Some time ago, I wrote a tentative, probing 'defense' of Generous Orthodoxy... Basically I think McLaren is saying people can be followers of Jesus while remaining in a non-Christian community, culture as in a Muslim mission context.
Of course, his lack of clarity here provokes a lot of rethinking... and not surprisingly, a multitude of misunderstandings as well.
For example, a friend sees it as a positive signal that McLaren teaches non-Christians can unknowingly 'follow Jesus' within their religions, which is enuff justification for us not to waste hard-earned bucks on his books.
Another friends appreciated my attempt at 'hermeneutics of love' but sees McLaren's position as an 'inclusivist'... Jesus saves non-Christians, but through alternate pathways available in their less sophisticated religions.
Yet another friend's reading puts it as "we should let non-Christians follow Jesus in their own way..." I wonder if one has the option to follow a Jesus who is merely a good man, and nothing more?
It seems to lead to a form of pluralism (Btw, I'm in the process of writing an assignment on John Hicks, the pluralist 'taiko'.. any help is much appreciated)
Alas, Sivin kindly sent me this link: McLaren's Clarification
Sometimes, clarity is a virtue because it helps to reduce communication 'errors'... so I feel vindicated, haha! (But I cud still be wrong!)
McLaren was quoted as saying:
"I'm not saying I don't care if people are Christians or not. I'm saying I want people to be followers of Jesus, but to be a follower of Jesus in some situations may not require them to affiliate with the Christian religion...
"This is especially the case in Muslim countries. They're affiliated as followers of Jesus but for a whole number of reasons, they are not saying, 'I'm an affiliate of the Christian religion...
"The issue is that people confess Jesus as Lord. I'm interested in helping people actively be disciples of Jesus as Lord...
"I do not like to use the term 'exclusivity of Christ' because I think that Jesus did not come to exclude people. I think Jesus came to seek and save the lost. That does not sound like an exclusive job to me...
"I believe Jesus is the only savior. I would be very comfortable talking about the uniqueness of Christ. Is Jesus exclusively the savior? Absolutely. I believe He's the only savior."
Of course, his lack of clarity here provokes a lot of rethinking... and not surprisingly, a multitude of misunderstandings as well.
For example, a friend sees it as a positive signal that McLaren teaches non-Christians can unknowingly 'follow Jesus' within their religions, which is enuff justification for us not to waste hard-earned bucks on his books.
Another friends appreciated my attempt at 'hermeneutics of love' but sees McLaren's position as an 'inclusivist'... Jesus saves non-Christians, but through alternate pathways available in their less sophisticated religions.
Yet another friend's reading puts it as "we should let non-Christians follow Jesus in their own way..." I wonder if one has the option to follow a Jesus who is merely a good man, and nothing more?
It seems to lead to a form of pluralism (Btw, I'm in the process of writing an assignment on John Hicks, the pluralist 'taiko'.. any help is much appreciated)
Alas, Sivin kindly sent me this link: McLaren's Clarification
Sometimes, clarity is a virtue because it helps to reduce communication 'errors'... so I feel vindicated, haha! (But I cud still be wrong!)
McLaren was quoted as saying:
"I'm not saying I don't care if people are Christians or not. I'm saying I want people to be followers of Jesus, but to be a follower of Jesus in some situations may not require them to affiliate with the Christian religion...
"This is especially the case in Muslim countries. They're affiliated as followers of Jesus but for a whole number of reasons, they are not saying, 'I'm an affiliate of the Christian religion...
"The issue is that people confess Jesus as Lord. I'm interested in helping people actively be disciples of Jesus as Lord...
"I do not like to use the term 'exclusivity of Christ' because I think that Jesus did not come to exclude people. I think Jesus came to seek and save the lost. That does not sound like an exclusive job to me...
"I believe Jesus is the only savior. I would be very comfortable talking about the uniqueness of Christ. Is Jesus exclusively the savior? Absolutely. I believe He's the only savior."
Comments
Having said that, I understand his point and think it has some validity. :)
Oh, and fyi, jesuscreed.blogspot.com is currently discussing DA Carson's critique of Emergent.
I agree 100% w him there, but seems like there's so much left unsaid.
So I'd read McLaren 'devotionally',
meaning for inspiration, motivation and encouragement, even!
For the meaty, heavyweight and more carefully articulated stuffs, we'd probably need to turn to Stanley Grenz (pbuh).
PS: Scott McKnight is a huge 'Jesus scholar' who deserves our attention
I suppose once we've begun the journey of "reading stuff (i.e. books or Bible) in context", we tend to want to "read others (i.e. people and sittuations) in context" .. I'm not sure what motivated Brian to make the clarification ... (I'll ask him in our next email conversation when we have time), but knowing him these years ... he probably wants to "include" more people in the conversation (i.e. reflective thinking and talking) about what matters to us thus even though challenging us to think with "the play with words" at times is necessary (aren't we all thinking again now huh?), clarity helps those who need less play with words (which helps us in terms of creativity) but more anchoring with words (which helps us have some firm footing for concrete action).
I read Scott McKnight's engagement with D.A. Carson's material and I think it's good.
I think those who are following the discussion cannot ignore Andrew Jones' "Open Letter to DA Carson"
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/04/an_open_blog_po.html and The Carson Chronicles http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/04/the_carson_chro.html
Maybe it has to do with his fame, I wonder if anyone in blogdom actually interacted with Andy Crouch or Horton after their 'conversation' in 5 views on emerging church. They had some pretty insightful stuffs there too