<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Next-Wave &#187; Interviews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-next-wave.info/category/interviews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-next-wave.info</link>
	<description>Next-Wave: Church and Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:52:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Jesus Manifesto: The Interview of Frank Viola and Len Sweet by Mike Morrell</title>
		<link>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2010/05/jesus-manifesto-the-interview-of-frank-viola-and-len-sweet-by-mike-morell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2010/05/jesus-manifesto-the-interview-of-frank-viola-and-len-sweet-by-mike-morell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 22:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>publisher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank Viola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jesus Manifesto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Len Sweet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-next-wave.info/?p=188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
1. Jesus: He&#8217;s the central figure of our faith, and yet in so many ways He&#8217;s like a living Rorschach test &#8211; everyone sees what they want to see: Mystic, sage, redeemer, prophet, reformer. Who is your Jesus? Is He the Jesus of history? The Christ of faith and inner experience? What are your sources, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong> </strong></span></div>
<div id="attachment_190" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 210px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-190" title="jesus manifesto cover" src="http://www.the-next-wave.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/jesus-manifesto-cover-200x300.jpg" alt="Jesus Manifesto" width="200" height="300" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Jesus Manifesto</p></div>
<p>1. Jesus: He&#8217;s the central figure of our faith, and yet in so many ways He&#8217;s like a living Rorschach test &#8211; everyone sees what they want to see: Mystic, sage, redeemer, prophet, reformer. Who is <em>your </em>Jesus? Is He the Jesus of history? The Christ of faith and inner experience? What are your sources, and what need do you feel that <em>Jesus Manifesto </em>is fulfilling in publishing, yet again, about the Most Talked About Man in History?</p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank:</strong> We believe that the Jesus disclosed to us in the New Testament is the same Christ whom the Holy Spirit reveals today. He is the Christ of the cosmos, the Christ of Eternity, the Alpha and the Omega, as well as the Christ who lived on this earth as the quintessential human – the second Adam, or more accurately, the Last Adam – who then died, rose again, was glorified, ascended, enthroned, and now lives in His people. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">By my lights, the Christ that is presented to us in Colossians and Ephesians is little known or preached today. Mind you, He’s the <em>same</em> Christ as the One born in Bethlehem. But His incomparable greatness has been lost sight of in so many quarters.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">We feel that for many Christians today, their Christ is simply too small. And so we chase all sorts of other things . . . good things, religious things, spiritual things even. And Jesus becomes a mere footnote or a stamp of approval – an <em>Imprimatur –</em> that we place over those other things.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">We expound on the following point in one of our chapters, but take for instance Paul’s letter to the Colossians. Scholars have spent a lot trying to figure out the exact nature of the erroneous teaching that captured the minds and hearts of the Colossian believers.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">One of the reasons why there is so much debate over it is because Paul never <em>directly </em>addresses the problem. Paul’s primary way of dealing with church problems is to give God’s people a stunning unveiling of Jesus Christ. (Therein lies a valuable lesson for all church leaders.)</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">For Paul, Jesus Christ is the solution to all problems. And any problem that a believer or a church has can always be juiced down to one common denominator. <em>They have lost sight of the Head, Christ.</em> <em>They have lost touch with the living Christ.</em> Or to put it in Paul’s words, they have stopped “holding fast to the Head.”</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">But whatever the error was, we can be sure of this: The Colossians thought they could graduate beyond Jesus Christ. They took Him as Lord and Savior, but they felt they could advance to higher and deeper things. Higher and deeper things beyond Jesus . . . hmmm.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In short, if we ever get to the place where Jesus Christ isn’t enough … if we ever get to the place where we feel we can advance beyond Him … then we haven’t met the Christ of Colossians. And our Christ is too small.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In the same connection, there is a debate within much of Christendom presently. It’s not new, but it’s grabbed the attention of many young believers, so it seems novel to some.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">One side argues for the Jesus of justice – who is largely derived from the Gospel accounts. The other side argues for the Jesus of justification – who is largely drawn from some of Paul’s statements in Galatians and Romans.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">While Len and I embrace the Jesus of justice and the Jesus of justification, our book attempts to present a Christ who is far greater, far more glorious, and far richer than simply being the Justice-Giver or the Justifier. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">We feel that this third vision of Jesus is sorely neglected in our time. It’s possible to put justice and justification on the throne, and leave the living Christ out in the cold.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The indwelling life of Jesus also seems to be a missing note in both discussions.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In this regard, I don’t think I can improve upon what Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said about the book: </span> </p>
<ul><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">“This is a really exhilarating reintroduction to a Jesus who seems sometimes to have become a stranger to the Church; a passionate and joyful celebration of God with us, which cuts right through churchy quarrelling and brings us back to wonder, love and praise – and the urgent desire to make Him known to all.”</span> </ul>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len:</strong> When I was 17, I deconverted from Christianity and became an atheist. After college I decided to go into academe and study the history of religions from a scientific, critical perspective. When I was in graduate school, and gradually finding my way back to faith, I made an appointment with a professor to talk about my return journey to orthodoxy. This theologian confessed that for him personally, “I am in pursuit of truth. Whatever truth is, and wherever it is to be found, that is the journey I’m on. When I seek truth and find it, and if truth turns out to be two hydrogen atoms that accidentally collided, and no more than that, I will kneel in front of those two atoms and give them my worship and praise.” </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">I shall never forget the power of his words which sought to embrace the meaning of meaninglessness. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">At about the same time, I encountered a letter Dostoevsky wrote to Natalya Fonvizina, in which he admitted that he was a “child of unbelief and doubt” and would remain so “until my coffin is closed over me.” That got my attention. But then Dostoevsky went on to say more: in the letter he laid out his conviction that “nothing is more perfect than Christ . . . .” He then adds: “If someone succeeded in proving to me that Christ was outside the truth, and if, in reality, the truth was outside Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">It suddenly hit me that here were the two choices I was facing in my spiritual journey: the worship of a Big Bang, or the worship of a Savior, Redeemer, Sanctifier and Friend who sticks closer than a Big Brother (Proverbs 18:24).  That was a decisive moment for my spiritual pilgrimage, and I immediately immersed myself in our sacred texts and traditions and learned from them that it is dangerous to separate three things that enliven and enfaith us: Jesus, Scriptures, Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings Christ to life, and the Scriptures point us to Christ. Separate one from the other and you risk writing another chapter in the history of the waylaying and wrong-footing of the Christian story.<strong>  </strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>2. The <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> started out as an online declaration by you two; now it&#8217;s a book. How did this come together?</strong></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len:</strong> I smelled Jesus all over Frank and wanted to know how he had kept his faith “fixed” on Christ. Frank and I met at a GFU event, and stayed in the same bed &amp; breakfast. In the course of coming and going, we both commiserated about how, to hold on to tolerance, so many of us think we must let go of Christ and just hold on to God. So the Christian story becomes Unitarian, primarily about God, only peripherally about God’s Spirit. But Jesus no longer has the leading role . . . that belongs to God alone. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Then I mentioned to Frank that I could not get to Colossians 2 because I couldn’t get past Colossians 1, where it says that “the secret that has been kept hidden has now been revealed, and that secret is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” When I found out that Frank also was transfixed and transfigured by Colossians, we first talked of jointly writing a commentary on Colossians. But then we were led in this direction, and now no one knows the rest of the story …</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank:</strong> In August of 2008, Len and I began conversing via email and phone. One of the things that came up in our conversations (as a pleasant surprise to both of us) was that we both felt that Jesus was getting short-changed in His church, being eclipsed by other “hot” topics and subjects. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In February 2009, we both spoke at a seminar hosted by George Fox Seminary, and we were able to spend some time in person to discuss what was on our hearts. Our burden only increased, as well as an awareness that God had something for us to accomplish together to discharge it.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In April, the idea of writing a joint article/essay emerged. We wrote it in approxiamately18 days, titled it “A Magna Carta,” and subtitled it “A Jesus Manifesto.” It was published online on June 22, 2009. It went viral immediately. I’m told that it was viewed 500,000 times in 8 weeks.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Thomas Nelson was interested in turning the essay into a book (and we were as well), and that’s what happened. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Folks can visit </span><a href="http://www.thejesusmanifesto.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">www.theJesusManifesto.com</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> and read sample chapters, hear some brand new songs that were recorded by professional Christian artists based on the book (one of them by the man who wrote some of Amy Grant’s most popular tunes), check out the iPhone app, read endorsements, etc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>3. Frank, you&#8217;ve been identified with the &#8216;house church&#8217; and &#8216;organic church&#8217; movements &#8211; how has <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> been nurtured in that soil? In what ways do you think if functions as a kind of prophetic critique to it?</strong></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank:</strong> In 2005, I began working on a project that I finished at the end of 2009. The project has come to be called the </span><a href="http://www.reimaginingchurch.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">ReChurch Library</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> – five books on radical church reform and the restoration of God’s grand mission in the earth.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The dominating subtext of these five books is the absolute, functional headship and supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Each book in the series themes around this subtext. The </span><a href="http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/deep-ecclesiology/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">afterword of </span><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">From Eternity to Here</span></em></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> is fully dedicated to it.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In short, the organic expression of the church and the supremacy of Christ go hand in hand. Christ is the head; the church is His body. They are organically connected by life. I’ve defined the (local) church as a group of people who are learning to live by the indwelling life of Christ together and displaying that life in their locale. I don’t believe the New Testament knows of any other kind of local church. In addition, the church has no other specialty but her Lord. Everything else flows out of that relationship. Thus for me, the issue of the church has never been its structure. The issue has always been its center – Christ. If Christ is truly the functional head in a particular church, the expression of that church will be effected—sometimes radically. This is my chief argument in <em>Reimagining Church. </em></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><em>Jesus Manifesto</em> takes the thread Christ’s supremacy and builds an entire volume around it. Consequently, the book is a blending of both our (Len and mine) hearts, voices, and burdens regarding our shared vision that Christ should “have the first place in all things” (as Paul put it). Our book explores what that means exactly.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In short, I view <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> as an enlargement of the thread that runs through all of my previous books.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">On a lighter note, for the last two years I’ve been writing </span><a href="http://www.davidccook.com/catalog/index.cfm" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">cook books</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">, but this is my first sweet book <img src='http://www.the-next-wave.info/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">With respect to your last question, I am of the opinion that the driving force of <em>much</em> of the house church, organic church, simple church, and missional church movements is <em>not</em> Jesus Christ. And so I’d like to see this changed. Hopefully, God will use the book toward that end.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>4. Len, you have been a pioneer in Christians&#8217; being responsive to the postmodern cultural and philosophical turn &#8211; what is now known in different circles as &#8216;emerging&#8217; or &#8216;missional&#8217; church. Is <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> a departure from your earlier fascination with cultural change and its impact on faith, or in some ways a fulfillment of it? </strong></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len:</strong> Even though my primary field is history and semiotics, I challenge you to find one of my books where I do not make the case for the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ in some fashion. In fact, for the last decade, in one book after another, most blatantly in </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/So-Beautiful-Divine-Design-Church/dp/1434799794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1273517933&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">So Beautiful</span></em></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> (2009) and </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Out-Question-Into-Mystery-Getting-Relationship/dp/1578566479/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1273517961&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Out of the Question, Into the Mystery</span></em></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> (2004), I’ve been obsessed with making this case for understanding Jesus as “The Truth” and for understanding discipleship as becoming a Jesus manifest. I am only saying here what I have said in other places and other forms and other ways: how do we speak the name of “Jesus” in such a way that the world we’re in can actually hear us, not the world we wish we had but the world we actually have. The difference is that here, I feel like Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society,” where he has the students throw away and tear up the text books and instead stand on top of the desks and speak at the top of their lungs. In <em>Jesus Manifesto</em>, maybe I’m back to my “shouting Methodist” and holiness Pentecostal roots. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>5. Up until last year, I would have never expected <em>Sweet </em>and <em>Viola</em> to be sharing a book byline together! What was it like collaborating for this? Did your styles naturally gel, or was co-authoring difficult?</strong></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank:</strong> We were given a very quick deadline from the publisher after the book idea was finalized. As a result, we wrote the entire book in roughly six weeks. We were laboring on it Christmas Day even, rushing to meet our January 1<sup>st</sup> deadline. The book was also bathed in prayer. We deliberately prayed for one another as we wrote our chapters.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">But despite the haste, the process went smoother than I expected. We complimented each other’s chapters, adding to them our own unique ingredients and seasoning them with our own peculiar spices. Len made my chapters stronger, and I hope I did the same for his. I trust that readers will feel that the mix works.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len:</strong> For me, what Frank and I did was not “work” but “play.” You don’t “work” a violin. You don’t “work” basketball.  You play a violin; you play basketball. All the best creativity comes from a play paradigm, not a work paradigm. “Labor” was what we got when we were banished from the garden, and in writing this book I felt that I was back in the garden, living out of God’s Prime Directive to Adam (“Conserve and Conceive”), with my pen a plow and my keyboard a seedbed. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">I always feared that co-authoring a book would stymie rather than stimulate my creativity. When I tried my hand at woodworking, I never could master the art of mortise and tenon joinery. But I found that Frank’s passionate investment in the project opened the sluices of my soul and the rain that flowed out from both our beings is what you hold in your hand. It’s a fine line between drawing out a colleague’s best and dredging. Frank never crossed the line. It was a joy to play with him in making mudpies of praise out of soil and rain. But as Frank says, the reader is the ultimate judge and jury of our Back to the Garden project. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>6. You all were up against some pretty strong critiques toward your original online <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> last year. Some folks thought that you were so &#8216;Christ-centered&#8217; that you weren&#8217;t Trinitarian enough; others thought you magnified Jesus&#8217; person at the expense of His teachings and deeds. Reading the book length <em>Jesus Manifesto</em>, I see that you more than address Jesus&#8217; place in the Triune dance; <em>perichoresis</em>, the community life of God. But what would you say to the readers approaching your book who are looking to integrate this high view of Jesus with their desire to pursue a witness of good works and social justice toward expressing God&#8217;s Kingdom?  </strong></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len: </strong>Actually, we spend a lot of time talking about this in the book, maybe too much time (two chapters is a lot). But we did it because justice is now top dog among social values, and for many in both the more liberal and emerging sectors of the church, justice is another word for “equality”—making more equality more just than less equality. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The truth is no one knows what justice is. No philosopher in history has been able to satisfactorily define justice, whereas everyone knows what injustice is. Injustice is subject to Justice Potter Stewart’s “you-know-it-when-you-see-it” test (first applied to pornography). In fact, one of the best definitions of justice may be this: justice is what emerges in the struggle against injustice. If you don’t believe me, read Amartya Sen’s new book, <em>The Idea of Justice</em> (Harvard University Press, 2009), where he argues that justice is not a philosophical category or principle (“niti”) but a practice (“nyaya”). Justice is a practical matter of dealing with injustice; justice is asking “what is best to do in the here and now, given what can be done.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In other words, even philosophers are bringing us back to Micah 6:8 where we are to “love mercy,” and “do justice” all the while “walking humbly with our God.” Notice what we’re to love: mercy. We’re to “do justice,” or to “practice justice,” but we are to “love mercy” and “walk humbly.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">My critique of the emerging movement is precisely here: it’s like these “young evangelicals” discovered the “social gospel” movement a century after liberals did, or fifty years after their boomer parents did in “Sojourners.” I’m a “social gospel” person (is there any other gospel than a social one?). But when you replace the “kingdom of justice” as the “framing story” rather than Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as the framing story, there ends up everything “social” and nothing “gospel.” In the Scriptures the kingdom is never something you build or create; the kingdom is something you receive as a gift and enter with your whole being, because the kingdom is the presence of Christ. A couple of years ago </span><a href="http://www.relevantmagazine.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Relevant</span></em><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> magazine</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> interviewed me about my critique of Emergent and the emerging church along these precise lines, so you can read more about it there.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank: </strong>Someone once counted almost 200 blogs on the original essay. As I recall, there were only five that were negative. The ones I saw did mention that we neglected to discuss the Trinity—a correct observation. The others felt that we were somehow pitting Jesus against justice. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">We certainly failed to talk about the Trinity in the essay. Right or wrong, we didn’t feel it was necessary to discuss it because our entire focus was on Jesus, and we were attempting to point out those aspects about Him that we felt aren’t getting enough air-play today. The Trinitarian nature of God wasn’t one of them; hence, it didn’t come up in our radar. We also wrongly assumed that most of our readers were familiar with our other books that go into the Trinity in detail.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">On the other point, we tried to state as clearly as possible that it’s a gross mistake to separate the Jesus of the Gospels from the Person of Christ depicted in the epistles. And that it’s a profound failure to separate His Person from His teachings. For us, neither should be neglected; both should be held together. I addressed this very question (as well as the topic of God’s kingdom and liberation theology) </span><a href="http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/kingdom-confusion-part-i/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">more fully in an interview last year</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">. </span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Having more space to unravel our vision and burden in the book (which is roughly 190 pages of actual text), we discuss the Trinity and we explore <em>why</em> the Person of Jesus shouldn’t be separated from His teachings and the problems that (we believe) ensue when we divide the two.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>7. There seems to be a lot of grassroots energy behind this book, as well as some high-profile friends of its message via endorsers from across the Christian spectrum. If your fondest dreams could be actualized, what do you hope <em>Jesus Manifesto</em> will accomplish &#8211; on the literary landscape, in the Body of Christ, in the marketplace of ideas? </strong></span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Len:</strong> When the Marx brothers were in the early stages of their career, the New York City family home was heavily mortgaged to the “Greenbaum” banking firm. Often the payments were very hard to come by. When the three elder brothers (Chico, Harpo and Groucho) and two younger brothers (Gummo and Zeppo) were on stage, their mother would stand in the wings. When her five zany sons began to improvise too much (especially Groucho) and depart  from script, she would snap them back with a loud stage whisper: “Greenbaum! Remember Greenbaum!” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">With this book Frank and I are hoping to snap the church back with a loud whisper: “Remember Christ. Remember Christ. Remember Christ.” It’s okay to improvise as long as you stay on script/Scripture and don’t short-shrift Christ. Don’t ever forget the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">One more thing: Christianity has lost its liturgical and devotional language. To be sure, English is not the best language for liturgy or piety, as it has largely lost its stately, magisterial register that makes the 1611 King James Version (which was mostly cribbed from Tyndale’s 1537 translation) so resonant and thrilling. Frank and I purposely wrote this in a worshipful way in an attempt to re-introduce the church to a devotional way of talking about Jesus that seems to be missing in the life of faith today. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong>Frank: </strong>Yes. We are thankful that we have over 20 endorsements from some of the most influential leaders on the Christian landscape today. They include Baptist, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, New Monastic, Neo-Anabaptist, Missional, etc. It’s a nice mix of theologians, biblical scholars, pastors, and renowned authors, all of whom share our passion for the supremacy of Christ.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">My dream in a nutshell: That the Spirit of God would taken the unveiling of Jesus that’s presented in the book and press it upon the hearts of every reader, bringing us all to our faces in the presence of so great a Christ. That we would make Christ and Christ alone our chief pursuit, our chief love, our chief passion, and our chief obsession in life, in ministry, and in our churches – at whatever cost it may exact. That the body of Christ would begin to learn how to live by His indwelling life, which (according to the New Testament) is a major part of “the mystery of the ages.” And that churches all over this planet would be built upon the only foundation that exists – the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Not in rhetoric, but in reality, thus discovering and displaying His inexhaustible riches to one another, to principalities and powers, and to a lost world.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">All told: I see the body of Christ in battle with its own. Some are fighting on the left; others on the right. This is true politically as well as theologically. May these timeless words from our Father stop us all dead in our tracks:</span> </p>
<ul><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">“This is my beloved Son, hear HIM.”</span> </ul>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><em>Jesus Manifesto</em> is our frail attempt to reflect this heavenly voice.</span> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">&#8211;</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0849946018?tag=stellardesign-20&amp;camp=14573&amp;creative=327641&amp;linkCode=as1&amp;creativeA" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Jesus Manifesto: Restoring the Supremacy and Sovereignty of Jesus Christ</span></em></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> (Thomas Nelson) releases <strong>Tuesday, June 1</strong><sup><strong>st</strong></sup> and will be available on discount from </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0849946018?tag=stellardesign-20&amp;camp=14573&amp;creative=327641&amp;linkCode=as1&amp;creativeA" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #0000ff; font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Amazon.com</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> that day.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">You can read Mike Morrell&#8217;s bio <a href="http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/about/">here</a>.</span></p>
<p>This <a href="http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2400">article</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://TheOOZE.com">http://TheOOZE.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2010/05/jesus-manifesto-the-interview-of-frank-viola-and-len-sweet-by-mike-morell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interview with Brian McLaren: Generous Orthodoxy&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-brian-mclaren-generous-orthodoxy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-brian-mclaren-generous-orthodoxy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>publisher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian McLaren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Generous Orthodoxy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-next-wave.info/?p=50</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Next-Wave: Tell us a little about your background?
McLaren: I grew up in a Christian family, wonderful parents, but a pretty narrow church experience among a small group called the Plymouth Brethren &#8212; which is also the background of Garrison Keillor and Jim Wallis, by the way. It was a restorationist, fundamentalist group &#8212; giving me a lot [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: black;"><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310257476/nextwavewebmagaz"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-52" title="Generous Orthodoxy" src="http://www.the-next-wave.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/bigenortho-104x150.jpg" alt="Generous Orthodoxy" width="104" height="150" /></a>Next-Wave:</strong> Tell us a little about your background?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> I grew up in a Christian family, wonderful parents, but a pretty narrow church experience among a small group called the Plymouth Brethren &#8212; which is also the background of Garrison Keillor and Jim Wallis, by the way. It was a restorationist, fundamentalist group &#8212; giving me a lot of priceless exposure to the Bible, along with many wonderful examples and heroes, plus exposure to some eccentricities that have turned out to be helpful and instructive for my work in the larger church community.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> What is a generous orthodoxy?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> Well, I took a whole book to try to answer that, and still didn&#8217;t do it justice, but in a sentence, a generous orthodoxy is an attempt to remarry two things that never should have been divorced &#8212; truth and love, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, doctrine and ethics/mission.  The phrase comes from Hans Frei, a leading postliberal theologian.  I think it represents the hopeful possibility of a convergence of postliberal and postconservative Christians.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> Why did you feel compelled to write this book?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> Because of my earlier books, I receive invitations to speak to a wide variety of Christians, from across the spectrum between liberal and fundamentalist, with all the moderate and evangelical stops along the way.  I see encouraging signs of God at work among all of these groups&#8212;fresh winds blowing, people breaking out of old, constricting boxes. I sense a bubble of discontent hidden beneath the surface &#8230; and I hoped, and hope, that we can acknowledge that discontent with the status quo and channel it toward constructive and fruitful ends.  In many ways, this book has been gestating in me from way back in the days of the Jesus Movement, when many of us were coming together focused on Christ and his peace and joy, not being distracted or divided by other things, lesser things.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> You go to great lengths to warn readers of the content in the book&#8212;why did you do this?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> Since my goal was bringing people together, it would be completely counterproductive to make people mad.  Yet I needed to deconstruct some of their categories.  So, I decided to use some humor, irony, self-effacement, and oddness at the beginning of the book to help readers lighten up, become less serious, and read a bit more playfully, since many spiritual blessings only come to those who are childlike.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> Who is this book written to?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> I had three groups in mind &#8211; disillusioned Christians, Christians interested in exploring faith in new territory beyond modern constraints, and people exploring Christian faith from the outside.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> Do you think Jesus would be a Christian today?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> I think he would love Christians, as he would love Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, new agers, and even atheists. But I&#8217;m not sure he would be well-received among Christians.  In fact, I&#8217;m pretty sure most of us, maybe all of us, would call him a heretic and excommunicate him, or at least keep him under close surveillance.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> In the book you talk about being surrounded by Christians who like the idea of the American God, and the middle-class Republican Jesus. How do you think this culture has distorted the view of lordship?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> Don&#8217;t get me started on this, or I&#8217;ll lapse into rant.  Let me just say that I&#8217;m very very afraid of what&#8217;s happening in the church in America. I&#8217;m afraid we&#8217;re falling into a warrior trance, where the church baptizes the state or seeks to reclaim a kind of Constantinian power in the American empire.  We&#8217;re not listening to our brothers and sisters across the globe who are shocked and disappointed in our uncritical support of our government.  We say we trust in the Lord, but it seems to me that our trust is pretty enmeshed with &#8220;horses and chariots&#8221; as the Psalmist said.  We&#8217;re succumbing to the politics of fear.  We think that because we&#8217;re pious&#8212;because we pray and sing and use lots of highly religious language &#8211; that we&#8217;re immune to this kind of seduction, but it&#8217;s happened a thousand times in history, and I think we&#8217;re no less vulnerable.  In fact, our wealth and power should make us more vulnerable to these seductions.  As I said &#8230; don&#8217;t get me started.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> Describe what it means to be missional.<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> The term missional asks this question:  what is the purpose of the church?  To enfold and warehouse Christians for heaven, protecting them from damage and spoilage until they reach their destination?  Or to recruit and train people to be transforming agents of the kingdom of God in our culture?  The missional church understands itself to be blessed not to the exclusion of the world, but for the benefit of the world.  It is a church that seeks to bring benefits to its nonadherents through its adherents.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> In your book, you describe the term &#8220;evangelical&#8221; as being sectarian and restrictive. What do you mean by this?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> Actually, I distinguish between &#8220;E&#8221;vangelical, and &#8220;e&#8221;vangelical, and the latter, I believe, is one of the most nonsectarian and inviting terms we have, meaning focused not on doctrinal distinctives and sectarian squabbles, but on the gospel which brings hope to us all.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> Talk about the role poetry plays in a generous orthodoxy.<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> There&#8217;s a kind of ungenerous orthodoxy that is like spiritual accounting &#8211; adding up debits and credits in a kind of merciless, heartless judgment.  It uses the language of law and engineering; it likes exact sciences so that it can draw neat lines to make clear who&#8217;s in (us) and who&#8217;s out (them).  A generous orthodoxy sees this and heads in the other direction.  It sees the language of poetry as essential in the Bible &#8211; it&#8217;s not only the language of the Psalms, but also of the prophets, and of Jesus.  Poetry conveys mystery, and mystery humbles, and humility doesn&#8217;t judge, but sees others as better than oneself.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> How does a generous orthodoxy regard the Bible?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> It tries to say about the Bible what the Bible says about itself. For example, it believes that the Bible is inspired by God, is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in just living.  It believes the Bible is intended to prepare us to do good works, and to encourage us and give us hope.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> What do you hope to accomplish by writing this book?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> I hope to give hope to people who have lost, or almost lost, hope. I hope to encourage a convergence of people who feel the status quo isn&#8217;t good &#8230; people from across the spectrum of the Christian community &#8211; people who want to love God and love their neighbors above all.  I see many Christians constricting in a kind of harsh, nationalistic neo-fundamentalism.  I hope to imagine a better alternative and stimulate others to imagine it  too, and pursue it, live it.<br />
<strong>Next-Wave:</strong> What is your definition of orthodoxy?<br />
<strong>McLaren:</strong> I like Chestertons&#8217; definition.  Orthodoxy is, he said, &#8220;a whirling adventure.&#8221;  Rather than being something we possess like a membership card in our wallet, it&#8217;s something we seek &#8211; like a dream, like an ambition, like a calling.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-brian-mclaren-generous-orthodoxy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interview with McLaren: The Last Word&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-mclaren-the-last-word/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-mclaren-the-last-word/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>publisher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian McLaren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Next-Wave]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-next-wave.info/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Next-Wave: Brian, you&#8217;ve been dubbed a &#8220;postmodern pioneer&#8221; and named one of  the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, had your books banned and speeches cancelled, what&#8217;s your reaction to the controversy and the notoriety?
McLaren: It&#8217;s all been kind of strange, and I try not to think about it too much. The good news is that I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787975923/nextwavewebmagaz/002-9333124-5110426"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-48" title="The Last Word and the Word Aftr That" src="http://www.the-next-wave.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lastword-109x150.jpg" alt="The Last Word and the Word Aftr That" hspace="6" width="109" height="150" /></a>Next-Wave:</span><span> Brian, you&#8217;ve been dubbed a &#8220;postmodern pioneer&#8221; and named one of  the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, had your books banned and speeches cancelled, what&#8217;s your reaction to the controversy and the notoriety?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> It&#8217;s all been kind of strange, and I try not to think about it too much. The good news is that I continue to get a strong stream of emails, letters, etc., saying that my work is helping people.  These notes are often very moving &#8212; like bring-tears-to-your-eyes moving &#8212; and they help me not be preoccupied with the people who think I&#8217;m a villain, heretic, and all-around bad guy.  I&#8217;m not a fighter by nature &#8230; so I don&#8217;t like controversy.  At heart I&#8217;m a contemplative, so this much attention can be rough.  At least I don&#8217;t have to worry about that verse, &#8220;Woe to you when all people speak well of you&#8221; any more! Processing all this and seeking to respond in a God-honoring way is a great growth opportunity for character, prayer life, etc. </span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> Some of us hope that the &#8220;Last Word&#8221; is not the last word from Dan Poole and his friend, Neil Oliver, is saying &#8216;to hell&#8217; with hell the last we are going hear from these characters?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> I hadn&#8217;t planned on taking them any farther.  But you never know. Sometimes I think about picking up one of the minor characters someday.</span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> Why is hell such a thorny issue for Christians?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> All of us who have a high view of Scripture don&#8217;t want to blunt its sharp edges; we want to be faithful to Scripture, and to God &#8212; even when it&#8217;s hard to do so.  Yet &#8212; as I try to show in the book &#8212; the Bible&#8217;s treatment of hell and judgment is significantly more nuanced, multifaceted, and rich than the conventional teaching we often hear. Grappling with the Bible&#8217;s complex of teachings on hell and judgment seems to run up against the picture of God we get in the Bible: how do we reconcile the two?  That&#8217;s not easy.  It calls into question our hermeneutic (way of interpreting) as well.  What do we do with a subject that is never mentioned in the Old Testament, that arises in the Inter-testamental period and is not universally accepted (except by Jesus&#8217; main antagonists), and then is handled by Jesus in fascinating, sophisticated ways? Add to that the varied ways the apostles deal with the subject (or don&#8217;t deal with it) &#8230; and you have a pretty challenging situation.</span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> Is it true that your book is saying that &#8220;hell&#8221; is a myth?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> No.  I never say anything like that.</span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> In your experience as a pastor, have you found that &#8220;hell&#8221; serves as a deterrent for sin?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span>  Not very much.  Most Christians feel that they don&#8217;t need to face any sort of judgment, much less hell.  The only people who need to worry about hell, in their minds, are the people who generally don&#8217;t worry about it.</span></p>
<p><span>I think if we had a stronger sense of the reality, presence, purpose, love, holiness, justice, and inevitability of God &#8230; that would strengthen sin-deterrence powerfully.</span></p>
<p><span>But in the end, I think it&#8217;s more our practices that help us avoid sin, not only our concepts.</span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> What&#8217;s at issue with the four main Christian perspectives on the afterlife&#8212;exclusivism, inclusivism, conditionalism and universalism, and what difference does it make to an ordinary Christian who isn&#8217;t interested in rhetorical analysis or systematic theology?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> I think that people can be good Christians with any of these views, and I also think they can be bad Christians.  One of my biggest concerns, though, is that a hell-focused understanding of the gospel distracts us from the real message of Jesus &#8211; which is the kingdom of God.  I think what would help us most would be a kingdom-focused understanding of the gospel, and I hope this book prepares the way for that.</span></p>
<p><span>Next-Wave:</span><span> Your book proposes a new understanding of the relationship between justice and mercy in the Bible and in God&#8217;s character. Could you explain?</span></p>
<p><span>McLaren:</span><span> With this book, I feel a lot like the dancer who was asked what her performance meant. She replied, &#8220;If I could have said it, I wouldn&#8217;t have had to dance it.&#8221; So it&#8217;s hard to sum up, but let me frame it in this way, as a question: what if justice and mercy aren&#8217;t two separate things, but rather two sides of the same thing, namely, goodness?  What if God&#8217;s justice is always merciful and God&#8217;s mercy is always just?  What if the two aren&#8217;t opposed to one another, but rather are integrated in God, just as they are in, say, a good parent or teacher or judge or king?  This is one of Jesus&#8217; main points, I believe, in the sermon on the mount: it&#8217;s one of the ways that his &#8220;righteousness&#8221; exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees: their justice lacks mercy, but for Jesus, the two always go together.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-next-wave.info/2009/01/interview-with-mclaren-the-last-word/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
