Here are the questions asked to Brian during June...
Hello Brian,
…..BUT WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT PASSAGES LIKE JOHN 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”
OR REVELATION 20:15 “And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.”
I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE HOW EVANGELICALS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETING THESE VERSES TO SAY THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS WILL NEVER FACE JUDGMENT.
NOW WHAT?
Answer: One of our serious problems in interpreting the Bible is a tendency to equate words like judgment, destruction, condemnation, and hell – as if each word meant the same thing. Judgment is not always the same as condemnation, and condemnation may not be the same thing as hell, which may not be the same thing as destruction, and so on. I get into some of this in “The Last Word and the Word After That.” Meanwhile, there are many passages that talk about all of us, including believers, being judged – but not condemned.
Brian,
Whilst roaming the internet I stumbled upon your site which contained some references and questions concerning the work of Jacques Derrida. Particulary to his statements concerning justice. To be specific - his statement that justice is indeconstructible. A previous contributor already mentioned the source of this sentence (Force of Law: the "Mystical Foundation of Authority"), but admitted that he had seen it only within secondary contexts. I would like to add to this ungoing discussion of Derrida's work by - humbly - sharing some of my insights on this matter.
In Force of Law Derrida's principal concern is to show that his work has a profoundly ethical layer, be it not in the usual academic sense of the word. Deconstruction, the act of deconstruction which is so closely entwined with his work, is justice. What Derrida means by this is that both justice and deconstruction have an open end. Justice is always something which will be beyond our grasp. It is, as Derrida explains, "to come". It is always "justice-to-come", ahead of us, over the horizon. If it were not beyond our grasp but attainable, justice could and would be incapsulated by calculating strategies. Justice would become a question of calculation which goes against everything we hold dear. It is as if Derrida stands before us and says: better not to know justice than to become a processed number in the eyes of the law.
Answer: Thanks for offering this helpful insight. I always recommend Jack Caputo’s work on Derrida – especially “Deconstruction in a Nutshell” and “Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida.”
Brian,
What do you see the role of emerging churches to be in the larger world ecumenical organizations. The 'late-modern' free churches of the evangelical movements - Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Foursquare etc are not really involved in the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches. Do you forsee that changing? Or can you see the new 'emerging' churches as being invovled in these sorts of organizations? Have you thought about Cedar Ridge having an observer status at the WCC?
Answer: Personally, I am eager to build relationships with everyone I can – not only in the Christian community, but in interfaith settings too. I see this as an act of neighborliness. Like many from a conservative Protestant background, I was raised to see the NCC and the WCC as the bad guys, and the word “ecumenical” was associated with evil. Ironically, we never saw our sectarianism, elitism, and judgmentalism as evil. I sense that more and more Christians realize that in a world dangerously fragmented, building relationships and engaging in constructive dialogue is not a sign of compromise but a sign of neighborliness.
Mr. McLaren,
Just finished the book. Loved it. Thank you SO much. In chapter 8, you shared the parable. You ask, “what kind of ending can you imagine?”
Well, here’s one:
1) One remnant representative of both the liberals and conservatives is sent back to the village. You see, the liberals and conservative remnants come to the realization that “it’s the welfare of the village that counts,” NOT whether either rescue group triumphantly arrives back in the village with the food that will keep people alive. The remnants sent back to the village tell the villagers the “rescue parties” are stuck. The villagers decide to form a human chain from the village to the stranded rescue parties and portage the essential supplies back to the community to restore it to health. “Community” triumphs over factionalism. The powerless triumph over the powerful. Both rescue parties return to the village and repent, taking positions as servants of the village rather than “leaders.”
Answer: I like your ending!
Dear Brian,
as I understand postmodernists, they are very concerned about epistemological certitude leading to abuse of power and atrocities. That being the case, how would they, do you think, judge of the American Civil War? It was truly an atrocious war and is, to this day, justified mostly because it facilitated the end of slavery. So would postmodernists justify the war, with all of it's atrocities, because slavery ended thereafter? Or would they contend that the appropriate thing to have done would have been to remain agnostic and refused to either fight in the war OR practice slavery? Or some other option? Thanks for any clarification you could provide on this matter!
