BlakeHuggins.com

I’m currently reading Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message Jesus (which is great so far, I highly recommend it to everyone) and throughout the book McLaren uses the phrase ‘interactive relationship(s)’ (which he admittedly borrows from Dallas Willard, who I’ve yet to read) to describe not only eternal life, but the entire kingdom of God including the participation of ‘kingdom agents’ in realizing and actualizing the kingdom as a present and ongoing reality.

The language of interaction and synergism is interesting and intriguing to me. Since the Reformation, Christianity has traditionally—at least in the West—operated under the assumption that a person must have an exclusive ‘personal relationship’ with God through Jesus Christ. I can’t begin to count the number of sermons I’ve heard based solely on this premise (which is interesting given the phrase, ‘personal relationship’ is never mentioned in the bible, but that’s another matter, another blog perhaps).

I think McLaren and Willard offer perhaps a new (or old, depending on how your view it) way of living as followers of Jesus. First, the emphasis on the kingdom of God, not just as a future reward for believing particular dogma, but even more consequential, as a present reality, on earth as it is in heaven, moves the action of kingdom agents from the confines of the institutional church to the world at large, as a physical, tangible force of transformation. This changes everything. It changes how one views politics and religion, economics and finances. It changes how one views education and government. Most importantly it changes of one sees and treats others. And that leads us back to the idea of interactive relationship(s).

There is a common theme throughout Jesus’ life and ministry (indeed, there are many, but I’m choosing to address one): in any given situation, confrontation or opportunity, Jesus always chose the human relationship and human need over the alternative (the Sabbath, the tradition, ect.). Jesus chose to acknowledge the spark of the divine within whomever he came in contact with, especially, the outcast, the marginalized, and the oppressed. Jesus recognized people as bearers of the image of God. In short, Jesus defined what it meant to be a people person.

Even bigger than human interaction, this idea of ‘interactive relationship’ can be used to describe how one relates with and ‘interacts’ God. History is the narrative of God’s cosmic process of restoration, healing, and renewal. As ‘kingdom agents’ human beings participate with God in this synergetic process. John Dominic Crossan describes this as ‘sapiential eschatology.’ In other words, God acts through us. God cannot act without us (sound familiar? the body of Christ? the hands and feet of Jesus?). Thus, we are an extension of God’s dynamism at work in the world. Indeed, we ‘interact,’ imitate and cooperate with God in building the God’s kingdom.

Finally, opting for ‘interactive’ language rather than ‘personal’ language shifts the emphasis from individualism to holism. Again, this has too often been the temptation and the persuasion of the Western church. Salvation is almost always individualized and personal, individual growth outside the community is, I believe, often over-emphasized. Look at the common praise and worship song. The language is usually exclusively individualistic. At best this kind of thinking can bring about personal transformation without regard to community, at worst it glorifies the individual leading to among other things, (as history has shown) imperialism and colonialism. Conversely, interaction language demands a more holistic and communal type of salvation, an ongoing cosmic narrative of sanctification and maturation. The community of faith and virtue cooperates and participates in the God’s process. Human beings are treated as a reflection of God. Divinity and humanity are woven together permeating the fabric of being itself. Perhaps if this idea of ‘interactive relationship(s)’ can be adopted we can begin to overcome the vice of western individualism and exclusivism. Perhaps.

~bh ><>