An oldie but goody. [via]
Brian McLaren is a busy man these days. In addition to traveling around the world promoting new conceptions of Church, he has penned two new books; the first of which is the latest in the Voice Project, a re-telling of Luke and Acts titled, the Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals. We recently had the chance to speak with Brian about this Gospel re-telling, his next project, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, as well as the state of the Emergent conversation, circa 2007.
Darren King: I really enjoyed reading “the Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals”. I think the work accomplished the goals the various editors set out for it. I’m curious, how did you get involved with the Voice project? What were your initial thoughts about taking it on?
Brian McLaren: Chris Seay told me about the idea a few years ago. I remember thinking we already have a plethora of Bible versions available … you know, the Pregnant Women’s Third-Trimester Study Bible, or the Teenagers With Acne Bible … that sort of thing. So I wasn’t real excited about it. But Chris’s enthusiasm was contagious, and I “got” the project. When he asked me to do Luke and Acts, I couldn’t say no because I knew that the experience would be good for me in my own spiritual life, and it was.
Darren King: What were your personal goals for this retelling of the Gospel of Luke?
Brian McLaren: Of course, I wanted to be faithful to Luke’s meaning, which isn’t as easy as it sounds. For example, what did Luke mean when he used the term “salvation” or “Christ” or “Son of Man?” What did the term “baptism” mean to Luke’s original hearers? You can’t count on our understanding being equivalent to theirs. So this was a theological, literary, and creative challenge, and it was first and foremost in my mind.
Then, I wanted my rendition to be good storytelling. The gospels are full of such amazing stories, so rich in meaning, and I wanted the stories to flow so they could be read aloud. After all, traditionally, storytelling is a performance art more than a literary art.
Third, I wanted to somehow convey the flow between stories. Luke is very sophisticated in the way one story flows into the next, and I wanted to somehow convey that.
Darren King: I like the idea of separating the books of the Bible, as is being done with the Voice project. I think it helps to further genre awareness. Speaking of which, how do you think genre awareness (or a lack thereof) contributes to problems in Evangelical attitudes towards the Bible?
Brian McLaren: Aargh. This is an absolutely huge problem. You see it, for example, in people who try to interpret the Apocalypse without understanding it within the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, and in the larger genre of Literature of the Oppressed. You also see it when people treat the whole Bible as if it were the book of Leviticus: they’re looking for rules in places that aren’t intended to give rules. Even when they read Leviticus, they seem to assume that the rules there were intended to be timeless and free of social, cultural, or economic context – an unwarranted assumption for many reasons, in my opinion. You also see it when they don’t respect poetry and poetics, and try to read ancient poetry as if it were a scientific textbook. So this is a huge problem. I often say that the Bible suffers most in the hands of its friends. We love it so much that we treat it like our most highly esteemed books: the dictionary (look up a quick answer without reference to context), the legal constitution (where intepreters are like Supreme Court Justices), the scientific textbook (where words are used with the exacting precision of engineers, not the wild extravagance of poets and mystics), or Assembly Instructions (where we want the five steps for success).
Darren King: Some have suggested that the Bible has become the new “American idol”. And yet some Evangelicals would see this statement as near blasphemous. Do you think there’s any truth to this statement? How might we address it?
Brian McLaren: Three hundred years from now, people may look at contemporary American Evangelicals and their relation to the Bible the way we look at sixteenth century Roman Catholics and their relation to the pope or church tradition. I often think that we are acting more like Muslims – who have a dictation theory of the inspiration of the Quran – than like Christians, whose best scholars have always rejected the dictation theory of inspiration. Also, we tend to say, “The Bible says…” when we would be more honest saying, “Our systematic theology interprets the Bible to say…” or “Our religious tradition requires us to understand the Bible to mean …” In other words, I don’t think the Bible is the problem, but what we assume about the Bible and how we often use the Bible. As to how to address it, I think that’s a complex question that I actually may do some writing about in a year or two. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s one of the most important questions we face.
Darren King: If someone were to ask you to describe- in layman’s terms- how you view the Bible, what would you say?
Brian McLaren: I think its best to say about the Bible what it says about itself. But of course, even before we say that, we have to acknowledge that when the Bible was written, the Bible as we know it – 66 books organized as Old Testament and New Testament – didn’t exist. It’s probably good to let that thought settle in a bit before saying too much more.
Back to what the Bible says about itself – it never says that it has the answer to all of life’s problems. It never says it is easy to understand or that a little child could easily understand it – it in fact says something close to the opposite. It never says it’s the roadmap to a happy and successful life, or that it’s God’s little instruction manual, and so on. It does say it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in right living so that we can be equipped for good works. It does say that it is given for our comfort and encouragement and so that we can face life with hope. It says that it can make us “wise to salvation.” That’s what I would echo – both theologically, and in my experience.
Darren King: I think it’s unfortunate that some have accused you of moving from “spiritual” matters, to “political” ones. Are you surprised by these comments? And where do you think the disconnect (Biblical and otherwise) is rooted?
Brian McLaren: I think everything in life is spiritual. Going to church is spiritual, and so is going to work. Eating is spiritual, and so is voting. Controlling your sexual urges is spiritual, and so is controlling your buying urges. Not lying is spiritual, and so is not making racist comments. So the tendency to divide life into “spiritual” and “secular” is, I think, a recipe for hypocrisy and bad discipleship. A lot depends, of course, on how we use the word “politics.” If by it people mean partisanship – turning your faith into the religious chaplaincy of a political party, then I would agree: we shouldn’t be political. But politics means how groups of people arrange their lives together – and so it has to do with how we treat other people, and how we treat God’s world – and those are matters that are so deeply spiritual that I think faith is inherently political, or else it’s bad faith. You can’t love God and hate your neighbor – which Jesus, John, Paul, and James all say in one way or another. This means that if you have bad politics, if you don’t arrange your life in proper concern for your neighbor and the widow and orphan and stranger and even your enemy – then your love for God is dysfunctional.
What I dream for here in our country is that Christians in each political party let their faith critique their party, and so they call their party to a more and more holistic and just and wise and compassionate agenda. If we do that, we can help our nation fulfill its potential and vocation. As the richest, most powerful, and most heavily armed nation in the history of history, we have a very serious stewardship to fulfill as voters in a democracy, and if we don’t let our faith in the way of Jesus guide us, what will guide us? A conservative or liberal ideology? God help us if that’s the case. Actually – God help us period!
Darren King: It’s been a couple of years since I last interviewed you for Precipice. I’m just curious what you think has changed the most in the tone and/or direction of the EC conversation?
Brian McLaren: I think there are three main changes. First, the conversation continues to unfold and mature. There are more voices – and thankfully, more non-white and non-male voices – taking part, and there’s more and more constructive thinking and experimenting going on. Second, the issues we’re raising are becoming more and more public. More and more people know that there’s something called “the emergent conversation.” And third, the negative reactions are becoming more and more pronounced, along with the positive interest.
Darren King: Do you feel like the work you do, and that Emergent Village is supportive of, is more or less accepted by the mainstream Evangelical movement than it was a couple of years ago?
Brian McLaren: Both. It is far more accepted in some sectors, and less in others – and probably completely unknown in others. The Evangelical movement, it seems to me, is so diverse that even in the mainstream, you have a variety of responses.
Darren King: I’m just curious how mainline churches might approach the Emerging conversation differently than Evangelical churches? Do you notice a difference?
Brian McLaren: There are similarities and differences. Evangelicals tend to be more rigid in their thinking and more flexible in their methodology. Mainliners have more latitude in their think and more rigidity in their structures and methodologies. You could say that Evangelicals are more institutional in their thinking and Mainliners are more institutional in their liturgy and structure and practice. So, I think that the emergent conversation invites Evangelicals to rethink some ideas that we believe deserve rethinking. And it invites Mainliners to realize that mission trumps tradition and institution. Having said that, I should say that a surprisingly high percentage of people are both Evangelical and Mainline … and a growing percentage are neither.
Darren King: Tell us a little about your next book, “Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope”. What new ground are you hoping to cover with this book?
Brian McLaren: It’s by far the most challenging writing project I’ve ever taken on. I try to answer two questions in the book: What are the top global crises that we face today? And what does the message of Jesus mean for those global crises? Obviously, I build on my work in The Secret Message of Jesus – and in Luke and Acts with the Voice Project. But I also did a lot of research in the global crises literature. The intersection of the two areas of research is absolutely fascinating, encouraging, and life-changing. I think Jesus’ life and message comes to light in a powerful way when you understand it in relation to the top crises of his day. Then, when you bring that message to bear on our top crises, you can feel the electricity sparking … maybe thunder and lightning would be a better image.
So, what I tried to do was bring together the best global crisis thinking under a metaphor of a societal machine with four moving parts or subsystems. These four crises, I believe, drive what’s wrong and dangerous about our way of life today. And Jesus’ message has powerful and profound and scary and hopeful things to say to each of these crises. I’ve gotten enthusiastic responses from the dozen or so people who have read the manuscript, so I’m really looking forward to the book being released in October. Then early next year I’ll be doing an eleven-city tour where we’ll help people engage with the material in the book and make it practical in their lives and faith communities. People can get information about the book at my website (brianmclaren.net), and about the tour at deepshift.org.
