Monday, November 17, 2003
responding to megan and cathy
Megan: Sorry if i sounded patronizing. It is the frustration of this media. You know me better than to think I would patronize you. I admire you to no end. What I was suggesting is that, perhaps, you are like me and many others that think that Christianity is a belief system to be agreed with or whatever...yada yada yada. Maybe you don't. I just know that it is something that I had to get past in order for my faith to grow.
Why do I believe it? Revelation (not the book, mind you) is the best answer I have for you. It is a faith claim and not a proof.
This is where I get confused myself in my articulation. Bear with me. See, I used to think of Christianity as a useful system for belief about the Universe and some Divine Thang that set it all in motion and keeps it going. I would compare it to other world religions and see the commonalities and think "Cool! It's all the same! What grace!" Then I started diving in more deeply spiritually and intelectually. I ended up getting advice from a Moslem Imam that really helped me.
This Imam wrote an article about how in America our gift is this incredible diversity. It is also a curse of sorts because we do not often have a place to take a stand. He suggested that we need to own a tradition fully and only that tradition. We may then find that we (World Religions) are indeed talking about the same thing. But we cannot even engage in the conversation without having our own tradition in which to live. These are his thoughts and not my own. Nevertheless, I found them entirely helpful.
What it has encouraged me to do is commit entirely to Christianity and thus to Christ. The spiritual growth that has followed has been challenging to say the least. I like thinking in terms of pluralities. I like that there are different religions. I like that it may be possible that we are all getting after the same thing. I also have come to value particularizing myself into Christianity. I am Christian after all. It make some sense. So, I want to own it. I want to speak from it and to it. I need it to be full and authentic. Matthew (the gospeler) points to this I think. He wants us to see the distinctions. He wants us to know ourselves in relation to Judaism and the rest of the world in a specific way. We are not the same. That way, as I understand him, is through the full sacrifice of Love, Christ's love. I must, I am compelled to embody that love. The only way, I think, that I can get at this is to be Christian to the fullest, to realize that to do so means that God indeed is creator of all things and that his Son, who is God, affords this. I say that because the scriptures seem to say that. This is why I believe what I wrote. I have no idea if this helped illumine or confuse. I just know that God has been leading me down this path. It is nothing that I can prove.
Now, where I still struggle is exactly where you keep pushing me. What does this mean for my relationships with other religious traditions (institutional or individual)? It changes nothing really. I have to love them. I have to respect them. If they decide to explore my faith in the process, great. If not, great. I am not concerned with their salvation like most "good Baptists" would be. God loves God's creation. This is what Christianity says. I just need to follow Christ. This is hard enough, I think.
So, is Hinduism speaking of God? Possibly. I would like to think so, certainly. But Jesus asked me to speak his Gospel and not someone else's. It is hard. I am not entirely sure I understand it, but there is something profound that I have to wrestle with there. It is not a question of right and wrong. I am enough of a relativist to grant that. I am also endeavoring to be humble enough to know that God is everywhere. My "getting it" is of no consequence to God. God is love. That is what I have.
Cathy: You said -
Your argument, if I'm getting it, is that us'ns have a relationship with christ just as much as you do--we just don't know it, or admit it. this is a tough one for me to wrap my brain around. maybe this is because you're the only baptist I know... but I understand christ as an intercessionary (literal or symbolic) between man and god. I reject the notion of necessity of intercession; i reject the need for "a christ" in my relationship with god and the universe. but you seem to be saying that this rejection isn't just a bad idea, but it's not possible in the first place, for christians and non-christians alike? am i right?
Um...yes? Let's talk about it in terms of the first part of your post. If I am to have a world view, then all the world is in that view...even those who do not believe as I do. So, I would say that, yes, your realtionship with God is through Christ whether you know it or not. Is this propriatary? Is it just flat out rude? Probably. I personally think it sucks, but it makes sense. See, Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, is GOD. There is no difference. So, to pray through is to pray to. It gets complicated. I am not avoiding further explanation because you cannot get it but because I have a book to read today. Whatever. The truth is that Jesus the Christ reconciled us with God. We do have a direct relationship with God. You can go right to God. Do not pass Rome. Do not collect $17.50 for a bus pass.
The kicker is that, since God is a Trinity, that direct access is through Christ. Aigh! Damn theologians.
Next installment: how Hell is not as bad as we think it is.
