Reflections on Generous Orthodoxy

Last night I finished reading McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy. I'm not sure how to respond to this book. I guess I really connected with about 60% of what he had to say. Another 30% I really didn't understand (like his conception of a third way beyond absolutism and relativism), and the other 10% that I outright disagree with. So, here's some of my thoughts.

To boil down his main premise (one of them at least), he sees the modern Evangelical movement as having reduced Christianity to a series of correct beliefs or doctrines. Those who affirm these doctrines are in the "inside." Those who deny one or all of them are on the "outside." All the while, we ignore our own questionable practice of Christianity by overlooking or even condoning injustice, intolerance (the real intolerance), materialism, consumerism, and other not so good -isms. He calls for the Church to shift the emphasis away from orthodoxy and move our attention more toward orthopraxy.

With that in mind, he desires that we reform our eternal preoccupation of Christianity (just about getting to heaven and avoiding hell) and get on with the business of the Kingdom here and now. Therefore, we should walk as Jesus walked by looking out for the poor, fighting injustice, caring for the environment, and inviting others to do the same. Our salvation should not cause us to be insiders just happy we're not among those crazy liberals or lost pagans. Instead, our blessing should be turned toward the world so that we can be a blessing to others regardless of beliefs, race, gender, nationality, or political party.

In this regard, McLaren seems to be very prophetic about the current state of the Church and where we need to go from here. I know that I haven't done justice at all to this book, but he has amazing things to say about how believers should engage their world. He does, however, make me very uncomfortable when he uses his new orthopraxy to cast doubt on orthodoxy. For example he rejects the concept of "absolute truth" (he also reject relativism) because of the colonial, imperial, insider/outsider connotations that come along with it. He seems to frequently abandon (or remake) solid doctrine in favor of a more generous practice. Who can blame him though.