Generous Orthodoxy and the Seven Jesuses

I've just finished reading Brian D. McLaren's a Generous Orthodoxy, and though i'm a little behind on his bandwagon, i still want to blog on the parts of the book i really enjoyed, if for no other reason than to help my own thinking. This first post will focus on the first part of McLaren's book, dealing with Jesus.

In a Generous Orthodoxy McLaren offers a different approach to orthodoxy (or 'right/correct thinking) and the Christian faith. Instead of seeking to create an orthodoxy of set of firm doctrinal or systematic creeds McLaren wants to be inclusive (hence the 'generous') and find room for a range of positions both Christian and non in his way of aligning our religious convictions with 'Someone' (God). The almost oxymoronic title is not lost on McLaren as he spends much of Chapter 0 talking about how we can bring a generous approach to our thinking about beliefs. His way of approaching this is to call himself a missional/evangelical/catholic/Anabaptist/incarnational/mystical/green/emergent/Methodist/post-protestant/liberal-Conservative etc etc

Literally being 'all things to all people', a phrase St Paul used and to which he returns to often (particular the chapter on Incarnation, to which i'll return). I find this very refreshing, seeking to find commonalities instead of lines of separation. It is telling, however, which traditions/style he pulls out from the different strands of Christianity. For example, from evangelicals (purposefully lowering the 'E'), of which he considers himself one, he really only likes their passionate action and culturally in tune media appropriation... Probably not what most evangelicals would wanted him to have taken from their faith so much...

'The Seven Jesuses I Have Known'

Ultimately McLaren is a Christian because of the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship with that person (49). However, the shape of that relationship (or rather, the shape of McLaren's understanding of Jesus) has changed over the years. He lists 7 stereotypes of Jesus, which i feel many of us would be familiar with:

1. Conservative/Protestant Jesus. The key to this Jesus is that it focuses the good news almost exclusively on the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was born to die, and saves us by dying on the cross. The cross is the focal point. How Jesus absolves human evil through God's mercy is explained through various metaphors:

a) The Legal Metaphor: God is judge, humanity is guilty deserving the death penalty. Jesus, a perfect representative willing takes the death penalty, justice is satisfied.

b) The Economic Metaphor (or i've heard it as the ransom metaphor): God is the good master, and we are his servants, but we run away (or are kidnapped) by the 'evil one', who makes us his slaves. Jesus is offered as the ransom if the 'evil one' will let humanity go. Satan takes Jesus and potentially frees us all, and also gets double crossed as Jesus also defeats him/it. 'In this metaphor the business language of selling, buying, price and payment is paramount'.

c) The Governmental Metaphor: The Human Race has rebelled against the King. To be restored we must repent and resubmit to God's will. But because we are so munted we can't do it, so Jesus steps in and through his obedient life and voluntary death acts as our representative and submits to God's will. As our rep, his example extends to us if we believe. Political terms like, representation, reconciliation and citizenship are used in this metaphor.

d) A Military Metaphor: Humanity has been conquered by an alien power or powers (sin, devil, death). Jesus goes into battle with the powers and appears defeated, but his death turns out to be victory. Terms like, battle, defeat, conquering are common.

This view of Jesus, McLaren argues, focuses 'directly, nearly exclusively, on the problem of individual moral guilt'. Still, McLaren felt uneasy with this Jesus as he grew out of his teens/twenties: 'Jesus' cross in the past saved me from hell in the future, but it was hard to be clear on what it meant for me in the struggle of the present. And more importantly, did the gospel have anything to say about justice for the many, not just the justification of the individual? Was the gospel intended to give hope for human cultures and the created order in history, or was history a lost cause, so that the gospel only could give hope to individual souls beyond death, beyond history - like a small lifeboat in which a few lucky souls escape a sinking ship?' (55)

McLaren asks if this focus on Jesus' death marginalises his life - his teachings and kind deeds etc. He began to feel as if the 'gospel became simply an individualistic theory, an abstraction with personal but not global import' (55).

2. The Pentecostal Jesus:
A Jesus who was here in the present, could be experienced etc.

These Jesus for McLaren was all tied up with figuring out who was spirit filled and who wasn't, debates over speaking in tongues etc etc (man these feel so pointless to me now! and I used to care so much as a teenager!)

Problems McLaren soon faced with some Pentecostal Jesus ideas were one of expectations. 'Did God promise miracles on demand?' 'I refuse to blame the victim'... The person was already sick! The Jesus i knew came to help them, not blame them or make them feel worse' (58-59)

Other questions concerned him, 'Were there social and historical dimensions to the gospel that went beyond personal health, prosperity, and happiness for believers now and in 'eternity'? (59)

3.The Roman Catholic Jesus:

For McLaren, the Roman Catholics focus on how Jesus saves the church by rising from the dead, through this God has defeated 'death and that comes with it - fear (when will death come), hurry (how much time do i have in this short - terminal life) greed (you only go around once, so grab all you can), envy (why does her short life go better than mine), injustice(evil often prosper and live long), materialism (most toys wins) etc etc etc. 'Through Resurrection Jesus changes forever the whole equation of existence' (60).

This Jesus is attractive because if death isn't the last word, then it makes 'sense to do right, even if your cause is, humanly speaking, hopeless'. (60) It puts human life in a whole new context, you can be first here and last in God's eyes and requires a whole new way of living.

4. Eastern Orthodox Jesus:

McLaren prefaces his introduction to this Jesus through his reading of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Here Jesus, the Spirit and God are engaged in an 'eternal dance, sharing in love, honour, happiness' etc and God is inviting more and more people into this dance. Through Jesus God restores the rhythm and beauty of this dance of creation. The Eastern Orthodox Jesus saves by 'simply by being born, by showing up' (63). As Jesus takes on human life, so human life is taken up into God's life. It was through the Eastern Orthodox Jesus that McLaren first engaged with the idea of Jesus as saviour (in the Hebrew sense of the word) of the world, not just a few individuals.

5. Liberal Protestant Jesus:

For Liberal Protestants, according to McLaren, the focus is on the 'words and deeds of Jesus Christ'. The story between his birth, death and resurrection. 'His teachings and acts of love, haling, justice, and compassion offer a way of life that, if practised brings blessing to the whole world'. It is our job then, to exemplify this, not just in personal relationships, but within/towards political structures and cultural systems of the world.

6. The Anabaptist Jesus:

Focused more on the ethical teaching of Jesus and less on theological disputes. Their focus is on how we conduct ourselves in everyday life, in which the church is not an institution, but rather a continuation of a band of disciples.

To be honest, i really didn't get what McLaren found distinctive here....

7. Jesus of the Oppressed or Liberation Theology:

This Jesus i identify with predominately i think. Not just because i'm a fan of liberation theologian and educational sociologist Paulo Friere and his Pedadgogy of the Oppressed, but rather because I believe that it puts the emphasis on the oppressed in society, which is exactly what Jesus did. For McLaren, the Jesus of Liberation Theology is the non-violent Jesus (some liberation theologians argue for a case of using violence against oppressors, which, it needs be said, is not unlike Evangelicals arguing for a Just War theology to justify supporting war). McLaren comments that Marxism and Communism were filling a gap that should have been filled by Christians - 'Christians who understood the revolutionary social and political implications of the teaching and example of Jesus, whose gospel was good news to the poor, along with a challenge of generosity for the rich'. (70). What both McLaren and myself like about this Jesus is the activist mindset of Jesus and his disciples in 'relation to systems of oppression' (71). It is also worth adding, which McLaren doesn't, that Liberation Theology stems from branches of Catholic Theology, birth in South America. I think it is important to add this, as it brings a historical context to Liberation Theology and the type of social justice tradition the Catholic Church has been involved in.

McLaren sketches there caricatures to illustrate a point. Each tradition focuses and brings something new to the person of Jesus. Each of the traditions has examples in scripture which can be used to support it. What McLaren wants to do is try and embrace each different tradition and orthodoxy, and utilise the best they each offer.

I found it particularly interesting because i have had similar experiences, though with only about 4 of the Jesus' (Conservative, Pentecostal, Liberal, Liberation - in that order). What i think it demonstrates most is how mediated Jesus is through our context/my reading of the text. While i do think some understandings of Jesus and what his 'politics' were are better than others, crucially i think what McLaren's example illustrates is how Jesus changes as we grow older. Sometimes in very radical ways, sometimes in very subtle ways.