A Generous Orthodoxy

I finished book one on my long list of summer reading.  It was A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian McLaren. First thing that told me that I'd probably like the book: his favorite musician is Bruce Cockburn (he actually even looks a little like Bruce.) Anybody whose favorite musician is Bruce Cockburn is OK!

Brian McLaren is considered one of the big lights in the "Emergent Church" movement. I've talked a bit about it before. These are postmodern folks working on the post-denominational (even post-Protestant) future of the Christian church. He, like many in the Emergent church movement, started out on the conservative side of the spectrum. So his perspectives are very colored by those origins. He comes to some very different conclusions than I would in some instances, and in others, we'd very much agree.

This book, in certain circles has generated a lot of flak for him. Particulary among fundamentalists. I can certainly understand that - it is a book that, instead of affirming the fundamentals as they see it, affirms the fundamentals that are quite a bit more biblical: love of God and neighbor. This is an important underlying principle in the book, one, as you all know, is something I can get behind.
 

This book is an interesting combination of personal perspective and didactic description of the different strains of Christianity, and, in particular, the parts of these different strains that he likes, and has problems with. After a couple of chapters of apologies and warnings (which, although I apreciate his humility and self-deprecation, is a bit much,) is a great chapter on "The Seven Jesuses I've Known" and describes, as he understands them, what parts of Jesus are emphasized in each of seven traditions (conservative protestant, Catholic, charismatic/pentacostal,liberal protestant, liberation theology, anabatist, and Eastern Orthodox.) For me, it was helpful to hear his perspective on the differences (for instance, conservative Protestants focus more on the death of Jesus, whereas liberal Protestants, Anabaptists and Liberation Theologists focus on his life and work.)  And his reason for doing this, which is a theme that he carries throughout the book, is that each tradition has its particualr gift to give, and a "generous orthodoxy" would embrace all of these.

He then goes into his perspective on God. He defines a "God A" as "a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind or Will" and "God B" as "a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational, community/family/society/entity of saving Love." He is finding himself very much in the universe of God B.

He then asks the question "Would Jesus Be a Christian".  He answers this with the comment, "Often I don't think Jesus would be caught dead as a Christian, were he physically here today."  And another comment is that he doesn't think that most Christians would like Jesus if he arrived today. He says, "In fact, I think we'd call him a heretic and plot to kill him too." I tend to agree with him here.

He has a chapter on what it is that Jesus is supposed to be saving us from, anyway. He's pretty clear that a focus on hell has been problematic at best. He says "In the Bible, save means 'rescue' or 'heal.' It emphatically does not automatically mean 'save from hell' or 'give eternal life after death' ... Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, 'save' means 'gets out of trouble.' The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil."

He then spends the rest of the book going through different strains of Christianity, and explaining what he likes about each - what he'd like to take from each, and where he sees each has failed. I think that this is a really interesting exploration of the strengths of different traditions within Christianity, and what has worked, what has miserably failed, and what might be worth rescuing.

There are two aspects of his discussions that were of particular interest to me. One that caused me some difficulty was his perspectives on mission.  He says that he is "missional" - and he describes it this way: "Those who want to become Christian (whether through our proclimation or demonstration,) we welcome. Those who don't, we love and serve, joining God in seeking thier good, their blessing, their shalom." He does have a good discussion of the issues relating to how Christians should relate to those of other faiths, one that is likely quite radical given his conservative background, but from my perspective, it doesn't quite go far enough. I question the whole enterprise of the evangelism part of missions (he actually tries to deconstruct the 'evangelism' and 'service' dichotomy of mission work, but I'm not sure it's so successful.) He understands the problem with the whole missionary enterprise in the past, and the wholesale export of European and American culture with missionary work in the past. I just think it needs more consideration than he's given it.

The second part of the discussion that I found interesting (of course) was his focus on spiritual practice and piety, and the ways in which some traditions (like Methodism, and charismatic and contemplative traditions) have had that as a focus, and that is something he would like to rescue, and become part of this "generous orthodoxy." He talks a bit about orthodoxy (right thinking) and orthopraxy (right practice), and I think his perspective is that orthopraxy is in need of rescuing, and orthodoxy has been used too much as a club with which to beat other people. He has a great discussion of baptism, and the significance of baptism in different traditions, and the ways in which that has changed over time. He also has a great discussion about Anabaptists, and the way they have rejected modernity is something that is a very good thing.

Unfortunately, he completely sidesteps questions of patriarchy (except for a couple of mentions of the problem with the complete focus on the masculine aspects of the divine in Protestantism) and homophobia, although he does deal with culture and issues of ethnic and racial oppression. He explains, and I agree, that until Christians and Christianity repents from the atrocities of its past, and practices deep humility, there isn't really a way to move forward. He does seem to have some kind of hope that all Christians can begin to appreciate the gifts that all traditions hold, and begin somehow together to create this "generous orthodoxy."

On the whole, this was an enjoyable book to read, particularly before I knew enough theology and Christian history to argue with him on those counts. I think it's worth a read if you are a seminarian of any stripe, or concerned with the present state of Christianity, or even at all curious about it, or about the Emergent church movement.  I think that the whole enterprise that he is working on, that is, looking back at the most important parts of the message of Jesus, and looking at what has worked, and what hasn't worked, and deeply understanding our present context, and building from there, is, I think, a good enterprise, even though he and I would likely erect different buildings. And I think that, for him, that would be OK.

technorati tags: emergent, church, christianity, orthodoxy