Sunday, January 24, 2010

Other Stories! What is the commom denominator?

This week we had an interesting “sermon”. Instead of the usual, we watched a video from Willow Creek produced about 10 years ago. Pastor Bill Hybels presented a series of questions to a panel of representatives from some of the world’s most influential religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The questions were designed to highlight differences between Christianity and the other faiths represented. I noticed a common denominator that ran through all the stories of those represented; be good to your fellow man! This indeed highlighted a basic problem of humanity; unkindness to one another, in all its various forms. The flip side of this is really selfishness and pride, thinking of oneself more highly than others. I saw some truth in each of these world views, and an honest attempt to deal with that truth. For several years I have been contemplating the “essentials of the faith.” What is the minimum one needs to know and do to be acceptable to God? Coming from a fundamentalist Baptist background, we had quite a list of doctrines and practices that were essential to agree with if one wanted to “belong” to the congregation or denomination. For me, and possibly for many others, that list became a distraction from the core or basic beliefs of Christianity. The list had value, but was assembled by men in a systematic way, with the intent to help us be acceptable to God, just like the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day. The list was to guard our purity, and that it did for me, at least outwardly, during my formative years. For this I am grateful! It was my “school master”. As a missionary in Honduras, I hosted several visitors over the years, with whom I engaged in discussions of faith and practice. I often asked our guests to list the essentials of their faith, comparing theirs with mine in a sometimes spirited discussion. I found that over the years, my list of essentials became shorter and shorter, as I interacted with people from various backgrounds who demonstrated a vibrant faith, but lacked some of the points that I had on my list! How could this be? Maybe my essentials were not quite so essential after all! That has led me on a quest to find that common denominator, the basis of our faith, the bare essentials that are necessary to make one acceptable to God. Being a Christian, much of my search has included the Bible, and a sorting through many of its various interpretations. What intrigues me most at the moment, is the faith of the “outsiders” to the mainline lineage of Abraham. We can begin with Abraham, the Father of many who have faith throughout the world. Abraham had a revelation from God, and responded appropriately with obedience. We have a great bit of detail about Abraham and his descendents. But there are others, on whom the story of the Bible does not focus, yet intersect with the story of Abraham and his descendents. What is the rest of their story? What about Melchizedek? What an intriguing individual! A priest king, out of nowhere! What drew him to God, and elevated him to a position of religious leadership? What was his source of revelation? He had Creation, but did God speak directly to him? He certainly was acceptable to God! What did he teach his followers? What did he believe and do? His faith was outside of the Judeo-Christian norm and lineage. Then we have the magi of the Christmas story. Another group of very interesting men whose faith was so strong they undertook a sacrificial journey to present costly gifts to a king whom the rest of the world missed, even those with the sacred scriptures in their possession! What was the source of their faith? They certainly were acceptable to God, or I must assume so from their place in this amazing story of God becoming man! Then, we also have Cornelius, the pagan, Roman military leader, in the book of Acts who prayed and gave alms to the poor. Cornelius understood that there was a God worthy of his recognition. He also somehow knew that he had a responsibility to the poor. He clearly was noticed by God! What he was doing was acceptable to God! Is this a hint at the common denominator, a recognition of a Creator God who we are responsible to, which results in beneficial actions toward the creatures that bear the image of that God? Some might argue that Cornelius wasn’t quite yet acceptable, that he yet needed to accept the message of Jesus, which was presented to him in a pretty dramatic fashion. But I wonder, was he acceptable before he knew the name of Jesus? He knew the Creator Jesus, just didn’t know his proper name and some details. So, I continue to wonder what the common denominator is! What are the basics one must know / do to be acceptable to God? I have a few ideas. Thoughts from Athens, Dave Drozek Jan 24, 2010

7 comments:

  1. hondurasmd.org/files/movement_discussions.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is interesting how, if you simply ask the question (using the common evangelical language of today), "How does a person get 'saved,'" and then go through the NT, how many different answers you get.

    Certainly faith plays a major role is being acceptable to God... which leads to the question of "faith in..."

    ReplyDelete
  3. So here I am, Dave. I told you I'd post! I really appreciate this entry and I've been wondering some of the same questions because the "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior" has not resonated with me in the past few years. What about those who are just as loving to others (maybe more), just as generous and self-giving, yet do not profess Jesus Christ? Are entire cultures condemned because they do not profess Christ? and why am I so "lucky" that I was born into the culture that got religion "right"?
    Now, I'm at the point where I'm tackling these questions head-on and it's both exhilirating and painful. I've come to the conclusion that my fundamentalist list of rules has consumed my mind and heart for 33 years with thoughts only of "self" (to make myself acceptable to God) at the expense of others and that I was not even aware of others' needs because I was so concerned about the flourishing of my own spirituality. Living in community meant only hanging out with people of my own denomination because we were "saved." I have a friend in my neighborhood who is Hindu, and my friendship with her has been very eye-opening. A few years ago, I probably wouldn't have been friends with her because I would have been scared off from her beliefs, or I'd befriend her so I could talk about Jesus. Now I'm trying a new approach--just be her friend. As I have gotten to know her, I see such qualities of generosity, kindness, and gentleness in her. When I met her, I immediately wanted to classify her, but I can't do that anymore.
    Your entry goes along so well with Velvet Elvis--Repainting the Christian Faith. I don't know when you gave us Velvet Elvis--probably a few years ago--and I've just NOW opened it and it's blowing my mind. It gives voice to so many questions I've had, and I wish that I would have read it years ago. My journals are filled with so many unanswered questions that I don't feel like I'm allowed to ask in church--and why is that? Why can't we ask questions in church and know that the questions will be welcomed if not answered? So I'm loving the book, and loving this dialogue. Thanks for giving all of us questioners a forum to discuss and listen and learn from each other. I'm going to enjoy the journey.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi David... thanks for this post which should be rattling the mental cages of not a few. ” What is the minimum one needs to know and do to be acceptable to God?

    I rather think it is a common phenomenon wherein people (unknowingly) hamper their own spiritual growth by allowing themselves to be entangled in the trappings of their own "church background." We should hold the Bible alone as the source of faith and practice. Great men like John Wessel and Martin Luther (who studied Wessel), established this as a rule of faith. It is simplistic and yet all consuming. When the way you've been taught to believe becomes a distraction from doing what ought to be done for Christ, then a solution is needed.

    I agree that Abraham and Melchizedek are amazing figures and used by God no less as types or figures of greater things to come. Indeed, I think the scope of the Bible and of the salvation Jesus offered is much wider than that which is presented inside the walls of most churches. Did not God promise Abraham that "through thy seed shall ALL of the families of the earth be blessed"? Yea, and the Apostle, when quoting this fact, put it this way: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal. 3: 8). The gospel, or good news promised is to the heathen, which entails all the non-Jewish (Israelitish) parts of humanity. While it is true that one cannot obtain salvation outside of receiving the name of Jesus (Acts 4: 12), Christians in general miss the fact that the Church selected by faith before the establishment of God's Kingdom ARE THE SEED SPOKEN OF... (see Gal 3: 29)... and through THEM it is promised the remainder will be blessed in the future.

    This thought is also given in Acts 15, where Peter explains that the Church (a people for His name - vs. 14) would be selected from mankind and then would later bless the remainder (the residue of vs. 17).

    The "now or never" referendum presented from most pulpits does not allow for a way for the heathen races from both past and present to receive the gospel in a way it can be received. In fact, millions upon millions of people have lived and never heard the name of Jesus. Paul states to Timothy that God "would have all men to be saved (received the message of Jesus, thus being saved from Adamic condemnation) and come untothe knowledge of the truth (educated in the Gospel) that they might then make an educated decision (2 Timothy 2: 4). What else could be the purpose of the New Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? (2 Peter 3: 13).

    Certainly, according to Scripture, no heathen worshipper of stones or false gods can receive eternal life; but where is the Savior God promised them through Abraham? God never stated that in the present Christian Age He would reveal the truth to any but a few... and that indeed, that few are actually the "many" of whom it was stated, "many are called, but few are chosen". Chosen for what? I say, for membership in the seed of Abraham through which the world in general is promied a blessing.

    So our Hindu, Buddist, Islamic etc. friends have a hope beyond hope and a promise above all other promises awaiting them in the Lord's own due time (1 Timothy 2: 6).

    The angel spoke at the birth of Christ of "glad tidings of great joy shall be TO ALL PEOPLE" (Luke 2: 10). When did that happen? Not yet for sure. ALL PEOPLE have not even heard of Jesus or His gospel. But it will be given them in the age to come, for the Bible closes by stating, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev 22: 17)

    respectfully;

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well Dave I guess I will be the black sheep with the traditional churchly answer. I strongly believe that Athanasias hit it on the head with the Nicene Creed. I feel strongly like those are the essentials and if the church is ever to experience unity it will be over those words

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andrew, I have been thinking about your comments, and have been slow to respond in writing as I have been preoccupied in setting up a team to go to Haiti. Here are my thoughts:

    I think the Nicene Creed is great, and agree with it, but what happened for the first three centuries before it was agreed upon? If people then, and today, don’t agree with all the points, through ignorance or through false teaching, are they then rejected by God?

    And why the Nicene Creed? What is the authority, the evidence, that this is “it”? Is it your personal judgment or sense of correctness? Is it a pragmatic decision? Is it a faith based on the collective wisdom of the church throughout the ages? Is the church infallible? Many of my Evangelical friends would want to avoid a creed, and would simply cling to “the Word”? But what interpretation and whose list? What version of the Bible is correct? What books should be included?

    Things are too gray and murky for us to be so sure of much. I think Jesus was trying to give us some direction when he said, “Love God; love your neighbor: all the commandments are wrapped up in these.” This, I believe is the common denominator; recognition, submission and dedication to the Creator (Jesus, whether we know his name or not), and the practical out flowing of service to the image of the Creator in our fellow man. This works for Noah, Abraham, Nebuchadnezzar, Cornelius, and for those around the world without the knowledge that we have.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nicene Creed... I rather think that came a little too far down the pike to be all that meaningful, especially since Constantine was a bit of a charlatan and his mother; well, seems she worshipped so-called relics more than her Lord. What about the 300 years in between?

    We have on surviving epistle from Polycarp, the disciple of John... and he does not give us any creed, but encourages us to pay attention to what was already written by the Apostles, claiming "For neither I, nor any other such one, can some up tothe wisdom of hte blessed and glorified Paul." He doesn't speak of doctrinal matters in this writing and his others are lonst, unfortunately.

    Irenaeus of Lyons was his disciple and speaks of Polycarps teachings and that he lived to be 100 or so before being martyred. Irenaeus did not speak of any doctrine one had to accept in order to be saved or pure... like the Nicene Creed demands... but he did speak of the Abrahamic Covenant as being the center of the Gospel... which Paul agreed with in Galatians 3, calling it expressly "the gospel," which of course means good news (book 3; chapter 12; 174).He claimed that ignorance of the Scriptures is what keeps us from God. His teachings, from about 180-200 AD stand in direct opposition to the Nicene creed that came 125 years later under the auspices of a pagan king. The simple truth is far better than calling for a vote as for what the church leaders think is truth. How can men cast a vote at a conference and thereby establish what is truth? Today we look about and see hundreds of variations of denominations, each proporting to know the truth, but from what have they been set free? From one another's company mainly. A house divided shall not stand, and indeed it is tottering badly. One church's truth is anothers' opposite and so it goes.

    Respectfully

    jon

    ReplyDelete