Posted by Helen on: 06.26.2006 /
I’ve been reading A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. Wow - I love this book!
In a succession of chapters entitled “Why I am a…” Brian McLaren discusses different Christian traditions one by one. He shares what he loves about each tradition and says “that’s why I am one of these”. He is also very honest about the problems he sees with each tradition.
What I love is that, faced with group of people who do some things he loves and some things which deeply trouble him, Brian decides to embrace the good and say “I’m one of these”. Rather than saying “I’m not one of these” because of the problems.
This challenges me personally: I feel like lately I’ve been more likely to say “I’m not one of these” because of the problems than say “I am one of these” and hold onto what’s good.
I like Brian’ McLaren’s way better.
Bearing in mind that “Why I am a…” means “this is what I love about these”, not “I accept everything about them”:
Feel free to say why you are a number of things.
Also, what you are can relate to religious belief or non-belief or something else entirely. If you like, write about why you’re a coach for your child’s sports team. Or why you’re anything else that matters to you.
Feel free to be honest about the problems with what you’re describing as long as you also tell us what you love.
Comment by: Marty
1I have not read “A Generous Orthodoxy” - while at the same time I have very much appreciated watching Brian on OTM and reading some of his other things. What he shares resonates with me.
Another person who has taken a somewhat similar approach to studying World Religions is Huston Smith - who I have seen several times here in Santa Barbara. He is a brilliant mind - who studies mainly the good in world religions (he says that there is plenty of information on the bad) and he is an awesome and very open/honest thinker/sharer in dialogue.
Comment by: Peter Walker
2Brian’s attitude is so refreshing within this transitional paradigm of postmodernity because postmodernism is so-often identified by what it is NOT or what it comes AFTER. There are lots of reasons for this which are not all bad, but neither is it a very productive way for emerging Christians to identify themselves.
The church seems to spend more time focusing on what’s wrong in the world rather than what is right - what it is against, rather than what it is FOR! It’s an amazing thing to come together in loving solidarity with people who have very different worldviews, religious cultures and idealogies.
Great book Helen.
Comment by: Bruce
3Helen, I remember (from years ago) a television ad that Harry Reasoner was in, advertising his nightly news. He used a number of contradictions to describe himself and finished by saying that categories people often used to describe him were at one time or another inaccurate, “liberal” for example.
I like what Reasoner said because I think that ambiguity and contradiction tend to be true of life in general, and even of some of the things in the Bible. For example, “S/he that would be great must be a servant.”
The thing I like about “a Generous Or+thodoxy” is that it respects these tensions and contradictions and lets them stand. I’m not saying that I think truth is relative, but life seldom yields to easy formulas and black and white judgments.
I always want to be faithful to the Bible, but I never want to try to squeeze it into some explanation that removes its depth, complexity, and mystery. That is why I like Generous Orthodoxy; it respects the complexity of faith.
Comment by: Julie marie
4I have decided I like Ncxians idea of a Christian Humanist. So that is my new label.
What do I like about my beliefs?
I really like using my brain to learn new things about God’s creation. Its been a long time since I’ve been intellectually excited. I am free to examine what I believe in light of twenty first century knowledge regarding our physical world, and it is almost intoxicating.
I like my new open ideas about God, yet I fully appreciate the grounding in fundamentals. It will keep from being so open my brain falls out, as Siamang would say. I enjoy not laboring under the restraints of conservative Christianity, but appreciate the confidence I have in my faith, and the ability I have now to discern nonsense and not be sidetracked or sidelined by esoteric manipulations of scripture.
I like the simplicity of my beliefs now. I’ve pared it down to a few simple points:
Love the Lord, Love my neighbor.
Comment by: jim
5Helen
I am so happyu that Brian makes some sense to you (ang maybe more) he is one of the few “well known” thinker/presenters we invite to OTM conference because he articulates some of the things people are feeling so well.
Comment by: Helen M.
6Jim, yes, I can relate very much to what Brian wrote in A Generous Orthodoxy. Like I said, it’s not just what he wrote but the approach he takes. He speaks of being generous and he also role-models generosity towards each tradition by affirming what is great about each one.
Comment by: Bob
7I read G.O. abour a year ago. I liked his idea of “generosity” when approaching others. Looking for and appreciating the positives of others rather than the differences is good. It gave me a good foundation as I began to look back at the religion of my youth.
I’d like to comment on Marty’s post in #1, though. The one thing McClaren did not include is “Why I am a Buddhist…” or “why I am wiccan…” or “why I am an atheist…”
He stayed firmly couched in Christianity and seemed to be looking more at uniting various denominations within Christianity rather than creating an amalgam of all world views (religious and/or non-religious).
Comment by: Eliza
8I’ll go with…”why I am a skeptic.” (Focusing on the positive, as Helen suggested, which for pro-skepticism me should not be too hard!)
A skeptic gets to be a puzzle solver…a detective…a freethinker.
A skeptic gets to be an optimist…optimistic that information and inquiry can add depth and certainty to some areas, and can help define questions in other areas.
A skeptic gets to enjoy “aha” moments when pieces fit together, and also when they pretty clearly don’t fit.
A skeptic gets to think outside the box, pondering whether something there helps the pieces fit together.
A skeptic gets to question authority, at least internally (in her own thoughts) if not out loud, when the “official” stance or explanations doesn’t make sense.
A skeptic gets to change her mind and feel comfortable with doing so…even excited, having found new information or a new approach that offers a more solid explanation.
Comment by: Eliza
9Bob,
Think that’s a project someone else could take on?
Comment by: Julie Marie
10One of the things I like about Generous Orthodoxy is the presentation of so many facets of Christianity. I like that our faith has so many expressions.
Comment by: Helen M.
11Bob wrote:
Actually, Bob, in the chapter called “Why I am incarnational” Brian McLaren writes:
And since he mentions ‘all people’ I’m guessing - although I don’ t know - that he would have included atheists too if they were more on his radar.
Comment by: Helen M.
12Me too, Julie Marie. It’s a shame that they end up in conflict so often rather than valuing the strengths of each tradition (along with being honest about the weaknesses) as Brian McLaren does.
Comment by: Marty
13Huston Smith - now in his 80’s, has taken a unique approach to studying religions. He decided to study each of the great religions in depth, taking many years to study each religion - and do so studying at the foot of the masters of each great religions.
Huston was born in China (or India?) the son of Protestant (I think Methodist) missionaries. Each time he started studying each of the great religions - he started as a skeptic - and in each case went through a very long evolution where he wound up coming to the place that “Buddism and Huston Smith are one.” and finding the same ocurring as he studied each great religion.
Huston’s work has played a signficant role in my current belief that God manifests to different people in differenct cultures and life conditions in different ways.
Comment by: Julie Marie
14This is very interesting to me too, Marty. I think more and more about the teaching that “God meets you where you are” . In order to do that, I would think he would introduce himself to the various cultures in ways that are most appropriate and understandable to them. The Jews were looking for a messiah…so he came as a messiah… The ultimate in relevance, if you will.
I would find it very interesting to see what the underlying principles are in each of the major world religions - do they resonate with each other?
Comment by: Helen M.
15I think that’s a fascinating and very complex question, Julie Marie.
I’ve been taught by Evangelical Christians that Christianity is essentially different from all the other religions for various reasons. But what they say about other religions indicates to me that they have too superficial an understanding of them to answer a complex question like that as it deserves to be answered.
Also, it presupposes that their own version of Christianity, with their own conclusions about what is essential, non-essential and unimportant, should be the basis for comparison.
My own experience has been that when I’ve actually read sacred writings from people who are not Christians, I’ve been struck by similarities I didn’t expect to find in them.
I think what people find depends to a large extent on what they’re looking for.
So I’m not entirely surprised people arrive at different answers to “how much similarity is there between different belief systems?”
Comment by: Julie Marie
16well…I think I’ll have to add Huston’s book to my list. (sigh. I should open a library for those undergoing religious meltdowns). My thought is that if Huston was looking for the BEST in each of the major religions, he might come as close as any seeker can to understanding what were the underlying principles intended by the founders. And by not scrutinizing the worst, he avoids seeing how humans haved twisted the original intent.
As NC would say, I’m trying the following thought on for size: Jesus came to the Jews. They had a proud history of dominance, which they remembered well, even though they were hardly dominant at the time - they were definitely thinking scriptures clearly stated they would dominate again. (gotta love anything that starts out with “the bible CLEARLY says…” yeah, uh huh. ) His primary teachings were about humility and justice for the oppressed, and love for your fellow man, including your enemies. To drive home the message, he allowed himself to be crucified…and professed love for his enemies by expressing understanding and requesting forgiveness for them.
If God did indeed meet other cultures where they were, the message would be different - because the spiritual needs of those cultures were different. But they shouldn’t be in direct conflict.
I see lots of history lessons in my future….
Comment by: jim
17he would
Comment by: NCxian
18Based on my reading of half of Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief, by Huston Smith, I would have to say that, while McLaren might lump atheists in with Buddhists etc, Huston Smith seems to consider them something different altogether. Not inhuman, not that he is not “linked with them” in some way, but he clearly has not hung out with them until “atheism and Huston Smith become one”. He places a very high value on the legitimacy of religious experience and dislikes the view that the only way to know something is through scientific means. I guess he has been convinced differently in his very interesting life.
I’ve only read half the book, though, so Marty or somebody, please correct me if I am mistaken.
Comment by: Lisa W.
19I am intrigued by Eliza’s list of why she is a skeptic.
I feel as though I could easily internalize these reasons as my own although I don’t consider myself a ’skeptic’. The word skeptic seems negative to me. (I understand Eliza is not speaking of it from a negative standpoint)
I’m not sure what the ‘label’ would be but as a Christian I still
feel totally comfortable with the list. Interesting.
Comment by: Helen M.
20Yes, I like Eliza’s list too.
Lisa, I think it’s great that for you, being a Christian has never conflicted with Eliza’s list.
For me, I can see now that the way I was a Christian did discourage me from being as freethinking as I might have been.
Using Brian McLaren’s methodology, there are things about the Christians I used to be in church and Bible study with that I do still dentify with. Here are two: I love how they want to be the best people they possibly can be; I love that they have such a goal. I love how praying together brings Christians together in a special communion of reverent humility.
Comment by: Helen M.
21NCXian, it sounds like maybe Huston Smith has a somewhat 2 dimensional view of atheists.
I was re-listening to Hemant’s Way of the Master interview. In it he was agreeing that the universe fills him with wonder and awe even though it doesn’t make him think “This has to have had a creator-God”.
Atheists experience wonder and awe and being moved by poetry and art and deep love for other people just like people with beliefs do. And they have to come to terms with suffering that cannot be ‘explained’ just as people with beliefs do. There’s a lot of commonality there for those who have the patience and willingness to look for it.
Comment by: NCxian
22I think he looks, in that book, at atheism as a worldview, and not really atheists as individuals. I found it hard to get throught the book (well, I didn’t get through it all), perhaps because he was kind of fixed on something of a two-dimensional, “strawperson” atheist. But I thought he made some interesting points about how the enlightenment period, as great as it was in certain respects, placed so much emphasis on information that is “verifiable” (as we have taken to calling it on the DB), and denigrated other forms of “knowing”.
He is the first person I’ve heard who articulates a distinction between people of (any) faith and people of no faith and then expresses a preference for the former worldview over the latter. Usually, when people are talking about the value of religion, they are talking about their own religion. He is talking about religion in general (at least to the half way point, when I turned it back in to the library).
I haven’t read his World Religions book, but Marty is in agreement with many other people I know who have reported that it broadened their view of and respect for other religions. I think this book may be a little bit of an aberration for him.
Comment by: Will
23Hello, I just happened upon this conversation. I think I may have something to add. First a bit of context: I got my life radically transformed by Jesus while “high,” and desperate for help, back in ‘74. I was prayed for by people who might have called 911 but didn’t.
I went on to spend many years taking “youth at risk” into the mountains to love them up and share my love for Jesus. For the past decade now, I have been on assignment, so to speak, with Native Americans. I could have come to them with all my evangelical answers. I am a conservative Bible college grad.
Learning of (and experiencing) some of the atrocious harms we have done to Natives in the name of God and country has been painful. Trying to listen and learn more than speak, for the past 13 years, has strongly affected my views on truth around me.
Today I love Jesus more than ever and know with certainty that He will not live in a box, and that He likes to rattle those who want to live in boxes themselves. On the reservation where I have lived and worked there are still many people trying to convert Indians into their European cultural image of God. However there are courageous indigenous followers of Jesus who refuse to be boxed in. We must fight for these people with understanding, love and prayer. They are all around us here in the US and beyond. They have much to give that we need.
Thanks for listening. Love to you.
Comment by: Helen
24Thanks for your comment Will. I’m glad to hear you’re connecting with Native Americans in a way which respects their culture.