Sunday, October 28, 2007
Meanings of the Cross
In an effort to bridge the gap with conservative fundamentalist faith, I’ve agreed to a book swap with one of Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network pastors. I am going to read a book of his choice and he will read one of my favorites. Jeremy and I are already friends and we have had enough conversations to know where we differ. He is leading a new church right down the street from my office and we both call ourselves Christian but I’m progressive, I view Jesus’ message as largely about peace, justice and community, and I don’t have a traditional theistic view of God. My current understanding of his faith is that he is a conservative Evangelical who feels the central theme of Christianity (and the entire Bible) is that God grants special status in afterlife to those who learn to believe the right doctrines about Jesus' death.
It should be interesting and I pray it will be productive. I hope the results will be that I’m better equipped and fair in my criticism of the religious right. My goal is to look for areas we can agree and to clarify the items that are merely superficial differences in linguistics. I know there are significant points of disagreement, but I have hope that bridges can be built.
I’ll be reading “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott and the book I’ve chosen for Jeremy is “The Last Week” by Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan. I had a couple of books in mind but this should be a nice compliment since the two books represent very different views of the purpose of Jesus life and the reasons for his death.
Stay tuned for more…
9 comments:
Hooray for attemps at conversation, not conversion. :)
look forward to hearing how you both get on
This will be interesting to follow. I hope it works out enlighten both of you.
Conversation is good. I'm taking notes on the reading...many, many notes...be prepared for a long series of discussions (we'll have to schedule multiple sessions, I'm sure!)
Secondly, you stated:
"My current understanding of his faith is that he is a conservative Evangelical who feels the central theme of Christianity (and the entire Bible) is that God grants special status in afterlife to those who learn to believe the right doctrines about Jesus' death."
It's not necessarily about "head knowledge" of doctrine, but rather an understanding of how our right relationship with God is possible. Thankfully, in His grace, Jesus does not require that we take a theology test per se or understand theological concepts in their entirety...just a simple, humble faith and reliance on Him and trust that He is who He says He is and He's done what He says He's done.
I definately said "my CURRENT understanding". It is a bit of stereotype but it is just my starting point for how I see your views right now. Feel free to change that. I'll be listening.
"It's not necessarily about 'head knowledge' of doctrine, but rather an understanding of how our right relationship with God is possible."
What is the difference between what you describe as "head knowledge" and what you describe as "understanding of how right relationship with God is possible". Isn't that a doctrine? Just because you summarize a doctrine into something simple doesn't mean it isn't a doctrine. Explain how something can be an "understanding" and not a "doctrine".
It seems clear to me that Stott claims there is a doctrine (or understanding if you prefer) that needs to be accepted or "believed in" in order to be "saved". It seems he has shifted faith from belief in the possiblities of Jesus' vision into belief in his divine status (virgin birth, intentional death, resurrection, etc.)
For you, what does it mean to "believe in Jesus"?
There's a difference between "knowing about" something (like memorizing a lot of information) and "knowing" (like in the relational sense). I can know a lot about you from reading your blog, but I get to know you by meeting at Stillwater Tap Room.
This is why Yahweh is so distinct in the Old Testament- He revealed Himself to be a relational God. Likewise, Jesus reveals the relational aspect of God. In John 17:3, Jesus states that eternal life is "knowing God." Not just knowing about Him, but relating to Him.
All religions teach in order to relate to God, certain rules must be followed to earn His acceptance and approval (even a skewed brand of fundamental Christianity will teach this). However, the Gospel teaches that because we are accepted and loved by God in Jesus Christ, we then are able to relate to Him through obedience.
Tim Keller states:
Religion is "I obey, therefore I'm accepted." The Gospel is "I'm accepted, therefore I obey."
What confuses me, Mike, is that you reduce Christianity into merely following principles (as one would follow the teachings of Confucius or Buddha) when true Gospel faith is far beyond just teachings, but actually knowing the Teacher. This was revolutionary in OT times: Yahweh, the relational God. It's revolutionary today: not religion, but Gospel: in Christ Jesus we can related to God.
ReverendRockStar,
If your current understanding of my faith is that I reduce Christianity into "merely following principles", then I have a great deal of explaining to do. I'm not sure how you arrived at that, but I'm clearly a worse communicator than I thought.
I see faith as a whole new way to live and build community which starts with a personal transformation away from a self-centered attitude toward an other-centered attitude and culminating in a robust community of peace and justice. I'm not sure how you could restate that as "merely following principles". It involves change in every area of life.
What I oppose in the typical fundamentalist approach is the reduction of the Bible's message to a set of ideas for us to believe ABOUT Jesus while ignoring the faithful following of his message.
I don't have a robust understanding of Confucianism so I'll avoid saying something about it that might make me sound like a someone making uninformed statements about a religion I have not studied. As for Buddhism, I have studied it enough to know it is a way of transformation not simply a set of principles. I would urge you to dig into it if you are going to use it as an example. The Buddha said that enlightenment cannot be obtained for yourself, you must seek enlightenment for the sake of all others or else it is meaningless.
I think you are wrong to assume that "All religions teach in order to relate to God, certain rules must be followed to earn His acceptance and approval". That isn't true in Buddhism or in the type of Christianity I see as authentic to Jesus. Neither teaches approval from God through obeying rules. Both teach transformation into fully developed, compassionate, "spirit filled" humans. I really think you want to paint a worse picture of all other faiths in order to make it easier to build a case for your own faith. Is that really fair?
I have had the pleasure of having long friendships with several Jews, a Muslim, a Hindu, a few Mormons, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and a girl in the Baha'i tradition. I know it sounds like the opening of a joke, but in school quite frequently I would have lunch with my Jewish and Muslim friend as well as the Baha'i and Hindu girls. It was truly enriching, and a few of those friendships have endured for years.
When I note the more "works-centered" religions, please understand that is not meant to be an insult to my friends who follow that faith: merely an observation from what I've gathered from study and conversations with them. Please don't assume I am trying "to paint a worse picture of all other faiths in order to make it easier to build a case for your own faith." That is truly not the case.
My goal is not to belittle the faith of others, but rather shed some light to those who have a faulty view of the Gospel and who mistaken works-righteousness religion with the grace-filled, Christ-centered Gospel.
I agree with you that transformation is necessary. This is something that cannot be achieved by human effort or by following a 12 step program. It happens in a humble, honest relationship with the Living Christ.
In Gospel Christianity, Christ is not the means to an end: He is the end in and of Himself. Christ is not the way to enlightenment...the whole point is to know Him in an intimate relationship.
The prophet Micah says "to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The writer of Ecclesiastes notes the same goal at the end of his book as well.
Post a Comment