The Next-Wave » Brian McLaren

Interview with Brian McLaren: Generous Orthodoxy…

publisher — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:54:07 +0000

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 — which is also the background of Garrison Keillor and Jim Wallis, by the way. It was a restorationist, fundamentalist group — 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.
Next-Wave: What is a generous orthodoxy?
McLaren: Well, I took a whole book to try to answer that, and still didn’t do it justice, but in a sentence, a generous orthodoxy is an attempt to remarry two things that never should have been divorced — 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.
Next-Wave: Why did you feel compelled to write this book?
McLaren: 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—fresh winds blowing, people breaking out of old, constricting boxes. I sense a bubble of discontent hidden beneath the surface … 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.
Next-Wave: You go to great lengths to warn readers of the content in the book—why did you do this?
McLaren: 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.
Next-Wave: Who is this book written to?
McLaren: I had three groups in mind – disillusioned Christians, Christians interested in exploring faith in new territory beyond modern constraints, and people exploring Christian faith from the outside.
Next-Wave: Do you think Jesus would be a Christian today?
McLaren: I think he would love Christians, as he would love Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, new agers, and even atheists. But I’m not sure he would be well-received among Christians. In fact, I’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.
Next-Wave: 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?
McLaren: Don’t get me started on this, or I’ll lapse into rant. Let me just say that I’m very very afraid of what’s happening in the church in America. I’m afraid we’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’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 “horses and chariots” as the Psalmist said. We’re succumbing to the politics of fear. We think that because we’re pious—because we pray and sing and use lots of highly religious language – that we’re immune to this kind of seduction, but it’s happened a thousand times in history, and I think we’re no less vulnerable. In fact, our wealth and power should make us more vulnerable to these seductions. As I said … don’t get me started.
Next-Wave: Describe what it means to be missional.
McLaren: 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.
Next-Wave: In your book, you describe the term “evangelical” as being sectarian and restrictive. What do you mean by this?
McLaren: Actually, I distinguish between “E”vangelical, and “e”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.
Next-Wave: Talk about the role poetry plays in a generous orthodoxy.
McLaren: There’s a kind of ungenerous orthodoxy that is like spiritual accounting – 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’s in (us) and who’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 – it’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’t judge, but sees others as better than oneself.
Next-Wave: How does a generous orthodoxy regard the Bible?
McLaren: 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.
Next-Wave: What do you hope to accomplish by writing this book?
McLaren: 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’t good … people from across the spectrum of the Christian community – 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.
Next-Wave: What is your definition of orthodoxy?
McLaren: I like Chestertons’ definition. Orthodoxy is, he said, “a whirling adventure.” Rather than being something we possess like a membership card in our wallet, it’s something we seek – like a dream, like an ambition, like a calling.

Interview with McLaren: The Last Word…

publisher — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:50:09 +0000

Next-Wave: Brian, you’ve been dubbed a “postmodern pioneer” and named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, had your books banned and speeches cancelled, what’s your reaction to the controversy and the notoriety?

McLaren: It’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 — like bring-tears-to-your-eyes moving — and they help me not be preoccupied with the people who think I’m a villain, heretic, and all-around bad guy. I’m not a fighter by nature … so I don’t like controversy. At heart I’m a contemplative, so this much attention can be rough. At least I don’t have to worry about that verse, “Woe to you when all people speak well of you” any more! Processing all this and seeking to respond in a God-honoring way is a great growth opportunity for character, prayer life, etc.

Next-Wave: Some of us hope that the “Last Word” is not the last word from Dan Poole and his friend, Neil Oliver, is saying ‘to hell’ with hell the last we are going hear from these characters?

McLaren: I hadn’t planned on taking them any farther. But you never know. Sometimes I think about picking up one of the minor characters someday.

Next-Wave: Why is hell such a thorny issue for Christians?

McLaren: All of us who have a high view of Scripture don’t want to blunt its sharp edges; we want to be faithful to Scripture, and to God — even when it’s hard to do so. Yet — as I try to show in the book — the Bible’s treatment of hell and judgment is significantly more nuanced, multifaceted, and rich than the conventional teaching we often hear. Grappling with the Bible’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’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’ 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’t deal with it) … and you have a pretty challenging situation.

Next-Wave: Is it true that your book is saying that “hell” is a myth?

McLaren: No. I never say anything like that.

Next-Wave: In your experience as a pastor, have you found that “hell” serves as a deterrent for sin?

McLaren: Not very much. Most Christians feel that they don’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’t worry about it.

I think if we had a stronger sense of the reality, presence, purpose, love, holiness, justice, and inevitability of God … that would strengthen sin-deterrence powerfully.

But in the end, I think it’s more our practices that help us avoid sin, not only our concepts.

Next-Wave: What’s at issue with the four main Christian perspectives on the afterlife—exclusivism, inclusivism, conditionalism and universalism, and what difference does it make to an ordinary Christian who isn’t interested in rhetorical analysis or systematic theology?

McLaren: 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 – 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.

Next-Wave: Your book proposes a new understanding of the relationship between justice and mercy in the Bible and in God’s character. Could you explain?

McLaren: With this book, I feel a lot like the dancer who was asked what her performance meant. She replied, “If I could have said it, I wouldn’t have had to dance it.” So it’s hard to sum up, but let me frame it in this way, as a question: what if justice and mercy aren’t two separate things, but rather two sides of the same thing, namely, goodness? What if God’s justice is always merciful and God’s mercy is always just? What if the two aren’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’ main points, I believe, in the sermon on the mount: it’s one of the ways that his “righteousness” exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees: their justice lacks mercy, but for Jesus, the two always go together.