GO: Chapter 0: A Generous Refund -Discussion Questions

Chapter 0

1. What draws you to read this book?

I am a burned out ex-church leader who is disgusted with conditions within the church, frustrated with the in-fighting and claims to have cornered truth, confused about what I believe and what is the essence of Christianity. This book seems to acknowledge the problems and my frustration and at the same time does not presume to have the answers. I am looking for a guide through my own questioning more so than someone to tell me what I should think or believe or be.

2. Which (if any) of the 6 categories of people on pages 19-22 describes you? What about the audience he describes on pages 44-45?

I am already a Christian, struggling, questioning and looking for a reason to stay in. I am a Christian who is about to leave because I feel there is no room for me, no freedom or tolerance for my questions, no place for being neither a conservative nor a liberal Christian.

3. On page 27, McLaren says he has sometimes intentionally gone out of his way to be “provocative, mischievous and unclear.” Why do you think he does this?

To get the reader to ask her own questions, become aware of that which does not make sense to her that he may have mentioned. I think it’s purpose is to generate discussion, to make the reader thirsty, to invigorate discussion and evaluation and re-evaluation of what orthodoxy is and what is orthodox or what can be. And, to distinguish himself from those who dare to offer the definitive answers.

4. What is your initial reaction to the definition of orthodoxy on page 32: “what God knows, some of which we believe a little, some of which they believe a little, and about which we all have a lot to learn”?

On one hand it makes me uncomfortable. I gravitate towards certainty and to say that we can both be right in part, or neither at all is unsettling. But on the other hand it is refreshing. It is a statement of what I believe to be true in that the finite mind can never fully comprehend and infinite God. We kid ourselves to think we can or have.

5. What does McLaren mean by the “accumulating-opinion style orthodoxy” (page 33)? How do you respond to the way he views that approach?

He means writing new rules, more rules to fit/control/contain changing times and culture. Our culture is evolving and new issues beg a response from the Church. These responses become mantras and get assimilated into “orthodoxy”, an accumulating orthodoxy. I agree that this approach is increasingly cumbersome and misses the point of the gospel. The point is not to amass more law unto ourselves, as if somehow by them we shall be saved or even better. The gospel is simple, but we are making it more complicated in an effort, in my opinion to do ourselves what only God can do—heal the heart of man and save our world.

6. In your own words, what does he mean by humility (page 34)? Charity? Courage? Diligence?

Humility-the ability to admit that we don’t know it all, won’t know it all, have been wrong and will be again.

Charity-the willingness to consider that they just may be right, or more right, and able to teach us something

Courage-the conviction to live what you believe, or think you believe, to the best of your ability unless and until you know better or different

Diligence-the tenacity to keep questioning and considering that there will always be more to learn, re-learn, and unlearn


7. McLaren treats orthodoxy “as a tool or means to achieve orthopraxy” (page 35). What does he mean? What do you think are the pros and cons of this view of orthodoxy?

He means that there is an end to the pursuit of orthodoxy and it is not knowledge for knowledge’s sake, it is practice. (How then shall we live?) I think the pros of this view are that it gives purpose to our pursuit beyond the arrogance that can come with gaining knowledge. The practical application of truth is a nobler accomplishment than its attainment. But, viewing orthodoxy as requiring a behavioral response can be risky. One might be inclined to evade pursing something more if he is called to respond than if only asked to know.

8. At this beginning stage, what is your understanding of the term generous orthodoxy?

At this stage generous orthodoxy seems to be the pursuit of truth that is neither absolute nor relative, but allows for the possibility of both/and as much as neither/nor. It gives permission for both us and them to be right in areas and to learn from one another in others. It allows for the possibility of various possibilities within constraints.