Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life
Gil asked about Rob Bell:
I'm curious about this quote, from the review in the Kansas Post:
Bell also shakes up traditional evangelical beliefs. While calling Christ’s way “the best possible way to live,” Bell writes that Jesus did not claim one religion is better than another when he said he was “the way, the truth and the life.” Rather, he writes, “his way is the way to the depth of reality.”
I'm wondering what he means there?
I can't speak for Bell, but one thing I was looking for when exploring Bell was who he is connected with, while not foolproof, it can give a hint of where he is coming from. The one connection I found was Brian McLaren. McLaren said in his book A Generous Orthodoxy (fairly sure it was that book) that Jesus had no intent on setting up a religion. He came to be followed. Christianity developed as a religious movement, but McLaren suggest that a muslim wouldn't have to become a Christian to follow Jesus.
This certainly stretches past my comfort levels. But it has made me think. Being a Christian is being a follower of Christ. Being a part of the Christian religion is something else altogether. And I would agree that my initial and greatest goal for people would be that they begin to follow Christ. This is best done in the church.
To quote Brian McLaren, p 260, A Generous Orthodoxy, in chapter called Why I am Incarnational:
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.
One place I have struggled with this is with a friend of mine who leans Catholic (he was raised Catholic and longs to return to Catholic). As we talk, he talks of the Catholic Church as THE authority for the church on earth. As a Protestant (or post-protestant as McLaren says, "I'm no longer protesting") I think, "I'm not under the authority of the Catholic Church." Denominations are so splintered and mainly because of their cultural contexts. McLaren is saying that our faith is lived out in a cultural context, which we call our church. What exactly does that have to look like? Most would answer, "No less than what our church looks like."
This may not have made as much sense as I hoped, but what gives me comfort not being part of the Authoritative Catholic church is that I am a follower of Christ, doing so in my own cultural context. It is hard to argue for the Biblical authority of the Churches of God General Conference any other way. (Or at least that I have considered.)
posted by Brian @ 3:04 PM
11 Comments:
Here's what I took away from what Rob said: Being a follower of Jesus is more than just saying that you follow him. If Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, and what we read about God is that he's love, compassion, truth, justice, mercy, etc., than following Jesus means living those things out. And those things are reality at its core.
So it's not that Jesus came to start a religion/club/I'm in-you're out-thing, it's that he came to show us that it's possible to embrace love, beauty, justice, etc. in our every day life - in our realities.
I'm also a little uncomfortable with McLaren's thoughts on this, though. I can't understand how someone can be Buddhist and follow Jesus. At some point, I think that if a person has knowledge of Jesus, but still chooses to worship another god, then they can't really be following him. I don't know if that makes sense, but something didn't sound right to me when I read that...
I hesitate to respond to this comment because I have very little idea how to speak to it and am not sold on McLaren's thoughts here.
But for the sake of exploring the idea, let's take a Hindu. They worship many gods. If they were to see Jesus as THE Son of God, the Messiah, and follow Him appropriately, yet hold onto some beliefs of other, minor gods, it might not be healthy, but it might not be that different from what we as Christians hold on to.
A Muslim would have to struggle (or maybe it would be no struggle at all) to see Allah as creator. The real struggle would be to identify Jesus with the God Head and recognize a trinity. I would say you have to believe in the trinity to be orthodox but do you have to believe in the trinity to have salvation.
As far as Buddhist, I read M Scott Peck (A Road Less Traveled) say he would never have become a Christian if he hadn't been a Buddhist first. Buddhism gave him a fuller understanding of paradox, which is somewhat essential for understanding Jesus -- our strength is in our weakness.
Again, I'm not arguing for it; I'm only exploring the argument.
Surely McLaren does not mean that following Christ and another god is not mutually exclusive.
Does that make sense?
rob smith
Let's say muslim -- they believe in one god, Allah. Many, many teach that Allah is not at all god. He is in fact a demon. I'm not arguing for or against it -- but I do question whether Allah is a demon or misunderstanding of God the Father. Jesus argues you can't know the Father except through the Son. Fair enough, but most would argue that you can recognize there is a God just from survery the complexity of nature.
Let's say Mormon -- They believe in God the Father, but do not believe the Son is part of the godhead. In other words, he may be "a" god, but not "the" god. Is there "God the Father" a demon also?
Let's say a satanist -- right, that one breaks down.
Let's say a Christian hindu -- he has accepted that God is the Father and that Jesus is His Son, who died for his sins and rose again, but keeps a little shrine to his local god (out of heritage, habit, just in case, whatever). You talk with him about it and he nods, he understands, but he leaves the shrine in a quiet place in him home.
Does this help you understand where McLaren might be coming from? How would you live out being a muslim Christian? I have no idea.
The question McLaren is asking, and I'll be honest I'm wondering about is "Did Jesus come to start a religion?" I want to say no. Then I want to say yes. Then I think, "Well the religion he started then, whether you like it or not, is the Catholic Church, and my friend Joe, would sure like me to recognize that church's authority and yet I don't." It is hard to argue that he had the Churches of God General Conference in mind. So is the church more of a network of disciples or am I unsubmissive to the true church?
Jesus left and established the church...right?
I have never held that the CGGC or any other church organization was the embodiment of what Christ wanted. We have failed, and does not Paul address this failure? I am not sure but I seem to remember him addressing this to the Church at Corinth.
For me, the Church is a much more encompassing body, yes the body of Christ, than most Christians even realize. However, I have problems getting past serving two gods. That part of scripture seems evident to me.
Sorry, that was me
rob smith
Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. Sticking with Muslim -- there is only one God. They have called him Allah. They are wrong. He is Yahweh. Only one God. Same God. Some would argue not the same god. I'm not arguing, I'm just saying to make Bell's argument work. One God. Same God. To become a Christian muslim you would have to first understand that Jesus is the Son of God.
Muslims take their identity back to the God of Abraham. That is our God.
This is a pretty far out idea in the first place. I'm not sure I buy it. Enough time spent here.
Interesting take, sorry if I seemed argumentative. It is a worthwhile conversation especially in the current world socio-political environment. I have a friend with whom I have an ongoing discussion about Jesus. He is agnostic and often times cites Christianity's exclusiveness as a barrier to him becoming a Christian. I've never really had what I consider a good answer for him when he asks about "good solid Muslims who pray everyday and serve one Allah." Perhaps Bell and McClaren have something to say that would be a whole lot better than what I have to say. I plan on doing some studying of their material.
Thanks much and sorry if I agitated you.
rsmith
McLaren more than Bell. Bell has one book. I'm reading it now. It is more of an overview of his thinking. McLaren has Generous Orthodoxy and his New Kind of Christian trilogy that I would recommend to you.
A friend of me sent me an e-mail asking me what I thought about this post...
I replied to him yesterday, but I can't help but share my reply here about the way I feel about this blog post:
i think this quote by Bell is a little stupid...Bell (whoever he is) says Jesus' statements about being the way, the truth and life are really about experiencing the "depth of reality." and that's stupid...Jesus is not just a prophet to teach us a way of thinking...he didn't have to die and rise again for that.
So I absolutely do not agree with Rob Bell...on the other hand I agree with part of what McLaren says...in learning about missionary journeys in China in the The 12th-17th Century in China, I see how the missionaries (mostly Catholic and Jesuit) did a horrible job adapting to the culture. They desperately were trying to institute Western society in tandem with religious truth (however strong or weak it was) and this messed up their purpose, goals, and in many cases did more harm than good.
I think it is very plausible and effective to allow Christian truth to form on the cultural auspice of pre-existing traditions. Obviously this offers challenges as you must make sure to ensure the purity of God's message...but this is the same challenge that Western Christianity faces as we must remove the tainting of political and economic views of free-market Capitalism and democracy effect our understanding of Biblical truth.
I think it is possible to include concepts of anscestor "worship" as we see in many Eastern cultures as part of a Eastern Christian's life style. Western Christians may hear "anscestor worship" and think "Idoltry" while an Eastern Christian who is told not God does not accept anscestor worship, may feel the message is hypocritical when we honor war heros of veterans day. I believe a former buddhist who has converted to Christianity can continue to have a special day to pay homage to his anscestors. Just as I believe a messianic Jew can continue to celebrate the passover as they understand how the message of passover is foreshadowing to the message of Christ.
Now, if the message changes though as a result of these hold-overs than you run into a challenge...you can not be a Christian-Muslim and mantain that Jesus was a prophet, just as Mohommad was a prophet...that is not justified with biblical truth.
Then I couldn't help but send another e-mail to my friend an hour later, this is what I said:
another supplemental thought that goes w/ my e-mail i just sent...is that so much of John I've been reading talks about how if we deny the son we deny God (which is what he saying largely b/c Jesus is talking to the Jews) and this though was reiterated in my reading today of 1 John...I know how Bell or Mclaren might twist this, but 1 John 1:5-7 speak strongly about the importance of fellowship by walking in truth & how Jesus is the one that purifies of our sins...this is more than experiencing the "depth of reality."
Thanks for your comments RC. You are equating "Depth of Reality" with "a way of thinking." That isn't what Rob Bell or Brian McLaren or Dallas Willard or even Dietrich Bonhoeffer are saying.
They are saying that Jesus didn't just die so we could go to heaven. He died to free us into the Kingdom of God. This "experience" begins today. The depth of reality is that eternal life may not just mean length of time but expanse of experience.
His death and resurrection were absolutely necessary to free our hearts and souls to be able to operate in such a depth of reality that we are able to help usher in the Kingdom of God.
Post a Comment
<< Home