Answer: I appreciate this question, because I think we need to be rethinking the whole question of war, especially so-called “just war theory,” in light of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons – and in light of a fresh reappraisal of the teachings of Jesus on the subject. Unfortunately, I’m not qualified to speak on behalf of “postmodernists.” I can offer this. I believe it was Dr. King who said that violence was a sign of a lack of imagination. When we need to confront a great injustice, I believe that we often resort to violence when, with prayerful contemplation and creative imagination, we could find other ways – nonviolent ways – to respond. I’ll deal with this to a degree in my next book, “The Secret Message of Jesus,” in a chapter on war.
mr mclaren,
…and so i am here wishing i had a mentor someone to ask me hard questions and to challenge me so your books will have to do. and your reading list I plan on expanding my library to more than puritans. and secretly i wish that you would find something in this e mail that would merit a response which starts a series of life changing emails in the way rainer maria rilke corresponded in letters to a young poet... anyway thanks for you love and kindness. today i sat in my office listened to beautiful music and thought
about God this afternoon i will think more with my camera about how God
created me to be an artist...
Answer: Thanks for your kind words. My prayer is that you will find a good mentor near where you live … and that you’ll keep up your artistic explorations!
Pastor Dan,
…When we talk about this all loving and accepting God, we leave out the parts of the Bible where God was quite devastating. Throughout the Old Testament God was wiping nations out for Israel. Sometimes he even commanded the Israelites to kill even the women and children of enemy nations. And in the New Testament, two people were swallowed by the ground for lying
about the money they had made on some land they had sold. So, while God has certainly shown himself to be a loving and merciful God, He also seems to be pretty ticked off at disobedience, and not just disobedience
that involved injustice to the poor.
Answer: The question you raise (sorry, Pastor Dan wasn’t available!) is important. Is God vicious and violent? I grapple with this in “The Last Word and the Word After That.” I certainly agree that disobedience is a bad thing and that it evokes God’s anger (remembering that our human words can’t be used to reduce God to the level of throwing temper tantrums or having fits of revenge). But I believe we need to be careful in interpreting those Old Testament passages in ways that will make it easier for us to indulge in vengeful, violent behavior. I deal with this a bit in the chapter on the Bible in “A Generous Orthodoxy.” I believe that God is light, and in God there is no darkness at all – including the darkness of violence, hatred, revenge, or cruelty.
Hey Brian,
…I like thinking that we continue to learn and grow and evolve into the sort of creatures we were intended to be rather than just have all God's grace and truth handed to us on a silver platter as we cross the pearly gates (or stripped from us for all eternity if we didn't make it to a certain "checkpoint" on our spiritual journey during life). Such an afterlife would provide everyone, regardless of their spiritual condition upon death, at least some chance to make it all the way to heaven. It also doesn't neglect all our hard work and faith from our earthly lives.
Unfortunately, such a view of the afterlife is absolutely nowhere in the Bible (as far as I can tell), and is almost nonexistant in Christian tradition. So I guess my question to you is this: Is it acceptable for a Christian to adopt a view of the afterlife (or any theological opinion, for that matter) that has absolutely no base in the Bible or in Christian tradition, just because it sounds nice? At what point (if any) do emergent-esque, postmodern Christians stand up and say, "That's a very nice idea, but it's just not Christian"?
Answer: I wish it were that simple. There are a number of assumptions you make that I’m not sure I share – one of them being that “such a view of the afterlife is absolutely nowhere in the Bible … or Christian tradition.” Not sure if you’ve read “The Last Word” yet. You also might benefit from Jan Bonda’s “The One Purpose of God.”
Hi Brian,
…If it was not for you I would no longer identify myself as a Christian. The fascinating thing for me is to see your critics who say you're watering down the gospel. For me, you've actually made the Gospel more challenging. If I'm to call people into the Kingdom here and now that's a much larger challenge than getting my rear end into heaven!
Answer: Thanks. I know that I feel more challenged than ever!
Brian,
…For me, this idea has a rather distressing aspect: it implies that our spiritual practice can never rise above the level of the merely symbolic. It also seems to imply that we can never, ever be free of whichever failed human philosophical experiment happens to prevail at the time when we're alive.
As fresh and liberating as postmodern thought may seem at this moment in human history, it will inevitably become a dead, constricting skin to be shed just like Modernism before it. There will never be "a way of looking at reality" that actually is "reality". So I'm ambivalent - I'm enthusiastic about shedding one set of problems, but circumspect about adopting the next one.
Do you believe it's ever possible to escape this philosophical dance - even to a degree?
Answer: I don’t believe we, in this life, will “know as we are known,” but I don’t see that as a depressing aspect as you seem to. I also think there are more options than “the merely symbolic” and being “free from whichever human philosophical experiment” we happen to find ourselves in. Don’t give up with only those two options to choose from! I am excited to seek and learn and know, as a limited creature in God’s creation, trusting God through it all. I love what Deuteronomy 29:29 says – there are many secrets known only to God, but we can know enough to do what God wants us to do in this life. That’s an exciting prospect! You might enjoy Jamie Smith’s book, “The Fall of Interpretation.”
Dear Brian,…More interestingly, though, I would love some of your thoughts on
> a more politically radical Christian postmodern mission. It seems
> there is clearly
> room in a generous Christian Orthodoxy for radical political
> commitments as expressions and outworkings of Christian faith, such as a passionate commitment to pacificism, an opposition to the unaccountable power of transnational corporations, or even a position of advocacy for gay/lesbian marriage and full acceptance in the church. It is difficult to hold these passionately and act on them in the larger churches, ….. How
> can one pursue a rigorous discipleship with radical political dimensions, while disagreeing with other Christians, but learning from them and loving from them
> as well? This is why I am finding small models of "radical"
> community exciting, and I live in an intentional community in
> XXX at the moment. It is a pocket of love and radical
> discipleship that in my opinion is not just a witness and
> invitation to the world, but also to the church. To practice disciplesh
> ip in those spheres I have had to go elsewhere, to many of my
> secular activist organizations, etc...
>
> At any rate, these are some of the directions I'm thinking
Answer: Thanks for your thoughts. I recently wrote an article on this subject for Sojourners magazine – about being a bridge. I believe it’s the September issue. I hope it will be of some help.
Brian,
…You do a wonderful job of pointing out the history of “hell” and give a sweeping timeline that puts most people on the same page. I sighed in relief with how you dealt with Jesus debunking the Pharisee’s teaching…But what about Jesus’ private teaching to the disciples? Matthew 13 has examples of the Wheat and the Weeds & the Fishing Net and when Jesus’ would have the perfect opportunity to instill a new, dare I say it, generous view of Hell, it appears on the surface that he doesn’t. Maybe I’m asking the wrong question…but then I don’t know what the right question would be. Your thoughts and insights have been a blessing and have stretched my so called “ortho-fill-in-the-blank-here”. Thank you.
Answer: The reason, I think, that Jesus doesn’t instill a new vision of hell is that hell is really not the main preoccupation in his mind. Can I recommend you explore three websites – N. T. Wright’s site, christianfutures.com, and the site for Open Source Theology? I think you’d find insights there that would put all this in a new light.
Dear Brian:
Currently reading your book... page 12. Pastor Dan to Leo..."I went to seminary right out of college". Question... did Brian McLaren graduate from seminary? Can't see that in your web bio. If not, how did you get to pastoring without the fundamental training. Thanks for replying.
Answer: No, I didn’t go to seminary. I have a masters degree in English. I also received an honorary doctorate from Carey Theological College in Vancouver, BC. I was part of a church planting team and ended up leaving my job as a college English teacher to become a pastor. There are more and more pastors like me who are called and gifted to lead, but don’t follow the traditional seminary track. Having said that, I’m very pro-seminary and teach at several seminaries, believing that what we need is better education, not less!
Brian,
I've heard a couple of times in your articles saying that if reading the books / articles that you have written is going to really upset people than you would prefer them not to read them - to let them pass by. I can't find a direct quote, but i think that's the gist of it.
I'm just kind of wondering why? My girlfriend and I, who have both greatly enjoyed reading and thinking about the "New Kind of Christian" and "Story we find ourselves in" thought it could be that you were not keen to encourage people who weren't ready, in their journey with God, to think about this stuff to get distressed. I could understand that, but since i haven't seen an explanation like that on paper from you, i wanted to let you speak for yourself.
Answer: In the introduction to The Last Word and the Word After That, I include a quote from Plato’s Phaedrus about this. Not everyone is ready to hear certain things at any given time. Jesus felt this in regard to the disciples. Remember him saying, “There are other things I want to teach you, but you can not bear it?” I don’t want people to have to grapple with things they “can not bear.”
Brian,
I am going to start a new church in the San Francisco Bay Area this summer. I had a few questions: If you were to start a Cedar Ridge over again - what would you do the same? What would you do differently? Any things you would make sure you avoid? If you were in my shoes - got any advice for me?
Answer: Great question – and it would require a book to answer that well. But here’s the short answer:
1. I wouldn’t compare myself or the new church to anybody else. I would try to follow God’s leading – without comparing our size, etc., to anybody.
2. I would be sure to find a group of peer mentors (friends outside the church plant who can simply be friends) and “older” mentors – who I could go to any time with questions, problems, discouragement, etc.
3. I would not be too quick to encourage “transfers” to join the group – I would let them know that we’re trying to do something very different, and they probably won’t like it if they’re just “church shopping.”
4. I would build in regular times for mid-course corrections – and let people know that we will be in ‘formative stages” for at least 5 to 10 years.
By the way, getting involved in a cohort group (see emergentvillage.com) could really be helpful! God bless you in the new venture!
To whom it may concern (and hopefully to Brian et. al.)
In the letter signed by several of you as a response to some of your criticism (of which I am not very aware, the criticism, that is) I read that you hold to Jesus as the Savior of the cosmos. I struggle with that. In fact, I think it is great hubris that we apply a local, that is earth centered, event (or events) to the cosmos. The more I learn about the cosmos, the more I realize that it is bigger then mere humans. Do you really propose that Jesus is the Savior of the cosmos? What did he save them from? Is sin a cosmic event?
As we face the post-post modern future, I hope we can incorporate an understanding of the cosmos that leaves humans out of the center and puts God back there (in the center, in the everything.)
The only way that I can see Jesus saving the cosmos is that he may be saving it from us. God have mercy if we bring our egocentric consumerism to the cosmos.
Answer: Personally, my thoughts would run exactly along the lines of your last paragraph!
Hi Brian,
What I'm curious about is the kind of response you've had from Evangelical churches- in general. I noticed on your speaking schedule that a lot of your engagements are at educational institutions and mainline churches. What kind of response have you had from circles such as Baptists, EV Free, Pentecostals, etc? My personal background is in the Vineyard- specifically the Canadian Vineyard. Now that I live in the States I see that the US version of the Vineyard seems a little less "emergent" and "generous" in its orthodoxy than its Canadian counterpart. What has your experience with the Vineyard been? I'm also curious about your experience with Evangelicals in Canada vs the US? Most would argue that Canada is much further along the postmodern spectrum than is the US. This isn't a value statement in any way...just a perceived fact. I would love to hear about your experience in regards to these issues. Keep on keeping the faith, Brother- you're speaking "in the "trenches" on behalf of a lot of us.
Answer: That’s a good question, and it’s hard to answer because it’s hard to make generalizations. There are two sectors of the Evangelical movement that so far have been somewhat disinterested or critical – the “pre-Barthian Calvinists” and the Religious Right. Together, they comprise a lot of the Evangelicals, and of course they overlap quite a bit. But then again, I’m frequently hearing from people from very conservative backgrounds who express gratitude for my work – including the groups you mentioned. Prominent leaders in the SBC and E-Free churches have been outspokenly critical of my work, which makes it harder, I imagine, for people in those groups to express a contrary opinion, but frankly, I’ve learned a lot from people in both groups – and there’s more diversity in these groups than many people realize. The same is true of the Vineyard, with whom I’ve had many good experiences. Overall, I’m constantly impressed with the quality of younger (and older) leaders I meet from all of these groups in my travels.