I took a “quiz” on a religious website that is supposedly
designed to tell the quiz taker “What kind of Christian” one is. The questions were primarily directed toward
how one views the Bible in general. Like
any quiz or survey, however, the answers (four from which to choose) were not
always close to what I believe. The more
I delved into the questions and the choice of answers provided, the more I
began to question exactly what I actually do believe.
I can honestly affirm what is professed in the Nicene Creed,
but I wonder if those particular points – which are specific points of
Christian orthodoxy – go far enough. Can
it be true that I am a “post evangelical” Christian, a term I am not even sure
I fully understand?
It doesn’t sound all bad, of course. A “post evangelical” (PE) is one who has
moved beyond the fundamentals. A PE has not stopped believing in the Messiah
who came in Jesus but has begun asking more questions and considering more
in-depth applications of these fundamentals.
I had long ago begun asking and challenging fellow Christians to expound
on exactly what they mean when they say they believe, simply, “in Jesus” and
that they have been “saved”.
That He is who He claimed to be has to mean more than a
simple acknowledgement of His existence because Jesus was not Himself the
Almighty – He never claimed to be. That
He claimed to represent something much larger than even Himself also does not
seem to quite hit the mark because this requires an understanding of what He
represents. What restricts us in our human capacity to comprehend is that
strange sense that one must be either/or; that is, one must be a fundamentalist
who believes the entire Bible literally, or a liberal who literally takes
“liberty” with what is written to make it fit more neatly into one’s life. I suppose this is what I find most disturbing
because what I believe – or what I think I believe – does not fit so neatly
into one category or another.
There are many statements attributed to Jesus that allude to
what must take place in order to “fulfill what was written”, but I have had
professors who suggested these statements were later inserted into the text so
that a case could be made for such fulfillment.
In other words, the Gospel writers were “making an argument”. The same can be said for the Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon. Each is
expressing principles, of course, but each also has substantial statements of
justification not only for faith but also, more or less importantly, for what
is actually written.
In making a case, then, could it not be as easily stated
that the Gospel writers were “searching the Scriptures” for those prophecies
they believed had been fulfilled in Jesus?
So it may not have been that they were trying to “make a case” more than
they were trying to convince themselves and their intended audiences that all
that had been witnessed in Jesus’ life was indeed fulfillment of prophecy. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that
some ancient writers were trying to manipulate more than they were trying to
inform. This all still begs the
question: does it all have to fit so neatly into one category or another?
None of these questions can be answered in absolute terms
but there is one component of the PE movement I can embrace: there exists a
foundation upon which one can build. The
Kingdom of Heaven cannot be so neatly categorized
in human terms, and maybe it is this concept we must first embrace. It does not mean a continuing search would be
futile; it only means the search must continue.
For the moment, perhaps it is enough that I am simply a “church-going”
Christian (in my case, a pastor and preacher) who refuses to settle.
Jesus said, “Seek and you will find”. Let us pray, then, that this is enough for
the moment – and not nearly enough for the moments to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment