"Accepting the Evangelical Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the only TRUTH and the ONLY way to have favor with God..."
These kind of statements are commonplace among mainline evangel]ical conservative churches in this country. This kind of statement is called "exclusive" because it claims that *this* particular understanding of Jesus and the Bible is the ONLY understanding that's valid. Is exclusivity right?
An attitude of exclusivity when it comes to Christianity generally arises more from dogma and tradition than from the Bible. Granted, you see some exclusive claims to truth within the biblical text itself, but if one is not a literalist (a very dangerous hermeneutical method in many ways and prone to forced and mutilated biblical interpretations), then one need not take on the mindsets of ancient Near Eastern authors in order to gleen insights, lessons and even evoke religious experiences from the text. The truth is, most people who claim to believe the Bible "literally" really don't because it not only ignores all the various literary styles and types within the Bible that are not subject to literal interpretation, but there are certain laws and ideas in the Bible that they wouldn't practice for ethical or other reasons anyway.
What most people mean when they say they believe the Bible "literally" is that they take it to be the 100% truth. Yet, truth is not something that is always that easily extrapolated...especially when dealing with writings from ancient times from ancient mindsets in ancient cultures quite foreign to our own. Understanding historical and literary contexts as well as redaction (editing) history play a huge role in fully understanding much of the biblical text. Sure, you can read the Bible and interpret parts of it at "face value", but you are still filtering ancient ideas and writings through a contemporary, Western mindset and will often unwittingly misunderstand what the writers meant (and hence what the text MEANS for you today).
All that said, I think that when individuals or denominations claim that THEIR doctrinal or dogmatic understanding of the Bible is not just the ONLY correct understanding (devoid of scholarship), but that their belief system in general is the ONLY true one in existence, it is not only presumptuous but unnecessarily divisive and the fodder for hate and war. So, based upon biblical scholarship as well as a general acceptance and realization that TRUTH is not something that any one religion can rightfully claim exclusively, I would opt against the exclusive standpoint...vehemently.
| | | |
|
|
"Accepting the Evangelical Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the only TRUTH and the ONLY way to have favor with God..."
Actually, the verse reads, "Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by Me"
That is not what evangelical Christians say, AF, as if we are some country club (although some act like it) with certain dues to pay and lines of membership to quote for the heirarchy. That is what the Bible says. One either believes the Bible or they don't.
As for me, I have much to say about the established church as we know it. I said most of it on my blog in the winter of 2006. It IS run something like a country club, with its emphasis on membership (a TOTALLY unbiblical practice..........King David was chastised for 'numbering' Israel, was he not?) and dues.....I mean, tithes.......which is an OT concept brought over into NT Christianity.
What one needs to do, AF, at least in my humble opinion, which may be no opinion at all (but you should know, we common housewives are GOING to get our opinions in there, or out there, whichever the case may be, ONE way or the other
It is my opinion, for what it's worth, that the 'church' as we know it, if it helps you to do that, is a good thing. It doesn't help me, though. I think it did, at one time, but not now. After over 30 years of 'walking with the Lord', so to speak, I came to the realization that not only did I not belong there, but it was detrimental to me to be there anymore. I am part of a house church network near where I live and it works very well for me.
I'm a little sensitive though when you make the statement that evangelical Christians, or any kind of Christians for that matter, make statements like the one you just made. Let's give credit where credit is due and quote the verse correctly. Jesus, HIMSELF, made the statement, and you either believe it or you don't. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to. The issue really hinges on what you believe in Jesus, not what you believe in, in that statement. If Jesus was not the Son of God, then He is a liar and a liar is a very bad man. He would be a liar, because He said that He IS the Son of God and the only way to God. If He IS the Son of God, then it would behoove us all to be sure we are heeding every word that proceeds from His mouth. It's all about what you believe. Not to say that if you believe it's false, then it is. Just to say, we need to figure out what we believe for ourselves and then follow it. The end will come soon enough for each of us, AF, and then 'our means', if you get my drift, will be justified, or not. I guess we'll all see then. I'll stake my life, if it's all the same to you, on the validity and sanctified holiness of Christ, because I DO believe that He IS the ONLY way, the ONLY truth, and the ONLY life, and that NO man comes to the Father but by HIM. I accept that other people think differently.
Personally, I grew up in the Episcopalian church. 30-some years ago, sometime after I got married (my husband was raised strict Methodist with Pastors and EVERYthing in the family, in fact, one of them wrote that VBS standard ditty, 'I got the joy, joy, joy down in my heart'), I gave my heart to the Lord. It was an aMAZing transformation, AF, which I shall not tell of right this moment. Around the same time one of my sisters converted to Buddhism, and at this point in time two of my sisters have gone that way. The other two are agnostic.........uhhhhh, just like.................YOU! *smiley face*
Like the Bible says though, "As for me and MY house, we WILL serve the LORD".
