Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy Part 23 of ??
Incarnational
This is the longest chapter in the "what type of Christian I am" part of the book, as well as the one that has generated the most controversy. McLaren begins the chapter by discussing religious broadcasters. He doesn't like most of them because they rely too much on fear and division to inspire donations.
McLaren writes that the original title for this chapter was "Why I am Buddhist/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish," but that was rejected for being excessively provocative as well as misleading. Instead he went with Incarnational, echoing missionary Daniel Crawford statement, "I am de-nationalized - a brother to all men; Arab, African, Mongol, Aryan, Jew; seeing in the Incarnation a link that binds up with all men." McLaren writes that as Jesus' incarnation bound him to all of humanity, so should his followers be linked to all people - even people of other religions.
McLaren is careful to note that he does not mean that all religions are the same, or that it doesn't matter what you believe, or that truth is relative. The idea is that as Jesus moves toward all people in love and kindness, we should do the same. He writes that, "Our Christian identity must not make us afraid of, superior to, isolated from, defensive or aggressive toward, or otherwise hostile to people of other religions. Rather, the reverse." This means everyone, even religious broadcasters. Christians should engage in respectful, gentle dialogue with people of other faiths (including apologizing for past injustices committed by Christians). This is not compromise as some might see it, but rather carrying out Christ's command to love our neighbors. This dialogue does not exclude evangelism, it makes it possible.
McLaren writes that missionaries have too often tried (sometimes unknowingly) to destroy the culture of those they were seeking to reach, and to replace it with an Euro-American culture. He writes that this was not the example of the Paul, or the Early Church, who did not seek to replace the Greek culture (and later Northern European) that they encountered.
Then he writes perhaps his most controversial paragraph, which has often been mangled by people quoting it in criticism. He writes, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either." That doesn't sound so bad to me, keeping in mind that for McLaren Christian does not necessarily mean follower of Christ. Here's a clarification of the paragraph by McLaren.
This is the longest chapter in the "what type of Christian I am" part of the book, as well as the one that has generated the most controversy. McLaren begins the chapter by discussing religious broadcasters. He doesn't like most of them because they rely too much on fear and division to inspire donations.
McLaren writes that the original title for this chapter was "Why I am Buddhist/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish," but that was rejected for being excessively provocative as well as misleading. Instead he went with Incarnational, echoing missionary Daniel Crawford statement, "I am de-nationalized - a brother to all men; Arab, African, Mongol, Aryan, Jew; seeing in the Incarnation a link that binds up with all men." McLaren writes that as Jesus' incarnation bound him to all of humanity, so should his followers be linked to all people - even people of other religions.
McLaren is careful to note that he does not mean that all religions are the same, or that it doesn't matter what you believe, or that truth is relative. The idea is that as Jesus moves toward all people in love and kindness, we should do the same. He writes that, "Our Christian identity must not make us afraid of, superior to, isolated from, defensive or aggressive toward, or otherwise hostile to people of other religions. Rather, the reverse." This means everyone, even religious broadcasters. Christians should engage in respectful, gentle dialogue with people of other faiths (including apologizing for past injustices committed by Christians). This is not compromise as some might see it, but rather carrying out Christ's command to love our neighbors. This dialogue does not exclude evangelism, it makes it possible.
McLaren writes that missionaries have too often tried (sometimes unknowingly) to destroy the culture of those they were seeking to reach, and to replace it with an Euro-American culture. He writes that this was not the example of the Paul, or the Early Church, who did not seek to replace the Greek culture (and later Northern European) that they encountered.
Then he writes perhaps his most controversial paragraph, which has often been mangled by people quoting it in criticism. He writes, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either." That doesn't sound so bad to me, keeping in mind that for McLaren Christian does not necessarily mean follower of Christ. Here's a clarification of the paragraph by McLaren.
posted by Freethinker at 8:25:00 AM
5 Comments:
I have been thinking through this issue for a few years now. I still don't know where I stand on it but I do know that I long to be incarnational the way Christ was.
As far how that looks, I am not sure. Can someone be a Buddist Follower of Christ? Can you be a Muslim Believer of Grace? Just thinking this way makes my head hurt but my heart leap. Think of the potential if the world could find that Christ welcomes them in their very own context!
When I was studying at Southwestern Seminary we learned of a tribe who all came to Christ by faith but the problem was they didn't have a word in their language for Jesus Christ. The missionary who led this village to faith could only use the example of a pig they would sacrifice. (long story made shorter here). The village prays in the name of the Pig! Were they believers? I still don't know about it all but it was pretty cool to think of all the ways that Christ COULD be presented to others.
What do you think?
When people with advanced training in how to use a language use it in such a reckless fashion, how much sympathy must we have for them when they complain of being misinterpreted, misunderstood, and even misrepresented? I can think of more worthy objects of pity.
ishmael - It is not reckless use of language if you read the whole book, he does define his terms (at least mostly).
And of course he hasn't worked out his beyond (Universalism/ Exclusivism/ Inclusivism) position.
What do I think? I think the villagers are doing fine if they are just calling Yeshua a different name, Just as many Arabic Christians will refer to Yahweh as Allah. Is that what you meant?
Can someone be a Muslim Believer of Grace? I don't know how that would work. Certainly there are Muslim practices that a believer shouldn't do (some might point out that there are "Christian" practices that believers shouldn't do).
I am happy enough to try to obey the Great Commission and beyond that to assume that God will know his own (while maintaining that Christ is the only way to the Father). Perhaps on that day we will be surprised to see how that way worked out (such as in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle), perhaps not.
I've wondered that if there are to be people from every language in the Great Multitude depicted in Revolution, if that means only the languages spoken at the end time, or if it includes people who spoke languages that no longer exist.
speeking on books iam reading " a milliaon little peaces" i so am injoying it and you should read it
Post a Comment
<< Home