Jenny--re: religion of love

[Lori]

Jenny, your question on Des' thread reminded me of a nice discussion of the issue of Christianity as a religion of love vs. a religion of judgement on explorefaith.org, a site I really like. One of the regular features asks a question that people might have about Christianity, and then has a number of people, both theologians and lay people, provide some answers. As a caveat (although I think a good caveat ;)) the site is affiliated with the Episcopal church and so takes a pretty broad view on most issues, and accepts a pretty wide diversity of opinons. (And I'm honestly not trying to draw you over to the Episcopal dark side ;), but these are the kinds of questions that it makes me so sad to see people even having to ask.)

http://www.explorefaith.org/questions/views.html

How can Christianity be a religion of love when "Christians" so often condemn those whose lifestyle and views differ from their own?

Christianity is on the record in respect to the primacy of love and in respect to the reality of judgment. There is also plenty of evidence in scripture and tradition of a variety of interpretations and applications in regard to the relationship of love and judgment and how they work together between God and people, among Christians themselves, and between Christians and others. Admittedly, the record is mixed, at best.

There are the signal, cautionary warnings that arise out of the heart schooled in scripture. Let us judge not, lest we ourselves be judged. Well, I happen to think we all are judged anyway, and that it's actually a good thing. Let any of us without sin cast the first stone. Well, I don't know about you, but that let's me out. Let us love one another as we love ourselves. I could use some improvement in that department too. How about you? When Christians get conflicted, confused, and cranky, we can always ask what Jesus would say and do. Even though we're never up to his example, we're all better off for having to make the comparison and acknowledge the contrast.

It's good news that the perennial appeal of Christianity rests upon the example of Jesus and not upon the example of his imperfect followers. Still, admirers of Christ and critics of Christians have said the Gospel would be more credible if Jesus' followers did a better job of imitating him. Our work is certainly cut out for us in that regard. One way to reconsider the discrepancy is to imagine how much worse we all might have been without his corrective example hanging in judgment over all our misdeeds. At the same time, the most luminous saints are the ones capable of a more gracious level of faith in action, practitioners being more clearly perfected in their imitation of Christ. The more inspiring followers stand out from the saddest aberrations of discipleship.

Jesus' example continues to exercise its judgment, continually exposing the intentions and motivations within people and events, sifting spirits, sorting good from ill. The key is his own motivation and intention, to serve God's will by offering salvation to all. He does so in the right spirit and for the right reason, not to condemn but to recall, not to hurt or harm but to help and heal. That example provides the standard against which we exercise judgment ourselves, with humility, acknowledging ourselves to be both sinful and sanctified, garden-variety saints seeking to live as Christ for the world.

As such, we seek to grow into the most faithful and life-giving lifestyle possible by grace through faith, and we wish the same for anyone else. Any lifestyle that is life-giving and lived with integrity is one that must have its origin in grace, because its is only grace which can accomplish such new life in us. That allows for a lot of varieties of manifestation, based on the summary of the law of grace, loving God above all, and so loving neighbor as self.

--The Rev. Dr. Katherine M. Lehman


Christianity is a religion of love because Jesus reveals God to be Ultimate Love. The spiritual journey is one of our learning to "bear the beams of love." That process of transformation is what we traditionally call sanctification, or growing in holiness. We use words like "enlightened, awake, whole, saved" to describe the same process. Our goal is union with God, ourselves, and others -- a consciousness that is as transparent to divine love as is humanly possible.

Each of us is at different stages in that process. We live within different levels of maturity.

Most people love about as well as they can most of the time, given their own limitations and their own level of maturity. That's why even great atrocities of prejudice can usually be traced to some form of immature love. Nations sometimes launch unjust wars for the sake of love of country.

When Christians label non-Christians and even other Christians as infidels, it is because they love the part of the truth they have grasped but their love is still narrow and immature. Most sin is distorted love.

Knowing that, can't we be a bit more generous with each other?

--The Rev. Lowell Grisham


It is a puzzle, isn't it? This question is a first cousin to some of my reflections on the question: "What if I am not certain what I believe?" Certainty can lead to arrogance. Arrogance invariably leads to condemnation. Maybe Christianity's "religion of love" needs less certainty and more trust. At the beginning of this century, I think we need to bring back a book popular last mid-century: J.B. Phillips' Your God is Too Small. The title tells the story. Many Christians seem to have (need?) a very small God. And with that small God they seem bent on whipping the very world that God so loves.

The only answer I have for this question is that we must struggle more faithfully, we must labor with more love to hold up a balance to what many see and experience as an oppressively rigid Christianity. This balance of grace over guilt may be one of the Episcopal Church's best and most enduring gifts to the patchwork fabric of the Christian faith.

