In his article, entitled A Reading of John 14:6, Brian McLaren presents an alternative view on a biblical passage often used to affirm the "exclusivity of Christ." This article concerns something significant.
What does it mean to be an "evangelical Christian?" Here's my basic two-part definition: An evangelical Christian (1) believes that salvation from sin is only found in a personal relationship with Jesus as his Savior and (2) is committed to making this good news known to all men. If Brian McLaren's analysis of John 14:6 is sound, then a key passage that has been much used to support the evangelical position has been taken from the table. This is not small potatoes!
I agree with Mr. McLaren that a consideration of context is critical to the process of biblical interpretation (pp. 3-4). But I think this appreciation for context must have more nuance to it by recognizing the interplay between authorial intent and context. In John 20:30-31, John expressly declares his intentions: "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John is doing more than simply recounting a series of events. He has selected material which can be used for maximum effect, that those reading his account may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.
I agree that it is valuable to ask, what did Jesus' words mean to the disciples? I would add that it is also valuable and necessary to ask, what did John intend his readers (us included) to understand from his account? Remember that John is writing as an elder statesman of the 1st century church, one in a great position to help men understand things taught by Jesus but not originally grasped by his disciples, himself included! Bottom line: We ought to be open to the possibility that Jesus' answer is bigger, more far-reaching, than the question which prompted it. The author of the Gospel of John tells us that is precisely his purpose.
On page 10, McLaren summarizes John 14:6: "Guys, its not about knowing information, techniques, directions, and or instructions: its about knowing me, trusting me!" I agree unequivocally about the centrality of knowing Jesus! It does not matter what a man knows - if he doesn't know Jesus, he doesn't know what matters! That being said, pages 9-10 could easily be construed by some (McLaren, too?) to suggest that knowing Jesus and knowing about Jesus oppose each other. How is it possible to know Jesus without knowing some information about Jesus? In John 20:30-31, John expressly identifies some information about Jesus that must be believed, namely, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So, I think it more balanced to say that knowing Jesus is like a lens that does not oppose information, techniques, directions, and instructions, but which makes all of them come into their proper focus with Him in the center.
Even in the Old Testament, God was adamant and precise regarding man's approach to Him. A study of the Tabernacle reveals a list of particulars, such as an eastern entrance, a shedding of blood, and a purifying ritual, that, while not particularly difficult to follow, were mandatory. Deviation resulted in death.
God desires to love, commune with, and enjoy the people He creates; therefore He clearly informs us of the path to take to Him. Only an aloof and unconcerned god would withhold such crucial information and leave us to figure it out for ourselves.
Posted by: mrs | October 08, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Expanding on the previous comment (mainly just thinking out loud here):
If, as you said, "only an aloof and unconcerned god would withhold such crucial information and leave us to figure it out for ourselves" can we say that, at least to an extent, that information is available to all people? For instance, while Israel was the only people who specifically received the legal instructions for approaching God in the tabernacle (or for making the tabernacle, for that matter), knowledge to some extent of a sacrificial method seemed assumed in earlier human history (for instance, Cain and Abel's sacrifice- there is no written record of God explaining sacrifice before that, it seems almost assumed). So could we say that some knowledge of redemption is inherent in the world today? Or has God chosen to only reveal this in a specific way to specific people who may then pass that knowledge along?
Posted by: Alex Marshall | October 22, 2007 at 12:36 AM