Connecting Emergent Ideas (2 of 2)

May 11, 2006 Posted by Amy HallcloseAuthor: Amy Hall Name: Amy Hall
Email: galatians611@aol.com
Site: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664873664
About: See Authors Posts (240)

Yesterday, I used an interview with Brian McLaren (listen here and here or read here) to trace Emergent ideas from a view of language and truth to a view of sin.  Now I'll continue to the cross and Jesus Himself:

5.  If “injustice between human beings” truly is “God's real concern from beginning to end” about sin, then the cross, in dealing with sin, is not about fulfilling justice but about addressing God's central concern for human relationships.  If there is no need for God to reconcile us to Himself, then the cross is solely about Jesus demonstrating loving self-sacrifice to show God's love for us and to teach us how to live in relation to others. 

6.  If this is the meaning of the cross, then there are implications touching on the way we view Jesus Himself.  How is He unique?  Should we cease to be divisive (i.e., unloving) by claiming He's unique?  The interviewer (Leif Hansen), having believed all I've outlined above, expresses his confusion over this:

Hansen: Now, I agree with you and I am starting to come to an understanding of the cross….[W]eren't there people before Jesus and since Jesus, some inspired by Him, some Christian, some martyrs.  And wasn't God, in a sense, demonstrating self-sacrificial love since the beginning of time–since God created beings other than Himself? So, I guess the reason I ask that question is two-fold. One, it has to do with this question of world religions and Christian exclusivism. Some might say, well yes, we also believe that at the heart and center of God and of reality is self-sacrificial love. But we don’t think that Jesus was the only one to teach about that and to demonstrate that in His life. Now…someone who believes in the literal ontological divinity of Christ would have an argument and say, well yes, but this was, this was more central because it was actually God, literally, demonstrating that kind of love–

[Actually, we would say that Jesus' death accomplished something and that's why it's central, but without a positive concept of justice and holiness, nothing unique was accomplished by Jesus, and His centrality doesn't quite make sense.]

Hansen:  However, someone–a more liberal Christian–who might think that Jesus was perfectly imaging God's love, or totally inspired by God's love but not literally God (to be honest, that’s the direction I am leaning more myself these days), we would have a hard time saying what makes Jesus' life and example and living love to the death more unique than any other.

McLaren:  Right…these are important subjects. I understand you're saying: look, we could look at Gandhi's life as an example of self-sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior's life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn't it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example? Because by doing that we create–we perpetuate–this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what you're saying?  [Please note that McLaren is clarifying Hansen's question and is not stating this as his own opinion here.]

Hansen:  Bingo!  Yeah, that's really right on.

In the interest of inclusivistic love (of central importance for those who accept all of the above), and in light of the fact that the Bible is “our story”–the way our community uses language about God, but not necessarily literally definitive of who God is, it makes sense to drop the idea of the uniqueness of Jesus (and His divinity) in order to truly love people.

In no way am I writing this to condemn the host of the podcast.  The questions, struggles, and loneliness for God he expresses in this interview logically proceed from his starting point (see more on the loneliness tomorrow).  The starting point is his philosophical view of language and truth.  I emphasize this for those who think the philosophical issue is not important–that one can evaluate the ideas proceeding from this view on their own.  The ideas on both sides are part of larger systems whose conclusions follow from their views of truth and language.  We each have to determine which view is correct, or we may proceed to build a house on sand that will ultimately fail. 

McLaren responds to Leif's concern about using exclusive language about Jesus, acknowledging that this question is connected to his (McLaren's) entire developing system of thought:

McLaren:  See, I think I can feel your pain, Leif. And part of what I feel is this: there is a whole package. And the package [you're objecting to] ultimately is this hell package. And here's what I would say: I think the deeper problem here is a problem of the larger narrative. And I think there's another way of seeing the narrative where a lot of these problems disappear….I've been struggling with this for, you know, fifteen years. I've really been struggling with this stuff. And so I feel like, piece by piece you get a different vision. But you can't rush it. And the other narrative is so deeply ingrained.

Related posts:

1. Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)
2. Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language
3. Reconsidering Emergent Theology
4. Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
5. Where is Emergent Going?
6. What is the Emergent Church?

Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology