Thoughts on Generous Orthodoxy
After reading McLaren’s work Generous Orthodoxy (just finished it in the hospital with my new son!), I felt compelled to leave a few thoughts on my blog. Please read these in the spirit in which they were intended, humbly, as one who does not have everything all figured out but is working towards understanding. If you have not yet, please read my previous blog on the Emerging Church to gain some appreciation of my viewpoint before embarking on this short read. All comments are desired and welcomed!
McLaren doesn’t appear to hold much credence to propositional truth. He is not interested in doctrines, although he says he affirms the Nicene and Apostle’s creeds. However, after reading the rest of the book, I would have to argue that those affirmations are subject to change. Nothing seems to be held to any certainty, except for living a life which shows the love of God. This, for McLaren, is the highest aim of the Christianity. It does not matter what one believes as long as one is taking part in the conversation and bringing the kingdom of God to earth.
Unfortunately, I can not agree with McLaren’s stance (or lack thereof), because to hold that we can not find absolute certainty is not generous nor is it orthodox. We must have certainty (humbly based on faith, not a scientific discovery of truth) on some things within Christianity. McLaren would probably state certainty is found in orthopraxis, namely the placing into action one’s said beliefs, not in orthodoxy or doctrines. But without certainty about a belief, how can one act upon it? What defines Christianity is not so much what it does outside of its beliefs, but what it does because of its beliefs. Namely, the belief that Christ is the Son of God who reconciles all things back to God. If that idea is not believed, do we have Christianity?
Despite this, a lack of absolute certainty is, however, appropriate in that it can lead to a more humble approach to truth when it comes to those non-essential doctrines. McLaren is right to say that if one believes that we have it all figured out, nailed down, buttoned up, shut the door on that, is to think more highly of one’s self that ought be thought. True, one must believe they are correct in order to state a truth, as Christians, we should hold lightly on to those things which are not central. However, again, certainty must be maintained on those things which define Christianity.
McLaren talks much about the kingdom of God. However, to say that bringing the kingdom of God to earth, through displays of love and peace, is the highest aim of the Christian seems to miss the point. Through all his talk of mission, he doesn’t talk much about conversion. Conversion is too dogmatic, it is too violent, but feeding the poor is not. I agree that feeding the poor is an essential part to Christianity, but so is conversion, so is preaching a Gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sin through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That can not change and must be a part of the mission. All this reconciling the world to God is well and good, but we must not forget the crowning achievement of that creation is humankind. Should not they be top on our priority list of reconciliation? Sadly, McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy does not seem to place it there.
I can not say that I recommend this book to be read, however, it is worth a look if you are curious about post-modernity and orthodoxy. As Scot McKnight said in his short work on the emerging church, it is probably not the best book to read if you want to find out what the Emergent or emerging church movement is all about. He regards Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger’s work Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker, 2005) as the first book to read about this subject. He also believes that most postmodernists would refer to Peter Rollins’ work How (not) to Speak of God when discussing the subject of truth as opposed to McLaren’s work discussed here. Another work that has been both highly praised and criticized is D.A. Carson’s work Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. I have yet to read any of these. As I do, I will post my thoughts on each of them.
Thoughts?
Hi Kev,
Haven’t remembered to read your blog until now…….
And of course it is hard to comment on something you haven’t read, although i probably wouldn’t understand what this man was trying to say anyway.
But, it seems to me that many have taken the easy gospel not the complete gospel. Why was it that so many were opposed to what Christ had to say while on earth, if He were only portraying love and service to mankind. He was crucified for a reason and for us to “ignore” it would make Christ’s sacrifice null and void. We ask then, why did he come in the first place?
I believe that showing others His love in both word and deed is essential to the Christian walk, that is to say AFTER you have accepted His redemptive work on the cross, it is a fruit or by-product of your conversion. To show only God’s love is false teaching, yes He is love but He is to be feared as well……which is the beginning of wisdom.
Very interesting thinking, i’m new to this kind of thinking. In my day, it was hell, fire and brimstone and love was tucked in their somewhere. Remember the portion of scripture that talks about they liked to have their ears tickled, sounds like this kind of “preaching”. Keep asking the Spirit to guide you!
Mom