I read a really interesting article today by Brian McLaren. It's essentially a walkthorugh (I hesitate to use the word commentary) of John 14:6 and the context surrounding it [because, although I haven't read Newbigin, I think that his work ought to be the one deemed a commentary]. Now, that bracket isn't to say that Brian McLaren has no authority on this subject, I'm just saying it's clearly not written to serve as a commentary.
But on to the point.
His premise is really built around the verse when Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). However, McLaren (and assumedly Newbigin) would argue that what Jesus is NOT talking about is heaven. And that what Jesus is referring to is actually the Kingdom of God. And to tell you the truth, it doesn't seem that crazy of an idea.
Do we honestly think that Jesus, the fleshly incarnation of God, would intervene in humanity to simply recreate a legalistic, elitist religion? You can clearly see that Jesus doesn't hold the Pharisees and Sadduccees in the highest of respects because of the way that they've seriously degraded Judaism, and made it about ritualism, as opposed to the love and heartfelt compassion shown through the Ancient Israeli faith. Is it that we think Jesus came to destroy one religion to simply put another one up? Doesn't this seem a bit ludicrous?
Wasn't the death of God (on the cross) something for all people, in all time? Or was his death simply a way for us to change our course? Going from a set of legalistic Jewish customs to an equally legalistic set of Gentile customs?
It seems silly for Jesus to come, live a life of compassion, redemption, servitude and mercy, and then cut off all the people he sought to reach out to. His actions would be simply contradictory. However, I am really enjoying chewing on this idea that Jesus was really referring to the Kingdom of God here. Not that no one gets to this kingdom without Jesus, but that we don't need to worry how to get there. Just follow Jesus, and he'll take care of the rest. That the focus is not on inclusion or exclusion, but about love, and mercy.
Sometimes, though, when I think about this 'new approach' McLaren (and Newbigin) take, I have to think, 'Is this really new'? I think part of that has to do with the fact that I've never taken this verse and looked at it in context. Not to say that the classic interpretaiton is out of context, but just that I've always heard it quoted over and over on it's own.
The compassion and Jesus shows in his life doesn't seem to line up with the intensely exclusive interpretation of this verse. I can clearly see McLaren's point there. But I have a hard time thinking what else it could mean. I really just very confused by this. I'll have to read through his article a few more times to really understand what he's saying. It's good. Give it a read.
-Mark.
I guess my main concern is: "What if the questions we’re asking aren’t the ones that Jesus is interested in answering? What then?"
1 comment:
Great questions! And the answers are even better.
Part of the problem most professing Christians have in wrestling with matters of faith is simply asking the wrong questions (pre-trib vs. post-trib, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, secular culture vs. Christian culture, etc.). Those kind of debates distract people from asking the real questions Jesus brought to the table. Historically, the uniqueness of Jesus is rooted in his ability to understand human spirituality (to paraphrase Dallas Willard, 'the realm of thoughts, feelings, and choices - the invisible, internal part of each person that shapes who they really are') beyond what any comparative philosopher, theologian, or religion have ever or since devised. He answers the age old question of what makes a good person and how does one actually become a good person like no one else. It'd be a shame to miss that because we forgot to ask the first, most basic question at all: what was Jesus' gospel? What was the good news he was talking about? It's always been about the Kingdom of God (Matt. 4:17 - "From that time on Jesus began to preach, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'"). The next question, of course, is what did Jesus mean by the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven?
PS - I don't think McLaren is saying anything "new" here by any means. The classic "culturally accepted" interpretation hasn't "always been so" especially when you're looking throughout history (for example, Baptists haven't always viewed male headship so literally - at one time, almost 2/3 of their denomination was filled with woman pastors).
Post a Comment