As one of the saints of old has said, "Truth is never truth if it is on the side of oppression." To that I would add, Christianity is not of Christ if it is abusive to those "whose lifestyles and views may differ from their own."

--The Rev. Dr. Douglass M. Bailey

[Lori]

'I might be a Christian except for the Christians I have met." That or a similar statement is attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Compiling a list of individuals or groups who have misappropriated the mantle of Christianity is a monumental task. The
names listed would be familiar to most. Many of the vast numbers that have pillaged, cheated, abused and defiled in the name of Christ are among the legends of our western civilization. The task is further burdened by the many more that have, with pureness of hearts and the highest standards of contemporary morality, proselytized in the name of such "Christian" causes as the "white man's burden" and "manifest destiny."

Add to the list, those groups that validate their particular brand of Christianity by distinguishing their beliefs and practices from even the slightest variance in the beliefs and practices of all others. A Christian is not someone who is "saved" through the rubrics of membership or the mere ascription to beliefs.

Being a Christian is not about exclusion. Being a Christian is not about separation or discrimination. Being a Christian is not about deciding who may be right or wrong. Being a Christian is not about securing what is rightfully yours or imposing justice on or even for others.

Jesus left us a final gift. It is a peace that needs no guarantee of security. You cannot build a wall around it and it cannot be sold or earned. You cannot even attain it by the most zealous adherence to the Golden Rule. Think of the most abhorrent individual. It is not enough to forgive him, you must embrace him. Not when he is penitent, but when he is most adamant in his abhorrent behavior.

Admittedly, there are few among us that can pass that test. At best, we try or we struggle with the concept. Fortunately, there is no litmus test for admission to the Christian church. Christians today are burdened with the same doubts, fears, bigotry and arrogance that have betrayed and divided the church for almost two-thousand years. Still we persist in gathering in worship. We persist in calling ourselves Christians. We persist, as individuals, in the face of repeated failures.

Ultimately, being a Christian is less about answers than it is about questions. Being a Christian is less about the final destination than it is about the road we travel. Being a Christian is about a journey of discovery. Being a Christian is about taking that journey together.

--Bill

"Christians," those who trumpet their faith from the housetops and hurl down judgments on others below, often give Christianity a bad name. By presuming to know so precisely and literally what God's will is, they take on the self-righteous posture of the Pharisees and separate themselves to that extent from the healing Spirit of Love. "Christianity is a very good thing," George Bernard Shaw observed. "I would like to see it tried sometime."

--Major

First of all, I do not think everyone who calls themselves "Christians" are at all close to Christ. In fact, I suspect that a lot of people who profess to be Christians will be very surprised one day. No one knows who the "real" Christians are except God. It is not our place to judge such things. In the meantime, all of Christianity gets a bad rap when some misguided people do and say very un-Christian things.

It always seemed to me that Christianity should be judged by Christ's example, not by his followers' examples. His followers, including me, are fallible human beings struggling to overcome our own demons. Sometimes we fail. The beauty of Christianity is that Christ gently picks us up again, forgives us, and helps us back on the right path.

And what was Christ's example? He said that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. He did not condone sin but he forgave it. My interpretation of the Gospels is that He was more concerned about the sins of pride, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy than about sins of passion. Christ did condemn all kinds of sins, but he was compassionate and understanding in doing so. He demonstrated his love for all people regardless of their lifestyles or views. In my opinion, we, as Christians, should do likewise. Many of us do a pretty good job. Many of us have a long way to go. But no one of us is better than another. We are all saved by Christ's grace and by His grace we will become more and more like him.

--Nick


As Christians we are called to have compassion for people in situations that we may not understand. However, when a lifestyle in any way harms you or others, it then becomes unacceptable. A wide breadth of belief is the foundation of our Episcopal denomination. I believe this acceptance and inclusion to be exactly "what Jesus would do."

--Louis

[Lori]

Another similar question came up in another feature, about what Christians believe about people of other faiths.

http://www.explorefaith.org/neighbors/relationships/other_c.html

What does the religion teach about people who follow other faiths?
by Kendra Hotz

Christians affirm that people of other faiths are the beloved creatures of God, made in the image of God. Christian theology, moreover, affirms that God is revealed to all people through nature and reason. This universal human knowledge of God is known as general revelation, and it accounts for why people worldwide practice religion and pray to God or to gods.

