How might McLaren's argument be extended to other faith traditions? Does the fact that he nests his argument in the person of Jesus make working with other faith traditions impossible (or highly unlikely)? If not, why? If so, how can this be remedied? (300-500 words)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
McLaren’s idea of reintroducing Jesus and revealing his true narrative to the world becomes very complex when one thinks of trying to implement this story into other faith traditions. However, I do not believe that it is impossible for McLaren’s argument to work with other faith traditions. Many of the world’s leading religious groups already accept and believe that Jesus once walked this planet. The groups that do not consider him to be the son of God do consider him to be a prophet. Since Jesus is already implanted into their belief system they might be open to learn the true narrative of Jesus. However, this could only work if the authoritative side of Christianity was left be hide. The image of Jesus would have to become an icon similar to Buddha. He would be a man whose teachings are applicable to all and whose wisdom is well accepted. If Jesus was viewed in this manner then his narrative could possibly be adapted into many faith traditions without any alterations. Our world is in dire need of a new path and a new way in which humanity represents itself. Jesus’ teachings brought just this to the people of the Roman Empire who were living with conflicting narratives. Maybe McLaren is right by arguing that Jesus’ teachings are pertinent to the exact problems our world is facing now. Perhaps if everyone could just listen to his lessons we could all find a solution to some of the major problems at hand. On the other hand, it is not realistic to think that one religion or belief system could be employed into the minds of all human-beings. However, maybe in a time of crisis humanity could come to an agreement that these specific teachings apply to our world now regardless of rather or not they believe in that specific religion. I do not believe that McLaren’s argument is going to be the only thing that resolves our current issue however; it might be a step in the right direction in a world where everyone seems to be blinded. All religions might be able to agree (rather they believe in the Christian faith or not) that the true message Jesus’ told could possibly be applied and could help lead us down a new path. His story does not have to be related to an esoteric religion but could just be a narrative designed to assist all of humanity.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that McLaren's views centered around Jesus makes it extremely unlikely that other faith traditions will be willing to work together on this. Not because people don't respect Jesus the person (as we know that Judaism and Islam both place value on Jesus), but because people are socialized to connect the idea of Jesus only with Christianity. And Christianity doesn't have the best track record for getting along with “others” – anyone other than themselves. To make my point, I may have respect for the Buddha, but I am not likely to A) pick up and read a text that centers around his life or B) be willing to necessarily alter my life in any meaningful way around what that text has to say. I mean, the book “Everything Must Change” is in the Christian Inspiration section of Barnes and Noble – how are people supposed to become a part of this if from the very beginning they feel like it is just another Christian ideal, something they cannot be a part of because they are not of that faith?
ReplyDeleteI feel like there can only be one “remedy.” And I think that it is a shift towards secularism. To me, this shouldn't be scary or uncomfortable! Just because it may be moving in a secular direction does not mean that one has to leave their beliefs behind. Your motives can always be religious in nature; but with secularism comes a more open way of thinking, in my opinion, where more people will feel welcome. After all, religious people are already simultaneously part of religious and secular organizations; many children go to church on Sundays and school every other day of the week, for example. That way, people won't feel as if their convictions are threatened by being a part of it. Secularism requires less structure and explanation than does religion, and so I feel like it is easier to name humanitarianism as the sole reason and motivator behind our actions. I think that it would be easier for people to name humanitarianism as their common goal and rationale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMcLaren talks a great deal about both conventional and emerging Christian thought. In this discussion, it seems as if he is claiming that if one can see Jesus correctly, or view his message anew, then maybe the story of Jesus could be relevant in addressing the worlds most pressing issue. He goes into great detail to help create a more relevant Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThis task makes many Christians cringe. As far as other religions, the difficulty of joining hands in a pluralistic sense is real, and really difficult. The name "Jesus" can be polarizing. Does this mean McLaren could not join hands and work with other faiths? No, but does his revamped Jesus eliminate such difficulty...No.
Such working together across different faiths (and even among adherents of the same religion) seems to ultimately produce temporal lackluster outcomes that look more like religious PR stunts than cooperative attempts to solve systemic issues. Multi-faith participation in work to alleviate the worlds problems is a win either way (because at least something gets done), but it can be unsettling to think about the reasons why we have to put aside differences to do such work. It never really looks like a coming together, instead it looks more like a timeout.
McLaren does seem to want to remedy or rescue the message of Jesus. This can be seen as a gesture of hope in the idea that there might be a reading of Jesus that actually is relevant to bringing real hope for people all over the world. Is this attempt one doomed to fail? No. While Jesus might be polarizing, and the relations between the religions of the world might be complicated, it is the reality of our world. McLaren might limited by his clinched fist to Jesus, but at least he is doing something. At least he is holding on to something that he thinks might make things better. At least he is trying to bring hope of a change.
As far as McLaren bridging the gap between his Jesus and other faiths, I guess he'll have to take some sort of timeout.
McLaren discusses primarily of Jesus and his teachings, which is respected within all of the Abrahamic religions. So to carry on his lessons of Jesus to those religions I feel that it would be quite simple. To convey the message to others might be a bit difficult. But then again, mostly all religions have the same concept, like I discussed before, you have to worship and be “good.” Of course there are some major differences but the sole basis relies on something of a greater good trying to convey a message of the “greater good.” This aspect I believe is something that McLaren can use to relate to different religions.
ReplyDeleteBut, to get the goal that he is trying to accomplish completed, he will have to apply these messages to that of the non-religious people. This might be a bit difficult. You would have to completely remove the religious aspect from it for the non-religious people to begin to even consider it, which is counter intuitive considering he is trying to use religion to conquer global crises.
In the aspect of “remedying” the situation, I feel that it is not necessary. The way that I took that question was to make all religions under the guidelines. This is kind of scary! To have all religions starting to think similar, or simply go by the basis of the same inner morals could potentially turn into a global religion. While this might seem impossible I do believe that it could potentially happen.
On the contrary though, I would say that I am not too sure those religions that seem to hate Christianity would accept any “advice” from a Christian Evangelical. The fundamentalist from each religion would probably try to capture him and kill him on the spot for treason or heresy. So this kind of relates to that of non-religious people, in the aspect that you would have to completely remove the religion from the teachings which is completely opposite of what he is trying to do.
McLaren has good intentions. How far-reaching those intentions will actually stretch their influence is hard to determine. His argument, in this section at least, makes sense to focus on Jesus the person. What his life and stories can tell us, and what others have told us about them, is important no matter what religion you subscribe to. If McLaren succeeds in redefining Jesus it would benefit Christianity. I do think people of other religions would notice a difference in Christians, and possibly—hopefully—respond to them differently. However, I doubt it would directly effect a change in people across the globe of other religions or of secular beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I do not think that McLaren proposes something to inspire interfaith actions or change. In focusing on Jesus he does limit himself to Christians, in my opinion. But is he really reaching out toward people of other faiths? Although he quickly references non-Christians in his reading audience, he does not address them substantially enough to make them listen. His ideas for reframing Jesus are well put and I like them… I think it is a good thing he is doing. But he needs to rephrase his argument in order for it to apply to society on the whole. But what I think the huge problem is, is that he does not want to rephrase his argument or the context. He wants to focus on Jesus and address Christians. So I think that is as far as he will go.