A battle cry for Christian reform

Evangelical leader's challenge: Do what Jesus would do today

TIM FUNK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Courtest of Brian McLarenBrian McLaren, dubbed one of the country¡¯
s top 25 evangelical leaders by Time magazine, is coming to 
Charlotte next week.

WANT TO GO?
Brian McLaren will bring his "Everything Must Change" tour to 
Charlotte Friday and next Saturday (Feb. 1-2). He'll speak four 
times at arts venue Area 15, 514 E. 15th St. Registration: $109. One 
speaking event is free: At 5:30 p.m. Saturday, McLaren will engage 
in a "trialogue" with representatives from the local Muslim, Jewish 
and Christian communities. Details: www.deepshift.org/charlotte or 
contact Steve Knight at 704-689-2489 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
McLaren is the guiding light for the "emerging church," a national 
movement -- he prefers "conversation" -- among mostly young and 
often progressive evangelicals looking for more relevant, up-to-date 
ways to live their Christian faith.

Dubbed one of the country's top 25 evangelical leaders by Time 
magazine, McLaren, 51, can be found these days challenging status-
quo Christianity in best-selling books, at church conferences, on TV 
and radio talk shows, and in the blogosphere. He's also a musician 
and a songwriter.

In his new book -- " Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, 
and a Revolution of Hope" -- he takes issue with both the religious 
right and the new generation of atheist writers. According to the 
English professor-turned-pastor-turned-mentor-to-pastors, it's time 
for Christians to accept Jesus' invitation to lead the battle 
against poverty, war and the plundering of the planet.

McLaren will bring his message to Charlotte next weekend for a 
series of talks -- including one in which he'll engage in 
a "trialogue" with local Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Observer 
recently talked with McLaren by phone.

Here's the full transcript:

Q. Let's start with the title of your new book, "Everything Must 
Change." Everything? 

Well, hyperbole is one of the most common literary tools we use. So, 
obviously, I don't think the laws of gravity should change. Or the 
size of the earth or anything.

But the title really is trying to emphasize that the change we need 
is not just cosmetic. It really goes deep. The title actually comes 
from an interaction with a woman in Burundi, East Africa. When you 
think about the kind of world that about a third of our planet 
experience, you realize that for them everything must change.

Q. You say that many Christians should start by replacing the idea 
of getting themselves and others "saved" so they can go to heaven -- 
the evacuation plan, I think you call with -- with this idea of 
getting out there, in the here and now, and healing the hurts of the 
world. So when Jesus said, "As the father sent me, so I sent you," 
he was talking not really about conversions but about tackling the 
world's crises -- Is that right? 

Actually, I would put the two together. If we keep recruiting people 
to evacuate the earth, then every person who gets saved is, in some 
ways, taken out of the action. It's like going to the bench of 
people who want to play in a football game and trying to recruit 
them to leave the (stadium) altogether.

A better image would be: What Jesus is asking us to do is go into 
the stands and recruit some people to come on the field and join us 
to play. The recruiting of new disciples is really connected to 
wanting to make a difference in the world.

Q. You've said that the "WWJD: What Would Jesus Do?" model is too 
simplistic. How would those people who get out of the stands 
proceed? What I want to say is that we have to listen to Jesus' 
teaching. If "What Would Jesus Do?" means "How can we live our lives 
in a way that's pleasing to Jesus?" then I think that's a great 
question.

The problem is, we have to account for the differences between the 
first century and the 21st century. So if Jesus went from one place 
to another, he would walk and take a donkey. We take a bus or a 
plane, maybe.

Then we have to deal with other differences in context. For example, 
Jesus lived in a monarchy; we live in a democracy. So, Jesus never 
voted. But I think if he were here, he would vote. And Jesus never 
really talked about elections, because there weren't any. But if he 
were here today, he might talk about that.

Q. You want a deeper reading of the Gospels... 

Exactly. One of our problems is that some people don't take the 
Bible seriously. They just dismiss it. And then other people claim 
to take the Bible seriously, but they read it in a very simplistic 
way. I think what we need to do is have people read the Bible with 
maturity and depth. And take it seriously.

Q. Have we domesticated Jesus because we don't like the sting of his 
real message? Loving your enemies, for example. The title of Peter 
Gomes' new book is "The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus." 

I think this is exactly right. It's not that individuals 
intentionally try to domesticate Jesus. It's that we have centuries 
and centuries of traditions and traditional ways of reading the 
Bible that keep us from seeing certain things.

The net result is that the Jesus in a lot of our churches has a lot 
of bad things to say about other people's sins but not about our 
own. And he challenges other people to change, but kind of pats us 
on the back.

Q. Poverty -- particularly this gap between the rich and poor -- is 
certainly something Jesus talked about in his time. And it's still 
with us, as he predicted it would be. And yet, a lot of Christians 
today seem to want to focus more on other things: homosexuality, 
abortion, evolution. Why? 

This is really an important question in an election year. I think 
there's a kind of a collusion -- whether it's intentional or 
accidental, I don't know. But it's a collusion between political 
parties and religious communities. So that religious communities end 
up emphasizing issues that political parties can exploit to divide 
an electorate and win elections.

As a result, we make a big deal about issues that Jesus said 
absolutely nothing about. And we say very little about issues that 
Jesus said so much about.

Q. But some Christians may see the title of your book and worry that 
you're saying that what also needs changing is some basic doctrine. 
For example: Jesus' divinity. Is that negotiable? 

I affirm in the book that I am completely orthodox in all of my 
beliefs about Christ. I affirm all the ancient creeds.

But here's where we have to face some deeper issues. The creeds 
teach us to affirm the deity of Christ. But then we have to say: 
What does it mean to live out the belief that Jesus was really the 
word of God incarnate? If we really believe that, then we'll take 
very seriously what he said about how we treat our enemies. Instead, 
we often affirm the doctrine in our words -- we can say "Lord, 
Lord" -- but then we don't actually do what he said.

The change I'm interested in is helping us flesh out what it means 
to affirm the ancient creeds and historic faith.

Q. You call yourself an evangelist. A fisher of men and women. Who 
are your fish in the "emerging church" conversation you talk about? 

First of all, I was a pastor for 24 years in a neighborhood here (in 
Maryland), just between Washington and Baltimore. When I was a 
pastor, the people I worked with, they had never heard of "emerging 
church" or any of this stuff.

They were people who were truck drivers and construction workers and 
lawyers and teachers. The reason they came to the church had nothing 
to do with whether I wrote books or not. It had to do with whether 
the church really brought them good news and helped them get in 
touch with God.

So, my interest has always been people outside the church and 
helping them get connected with God. Really, since I began as a 
pastor. And that's continuing now.

I get a lot of really encouraging emails and letters and sometimes 
people send me CDs. What really means the most to me is when I hear 
people who say, "I have never been a Christian. I've been turned off 
to Christianity. But your books are really making me interested in 
Jesus and helping me believe in God." Or people say, "I got turned 
off to the church when I was a teenager. I haven't been back in 20 
years. But you're making it possible for me to kind of re-start my 
search."

Q. So you're tapping into a hunger out there for something more 
honest? 

I think so. Especially among our younger generation, there's a 
feeling that a lot of our churches in America have lost their way. 
They've gotten completely preoccupied with money. They've gotten so 
infatuated with numbers. They have made unholy alliances with 
political parties.

So there's a good bit of disillusionment out there. But, yet, 
there's spiritual hunger. People don't just want to walk away from 
God and be atheists or agnostics. They want to find a way to have a 
real relationship with God, but not feel they're being dishonest or 
immoral in the process.

Q. Up in Washington, Sen. Charles Grassley is investigating some 
evangelists who are preaching the "prosperity gospel." What's your 
take on the prosperity gospel and on whether the government should 
be looking at religion? 

There is the issue of whether the government should be involved. My 
first thought when I hear that is that, if the government does need 
to be involved, it says that we Christians haven't done a good 
enough job of addressing this issue ourselves.

At the very least, instead of complaining about the government, we 
should get a wake-up call that we're letting an awful lot of shabby 
stuff go on in the name of Christ.

Regarding the prosperity gospel: I've been in over 30 countries in 
the last several years and the prosperity gospel is spreading like 
wildfire over Latin America and Africa and parts of Asia. And it's 
very strange to see hundreds of thousands of poor Africans or Latin 
Americans line up to hear one of these prosperity gospel preachers 
who has four gold rings, drives a limousine, is wearing a $3,000 
Italian suit. And they're coming barefoot and in rags and they're 
giving him money. There's something about this that is deeply 
distasteful.

At the same time, we have to ask: Why does this message have an 
appeal to these people? I think one of the reasons it has an appeal 
is that the prosperity gospel preacher is talking about poverty. And 
he's saying that God cares about poor people's situation.

And God really does care, I believe, about poverty. In Luke, chapter 
four, Jesus begins his very first message by quoting Isaiah, "The 
spirit of the Lord is upon me. I've come to bring good news to the 
poor."

So that's this ambivalence I feel about the prosperity gospel. On 
the one hand, it's telling the truth. God cares about poor people 
and wants to help them in their poverty. Unfortunately, I don't 
think it's giving them a good answer. And the methods of a lot of 
these preachers are pretty suspect.

Q. And clearly Jesus didn't walk around wearing gold rings or riding 
in chariots. 

Exactly right. So we have prosperity gospel preachers flying around 
in private jets and staying in five-star hotels.

But then, back here in the United States, we live in unbelievable 
luxury as well. It's one thing to complain about the prosperity 
gospel preacher. But what are we doing to really address the deeper 
and systemic issues that keep people poor?

And that's one of the things I hope my book will do: Help Christians 
to start really caring about poverty beyond just charity. And to 
start thinking about this.

Q. There's a new group of best-selling atheist writers -- Richard 
Dawkins and others -- who lay the blame for these global crises at 
the feet of religion, particularly Christianity. What do you say to 
their challenge? 

In my book, I try to respond, for example, to some things (atheist 
writer) Sam Harris said.

First of all, I'm sympathetic. I believe a lot of what these New 
Atheists are saying is, "Gosh, it looks like religious people are 
always for war. They're very concerned about their own wealth, but 
not concerned enough about the desperately poor. They're very often 
careless about the environment and use their religion to justify 
exploitation of the environment."

So they're seeing some bad fruit from the religious tree. Their 
solution is: Cut down the tree. And I think that's a mistake.

I also think that we need to realize that here in the United States, 
for example, 85 percent of people have some affiliation with the 
church. Worldwide, atheism makes up much less than 10 percent of the 
global population. So, since most people are religious to some 
degree, every problem will be associated with religious people.

To me, the fatal mistake that the New Atheists make is that the best 
alternative to bad religion is no religion. I think the best 
antidote to bad religion is good faith.

Q. This week, we marked the birthday of Martin Luther King. He was 
clearly a religious person who went out there and tried to deal with 
the hurts and injustices of the world. Are there models -- saints 
even -- that we can follow? King, Mother Teresa -- people who went 
out there? Catholics talk about saints, but I don't hear much about 
them from evangelical Christians. 

To me, this is one of the great resources that Roman Catholics bring 
to all other Christians -- this awareness that, by elevating certain 
people as heroes, we have some great examples to follow.

It's interesting that you mention both Mother Teresa and Dr. King 
because they represent to me two very important but very different 
models. Mother Teresa represents the model of caring for the poor, 
being with them as they die and, in a very personal and 
compassionate way, showing the love of God to poor people. Dr. King 
represents a very different approach, which says that we also have 
to deal with the unjust systems that keep causing people to suffer.

So I would hate to have Dr. King without Mother Teresa or Mother 
Teresa without Dr. King. But when we have the two of them, that's a 
great balance. It's the balance of mercy and justice.

Q. Talk about the difference between social sin and personal sin. 
There seems to be an emphasis, in the West and especially among 
evangelical Christians, on personal sin. 

In the Bible, sin is both personal and social.

As an individual, I can lie. As an individual, I can steal. As an 
individual, I can commit adultery. Sometimes we think of personal 
sin as God keeping a scorecard to decide how he's going to dispose 
of souls after death.

But I was a pastor for 24 years, And I can tell you, when a husband 
lies to his wife and when he commits adultery and cheats on his 
wife, he causes an awful lot of suffering and pain for her and for 
their children. When a person steals and somebody else goes out of 
business, he causes a lot of suffering.

So, personal sin isn't just about keeping a scorecard before God. 
It's about God's concern for human beings and human societies so 
that we don't cause damage to each other, so that the world is 
filled with less sadness and grief and betrayal.

But if we only deal with personal sin, we miss so much because the 
Bible deals extensively with social sin.

Social sin is about systemic injustice. It's about institutionalized 
racism. It's about institutionalized chauvinism. It's about unjust 
trade policies.

I feel this when I go into a store and I see a great bargain. I 
think, "I can buy a shirt for $7." But then I look on the label 
inside the shirt and it says. "Made in China" or "Made in Malaysia." 
I just looked at one of my shirts the other day and it was made in 
Cambodia. And I just have to wonder: How were the people who made 
that shirt treated? First, were they in a factory filled with toxic 
chemicals? So that by making my shirt, they're really at high risk 
of cancer or some other terrible disease? Are they working for 14 
hours a day and making 12 cents an hour? Are six-year-old children 
involved in making my shirt?

These are questions of systemic injustice.

Q. Yet, in the United States, we're encouraged to think of buying as 
almost patriotic. And it does help people keep their jobs if their 
companies are making money. How do we balance that and not let 
consumerism become an idol? 

When we face that complexity, then I think the hyperbole in my 
title -- "Everything Must Change" -- becomes justified.

Just this morning, I had the television on and there was a 
commercial from a credit card company. And here was the line in the 
commercial: "I want it all. I want it all. I want it now." Then the 
credit card company's motto is: "Chase what matters." So, getting it 
all and getting it now is what really matters.

I call it the "covert curriculum." When that covert curriculum gets 
into people's brain, this (message of) "have everything and have it 
now and go into debt if you need to to get it and go after material 
possessions, that's what really matters" -- I think you could say 
that is as dangerous and maybe more dangerous to people spiritually 
than pornography.

I think we Christians have to go to the spiritual roots of a lot of 
our marketing, for example, and we have to expose the destructive 
and harmful beliefs that are being embedded in us through 
advertising.

And you asked: If people stopped buying, doesn't that hurt? The idea 
that we always have to consume more and that we have to do it faster 
is an idea that's suicidal. Because it will eventually run us up 
against environmental limits.

For example, we'll eventually run out of petroleum. Some people say 
it's 10 years, some say it's 100 years. Either way, we're in deep 
trouble when that happens. And we're in deep trouble before that 
happens, actually.

What I'm recommending is that we have to face the fact that the 
status quo itself is dangerous and unsustainable. If can start 
making sensible, moderate adjustments now, it will save us or our 
children or grandchildren from cataclysmic disruptions later on.

Q. We're in this war in Iraq and I think a lot of people around the 
world consider America the Roman Empire of our day. And yet, that is 
very hard for a lot of American Christians to hear. As you read the 
Gospels, where does America come in? 

When we look back across history, there are, of course, the Greek 
Empire and the Roman Empire. More recently, there was the Spanish 
empire and the Dutch empire and the British empire.

When you look at the history of empires, there is a glorious period 
for people in power, when everything looks great. But then there is 
a kind of ugly decline and decay that happens when the empire begins 
to crumble.

Some of us think the U.S. is already in the empire mode and others 
of us think we're not there, but we're in danger of going there. 
Either way, what we need to do is open ourselves to the possibility 
that we can follow a well-worn path in history and the results of 
that path is not attractive.

So what I'm hoping people will do, after reading my book, is become 
more aware of these longstanding historical patterns and make the 
decisions that we can make to avoid those bad consequences.

Q. Today, many evangelicals are fascinated with the end of the 
world. There's the popularity of the "Left Behind" books. And talk 
about the Rapture. Their belief is: Things will get worse, we will 
have world crises. They say that's part of God's plan, to have 
Armageddon. Is that biblical or is that thinking part of the 
problem, in your opinion? 

I write a good bit about this in the book. And on the tour, one of 
my talks will be devoted to this subject. I think this is an 
incredibly important subject.

What a lot of well-meaning, committed evangelical Christians don't 
realize is that the view of the end-times that they believe is 
biblical and the historic Christian view is actually a newcomer and 
an anomaly in Christian history. That view of the end-times was 
never, ever thought of in Christian history until the 1830s. Now, 
that doesn't make it wrong. But it does make it suspect.

Q. How, then, do you read the Book of Revelation? 

I was a college English professor. So, I have a background in 
literature. And one of the question I ask about a piece of 
literature is what genre is it in?

For example, if you watch "Star Trek," but think that you're 
watching "The Office" -- there's a difference between science 
fiction and situation comedy. There's different genres.

If someone reads Revelation and thinks that it's one genre when it's 
another, they're going to misread it.

It turns out that Revelation is a classic example of a genre of 
literature that existed in the Jewish world from about 100 B.C. to 
about 200 A.D. Modern scholars call it Jewish Apocalyptic. It turns 
out that Jewish Apocalyptic is not trying to predict the end of the 
world. But it uses bizarre imagery -- often dreamlike imagery -- to 
describe contemporary politics and to give people encouragement to 
be faithful in the midst of oppressive political regimes.

When you read the Book of Revelation in that way, it just comes 
alive. And instead of being a kind of strange code book that tells 
us that there's no hope and we should just expect things to get 
worse and worse, it becomes a call to courage and faithfulness 
against all odds. That, to me, is the best way to read Revelation.

Q. We're hearing a lot in this election year about evangelicals. Do 
you think the media's definition of that term and the public 
understanding of it are too narrow? It tends to mean conservative 
white Christians who focus on abortion, same-sex marriage and 
creationism. 

I think that there are a number of problems. The evangelical 
community has always been more complex than the media portrayed it.

The evangelical community has never been as monolithic as many 
people think. There's always been a fundamentalist wing. There's 
always been a progressive wing. And there's always been a kind of 
moderate wing.

But the situation is even more complex now because the evangelical 
identity is rapidly changing. Because of the religious right, the 
fundamentalist wing has been strengthened and activated. Just in the 
last few years, that has caused moderates to become alarmed about 
the way their faith has been taken over by more extremist elements.

And I think, more and more, evangelicals are uncomfortable with the 
way evangelicalism has been politicized.

So there's a lot of dynamic rethinking going on right now. Just this 
year, there's going to be about a dozen very significant books by 
evangelicals that are kind of raising a yellow flag, saying, "We're 
really concerned about the way the evangelical community is going."

So it's more complicated now than it was three years ago. And it 
will be more complicated in a few months than it is now, I believe, 
because of the dynamics of this election.

Q. A lot of younger evangelicals seem to embracing environmentalism. 

Exactly. The assumption that we could make for the last 20 years 
really, that evangelical Christians care about two issues -- 
abortion and homosexuality -- is in fragments. It's still true for a 
large sector of evangelicals. Those are the two issues they've been 
told to care about and they're faithfully staying with the program.

But younger evangelicals and a lot of older ones, too, are reading 
their Bibles. And they're seeing that the environment is really a 
concern. They're reading the Gospels and they're seeing that Jesus 
was not hawkish on war. Jesus had a lot to say about peacemaking.

