Jeremy L. Berg

In a religiously pluralistic world where all religions are supposedly equal and tolerance is the highest value, many Christians are dancing creatively around some of the less tolerant teachings of Jesus.  What do we do with sayings like, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) or “There is no other name under heaven by which we are saved” (Acts 4:12)?

Well, there is no shortage of ways to politely skirt around such inconvenient truths, and we need only look to the likes of Brian McLaren and others in the Emergent movement to see how this is done.

On this crucial, timely issue that will not be going away anytime soon, I recommend the following post by John W. Frye I came across this week called Emergent Theology and the Exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

Here is a snippet of Frye’s post:

Emergent theology seems to have reached a muddling place. All kinds of ideas are being creatively combined to produce a “new kind of Christianity.” Others more competent than I am have pointed out that what is touted as new is really actually old. Brian McLaren offers old line Christian Liberalism dressed up in postmodern clothes, but it is still old Liberalism.

A sticking point in today’s emergent conversations is the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as both the only authentic revelation of the true God and the only access point to that God. Brian McLaren rightly questions the haranguing snootyness of some factions in Christianity who harp on “who’s in” and “who’s out” of authentic faith. What I think Brian misses, however, is that it is one thing to question the way Christ’s exclusivity is presented to a wrecked world, but it is a whole other thing to make Jesus just one of the many nice (and religious) ways to get to God. Christ’s exclusivity seems to bother McLaren and others a lot; it seems too intolerant; it seems religiously bigoted; it can be infuriating.

Here’s the skinny. Jesus Christ is an infuriating person. He was in his own day and he is in our day as well. Many are aware of the lexical slight of hand that McLaren uses in his interpretation of John 14:6. He seems to not like that verse, and he certainly doesn’t like the way that verse is used by some. On the second concern–the way the verse is used by some, McLaren has a valid point. To use the verse obnoxiously and intolerantly is way out of line. I don’t think Jesus spoke it as a blunt weapon to be put into our “witnessing kit.” Context is vital.

Read the rest of his article HERE for more context.

What do you think?