Crunchy's Flawed Typology of Christianity

The first time I tried to post, I got the message "The Text entered was wrong, try again" Just as I feared -- this column can't handle some kinds of ideas! Or maybe it's the "gotcha" -- amounts to the same thing.

Some people would say that the fundamentals are the teachings of Jesus, insofar as we have them, filtered by memory and editors. John 3:16 is a beautiful poetic interpretation of Jesus. Likewise the creeds are more suggestive than authoritative... for some.

Of course I would never want to hear such things among Bible Believers!

I think Jn 3:16 could make a list (if you really need one), depending on how you unpack it, and view the scritpures. I don't think it is essential to accept it like, say, a Southern Baptist, in order to call yourself a Christian.

Obama sounds to me like a classic Unitarian, an old and respected church in our history. It produced many great thinkers, artists, and pastors. They just rejected the notion of the trinity, as well as the co-equal nature of Jesus with God.

To say this automatically rejects them as Christians is silly, IMO. Crunchy needs to revisit his parameters for who is a Christian, as well as whether or not he has the right to judge another's heart, particularly in lieu of his own recent spiritual trials and tribulations.

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.

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)

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."