The Secret Message of Jesus
So, I picked up Brian McLaren's new book, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that Could Change everything, some what apprehensively. I enjoyed McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian", and have kept his books on evangelism on loan to friends who have questions about my faith.
Lately, however, McLaren has made some powerful overtures into the political arena, and has been obliquely (though manifestly) critical of the Bush administration. He has allied himself fairly strongly with folks such as Jim Wallis, who contends that Bush is the Anti-Christ. Of course, McLaren has been a liberal for quite some time (though he, absurdly, claims not to be) and that fact has not been unknown to me. So I held out hope for this work.
He starts with his usual spiel. He was very educated, he became a reverend, he asked the wrong questions etc... Usually, this is the launching pad for an interesting and thought provoking (if maddeningly inconclusive) discussion of the proper view of Christ. But now, it seems that McLaren believes he has found the answers. He has discovered the little secret messages of Jesus. They are not secret in the conventional sense. Rather, Christ's message has been co-opted, or ignored entirely.
We're okay so far. God looks at the inward, not the outward. All fine and good. The prophets existed to reveal the true hearts of those who pretended to follow God. Yeah, that's fine. He also crafts an interesting analysis of the dominant religious groups of Christ's time (Herodians, Sadducees et al...) and makes the point that Christ ignored their political intentions to get to present the heart of God's message.
That introduction would seem to imply a call to ignore politics. But then we get to the heart of the Secret messages, the first of which is Jesus' political message. This is where I start to get seasick. McLaren postulates that if we understood Christ's real message, which is that we must end war and help the poor.
McLaren claims (correctly, in my view) that the God's kingdom is here on earth, and that we are living it now. In the kingdom we are living now, CEOs should be writing checks to their poorer employees. What happens if they write too many checks, and their company goes under? McLaren doesn't say...
He claims that Jesus was a pacifist, because when his speeches were interrupted, he would simply move on and speak somewhere else (as opposed to killing those who interrupted). Again, this sounds apolitical to me, but...
Then, we get to the real problem with this chapter. McLaren shoehorns a message about "social justice" and helping the poor. When the scriptures refer to the lion and the lamb lying side by side, he argues, they are talking about the rich giving to the poor. Christ turned over tables in the temple to make a statement about wealth, as opposed to one about respecting God's church. Christ accused the Pharicees of looking good on the outside, while refusing to embrace social justice by helping the poor.
And so on... One need look no further than McLaren's out-of-context "least of these" (the lone scriptural reference on the page) blurb to know that the "social justice" movement is informing his theology. A professor once reminded me that, when the only tool you have his a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When the pursuit of Christ is solely about world peace and helping the poor, we misinterpret his mission, and even trivialize it.
If Jesus was focused on the inner heart, why would he be so concerned about who gives what to whom? These are only valid outward expressions of an inner life. They are means to an end, to be sure, but not sufficient in and of themselves.
Three chapters in, it appears as though Brian McLaren, for all of his considerable intelligence, has found simple answers to complicated questions. Given his influence in the Christian world, that is a shame. His movement has been co-opted by those who want a more political Jesus. Robertsonfalwelldobson (as he has come to be known by the Christian left) has been accused of this as well, though at least his ministry, beyond the headlines, consists of substantially more than political influence.
To be fair, McLaren does begin with a discussion of Christ's politics, and the book covers more territory. I will read on, in hopes that he can right the ship, present a more complete view of Christ's mission, and recover the thoughtful pursuit of the truth that has marked his earlier works.
Lately, however, McLaren has made some powerful overtures into the political arena, and has been obliquely (though manifestly) critical of the Bush administration. He has allied himself fairly strongly with folks such as Jim Wallis, who contends that Bush is the Anti-Christ. Of course, McLaren has been a liberal for quite some time (though he, absurdly, claims not to be) and that fact has not been unknown to me. So I held out hope for this work.
He starts with his usual spiel. He was very educated, he became a reverend, he asked the wrong questions etc... Usually, this is the launching pad for an interesting and thought provoking (if maddeningly inconclusive) discussion of the proper view of Christ. But now, it seems that McLaren believes he has found the answers. He has discovered the little secret messages of Jesus. They are not secret in the conventional sense. Rather, Christ's message has been co-opted, or ignored entirely.
We're okay so far. God looks at the inward, not the outward. All fine and good. The prophets existed to reveal the true hearts of those who pretended to follow God. Yeah, that's fine. He also crafts an interesting analysis of the dominant religious groups of Christ's time (Herodians, Sadducees et al...) and makes the point that Christ ignored their political intentions to get to present the heart of God's message.
That introduction would seem to imply a call to ignore politics. But then we get to the heart of the Secret messages, the first of which is Jesus' political message. This is where I start to get seasick. McLaren postulates that if we understood Christ's real message, which is that we must end war and help the poor.
McLaren claims (correctly, in my view) that the God's kingdom is here on earth, and that we are living it now. In the kingdom we are living now, CEOs should be writing checks to their poorer employees. What happens if they write too many checks, and their company goes under? McLaren doesn't say...
He claims that Jesus was a pacifist, because when his speeches were interrupted, he would simply move on and speak somewhere else (as opposed to killing those who interrupted). Again, this sounds apolitical to me, but...
Then, we get to the real problem with this chapter. McLaren shoehorns a message about "social justice" and helping the poor. When the scriptures refer to the lion and the lamb lying side by side, he argues, they are talking about the rich giving to the poor. Christ turned over tables in the temple to make a statement about wealth, as opposed to one about respecting God's church. Christ accused the Pharicees of looking good on the outside, while refusing to embrace social justice by helping the poor.
And so on... One need look no further than McLaren's out-of-context "least of these" (the lone scriptural reference on the page) blurb to know that the "social justice" movement is informing his theology. A professor once reminded me that, when the only tool you have his a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When the pursuit of Christ is solely about world peace and helping the poor, we misinterpret his mission, and even trivialize it.
If Jesus was focused on the inner heart, why would he be so concerned about who gives what to whom? These are only valid outward expressions of an inner life. They are means to an end, to be sure, but not sufficient in and of themselves.
Three chapters in, it appears as though Brian McLaren, for all of his considerable intelligence, has found simple answers to complicated questions. Given his influence in the Christian world, that is a shame. His movement has been co-opted by those who want a more political Jesus. Robertsonfalwelldobson (as he has come to be known by the Christian left) has been accused of this as well, though at least his ministry, beyond the headlines, consists of substantially more than political influence.
To be fair, McLaren does begin with a discussion of Christ's politics, and the book covers more territory. I will read on, in hopes that he can right the ship, present a more complete view of Christ's mission, and recover the thoughtful pursuit of the truth that has marked his earlier works.
posted by Kevin Sawyer | 10:20 AM 
7 Comments:
I find it interesting that Jesus told his disciples that in the end there will be wars and rumors of wars (Mt.24:4-14), and so many people still are jumping on the pacifism bandwagon. Not that I'm rooting for any old country to pick a fight with their neighbor but I take it as an inevitable sign that we're reaching the end. In that same passage there are warnings to not be taken in by false teachers, not to worry about persecution, and specifically that the Gospel of the Kingdom is to be preached to all nations and then the end will come (v14). Maybe that means that what we're *supposed* to be doing is getting out the Gospel so that Jesus will come sooner and the wars will be shorter, and hey, more people will go to heaven with us.
That's a good point. One of the reasons pacifists have to grasp at straws to prove that Jesus was anti-war is that Jesus said relatively little about it. He wasn't for or against war, because that would beg the question of which war?
Oh man, Kev, I feel sorry for you.
i plan to buy that book, read what it says, and quote out of it whenever i am forced to speak to a republican.
thank you for your helpful review.
:-P
1.) politics
2.) religion
these two items are linked together. to seek to rise above all political concerns to embrace religion alone is impossible. and i believe there is something intrisically compassionate about Jesus' ministry that could be extrapolated to mean all sorts of things that matter quite a bit.
and i don't particularly approve of george w. bush, either.
Adam,
Are you calling me fat? Why do you feel sorry for me?
Renee,
I understand that politics and religion often find themselves linked. From what I have read, you ought to quote from a more compelling text. From a political perspective, this is easily dismantled.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I can't place myself under any one umbrella. I can see good things about both sides, and I think that the two sides could be quite complementary to each other if we let them.
I don't understand the attitude of "I'm right, and every single thing you say is completely wrong and you're an idiot for disagreeing with me."
(I'm not saying that anyone here acts or thinks in this way, its just an attitude that I see from people a lot.)
Laura,
I think one of the hallmarks of this attitude is an "I don't have to explain my position because it is manfestly so" posture.
Jim Wallis is a fantastic example of this. McLaren is becoming another. The Dailykos types are a third.
In fact, I've heard very little in the way of cogent argument from lefties in the last several years. One of my co-workers (on the other side of the aisle) frequently refers to me as the knuckle-dragging Republican.
He's joking, but that's the common perception among some...
Post a Comment
<< Home