In some ways, evangelicals are learning what Catholic social 
teaching has been saying for a long time: that the Gospel has 
relevance to every area of life -- economics, the environment, 
medicine, politics. And they're trying to get a more mature 
understanding about how the Gospel relates to all these dimensions 
of life.

Q. What's your view of homosexuality and abortion? I know that's a 
big question. 

The first thing I'd want to say is that I don't think they're the 
two most significant moral issues in the world.

I believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that our efforts 
should be toward reducing the need and desire for abortion on the 
front end by way of persuasion and education rather than putting our 
efforts on the side of legislation.

Regarding homosexuality: I think that the entire issue is badly 
framed and that the entire argument has become so combative and 
spoiled by a cultural wars mentality.

So what I'm advocating is for us, first, to acknowledge that good 
Christians disagree. Some of us are open and accepting toward gay 
people. Some of us are accepting of gay people, but we don't affirm 
their homosexual behavior. Some of us are neither open nor 
accepting. So, what we need to do is say that there is diversity and 
that good Christians disagree. And then we need to have some 
charitable and intelligent dialogue rather than the name-calling and 
polarizing discourse we've had in recent years.

Q. Have you taken a position personally? 

My position has been that I treat gay people just like I treat every 
other kind of person. I don't have any discrimination toward gay 
people.

But my position also has been that I want committed Christians to 
have wise and intelligent discourse about it. And that not only do 
we need to be tolerant and accepting of gay men and women -- and 
their parents, by the way. This is a huge issue: there are twice as 
many parents of gay people as there are gay people, so they're very 
often caught in this in a very painful way.

Not only do we need to be accepting of gay people and their 
families, we need to be accepting of people who don't see the issue 
in the same way we do.

Q. (Republican presidential candidate) Mike Huckabee has been in the 
news. A lot of evangelicals voted for him in South Carolina. He 
talked recently about how he'd like to bring the U.S. Constitution 
more in line with the commandments of God. Your reaction? 

This is what scares a lot of us about the religious right. We were 
worried that, if given the chance, some Christians will act toward 
the United States government the way some Muslims have acted toward 
their governments. In that, they're envisioning a kind of Sharia 
(Koran-based law) approach, a Christian Sharia approach.

Now, the issue is very complex. Obviously, all of us have deeply 
held beliefs and we believe that what we believe is right. We would 
rather see our laws reflect what we think is right as opposed to 
what we think is wrong.

But in a pluralistic society, the way that we go about that and the 
way that we talk about it demands a good bit of sophistication.

My suspicion is that Mike Huckabee has that sophistication. But when 
he's in South Carolina talking to insider groups, it sounds to me 
like he's not being careful enough in maintaining that 
sophistication. In order to win over some of these far right people, 
a politician can indulge in what is, in my mind, unwise rhetoric.

Q. Meanwhile, national Democrats, who in past years have often been 
afraid to talk about their religion, are starting to do just that. 
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both out at Rick Warren's 
church. They seem to be reaching out more to evangelicals. Is that a 
good development or something to worry about? 

Again, there's always the danger that religion is abused in the 
political process. But there's also the danger that religion is 
excluded. And between the area of abusing religion and excluding 
religion, that's the area where we have to live and negotiate, I 
think.

I think the Democratic Party has always been a highly religious 
party. The black churches have typically been Democratic. And, 
obviously, faith was at the heart of Dr. King's work and in the 
whole civil rights movement.

So, I think this is a very positive development, for Democrats to 
become comfortable talking about their faith. It's always been 
there, they just weren't comfortable talking about it.

Q. You're coming to Charlotte, which is Billy Graham's hometown. 
What do you think of Billy and what do you think of his son, 
Franklin? He heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which 
is also here. 

In many ways, Billy Graham is one of my models and, in many ways, my 
inspiration. When I first became a committed Christian as a 
teenager, I thought, "Boy, I want to do what Billy does."

I have an extremely high opinion of Billy Graham. Not only for his 
work in helping so many people come into a relationship with Christ, 
but because Billy learned through the years. He always had 
manifested a deep humility. He would admit he didn't know some 
things. He'd admit he changed his mind about things. He'd admit he 
was embarrassed about the way he talked in the past about certain 
things.

Billy was also a peacemaker. He would build good relationships with 
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and he was willing to go 
anywhere and connect with anybody. And that, to me, is a beautiful 
example. And that's an example I've really tried to follow.

I don't really know Franklin Graham's work that much, so I'm 
probably not a good person to ask.

Q. I've been surprised in this job about the antipathy I've heard 
from a lot of mostly conservative Christians toward Islam. Franklin 
Graham voiced their concerns when he said it was an evil religion, 
that Allah is not the God of the Bible. What do you say to people 
with that view? 

I do think we really have to dialogue about this.

I believe that there is something like a form of racism going on 
right now among well-meaning, but misguided and misinformed 
evangelical Christians. It's becoming acceptable to create 
stereotypes of Muslims that are inaccurate.

The problem is, Muslims are just like the rest of us. They're like 
Christians in this regard. There are wonderful, kind-hearted 
Christians and there are mean-spirited Christians. There are sincere 
Christians who live with integrity. And there are hypocritical 
Christians who are just out for a buck. We'll find that kind of 
diversity among every group of people.

One of the unfortunate things -- and one of the messages I'd like to 
get through to my evangelical brothers and sisters -- is that when 
we try to make peace, we're not being unfaithful to Jesus Christ, 
we're being faithful to Jesus Christ.

And when we try to practice Jesus' teachings about loving our 
neighbor and even loving our enemy -- when we practice those 
teachings toward our Muslim neighbors, we are not being unfaithful 
to Jesus Christ, we're being faithful.

But when we create stereotypes of people and when we are ready to 
call a person an enemy and have nothing to do with them, at that 
point we are being unfaithful to Jesus Christ. This is one of my 
calls to evangelicals. And when I'm with Muslims, I try to provide a 
better example.

Q. What do you say, though, to conservative Christians who 
say, "What about the Great Commission? These (non-Christian) people 
are doomed and we need to save them through conversion." 

First of all, I love to help every person I can to become a follower 
of Jesus Christ.

A lot of people don't want to become followers of Jesus Christ. And 
when they don't want to, they are not disqualified from being my 
neighbor. In fact, they still are my neighbor.

And so, everything Jesus teaches me about loving my neighbor applies 
to a person who has no interest in being a Christian. This idea that 
because some people don't want to become Christians, we should 
ignore them or treat them as enemies, I just don't get it.

Q. You began your ministry years ago in your apartment. That 
reminded me of the first Christians, who met in homes and in small 
groups. Have we lost something today? We seem to be into big 
buildings and big numbers. Have we lost the intimacy of what those 
first Christians experienced? 

That's a really great question.

I am for the church in all of its forms. I believe we can glorify 
God in great cathedrals in Europe and in big megachurches here in 
the United States and in storefront churches in the inner city and 
everything in between.

But there is something about Christian faith that has to always be a 
way of life, not just a religion.

I'm so grateful for my experience in being part of a community where 
we had meals in each other's homes and we took people in off the 
street. For us, our faith really wasn't about buildings and budgets. 
It really was primarily a way of life and a group of people doing 
right together.

Wherever Christian faith is most vibrant, that's present. So often 
in our megachurches, we have people who meet together in their homes 
between Sundays. So I think there is really something vibrant and 
vital about that.

Q. How important is music in the way we worship? It seems to be 
pretty important to you. 

I'm a musician and I love music.

And I think when you look back through history -- especially 
Protestant history -- music has been so important in the spiritual 
formation of Christians. And so I believe we should aim for great 
diversity and excellence in our music.

I'm especially interested in us paying attention to our lyrics, 
because the lyrics of our songs, in many ways, imbed our theology in 
us.

I often ask people who are worship leaders: "Look over all the songs 
that you use in your church. How many of your songs ever mention 
poverty and poor people? How many of your songs ever mention widows 
and orphans and vulnerable people? How many of your songs ever 
mention God's concern for justice? How many of your songs ever 
mention our responsibility to care for the planet? How many of your 
songs ever mention our need to reconcile with each other and make 
peace?" People are usually pretty surprised when they really 
evaluate it. It's a pretty short list.

Q. At your church in Maryland, you have Communion more often than at 
many Protestant churches. And you stressed meditation. And in your 
next book, I'm told, you're going to examine the importance of the 
inner life. Should Christians, then, look beyond their own 
denominational traditions sometimes? 

Just within the Christian faith, there are so many rich resources.

For example, there's the contemplative tradition within the Roman 
Catholic Church. There's a deep contemplative tradition in the 
Eastern Orthodox Church.

There is the tradition of social activism in mainline Protestantism. 
There's the tradition of deep Bible study among evangelicals. These 
are great treasures.

One of the exciting things going on right now is people are kind of 
going to the back fence and exchanging treasures across the fence.

Q. Nice image. 

Evangelicals are learning from contemplative Catholics. So many 
evangelicals have been reading Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen and 
later Catholic writers like Richard Rohr and Joan Chittister. 
Episcopalians are learning from Pentecostals. It's a very exciting 
time.

Q. How is the Internet affecting religion? Is it making us more 
divided or is it contributing to dialogue? 

I didn't have an email account until 1994. So, in many ways, the 
Internet still is pretty new.

One of the early things that happens in the Internet is that people 
can make outrageous statements. Now it's even a joke to say, "It 
must be true, it was on the Internet." So, we're at a stage now that 
a lot of outrageous things are said on the Internet. Some people are 
a little naive about the lack of credibility that a lot of Internet 
propaganda has.

Q. So you're not "the son of Satan"? 

Let's hope not. But I think, overall, the Internet will have a 
really positive effect. It allows people to hear each other 
unedited. It allows people in privacy to investigate ideas they 
would never have been able to investigate before. So, in that way, I 
think it opens up great possibilities for communication and freedom.

Q. My last question: People are always saying, "If Jesus came back, 
he'd this or that." Let's say Jesus did come back. Where do you 
think we would find him? Would he be in the pew on Sunday? Or in the 
front lines, at Darfur? Would he be in a monastery? Would he be 
everywhere? 

What a great question.

I think Jesus would surprise us today just as he did in the First 
Century. Because he would be in so many different places.

He would be -- exactly as you said -- in Darfur and he would 
say, "If you're going to kill these people, you're going to have to 
kill me, too, because I'm with them."

He would be in the inner-cities in our own country, with the people 
who are often vilified. He would be with the illegal immigrants.

But I also think he would make sure to show every once in a while at 
the halls of Congress and have some words with our national leaders. 
He might even knock on the door of the White House.

I think we'd see Jesus crossing all kinds of boundaries and barriers 
and inviting everybody into reconciliation with God and with each 
other.

BRIAN MCLAREN

Age: 51.Home: Laurel, Md.

Education: B.A. and M.A., degrees, University of Maryland. He also 
taught English at the school, 1978-86.

Religious background: Grew up in ultraconservative Plymouth Brethren 
church. Was part of "Jesus Movement" in 1970s. Co-founded 
nondenominational Cedar Ridge Community Church in Montgomery County, 
Md. Served as pastor, 1982-2006.

National impact: Starting in mid-1980s, has mentored pastors and 
church founders planters as guru of "emerging church" movement. He's 
among leaders of progressive wing of evangelicalism, along with Tony 
Campolo and Sojourners editor Jim Wallis.

Books: Best-selling author, his 16 books about contemporary 
Christianity include "The Secret Message of Jesus," in which he says 
Christians should focus less on getting to heaven and more on 
creating a just "Kingdom of God" here on Earth.

http://www.charlotte.com/345/story/463053.html



Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe   :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner  :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage    :  http://proletar.8m.com/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Kirim email ke