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." The emerging church movement has been profoundly shaped by Mr. McLaren's thinking, so understanding an article in which he speaks to a distinctive of this movement should be doubly beneficial.
Let me start by noting several points I agree with. First, the editor (Tony Jones) suggests that this article be used to "thoughtfully and deeply engage the biblical content" (p. 1). I couldn't agree more. Look at the reviews of Mr. McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy on Amazon.com. There are plenty and they fall into two extremes. Strident rejections, on the one hand, and ringing endorsements, on the other - not much biblical interaction. So, I have picked an article that is a close reasoning of a biblical passage, a passage that concerns an important evangelical distinctive, and plan to take up the challenge to "engage the biblical content." Right on, Tony!
On pages 2-3 of his article, Mr. McLaren talks about "a kind of multiple choice examination" in which one agrees or disagrees with the idea titled the "exclusivity of Christ." Although McLaren doesn't return to this topic at the end of his article, he seems to be saying (by its end) that there is a third choice, "you don't need to know the answer to this question." Balance demands that we acknowledge that there are times when Jesus proposes just such a third choice. For example, in Acts 1:6, the disciples ask a question which solicits a yes-or-no response. Jesus' answer in Acts 1:7 is a "that-is-not-a-question-for-which-you-need-an-answer" kind of response. So, I agree that it's within the realm of possibility for Jesus to be doing something similar in John 14:6.
On pages 11 and 15, McLaren rightly emphasizes the compassionate nature of Jesus' ministry. His mission, by His own account, was to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). But note that those whom Jesus seeks are "lost." "Lost" sounds like a problem. And sometimes, people feel condemned when they are told they have a problem. So, I agree that reaching out to tax-gatherers and prostitutes conforms to Jesus' mission and is His invitation for us to minister without prejudice. This does not seem to eliminate the possibility of rejection or condemnation to be felt by those who are unwilling or unable to admit that they are "lost."
I can definitely agree with Mr. McLaren (page 13) that we must honestly admit we don't have all the answers. However, admitting I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I don't have answers, answers to the really important questions. The author specifically identifies this question as one without answers: "Who is in and who is out." And I agree that this is not MY question to answer. It is the Lord's: "the Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19). This doesn't mean that the question of "who is in and who is out" is irrelevant to me, however. Assurance of my salvation and that of others is worth pursuing, even though, I must agree, in the final analysis, Jesus is the One who will decide who is in and who is out.
Jim: That was a pretty thoughtful analysis of this issue. I look forward to seeing what else you say on the topic. One issue you address that I like alot is how you acknowledge there is interesting thoughtful things that come from many different perspectives. The emergent church is a strong movement amount younger generations for a variety of reasons one of which is I think it is willing to grapple with the difficult questions and young people like asking is the dogma really true. They might actually believe the statements of the "established" church but they like asking that tough question and knowing why someone believes what they say. In that regard I think the emergent movement is right on. I think the emergent movement gets off base when they get stuck in using relativism language then the notion of absolute truth and our ability to discern it is on a slippery slope. I suspect you might have a thought or two about that coming up in the future.
Posted by: Bubba Matthews | October 05, 2007 at 02:47 PM
I agree with Doug's comment. I know for myself (as a young person) I do want to know why it is I accept something as true, and I want these to be good, solid arguments/reasons as well. I think a number of others in my generation are the same way.
An issue that you kinda touched on that I have wrestled with for a while is often termed the "isolated native" question. I can agree that Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. I can also agree that God is just to judge individuals based on what they know through general revelation (ie. that there is a God). Where I struggle is with the idea that required in this is a gospel proclamation. Not to say we should not evangelize. However, if someone has never heard the gospel because "we" haven't told them, is it just for them to be punished for our failure (since telling them is kinda our job...)? And does that make salvation dependent, in some way, on something man does (namely, proclaiming the gospel)?
I have already written a good bit on this at my own blog, if you want more expansion of what I'm trying to sort out. Its at http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com (Look specifically at the post "Is General Revelation Enough?" which should be listed on the archive)
Thanks.
Posted by: Alex Marshall | October 22, 2007 at 12:26 AM