In the second chapter Brian invites us to step back in time and imagine what it must have been like living at a time when other new discoveries or great historical upheavals were happening - some of them more scientific and others political in nature. Whether you lived at the time of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein or Martin Luther King, old paradigms were challenged and new ones created, although only through great resistance at first. What is "normal" and embraced by a great majority today, was originally just the idea and passion of one or only a few.
From this perspective, it makes sense that the "newness" in a call for a new kind of Christianity is initially perceived as a threat and danger but shouldn't be so easily dismissed on grounds of its novelty alone. The Reformation in the 16th century did basically the same, although Brian wants to go further than just simple reforms. The new kind of Christianity he envisions must go beyond replacing an old state with a new one, reason being that the idea of "state" and change of state would be essentially based on Greek ontology again and would fall prey to the same mechanics of dogmatism and exclusion.
The new kind of Christianity does not need to be defended or enforced. It is based on questioning and seeks a new kind of believing rather than new beliefs. It is no longer based on the old, rigid paradigms but is open for new possibilities and unifies us in a common quest pursued by very different people. Instead of being paralyzed through our existing polarizations, he wants to encourage us to enter a constructive dialogue. It's all about pursuing truth and hope in a loving spirit. Brian asks us to give this kind of conversation space to explore and this is what his 10 questions are designed for. They can lead us into a faith that is alive, vibrant, joyful and hopeful - and a faith that creates no losers or victims.
All of this sounds terrific. Much of what Brian shares here (especially about the way we need to converse!) reflect my own wishes and desires too. We certainly need no more witch trials, burnings of heretics, denominational anathemas (just because one's not literal or symbolic enough!), and discussions where the hate and venom is so tangible you have to wonder where all this is coming from!
My doubts and questions about Brian's description arise where I do get the impression that while nothing is "normative" by definition in this new quest, there are some new norms introduced through the backdoor (something that isn't very controversial and for that reason likely to be embraced anyway): the very criteria of non-violence, feeling of aliveness, openness, vibrancy etc.
What is wrong with these? Nothing really. But the way they are used here, they become the new standards to judge whether a certain theology and faith is acceptable or not. If there could be any violent outcome, it must already be wrong from the get-go in this view. The way Brian connects here "propositional statements" (i.e. church dogmas, creeds, beliefs) with the way they have been historically defended and enforced to this very day, may be an important reminder regarding the human abuses that have taken place (to make sure we NEVER go there again!), but they are not as he claims inherent in those beliefs themselves. What is violent about believing that Jesus is Son of God and uniquely Savior and Lord? Nothing whatsoever! What zealous self-proclaimed "defenders of the faith" have done with that, is a completely different story.
And yes, I agree that the way of believing, according to Jesus himself, is way more crucial than the correctness of belief itself, but biblically speaking, you cannot have one without the other. The best kind of faith, no matter how alive, open and vibrant it may feel, would be nothing without substance. And it is this substance (or: "truth", no matter how suspect to the postmodern mind it may be!) that has made new paradigms successful, whether it is our understanding of space, atomic structure and relativity, or human rights.
There is one more sentence I'd like to comment on because it serves as an illustration how the new "norms" can twist what Brian himself sees as pinnacle of God's revelation: Jesus and his teaching in the Gospels. On page 27, Brian says about the new quest: "It must demand nothing of anybody (emphasis mine) and it must make no threats or strike no bargains, because threats and bargains would invalidate the tender nature of the proposal."
Now, I understand that Brian is talking about the absence of demands in the context of a proposal of love. And I would agree that any kind of coercion or manipulation would be misplaced and utterly wrong. But again I get the impression that this "no demand gospel" becomes a new entity in itself, effectually invalidating the content of the challenge in that invitation. What did Jesus say? "I demand nothing!"? Or did he not in fact say:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple ... In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26f, 33)
I think it would need to be said that while Jesus is always inviting and never demanding, the invitation itself does not demand nothing but everything we are and everything we have. The "new way of believing" is still the same as the "old" when it comes to the practical implications of the belief and confession that Jesus is Lord (even if that causes divisions of a very hurtful nature - see Luke 12:51-53!).
