When I was in Vegas, I spent an afternoon reading Matthew Mark and Luke, with one eye: what do the gospels, what does Jesus say about his exclusivity? That is, is He the only way to salvation? This is a hard question for modern Westerners. We feel strange saying that Jesus is the only way. We want to say, “there are many ways to the same place,” or some such. I suppose that in my mind, exclusivity rested largely on His words in John, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” I did not bother going through John, because John’s gospel is clearly exclusivist in its claims.
When I read the others, tho, I was amazed. When you read it with an eye for only one thing, seeing if Jesus expresses that there are other ways, you find that on almost every page there is no other way, no other one. Jesus has committed a terrible sin in modern eyes: He does not allow for other options.
I suppose one would not die on a cross if you sort of thought you were onto something. You’d want to be real sure. And you definitely don’t want to tell Peter, “Hey dude, it’s all good—Me, Mithraism,
Here’s where my new friend was challenging me the other day, the point of our disagreement. She wondered if I was a relativist, which hurt bad! I know Baker is losing it at this point—Mansfield, a relativist?! Her question was there’s a Muslim who does not believe in Christ. Is he going to heaven or hell? My answer is from Romans 1 and 2, that those who do not have the Law sometimes live as if they know it naturally, “their consciences now bearing witness, now accusing them.” I have a difficult time thinking that if by accident of history and geography you do not have access to Christ, you’re going down. That is, did the Indians have to wait for Europeans to kill them all before they could be saved from Hell?
Well, we didn’t agree there. She is pretty persuasive and intensely logical, so I came away with a lot to think about. I don’t have any problem with the exclusivity of Christ—He is the only way to salvation. I know some people can’t even go there with me. But the question of the moment is: when does that exclusivity kick in? What is the place/condition of responsibility for accepting or denying Christ? And if there is such a place, does evangelism and mission not mess things up? I mean, if you could just be someone on some remote mountaintop, worshipping whatever however, no knowledge of Christ, why intrude if God is going to judge?
And then, one of her original questions is related to that: why try to witness to someone in a repressive culture where to confess Christ means death? Just let them be and see how things shake out. My answer felt (was) pretty hollow: I look back on my life without Christ, and suppose somehow God would have let me in not knowing Christ, all I can say is that my life with Christ now is way better than that one of ignorance. Not exactly a mindset for the martyrs… I have been feeling for a couple weeks that I really need to be formed by some Third World Christianity, because this comfortable American crap is killing me. Which is pretty much what she said, in a nicer, more constructive way: “You need to spend some time in a Syrian village, to learn Jesus’ context.”
What do y’all think? What does Jesus being the only Way mean? How does it work itself out in and for people who have never heard?
5 comments:
Dongell in one of my classes had an out, heh heh... He said that when Christ returns in the way the Jews are expecting him to come...and, of course, this was when everyone is resurrected, that everyone would have a chance to accept that Christ is the one and only. He said this as an answer to, "What about the Jews...God's chosen people?" But of course, if no one has heard or knows (not knows of) Jesus the Christ and King, then they will not allow him to be their king.
something to chew on...I guess.
I always wonder where we are going with that question of exclusivity. Why do we even ask the question? Jesus had a special revelation for humankind, no doubt, one worth adopting for miriad of reasons. My thinking is that in asking this question there has to be a clear purpose. Are we thinking of ourselves or about others? Maybe we want to satisfy our curiosity; know if we are in the right path, know if it is worth the pain of our path, know how we are to address other seekers, know even if there is a way out (maybe I can get away with something in this life). Is this how God sees it?
The issue about exclusivity is similar to the matter of election and predestination - is it the real way that God has worked it out? One pastor put it this way, "God calls, if we respond we are predestined." Perhaps the crux of the matter is the people's response to God. I believe in letting the word of God do its work, it will not come back void. God is calling people throughout the ages, through things created, through conscience and revelation, Jesus' being the ultimate revelation of God. People can respond to the revelation of God in whatever shape and for it takes and God will be the judge.
Now, my response to God is what I have control over. It is my faith that depends on that response, hence the struggle. My thinking is that we will struggle with the mysteries of God until that day that God reveals the complete package - it might be a terrible day because the unknown will be known.
Though we have a responsability to follow the path and announce the way that we know, I don't think we can limit what God's grace can do in people's lives (no person should be counted, but we beleive we are by Christ's merits). John and the other Gospels wrote what they wrote for a reason. Their witness is our legacy as Christians. This is what we got.
Exclusivity and predestination. Geez. Thank God you aren't pulling out the heavy stuff. In response to Ruben, I think the reason we seek the answer to this question is that if we cannot come to reconciliation on this issue, then we have difficulty conceiving of God as merciful or in any way fair. The implications of full exclusivity are staggering if thought through. If a person must specificly name and accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved then what about the people that Aaron mentions, who are separated from the smallest part of knowledge by "an accident of history or geography?" If there were no alternative path to salvation, this would mean that God, if he is indeed sovereign over all of existance, created some people without hope of salvation, much as a child constructs figure in sand of the beach with the sole intent of destroying them later. This kind of exclusivity puts God on par with the capricious, volatile gods of the ancient pagans, who were given to help who they liked and damn those who didn't fit into their favor for whatever reason. How can I enjoy being among the elect if someone else in my family was created for damnation; to serve as some macabre example of what happens to those who aren't among the chosen.
To take joy in my own personal salvation under this sort law seems shortsighted and selfish. What about the baby that dies before ever being able to make the choice I was given? Did God create this life just send Hell its quota for the month? This borders on monstrosity.
So I think we have to understand that Jesus meant what he said about being "the Way," but understand that if we do indeed believe in a merciful God, that there are gray areas beyond our understanding, and in these shadowlands is where the justice and forgiveness of God exists, beyond our ability to fully explain and warded in a place that our human intellect cannot assault. Ultimately, a perfect God must mete out perfect justice, and my conception of that includes the ability to judge each believer or non-believer on the merits of his or her case.
I'll think more about this later.
Isn't it curious that those who always point to what they think is the giant hole in Christianity think they have dismantled the whole of 2000+ years of wise thinking, devotion, peace and holiness.
It is similar to the idea that if one Christian is still under sin, all Christianity is a failure.
I don't have to explain why. It is not mine to explain why. It is mine to show that what God asks of me can be done.
Why is that so crazy?
Crissmonster
I had many memorable moments in my grad studies during my time at USM (same time as Aaron.) One happened in a Milton class with Dr. James Sims, an international Milton scholar and strong, vibrant Christian despite his age. We were studying a passage in Paradise Lost or Paradise Regained and it broached predestination. Dr. Sims closed his book and with a sorta Santa Claus like glint in his eye and a smile that parted his white beard and said with a wink, "You probably shouldn't spend too much time thinking about that . . . you can tease yourself into insanity." It wasn't presented so much as an admonishment on how you SHOULD spend your time on putting feet to faith and avoid questioning the mysteries of God and our faith but really as (at least I took it this way) an insight into the lightness of what we take too heavy. There are parts of Christianity that are unexplainable hence the faith part. There are parts that are easily relayed to anyone hence the good news. I struggle to get out of the way of God most of the time and spend less time trying to hold on too tight with my hands and my brain.
My two cents and a stroll down memory lane.
Dane
Post a Comment