More from a Generous Orthodoxy - 'Would Jesus Be A Christian?'

This is the title to Brian McLaren's third chapter, and it is a question which I once saw on the St Matthews website (phrased as 'Is God Christian?'). My inital answer to such questions , is no. I agree with Sir Desmond Tutu who said: "I give great thanks to God that he has created a Dalai Lama. Do you really think, as some have argued, that God will be saying: "You know, that guy, the Dalai Lama, is not bad. What a pity he's not a Christian"? I don't think that is the case — because, you see, God is not a Christian."

McLaren's chief criticism here is that when he looks at much of western (evangelical) Christianity today he doesn't think Jesus would fit in at all and further that most Christians wouldn't even like Jesus if he showed up today. Statements that he admist are contentious and exagerations. The point McLaren wants to make is all about what it means to call Jesus 'Lord'. For McLaren, Lord means Master - but there are 3 senses the word 'master' can take. The first sense is that of authority and kingship - words which for many feel 'barbarously archaic', with associations of monarchy and absolutle undemocractic power. He asks us to imagine living in a time of fear of constant violence and vulnerability from whatever 'warlord' happened to be in power. If this was the case, then the idea of a good king, a just king would be good news, right?

However, it is not good news for us living at the end of modernity according to McLaren, as we're already told we are controlled by almost everything (class struggle, genes, physcology, colonialism, social contrustuctions etc etc). "Against this backdrop, theistic determinism is just another determinism, and in that case, talking about God as the all-powerful, all-controlling Lord/King is just more bad news' (90) God becomes the our puppet master.

However, for McLaren, 'Good news under these circumstances would be a leader who liberated us from all determinisms, who deconstructed oppressive authority and the self-interest of leaders and nations, who destabilized that status quo and made way for a better day, who delivered us not only from corrupt power, but also from the whole approach to power that is so corruptible' (90). 'Jesus comes as a liberating, revolutionary leader, freeing us from the dehumanization and oppression that come from all "the powers that be" in our world (including religious powers)"

'His kingdom, then, is a kingdom not of oppressive control but of dreamed-of freedom, not of coercive dominance but of liberating love, not of top-down domination but of bottom-up service, not of a clenched iron fist but of open, wounded hands extended in a welcoming embrace of kindness, gentleness, forgiveness and grace' (91).

The second sense is the sense of Master/Servant. Here again Jesus challenges the old meaning of slave/master. Jesus takes off his garments and washes his own servants feet. Literarlly demonstrating 'mastery - by serving' (92). 'The last are first and the first are last'.

The last sense is Lord as teacher - but as a teacher which i'd argue reflects critical pedagogy. A way of learning which is practised and relevant to real life/culture and context. Not abstract understandings of dogma.

These themes of Christ as being more than what Christianity makes him out to be/ or claims for itself, i think is important and refreshing. And it is something i want to look at again with McLaren's chapter on Incarnation...

I'll finish with Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. "