Our beloved Crunchy was on the right track when he tried to get at the truly interesting part of the debate about Obama's Christianity: what it says about the relevance of orthodoxy.
But I'm not wild about the typology he creates for Christians. He believes that most Progressive Christianity amounts to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism":
Progressives think that religious truth is indefinite and subjective, and can change according to the perceived needs of people in a given time and place. Traditionalists believe that religious truth is definite and objective, and can be known with some degree of certainty.
Put another way, progressives tend to think that religious truth claims are statements of an individual's thoughts and emotional state; trads tend to think that religious truth claims are statements about metaphysical reality.
As I understand them, Progressive Christians believe that while some aspects of the faith ought to change over time, others are immutable, objective and permanent. Most would say the never-to-be-altered-regardless-of-current-fashions-or-emotions point of Christianity is something like: Love Thy Neighbor.
They believe there are a few key meta-truths to the Bible and that the other stuff is subject to interpretation. They tend to believe the Bible is inspired by God rather than the literal word. They often read the Nicene and Apostles Creeds as being human creations that capture some of the basic truth of Christianity, but miss others and elevate certain concepts to a literalness that Jesus probably wouldn't have wanted.
By the way, this was also the view of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington (probably), George W. Bush (implicitly) and most modern American Christians.
Having said that, I would love to hear from some progressive Christians on why John 3:16 doesn't make the short list of Christian fundamentals.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am continuously puzzled why Obama is lumped in with (1) Muslims or (2) the Unitarian wing of Christianity. Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II have said the same things as Obama has, that he would not think that vast numbers of people are not saved simply because they do not repeat some kind of catechism or thump their Bibles at the unsaved. Even Billy Graham has said that he has come to believe that, while all who are saved are saved through Christ, not all of the saved know that Christ saves them. Crunchy might agree with this, but perhaps he would rather not say so.
But answering Steven's question, why should the language of John 3:16 be interpreted exclusively. If anyone who believes in Jesus (who was the Word back in chapter 1) is saved, does that verse tell us anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus isn't saved? Or if Jesus is the only way to salvation, does that mean everyone must be aware of this fact to enjoy the benefit of it? It seems to me if Christians really believe in the saving power of Jesus, they should pay more attention to Jesus and less attention to who says what about Jesus.
I had not read religion blogs until this Presidential election. Before reading Crunchy Con, Steven's and other religious blogs, I had no idea there were such a large number of labels/stereotyping of Christians. It has been a revelation. I have also been shocked at the personal or condescending attacks by supposed Christians on others that have a different opinion.
I heard an interview today with a Kansas Preacher that put a big sign at his church that reads, "America we have a Muslim president. This is sin against the Lord."
He skipped over the question about why he said Obama is a Muslim when Obama said he was not. The preacher moved to Obama was not a Christian because he did not believe Jesus was the only way to heaven. He said that the only great nations are Christian nations because God blesses Christian countries.
Where was this man when Bush was reelected after say all religions go to the same heaven?
WICHITA, KAN. -- A Wichita, Kansas preacher says he will not remove a message on his church sign that says President-Elect Barack Obama is a Muslim.
The sign is staying up despite the fact that Obama is a Christian.
Obama supporters reportedly got into a shouting match with parishioners outside the church on Sunday.
http://tinyurl.com/5bx3ny (video)
I would describe myself as a progressive evangelical. I believe that John 3:16, as is true of all scripture (IMO), must be taken into consideration along with other scripture which teaches about the role of Jesus in the salvation of mankind. For me, the most important words for determining this are the the red letter words spoken by Jesus himself, and these are the teachings through which all salvation verses must be viewed. Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I think that some evangelicals have used this verse along with John 3:16 as a basis for the belief that only Christians are saved. However, in Matthew 7:20-23, Jesus says the tree is known by its fruit. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of the Father. And I think Jesus clears away all the "clutter" on the subject of the Father's will with His words in Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats. Here finally, after all the "correct" Christian words have been said and all the "correct" Christian positions have been taken (Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name and cast out demons in your name, etc.), Jesus Himself tells us what criteria He uses. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus, and here Jesus tells what He has been looking for all along, the fruit that tells him about the tree. How did you take care of the least of these His brethren? Did you see Him in each of them and love them (with actions, not words) as you profess to love Him? I think many will be surprised on that day with the line they find themselves in and the line they see others in.
John 3:16 does't make the short list because it does not reflect the words of the historical Jesus. As most, if not all, NT scholars will tell you, John's gospel is the latest of the gospels, written sometime after 100 of the common era.
As such, John reflects what the Johannine community was going through at the time, as well as a highly developed christology that is not present in the earlier gospels.
You can see the pattern of growth beginning with Mark (the earlist gospel) and ending in John. In Mark, God chooses Jesus at the time of his baptism. Moving through Matthew and Luke, we now hear that Jesus was divine at the time of his birth. And finally in John, Jesus was there "in the beginning" before the creation of the world, as the Word made flesh. For the Johannine community, clearly they had found in Jesus a new way into the God experience. But does that mean that Jesus is the only way?
In Acts 10:34, in words attributed to Peter, we read, "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Certainly this reflects a notion at variance with the absolutism found in John.
That is because the Bible is a reflection of our religious' ancestor's attempts to explain their relationship with the Holy - and not a completely accurate historical record of "the truth." With so many incongruencies, diametrically opposed statements, alterations, additions and deletions, one could hardly call it "the truth" though it most certainly reflects an evolution of thought about the Holy and as such can be considered sacred.
Today, it is our turn to add to the story and to reflect on our own relationship to the Holy. How will our story read?
For me, my way into the Holy is the Historical Jesus. He speaks to me still - but not because he was born in a manger, or was there before time began. He speaks to my heart because he was a human being who sought to better the lives of the Jewish villagers whose lives were torn asunder by the juggernaut of Roman power, corruption and rule. He sought a revival of the Jewish covenantal ways that had long been trampled by greed, coersion and lack of regard for basic human dignity.
Jesus sparked hope in the hearts of the Jewish peasantry - something they had long forgotten existed. He mobilized them, empowered them, lifted their spirits and reminded them that they were God's own. What a powerful message.
This message has resounded through many prophets of the ages including Oscar Romero, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi and others. It will continue to resonate as long as justice and equality for all remain mere dreams of the downcast and downtrodden.
Those men and women, who come with a message of hope and a reminder that dreams of justice and equality can come true for them, will always be lifted up and thought of as "the way."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.