I'm starting another fast today, AF (that's why my blog title is "in the 'fast lane' "
Well, actually, Christian DO say that. They do so, yes, *because* the Bible says it, but they say it nonetheless. Your blanket (and quite dogmatic) statement that "one either believes the Bible or they don't" is a perfect example of what I was talking about in this blog. Yet, my point was and is that "believing the Bible" is not as simple as most evangelical Christians think and throw that statement around. On the simplest level one could just ask you "believe who's interpretation of the Bible? Catholics? Pentecostals? All those different types of Baptists? Even within these denominations and others there are differences in perspective and doctrine. That said, you must only mean "believe the Bible" the way *you* believe it. If that is true, then that is radical exclusivism.
But we could go deeper. The verse you quoted is a prime example. It comes from the Gospel of John, a very late and theologically complex writing with very high Christology. Most scholars who are not committed to their dogma before their scholarship believe, based upon a great deal of evidence, that it is the writer of John putting those words in Jesus' mouth...not Jesus himself who said them. Of course, you can personally believe what you want -- that scholarship be damned, you're going to believe Jesus said those words *because* they are in the Bible and the Bible is, by default, "the Word of God". A backwards way of reasoning in my opinion, but something Christians do all the time. Or, you could say, "It doesn't matter if Jesus said it or not; it's in the Bible so I believe it". Both of these presuppose that one must believe literally what the writer of John said in order apply it confessionally in his or her life. However, there are a growing number of Christians getting in tune with what scholars can teach us about the Gospel of John who might say, "I don't believe Jesus said that or even *would* have made such a claim in his life, but that statement reflects my personal feelings and experiences with the Christ of faith." In other words, it is possible to *understand* that verse historically, *believe* that verse confessionally, and yet not be dogmatic about it toward other religions or people.
The "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument is popular thanks to C.S. Lewis and then, later, Josh McDowell. I believe Lee Strobel also brought this out in his book "The Case for Christ". Unfortunately, the argument is weak and leaves out an important option: the evolution of christology in the early church out of which the Gospels emerged. There is a great deal of historical and literary evidence for this fact. Jesus need not have been a liar or a nutjob...he was just Jesus, and most Christians are unfamiliar with the Jesus of history and only familiar with the Jesus of the Gospel of John (though which all the other Gospels are understood). Again, I don't criticize people for believing Jesus was the "Son of God" -- that's a faith statement. What I do criticize are Christians who refuse learn more about their Bible but will make claims of exclusivity. I'm not trying to be ugly here, just honest about how I feel.
Good luck with your fast. I'm going to have some pizza and beer
Enjoyed your post! javascript:iconTag('HEART1'); Tome
Awwww, glad you liked your pizza and beer............I never had pizza till I was 18 (I know, I know.....we never ate chips or drank pop either
Now, if you REALLY wanted to mess with me, you'd tell me about the jelly belly jelly beans you got stashed in the bag for your laptop, or the milk duds you got in the drawer of your bedside table.
I'm doing really well, so glad you asked......and I prayed for you today.
I'll respond more tomorrow when my computer isn't on low battery, 'kay?
I have been struggling with depression and mental illness. I get full-blown delusions and hallucinations when this thing is in full swing. So far the new medication I am on has prevented recurrences, but the depression still persists. I was a pretty logical agnostic, but then started getting ill. I took off and ended up missing for a couple of days and ended up in a mental hospital a couple hundred miles away from my home town. The day that I took off I could feel God and was certain he would lead me to where I needed to be. Logic out the window and a semi truckload of faith. Now I am back to my agnostic baseline. I do think there is a part of the brain or brain chemistry that makes a person feel and/or believe or have faith in God. I had a lot of different delusions and false beliefs the last time I got sick. There is some type of brain wiring that makes it easy for others to believe and "feel" God and therefore make God real to that person. I know the religious experiences I had while sick hold no value because if they did then I'd have to give credibility to my other delusions.
Just as people have different levels of intelligence some of us may be born with different chemistries which make belief in God possible completely separate from whether he exists or doesn't exist, but whether we have the tendency to believe he exists or not might just depend on how much of a certain chemical one has flowing in their brain.
also agree that most people who call themselves christian have come to their understanding of this period using the bible as a history text.
have always found it interesting how that jesus went from teacher to the son of god almost overnight.
wingfire
If you are a person that like to debate the word of God, this is the right place for you. Come and join this community created by Ivory. This is a new network I've just started. In this community there will be Christians from all faiths and denimonations defending what they believe to be TRUTH. It will be done in a respectful manner.
Thanks for a great blog.
Thanks for a great blog."
Thanks for your comment...and your kind words. Interesting thing about Einstein and Hawking: they are both misquoted/misappropriated by believers in God quite often. Niether Einstein was nor Hawking is a believer in god according to the examination of all sources available about these men (indeed, because Hawking is still alive, it is much easier to ascertain this information about him, and he has stated more than once that he is a devout atheist). What these scientists called "god" was like what the average person would dub "Mother Nature" -- i.e., a metaphor. Einstein has been quoted in many of his personal correspondences as being an atheist, and Hawking has confirmed that fact personally. Ironically, Hawking's statement about the "mind of God" in his "A Brief History of Time" was not only purely metaphorical but clarified (though generally ignored by Christians) by his assertion in the same book that because (in his calculations) there is no actual beginning to the universe: "What need, then, for a Creator?" Hawking was definitely NOT trying to provide proof for a Creator...just the opposite, actually.
In general, the greatest scientists in the world today are atheists.