McLaren and Religions

Here's one of the worst things Brian McLaren has said according to many critics.  It's found in A Generous Orthodoxy.

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 is a key passage for the Kentucky Baptist Convention who disinvited McLaren from speaking at their evangelism conference (also here).

This is a key passage for Stand to Reason founder and president Greg Koukl, who after quoting the above passage in a blog post then writes...

"Be forewarned. The Emergent Church is the most theologically corrosive view/movement/trend in a long time. The Seeker movement and the "Laughing Revival" of the last decade pale in comparison. And it’s consuming millions, especially young people. We’ll keep you posted."

This is a key passage for Al Mohler in his well-traveled review of aGO where he appears to say this quote brings into question McLaren's commitment to Christian mission in the world.

What does Brian McLaren really mean in this controversial quote?  Here is an excerpt from a recent interview with McLaren.

In an interview last week with Kentucky Baptists' newspaper, The Western Recorder, McLaren suggested the controversy was mainly a semantic one.

"I'm not saying I don't care if people are Christians or not," he said. "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 a very well-known reality in missiology," he added. "Many Southern Baptist missionaries are building disciples in communities of disciples ... that are meeting in homes or other places, but they are not affiliating with the Christian religion and disaffiliating with their own 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.'"

Noting that "there were followers of Jesus before the word 'Christian' was invented," McLaren said, "They were first called Christians at Antioch - so I think we've got a biblical case for people being followers of Jesus without having to use that word.

"The issue," he insisted, "is that people confess Jesus as Lord. I'm interested in helping people actively be disciples of Jesus as Lord."

Read the whole article (HT: Joe Thorn email)

McLaren isn't saying we don't need mission, or that we should let new Christians syncretize.  He is talking about public association among believers in certain contexts.  He is talking about what he thinks is best to be a faithful witness in certain contexts.

As people convert they become disciples, but they may not publicly proclaim their conversion through joining a publicly recognized Christian church.  I used to be on track to go overseas as an SBC missionary.  During that time I heard one young, theologically strong SBC missionary speak who works with Muslims.  I also followed up and talked with him personally after his speech, and then through email later on.  His remarks about new converts is almost exactly the same as McLaren's.

I encourage critics of McLaren to respond to his clarification.  I think it's an important issue because it's such a contested quote.

Comments

[iMonk]

Good for you Steve. I salute your integrity in letting McLaren be quoted truthfully, rather than to perpetuate the idea that emergent churches are syncretists. Which I was optimistic about how this will be received, but you are on target.

[Todd]

One of the best posts i have seen on this issue. i am about finished with the third book in the NKOC trilogy. if one will take time to read the "commentary" they will glean alot about the road McLaren has/is traveed/ing. i may not necessarily side with Brian on all things suggested but, at least some might grasp a better understanding of the usage of certain hot button words - inclusivee, exclusive, conditional, etc.

by the way - opening up the other board has been much healthier than what has gone on over at the Lifeway site.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Todd. I appreciate both comments.

[Matt]

I guess I'm a touch confused. In what "context" is McLaren talking? If a guy in Iran becomes a Christian because of an underground missionary, praise God. And I don't then expect the guy to start wearing a WWJD bracelet and carry a banner through town. Is McLaren simply suggesting that these new Christians go through the rituals of their old religion and culture while sharing the faith underground?

If so, I think I can live with that. But at the same time, I think McLaren's quote is a bit confusing. I can see where someone would misread, though I join with you and iMonk and others in saying its wrong to take it out of context.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, I think you have it basically right. I don't have much more time to explain it today. Even if I did, I don't know if any of us can fully understand what it means unless we live in a culture where rejecting the religion means horrible things. We just don't get the weight of the issue.

But the problem is the knee-jerk reactions of those looking for something from McLaren that "looks" bad without really trying to get what he says. McLaren't critics on this passage, in my opinion, need to apologize for this.

[Jon]

I wonder if part of the tension here is also the pretty widely assumed, albeit little spoken, assumption among most American Christians that once someone becomes a believer part of the process of sanctification will be the slow, gradual transformation into an American. Among emergent and missional church proponents there is a more ready acceptance of the idea that America is indeed a mission field now and that any type of ministry that takes place in a America now is in a very real sense cross-cultural. In the above article McLaren is simply stating a missiological principle that has been around for a couple of decades, and is pretty generally accepted now - even among SBC missionaries as McLaren points out. (the way that the SBC continues to try and "protect" its American congregations from the type and variety of ministry that goes on internationally is an interesting tension to me – has anyone else noticed this tendency?) I’ve got a couple of good articles somewhere on the development of this missionary thinking in Muslim contexts if anyone is interested. I don’t feel the need to defend McLaren, he’s more than capable of doing so himself – but I think its interesting as SBC’ers to examine some of the underlying assumptions that are driving prominent SBC figures to react so negatively to McLaren and the emerging church movement – periods of transition always result in a loss of power to heavily entrenched institutions (and the SBC has long since moved into the institutional arena – however much we try to dodge the denominational label) and the threat of losing that position of power causes people to react in interesting ways . . .

[Steve McCoy]

Jon, good comment. I agree with your assessment of American Christianity and the rest. I think you raise good questions and observations. I too am very concerned that our mission efforts are too much about Americanizing and too little about starting truly indigenous churches. That's why I wrote this post. Thanks for the comment.

[Mac]

This is for Michael Spencer. Hey dude..been trying all day to get a hold of you. write me. I have some good stuff to share about James White, but cannot seem to get it to you. [email protected]. I'm a former Razormouth national columnist.

[TheBloke...in the outer...]

If we try to distinguish and focus on the difference between following Jesus and being an adherent of Christianity rather than zero in on the concerns of a follower of Christ being a Buddhist, etc., then we will begin to see the richness of what McLaren is talking about. I must first of all confess that I have not read his book (I just ordered it though), but I have been thinking along similar lines for the longest time (although what I have been and am thinking might turn out to be far from what McLaren is talking about).

I think it is instructive to look at Christian religion as having been tainted by centuries of unneccesary and unhelpful underpinnings of culture. We need to first of all distil what is needed to be a follower of Christ.

Next, we need to look at "other religions" not in a antagonistic, Satanic, falsehood where everything is totally anti-God.

We then need to see that human beings in every culture have their ways of searching for a relationship with God.

Then we need to connect the dots and see that being a follower of Christ is about a relationship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We need to go beyond the cultural differences, and embrance the good, positives and the truth in the culture and the religion and introduce the amazing miracle of a living and dynamic relationship with the Creator within that culture, and in that sense, followers of Christ would far better remain within their own cultural Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish contexts than to shed that and take on the "Christian cultural garb" for to do so might lessen the authenticity of the life and discipline of following Christ.

[Wes]

"Affiliating with the Christian religion" seems to be an ambiguous phrase here and perhaps even more ambiguous than I realize since it comes from McLaren. Even more, the term "religion" means different things to different people. To some it always has a negative conotation and refers to boring, unbiblical additives to what the God has really said. To others religion can represent the wonderfully joyous lifestyle of following Christ with a group of fellow believers. So here, it seems a little unclear about what is included in identifying with the Christian "religion."

There is no virtue or value in simply saying "I am an affiliate of the Christian religion." So to do this in the public square is not valuable enough to risk imprisonment or worse (such as in Islamic countries). We must be wise in the ways that we put ourselves at risk. But hopefully, those in the emerging conversation agree that there is a necessity for baptism, activity in a community of true believers, speaking the gospel to those that they knew prior to converseion, etc. The life of a disciple must not be controlled by fear of persecution but rather a desire to exalt Christ and win others to his Kingdom.

If McLaren is saying that a person's true conversion is not official after taking on a new "title" but rather after taking on a new heart, then I wholeheartedly agree.

[Sivin]

When I read A Generous Orthodoxy .. I knew very likely this statment which is quoted all over the place would get Brian in trouble. I do think people need to read in in context though then even though it does raises questions, we'd be slower to raise alarm bells.

[Messy Christian]

Here's an interesting thing - I was one of those people that McLaren referred to in his quote. For five years when I first started out in my Christian walk, I couldn't publically proclaim my faith because to be honest, I was scared stiff of my family.

So, during those years, by outward appearances, I was a Buddhist. I went to temples, I bowed to idols (very reluctantly) and participated in religious ceremonies. Yet, I was a very sincere Christian. I read the bible, I sneaked out to join church services, I had fellowship. It was not a desirable situation, but it was a situatio I had to be in.

Yes, one day I did make a stand and told my parents that I'm a Christian. But those five years - I wasn't ready. I was too young to face life without the love and approval of my family.

So, I'm glad that McLaren understands. Maybe in the US, where such situations are rare, it seems mystifying. But in Malaysia, these situations are extremely common.

Thanks for your post Steve. :)

[DAO]

Follow here, the life of Nicodemus...
(Joh 3:1-9) Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews...Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"...Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"

(Joh 7:50) Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them...(his fellow Pharisees)

(Joh 19:39) Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.

God is big enough to tend to His sheep. We must be occupied with bringing Christ to bear upon them in word and action...I find Mclaren focused more on man than he is on God in Christ. good thought provoking reading in some instances, though.
peace

[Steve McCoy]

"We must be occupied with bringing Christ to bear upon them in word and action...I find Mclaren focused more on man than he is on God in Christ"

I take it you mean McLaren is too focused on man. How so?

[Greek Shadow]

Maybe it is semantics. The term stealth Christians might work better. For a Muslim to openly convert in most Islamic countries would be a death sentence. By staying within cultural conformity where they live, these Stealth Christians could possibly reach others in their countries and effect change within the other religion. Even after Paul was converted, he still attended synagogue, and the temple. Even in Rome after the leaders of Jerusalem tried to kill him he appealed to Rome's Jewish leaders and tried to stay true to the Jewish faith.

[Steve McCoy]

Stand to Reason has responded to McLaren.

[JACK]

To be fair to the critics of McClaren, he did choose very unclear words (even in his explanation of his initial quote). "Affiliating with the Christian religion" -- I agree with Wes, that this is the quote that is giving people trouble.

If all he means is public acknowledgement of being a Christian, then I understand where he's coming from. There are underground churches all around the world, particularly in China. I pray that they need not stay underground, but I understand why they currently are.

That could have been made far clearer by saying something like "not publicly announcing the fact that they are Christians" or "worshipping in secret" or something like that. Because, the phrase he uses does feel syncretistic. After all, as Christians we are a new people not a collection of individuals who happen to hold some shared worldview schema. "Christian" means something.I think that is why the quote has been seen as problematic. Frankly, I think the speaker must get some blame if the misunderstanding is created by his choice of words.

[Steve McCoy]

As an SBC'r who was planning to go to overseas missions, that quote caused me no pause when I was reading his book.

Should McLaren get blame for being unclear? Sure. I think he is welcome to accept it. He has been before.

BUT, some critics have worked very hard to pile on an unclear statement instead of first seeking clarity. That's a bad thing that lots of Christian critics regularly do. See first to speak, not understand. The way we criticize must change, IMO. I'm much more careful than I used to be, but I'm sure I still make mistakes. We all do. But look at how people handled McLaren's quote before they really understood it.

McLaren may have written a muddled quote, but the criticism should have been on being muddled, not on being wrong. Does that make sense?

[JACK]

Steve, I don't disagree with you. I'm a firm believer in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I think the failure to do this within Christian circles has been one of the most bothering trends, for me personally. When there exists ways to reasonably interpret what someone meant that are less accusatory, more in accord with Christian tradition, less leaping straight to the heretic type accusation, etc., I think a Christian is compelled to presume that interpretation was meant, seek clarification and stand ready to re-evaluate based on what clarification is offered.

My point is only that this wasn't some small trivial point on which McClaren was being less than clear. Given that this wasn't a quote from an off-hand conversation, but a passage in a book that presumably was reviewed and edited, McClaren should have recognized the ways in which the passage might be read and taken some steps to try and eliminate ambiguity up front. Maybe he did. Or maybe he was being intentionally provocative in his phrasing, but not his meaning. Or maybe people aren't entirely misreading him. I simply don't know.

In any event, I don't mean to heap any of the blame on McClaren in an effort to excuse the behavior of those that criticize him. (I come from a "both/and", not an "either/or" culture. ;-).) Hope that clarifies my last post.

[Steve McCoy]

McLaren loves to provoke, so the muddled part may have been somewhat intentional. Good thought.

Either way, I wish more Baptist leaders would read McLaren even though we will disagree or be befuddled by some things he says. He has so much good to say.

Thanks for a good interaction and generosity on this issue.

Steve