Scot,
I spent 15 years in an extremely legalistic movement; there was little narrative but you are correct that Jesus was still quite prominent – more about how Jesus demands sold-out disciples who will take up their cross every day or else get spat out of his mouth for being lukewarm, but Jesus still featured.
Also have been part of an evangelical church where there was still little narrative but the picture viewed people who think God is demanding and who live in guilt; they just need to see that God is actually gracious and that their sins can be forgiven in Jesus’ atoning death. In that picture, everyone’s greatest need is to have their sins forgiven – that’s pretty much all that counts. Jesus’ death on the cross enables that.
I heard Brian speak last year in Brisbane; really liked the way he presented Colossians 1:15-20 as a controlling story – Jesus, not Caesar. But I had real trouble with him moving so quickly over “firstborn from among the dead” – if any narrative is going to be programmatic, surely it’s the story of the resurrection.
BTW, I found the narrative as outlined in “The Drama of Scripture” (Bartholomew and Goheen) to be particularly helpful. I created a set of small-group studies that pretty-much follow that narrative – pdf is here.

“until he stepped in out of grace and condescending love”
I regret that I haven’t yet read Brian’s book, but after re-reading your summary of Brian’s narrative and then the “conventional narrative” above, I have to say that I think the element of Brian’s critique is still there.
I can’t speak for Brian, of course, so I’ll speak for myself. In your narrative, I see the concept of the gulf between man and god initiated by sin/banning from the garden. It’s that distance that God (in His love, you emphasize) attempts to bridge, first unsuccessfully through the covenant with Israel, and then through Christ. God is liberating, redeeming… plucking those who he designed as his eikons out of [SOMETHING] across the gulf and into Himself.
The question is, what is that [SOMETHING]? Your narrative may be a fine representation of the story from God’s point of view, but how does it read to a person? [I'll try to manage a graphic here]
NOT GOD [[[Gulf of Sin]]] GOD
The “conventional narrative says I was born over to the left in NOT GOD land, I’m a foreigner here, and WHAT MY LIFE IS ABOUT is somehow bridging the GULF and getting into GOD land (where I belong). The good news is that Jesus is running a ferry service, and that even though it costs him A LOT to run it, he doesn’t charge a dime.
Again, I don’t know what Brian is looking for, but I’m looking for a narrative that offers a different answer to the question “what is my life about?”
What if we saw the Bible as story after story of people (including Jesus) who were born to do something? Sometimes it was something great, and sometimes it was sometime so humble that only God could have noticed it. If that was our narrative, we wouldn’t be asking ourselves “how do I get out of this mess I’m in?”, we’d be saying “Who can help me become who I’m supposed to be?” Then we would look to Jesus, not as a taxi service to change our location, but as #1 the exemplar of transformation and #2 (along with the HS) the means of it.

Scot, in reading the previous discussions re McLaren, it seems to me that almost all the contributors came to Christ through the Protestant evangelical narrative/plan of salvation you lay out.
What I find particularly disappointing is what seems to be a fair amount of resentment directed at this narrative and at those who passed it on to them, instead of gratitude and appreciation for the imperfect people in imperfect churches who cared for them and led them to Jesus. I understand that most of them would want to have what they believe described as you present it in your conventional narrative at the top of this post. But this wider narrative is not separate from the narrowily focused evangelical plan of salvation.
What McLaren proposes is a total repudiation of that which brought all of to Jesus. If somebody found McLaren helpful in the past or has devoted some energy to defending him previously, I understand wanting to give him a hearing or giving him the benefit of the doubt. But McLaren could not be more clear in what denounces. He does not want to people come to Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died and rose to save sinners from guilt and shame and judgment and isolation.

The signs of the time is disintegration. If examples are needed they could be given amply. The demand of the time is a system of reintegration. McLaren is attempting to give an answer to this demand.
Is Jesus Christ a divider or integrater? The answer is paradoxical. A quote from “Orthodoxy”(Chesterton)does apply.
“And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division… It is the instinct of Christianity to say “little children love one another”…This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God…We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodoxy this separation is sacred…All those vague theosophical minds for whom the unverse is an immense possible melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword.”

Hey Scot, can you tweet either of those?
I ask this tongue-in-cheek question because, as we’ve seen recently, the normative/conventional (neither of which inherently mean orthodox) narrative is not one of the robust options you’ve laid out here. In fact, I’m not sure I see much difference between what you said and what Rob Bell said to CT, and he got crucified by other believers for it, he just uses unconventional lingo.
The western church has been greatly influenced by the tradition that boils it all down to “You were separated from God by Adam’s sin (and your personal sin), Jesus died on a cross to bridge the gap, I accept and believe this proposition so that I can live at peace with God here and in heaven.” The gospel according to many sincere Christians today is 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and that’s it. The law and the prophets all hang on this proposition. If you believe it, you’re in. If you don’t, you’re out. And God help you if you add anything about Jesus’ life because that’s legalism and adding to the gospel.
Why are you so convinced that this is a straw man? It’s been reflected in the conversation for the last 50 years at least.

Scot,
Your summary is certainly within the framework the conventional plan of salvation, even if on the more balanced and more thorough end of the spectrum! Though I honestly don’t recall hearing much about accepting “his atoning resurrection as [my] resurrection.” The resurrection, in the plans of salvation I grew up hearing, didn’t have any of the logical force upon it at all. The role in the plan I remember being ascribed to it was that it proved that Jesus was divine. Alternatively, it was the part you had to “believe in your heart” along with confessing “Jesus is Lord” in order to follow that “plan of salvation” in Romans. But why one had to believe the resurrection specifically was something of a mystery. The logical, atoning mechanism of salvation in my tradition was all “finished” on Friday. (The lamb’s blood for passover, for instance, as with all sacrifices, didn’t need a resurrection of the sacrifice to “work” in terms of appeasing wrath.) In fact, the emphasis given to this function of the cross–appeasing wrath or judicial holiness–was strong enough to pretty much eclipse all other features of God’s plan, even other parts at work in the crucifixion itself.
I’m very interested, though, in the idea that you’re developing that “Conventional Christianity has not framed its message in terms of a narrative, but instead in terms of a ‘plan of salvation’.” I think this observation and the distinctions therein identify many of the issues at hand in this discussion, hopefully in a way that can benefit everyone. If it’s not jumping ahead, what do you see as the most significant implications of the difference?

T Scott [#4]: McLaren is attempting to give his own answer to the problem of disintegration but not the Christian one. Yes, he claims to be the true Christian but so do all the claimants throughout history.
Chesterton – the great champion of orthodoxy – cannot be employed to support McLaren. Chesterton spoke of the “furious opposites” and the paradoxical tensions that historic orthodoxy gives us – as in the quote you provide. As a Western pluralist, McLaren rejects the paradoxes of orthodoxy.
As a campus minister on staff with a church across the street from a 15000 student public university, I am immersed in an environment that desperately seeks to reintegrate that which is disintegrated – unity and diversity are the order of the day. My basic message to this community is that religious differences are not what divide us. We are already divided, and to say that all paths lead to God – or something similar – does not deal with the selfishness, dishonesty, greed, pride, lust, resentment, racism, anxiety, guilt, shame, hostility, isolation, etc., that divide us. I am divided even against and within myself. I am not integrated and neither are any of us.
What we need to unite us is truth and love. And they have come to us in the person of Jesus – his life, death, resurrection, ascension and pending return. He is the one who unites all those from every race, ethnicity, nation, culture and language, even as he unwaveringly commits himself against all that opposes his unifying and unique truth and love.

Scot, although I like the way you have laid it out I’ve never once heard it expressed like that in a church. You left out all the elements that have caused some people to walk away feeling that God is a monster and it are those elements that McLaren, probably, caricatured – and caricatured because they are based on the reality of what many people hear/say in churches.
I have no idea how you don’t see what Brian laid out as actually being communicated/learned in the pews – I would argue that it is more often put in a way similar to his caricature than it is put in a way similar to yours (and I don’t mean to assume yours is a caricature but it kind of seems like the other side of the coin from Brian’s by leaving out all of those angry/vengeful God elements).
I don’t say this to be snarky at all. I really wish I could understand how what Brian laid out is less “conventional” than what you have (and by conventional I mean commonly used)?

The reason the resurrection is important, is that the real problem of sin is that it brought death into the world. That is what Jesus came to over come. The first creed ever was the proclamation that “Christ is Risen!”. The true Christian hope is the resurrection of the dead and the eternal restoration of the bodily, material creation in the Trinity?s loving communion. It is all about God’s re-creation (redemption) of the new heavens and earth. The resurrection matters…. without it, be all stay dead in our graves.

Joey,
Conventional in the sense of commonly used? This is a real problem and maybe the root of some of our problems here. I grew up in the church, an evangelical church, fairly conservative, baptist, more reformed than not, but not fundamentalist. I never heard the angry God narrative in church – ever to my recollection and formation. I did pick up small pieces of it at times from other sources where it always puzzled me.
Conventional includes the broad swathe of Christian belief including RCC and EO as well as protestant belief. The caricature that Brian presents is not conventional – is not in the written thinking of many Christian scholars – and is not what many (perhaps most) people actually learned in the pews.
Arguing that we need a better presentation of the gospel better taught is a needed argument. Arguing against the outline of orthodox Christian belief in broad brush strokes is a very different thing.

RJS yes. But….
I grew up in a heterodox Christian sect that taught a lot of doctrines that were simply wrong – denying the deity of Christ, for instance. My family found their way to this sect because my mother, who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school growing up, had never heard of God as anything other than an angry monster who wanted to punish folks and the sect was a welcome alternative.
I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I don’t think Brian is addressing “written thinking of many Christian scholars” – I think he is addressing what ACTUAL people have ACTUALLY been taught/learned – too many. It may not have been your experience, and was not fully mine but as I work in full-time ministry I see people who HAVE been taught this regularly, particularly those +55 in my midst and it has trickled down to their children and grand children in many cases. If Brian is claiming that no thoughtful Christian scholars believe this then fine – he is probably wrong. But if he is claiming that too many Christians actually teach this and are taught this then maybe our ears should start burning a little to see what he has to say.

I’d love to hear answers to our question today.

Here is a bit of a starker statement of the “conventional gospel” from the Gospel Coalition, that might make Scot’s point a bit better about Brian’s version of it being a caricature:
The Gospel: We believe that the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ?God?s very wisdom. Utter folly to the world, even though it is the power of God to those who are being saved, this good news is christological, centering on the cross and resurrection: the gospel is not proclaimed if Christ is not proclaimed, and the authentic Christ has not been proclaimed if his death and resurrection are not central (the message is “Christ died for our sins . . . [and] was raised?). This good news is biblical (his death and resurrection are according to the Scriptures), theological and salvific (Christ died for our sins, to reconcile us to God), historical (if the saving events did not happen, our faith is worthless, we are still in our sins, and we are to be pitied more than all others), apostolic (the message was entrusted to and transmitted by the apostles, who were witnesses of these saving events), and intensely personal (where it is received, believed, and held firmly, individual persons are saved).
Note how Christo-centric it is. Also, I wonder how much of this apparent disconnect between Scot and his interlocutors who believe that Brian is not caricaturing the conventional gospel is caused by a rejection by some of the very concept of God’s wrath. God cannot be angry at us AT ALL, and as such any statement affirming his wrath against us, however well put, is worthy of being caricatured because it is already so odious.

Joey,
To say that this narrative is out there and is wrong – we need this desperately … because it is out there – in different places, in different ways.
To say that this is “the conventional gospel” and that as a result we need “a new kind of Christianity” – this strikes me as also wrong.

It’s ironic that your displeasure with Brian’s summation of “conventional” narrative has led you to provide your own equally idiosyncratic summary of the “conventional” narrative. Who has every heard of themselves or the human race described as eikons? That’s something you’ve coined but it doesn’t belong in the “conventional” explication of the plan of salvation. There is also the problem of what Jesus was doing between his sinless birth and sinbearing death that your recitation of the “conventional” narrative does not adequately address. Many Christian faith traditions (perhaps not squarely in the reformed stream) see the teaching of Jesus as foundational to an understanding of what inaugurated eschatology/life-in-the-already/not-yet-kingdom means. Here is where Hauerwas and to a lesser extent, Tom Wright, are very helpful. They are recovering the vocation of Christians in the time between faith and judgment.
So it seems like the problem is defining conventional narrative as the first step in critiquing Brian since it’ hard to nail down the exact contours of conventional narrative (especially as you seem to concede that Brian’s point about eternal punishment in a lake of fire is normative–Piper certainly believes and preaches this).
There is an edge to these posts and I’m wondering what’s really the bottom line here. Look forward to your next post.

The narrative in it’s most simple form is this:
Creation- God’s creation is GOOD and humankind is made in God’s image.
Fall- Humankind turned away from God and this breaking of communion brought death into the world.
Redemption- God did not abandon us, but came to us in love to restore the broken communion. Jesus is the restoration of perfect communion with God. His death is the perfect atoning sacrifice and his resurrection is the defeat of death.
New Creation- The scope of salvation is broad…. it is nothing less than God bringing his ENTIRE creation back into perfect communion with him. Our hope is in the resurrection… NOT HEAVEN. And we are to be agents of renewal in this world here and now.

RJS, thank you. That helps to clarify.
So is Brian, then, claiming that even the “conventional” narrative laid out by Scot could be boiled down to his caricature? Is that why he believes we need a different narrative?
Scot, I’d love to answer your question but I’m not sure how “conventional” is being used and I would submit that what you have laid out is just about what I would try to write anyway. Sorry for digressing.

How do you describe the “conventional” narrative of Christianity?
Now- A lot like what you posted Scot. I appreciate Colson’s distinction from the Q Conference between a 2-part story and 4-part story: it’s either fall then redemption or it’s creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.: http://www.blackcoffeereflections.com/chuck-colson-%E2%80%93-session-4-at-q/05/
I don’t think you’ll find much variation because the majority of the people on here have been wrestling with this for quite some time.
Growing up- the world is fallen and you’re in the hands of an angry God. Believe the things we say about Jesus, be nice, and trust that when you die you’ll go to heaven and it will all be better. His resurrection is the proof that he is who he says he is and that he will come again and physically and violently take vengeance upon his enemies with a sword then resurrect everyone to either eternal judgment or eternal elevator music. Everything I needed to know about the plan I learned from tracts and the Left Behind series.
And again, can you tweet it Scot? That was a popular litmus test not too long ago.

Where does the Holy Spirit fit into these narratives?

Scot, the conventional narrative of the Gospel I have heard all my life parallels what you have detailed. However, most presentations in my neck of the woods heavily emphasize two things which, in my opinion, are both unbiblical and are at the root of McLaren?s reaction. First, they editorialize heavily about the fate of the unsaved, as in the ?Heaven?s Gates, Hell?s Flames? dramas that are put on in many communities here in Texas in the Halloween season. And second they emphasize a decisional response to the Gospel message that puts far too much weight upon a moment?s response, with the repeating of a provided prayer said to provide salvation.

RJS #14: Well said.

@ 20 Jayflm
Thank you for putting it that way. I think that bridges much of the gap and divide in this conversation regarding “conventional.” In theory, the narrative is orthodox and biblical and solid. But in practice, many have been putting the wrong em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. Great line, horrible movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BlUF9oZWfY

Well, I’d say the “Conventional Narrative” in my experience was this:
God is Love and God is perfect (holy). He made humanity with high hopes but knowing man was going to make mistakes and sin. Any sin, no matter how small, is enough to separate us from God forever because of his perfect holiness. His perfection means that he cannot tolerate any sin, but his love means he will provide a sacrifice for it. Any sin, from God’s standpoint, deserves eternal death.
When Man did sin, Man was separated from God with the judgment of permanent death waiting, and sin became a permanent part of mankind’s inner being. No one is capable of not sinning. But God promised to somehow provide a sacrifice for all of our sin so that Man wouldn’t have to pay the eternal penalty for his sin.
God made Israel and gave them his law to further show how hopeless it is for people to please God. Their failures in this and God’s judgments on them reveal this impossibility.
Finally, at just the right time, God sent Jesus into the world. Jesus further showed, even more than the mosaic law did, how utterly sinful we all were, how impossible it is for us to fulfill the spirit of God’s law (see SoM), and how badly we needed a savior to save us from the penalty of our sin. As God, he never sinned or made any mistakes and therefore he was qualified to take our punishment for us. He died for our sin as God planned from the beginning, satisfied God’s wrath, so that anyone who trusts that sacrifice will not suffer the penalty of eternal death, but will get to live forever with God. Jesus rose from the dead three days after dying to prove he was God as well as man.
Until we die and go to heaven, we are still largely subject to sin, but not as severely, and now our task, in gratitude for what God has done for us, is to love him and love others. The highest and most important form of love we can give to God or others is to tell people how to trust in the atonement Jesus has accomplished for them so that they too can avoid eternal punishment and go to heaven when they die, where we will be with God forever.

Almost forgot:
The world, and likely very soon, but no one knows exactly when, be totally destroyed and everyone who has believed in Christ’s sacrifice will go to heaven forever with no pain or sin, but everyone that hasn’t heard and believed will be sent to hell forever.
(That’s the end of the narrative.)

Brian’s characterization of the conventional 6-line narrative is rooted in what johnfouadhanna (3) outlines above: “McLaren could not be more clear in what denounces. He does not want to people come to Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died and rose to save sinners from guilt and shame and judgment and isolation.”
From what Brian has written in his book, this is crystal clear. He denies original sin; for Brian Jesus is not God Himself but merely ?the highest, deepest, and most mature view of the CHARACTER of God;? he does not affirm judgment; and he denies that history is moving toward an end point, at which Jesus Christ himself will separate saved from unsaved.
Though he isn’t as explicit as someone like Samir Selmanovic (ITS REALLY ALL ABOUT GOD), it is clear to me and plenty of others that Brian is a pluralisitc universalist who does not affirm that Jesus Christ is exclusive Lord and Messiah. To me, this is clear from the following quotations:
He audaciously asserts that Jesus came to announce a kingdom to all people of every religion, a kingdom that has ?room for many religious traditions within it.? (139) Where does the Holy Scriptures affirm this? So Jesus affirms that the Kingdom of Heaven is open to those who place their faith in Muhammad and his teachings?
Without giving any sources, Brian clams that Paul, in his discussion on Adam, implies ?Our diverse religious systems?have many points of departure that separate us, but if we follow any path back to its source to the genesis of our common humanity, we come to the creation story of Adam, where we are united. After unifying us in the story of our common ancestor Adam, Paul presents Jesus as a new Adam, a second Adam, the last Adam?Adam brought death and condemnation to all humanity; Jesus now brings life and justification to all humanity. So we?re all part of the story of the original Adam, and now, of the new Adam, Jesus.?
Look at what Samir wrote in his book, a book that Brian enthusiastically endorsed: “Many Christians believe that the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is inseparable from knowing the person of Jesus. If so, the question begs to be asked: Is the Kingdom of God present in all of life, among all people, throughout history, or is the Kingdom of God limited to the historical person of Jesus and thus absent from most of life, most people, and most history? The answer to this question depends greatly on whether Christians are willing to make their religion take a backseat to something larger than itself.” (It?s Really All About God. 76-77)
Like Samir, Brian believes that God is revealed to the world outside of Jesus Christ and that the gospel itself is more than Jesus. In closing the Jesus question, Brian claims that ?Paul is a ?Jesus and the Kingdom of God? guy from first to last.? Here Brian is preaching the Kingdom of God along side Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ alone. There is a massive difference between the Kingdom of God and Jesus vs. the Kingdom of God through Jesus.
It seems clear enough that Brian’s ideas and writings are no where near orthodox. I really don’t see how they are even Christian. Brian neither affirms the deity of Jesus nor the exclusivity of Jesus and faith in him alone as THE way through which humanity is forgiven, saved, rescued, redeemed, and reconciled to God. This is a problem, one to which Brian needs to answer.

Scot I think your conventional narrative is pretty close.
I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene and joined Presbyterian Church USA (Mainline reformed Christianity) as a young adult. With Nazarenes the message was about God’s amazing love for us and answering his call to live a holy life as we call others into this life. Key to that life are things like daily devotions, prayer, and acts of service to others. Yes, there were instances of overt legalism and being judgmental. And, yes, I felt it was incomplete in its understanding of holiness … sometimes getting into obsessive debates about who is in and who is out. But the central thrust of the narrative was Jesus and holiness.
In my Mainline reformed experience I learned of the three G’s: guilt, grace, gratitude. Grace through Christ is what covers the guilt we each experience. And it is gratitude for that grace that sends out as evangelists to invite others into a relationship with Christ. It is also the realization that we have been brought into a covenant relationship with God through Christ and that covenant places demands on our lives and behavior emanating from a relationship with God.
What I find aggravating about McLaren and McLarenites isn’t just caricature. It is a type of ethnocentrism. McLaren had a particular experience of the church with which many of his followers identify. Fine. Let’s deal with those excesses for what they are. But this grandiose notion that somehow these experiences are normative or conventional for the entire church is just ludicrous! It marginalizes the experiences of others. It is insulting.

Sue (19), Yes. To use a prior Scot-ism, it’s not that this narrative isn’t true (which Brian M. may dispute), it’s that it’s not true enough, which most of us would readily and cheerfully acknowledge.

If Brian’s Soul Sort narrative isn’t indicative of mainstream Christianity because of its lack of Jesus, then so is yours due to its lack of Hell. Pretending Christianity is all carrot and no stick is a lie on its face, even if just a lie of ommission.
Frankly, I thought it was an act of appalling arrogance to declare you knew more about people’s religious upbringing than they themselves did, in dismissing direct reports from people raised in Soul sort paradigms. That your “evidence” consists of these self-serving semantic exercises is unsurprising.

I’m still really surprised by how much of this conversation revolves around spin. In other words, I’m surprised that Scot (and others) think their own framing of the story is so fundamentally different than the one Brian describes in ANKOC. As the saying goes, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but…” In other words, as Brian makes reference to in the book, we can polish, speak in hushed tones, tidy away, sweep under the carpet, etc, various aspects of the story, but those *elements* are still there in some form or another. So, for Scot (and others) to make the issue all about whether or not people have heard the narrative *exactly* as Brian describes in the book is, to me, besides the point. They’ve heard a close enough approximation of that story to make the point stand. And while some of us, within the camp, have rationalized this all to ourselves, because we’ve heard the spin for most of our lives, to a person on the outside it still sounds troubling – containing clear elements of what is perceived as ancient tribal, us vs. them religion.

Conventional Christian narrative: We suck, but if we agree with God that we suck, he’ll take out all his anger on Jesus and pretend we don’t.
Scot, I was particularly struck by this line in your narrative: “God, out of an explosion of love and desire to expand, created the world and made humans his Eikons.”
I don’t think I ever heard (or remembered/absorbed, which I realize is different) anything like that. I was never sure what the point of existence was, from God’s perspective. From our perspective the whole point was to make sure you were IN, and not OUT.
Brian may be over-emphasizing his own experience (which is shared by many of us), but I fail to see how Scot is doing anything different in this series. RJS has pointed out the problems with terms like “conventional”. I recognize and resonate with Scot’s conventional narrative now

posted to early. I recognize and resonate with Scot’s conventional narrative now, but I certainly wouldn’t have in the past.

I will strive to be more eloquent in this response than in some of my past posts.
I think Scot?s post is a mishmash of the following.
Communication versus Talking – As has been mentioned previously, there is a difference between what is said in the context of Church and what is communicated in the context of Church. I think it is obvious by now that many, unequivocally, were communicated the six line narrative despite whatever was talked about.
Describe versus Define ? You ask for people to describe the narrative, and I contend that you then attempt to define it. Those are two different things. People will describe the 6LN in many cases as the narrative. Defining the narrative is an academic discussion.
Practice vs. Theory ? This conversation is theoretical. I don?t mind it being theoretical, but I think you should make the statement that we are going to talk about THEORY and not REALITY if that is all you are going to consider.
Science vs. Engineering ? You are engaging in the science of Christianity not the engineering (application) of that science.
Scot,
Which of these are you talking about?
1. It seems you want to talk about a definition of Christian theory without applying it.
Or,
2. Do you want to communicate a description of the Christian practice applied to people in the real world.
And JEREMY – Would you please give it up!
Dave

OK ? My answer to the Conventional Christian Narrative. This is a combination of RCC, SBC, Emerging and Relationship with people. This is not my current view.
God was lonely so he created everything.
God was not satisfied with the everything so he created something in his image, mankind.
Mankind demonstrated that she would not listen to God so God punished mankind by no longer helping and taking care of mankind.
There was a group of people who seemed to have potential to actually have a good relationship with God, so he promised that he would actually help them again.
God gave them rules to live by and set up the deal that if they broke the rules he would punish them.
The people did not realize that God is actually doing this out of love for them (a tough love approach). So there is a micro and macro cycle of transgression, punishment, reacceptance.
God gave up on people again and decided he will do the really big punishment just once to someone who is perfect so that he will not have to actively punish them anymore.
He sent his son and he taught about what it means to live the way God really wants us to live.
God kills him via mankind to satisfy his obligation to punish people for sinning and now he does not have to do that every time people sin.
Jesus also taught that you have to believe this to be saved. If you don?t you will be tormented in hell forever.
Some day, Jesus will come again, this time as a judge to condem whoever got left out and also save some of the really wierd people who don’t sin.
That?s the narrative I have known up until the past few years. I was raised RCC and left because I did not like the story. I shopped for a church or religion for about 15 years before pretty much accepting the Buddhism is the only religion that makes sense to me. I slowly got involved in emerging, and now find there is something other than Buddhism that I can actually agree with?
Dave

To answer your question Scot,
If I were to describe what the ‘conventional’ Christian narrative is today, I would say two things…
First:
I would say something very close to what you have said above… I love that you describe (& have written about) ‘Icons’ of God, and God creating out of love, and our purpose as His Icons… cracked and restored.
I’d also put it in the context of the brokenness and renewal of all creation… as well as following Christ as the opportunity to join God’s Kingdom story/mission of reconciliation.
BUT, as others have said… this is ‘conventional’ in the sense that this resonates with historic Christian thought, creeds, etc… But this is NOT conventional in the sense that, ‘this is what is commonly taught, spoken of, and lived out there today.’
So, secondly:
I would mention that, though there are many places where you can find statements and writings that affirm the positive narrative, when you talk to people on the ground in conservative evangelical circles (not scholars, but lay people and even some leaders/pastors), what is commonly said is not a narrative but a ‘plan’ or ‘formula…’ and the narrative that comes out of that looks much different than you describe Scot, and much more open to the critique of Brian.

From my standpoint, the “conventional” narrative. (My standpoint is raised baptist, usually Armenian leaning, conservative, fundamentalist, but not extreme on any of these points, though dancing would most probably send a person to Hell.)
1.) God created all that exists as perfect.
2.) Humans were the pinnacle of that creation, and were placed in a paradise.
3.) Humans did not obey God, and sinned in that paradise.
4.) This sin “broke” creation in the sense that God’s intended perfection was no longer available to anyone, including humans. Death, disease, thistles, pain in childbirth, hard labor, and animosity are just some of the results of this “break”.
5.) God’s wrath against all sinful and broken things was tempered by his mercy (not love!), and He attempted to provide a path back to perfection, which could only be realized after death. At times the mercy ran out (the Flood, destruction of the Canaanites, the exile, and the eschatological judgment).
6.) Jesus’ coming served two purposes – the first to show that God actually cared for the lost and broken, the second to provide a “bridge” from Jesus to God.
7.) This bridge can be taken by praying the “sinners prayer” or following the “Roman Road”, and following the commands that Jesus laid out.
8.) Then, when you die, you will go to Heaven (i.e., paradise), otherwise, you will go to Hell because God cannot stand sinners.
Couple of comments about my “conventional” narrative. First, the influence of great theology professors like LeRon Shults have led me away from this “soul sort” view of the narrative. Second, while visiting the church of my childhood over Easter, the pastor’s focus was “Easter means that even though life may be bad now, Jesus’ resurrection means that the best is yet to come after you die.” On the drive home, when I asked my family how one should have hope for a literal tomorrow based on the pastor’s sermon, I was asked, “What point there is in having hope for another day in this *flesh*?”
In any case, I’m on the fence between McLaren and McKnight. I believe the traditional USAmerican narrative is very much like McLaren’s. I also agree with McKnight in that the historical narrative is much more robust; in my limited reading (I have an M.Div), I don’t see McLaren’s narrative in toto reflected in widely respected theologians, either modern or ancient.

A number of years ago I hung out in a church that emphasized that there was a part of faith that was ?taught? and a part that was ?caught.? What was ?caught? could either reinforce what was taught, or completely undermine it.
For example, I was taught that giving to the church was a generous act of worship stemming from our gratitude. I caught from my dad?s attitude that it was a burdensome duty.
I was taught that God had the power to heal. But when we prayed for healing in God?s name ?if it be Thy will,? I caught the unspoken addition, ?which it probably isn?t.?
I was taught that men and women were equal in God?s eyes. I caught that God viewed women as decidedly inferior to men.
I believe Brian is talking about a ?caught? narrative, which indeed you will not find ?taught? in any reputable seminary, denomination, congregation, or Bible study.
For Brian to label this caught narrative as ?conventional? Christianity is unhelpful.
But it sounds as though for a lot of people, that caught narrative is the real one they have to deal with.

Let’s clear some of the mud of the waters:
1. The 6LN is not the issue. Yes, many “on the ground” may have heard something like McLaren’s pathetic caricature. We can all agree on that.
2. Some does not equal all. McLaren, as Michael Kruse points out, argues from the few to the many and makes the outrageous claim in ANKoC that his version of the 6LN is what WE’VE ALL received and that it began by adopting the Zeus god imagery. (Who in Jesus Creed circles has EVER that until Brian’s book?) His version is sheer insanity to even posit. Scot’s rendition of the 6LN is more in line with what we’ve heard (as he admits in its varied and even twisted forms). By the way, snarky ones, McKnight’s ‘eikon’ term simply means “image of God.”
Because a few have been handed a pathetic Christian fundamentalist vision of the 6LN is no cause for McLaren to create his own philosophically- and social studies-based and undeniably Christ-the-Divider-avoiding postmodern Chick Tract version of the faith.

God spoke Creation into existence, and it was good.
Human beings are incomplete
without God
without one another
The primal couple wanted to “be gods” (in control) rather than “be God’s” (in risky, trusting relationship with God)
The arrogance of “being god” led to…
murder
cycle of never ending violence and retaliation (Lamech)
chaos (including strange sexual intercourse between angels/women)
out of control “sin/evil cancer” leading to…
Chemotherapy known as the Flood
The “sin/evil cancer” returned with a vengeance
The Creator called Abraham/Sarah to be instrument of healing for the nations
The Abraham/Sarah family turned out be more of the “problem” rather than the “solution”
Nevertheless, despite their “dysfunctional” family dynamics, this family-turning-into-Israel did bring healing, wholeness, and grace to Egypt.
Tragically, Israel was enslaved.
Yet God rescued the people from Egypt to be the Manna People. In the wilderness, they learned to gather and to share God’s gifts so that everyone had their daily bread. Further, the people celebrated Sabbath as a rejection of the Pharaoh/domination system. God’s established a covenant with them, first rescuing them, THEN asking them to respond by being a demonstration priestly community, modeling love to the world
Unfortunately, when they entered the Promised Land, they failed.
During the time of the Judges, they failed.
During the time of the united kingdom, they failed.
During the time of the divided kingdom, they failed.
The Lord couldn’t take the hint, continuing to send the prophets to direct the people to follow the Manna community Way. Wise teachers also taught the people to follow the practical Way where it is better to live in an impoverished house with love, then to feast in a house of riches served with a huge helping of hatred.
Time and time again, the people lived
the “serve us” versus “service”
the “just us” versus the “justice”
the “be gods” versus the “be God’s” lifestyle.
In excruciating detail, the biblical story (which is NOT a 6 point narrative) demonstrated the individual, family, tribal, national, international, planetary, cosmic cancer infection of sin/evil.
Finally, God’s people were reduced to One.
Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the son of David
Yet the David who did not murder the blind and lame of Jerusalem, but healed the blind and lame of Jerusalem
Jesus, the people of God reduced to One, lived the story God’s people were meant to live…
“Manna” over against “hoarding”
“Sabbath as gift liberating slaves” over against “Sabbath turned into slavery”
“Forgiveness” over against “violent retaliation”
“the damned claimed as beloved” over against “the pure dictating who was to be damned”
from birth to baptism to ministry to death to resurrection Jesus lived the “be God’s story” instead of the “be gods story”
The cross was the stunning defeat of sin, death, the devil, the demonic. Jesus defeated them and was victorious over them by going through them. What I find stunning is that the community Jesus formed betrayed, denied, and abandoned him. Yet after the resurrection he forgave, claimed, and called them. He called them to embody His love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and kingdom in the world.
Of course, this Body has also failed again and again. We still like to sort people into “us” and “them,” “saved” and “damned,” “heaven” and “hell”. And when you can theologically “damn” people you can also “bomb” or “terrorize” them (see Al Qaeda theology in Muslim, Jewish, AND CHRISTIAN forms).
So now we are waiting for the new heaven and the new earth to come down. We pray in the Lord’s Prayer for the Manna way and the Forgiveness Way to prevail, God’s will being done on earth as in heaven.
In one sense, the above offering is the “conventional” biblical story. In another sense, it isn’t because I am uncomfortable with the 6-point narrative with its non-material, other worldly focus. Actually, my lengthy post is my way of saying that to reduce the Bible to the 6-point convention is ridiculous. And, to add, I am a McLaren sympathizer (although of course I don’t always agree with him) because he aims to lift up the Bible’s bigger story.

Tim #38,
You, McLaren and some others are the only ones who think McLaren gives us “the Bible’s bigger story.” IMO it’s not only a pathetic reduction of the Bible’s Grand Story, it is sadly resistant to the Bible’s Grand Story.

Tim @ 38,
I like your outline very much.
John @ 39,
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but can we at least agree that McLaren is trying to tell the Bible’s Grand Story?

Travis (#40),
I would love to agree you about McLaren’s attempt, but I can’t. I think McLaren is actually subverting the Bible’s Grand Story. Sorry, and, yes, this is my entitled opinion.

John W Frye,
I feel like you slapped me in the face! Because you suggest that I think “I am the only one who thinks about God’s bigger story.” You know what is in my heart? You know what I have read? You are God? In fact, there are many authors writing about the Big Story that I appreciate…
Scot McKnight
Daniel Erlander
Bernard Andersen
Walter Brueggemann
Walter Wink
Martin Luther
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Richard Rohr
N.T. Wright
Walter Wangerin, Jr.
(and apparently you don’t like him, Brian McLaren)
Writing this, I see I weakness that I have not read any female authors.
May grace continually find you
Tim

Tim #42,
What you feel and what I wrote don’t seem to correlate at all. You wrote that McLaren “aims to lift up the Bible’s bigger story.” I made no comment about what is in *your* heart about God’s bigger story. I simply disagreed with your assessment of McLaren. I am sorry you took my comment so harshly. It was not about you and your Story, but about McLaren and his unsubstantiated narrative which you, apparently, as a self-confessed McLaren sympathizer feel more positive about than I do.
By the way, your harsh comment in response to me is a double-edged sword, my friend.

John,
As I took your comment harshly and my doing so is a double-edged sword, then the fault is all mine. I trust Christ to stop the bleeding caused by this sword.
Tim

So here I am again, trying to understand why Brian’s conventional narrative has anything to do with the narrative of the Christianity of the West. Brian’s conventional narrative elides Jesus Christ entirely and pretends that Christians teach that God is a capricious, arbitrary God like Zeus. Did any Christian grow up in a church environment where Jesus was not even mentioned?
Forget the soul sort and the six elements as they are red herrings. Those elements are in the conventional narrative of Western Christianity as most all agree. It is what Brian excludes from the narrative, namely Jesus Christ and the love and grace of God that makes all the difference, Reductionistic presentations of the gospel are sad and bad, but they do not elide Christ altogether nor do they deny or omit the love and grace of God outright.
That is why Brian cannot document in any respect his extreme caricature and that is why his defenders change the subject from what Scot has said is missing from the narrative to the six elements or the soul sort–because they have not experienced the exact caricature either. Awful teaching on God and gospel yes, but not exactly what Brian is saying. To agree with Brian that our teaching and preaching should improve is a far cry from saying his conventional narrative is accurate. For his conventional narrative excludes Jesus Christ and that is simply what makes Christianity Christian. And the people who say that they experienced poor Christian narratives are surely correct. But no commentator has said that their narrative excluded Christ or the love and grace of God entirely. Even the hardcore, legalistic, fundamentalistic extremes say that God loves and that a cross was borne to save those who believe. And the largest Western church has as its chief symbol a crucifix–hard to avoid the sacrificial gift of Christ there.
Maybe I missed it, but where is that in Brian’s conventional narrative of the Christian West? Until we can get there it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Brian’s caricature only illuminates if we don’t take it too seriously.

Yes, the conventional Christian story includes Jesus as central and names God’s love as central. The story says that right thinking, right believing, right doctrine, right attitude, right whatever towards Jesus determines where the soul sorts to… as I have experienced the conventional Christian story. There is much to be affirmed in this conventional story, most of all the centrality of Christ.
In my reading of the Bible’s Big Story, in fact, I read of only one Hero in the entire Bible. Jesus. Period. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Jephthah, not David, not Solomon, not Tamar, not Rahab, not Bathsheba, not even Mary. Jesus is the only Hero. Of course, there are sinners turned into saints, based on what they receive from God, but do not achieve for God.
Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He liberates from cosmic, planetary, international, national, state, tribal, neighborhood, family, and personal sin in all its dimensions. His Way and His liberation is needed right now as human beings are living beyond the carrying capacity of the earth. Humanity right now is truly possessed. Lord, save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil. Amen.

How to tell if you believe in “soul sort”…
Do you read the comments posted here and find yourself assigning people who disagree with you to the Other Place?

Just got back from a funeral yesterday where the pastor laid out as close to the 6LN as I’ve ever heard. Paraphrasing his 15 minutes of prattle:
1) we all experience death because the world is messed up
2) because of Good Friday we know Jesus is preparing a place for us
3) we’re all gonna die, we need to live like we are dying
4) the hope is that when we die we go to heaven.
5) no other mention of Jesus (or judgment/hell for that matter)
Yep, Brian just made it all up and it doesn’t exist because this guy said the word “Jesus.”
I was there with about 20 congregation members and 4-5 came up afterward and pointed out that he didn’t share any of the good news like what Scot had pointed out (I’ve been working hard to help them catch the historic grand narrative of Scripture).

Correct me if I am wrong, but has not the conventional Christian narrative always been:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father?s only son, full of grace and truth.
(John testified to him and cried out, ?This was he of whom I said, ?He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.??) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father?s heart, who has made him known.”
The narrative of creation can never ever ever ever be separated from the narrative of incarnation. I think Brian is quite clumsy in the manner he says things but my sense is that he believes any narrative that does not begin with the love of God is not God’s narrative.

Scott and all,
Interesting and important discussion! Thanks. My brief weigh-in as to how ?conventional? is either Brian?s or Scott?s description of the Christian narrative: I was raised in a small ?Bible believing? Evangelical church, non-denominational; all my years to age 18 there were under a Brethren-trained pastor, quite dispensational. So I recall getting a good bit of the larger narrative, from Genesis and Fall, through Israel, Christ as central, etc.
Then attending interdenominational Christian college (Biola) and seminary, into ministry and apologetics, etc., I?d say I got more of the broader narrative than I typically heard just in churches. I eventually studied Covenant theology as well. But the matter of which is more conventional is minor nuance to me now. Overall, the posts seem to confirm that the focus of Evangelical teaching/preaching is sharpest on personal salvation via the ?saving work of Christ.? But note: even when the ?angry, punishing? God aspect is mostly unstated, and love/grace emphasized, the former is clearly implied, and always in at least the back of one?s mind.
So within the orthodox narrative (nuances aside, and including RCC and EO), a key, core question is, ?Does God indeed reveal and teach us that there IS a state of eternal punishment?? And that it is avoided only by right-belief (faith, via orthodoxy) or right-living (orthopraxy), or some combination? (None of the three ever, EVER able to be delineated in any clear and convincing way that I?ve found, now looking back, though I had ?simple faith? and strong devotion that satisfied me until about age 45, 15 years ago.)
My understanding of biblical teaching (based on many years of formal academic Bible/theology study, and personal study?even during my current ?apostate? period) is that at least Paul and other NT authors, if not Jesus himself, make clear the reality and danger of eternal perdition. Now, that holds no sense of threat to me, though I clearly no longer have the ?proper? faith. I.e., I don?t buy it anymore, and for some very deeply researched and thought-through reasons I can?t go into here?but nothing to do with disillusionment with God/Christians, wanting to be immoral, deception by Satan, etc.
The trouble with BOTH the McLaren-described narrative and the McKnight-described one (the latter taken as representing orthodoxy well) is the unexamined (or under-examined) assumptions about the starting point and scope of the narrative. To boil a lot way, way down: Starting with the ancient Hebrews and building on their narrative (modified frequently through the pre-Christian centuries, btw), and really only theirs, though it does have some ?inclusive? or world-wide aspects, is flawed on a number of counts. I?ll take space for just one of them, the recency problem.
I have good, multiple lines of evidence for this expectation, related to the extreme antiquity of humanity and of potentially related very ancient civilization(s) here and elsewhere: Adjustments in the implications of the conventional narrative about to be required will be massive. The narrative will suddenly be seen in a much narrower setting than is our true cosmic history (and thus inadequate and misguiding). I don?t think it will be more than weeks to months, or perhaps a couple years at most, until incontrovertible evidence will be widely revealed to almost literally ?blow our minds,? Christians and non-Christians alike.
Sufficient evidence exists already, publicly ?findable,? but is too seemingly extreme and controversial to be taken seriously by most, and to ?go viral,? so far. This relates to both the ?establishment? scientific community and the religious ones. But that is about to change, I?m convinced.
New, more accepted ?authorities? are about to give a big boost. The main opening of the door to a MAJOR and rapid paradigm shift may well come, and soon, via revelations by the European Space Agency and/or NASA and/or our administration (presidential level?) that Phobos, the small, non-spherical (roughly 15 mile diameter) ?moon? of Mars is actually an ancient artificial ?space station? or satellite. This may well open the doors to further revelations and study of ancient, extensive ruins on Mars itself, on OUR moon, etc.
But civilizations of the period of at least a couple hundred thousand years, or much more, are also well documented (but little heard about) here on earth. Thus, if God were revealing ?himself? to humanity only in the last 3500 to 4000 years or so, and happened to leave out the million-year plus (minimum) prior history of ?his? creation and presumed care for ?his? creatures, that is a strange kind of revelation indeed, confusing to say the least. Especially given that it reads as though the recent millennia are IT. (I should add that my understanding is that ?revealed? Scripture can indeed be adequately explained and understood as a human record of speculation about and interaction with our original ?Source,? or Creator, and human interpretation of that interaction.)
Respectfully,
Howard Pepper

I believe Christs purpose was too simple for us to want to accept. He indeed was the Son of God, for He brought with Him, the new Life that would be the core of the human soul. His being, fufilled the Law of Moses and sealed that understanding,(fulfiled) into the consciousness of the past. Jesus’ consciousness came into being as virginal. Above the consciousness of the God of Old. With a new way (covernant)for men to be. His consciousness understood mans survival nature, but paved a New Way, for man to now live with and through the Grace of God. His purpose was to forgive all of mans selfish nature, and to show them the SELFHOOD of God. Which was the complete opposite mindset of man. He showed them what was above their survival nature. He through His example showed man, that they could rise above all pain and suffering by giving all love to God. And that even death, when one see’s only Gods truth, can be seen and overcome.
The problem I see today, is that few people believe in the Resurrected Christ. Too much energy is given to debate, more than practice. Christs mission was for the development of a New Man. A man who could love His neighbor as Himself, as if they were indeed one. And with that understanding to treat each man with the honor and respect we would give to, or at least want for ourselves.
When He died He cleansed us of our sins. So truly, no one here on earth, who whole heartedly believes in Christ,should beleive they are sinners, He washed that away with His blood. No one here on earth, should fear anything,for He paved the Way from fear to Love. And if we wish to place fear in its proper context, then it should be, that we should be more aware,of not doing enough in our daily lives to focus on God. Christs’ consciousness lives. All men have the ability to come to that place of the Living God. What needs to die, is mans lower nature. Mans need to direct the lives of others, rather than place his complete focus, on his own. What the Bible tells us is, that there was a time when mans understanding of God was in line with his understanding of himself. That the consciousness of man,seeks to understand the consciousness of something greater than themselves, and that that is the spiritual quest of the enlightened man. Christ’s life and His consciousness made that place for us. For us to fufill our place in this world and the next, we need to develop in character. We need to be Christ-like in our being. We need His Truth and Love to be our Master, and the Goodness of GOD to Light our Way.

The most important perspective is not ours but God’s. Christians today need to be in prayer more than ever before. People have always needed God–we were created to need Him–but never more so than now.

The problem with appealing to one’s own experience in the church is that nobody else can speak to that experience. If someone says their experience is as McLaren describes, then what can we say in response? My experience is closer to what Scot describes. It’s not as though most of the people doing the reporting are disinterested observers.
But, if what McLaren describes is conventional, we should see it in written texts. We should hear it taught in seminaries. We should see it in church statements of faith, and in online sermons. And not just once or twice. Such rhetoric should reflect at least a plurality of Christian evangelical churches.
If you examine the largest churches in America, and read the most influential authors, the narrative is as Scot describes it. At best, you could argue that McLaren’s narrative is a flippant and self-servingly incomplete version of Scot’s. That’s hardly a way to begin a discussion, though it is a way to advance polemic, which, I think, it was McLaren has in mind.
Christianity needs less polemic, fewer agendas (political and social), and more good faith debate. That’s what appealed to me about McLaren’s early work. Alas, he has moved from questioning assumptions to bringing more of them to the table.

Scot, you seem so intent on finishing your three-part essay that you haven’t really heard a word here. And you’re missing a much larger point in trying to win the philosophical argument.
You keep beating McLaren (and your readers) over the head: “Show me just one reputable thinker/preacher/writer who espouses the soul-sorting narrative. Just one!”
McLaren’s point, made heartbreaklingly clear in these comment threads, is that the *net effect* of Western Christian teaching is that many have come to believe in this Theos monster God. Christ and Love and Grace and Mercy and drowned out by Depravity and Election and Damnation and God’s Good Pleasure at it all.
You’re fixating on the tree’s trunk… why not pause to look at its fruit?

Jim,
Thanks for this. I’ve been reading every comment and registering thoughts, but have’t said much. After you see my post tomorrow, including the last couple of paragraphs, you might see why I have written what I have.
But let me say this: how does one measure “net effect”? Don’t forget that millions believe in Christianity; millions worship in churches that advocate a “conventional gospel” (which includes a combination of grace and holiness and salvation and judgment); millions are inspired to new lives through it. So, I’m not convinced by a “net effect” argument that doesn’t have some numbers. Having said that …
I’m deeply concerned about the fruit of the gospel that is being preached; I’ve been working on “gospel” for a decade; I’ve criticized much of traditional gospeling; I sense that the “fruit” does emerge from the trunk; but I don’t see the trunk that Brian describes as “conventional.”
I will continue to press a connection between reputable stuff and the word “conventional.” Tomorrow I hope to show another point, Wednesday you will see an alternative voice in these matters on this blog, and I hope the net effect is more clarity.

I’m new to the discussion but have been reading with interest. Where do we get the idea that Adam’s and Eve’s “rebellion” forever placed a sin stain on humanity that separates mankind from God? I know that New Testament writers depict the idea that all human beings are born “into sin” and that if left in that state our souls will go to Hell when they die. But where did that idea come from?

In all of this discussion I find it most facinating that we think reading the bible in the most literal way does it the most justice because it shows our reverence (or the most reverence) for the Bible – which makes it the only right way to read it.
We tend to want to take a lot of what the bible says (especially those parts which can’t be historically or scientifically validated) at face value, out of our desire to revere (or fear?) God. The motivation is thus very good. Reading the bible this way, however, leaves the door open for us to read into the Bible instead of letting the Bible read into us and pierce our own attitudes of the heart. It also leaves out a vast depth of Truth that dwells within the lines of the book – which comes to light when we approach the bible, thoughtfully, from the perspectives of literature.
Why are literal and legal hermeneutics the ONLY ways that Christians are allowed to show their reverence for the bible? I think that having revernece is good, but to limit that display of reverence to a particular hermeneutic presents a serious problem and shows a deep disconnnect with the biblical message, which is ultimately a narrative of freedom, mercy and grace in all contexts (including the context of reading scripture). When we choose to read the bible in a single dimensioned hermeneutic, we are choosing to not read the bible in a multi-layered, rhobust hermeneutic of the Spirit of God moving within us.
That aside, if we spend all of our time patrolling our hermeneutical borders, what time will we have left for doing the work of the Father? What time will there be for living our eternal lives starting NOW? Here is a biblical statement: Salvation is as much a process that wells up inside of us throughout this life as it is the thing that secures our place in the eternal Kingdom. We should be more aware of the implications that salvation has on our lives RIGHT NOW, and although it is good to understand our eternal future in light of Christ’s work on the cross, we need to stop fixating all of our energy into remembering, emotionalizing and intellectualizing the cross so that we can BE a light to the world BECAUSE of the cross.