLaren's website?

Dude, feel free to dive on in if you want to. I have a few things I was wondering, but I can't really get into it right now. Sure, use McLaren's guide if you like. I'll try to jump in and discuss when I get a minute...

[Mandy Robbins]

Would you prefer us to hold off on discussion then, for you?:)

I have a few comments about the Parables chapter. I too majored in English lit at University. I loved how he said that we are taught to do what most have accomplished at grade two and that is to read. lol.
That was so funny.;)


I liked that too. As silly as it sounds, there are times that things like that hit me and I think "That was really smart of God." The parables take a person from listening bystander, to engaged participant.

I've started translating some of these things to my prayer life. For instance, I had to come to terms that perhaps the reason I'm having a difficult time right now is I need to come to God like a child, who is dependant on him. I am very bad about saying "I see where you're going with this Lord, I'll jump in and take it from here".

[woman4life]

O.K. I just started the book during breaktimes at work tonight. That means it's a little slow going until the weekend getting only a few minutes here and there to read. However, these were my thoughts after the first ten pages. I think I'm up to page 20 now. LOL I posted it as part of a blog here:
http://woman4life.blogspot.com Some of it wasn't pertinent, though. I have a few grammatical corrections to make yet, so bear with me. LOL

First thoughts:
I have to admit to being just a litle uncomfortable with the idea that there is a "secret" message of Jesus. I came from a cult and one trait not uncommon to many cults is that there is secret, hidden information, some special revelation or that God's word is somehow not plain. In reality, I think that we are the ones that make things so mysterious by our own unwillingness to listen. It's not that I don't think that there are any mysteries of God, in fact, I believe that there are and Scripture mentions them. But am I wrong in my impression that Jesus revealed them rather than further muddied the waters? Not that we can, as finite human beings, completely grasp the infinite God of the universe, nor will we be able to really get Christ without at least accepting Him as real. How can one begin to understand God if he is only seen as a myth? I guess that would be starting with a faulty premise. And if God is only a myth, what would be the point anyway?

Still, when McClaren says, "A lot of people say, 'It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere.' They're partly right: sincerity is a precious thing, and arguments about who has the correct beliefs have too often led to arrogance, ugly arguments, and even violence. But believing untrue things, however sincerely, can have its own unintended consequences", he really hit on something that I think needs to be said. What you believe matters not only in eternity, but in the here and now. It's somewhat providential I seem to be reading this now after struggling to express that very same thought to someone without being or seeming like I knew it all or was putting them down in anyway. McClaren has a wonderful way with words and with painting word pictures from the little I've read.

So far, I am not sure where this will all take me, but even if I find fault from here on out, at least it will be a challenge to dig deeper and maybe make some changes. And that can't be a bad thing. And for me, I think it's needed.

God's blessings,
Melanie

[Mandy Robbins]

The first thread I tried didn’t get much traction, so I’ll try again. I love politics and government. I have had an interest since I was 10 years old and became enamored by Ronald Reagan. I even have a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. So naturally, this chapter piqued my interest. There are a few things McLaren says in this chapter I find intriguing.
First, he says if Jesus’ message were in a newspaper today, it would not be in the religious section; but scattered throughout. I don’t buy that because the questions he asks in that section (pages 10-11) are being asked in newspapers (or their electronic equivalents). However, it is not being acknowledged that those questions come from Jesus or are even being answered in regard to Him. The answers, if any, seem to come from humanistic thought. That means one of two things is happening; either the questions don’t actually come from Jesus’ message – which really throws off McLaren’s thesis – or the church has done an inadequate job in describing what Jesus’ message is.
Second, Jesus’ message angered/excited each of the four sociopolitical groups of His day because it existed above and beyond each of them. This is where we still run into trouble trying to ascribe our political views to Jesus. Recently, I have become annoyed with those who want to rant about how Jesus was not a right-wing, middle-class, gun-loving Republican; but don’t bother mentioning that He was also not a left-wing, intellectual-elite, eco-warrior Democrat. The message still exists above and beyond those classifications. This leads directly to the next point.
Third, I think the idea that Jesus was calling people to not be obsessed with Caesar still holds true. We have Christians who have decided the best way to accomplish “Earth as it is in Heaven” is through laws. I don’t think so. The best way to spread that message is how Jesus did it, through love. Laws force people to do things; God never forces us to follow Him. He loves us into submission.
Fourth, I want to relate the idea of carrying the soldier’s pack a second mile to our adherence to laws. Why does it seem that the Church in America is always trying to circumvent laws? This especially holds true when it comes to money. We take up special designated offerings so we can get credit for our “offerings”. Every ministry is 501c so if you give a “gift” it is tax deductible. Why are we even claiming our tithes on our taxes? My wife is our church’s financial secretary. At the end of every year, she has people who call and ask how much they have given so they can write a check to make up the difference if it doesn’t add up to enough for them to claim the deduction. Is this the spirit in which we are to give? Does not that kind of thing become “hay, wood, and stubble”? (Sorry about the rant) What kind of a witness would we make if the church in America made a statement about what Jesus said and then explained that as a sign of devotion to Him, they would not longer claim the deduction?
It does not just have to be about money. I keep hearing that we are coming upon a time when pastors will be arrested for preaching against certain topics (I think this is a bit hyperbolic). Our solution is to make laws that prevent that. What if instead the pastor preached what he wanted; and when arrested, volunteered to serve twice the jail time? How is that for a witness of “turn the other cheek”?

I guess that's why the bible says seek and you will find, not sign up and it will be FedExed to you in a nice neat little bundle.

We have to invest something of ourselves. And like anything else, the return is more worthwhile, than something that we have been dished out.

[rossid]

*thought this was about "The Secret" and all its mystical mumbo jumbo*

[woman4life]

Wow, did I leave everyone speechless? ;) JK. I'm hoping to get a little further in reading this afternoon. Any other thoughts?

[woman4life]

I am not too much further, I keep forgetting to take the book with me when I head for work, but I am on about pg. 46. I rather get what McLaren is talking about with the parables and what he is saying about them being interactive makes sense, but I don't get that they make things secretive. Quite the contrary, to me they are great illustrations. I think part of the difficulty is that many events we know about now had not yet occurred, so we have a different frame of reference than the early disciples. I do think he has a good point when he says that, "..when peoples' hearts become calloused they lose their ability to see and hear at deeper levels." And I agree with McLaren that Christ's message wasn't just aimed at conveying information, but with getting into the heart. I imagine the parables, in that sense, often separates (separated) those that were seeking God from those that weren't.

[jabob]

The first thread I tried didn’t get much traction, so I’ll try again. I love politics and government. I have had an interest since I was 10 years old and became enamored by Ronald Reagan. I even have a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. So naturally, this chapter piqued my interest. There are a few things McLaren says in this chapter I find intriguing.
First, he says if Jesus’ message were in a newspaper today, it would not be in the religious section; but scattered throughout. I don’t buy that because the questions he asks in that section (pages 10-11) are being asked in newspapers (or their electronic equivalents). However, it is not being acknowledged that those questions come from Jesus or are even being answered in regard to Him. The answers, if any, seem to come from humanistic thought. That means one of two things is happening; either the questions don’t actually come from Jesus’ message – which really throws off McLaren’s thesis – or the church has done an inadequate job in describing what Jesus’ message is.
Second, Jesus’ message angered/excited each of the four sociopolitical groups of His day because it existed above and beyond each of them. This is where we still run into trouble trying to ascribe our political views to Jesus. Recently, I have become annoyed with those who want to rant about how Jesus was not a right-wing, middle-class, gun-loving Republican; but don’t bother mentioning that He was also not a left-wing, intellectual-elite, eco-warrior Democrat. The message still exists above and beyond those classifications. This leads directly to the next point.
Third, I think the idea that Jesus was calling people to not be obsessed with Caesar still holds true. We have Christians who have decided the best way to accomplish “Earth as it is in Heaven” is through laws. I don’t think so. The best way to spread that message is how Jesus did it, through love. Laws force people to do things; God never forces us to follow Him. He loves us into submission.
Fourth, I want to relate the idea of carrying the soldier’s pack a second mile to our adherence to laws. Why does it seem that the Church in America is always trying to circumvent laws? This especially holds true when it comes to money. We take up special designated offerings so we can get credit for our “offerings”. Every ministry is 501c so if you give a “gift” it is tax deductible. Why are we even claiming our tithes on our taxes? My wife is our church’s financial secretary. At the end of every year, she has people who call and ask how much they have given so they can write a check to make up the difference if it doesn’t add up to enough for them to claim the deduction. Is this the spirit in which we are to give? Does not that kind of thing become “hay, wood, and stubble”? (Sorry about the rant) What kind of a witness would we make if the church in America made a statement about what Jesus said and then explained that as a sign of devotion to Him, they would not longer claim the deduction?
It does not just have to be about money. I keep hearing that we are coming upon a time when pastors will be arrested for preaching against certain topics (I think this is a bit hyperbolic). Our solution is to make laws that prevent that. What if instead the pastor preached what he wanted; and when arrested, volunteered to serve twice the jail time? How is that for a witness of “turn the other cheek”?

[w8ing4daybreak]

I just got the book a few days ago and am about half way through. To be honest I work nights and sleep days, so I read it when I am trying to fall asleep. I am probably "missing" some stuff because of that.

I too, am looking for the controversy, but haven't seen much yet.

Like woman4life, I don't quite get the "secret" part, but maybe that's because I attend a church that teaches pacifism, so it's not much different than what I hear at church.

[Godgrl Gomer]

I have been busy with another study I have been doing. Sorry. I hate it when the conversation lulls.
Umm so far I am up to chpt 6 or 7. I have to check.
Just when I am wondering "I don't know if I agree with this dude" he sums everything up and I am like, Yeah...that's the way I have understood things...

So no I haven't been shocked. Its been nice to have stuff confirmed, or remind me. This book is a bit like The Jesus I Never Knew, my Philip Yancey.

Ugh. Gotta go. Caleb is screaming up a storm.:rolleyes:
Blessings
Joan

[woman4life]

I know what you mean. :) I also work nights.

I have been writing down some thoughts. I haven't checked for sure, but I think I'm about half way through the book now. I just haven't felt like reading at home much, so I've mostly been reading during breaks/lunch. I'll try to get them connected tomorrow.

[woman4life]

The parables don't make the Kingdom of God more difficult to understand, they clarify things; but before you can understand the clarification, you have to know the message in the first place. There are always things of God that can only be spiritually discerned, so they will seem hidden or foolish to those who refuse to believe. It doesn't seem so much to me that Jesus had a secret message in the sense of a message that is covert. I can see more the use of the word "secret" here as in a "key to" something... like the "secret" of success. The thing that I really can't see that McLaren says in this section is in regards to the "religious leaders" not understanding the parables, but in the parables directed at them it seems they understood them all too well by the reactions that Jesus received from them afterwards. I do think the parables allowed Jesus to direct his message to those who would understand in a way they should have understood it.

I definitely agree with the notion that we are to be salt and light and seeking to work out the kingdom of God in the here and now, especially as it comes to loving others. I am not as distressed as McClaren seems to be about the lack of community, but perhaps it is because I know that Christians are doing those things. Not everyone is doing the same things, and some of us should be doing far more, and that is a challenge to me, as well. But I see the church still doing some really good things here.

All throughout the book so far, I am finding an undercurrent that I completely agree with, but also some things that I don't think quite gel with me. I am going to be trying to figure out what those things is and see if I can express my thoughts on them. I just have to get a moment to sit down and read when I can take a few notes so I can remember. LOL One thing that kind of didn't seem to fit with me was equating mystery with "secret". A mystery is something not understood - rather like an unsolved puzzle. IT is not necessarily a secret, it is something that needs to be revealed. I was under the impression from reading scripture that Christ is the answer to some of the mysteries. He was the revelation of them. I also want to check those things with scripture always, since that is we are to be test what is said. Still, I am trying very hard to remain open and not make any fast conclusions until the book is finished.

It's been interesting reading so far, and I am not sorry to be reading it at all. There are some points that are well-taken, and that have definitely stirred things in me that needed to be stirred.

[woman4life]

The first thread I tried didn’t get much traction, so I’ll try again. I love politics and government. I have had an interest since I was 10 years old and became enamored by Ronald Reagan. I even have a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. So naturally, this chapter piqued my interest. There are a few things McLaren says in this chapter I find intriguing.
First, he says if Jesus’ message were in a newspaper today, it would not be in the religious section; but scattered throughout. I don’t buy that because the questions he asks in that section (pages 10-11) are being asked in newspapers (or their electronic equivalents). However, it is not being acknowledged that those questions come from Jesus or are even being answered in regard to Him. The answers, if any, seem to come from humanistic thought. That means one of two things is happening; either the questions don’t actually come from Jesus’ message – which really throws off McLaren’s thesis – or the church has done an inadequate job in describing what Jesus’ message is.
Second, Jesus’ message angered/excited each of the four sociopolitical groups of His day because it existed above and beyond each of them. This is where we still run into trouble trying to ascribe our political views to Jesus. Recently, I have become annoyed with those who want to rant about how Jesus was not a right-wing, middle-class, gun-loving Republican; but don’t bother mentioning that He was also not a left-wing, intellectual-elite, eco-warrior Democrat. The message still exists above and beyond those classifications. This leads directly to the next point.
Third, I think the idea that Jesus was calling people to not be obsessed with Caesar still holds true. We have Christians who have decided the best way to accomplish “Earth as it is in Heaven” is through laws. I don’t think so. The best way to spread that message is how Jesus did it, through love. Laws force people to do things; God never forces us to follow Him. He loves us into submission.
Fourth, I want to relate the idea of carrying the soldier’s pack a second mile to our adherence to laws. Why does it seem that the Church in America is always trying to circumvent laws? This especially holds true when it comes to money. We take up special designated offerings so we can get credit for our “offerings”. Every ministry is 501c so if you give a “gift” it is tax deductible. Why are we even claiming our tithes on our taxes? My wife is our church’s financial secretary. At the end of every year, she has people who call and ask how much they have given so they can write a check to make up the difference if it doesn’t add up to enough for them to claim the deduction. Is this the spirit in which we are to give? Does not that kind of thing become “hay, wood, and stubble”? (Sorry about the rant) What kind of a witness would we make if the church in America made a statement about what Jesus said and then explained that as a sign of devotion to Him, they would not longer claim the deduction?
It does not just have to be about money. I keep hearing that we are coming upon a time when pastors will be arrested for preaching against certain topics (I think this is a bit hyperbolic). Our solution is to make laws that prevent that. What if instead the pastor preached what he wanted; and when arrested, volunteered to serve twice the jail time? How is that for a witness of “turn the other cheek”?

