go: chapter 2: god not of our choosing

after a rather extended hiatus, i want to return this morning to my reflections on brian mclaren's a generous orthodoxy. in his second chapter, bdm tries to answer the question "why do christians emphasize jesus so much?" in the end, i think he fails to do so. now, he suspected as much and already conceded that point. but, i don't think he failed the question for the reason he gave, namely, jesus is "so much more wonderful than i will ever be able to say" (go, 71). while this is true for all of us, bdm failed to answer the question because, in my opinion, he never got to it. he did talk about jesus as the "son of god." and he made some useful and edifying comments in that discussion, though i am not certain he ever really talked about what it means for jesus to be the son of god. in fact, he spent roughly half of his time explaining why masculine pronouns for god are inadequate, which while useful doesn't get at the question he posed to begin the chapter. so, what can we say about this "jesus and god b?"

positively, i think bdm's brief comment regarding the way that many believers invoke the name of christ too loosely and vainly is not far from the mark. we generally do fail to revere christ as we ought. his name is too easily on our lips. perhaps we as believers would be better off if we used the name of christ with more care and attention. such would honor christ more than attaching his name to every t-shirt, cd, book, notepad, or action figure that will sell.

negatively, three things bothered me in this chapter. (1) for all the talk one hears (and bdm makes) about jesus being one "whose life and message resonated with acceptance, welcome, and inclusion" (go, 70), where is the jesus of the gospels? you know that jesus, right? the jesus who pronounced judgment on the unrepentant cities of chorazin, bethsaida, and capernaum for rejecting him, the way, the truth, and the life. the jesus who chastised the pharisees, scribes, and lawyers for searching after a false righteousness rather than the righteous one. sure, the jesus of the gospels was accepting, and welcoming, and inclusive. but only of those people who looked to him as a means of restoring their communion with the father. anyone could experience that restored communion, but only through christ who has the words of eternal life, the holy one of god. (2) bdm seems to build his vision of jesus on his experience and not on scripture alone. "This is why," he writes, "for starters, I am a Christian: the image of God conveyed by Jesus as the Son of God, and the image of the universe that resonates with this image of God best fit my deepest experience, best resonate with my deepest intuition, best inspire my deepest hope, and best challenge me to live with what my friend, the late Mike Yaconelli, called 'dangerous wonder'" (go, 76-77). okay, this sounds nice and pious, but why should bdm's experience (or mine) define the image of god? god doesn't have to fit my idea of him. he has spoken. he has revealed himself. and even if said revelation doesn't resonate with my best experience, god remains the same. (3) building on the previous criticism, bdm's last few paragraphs in this chapter are the most disturbing. in these paragraphs, he imagines two gods, a & b. god a is "a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will." god b is "a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love." he decides he'd rather worship this second picture of god, because his universe would be one "of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality, freedom" (go, 76). well, isn't that nice? the problem is simple, though. god is god. he has revealed himself in ways that include elements from both of bdm's constructions of deity. god defines godness. not the creature. so, what bdm (or i) want god to be like doesn't matter. god the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit are a god not of our choosing.