Yesterday I posted the first half of a review of Brian McLaren’s book, The Secret Message of Jesus, from one of my friends, John Mark. You can read that post here. In this post, John Mark will continue to interact with the worldview of Brian McLaren. The reason that I find this helpful is that I evaluate curriculum a lot as small groups pastor. I want to make sure that I find the most Biblical, relevant, and helpful curriculum to put into the hands of the small group leaders at Grace Community Church. John Mark has done a masterful job evaluating McLaren’s book, fairly interacting with McLaren’s view, and showing where he feels it is strong and where he feels it is weak. We need to be careful when we recommend books and/or curriculum to others, and John Mark’s careful eye will help you think critically about The Secret Message of Jesus. To read more of John Mark’s thoughts, check out his blog.
The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren, Review part 2
How are we to relate to people with whom we have (sometimes serious) disagreements?
In the case of conversations and most lectures, I think too much important information is either tacitly assumed by the speaker and/or forgotten and misunderstood by the listener(s). I think McLaren probably spent most of his talk in the outermost ring of the target – on issues that he believes are contemporary implications and applications of Jesus’ message about the kingdom. He could assume much of the important interpretations of Scripture passages or mention the center and an arrow or two in order to justify his focus on caring for the poor (which was a/the major theme of the lecture).
Since McLaren did us the favor of putting his interpretation of Jesus’ message in writing, here is where we find the important beginnings (avoiding the metaphor of “foundation” out of deference to McLaren) of his worldview. There is plenty of lucid expression of important biblical teachings and relevant historical background to the Bible in this book. McLaren expresses appreciation for the writings of NT Wright several times during the book, and I noticed that influence during sections about competing Jewish sects during Jesus’ day, as well as in the chapter on the storyline of the Bible and the McLaren’s ubiquitous emphasis on the here-and-now transformative power of the good news about the kingdom of God.
McLaren’s defense of Paul as translating Jesus’ message into new imagery for the Gentiles, (and so) agreeing with Christ essentially is succinct and generally good (ch. 11-12). His chapter on conversion (“Getting It and Getting In” ch. 13) explains that process in five “moves” that admirably describe how to become a follower of Jesus (without using church language!). These strong points must be noticed as I evaluate the book; though I disagree with McLaren’s views at some major points, there is much that is good here.
I wrote notes in the book as I read and reviewed, so I could be nit-picky about everything. I’ll mention three major points that, if McLaren altered his views on these three things, would dramatically overhaul his worldview. First is the center of your diagram: what did Jesus (and the Gospel writers) mean by “the kingdom of God/heaven”? McLaren discusses it so much that I can only summarize his view. The kingdom of God is the inclusive movement Jesus began and the community it created. Jesus’ teachings, if followed, “would give birth to a new world” (4). The diagram you drew shows that Jesus and his disciples want to reorient people around Jesus’ teaching, and so change the way this world works.
In contrast, I think the kingdom of God is the active work of God through Christ and the Holy Spirit to bring creation under the authority of Christ (and his Church). McLaren makes an ancient interpretive mistake when we makes God’s reign equivalent to the sum total of Jesus’ disciples (most often) or to the disciples’ efforts to promote Jesus’ teachings (a few times in the book). Clarifying what I mean: when Christians obey the Great Commission (Mt. 28), we’re not “expanding the kingdom” – we’re calling on rebels and traitors (among whom we were born) to acknowledge that the King has already begun reigning and subduing his enemies. He grants clemency (forgiveness) to rebels who will switch their total allegiance. The Church expands.
The second major issue falls in the inner ring that touches the center of your diagram: how McLaren understands Jesus’ vagueness and use of parables. These elements are present in the Gospels. Yet they are not the total picture of Jesus. For instance, take Matthew’s Gospel. Other than the parable about forgiveness (ch. 18), the parable about laborers and reward (ch. 20), and those about the “end of the age” (ch. 25), most all the parables are spoken to the general public (esp. ch. 13, 21-22). Jesus tells his followers (13:10-17 and parallels) that he uses parables to intentionally exclude the masses and include his disciples. McLaren suppresses this explanation for Jesus’ use of parables. Other public parables were usually very clearly understood (21:45). Besides the parables, Matthew records long sections of direct, clear teaching from Jesus (ch. 5-7, 10, 12, 16, part of 18, 23-24). The times that Jesus was vague and used parables had purposes to them (that can usually be understood in their written context); we should follow the example of the disciples who understood Jesus’ message and were clear and direct most (or all) of the time.
The third major issue surprised me the most when I found it in ch. 8 of The Secret Message of Jesus. After observing that exorcisms as recorded in the Gospels may not be palatable to some worldviews today, McLaren says those exorcisms might point to larger problems. “What if it [practice of exorcism] is yet another sign and wonder pointing to his larger, less obvious strategy: to draw corporate or even cosmic evil out from the shadows and into the broad daylight, so that it can be seen and named and rejected and banished?” (63) McLaren lists some of the habitations of corporate evils spirits: government, political movements, religious parties, religious structures and hierarchies, professions, and family systems (65). Jesus particularly confronted the Roman Empire and the religious establishment of his day, says McLaren, the doing of which got Christ killed. In so doing, Jesus exposed the systemic evil in those institutions and was vindicated for letting himself be killed by rising from the dead. In effect, the cross of Jesus accomplished (or was intended to accomplish) a big, “scandalous” exorcism of corporate evil (ch. 8) and became God’s “repudiation of violence” (153). Suffice it to say that I don’t think this is a defensible interpretation of exorcisms, and it plainly is far from Jesus’ and the apostles’ interpretation of the cross.
It’s just a small step from McLaren’s abstracting of individual exorcisms on a corporate scale into a plan for nonviolent confrontation with any modern institutions or groups (the discussion guide encourages readers to find analogies to the political and religious factions of Jesus’ day). McLaren finds in Jesus a prophetic voice (ch. 3) that would encourage his followers to challenge the status quo of our day. Especially in view of the interpretation he gives to the cross of Jesus, I can understand how McLaren promotes the sorts of political and social activism I’ve heard he does. How would your views look on the diagram?
