Book Review: The Blue Parakeet
By Trevin Wax on Nov 6, 2008 in Book Reviews | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Scot McKnight’s newest book is about how we should read the Bible. In The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
Here’s one that will get you thinking: we all pick and choose what we’re to obey in the Bible and how we’re to obey it. (11) The more polite way to put it is to say we ”adopt” and “adapt,” but Scot prefers the more edgy view that we really do pick and choose.
After seeking to demonstrate the truthfulness of his claim that we all pick and choose, Scot lays down some ground rules that help us understand why we pick and choose, and how we should pick and choose biblically – in ”a way that honors God and embraces the Bible as God’s Word for all time.” (13)
Let me start out by giving Scot some credit. In this book, he faces head-on a problem that needs to be addressed, not dismissed. He exposes the hypocrisy of Christians who say they believe in the Bible without doing what it says. What good is inerrancy if you don’t do what God says? How many of us know doctrine of about the BIble but don’t do what the God of the Bible says? Good questions. So Scot challenges us to figure out how we know what in the Bible is applicable today and what is not.
Scot uses a story of a blue parakeet as the central metaphor for the book. A blue parakeet once came into Scot’s peaceful backyard. The mere presence of the parakeet terrorized the sparrows. Eventually, the sparrows lost their fear of the strange bird and instead began to imitate the parakeet.
Scot thinks that we have tended to cage and silence the “blue parakeet” passages in the Bible – those passages and commands that make us uncomfortable or challenge our current notions. (By the end of the book, the “blue parakeet” is referring not to Bible passages, but to women who desire to be in ministry. More on that momentarily.)
Scot believes that if our interpetation of the Bible does not lead to good works, we have aborted what the Bible is designed to produce. “If you are doing good works, you are reading the Bible aright. If you are not doing good works, you are not reading the Bible aright.” (112)
I like the challenge to apply the Bible that comes from this statement. But I don’t believe it’s quite as simple as that. After all, who does enough good works? Who follows Scripture perfectly? The implication is that no one is completely right, and therefore, no one can read the Bible rightly. So does that mean we’re all just groping in the darkness when it comes to Bible interpretation?
Some readers may wonder where Tradition fits into Scot’s hermeneutic. Scot believes we need to read the Bible with tradition, not through tradition. We give profound respect to tradition, but save the final authority (sola scriptura) for Scripture alone.
In order to live out the message of the Bible, we have to see it as a Story, not a puzzle or a random collection of laws. The Bible tells a story into which we are called to enter.
The Story motif leads Scot to see the secret to reading the Bible as this: “That was then and this is now.” We have to read the Story and realize that times have changed. God has spoken in the Old Testament in certain ways, in the New Testament in certain ways, and now, God speaks in our days in our ways (57). Whether this means Scot is affirming some sort of continuing revelation is never made clear. He says that the secret to reading the Bible is understanding that God speaks in our days in our ways. But how this idea corresponds to God’s past revelation and whether or not this establishes ongoing revelation or authority outside of Scripture is never fully explored.
The major problem I see in Scot’s emphasis on the Bible as Story and his dismissal of systematic theology is that he himself is not able to live up to his own dichotomy. It is interesting to note that Scot tells the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and then says this:
“God wanted The Adam to enjoy what the Trinity had eternally enjoyed and what the Trinity continues to enjoy: perfect communion and mutuality with an equal.”
Okay… to get from the Story of the Garden to this statement, you have to do some systematizing somewhere. Scot takes the Story and reduces it to a proposition that expresses God’s intention. I’m fine with him doing so. I only point out that the emphasis on Story he establishes with one hand, he takes away with the other. I am weary of those who would call us to pit Story and Systematization against one another (whether the call is coming from the Reformed camp that is afraid of “Story” or the Emerging camp that is afraid of “Systematics”).
Nowhere does Scot enter into issues of New Covenant and Old Covenant and how things have changed in the different eras of salvation history. Perhaps Scot avoids this discussion because it inevitably leads to categories are systematic, but surely these distinctions can be helpful. By not entering into these discussions, he runs the risk of leaving too much on the table up for grabs.
Another drawback in Scot’s emphasis on Story is his quick dismissal of the debates over evolution. He believes these debates distract us from the Story that is told in Genesis 1-2. I agree that a Bible lesson from Genesis 1-2 that focuses only on the evolution/creation debate (or the old earth / young earth controversy) does indeed miss the point of the passage.
But I am surprised that Scot, despite his insistence on the Story, sees the fight over evolution as relatively unimportant. Most people engaged in this debate realize that a Story – a narrative of the world – is at stake. After all, if evolution is true, then we have a naturalistic world. If creationism is true, then we have a Creator God to whom we are responsible. This debate leads to two opposing worldviews (or narratives). The fight over evolution and creation is, at a fundamental level, a fight for a Story.
But my biggest hesitation regarding The Blue Parakeet is the way that ”authority” is described as an inferior “framing principle” for the way we look at the Bible. Scot believes that speaking of the Bible primarily in terms of authority fosters a relationship with a book instead of a relationship with the Author (84).
I agree that framing the Bible merely in terms of authority and submission might not be personal enough. I recognize the need to incorporate a more relational approach. Scot is trying to help people avoid treating the Bible as a rulebook in order to help them see it as God’s story that invites us into relationship with God.
But I believe Scot’s aversion to authority is not nuanced enough. He writes as if authority is opposed to love, trust and conversation. His view of authority is clearly negative, and therefore, he writes as if these different principles cannot coexist. My question is this: Why can’t love come through authority? For all of Scot’s (right) emphasis on the kingdom, where is God’s kingly rule?
The final quarter of the book is about women in ministry. When looking at the Old Testament, Scot makes a disturbing admission: history is written by men and ”he who writes the story controls the glory.” Yes, the Bible is written from a male perspective. But as Scot himself says, these are God’s words, not just men’s words.
Scot takes a different approach to arguing for women in church ministries. He doesn’t take the “justice” or “equality” route. That smacks of Americanism. Scot’s view is one of Spirit-endowed gifts. He believes it is a hermeneutical fallacy to gravitate to Eph. 5 and 1 Tim. 2 before looking at all the women in the New Testament who clearly exercised certain gifts.
Scot emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in discerning these issues of women in ministry. I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit did not inspire and illuminate 2000 years of church fathers on this issue, and chose instead to wait until the 20th century when the culture began moving in a feminist direction.
I will give credit to Scot for starting out with general teaching about women before going to the “silence” passages that he deals with next. Interpreting the specific in light of the general is ultimately the right way to go about it. But when I take the same road as Scot, I still disagree. It is clear to me that Genesis 1-2 describes distinctive gender roles and hierarchy as part of the creation order and not the fall. (Why else would Paul return to creation to make his argument?)
Perhaps the most revealing insight to me is Scot’s admission that certain Asian or Muslim contexts should perhaps proceed slowly with women in ministry, so as not to endanger the church’s witness or credibility (204). Notice that in the final instance, Culture makes the decision. Indeed “that was then and this is now” could also be interpreted as “that is over there and this is over here.” If it is right for women to be in church ministry, I would assume that it is right everywhere for everyone. I fear that Scot’s principles for biblical interpretation open the door for relativism regarding any aspect of Scripture that does not sit well with contemporary culture.
I appreciate much of what Scot McKnight has to say. I have long benefited from his books. But the direction that The Blue Parakeet takes is troubling to me. The questions that Scot raises are good. But for the most part, Scot’s answers do little to clarify how we should proceed in our interpretation of the Bible.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Great review, Trevin. Keep up the good work!
Pete Scholtens | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
Trevin,
First of all, thank you for this review. I follow your blog and even if we are sometimes not on the same page I very much value the insights you put forth here and the civility of the discussion.
I read a pre-release copy of ‘The Blue Parakeet’ myself about a month ago and reviewed it on my blog. I thought it was quite well written and a helpful hermeneutical resource, though it could have gone more in depth on some issues.
After reading your review I wanted to comment on/discuss a few things.
“The Story motif leads Scot to see the secret to reading the Bible as this: ‘That was then and this is now.’”
I did not receive the impression that Scot saw this as the ‘secret’ to reading the Bible, but rather that he thinks we all do this already and we need to figure out why we do it the way we do, and make sure we do it in a responsible way.
Seems to me that we really do all see the ‘then and now’ differences, so this is a valid point on his part. After all, though women in ministry might be controversial, wearing a shirt made of two cloths or eating improperly killed meat is not (despite Acts 15).
“The major problem I see in Scot’s emphasis on the Bible as Story and his dismissal of systematic theology is that he himself is not able to live up to his own dichotomy.”
Are these actually set up as dichotomous in the book? If so that is unfortunate, but it was not how I took his focus on Story, or his opinion of systematic theology, the categories of which he comfortably engages in other works.
I think the direction he was going was more like VanHoozer’s Drama of Doctrine which argues that seeing the overarching Story allows us to do theology in a more authentically Biblical and grounded way.
“I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit did not inspire and illuminate 2000 years of church fathers on this issue, and chose instead to wait until the 20th century when the culture began moving in a feminist direction.”
I understand where you are coming from on women in ministry, but I don’t think deep down you actually see theology as never working like that when you really think about it. I’ll give a few examples.
-The Reformed understanding of Justification took 1500 years to arrive at. Whatever glimpses one might see of a more Protestant understanding of Justification in Augustine or early Fathers, it was never articulated or understood in quite the way it is now, and was never as individualist and separate from ecclesiology as the Reformation made it.
-Adult believers baptism (which I would favor) is pretty hard to find in the early church, the Fathers, or anyone else before the Reformation.
-Eschatology has a number of outlooks (like pre-trib or consistent preterism) which were never arrived at until the last couple hundred years. I’m not saying they are right (I don’t think they are) but for the many who do hold these positions they see no difficulty in the fact that these positions are relatively new, and even their opponents do not usually see their newness as a fair criticism.
With these in mind, and the very convincing argument by Scot that many women in the NT were actually involved in leadership to a level many today would not agree with, could it not be that the church is taking a long time to come to a more Biblical position on women in ministry and sadly needed culture to shake it awake a little?
I look forward to your thoughts and thanks for listening (or reading to be technical)
m slater | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
Hi Slater,
Thanks for the comment, and thanks always for reading!
Let me respond to a couple of your comments. You wrote:
“I did not receive the impression that Scot saw [that was then but this is now] as the ‘secret’ to reading the Bible.”
I should have put quotes around that statement. Scot writes (pg 57) – “I believe those seven words are the secret to reading the Bible: ‘that was then and this is now.’”
Of course there are “then and now” differences, but by claiming this is the secret to reading the Bible leaves too much on the table. Just think about what all can be explained away with these words. (Scot doesn’t go too far in this direction; but he is adopting the same hermeneutical principle that advocates of normalizing homosexuality seem to make. And that is a concern for me.)
You mentioned that you do not think Scot sets up a dichotomy between Systematic Theology and Story. I think it’s clear that he does, because he puts systematization in the category of treating the Bible like a puzzle (49-52), which, according to Scot, is a wrong way to read the Bible. Nowhere does he give any value to studying theology systematically. Like I said in the review, it’s not that I disagree that the Bible is a Story… but I am weary of the constant battle to separate a systematic approach of studying Scripture from the Story-approach, whether the call is coming from Reformed or Emerging circles. These two approaches can complement one another.
You are right to point out that church history is never the final call when speaking of issues of theology. But I would argue that the basic Reformational understanding of salvation as by grace alone is, for the most part, present throughout church history. And the fact that it is often articulated so individualistically in Reformational circles today may be a sign that we need to go back once again to the biblical texts and the earlier church fathers in order to tweak our understanding.
Adult believers baptism? I point you to an essay by Steven McKinion called “Baptism in the Patristic Writings.” McKinion shows, quite persuasively in my opinion, that many of the church fathers practiced believer’s baptism. Archeology also backs up the point. Many of the churches of the first centuries had deep baptistries.
Regarding eschatology: I totally agree with you. That is one of the main strikes against the Dispensational view, if you ask me. It didn’t appear until the 1850’s.
Ultimately, the issue of church tradition does matter to me in the women in ministry argument that Scot makes. But that is not the final authority. I disagree with Scot’s conclusions because I clearly see hierarchy in the creation order before the fall.
Many thanks!
Trevin Wax | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
Trevin,
Thank you for your feedback. A couple quick thoughts.
Fair enough, I did not remember Scot saying he thought ‘that was then this is now’ is the secret of reading the Bible. I would say though that where he goes with that idea is not how one normally thinks of a secret, (like 10 secrets to gaining wealth etc). He isn’t claiming to have stumbled on a new way of reading the Bible, just calling out something everyone does already and advising we make sure we are doing it the most faithful way we can.
You warn to “think about what all can be explained away with these words.” and I wholeheartedly agree that ‘that was then this is now’ is very easy to abuse. However, that doesn’t mean we are not doing it already, or that just because it can be abused that this makes it an incorrect hermeneutic. Many ideas are easy to abuse yet still valuable if done correctly.
Indeed, part of the point I got from Scot’s book was that the Bible is a lot less tame than we assume it is (or make it) and if that is true than we must allow that theology is not a safe easy process where you just line up your texts and get an answer.
That leads me to my other point. I think there is a big difference between being against doctrine and theological formulations, and being against a certain way of coming to that doctrine. The second is what I think Scot was critiquing when he talked about systematics using the Bible like a puzzle, not the first. He clearly holds doctrine and theological formulations in high regard (just look at his blog or especially the book ‘A Community Called Atonement’).
I would have to agree with him though that often systematics, especially certain authors, becomes an exercise in lining up a bunch of references and assuming that proves something, without seeing that these texts are culturally and contextually influenced and a lot more wrestling is required than that approach is willing to do.
Wright makes a pretty good critique of that way of reading the Bible in his ‘How can the Bible be Authoritative’ article, and it seems that neither author is advising an abandoning of real doctrines and statements which ‘systematize’ the Biblical narrative, just more awareness that we should not treat the Bible like God ought to have given us a list of propositional statements and called it good.
Thanks again and I’ll need to look up that artical by McKinion
m slater | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
Slater got me right on systematics. It’s not an either-or but a shortcut that can only be done right when done in the context of the Story. Each of the shortcuts has value.
I don’t deny authority Trevin and that’s an unfair representation. I swallow authority in love. A relational view doesn’t deny the authority view; it puts it at a higher level.
Scot McKnight | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
Hi Scot,
I know you don’t deny authority. I don’t think that’s what I said in the review. My disagreement was not with your denial of authority, but with the way that you see an emphasis on authority as fostering a relationship with a book. You downplay the notion of authority to the point that you write as if it were opposed to love and trust. If authority is swallowed up in love, then obedience and submission to God’s loving authority still represent our right responses to the God who relates to us through His Word. My quibble with the book was that this nuanced approach to authority didn’t come through for me… It seemed that the notion of authority was always portrayed negatively.
I’m glad to see your clarifying comments on Systematics. I do hope I haven’t misrepresented you in any way, and I have long appreciated your work and your blog. Even when I disagreed with the Parakeet, I found it a very engaging and challenging book – one that made me think long and hard about some things.
Trevin Wax | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply
I was going to leave a comment on the commentary…and then I read all the other comments.
Now, I want to say just this.
I enjoyed the review and the comments
Kevin | Nov 6, 2008 | Reply