You make some excellent points. I'm not far enough into the book (I just started chapter 14) to get to the part about politics, so I can't really tie them into the book yet. I do want to comment once I get that far. I just wanted you to know what you said isn't being ignored by me.

I will say that I am somewhat conservative although I can honestly say there are some issues where I am torn. Some of my views do have a basis in scripture, others are just my views, and I don't see any biblical mandates for them one way or another. They are not the basis of salvation to be sure. I know some people have been hurt over the blurring of the distinction between political views and one's salvation. IT makes me rather sad when I see that. BTW, I claim deductions, although that sometimes causes me some discomfort. I figure as long as my spouse is not a Christian, it's probably a good idea. I hope it is never my motivation for giving. :(

--Melanie

[w8ing4daybreak]

I agree with you regarding the statements you have made about this book. I have problems getting my thoughts into words, and you have done a very good job of putting some of what I have been thinking into words.

This is the first thing I have read by McLaren. I had actully expected something much more controversial, based on what I have heard about him, and some of the stuff I have read about the Emergent Church and it's teachings.

[w8ing4daybreak]

Jabob, You and I are polar opposites when it comes to politics. I avoid political discussion like the plague. I am the librarian at my church. Someone recently requested the book, The Politics of Jesus, by John Howard Yoder. The book is a bit too intellectual for me, but it is appears very similar in it's message to the book we are discussing here. I attend a Mennonite church, but it's not a stereptypical one. I was not raised Mennonite, and do have a problem with their teachings which do not allow them to serve in the milltary or on the police force. I agree with McLaren that war should be avoided, but Christians can play a positive role in millitary service.

[mindyhere]

Quick question for you guys about when/what to read. For April books - do you read in April, and discuss in April? Or read in April, discuss in May? Or am I trying to be too strict in the rules here.

:D

I just ordered the May book (Girl Meets God) because I'm just starting and thought I was already a little behind since I probably won't receive it til mid-May, but this sounds like a really good one to read too, so I'm thinking of still getting it and commenting afterward...

Please set me straight here - this is my first book club.

:P

[w8ing4daybreak]

We usually start reading the book at the beginning of the month and then start posting comments as we go. In the past, sometimes the threads were divided by chapter groups, so you could go to the thread that was relevant to the part of the book you were reading. It seems like right now, many people have had trouble getting some of the books, and finding time to read, so we are all on different pages. Pun intended. :) things have been sort of slow. Hopefully things will improve soon.

BTW, you may post on books we have read in previous months anytime. When I was new, I went back and read some of the "past" books and commented on them.

[mindyhere]

Sounds good! I ordered this book too earlier today, so we'll see how it goes.

Thanks for responding!

:)

~M

[woman4life]

I'm in the middle of McClaren's book, which Barnes and Noble messed up my order, so it took a while. I also had to order Michael Card's book, so I haven't read it yet. Discussing as we go seems to be working out o.k. Join when you can.

I am about halfway through McClaren's book, but I have been working overtime, so it's been hard to get through it lately.

[woman4life]

I have always loved the "Lord's Prayer" and sometimes use it as a model, which of course, was part of the intent in the first place. I was reading about McClaren's use of the term the "dream" of God instead of "will" and I'm not sure I was really comfortable with that retranslation. I think if I were going to retranslate it I might say "desire" rather than "will". Dream seems too "unreal" although I know that isn't exactly how McClaren is using it. Anyway, that' s in chapter 16.

When McClaren says that we have created a "regime" of lust, greed, etc., I can't really argue too much. I struggle with those things in my own life more than I should. IT's tough to be in the world but not "of" it. :( It's probably why Romans 7 & 8 are my favorite part of the Bible, I suppose. So, that hits home with me.

Throughout this book I am still finding things that just seem "off" to me, but the undercurrent is still something I largely agree with. It has definitely made me think. Maybe I'm just in the wrong generation? LOL

[Gandalf]

The preface implied that one of his premises is that Christian life consists of much more than the modern Church often teaches, which was promising. But his writing style is so self-centered (I'm not saying he as a person is self-centered, just that the writing is all "I this..." and "I that...") and experience based that I haven't been able to make myself really read the book. Too much first-person, too little objectivity or use of Scripture for my taste, for a book about Christianity.

I just kept skimming through looking for something that's not just a recounting of his own experiences and wasn't able to get into the book. It's like the sermons that I've heard at times that are all stories and no substance - he isn't necessarily saying anything objectionable; he just isn't giving a basis for anything to catch my interest. I'm giving up on it and getting back to reading C.S. Lewis, Dallas Willard, et al. :)

Perhaps at some point in the future, I'll give it another shot. There is a possibility that he makes some substantial arguments after he's through with the story-telling or something... I just couldn't make myself push through all the first-person writing to find out what the eventual point might be.

[jabob]

Perhaps at some point in the future, I'll give it another shot. There is a possibility that he makes some substantial arguments after he's through with the story-telling or something... I just couldn't make myself push through all the first-person writing to find out what the eventual point might be.

Do you have the same difficulty reading Paul's letters in the New Testament? Much of it is first-person. How about the Psalms? "I" appears in 563 verses in that book alone. As for story telling, the irony is that one of McLaren's points is that story telling is how Jesus taught. So are you saying you are having trouble working through someone teaching with Jesus' model?

[Gandalf]

Do you have the same difficulty reading Paul's letters in the New Testament? Much of it is first-person. How about the Psalms? "I" appears in 563 verses in that book alone. As for story telling, the irony is that one of McLaren's points is that story telling is how Jesus taught. So are you saying you are having trouble working through someone teaching with Jesus' model?
It's not the grammatical first person that bothers me; it's that McLaren is the subject of much of his own writing and that he's apparently just giving his opinions rather than basing his arguments on evidence - at least in the early part of the book that I encountered.

Jesus speaks as an authority, and His words stand alone. He also spoke in parables, rather than just telling stories about His own past; it's an entirely different style, though stories of Jesus' experiences would be much more valuable than those of anyone else's, if He had told them. McLaren does not have the inherent authority of Jesus; the fact that he's saying something isn't reason enough for me to believe it.

Maybe his statements later in the book are more substantial, and I gave up before I got there; I don't know. I do know that I had higher priorities than forcing myself to plod through his book when it didn't grab my interest. :)

[jabob]

It's not the grammatical first person that bothers me; it's that McLaren is the subject of much of his own writing and that he's apparently just giving his opinions rather than basing his arguments on evidence - at least in the early part of the book that I encountered.

Jesus speaks as an authority, and His words stand alone. He also spoke in parables, rather than just telling stories about His own past; it's an entirely different style, though stories of Jesus' experiences would be much more valuable than those of anyone else's, if He had told them. McLaren does not have the inherent authority of Jesus; the fact that he's saying something isn't reason enough for me to believe it.

Maybe his statements later in the book are more substantial, and I gave up before I got there; I don't know. I do know that I had higher priorities than forcing myself to plod through his book when it didn't grab my interest. :)

Certainly Jesus' experiences have more authority and no one is saying McLaren has that authority. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, certainly not just because he says it. There are some quite substantial statements in the book, and I think he gives substantial evidence (scriptural and otherwise) to back them up. As far as his own opinions, I would say that most interpretation involves at lest some opinion. For example, in I Timothy 5:14, Paul tells Timothy that his advice on young widows is his own opinion and judgment rather than an edict from God. In that sense, McLaren is just continuing the Rabbinical tradition of yokes.

[MarkLee]

I find it very interesting that your logic for dismissing this book is McLaren's use of the first person. I'm pretty sure that this technique is very intentional. McLaren (and others in the "emergent" tradition) is reacting against the scientific/argumentative "three points and a conclusion" writing style prevalent among 20th century writers. It has been contended by people much smarter than I that there is a whole generation who cannot be convinced by facts. They believe that you can't use the Bible as an authority to someone who doesn't hold the Bible in any regard or who doesn't have any foundation on which to build. (McLaren made clear in the introduction that this book is intended in large part for those who were intrigued by the Da Vinci book and/or film. This audience would fall strongly into the above camp.)

So the answer to this dilemma, in the opinion of McLaren and others, is to tell stories and to explain how faith works in your own life.

BTW - good call on the Willard. I've considered him as a potential future discussion topic. Any book suggestions?

[Gandalf]

Hmm... that's an interesting point, regarding people not being convinced by facts. If it's true, then I'm the exception to that societal norm in being pretty much the opposite: I'm actually odd enough to enjoy reading Augustine's City of God because of the elegance of the logical arguments presented. :) But then I'm also an academic and a proponent of absolute truth, rather than your average modern relativist. I don't doubt that there are many others who would find McLaren's style more appealing. I didn't make it through Purpose Driven Life either, but it was a best seller and apparently has had an impact on many people.

I suppose there are also different segments of society when it comes to the experience vs. fact issue. Most of the young adults I know who left other churches to go to a local emergent church in St. Louis (The Journey) did so, ironically enough, because the churches they had been in were lacking in substantial teaching of the Word (though a few others have gone there because there are a lot of young singles... ;)). The Journey has a reputation locally for a strong focus on teaching within the church, while employing nontraditional methods for outreach (e.g. the "Theology at the Bottleworks" (AKA "Beer and the Bible (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Mar/20070311Feat004.asp)") meetings at a local microbrewery that have gained much attention). I think they kind of combine the approaches - it's true that people who don't believe the Bible obviously won't accept its contents as a premise. But for believers, teaching Scripture is also very important. I understand the alternative approaches and just having honest conversations with people. I just personally prefer that the experiential stories come after the factual basis, to show how it practically works out, rather than taking its place or preceding it. Without the basis for understanding the experience, the stories just strike me as insubstantial and lacking in context. I'm sure just as many others are bored by the facts and just like to hear the stories. *shrug*

The preface of The Secret Message of Jesus made it seem like McLaren probably has some good points to make, so (unlike Warren's book) I'll probably revisit this one sometime in the future to find out what they are. But I've been too busy recently to find the patience/time to push through a book that doesn't hold my interest. Maybe after I'm finished with the journal papers I'm currently working on writing and my comprehensive exam this summer...

As for Willard, I just finished reading The Divine Conspiracy last month, and it's an excellent book that I've been recommending to all my friends. :) Richard Foster called it "the book I have been searching for all my life," and in my opinion, it fully lives up to such praise. On the other hand, it's 400 pages of deep, thought-provoking prose, and it took me a couple of months to finish it. (This isn't a book you skim through - it's more a process of reading a few paragraphs and stopping to ponder them). I'm not sure whether it would be too long for a book club choice, but it's definitely worth reading. The topic is, generally speaking, how to live as a Christian and be a disciple of Christ, and to a lesser extent, how to teach others to do so. Willard starts with the premise that Jesus was an intelligent teacher who knew how to put together a sermon, and then goes through the Sermon on the Mount in detail, examining Jesus' teachings about life in God's kingdom. The early chapters are focused on understanding what Jesus taught; the last few chapters are more about how to practically follow His teachings.

Next on my list by Willard are In Search of Guidance (which has been retitled Hearing God in later editions), and The Spirit of the Disciplines (which I plan to buy in the next week or two). I haven't read his latest, The Great Omission yet either, but reviewers say that as a compilation of shorter teachings and writings from the past on the topic of discipleship, it's a good introduction to his writing about the issue, although it's The Divine Conspiracy that will likely become an enduring classic.

[Godgrl Gomer]

I believe too that McLaren was very deliberate in his use of narrative voice. I am thinking that through his life experience he has found that relational examples appeal to those he has found are often crossing his path. It may also be the style of writing that he feels most comfortable with.

It is important to acknowledge that we live in a Post Post Modern world and this type of narrative is speaking directly to the PPM audience.

I am an academic as well:eek: ;) . I know, many wouldn't believe it once you get to know me! LOL But I enjoy both styles of presenting the Gospel. Being an Historian I find at times that I need the facts. In times of struggle and doubt peeks through the cracks, I remember the Facts of Jesus Christ being a recorded in History, not a mythical figure. I figure that if Jesus Christ is officially recorded as being Crucified etc, then the rest that surrounds His sacrifice must be Truth, regardless of what anyone says. I guess that is a little simple, but that was my first thought as a child when I considered Jesus as the Christ and thats what did it for me. I go back to the beginning, to my child-like faith. *shrug*
Then also as someone who loves Literature etc, I really appreciate the narrative that Mclaren uses. There are a lot of people who wont give Jesus a go, or even consider the Word of God being divine Truth because they have been turned off by things such as the Davinci Code...or simply, denominations and the disunity within the Church body.
I have a friend with two University degrees in science and honours in science. She is a facts only person, and yet she refuses to believe the facts, scientific and archaeological, due to social rumor. She is one who believes that Monks changed the Bible to suit themselves and keep women socially downtrodden. She wont hear anything about the word that I have to offer fact wise. This amazes me! And that is what is so unique about this generation.
This generation is searching for the Spirit. We have emerged from a science and technological age and now are going back to the foundations of our person and seeking for that Something to fill the hole in our souls. We have tried it with money. We have tried it with rebellion and drugs and feminism. We have tried it with conquering the impossible with science and technology. There is nothing left but the Spirit....Love and Relationship. These are the exact things that God is offering. So by speaking to others of this relationship that we have with Love Himself, then we are likely to hold their attention - as short as our attention spans now may be- and they may actually hear what has to be said for it resonates with their deepest need.

I hope that has made some sense.

I apologise for not keeping up with you guys. I have been busy writing my own book;) I only have until the end of the year to finish and I had to start over because my computer crashed in January and somehow all my back up disks and research is GONE! Its cool...God is good and we have taken a slightly different approach. Me thinks God may have crashed my computer.;) I guess it was one way to get my attention!:D :cool:

[jabob]

I read this book in spite of the fact that I was never interested in The Davinci Code (Traci read that one and said it was boring). I don't think narrative style and scientific evidence have to be mutually exclusive. Yes, the mixture may be a bit more difficult to discern than a straight version of either, but that goes right back to what McLaren was saying about Jesus' teachings. This crosses over somewhat with Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. I enjoy both styles. I like being able to work logically through facts to come to a conclusion; but at the same time I am in love with language and communicating through things like myth and allegory. It sometimes takes more thought to find the truth in those things rather than straight scientific arguments. Should not the truth be something we have to work for?
[BTW Gandalf, glad to see we finally got something going on these book threads.]

[mindyhere]

I'm still waiting to get my book so will hopefully be able to jump in on this discussion pretty soon.

I've enjoyed reading your comments - I feel like I'm getting a pretty good summary so far.

:D

[Gandalf]

I like being able to work logically through facts to come to a conclusion; but at the same time I am in love with language and communicating through things like myth and allegory.
I love myth and allegory - if we were discussing 'Til We Have Faces or some other such literary work, that'd be an applicable statement. As it is, the part of the book that I read before I gave up on it was McLaren stating his experiences and his opinions, not anything symbolic. :)

[jabob]

I love myth and allegory - if we were discussing 'Til We Have Faces or some other such literary work, that'd be an applicable statement. As it is, the part of the book that I read before I gave up on it was McLaren stating his experiences and his opinions, not anything symbolic. :)

Fair enough. I may have gone too broad on the last thing I posted. I would not classify McLaren as myth or allegory either, just saying that personal experiences can have weight and meaning. If the personal narrative thing isn't your bag, you really will not like May's book.

[Gandalf]

I like personal narratives in autobiographies (it was very effective in American Soldier for example), and have seen the style work in some novels as well. It's just not my thing for apologetic/theological topics. If Truth is the issue, I prefer a more objective style. :)

Honestly, I kind of got that impression about May's book - I'm not big on the "inspirational" genre in general - and I was already planning to skip it. Thanks for the heads up though. But I've heard enough about McLaren that I do want to see what he has to say ... one of these days, maybe I'll have enough spare time to work up the patience to push through the book and see for myself what he says.

[jabob]

I like personal narratives in autobiographies (it was very effective in American Soldier for example), and have seen the style work in some novels as well. It's just not my thing for apologetic/theological topics. If Truth is the issue, I prefer a more objective style. :)

Honestly, I kind of got that impression about May's book - I'm not big on the "inspirational" genre in general - and I was already planning to skip it. Thanks for the heads up though. But I've heard enough about McLaren that I do want to see what he has to say ... one of these days, maybe I'll have enough spare time to work up the patience to push through the book and see for myself what he says.

Give Untamed a shot. It is quite autobiographical. I read it today.

[Gandalf]

Give Untamed a shot. It is quite autobiographical. I read it today.
I might at some point, but recently I've only had time to look at about every other month's selection and that one's low on the priority list if anything interesting pops up over the summer. :)

[woman4life]

I'm really not having problems with McClaren's writing style to be honest. I do have problems with some of what he is saying, although much of the time there is an underlying point that he makes that I don't disagree with. I made my comments about many of those things already. I was curious what my pastor thought of McClaren, and he said he had not read that particular book, that his first book was good and he was less than charitible about some of his other writings. (BTW, my pastor is overall supportive of the emergent church idea.) I am finding getting through this book very difficult
because to me it seems he is trying to make the topic fit his theme and rather ignoring things that go outside of it for the most part.

That being said, I finished Chapter 18 which I actually thought was very good. His take on inclusion/exculsion really did fit, explained the concept well and made a lot of sense. The analogies (he uses analogies more than parables, really) were good for the most part, but he almost overdid it. I kind of understand that he was trying to find an analogy for everyone, but it almost came across as silly by the end. Overall, though, chapter 18 was worth reading.

I might have finished the book today, but I've had a migraine for 4 days, and it's not helping. :( Which means I should get off here, because that's not helping, either. LOL

--Melanie

[mindyhere]

I'm not too far into the book, but I like what I've read so far. Like some others have already said, I haven't been shocked yet. Maybe reminded of some things, but nothing has jumped out at me as being a secret revealed.

What are some of the points that you guys don't agree with?

[woman4life]

I pretty much disagree with the "secret message" premise to start with. LOL

It seems to me that McLaren has largely tried to make the gospel fit into that premise and rather ignored things that didn't fit with the idea of a secret message. I agree that we are in the kingdom when we accept Christ, and I believe in it's transforming power, and some of McLaren's analogies on it are very good.

I'm currently on the chapter about prophecy, and again I find myself agreeing in part and disagreeing in part. I wish I had more time to sit down with the text and scripture so I could express where exactly things don't jive. I will try to post some of my thoughts on the chapter I'm on later.

This is not a difficult book to read, but I"m having a difficult time getting through it just the same. I'm hoping to just sit down and finish it tonight and start on the next one. I had book order problems back in March, have had a tough time getting through McLaren's book, so I still have two to read. At least I have read June's book recently. LOL

[cknell]

I finally was able to get a copy. Just started reading this week.

It's interesting that today's political scene is no different from Biblical times. Those who go to extremes on both ends and then those who either complain about the extremes or avoid them all together. (ie communal hippies vs right wing conservatives and those stuck somewhere in the middle.)

It goes to show that some things never change. Will we ever learn?

[gibson]

Thanks for the infos. Now im inclined to re-study my religion.

[Gandalf]

I managed to press through the first few chapters, and he actually does start to get into some stuff with substance somewhere around chapter 5 or 6. Once I finish the rest, I'll add my thoughts regarding his point.

[Godgrl Gomer]

I just picked it up again after not reading for a while:o
I read the Scandal of the Message, last night. I found it interesting.
Its funny. EVERY TIME I start to think, 'what is this guy ON?' he draws it together and I go - ohh yeh...I see what he is saying. :)

So far - and I have not thought deeply about it - but so far I am not in disagreement to anything, really. I don't like the 'secret message' title or name he keeps using, but I am seeing it as a tool for Non Christians, non believers or whatever name you choose to use.
I am seriously thinking of sending this book to a friend who is very Anti Christianity and anti the Bible. She refuses to read it because it "was written by monks who deliberately aimed to keep women oppressed in society".:rolleyes:
I wonder what she would think after reading the chapter I just read?;)


I am REALLY wanting to hear about what things people disagree with. There are comments saying they agree and disagree, but that is it. Admittedly, I have not read through the whole thread, so please direct me to a post if I have missed it.:o
I am not wanting to pick an argument either and if you would prefer to PM me that's fine;) :cool:
I am just wanting to see this book through other people's eyes. Like I said, I have not thought deeply about what I have read and I am yet to be challenged with anything. I am wondering WHY I haven't been challenged.:confused: I was expecting to have a new insight by reading this book. Its true I have had A-Ha moments in seeing a new way of expressing a point about Jesus for witnessing. But in thinking about my faith...not yet. But I am only up to page 71:rolleyes:
Ok....gotta keep moving...
God Bless each and every one of you!
~Joan

[Gandalf]

I’ve finally finished this one, so here’s my promised (though delayed) take on it.

First, to add to what I’ve already said, I think I’ve come up with an analogy that might help others understand what I found unappealing about the first few chapters of this book. Imagine you were looking for a book on some intermediate topic… let’s say for example, a book explaining how to practically apply concepts from a late high school or early college math class such as trigonometry or calculus. It’s as if the author started with an extensive biographical explanation of how he learned to count, and how the limitations of his ability to count made him feel emotionally, then moved in another chapter into the story of how he came to learn of the existence of arithmetic, and learned to do more than count, and in a third chapter gave some background conceptual information on what numbers are and how they affect his state of mind, before in a fourth chapter continuing to describe some background of basic arithmetical and algebraic concepts. In the fifth chapter, he finally moves on into at least mentioning Newton’s invention of Calculus in a historical setting, before getting around to discussing the actual topic you were interested in later in the book. This is the basic issue I had with the introduction and first 3-4 chapters of Secret Message – it’s not necessarily that they’re objectionable or incorrect, but that parts are irrelevant to the topic I was interested in but instead are about the author himself, and others start at a much more elementary level than I expected them to. They’re not necessarily out of place for all audiences, but since they weren’t what I was looking for, it took more effort to push through them and get on to the “real stuff”.

I think McLaren’s main premise is actually quite similar to Dallas Willard’s, and is in reality just a basic understanding of the gospel of the kingdom of God that Jesus taught. Unfortunately, he gives it an almost Gnostic connotation, with his “secret message” lingo, and pollutes his own message with statements implying not only quasi-Gnostic tendencies(1), but also dominion theology(2), hyper-Arminianism(3), and Open Theism(4). He has a good underlying point to make, but because he alludes to such ideas, he will alienate many Christian readers and make his book unnecessarily controversial. If one can read beyond those problem areas, the underlying message is actually quite valid and orthodox (and not nearly as novel as McLaren supposes). I do not know (nor do I really care) whether McLaren actually believes any of those erroneous doctrines. But his statements that will certainly be read by opponents of them as implying their acceptance will not aid in communicating the truth He does understand, and is trying to explain, about Jesus’ true message.

Rather than Jesus’ message still being secret, Paul says that the mysteries of the gospel are revealed in the salvation of the Gentiles: Jesus’ perfect life, death, and resurrection have removed the shades that kept us in the dark, and the message is not a secret any longer. The message McLaren describes as Jesus’ “secret” is actually what He quite clearly taught, and what is arrived at when (as Willard does), one considers Jesus to have been a highly intelligent and competent teacher who knew how to compose a sermon and organize his message. A key difference, though, is that much of McLaren’s focus when it comes to applying this message seems to be organizationally on changing the church, along with political systems of power, while Willard’s is on individuals becoming disciples of Jesus who are transformed into His image.

Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God and its accessibility to us in the here and now is, as I said, not nearly so novel as McLaren says it is. It has been forgotten at times in the history of the Church, and has certainly not been emphasized in recent decades. But it was clearly understood from the time of writers such as Paul and later Athanasius, then on through C.S. Lewis, to our own contemporary Dallas Willard. I do not mean to put all of these men in the same category – Paul wrote with apostolic authority, Athanasius was an early Church Father, Lewis was a talented apologist of modern times, and Willard is a modern philosopher and apologist in Lewis’ tradition who targets the modern American church. But all are examples of men whose writings have, in their own way, explained this truth of the Gospel, both in ancient and modern times. McLaren’s applications of this Truth, and his mixing in of some decidedly unorthodox implications (as noted above) may be novel, but the underlying Truth itself is certainly not.

There are also some passages where McLaren’s writing takes on quasi-universalist undertones; he doesn’t explicitly promote such a position, but he makes some statements that could come close to implying it. Later in the book, he does make it clear that some level of exclusion is appropriate, but early on it would be easy for a reader to be confused on this point due to his wording.

I disagree with some of his applications, though the overall premise is valid and thought-inspiring at the least. For example, in his chapter on pacifism vs. just war, McLaren muddles the issue of authority so completely that one might have thought that Jesus were an anarchist, and governing authorities had no place in God’s kingdom. Certainly in the future peace is the ideal, as he says, but the Bible also makes clear that governments are (for now) set up by God and given the authority to use violence when necessary, though individuals in God’s kingdom are intended to become the kind of people who would never take it upon themselves to do such violence of their own accord. He does mention that the only command given when the topic is brought up is to not abuse one’s power, and doesn’t explicitly mandate a purely pacifist view at present, but the distinction of proper authority is ignored. (His application here also perhaps unintentionally necessitates a form of dominion theology combined with postmillennialism in order to exist in practice.) I think this is an example of an oversight when addressing such an application of the principles that are the real issue, but the application is merely an illustration of the consequences of his premise being true rather than in itself being the main point.

The overall premise of the book – that Jesus’ message about God’s kingdom is applicable to how we live our lives now, and that it was good news to those who heard that they could be included in it – is quite valid. As I said before, in my view, it’s nothing more than a restating of the gospel just as Jesus and Paul taught it. Dallas Willard, in The Divine Conspiracy, makes the case in a more rigorous manner, by actually examining Jesus’ teachings in detail and taking a logical philosopher’s approach to the matter. I believe Willard is more orthodox and more to the point in his description of the aspect of the gospel that’s being addressed, but McLaren is trying to reach a different audience and if he is able to do so, and they can separate the underlying Truth from the controversial extras, then it’s a commendable work despite its flaws. The book's great strength is its broad appeal and accessibility, and its great weakness is McLaren's failure to separate the underlying truth he's trying to illuminate from allusions to theologies that many orthodox Christians cannot accept and will be unable to overlook.

Brief descriptions of erroneous teachings mentioned above, as I mean the terms - again, McLaren does not go so far as to explicitly argue in favor of these positions, but makes statements that could easily be taken to imply acceptance of them to some extent:
Gnosticism: an early church heresy rooted in the idea of “secret knowledge” that was revealed only to the elite; a key error was often that they saw an undue divide between the physical and spiritual, so engaged in hedonistic acts, but the name is derived from the Greek “gnosis” for “knowledge”, referring to a belief in secret, extra-Biblical revelation available only to a few - the latter is the sense in which I use the term, not implying that the hedonistic results of the former error are duplicated
Dominion Theology: an idea that has had widespread influence among Latin American Catholics involved in socialist and communist movements, that the gospel is directed towards overthrowing current governmental systems to bring about “social justice”. The Vatican has consistently and strongly opposed this in recent decades.
Hyper-Arminianism: the acceptance of human free will to the point of denying God’s sovereignty; the opposite extreme of hyper-Calvinism, which denies free will altogether due to its acceptance of God’s sovereignty
Open Theism: the denial of God’s foreknowledge (i.e. the belief that God does not know the future), as a result of belief that He experiences time just as we do rather than transcending it. Necessitates a hyper-Arminian soteriology.

[woman4life]

Thanks for expressing that so well.

I have to agree that the underlying principles in the book were mostly good and valid, but there were things that were just "off". It was just hard for me to go back and find the time to list each issue. I just felt that McClaren tried too hard to fit things into the idea of a "secret" message that he often ignored things in scripture that wouldn't fit into that whole mindset. Sometime I might go back and look for more specifics, but I seem to have mislaid the book. I know it's here somewhere. LOL

I got through all but the last couple of chapters. I thought the chapter on Exclusion/Inclusion was probably the best part of the book.

[Gandalf]

My brief summary for friends was "Skip this one and just read Willard's Divine Conspiracy (and perhaps a compilation of Lewis' writings that cover his views of atonement and "heaven") instead. McLaren unnecessarily mixes up controversial doctrines with the underlying points, and Willard does a better job of going through Jesus' teachings on the issue of the kingdom of God being at hand and explaining what that means and how it applies to our lives as disciples of Him." - not that this book was bad (the underlying point is similar), but I think the underlying Truth is clearer and better supported in Willard. This was a quicker and shorter read though, so is probably more accessible to a wider audience. *shrug* I did like much of it, and it was well-written; I just think there are better books out there on the topic that don't have the flaws that will cause many people to reject this one... but there are also others who won't reject it for those flaws, and hopefully it gets them thinking about what Jesus really taught. :)

[w8ing4daybreak]

Thanks Gandolf/Brian, I appreciated your comments, and "descriptions of erroneous teachings" which were helpful to me.
You wrote that this book "is probably more accessible to a wider audience" than Willard's book. Does that mean it's an easier read or what? Is Willard's book aimed more at people who have/are studying theology?
Which specific writings of Lewis do you recommend?
Thanks,
Janet

[Gandalf]

Thanks Gandolf/Brian, I appreciated your comments, and "descriptions of erroneous teachings" which were helpful to me.
You wrote that this book "is probably more accessible to a wider audience" than Willard's book. Does that mean it's an easier read or what? Is Willard's book aimed more at people who have/are studying theology?
Which specific writings of Lewis do you recommend?
Thanks,
Janet
You're welcome.

As for McLaren being more accessible to some people, there are two ways in which I believe this to be the case. First, Secret Message is very short by comparison: Divine Conspiracy is a 400 page book. Second, while Willard's writing style is very readable, and he doesn't write over people's heads as if he intended it only for theologians, Divine Conspiracy is so packed full of thought-provoking material that you have to take your time and really contemplate what you're reading rather than being able to skim it and get the point as you can with McLaren's narrative. The difference is much like the difference between a person telling a story (McLaren) and a person giving an in-depth teaching or sermon on a particular Bible topic (Willard).

So, I think that not as many people will give a 400 page book that's got a great deal of depth to it as much time as it'd take to read it; the short, narrative book McLaren puts out there will reach an audience that either wouldn't bother with or would be intimidated by Willard. I do think Willard includes a great deal more material that would hold the interest of a theologian, but he writes it for lay people, much as Lewis did in his time. I would recommend Divine Conspiracy to anyone who's willing to take the time to read it, but I recognize that many who won't might give Secret Message a chance, so I think it probably has a place despite its flaws.

As for Lewis' books about Christianity (as opposed to his novels), I'd start with Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain as classic examples of his apologetic writings. His writing style tends towards direct, easy to understand, logical explanations of what Christians believe and why. Mere Christianity started as a series of radio addresses on the BBC that aimed to explain to the British public what it is that nearly all Christians through history have believed (not focusing on disputes). The Problem of Pain deals with the question of if God is real and good, why do bad things happen? Other classics of his include The Great Divorce, The Abolition of Man, and The Screwtape Letters. The Pilgrim's Regress is sort of an autobiographical fiction about how Lewis made the journey from atheism to belief in Christianity, and is interesting if you like his other books. There are also a variety of books he released that are basically compilations of essays or sermons - among these, The Weight of Glory, God in the Dock, and Christian Reflections cover most of the topics he wrote about.

As for his fictions, he's best known for the famous children's series The Chronicles of Narnia, and also wrote a Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet/Perelandra/That Hideous Strength) and 'Til We Have Faces, probably his greatest masterpiece from a literary perspective, which is a retelling of the myth of Psyche. But I was mostly thinking of his nonfiction apologetics works when mentioning him in this thread. :)

Lewis' books are available individually, but there are also some good collective volumes available, for example The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0061208493/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4937002-6396945?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182388737&sr=8-1) for reasonable prices that include multiple books together, which might be easier than buying each book individually.

[MarkLee]

Thanks for your comments and your candor. I knew that picking this book would bristle a few, and I was fairly surprised that no one had commented. I promise you won't hurt my feelings. I think what's cool about having something like this on the boards is that you have people from all different backgrounds "coming together" (argh), so hopefully we can debate in an encouraging way while reading some really cool books.

Anyway, my two cents. And here we are coming up on the end of June and I don't have the next book(s) picked out. I thought "Divine Conspiracy" would be the call, but the length might be an issue, at least in the summer. Maybe it's time to do another Lewis. It's been almost a year. Maybe a classic fiction like "Prince Caspian", or one of the space trilogy books? I don't know - I'm all ears (eyes? how do you "listen" with a computer?)

[Melodeon]

Anyway, my two cents. And here we are coming up on the end of June and I don't have the next book(s) picked out. I thought "Divine Conspiracy" would be the call, but the length might be an issue, at least in the summer. Maybe it's time to do another Lewis. It's been almost a year. Maybe a classic fiction like "Prince Caspian", or one of the space trilogy books? I don't know - I'm all ears (eyes? how do you "listen" with a computer?)

What about "Revolution of Character" (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Character-Discovering-Spiritual-Transformation/dp/1576838579) by Dallas Willard and Don Simpson? :D A Willard book, but not as long...

[Gandalf]

What about "Revolution of Character" (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Character-Discovering-Spiritual-Transformation/dp/1576838579) by Dallas Willard and Don Simpson? :D A Willard book, but not as long...
Or more accurately, a Simpson paraphrase of a Willard book (Renovation of the Heart (http://www.amazon.com/Renovation-Heart-Putting-Character-Christ/dp/1576832961/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-4937002-6396945)), but it still looks interesting, and might be short enough to finish in a month. :)
I thought "Divine Conspiracy" would be the call, but the length might be an issue, at least in the summer. Maybe it's time to do another Lewis. It's been almost a year. Maybe a classic fiction like "Prince Caspian", or one of the space trilogy books? I don't know - I'm all ears (eyes? how do you "listen" with a computer?)
If we were to do a space trilogy book, I think it'd pretty much have to be Out of the Silent Planet - I doubt enough people have read it to make the second or third book in the trilogy a good starting place. :)

I might also suggest The Great Divorce - Lewis' narrative journey through his concepts of both hell and heaven. It's an interesting read.

I love Divine Conspiracy and highly recommend it to anyone willing to take the time to read it. The length worries me a bit given the 1-month timeframe, but with the format here allowing discussion well past the "official month" in which the book is assigned (this thread is for the April book for example), maybe it's not as big a deal. Very few people will finish that book in a month...

[w8ing4daybreak]

You're welcome.

As for McLaren being more accessible to some people, there are two ways in which I believe this to be the case. First, Secret Message is very short by comparison: Divine Conspiracy is a 400 page book. Second, while Willard's writing style is very readable, and he doesn't write over people's heads as if he intended it only for theologians, Divine Conspiracy is so packed full of thought-provoking material that you have to take your time and really contemplate what you're reading rather than being able to skim it and get the point as you can with McLaren's narrative. The difference is much like the difference between a person telling a story (McLaren) and a person giving an in-depth teaching or sermon on a particular Bible topic (Willard).

So, I think that not as many people will give a 400 page book that's got a great deal of depth to it as much time as it'd take to read it; the short, narrative book McLaren puts out there will reach an audience that either wouldn't bother with or would be intimidated by Willard. I do think Willard includes a great deal more material that would hold the interest of a theologian, but he writes it for lay people, much as Lewis did in his time. I would recommend Divine Conspiracy to anyone who's willing to take the time to read it, but I recognize that many who won't might give Secret Message a chance, so I think it probably has a place despite its flaws.

As for Lewis' books about Christianity (as opposed to his novels), I'd start with Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain as classic examples of his apologetic writings. His writing style tends towards direct, easy to understand, logical explanations of what Christians believe and why. Mere Christianity started as a series of radio addresses on the BBC that aimed to explain to the British public what it is that nearly all Christians through history have believed (not focusing on disputes). The Problem of Pain deals with the question of if God is real and good, why do bad things happen? Other classics of his include The Great Divorce, The Abolition of Man, and The Screwtape Letters. The Pilgrim's Regress is sort of an autobiographical fiction about how Lewis made the journey from atheism to belief in Christianity, and is interesting if you like his other books. There are also a variety of books he released that are basically compilations of essays or sermons - among these, The Weight of Glory, God in the Dock, and Christian Reflections cover most of the topics he wrote about.

As for his fictions, he's best known for the famous children's series The Chronicles of Narnia, and also wrote a Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet/Perelandra/That Hideous Strength) and 'Til We Have Faces, probably his greatest masterpiece from a literary perspective, which is a retelling of the myth of Psyche. But I was mostly thinking of his nonfiction apologetics works when mentioning him in this thread. :)

Lewis' books are available individually, but there are also some good collective volumes available, for example The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0061208493/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4937002-6396945?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182388737&sr=8-1) for reasonable prices that include multiple books together, which might be easier than buying each book individually.
Brian, Thanks again. I work nights and do much of my reading when I'm trying to fall asleep, so I'm usually looking for something "light". I don't think I've ever read a 400 page book, except for Paul, a Novel, by Walter Wangerin.
I'm going to Creation with a few 13-14 year-old girls, so I want to find something at the public library today to bring along, just incase we have some "down time". (I've never been before, so I'm not sure if we'll have down time or not.) :)
I also appreciate the book suggestions, because I'm a librarian at my church, and am always looking for good books, that people will actually check out and read to add to the collection.

Edit: This afternoon I went to the library to look for/request some of the books you mentioned. I am waiting for them on interlibrary loan, but in the meantime, I picked up The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins, a book that I have seen recommended as a must-read from two different sources in the past week.

[jabob]

Brief descriptions of erroneous teachings mentioned above, as I mean the terms - again, McLaren does not go so far as to explicitly argue in favor of these positions, but makes statements that could easily be taken to imply acceptance of them to some extent:
[list=1] Gnosticism: an early church heresy rooted in the idea of “secret knowledge” that was revealed only to the elite; a key error was often that they saw an undue divide between the physical and spiritual, so engaged in hedonistic acts, but the name is derived from the Greek “gnosis” for “knowledge”, referring to a belief in secret, extra-Biblical revelation available only to a few - the latter is the sense in which I use the term, not implying that the hedonistic results of the former error are duplicated


Ah, the difference between the "secret" McLaren speaks of and gnosticism is that McLaren's is not revealed only to an elite. The secret is available to all who are willing to search for it. McLaren seems to conclude that the way we find these secrets is by spending more time with God through the teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is our choice to learn the secrets.

[cknell]

I'm a little behind. I started reading the book, noticed that it was time to renew the book (library), renewed for another month.

I can't recall what I have already read (old age starting to creep in). I'll need to start over. I might be able to catch up at some point.