Nature points toward its creator, though human beings may misunderstand or misinterpret it and find themselves worshiping idols and false gods rather than the true God. In spite of this propensity to misinterpret nature and to use our reason imperfectly, all people may come to know that God exists and is good. Beyond this general knowledge of God’s existence and goodness, Christians also affirm that God is known by all to be just. God has implanted within all people a sense of morality, a “natural law” that guides them in right behavior and forms the foundation of a universal human ethic. For this reason, even those who have no knowledge of the Christian faith know, for example, that murder is wrong, that parents should care for their children, and that the powerful should protect the defenseless.

General revelation ensures that God is known as creator and that the justice God requires is known to all. But Christians believe that general revelation does not provide knowledge sufficient for salvation. From nature and the use of reason one could not know that Jesus Christ is God incarnate who lived, died, and rose for human salvation. This knowledge comes through what is known as special revelation, the way in which God is revealed for salvation especially through the history of Israel, in the life of Christ, and in scripture as it witnesses to these events. Because these truths must be learned from the witness of scripture or from Christian believers, Christians place a high value on evangelism and missionary activity to spread word of the gospel with the hope that members of other religious traditions will hear and believe the good news of salvation.

Christians regard the Jewish faith differently from other faith traditions. Christianity regards itself as the natural continuation of the faith of the children of Israel. The God of the Old Testament is the only true God. The promises God made to the children of Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In this sense, Christians regard their faith as having superceded Judaism. This supercessionism can lead Christians to adopt an arrogant attitude toward Jews, whom they regard as stubbornly refusing to recognize that Christianity is the true meaning of the Jewish faith.

Other Christians, however, have acknowledged that God’s faithfulness to all generations means that God will keep all of the promises made to the Jewish people regardless of whether they come to faith in Christ. Especially after the holocaust, many Christians have called into question the supercessionist view of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Christians also acknowledge a special relationship with Islam because Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, but differ with both Jews and Muslims in their interpretation of who Jesus is.

Christians believe that salvation comes only through Christ. Yet some Christians also affirm that God may redeem people of other faiths even if they do not convert to Christianity. There are at least three different ways in which Christians have thought about the salvation of non-Christians.

The first position, known as exclusivism, is probably best known and most widely believed. The exclusivist position holds that salvation is exclusively for those who explicitly confess Jesus Christ as savior. The Gospel of John says that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life” (3:16). According to the exclusivist position, this means that people of other faiths cannot be redeemed unless they come to believe in Christ and convert to Christianity.

Exclusivists do not necessarily believe that all non-Christians are consigned to everlasting suffering in hell; there is an alternate way of thinking about what it means to “perish.” Some have articulated a view known as annihilationism, the view that God simply unmakes those who are not redeemed. They understand hell to mean life apart from God, and since life is only possible in God, those who do not come to God through Christ are annihilated; they cease to exist and, therefore, experience neither the joy of everlasting life in God nor suffering of any kind.

Karl Rahner, a 20th century Roman Catholic theologian, articulated a second way of thinking about the salvation of non-Christians. His position has been described as inclusivism. Rahner argued that salvation comes only through Christ, but that those of other faith traditions may be redeemed in Christ without being aware that Christ is the agent of their redemption. Christ may work redemptively in other religions so that people who practice those religions faithfully may objectively encounter Christ without being subjectively aware of it. He called the redeemed of other faith traditions “anonymous Christians.”

Nevertheless, Rahner insisted that anyone who has an “existentially real” encounter with the Christian faith cannot be redeemed outside of it. In other words, once a person becomes subjectively aware of Christ as the agent of redemption, no religion other than Christianity can convey saving grace. In this way Rahner made room for the possibility that God redeems those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Universalism constitutes a third way in which Christians have thought about the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. Universalism means simply that God redeems all people. Universalists point to passages of scripture such as I Corinthians 15:21-22, which says that “since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

Some universalists would insist that God is ultimately sovereign over all creation, and that the nature of God is loving and gracious so that ultimately no aspect of creation will escape God’s sovereign grace. Others would leave open the possibility that everyone is redeemed, without positively affirming it, because they wish to respect God’s freedom to act in whatever way God sees fit and to redeem whomever God pleases. Finally, many Christians simply leave the question of the salvation of non-Christians to the mystery of the divine will, trusting that God will always be both merciful and just.

[Jenny]

thank ou so much for posting this, Lori. I am going to dedicate a good portion of time tomorrow to get back to this, because I really want to read this.

[Lori]

Just as a small editorial comment, regarding the comments listed under the first question, Jesus didn't say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, like the one writer states. Paul said it. But that's a minor issue, and it's what happens when non-experts are given space to get their views in public, which I think is just fine. ;)