What is the source of our orthodoxy? Conservative evangelicals depend almost exclusively on the Bible as source. Catholic orthodoxy depends heavily on traditional teaching through the ages, often culminating in church authority. Quietism or contemplative mysticism draws from both, but places more emphasis on the inner teacher, the Spirit.
I love how Richard Rohr takes the Scriptures as the source for the orthodoxy he develops in this book, while relying heavily on contemplative/mystical tradition, and yet so often looking to the inner teacher that Jesus introduced in John 14:26: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you”.
Drawing from all of these authorities, Richard seeks to unveil the “great themes of Scripture”. He accurately points out early in his book that when we rely exclusively on proof texts from Scripture, we inevitably develop an orthodoxy that fits our own biases and preferences. He claims, and I agree, that you can pretty much support any doctrine with a proof text. But creating an orthodoxy built on proof texts IS the danger if we rely exclusively on an unchallenged and rote reading of Scripture from beginning to end.
Thank God that Jesus was willing to challenge such a treatment of Scripture. I think we have somehow missed the bold manner in which Jesus turned upside down the interpretations of Old Testament scripture that were popular in his day. Of course, he was killed for it. There is no question that Richard also reinterprets the Scriptures in ways that will leave many uneasy. But I hope we can be more gentle with teachers like Richard than we were with Jesus.
I am troubled by how so many conservative Christians claim that the Bible is absolutely free of contradictions or inconsistencies. Invariably, this claim is followed by a refusal or inability to accept mystery and paradox.
Probably one of the most misunderstood contradictions or inconsistencies that Christians have wrestled with throughout the ages is between a God who perpetrates violence on his enemies in the Old Testament, and a Jesus who teaches and lives out nonviolence, loving his enemies and forgiving the ones who inflict violence on him. This is certainly one theme, but not the only theme, that Richard explores in depth in his book.
His chapter on atonement theories offers a convincing alternative to the penal substitution doctrines that are of fairly recent origin in the tradition of the church. Richard is convinced, and I agree, that we as Christians will never resolve our age-old problem with violence (think Crusades in the Middle Ages and the religious right in the US that consistently supports US war efforts around the world) until we reconsider our allegiance to this penal substitution doctrine which has God “needing” to inflict violence on Jesus to save people.
This may be one of the most important books that Richard has written. It is impressive in its scope and breadth. It will not necessarily be received with favour by fundamental Christianity. But for me it helps to resolve some of the inconsistencies that I have struggled with in Scripture - inconsistencies that the majority of thin theological arguments in my conservative Christian upbringing have failed to resolve.
It is hard for me not to see the parallels between the religious conservatives in Jesus’ day and so many Christian conservatives in our day. I think of all the good Jews in Jesus’ time whose orthodoxy was stuck in Old Testament legalism and tradition. They lacked the eyes to see and the ears to hear the good news of the New Kingdom. Their orthodoxy was black and white. They could not see grey. Thus they could not accept Jesus’ teaching.
“All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and he did not speak to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world’” (Matthew 13:34-35). Richard has helped me greatly to see how the God of the Old Testament was a veiled mystery that could only be slowly unveiled, finally culminating in the incarnation of Jesus.
I was struck, first with humour, and then with deep appreciation for the somewhat glib and tongue-in-cheek comment made by Walter Brueggeman on one of his podcasts I was listening to a few years ago. He referred to the God of the Old Testament as a “recovering perpetrator of violence” (I was not surprised to hear Richard refer to Walter in this book as his favourite Bible scholar). To many, statements like this may sound heretical. But if we understand that the God of the Old Testament was veiled, almost completely hidden from human sight and comprehension, and that over progressive centuries was slowly and progressively unveiled, at a rate that a very violent human race could tolerate, we can appreciate why we needed to wait for Jesus.
Consider the warning and the unveiling contained in the following well-known New Testament passage about Jesus: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:8-9). When we are able to accept a peaceful, nonviolent Jesus, who represents in every way the true fullness of an unveiled God, these apparent inconsistencies begins to make sense.
Long before I had ever heard of Richard Rohr, I was introduced to the “generous orthodoxy” of Brian McLaren. Perhaps equally controversial in his beginnings, Brian, along with Richard, represent for me a new rank of enlightened Christian teachers, exhibiting intellectual and theological integrity, while unafraid to question the violent orthodoxy that we as Christians have felt compelled to accept - at least if we had any hope of preserving our salvation. Thank you Richard for being one of the most influential teachers on my spiritual journey. Your book captured wonderfully so many of the themes that have been shaking and stirring within me over the past decade.