Yesterday Erin (my bride) read this excerpt from Frederick Buechner to me. I thought it was worth passing along. I'd be curious to hear what you all think of what he says. He seems to answer the question John asked me about how a "christian" and a "non-christian" may be closer then it might appear.
"Some think of a Christian as one who necessarily believes certain things. That Jesus was the son of God, say. Or that Mary was a virgin. Or that the Pope is infallible. Or that all other religions are all wrong. Some think of a Christian as one who necessarily does certain things. Such as going to church. Getting baptized. Giving up liquor and tobacco. Reading the Bible. Doing a good deed a day. Some think of a Christian as just a Nice Guy. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me"(John 14:6). He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him--by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way. Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God. A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank. A Christian isn't necessarily any nicer than anybody else. Just better informed."
5 comments:
The Tao of Christ. Interesting.
I really appreciate what Beuchner is saying here. That Christianity is not mere intellectual ascent to certain propositions. And even if his idea resembles Taoism it doesn't mean it isn't true. However, what would we do with John 3:16? Whoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved and have everlasting life. Was it translated wrong? Does "believes on" mean something other than what I think it does?
Tom,
I had to read Buechner's thought a couple times before I was able to set aside some of my knee-jerk reflexive feelings about the idea of the wholesale abandonment of doctrines. Do you think that he is abandoning creedal doctrines or am I misrepresenting him? Please explain.
John, what do you think "believes on" means? I think Abraham, Moses, and the prophets "believed on" even though they did not know the name of Jesus. I'm so loosey goosey lately I don't really care if the bible verses don't all work together nice and tidy. It just resonated as good and true when I read it.
Hey Connor - not so sure about which doctines your talking about and I'm probably not this guys best spokesperson. I just like the idea of chucking our illusion of superiority and living in the freedom and power Jesus demonstrated for us. Look forward to tomorrow
Tom,
You asked what doctrines? Well, how about Jesus being the son of God for one?
Beuchner mentions this belief in your post right alongside the infallibility of the pope! I reject Beuchner's premise here. He lumps two things that should not even be in the same ballpark; one that is absolutely essential to being a Christian and the other that was essential to being a Pre-Vatican 2 Catholic. I say Pre-Vatican 2 'cause not even Catholics are in uniformity about the infallibility of the pope (excluding Mel Gibson, of course).
What bugs me the most about Beuchner lumping these two things together is that he is playing an intellectual game here by putting something that is indisputable, at least if one is to call oneself a Christian, right alongside something that is highly questionable. In so doing he lures the unsuspecting person into thinking, "Gee, I obviously don't believe in the infallibility of the pope so maybe it's okay to question who Jesus is?"
What I do like about the excerpt from Beuchner is that he affirms what Jesus said about how his disciples would be known; they would be known by their love. Beuchner does well by calling our attention back to this point. Nevertheless, Jesus, elsewhere, asks his disciples who they think that he is? Clearly this must have been important too or else Jesus would not have asked it.
My point here is that these two things; a belief in Jesus as the son of God, and living out our love for one another are both important. Beuchner goes after the one to the detriment of the other and I have to ask, "why?" Surely he could have made the same point about love being a defining characteristic of a Christian without downplaying who Jesus Christ is couldn't he?
Post a Comment