Albert Mohler wrote a review of your book, Generous Orthodoxy..
I hope you don’t mind my asking this, but you and your books seem to be quite the hot topic on many a blog. I happened upon some discussion about a statement attributed to you, in which some posters wonder what you meant by the following which was included in a review of your book by Albert Mohler (emphasis added by me):
"McLaren suggests that we should embrace the existence of different faiths, "willingly, not begrudgingly." What would this mean? Well, a complete reconsideration of Christian missions, for one thing. McLaren claims to affirm that Christians should give witness to their faith in Jesus Christ. But, before you assume this means an affirmation of Christian missions, consider this statement: "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."
Forgive me for being so blunt but, the emphasized language immediately raised images of the “Jews for Jesus” movement and other “soft sell” techniques of conversion via what appear to be dubious/subversive measures. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to indulge me and shed further light on what you meant by the bolded language.
Answer: Well, first, I am misquoted in the statement. It was probably just a typo, but I wrote “(not all!)” – the question mark may dramatically alter my actual meaning. I can’t imagine Dr. Mohler doing this intentionally. (If anyone who reads this knows him, maybe you can let him know so this misrepresentation can be fixed on his blog.)
Second, I wonder what his alternative to accepting the existence of other faiths willingly, not begrudgingly, is? Would he rather make other faiths nonexistent through military action? Of course not. Would he like other faiths to be starved until they “get smart and get saved?” Of course not. All I’m suggesting is that other faiths are there, and we should realize that fact, accept it, and deal with it. One of the ways we deal with it is by treating members of other faiths with respect, as neighbors beloved by God, as Jesus taught. It’s hard to imagine how he sees that as “a complete reconsideration of Christian missions” – although it might require a reconsideration of colonialism.
Third, it is a common missiological practice – and has been for decades – to realize that in some places, it is best to build movements of authentic Jesus-followers who do not identify with the Christian religion – largely because the Christian religion is (rightly or wrongly) in those places associated with militarism, hedonism, injustice, racism, and cruelty. Ironically, Southern Baptists – Dr. Mohler’s own denomination - have in many places led the way with this strategy. It can be abused in dubious ways, as you suggest, but I also think it can be a very effective strategy when wisely understood and applied. As I said, I think it is a “subversive” strategy we need to use in many Christian contexts – help people become followers of Jesus in spite of the problems of their denominational affiliation.
An excellent editorial response to Dr. Mohler’s article and my disinvitation was written by a noted Baptist journalist Trennis Henderson. If you search on his name and mine, I think it will come up. I think he hit the nail on the head.
But again, I want to say that I was treated kindly by the organizers of the KBC event, both in the invitation and disinvitation, and I respected their decision. I am glad to say that the honorarium they gave me has been directed to hungry people in Burundi, a country I have visited and care about a great deal. So, that’s a win for everyone.