Edgework

In Part Four of A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren asks the question that is central to any branch of Christianity; namely, “Who is Jesus and what role does he play in the biblical narrative?” He notes that, “We are all tempted to remake Jesus into just about anything we like” (121). However he claims this is possible only when we begin with our own worldview and then superimpose Christ on top of that.

In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren describes the seven different Jesuses he has encountered within various Christian traditions. In that book he suggests that it would be helpful to see these various emphases as “…partial projections that together can create a hologram: a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus” (74). The question we must ask ourselves is how we could ever have thought that “our” branch of the Christian church was the only one capable of answering questions fully about Jesus’ identity.

I agree that we all have something to learn by looking at Jesus through the lenses of Christians in other faith traditions. Of course this process might also include rejecting specific ideas about Jesus found in these various traditions, including our own. In my own experience I began with a conservative, Protestant Jesus whose main purpose was to die for my sins. Then I encountered the Anabaptist Jesus who called me to follow him in the way of the cross. Along the way I was inspired by the more liberal William Barclay who always found application of biblical texts in life, even though he wasn’t always sure of their historical veracity. The more charismatic Jesus Movement of the 1960’s gave me a new freedom to worship in more expressive ways.

In the context of much injustice and human suffering in Latin America, I came to appreciate the non-violent Jesus promoted by Liberation Theologians – one who came to bring real hope to people in desperate situations. This was followed in later years by an enhanced understanding of Jesus within the community of the trinity as I found it in Eastern Orthodoxy. And in the past few years, through deep friendship with a Roman Catholic brother, I have come to appreciate the Jesus with a strong social agenda I find in his church. So, yes, I too have been enriched by the Jesuses of various traditions. But this more inclusive approach to the question of who Jesus is does not always sit well with some of my friends who have stayed within the bounds of only one particular viewpoint.

In this book, McLaren suggests that our search for an authentic vision of Jesus can only be found if we adopt a more positive story line in the Bible than the six-line narrative rooted in a Greco-Roman worldview, accept the Bible as “library” instead of “constitution,” and embrace a vision of a loving God instead of a violent God. McLaren feels that this last point, especially, is not understood well by those who see a violent Jesus in the Book of Revelation. He notes that we must understand the book to be apocalyptic literature that provided a word of comfort to a suffering church instead of a timeline for the future. It simply does not teach that in the end Jesus abandons the way of peace and love. Rather, the Book of Revelation provides an alternative to the Greco-Roman narrative. According to McLaren, “Revelation celebrates, not the love of power, but the power of love” (126).

There is something psychologically satisfying for many to see the Jesus who was beat up in the gospels coming back in the Book of Revelation to beat up on his adversaries. I have often heard this line of reasoning and even found it alluring myself. King Jesus finally shows his real mettle! Some would even go so far as to say that on the cross Jesus displayed his love and in Revelation he displays his wrath – two sides to the coin that is Jesus. I disagree. The Jesus of the gospels is the same Jesus as the one in Revelation and his message has not changed. The blood staining Jesus’ garment is his own blood that he shed.

In Chapter 13, “Jesus Outside the Lines,” McLaren takes great pains to illustrate how the gospels, zeroing in specifically on the Gospel of John, demonstrate clearly how the story of Jesus is rooted deeply in the positive story line he has identified earlier in the Old Testament.

As in Genesis, the Jesus story is one of “Genesis and Reconciliation.” Concepts of “beginning, life, light, Spirit, rebirth and reconciliation” – all found in Genesis, are re-introduced in the early part of the Gospel of John.

As in Exodus, the Jesus story is one of “Liberation and Formation.” Jesus “tabernacled” among us as God did among the Israelites in the wilderness. Jesus became the Passover lamb on our behalf in place of the actual lamb required by the law. In place of the Ten Commandments, Jesus gave us a new commandment to love God and neighbor. And like the cloud and pillar of fire guided God’s people in the desert, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to guide his followers into the future.

And as Isaiah envisions a “New Creation of the Peaceable Kingdom” in a promised land, so in the Gospel of John this vision is enhanced through many parallelisms that end up with Jesus fulfilling that dream. And the promised land symbolizes ever more clearly a vision of a global society where justice reigns, not a geographical region.

Rooting the gospels squarely in the positive story line of the Old Testament is a refreshing perspective compared to thinking that God just gave up on the Old Testament vision and started something completely new in Jesus. Jesus came to fulfill the desires of God already present at creation and articulated throughout the Old Testament. This is welcome, holistic “Good News.”

For On-going Dialogue:

1. Have you ever been tempted to make Jesus into the image of your own aspirations and desires? What did this Jesus look like?
2. Have you found wholesome and helpful understandings about Jesus from other Christian traditions than your own? Explain.
3. In your opinion, how does the vision of Jesus in the Book of Revelation compare and/or contrast with the one found in the four gospels?
4. Do you agree with McLaren that Jesus’vision is not really new, but an enhancement of the one already found in the Old Testament? Why or why not?