Brian McLaren: "The Secret Message of Jesus"

Some will undoutedly hail McLaren's latest book as his best ever -- and for good reason.  Scheduled for release in the next week or two, "The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that Could Change Everything" is an easy-to-understand treatise concerning Jesus' revolutionary teaching concerning the kingdom of God.

Having practically been weaned on the insights of George Eldon Ladd regarding the "already-not yet" nature of the kingdom of God, I personally found myself not very surprised by McLaren's revelation that the kingdom is both a present reality and opportunity.

Serious students of the Gospels have long recognized the political, socio-economic, and spiritual implications embedded within Jesus' teachings. Three prominent works that immediately come to mind are: "Binding the Strong Man:A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus," by Ched Myers (1988); "Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine," by Richard A. Horsley (1987); and "In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins," by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (1983).

McLaren is certainly not trailblazing any new territory here.  But what he is doing, in fact, throughout The Secret Message of Jesus, is introducing his target audience (and it's NOT the theological intelligencia) to the idea that Jesus actually "came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world" (p.4).  And you know what?  He does an excellent job of doing just that.

The course McLaren has laid out for his latest book looks like this:

Part 1 -- Excavation: Digging Beneath the Surface to Uncover Jesus' Message

Here he introduces readers to the political and socio-economic message embedded within Jesus' teachings.

Part 2 -- Engagement: Grappling with the Meaning of Jesus' Message

The reality of the "present kingdom" and it's various and revolutionary implications are explained and developed in this section.

Part 3 -- Imagination: Exploring How Jesus' Secret Message Could Change Everything

McLaren devotes a good deal of space in this section challenging contemporary notions of heaven, hell, and especially eschatology.  The astute observer will probably recognize a preterist and/or amillennial influence throughout this section.

In the concluding chapters (i.e. Appendix 2), McLaren reveals who it is that has most influenced and inspired him to write this latest undertaking.  They include the likes of Dallas Willard, N.T. Wright, Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, Walter Brueggemann, Sharon Welch, Howard Snyder, Jim Wallis, and several others.  I'd say that's a pretty impressive list!  And their collective influence certainly shows in McLaren's writing.

I highly recommend that you get a copy and read The Secret Message of Jesus -- even if you haven't been all the much of a McLaren fan.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if -- after reading this book -- some of Brian's "critics" end up doing a little backpeddling.

.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:  I am currently working with Brian's publicist in arranging a date for him to pay us a visit here at Paradoxology.  When it happens, Brian would be checking in here throughout the day in order to read your questions and thoughts and respond to them.  It will be an excellent chance for us all to interact, so keep your eyes peeled here for a future announcement with all the details!

Comments

[Fr. Stan]

"came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world"

I believe that this casts the question: Is this book about the Gospel Jesus supplied the church, or is it an alien Gospel?

The way I read scripture God destroys the Earth with Fire, Jesus and the holy martyrs destroy The Pseudo-Christ, and death is destroyed. There is a judgement and a resurection. This is done together with the church, but is not done by the church alone.

The left loves the idea of revolution, because that is the origion of the left. But Jesus is no revolutionary, He is the legitimate king provided by God The Father to remove an unwelcome tennant of the Earth, the Devil.

In all the things mentioned above The Holy Spirit wasnt mentioned once, and this shows the disconnect with legitimate Christianity (spiritual by The Holy Spirit) vs. enlightenmnet Christianity (philosophical and humanist). So they change the scripture to read, "By our might, and by our own power, but not by The Spirit, says the Lord". Thus it is revolution, and not by God's Spirit.

As a premise for all left-wing thinking is the idea that there really is no active Holy Spirit, that is: not a living God. And therefore there could be NO Methodist santification.

[pavel/addai]

It's interesting how Gnostic in tone this book is, and even the so called "Secret" things he ends up talking about really aren't that secret (Not if you are serious student of the Gospel, Church History and so forth).

As you might have guessed I have some "issues" with Mclaren....

[Seraphim]

Gee wiz guys. I don't particularly like or dislike McLaren, but how about reading the book before vilifying it and him?

Love ya both

I'shalom

Seraphim

[Glenn]

I am excited about this book. Of course-it is a secret message! I have been in the evangelical church long enough to know that very few members sitting in the pews have any concept of the Kingdom of God. And this is due to the atonement-pop theology that has become common place in the church. I'm grateful Brian is not going to patronize me the way so many evangelical leaders due by dumbing down the message of Jesus. It sounds as if this book will be a good challange to read if he truly engages the ideas of Wright, Wink, Yoder, etc. I'm ired of the same message told over and over again and happy to report Mclaren has become one of my favorite authors due to his fresh and controversial ideas. Brian keep on taking risks, and I'll keep on being challenged and growing in the process.

[Fr. Stan]

If I read the book backwards will I get the secret message?

[Fr. Stan]

I would read the book, but (as above), I have read a bad review of it.

[pavel/addai]

QUOTE
Gee wiz guys. I don't particularly like or dislike McLaren, but how about reading the book before vilifying it and him?
QUOTE

Well Seraphim I do keep up with Brain. And what I can read or listen to for free I got a problem with. So I'm certainly not going to spend my precious money buying one of his books when it can be spent in a more constructive manner. AKA buying computer games, and taking Gina out! :)

Buy the way why don't you listen to this two part interview and see what you think. You may get some of my drift later...
http://bleedingpurplepodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/brian-mclaren-interview-part-i.html

[Chris]

"So I'm certainly not going to spend my precious money buying one of his books when it can be spent in a more constructive manner."

Pavel, here's an idea for you: take Gina out for a Starbucks at Barnes & Noble in a couple of weeks, where you can sit down with a copy of McLaren's new book without having to buy it!

[pavel/addai]

Yeah we did that a few weeks back. One of my brothers gave her a star bucks gift card for Christmas that we are slowly using up.

By the way Chris did you listen to the bleeding purple interview and what did you think of it?

[Fr. Stan]

I heard what the guy had to say a while back on the link above. I just never bookmarked it.

After hearing him before I can't see why reading him would be fruitful since he seriously doubts that Jesus is divine (he said so). I can tell a shill for socialist unitarian universalism when I hear it. Why not just read "The Last temptation of Christ?"

Heres a good book on the gospels, "Son of Man" by Fr. Alexander Men. Its a great book that does shed light on the Gospels, not try to reinvent it.

[pavel/addai]

By way Chris, Seraphim and others I recommend this ooze thread which discusses the interview I previously mentioned.

http://www.theooze.com/forums/discussions.cfm?forumid=10&topicid=257683&kw=mclaren

[pavel/addai]

by the way here is one chestnut of that interview to encourage you to listen to the interview and read the thread.

"This is one of the huge problems with the traditional understanding of hell...
because if the cross is in line with Jesus teaching then I won't say the only and I certainly won't say the primary but... a primary meaning of the cross is that the Kingdom of God doesn't come like the kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people but that the Kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing voluntary sacrifice right? But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no but that's not really true... again God gets his way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination... just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn't the center then the cross is almost a distraction and false advertisement for God." -Brian MCLAREN

[Gina]

Chris, Starbucks book dates are one of our staples. How did you know. ;)

A challenge towards amillenialism- good, though hardly revolutionary. His suggestions of universalism, well, from the interview, this doesn't look so good. I would hearken back to one of your posts, Chris, where you asked if Emergent leaders would eventually have to take responsibility for where their "conversations" are leading people. Right now we're seeing a faddishness to universalism that's a little disturbing. The suggestion that God's character precludes the existence of Hell, that is messing with serious stuff.

Reading the description I am also left wondering where the continuity is with the hope of Israel. Did Jesus not come to fulfill a revelation rather than start a revolution? Is there not more continuity than this between the faith of the Old Testament church and that of the New?

I'll skim the book. I've told Oozers that if they loaned me their McLaren books, I'd actually read them. No one's taken me upon it yet. :)

[Seraphim]

"This is one of the huge problems with the traditional understanding of hell...
because if the cross is in line with Jesus teaching then I won't say the only and I certainly won't say the primary but... a primary meaning of the cross is that the Kingdom of God doesn't come like the kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people but that the Kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing voluntary sacrifice right?

Pavel, it was on Paradoxology, during Brian's last visit that I told him his view on Hell, particularly his conversation in the Last Word about Job was Lame.

That being said, I still think that we should be charitable and read the book before trashing it outright. This book sounds like he's going to be more on track.

LYB

Seraphim

[pavel/addai]

Well I'm not as much trashing the book as I'm objecting to him personally. As far as him playing a politiican (always appeasing whoever is sitting in front of hom), as well as him acting as an enabler to heretical ideas, as well as just failing to present a strong statement of the Faith of what you believe (In that interview Brian waffles when the interviewer basically professes belieiving in a kind of Arianism, he actually tries to propose a Politically Correct solution that maybe the guy is "reacting against Christian Colonialism").

So my general question is why does every Pomo/Emergent seem to go out of their way to read everything he writes? He raises questions I'm sure. But there doesn't seem to be any form of accountability (The idea that he is passively agressively advocating heresy seems to always be most actively resisted by his followers).

Furthermore many of the really hot ideas he proposes often are ones that are dirrectly lifted from Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which are often attributed to him directly by his followers. And when it comes to providing a "Generous Orthodoxy" that does affirm the Faith, I think some of the older apologists like Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" did a much better job.

[Benjy]

Well, to answer your question, I am one of those that reads just about everything he puts out. I also really enjoyed that podcast, by the way. I think it really comes down to personal experience. You are orthodox primarily b/c of what you believe and have experienced, right? In the same way, many of us have been through the same fundamentalistism that McLaren has. We know that not all of his ideas are original, but he is a dynamic communicatior, and can put into words what we have been thinking and feeling for years.

The book does play off the gnostic trend, which I think is done intentionally, with davanci code frenzy about to take off. This is exactly the kind of book I need to give to my friends who respect Jesus but not christianity.

[pavel/addai]

"This is exactly the kind of book I need to give to my friends who respect Jesus but not christianity."

Yeah on the ooze thread I encountered some positive testimonies by similar people that made me rethink my position.

I guess my problem is with "the easy believism" he mentions in the interview, to what degree is there an "easy go alongism" in Emergent/Pomo?

So for instance in that previous example. I actually mis-termed the interviewers position. While Arian, it actually would be termed "Adoptionistic", be basicaly doubts that Christ is actually divine. And there are all kinds of ways to address that don't look like an "ugly evangelical". Infact I will give you my answer to the podcasters question about "Christian Exclusivism", taken from the more recent Mclaren thread on this book.

OOZE QUOTE
"Anyway the Orthodox answer to the young pod cast host would have been.

1) Jesus death is unique in that Jesus was a human like no other. He was born without sin. And his death and resurrection brought us back in relationship with the Father (technically the whole Trinity), and infact brought us to even a better place than we were before the Fall.

2) We are all created in the image of God. And there are some exemplary people outside of Chrisitanity and some noble things found in other religions. Christianity claims exclusivism; because it was something established by God via his work with Israel and later the Church.

We however believe that there can be good found in other religions (Orthodoxy does not believe in the Roman doctrine of origianl sin). We beleive that the LAw of God is written on the hearts of the people of the world (in the form of conscience), and that the Holy Spirit is active in the world, to try to lead everyone to Christ."
OOZE QUOTE

I actually think this gets more at the heart of the matter, more then Brians answer.

But as I was trying to ask ealier, it just seems to me that Emergents are not standing up for Nicene era Christian doctrine. I mean you don't have to be nasty, but you should say something proactively. It seems like they are really going too far with the Seeker Sensitive thing. It's like they are almost throwing out the need to have an authoritative creed so as not to offend somebody. And as you can probably ascertain, I find this at great conflict with the New Testament, Church Fathers, etc.

[Fr. Stan]

There was this tiny resturant called "the half-pint cafe" that opened close to a lab that I owned in an equally tiny town.

I walked in and sat down at a slow time of the day and wanted to get me some good breakfast. I looked aorund and saw that there were no menus, so I asked the owner for a menu, and she said, "we dont have menus. Menus are pushy. Just tell me what you want and I'll cook it for you"

I was floored! So I said, "well what do you have?" So we negotiated back and forth as I had to guess what she had in the restaurant with no 'pushy menus'. So we settled on bacon and eggs with hashbrowns, and coffee. Then we haggled on price.

That restaurant didnt last long.

I am not making any of this up.

[Faith McCloud]

"So my general question is why does every Pomo/Emergent seem to go out of their way to read everything he writes?"

Because some of us were so indoctrinated by Fundamentalism growing up that we need someone who can help move us into a more rounded faith. McLaren communicates well and stays away from that theological ivory tower where every one uses obnoxious theological words that no one else understands.

I may not agree with everything he says but his books move me out of my comfort zone and challenge me to grow. I don't think he wants people to take his books as gospel but to take his ideas and discuss them in your community of faith.

It really bugs me that some of you are saying things like: much of what he says is nothing new to someone who is a serious student of the gospel. Not only does it sound as though you are belittling those of us for which some of this is unexplored territory (and I went to a Christian University and Majored in Christian Ministries so explain that to me!!!) but you also sound very arrogant. Please stop.

I really don't want to sound mean, but I love this forum and it's been happening a lot. Here is a question, do you guys think that sometimes a bit of herassy is necissary to move someone out of a herassy and into my biblical thinking? Or is that aproach to dangerous.

Faith.

[pavel/addai]

QUOTE
It really bugs me that some of you are saying things like: much of what he says is nothing new to someone who is a serious student of the gospel. Not only does it sound as though you are belittling those of us for which some of this is unexplored territory (and I went to a Christian University and Majored in Christian Ministries so explain that to me!!!) but you also sound very arrogant. Please stop.
QUOTE

I am belittling hero worship, especially when a person is often credited to for ideas that he didn't originate. I understand the aspects that you haven't heard the ideas before, and well I would probably make some equally egotiscically sounding comments about modern evangelicalism, which I will spare you from.

and I understand you probably consider this "Being a Spoiler".

QUOTE
"I really don't want to sound mean, but I love this forum and it's been happening a lot. Here is a question, do you guys think that sometimes a bit of herassy is necissary to move someone out of a herassy and into my biblical thinking? Or is that aproach to dangerous".
QUOTE

I would say that over half of the New Testament actually came about from addressing heresy. The epistles especially. I believe that much of the truth of Christianity comes about from Dialectics. Given that fact, I think you should actually be the one to try less hard to shut down criticsm of Brian; since the conflict might bring up something that is educational for everyone.

And as to wether I am out of bounds with my comments, I will let Desert Pastor chime in.

[Faith]

"Given that fact, I think you should actually be the one to try less hard to shut down criticsm of Brian; since the conflict might bring up something that is educational for everyone."

I am not certain I took this correctly, but I am not trying to shut down the discussions that McLaren inspires whether negative or positive. Rather, I am trying point out the egotistical attitudes. They have no place in a conversation concerning God, Jesus and the bible.

And I agree that McLaren should not be put on a pedestal. And while other writers may have covered the same ground he has, for some reason his books are read more and therefor take the forefront. I am looking forward to reading the above mentioned books and hope they are as reader friendly as McLarens are.

[Fr. Stan]

Faith, I dont understand your point. Is saying that a particuar point is untrue based on the merits arrogant?

[Fr. Stan]

that cant be your point.

[Fr. Stan]

that isnt supposed to be a rhetorical statement. I'm just not entirely certain of your point

[Faith McCloud]

"Faith, I don't understand your point. Is saying that a particular point is untrue based on the merits arrogant?"

Not at all. I can see your confusion. I feel that we have digressed, sorry.