On page 128, McLaren compares the reframing of Jesus's narative to King's "beloved community" (for more on the beloved community see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1603). What are your thoughts on this comparison? Do you think McLaren's reframed narrative could have public impact the way King's did - change policy/law, practice, culture, etc. for society at large? (300-500 words)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's a good comparison in the sense that they both have the same goal or priority of basically helping people. Both McLaren and King realize that problems aren't sectional, they're world problems; as in, the starving people of Africa shouldn't be seen as Africa's problem, but as society's problem. In a more close-to-home example, which was pointed out by Smith and Zepp, the problems that we face today of race and poverty aren't sectional problems belonging only to those of race or the poverty stricken, but are actually American problems that we share as a nation. That “He could not envision the Beloved Community apart from the alleviation of economic inequity and the achievement of economic justice,” I think is a sentiment that McLaren would agree with (Smith and Zepp in “Martin Luther King's Vision of the Beloved Community”).
ReplyDeleteI am not certain whether I believe McLaren's reframed narrative could have the same impact as King's beloved community. In America, at least, I am fairly certain that it could not. I would never say that we don't have a number of pressing issues that need to be dealt with, but at the same time I do not feel like there is an issue strong enough, controversial enough, and public enough in the United States today as there was the fight for equality for African Americans during King's time. For King, nearly the entire African American community was behind him, standing and fighting for the values he was speaking; McLaren, on the other hand, stands the risk of losing a great majority of the Christian base itself if becomes labeled as a liberal, and outside of the Christian community, I am not sure how much support he actually has. It's easy to get behind someone if you can see the problem first hand, but much of what McLaren wants to do takes place outside of our borders (or at least, out of our immediate sight), that I think it doesn't seem pressing and it doesn't band anybody together for the cause. Maybe in another place, McLaren's narrative will find better grounds for action.
Well there is a connection there between the two. But I am not too sure if it is a good connection. Yes it is based off of the same principles, being to help people, but I believe that the routes to get there are a little different. It’s kind of like saying, of course this is an extreme example, that Hitler’s “dream society” could be compared to the “beloved community” simply because they were both on the track to helping out people, but obviously there are drastic differences that one can attest the validity of the correlation.
ReplyDeleteTo substantially change the culture and society of one nation is something remarkable that I am sure King didn’t think would happen soon, even if he kept persevering for the cause. As well, it took the whole country’s backing, well a great majority, for this drastic change to occur. If we take a look at it, it changed perceptions of a group of people for future generations, it changed laws, it changed military structure, it changed education structure, it changed music, it changed literature; it changed the society and the legal aspect of the United States as a whole completely.
But to ask if McLaren could have the same impact as King’s “beloved community” I wouldn’t agree. True, it might seem like a potential idea, but aren’t all “undertaking ideas” the same way. They sound good and might become reality if a large populous were to believe in it, but it rarely becomes true. First of all, the society has to be ready for the change (all evolution has the point that causes the drastic change, same way with societies). Secondly, he would have to appeal to the masses, especially if he is talked about a global aspect. This would be the most difficult thing to do. Just think of all the problems in the world, poverty/hunger/war/inhumanity/unequal rights and some random guy just comes on the television and says “I have a way to cure that, just try to think about reframing Jesus, that’s all you have to do, think of Jesus like this and it will cure the world’s problems.” For one, he would be banished by all the fundamentalist communities; secondly those who don’t even care about Jesus wouldn’t even appeal to. So what I am trying to get at is that he would be appealing to only a small population which won’t affect anything in the United States front, especially not the World viewpoint. Thirdly, the great undertaking would have to take some time and some strict management to get complete. But with any sort of strict management and drawn out periods of time to complete people will become weary and rebellious.
I’m not saying that it is impossible, but more like VERY improbable that any sort of drastic change will occur through this reframing of Jesus.
I find McLaren’s comparison to King’s “beloved community” very appropriate because both of these inspirational men are aspiring to very similar goals for humanity. They both want people from all cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds to realize that all human beings are connected. This means that no action can be taken that doesn’t indirectly affect another, McLaren expresses this through his societal machine. They both place emphasis on equity issues and how major disparities due to the exploitations of others are unjust and flat out wrong. They strive for economic and social justice for all because it is everyone’s right as a human being to receive equality. Global crisis’s are also addressed and how the world must work together to unravel the consequences of imperialistic exploitation to allow these troubled communities to prosper. McLaren and King ultimately continue to arrive at the same notion of “oneness” between all people. However their ways of expressing these ideas are very different and so is the context in which they are conveyed. Dr. King existed in a time of extreme racial hardship and the black community had had enough of being treated unfairly. He had the whole black community beside him fighting for their rights while he gained much respect from the white community due to his message of justice for all people. He seemed to have a central message of justice and equality as his main themes in his fight for a better world. However, McLaren theme for changing the world seems more shaped around religious ties. McLaren’s books only seem to appeal to people within the religious community or from a religious community. This is evident when his books are located in the inspirational Christian section in Barnes and Noble. I feel like it is sort of dangerous to have anything associated with religion in the forefront of a movement because this will automatically gain opposition due to different ways of belief. Dr. King gave the impression of have equal opportunity for all as the forefront and religious beliefs in the background. King’s main theme was something more people could agree on and he doesn’t run the risk of losing followers due to religious belief differences unlike McLaren. Due to this I am not sure McLaren can make the same impact as Dr. King. However the world is experiencing extremely large disparities between the rich and the poor. Many power hungry individuals and organizations are making selfish gains while plighting the less fortunate with no concern for the well-being of others. The world is at a point where something has to shift, a change must be made and maybe just maybe the world in its direr need for a change will be open to new ideas that could possibly come from McLaren’s reframed narrative.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo be as instrumental as Dr. King is a tall order. The "beloved community" is a beautiful picture that was at the heart of a powerful movement in our country (a movement that was way overdue). To compare King and McLaren is in some ways easy and in other ways down right impossible.
ReplyDeleteBoth messages aim at an ideal community, ideal life, ideal Christianity, and ideal hope. The two can be compared as far as the challenges to both are real and the aim is high. That being said, the "beloved community" was an idea that was injected into a society that was prime for such a message. I am not sure that McLaren's message of a "re-Jesus" has the same potential.
I cannot know any of this for sure, but there is no reason to say that McLaren's ideas (if embraced) couldn't be as moving and influential and Dr. King's "beloved community." I just wonder if the American Christian cares that much about what McLaren is talking about.
I'm not convinced that people in general really care about the pressing issues that face our planet. That being said, I understand that a lot of people do seem to be working to make the world a better place, but as far as uniting a country or a faith under the banner of change again...I'm not sure people feel the sense of necessity that accompanied Dr. Kings message/movement.
This sounds pessimistic, but I just am not positive that American Christianity is under enough pressure or stress to really make a united radical move in any direction. This is not a reflection of the impotence of McLaren’s ideas, but more so a critical analysis of those who he is trying to inspire. I hope I am proven wrong, and maybe just maybe McLaren’s ideas do bring some real substantive change to our world.