My brother Trent is a Cubs fan. He and Scot McKnight would enjoy conversations over the “Cubbies.” No doubt they both held out hope there would be no October meltdown. But, like the stock market decline, the Cubs crashed and burned.
It was quite fun to listen to Scot, Todd Hiestand and John Franke talk baseball. [A little known fact would be the vault like memory John Franke has regarding baseball – able to recall who played in any playoff and world series dating waaaayyy back.] There is something about conversation that deepens relationships regardless of the subject.
Scot delivered a talk at the recent Missional Christianity … Church Beyond Boundaries Conference at Biblical Seminary. The title of his presentation, “The Bible and Missional Listening.” If you have not listened to Scot, then you have missed an artist at work. He has an uncanny knack of weaving images into his talks, and likely lectures, opening the imagination. [For instance you might get his talk on the “What is the Emerging Church?” from Westminster and listen for his literary references to Mark Twain in his first talk at the Student Forum. Or, you may find his little book on the atonement helpful. In A Community Called Atonement, Scot describes the various “theories” of the atonement as clubs in a golf bag, we need them all.]
Being a Southern Baptist, I am always interested in what someone says about the Bible. Interestingly I was trained to think it more important to listen for what people note about the Scriptures more than what they think about Jesus. The logic is that if you get it right “about” the Bible, then you will get Jesus right. My experience in and around church life for more than 20 years in some form of leadership betrays that logic. I believe I have recovered from this mistake of putting the Bible before Jesus. At least I am like any good addict, recovering.
You should look for the DVD on this talk, and conference, when it comes out at Shapevine. In the mean time, consider this from McKnight,
“Those who have a proper approach (relationally) to the Scriptures don’t need the language of authority. Love trumps submission.
For McKnight “authority” fosters a relationship “to” the Bible rather than facilitates a relationship “with” the God of the Bible. The better question, better than “What is your view of Scripture?”, would be “What is my relationship to the God of the Bible?’
Before you think McKnight throws out “authority” understand his assertion is a relationship of love with the God of Scriptures does not require the language game of authority. There is more to Scot’s talk than that but it is not less than that. I suggest you pick up his newest “little book,” The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible.