Stauffer and McLaren are LibProts.

You are right as well that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for young children. But the reflections in the latter part of the article appear to suggest that the conference speakers are doing more than this — that they are, in fact, questioning a rather key component of the Christian faith with which they feel uncomfortable, viz., the atonement of Christ for our sins. Taking Christ’s death as simply moral influence (Abelard’s view) causes me to think that more is going on here. This quotation in particular I find problematic:

“Some people view justice as retribution,” Westerhoff explained. “I do not. Justice is equity. Justice is everyone getting their need, and everyone giving up what they don’t need. Justice is reconciliation and equity, not retribution.”

I agree with Westerhoff that retribution is not the heart of justice, but tribution is. I know this is something of a neologism, but what I mean by it is that justice consists of giving everyone their due, i.e., what they deserve. This necessarily includes retribution, viz., punishment for wrong-doing, but it is not limited to that. It certainly cannot be excluded from justice, properly understood.

I recognize, of course, the danger in trying to discern the trajectory of someone’s thought from a few snippets lifted out of context. I hope the participants are more respectful of God’s word than they appear to be here. Nevertheless, even the title, “a new kind of Christianity,” makes me uneasy, at the very least.

The connection between the text & the critique is unclear to me. If the two sentences can be read as the latter following from the former, then the 3ms subject of the former should be the assumed antecedent of the subject of the latter sentence. If typical grammatical rules can be presumed, then Barton Gingerich believes Brian McLaren, not Professor Stauffer, to suggest that the Bible should be filtered. Additionally, the context suggests that the filtering occurs for children. I don’t think the conference speakers are proposing an elitist move wherein they themselves should filter the material but parents for their children. Whether other statements from these authors point toward the validity of this critique, I do not know. However, this quote on its own does not warrant the critique. Perhaps a more suitable quote could have been selected? In the end, I do not share with children the concubine’s brutal rape and her dismemberment (Judges 19-21). I would shutter to explain to my daughter how a rape could be so brutal as to extinguish her life even as her master sits on the other side of the threshhold which she grasps as she dies.

Perhaps it’s my Schadenfreude, but I love that the Bible is deeper, more raw, and more real-to-life than cheesy fridge magnet quotes. I find it offensive that some would like to “correct” the text so that it is inspired by the Zeitgeist rather than the Holy Spirit.

The problem is our cultural expectations. The limit and danger is us, not God’s revelation. And as for children? That’s a tricky issue. The Bible is NOT a “children’s book”. If we shelter children from the scary parts of the Bible, they end up with a cookie-cutter understanding of God even when they grow up (sometimes). But if we just tell it like it is, then we might as well scar them for life with Hell Houses. I’m glad I’m not a pastor or parent and don’t yet have to answer this question.

Does anyone have a good answer on how to relate the Bible to children?

The proper way to handle ‘loaded guns’ is to teach basic safety. Millard Lind’s classic, Yahweh Is A Warrior, would be a good starting point.