A New Kind of Christianity, Part IV (2): Who Is Jesus?
This section which answers the question, “Who Is Jesus?” is in two parts. The first part can be read HERE.
After asserting who Jesus is in chapter 12, McLaren moves to what Jesus does in chapter 13. Like the previous chapter where Brian bucks up against one popular image of Jesus in America (Driscoll’s), here he bucks up against a popular idea (MacArthur’s) about what Jesus’ mission is. MacArthur says,
The only reason Jesus came was to save people from hell….Jesus had no social agenda…[He didn't come to eliminate poverty or slavery or]…fix something in somebody’s life for the little moment they live on this earth.
The idea that the primary reason for Jesus (and therefore, our primary task) was to save people from an eternal hell is stressed even further in a recent discussion by 3 leading voices within the Reformed camp, DA Carson, John Piper and Tim Keller, which can be read HERE. Proponents of this view have done a good job at circulating this message, both inside and outside the church. Popular political pundit, Glenn Beck (who is a Mormon), recently exhorted people of faith to leave their churches if they teach “social justice.” Granted, Beck is not saying this because he fears the purity of the “true” gospel message is at stake, but the fact that he obviously feels his words can make an impact coupled with the fact that many Christians have accepted the gospel according to MacArthur (and Piper/Carson/Keller) to be true makes a chapter like this one from McLaren all the more necessary.
Using Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah and the Gospel of John as his lens, Brian casts a purpose for Jesus that goes far beyond simply saving souls from an eternal hell. Linking with the story of Israel, Jesus comes not “merely to save souls from hell” (135) but is the one who launches a new creation (Genesis), leads a new liberation (Exodus) and inaugurates a new, peaceable kingdom (Isaiah). John’s Gospel, which begins with “In the beginning” (the same way Genesis begins) is telling us that something new is beginning with Jesus and what he did and taught (which, like the prophets that came before him, is passionately concerned about social justice) is affirmed and ratified through the resurrection.
In my last post I said that I wished McLaren had said more about who Jesus is and what Jesus did. Near the end of the book more will be said about our future hope, for both those who know Jesus and those who do not, but more could have been said here to establish Jesus as much more than one who “provides us a living alternative to the confining Greco-Roman narrative in which our world and our religions live, move, and have their being” (126). This is unsatisfying to me for several reasons but one glaring reason is the fact that at the time of the incarnation this “Greco-Roman narrative” (which I agree is firmly in place today) was not the dominant story in the first century, particularly among the Jews. Again, a lot more can be said here but I would at least want to say that Jesus did not come to save us from a 6 line narrative (which Christians have, admittedly, created since Jesus’ time) but came to articulate perfectly what Israel, the first son of God (Exodus 4:22), could or would not. In the words of Athanasius, it was because of “our sorry state” that God became flesh.
On another note, while Jesus as described by McLaren is indeed “far more wonderful, attractive, compelling and inspiring” (136) than the 6-line narrative Jesus who only comes to save us from hell, I believe Brian could avoid some of his critics accusations, such as he is making Jesus into a “hippie” or some other care-free dude, by asserting that Jesus is also the one that disrupts and disturbs, overturning the tables of our man-made temples and forcing us to move beyond ourselves and into the other. This is not always “wonderful” or “attractive” or “compelling” because truth be told, Jesus messes up our lives. While the dominant, myopic view of Jesus-As-Fire-Insurance certainly exists in our pews today, so too does the equally dangerous view that Jesus came to make me feel good about myself.
Brian has a lot of good to say here, especially as it pertains to pushing against one view of Jesus that reduces the gospel to something the New Testament hardly seems concerned with (eternity). Yet he could say more.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
“Proponents of this view have done a good job at circulating this message, both inside and outside the church.”
Do you really believe that this is the source of Beck’s comments? It seems to me that Beck has taken note instead of an increasing awareness within churches that social justice is an integral part of the gospel. And it messes with his political convictions.
I think you could argue just as well(in a positive sense):
“Proponents of a wholistic gospel message have done a good job at circulating this message, both inside and outside the church.”
Josh,
I see your point. I think it could work both ways. Probably depends where you are living/serving. I think there are many pastors who, upon hearing Beck’s warning, thought, “damage control.”
Of course, Beck is only concerned about his political agenda and as is his custom, fear is the best motivator.