Mark 8:27-38
A couple of weeks ago I asked the SNAA crowd,
"What makes a Christian a Christian?"
The following Sunday night a member posed a question that has haunted me
all week: "If being a Christian were illegal, would there be enough
evidence to convict us?" Part of this
whole discussion had to do with orthodox beliefs; that is, believing
"right things", specific doctrines; but as important as I believe
orthodoxy and doctrine to be in articulating our faith, it must also be
acknowledged that doctrine has also been a source of great confusion, anguish,
and harm, both spiritual and physical, in the hands of wrong-headed
religionists such as the Pharisees of Jesus' day and the fundamentalist
Christians of today who are better known for what they are against than
what they are for.
The 4th-century Council of Nicaea was convened by
Roman emperor Constantine in an effort to define the Church and its doctrine
(maybe as much for himself as for the sake of the Church), but he also sought
to put an end to the bloodshed that was already taking place due to conflicting
beliefs about the nature of the Son Himself as well as the
nature of the relationship between the Holy Son and the Holy Father (whether
"begotten" rather than "created"). From that time and extending into the Middle
Ages, men and women have been executed for not believing "right
things", sometimes having been "officially" condemned by the
Church, a bishop, sometimes a king, and sometimes by an angry mob just looking
for a reason to be "offended".
Clearly, then, at least within these kinds of conflicts, it is hard (if
not downright impossible) to define a true Christian by what he or she professes
to believe because surely we cannot justify executions at the hands of those
who professed themselves to be "orthodox" Christians who believe all
the "right" things but choose to do all the wrong things.
Why continue to "chase this rabbit" of
asking what makes a Christian a Christian?
Why bother asking questions that seem impossible to answer universally;
that is, try to provide an answer everyone can agree upon? What difference does it make that
"you" believe "this" and "I" believe
"that"? Why not just leave
well enough alone?
The difference it makes to me is expressed in that
certain reality that Christians of different denominations cannot - or will not
- respect the baptismal or communion practices of fellow Christians of other
denominations because they're not doing it "right" (whatever
"right" may mean).
I am convinced it is also causing a lot of confusion
among those who are outside the Church and will stay outside until we inside
the Church get our own story straight!
Why buy into something even Christians don't seem to believe or cannot
agree on?? So this "rabbit
hunt" is of profound importance for this very reason: Christians cannot
articulate their own faith! This means
we are not equipped to withstand the trials and tribulations which are sure to
come. This means we cannot answer honest
questions of those who may be seeking purpose and meaning. This means we will not be able to understand
the difference between the Christ ... and the antichrist when that time is upon
us.
Now it is easy for us to remember our own profession
of faith or confirmation or even baptism for those who were baptized later in
life, and it is easy for us to say we made that profession of faith with
conviction. We meant it ... at the time. But if we are to "stand trial" for
being Christian, is this profession of faith or baptism or confirmation
sufficient evidence by which outside "judges" could convict us? In other words, can they be convinced by this
single moment in our lives that we are truly "guilty" of being disciples
of Christ? I would suggest a good police
investigator would find these moments to be points of interest and good places
to begin an investigation, but I also think the "evidence" from those
moments would ultimately be insufficient when the investigator begins digging a
little deeper and trying to get beyond "circumstantial" evidence - like
the "accuser" of Job.
"Who
do people say that I am?" We
get a sense that Jesus is asking this question of His disciples casually, as if
He were simply thinking out loud. Then,
of course, He gets different answers according to what the disciples had heard
or were thinking themselves. "John
the Baptist".
"Elijah". "One of
the prophets". See? Different answers according to what different
people had come to believe. And all
these answers would have been valid within their own context of understanding
the prophecies - OR - according to what they had been told to believe. Yet each of these prophets, including John
the Baptist, were all speaking not of themselves or of their importance within
the grand scheme; rather they were all speaking of something yet to be,
something yet to come - even within the context of something already having
taken place.
But "the time is fulfilled and the kingdom
of God is at hand. Repent, and believe
in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15). And now that all this is upon them, Jesus
asks His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" Matthew (16:17-19)
accounts Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah to the revelation by the Holy
Father Himself, a detail Mark
omits. Both accounts, however, end with
Jesus' "stern order": Tell
no one.
This may be the most profound point of the entire
passage because given that we cannot seem to agree upon basic principles of
religious doctrine - "Whatever" seems to have become our creed - if
we did choose to tell, whom would we tell?
And perhaps more importantly, what would we tell them?
I think one of the greatest misconceptions about the
so-called "Great Commission" is the common belief that all Christians
have been commissioned as "evangelists". We get the idea that we should all be street
preachers proclaiming Jesus' message to anyone who will listen - AND - everyone
who won't. However, St. Paul (Romans
12:3-8) speaks of the "many parts" of the same Body and thus
different functions within that same Body; for instance, an arm does not serve
the same function as an ear, but both are necessary for the good order of the
Body, the community of faith. So because
of our misguided notion of evangelism we have forgotten that as important as
preaching is within the worship setting, it is the
"doing" expressed in Romans 12:9-21 and by St. James that
must necessarily come as a result of the preaching that is going to make a
difference in the lives of those who are "outside" the Church and are
unsure about coming in. The
"sermons" expressed in works will gain much more traction than any
"sermon" expressed in words.
The only way to discern for ourselves our own place
within the Family of Christ's Holy Church and the community of faith is to
partake of those means of grace John Wesley believed were the hallmarks of a
genuine disciple: prayer, fasting, Scripture study, fellowship, worship,
partaking of the Sacraments of the Church - AND - good works as attested to by Jesus Himself as the
means by which others will come to know of the glory and grace of our Holy
Father {Mt 5:14-16 (let your
light shine) and Jn 13:34-35
(if
you love one another, others will know)}.
What
we believe has meaning to others AND to our Lord only in how we express what we believe. The profession of faith is a good start, but
that profession must be articulated in a positive, life-affirming way. It should be as conversational as Razorback
football or deer hunting. And if it is
not, there is much work to be done. So
let us get on with and continue the Good Work that was begun in Christ Jesus
... for sake of the Holy Church and to the Glory of our Holy God and
Father. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment