Chapter sixteen of Everything Must Change focuses entirely on McLaren’s attempt to reinterpret Jesus’ contextually derived “Kingdom of God” metaphor. There are three paragraphs concluding the chapter that point readers towards the “real culture war.” This culture war is fueled, according to McLaren (and David Korten), by the divergent narratives of groups who embrace - or live as though they have - a re-framed Jesus story and those who adhere to the imperial and counter-imperial narratives of empire. These three concluding paragraphs seem a bit out of place within the larger context of this chapter. They do seem to be an addendum to the chapter’s last subsection (”God’s Sacred Ecosystem”), but their existence as a separate subsection with a dedicated title (”The Real Culture War”) not only forced this feeling of textual misplacement, but also left me longing for an actual chapter conclusion. The quality of the chapter’s thought and content would have been much easier to process had it not been for this odd ending. Come to think of it, the quality of the entire book’s thought and content would have been much easier to digest and apply if the conclusions of individual chapters and their eight sections were given more attention. Often it seems as if there are no summary conclusions. Was this intentional, I wonder?
I digress. McLaren’s attempt to reinterpret Jesus’ “Kingdom of God” metaphor is neither a new endeavor, nor is it a bad one. In fact, the author of Matthew, inspired by the Spirit as he wrote, actually may be the first to do so. If you recall, the author of the Gospel of Matthew reinterpreted the metaphor himself by using “Kingdom of Heaven.” The Jesus Seminar folks also reinterpreted the metaphor. They translate “Kingdom of God” as “God’s Imperial Rule.” Their translation may in fact be closer to Jesus’ 1st century context than “Kingdom of God.” At any rate, the point is that McLaren’s re-interpretation of the phrase “Kingdom of God” is not a new or bad idea. Kingdom language - and its hierarchical and/or empire connotations - may actually be counterproductive in conversation regarding Jesus’ emerging narrative. McLaren clearly understands this and offers the following re-interpretations as alternatives as he imagines the metaphor(s) Jesus would employ had he physically visited us in our own day:
1. Divine Peace Insurgency: McLaren describes this one like this: “They are freedom fighters seeking liberation from tyranny; they are legitimate power seeking to expel an illegitimate one … But this insurgency can never use the weapons of the occupying regime; otherwise it simply becomes another manifestation of it” (128-129).
McLaren explains or substantiates this metaphor by citing the existence of creation itself as the work of a good, holy, and wise God that has been ransacked and occupied by an evil, tyrannical, and suicidal system. This holy creation needs then to liberated from an evil, systemic regime. Jesus launched the insurgency and set into motion this holy insurgency.
I might agree with McLaren’s metaphorical sentiments, but I would have to pass on this metaphor because it uses so much imperial and counter-imperial terminology.
2. God’s Unterror Movement: McLaren explains this one in this fashion: “The equity gap that separates rich from poor renders them enemies rather than neighbors, so everyone is caught up in the ultimate vicious cycle of terror and counterterror, violence and counterviolence, hate and counterhate … When groups of seemingly disparate people defect and band together in the way of Jesus, they form what we might call unterror cells. They secretly plot detonations of hope” (129-130).
This metaphor is fairly self-explanatory, I think. Again, I’ll pass on this one because it is laden with detrimental connotations, at least in our present context.
3. New Global Love Economy: McLaren says of this metaphor: “… if Jesus were here today, I imagine he would speak frequently of the new global love economy of God - not an industrial economy, and not an information economy, and not even an experience economy, but a wise relational economy that measures success in terms of gross national affection and global community, that seeks to amass the appreciating capital of wise judgement, profound forethought, and deepening virtue for the sake of rich relationships” (130).
McLaren, is sincere about the problem of global poverty and prosperity. I believe him. He cites all of the social problems created by our present economic system. I agree with his assessment, and wholeheartedly so. It’s his answer that troubles me. It’s very easy to proclaim a “Global Love Economy,” but I am inclined to think it would be much harder to work it into reality in any meaningful way. This metaphor for Jesus’ kingdom is consequently troubling because it may only exist in the idealistic dreams of reality detached campers. This may have not been the case had not McLaren limited this “New Global Economy’s” love to some sort of idealistic global economy. Love travels much further when it is not limited so. A realistic economy dedicated to deep love and compassion will most likely accomplish far more than a fanciful economy built on love.
Too, it should be noted that our present economic system may not actually be the problem. The problem may in fact live in our very greedy and very manipulative practices, motives and desires that are brought to the system by us. I’m not sure how McLaren’s “Global Economy of Love” would work, save a complete return to primitive days of local tribes and clan bartering for goods. This might sound good to some, until things like modern medicines, lifespans, and global population growth are considered. Do we really want to return to days where there is no medical technology? If we were to depend solely on this “love economy,” that exactly where we would live.
I would instead suggest a spiritual transformation of the present motives and desires that drive the current system rather than a total elimination of the system. People living daily in third world poverty need more than love. Would Jesus agree? I think the answer to the poverty/prosperity issue exists not in the act of making the whole world equally poor, but in the act of sharing wealth and technology compassionately. Generosity requires profit; you can’t give away what you don’t have. Transform the people running the system and the system itself will be transformed. Discarding the entire system is an act of naivety.
4.God’s Sacred Ecosystem: This one receives the following treatment: “… the dream of a sacred ecosystem whose dynamic dance of give and take, procreation and death, production and recycling, thriving and struggle, and extinction and evolution together produce unimaginable beauty, novelty, and possibility … the living God creates a universe to express and share a generous overflow of love, joy, and life” (131-132).
McLaren, by situating the word “death” in the place and manner that he did, might be giving us a small peek into the potentially humanistic foundation of his eschatology. Death is not something the Gospel celebrates as unimaginably beautiful or novel; death is not full of potential. Death, according to a non-fundamentalist interpretation of the Gospels is an enemy of Christ; it will be the last enemy to be defeated. Death is a symptom of a world that does not work as God intended. “God’s Sacred Ecosystem,” as McLaren metaphorically calls it, in it’s present form, is broken. Death itself is a symptom of this brokenness; the Gospel is the already/not yet eschatological solution. McLaren is subtly trekking in another direction totally. I’ll have to read further to discern where exactly his eschatology lands, if anywhere at all.
That said, I personally agree with McLaren as far as our stewardship of this planet is concerned. Sustainability is a very serious theological issue that all Christians should take up. Environmentalism is a stewardship issue. I believe Christians can become deep stewards of the planet and its resources while simultaneously celebrating the Gospel in it’s non-fundamentalist fullness. Said differently, I can be a staunch Christian environmentalist and still think the death part of this ecosystem is a global detriment rooted in a global and/or universal brokenness that will finally be overcome by Christ’s Gospel. To think otherwise is to contradict very, very basic aspects of the Gospel narrative.
I appreciate the work and thought McLaren put into his reinterpretations of Christ’s “Kingdom of God” metaphor. Again, this is neither a new attempt, nor is it bad practice. I’m just not convinced by any of McLaren’s suggestions. They are either too dependent upon empire or counter-empire narrative language, or they are just too fanciful for this reality.
So, I’m left with the one metaphor that really works. Yes, it has been horribly beat up and terribly misused over centuries, but I think it still has some life in it. What is the metaphor of which I speak? Simply this: “Christianity.”
Work Cited:
Mclaren, Brian. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope. Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
