But the latest use was in an article in Relevant Magazine asking the question "Is Christianity Too Exclusive?" It happened to be written by a kid I knew from high school, a guy infamous for his participation in sex, drugs, and rock & roll. I played in a band with him, and then... he became responsible for my conversion to an Evangelical Christianity. It was genuinely one of the stranger periods of my life. Now he is a mega-church pastor and author, seminar leader, etc., and writes regularly for this hipster-Christian culture-savvy mag.
So, when I read his latest article, in which he wonders out loud about people outside the Christian faith (like monks in a Buddhist monasery, for example) coming to a saving relationship with God (as evidenced by God's grace in their life), and I saw some of the overly reactionary comments to his honest questions, I just went off. In a nice way. :)
Actually, in my mind I heard the voices of the early church fathers, and the theologians of the 20th century, arguing over the same points. Truly Solomon was right when he said "there is nothing new under the sun". At least in human history there isn't. The same old stuff keeps coming 'round again under a new guise.
So in response I wrote a reply, using some of my newly acquired seminarian mumbo-jumbo to make a point. Hopefully a good one:
The Tony Campolo story of the Chinese monk sounds very much like the "Anonymous Christian" concept articulated in the middle of last century by theologian Karl Rahner, who said:
"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity… Let us say, a Buddhist monk… who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity."
"What Christian faith teaches is never communicated merely by a conceptual indoctrination from without, but is and can basically be experienced through the supernatural grace of God as a reality in us… an awakening, a mystagogy into this original, grace-filled religious experience is today of fundamental importance."
By the way, this is not a new idea. Ever since the debate between Athanasius and Tertullian in the 4th century, there have been those who argued that "all truth is God's truth". This particular guy, Karl Rahner, was influential in the changes occurring at Vatican II which finally allowed the Catholic Church to admit that there was salvation possible outside the Catholic community. Before this, you and me and all evangelicals were in essence going to hell even if we thought otherwise. That is where putting God in a tight little denominational or theological box will lead you: telling others who God has reached with His grace that they are going to hell (because they don't believe like us.) Evangelicals would do well to learn a lesson from pre-Vatican II Catholicism. We should know better than to do that to others, since we've been subjected to that treatment ever since the Reformation.
How can you, O man, know the mind of God? The spirit blows where God pleases, all you can see is the effects of the spirit's presence. I think that's where we ought to stop categorizing: do you see evidence in someone's life of the grace of God? Good enough. God will handle it from there. You don't have to categorize on His behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment