soon, he'll have a lot more time for Bible study
It's a shame that it didn't come before his presidency-- for the man and his country (in terms of a coherent Christian philosophy of government).
Here's Joel Belz in World in an essay titled "Profession of Mush".
If you didn't wince a bit while President Bush attempted last week—on national television, no less—to give an account of his Christian faith, well then maybe you too ought to go back and take a refresher course in Christianity 101....
Bush, based on what he told the folks on ABC's Nightline, wouldn't have passed a basic membership interview in most churches I know....
This is painful to hear—even when the soon-to-be former president, in his wonderfully affable manner, discounts it all with a smile...
Bush is right, of course, that the Christian faith encompasses all sorts of mysteries. But there's a difference between mystery and mush. When you read Bush's actual words in the rest of the interview, including his doubts concerning the literal truth of the Bible and his skepticism that Jesus is the only way to God, you are forced to ask in all candor: Has this man ever subjected himself to any serious, consistent preaching of Christian truth? Has he ever participated not just in devotional reading, but some disciplined or organized study of the Bible?...
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 3:36 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
>his doubts concerning the literal truth of the Bible and his skepticism that Jesus is the only way to God
A recent poll indicates that 70% of Americans believe that people in religions other than their own will go to heaven. (See the Charles Blow column in the December 26 New York Times.) So, evidently, Bush is in good company.
I think many people have trouble reconciling their belief in a loving God with doctrines of religious exclusivity. This may be cognitive dissonance, or cafeteria Christianity. However, I myself cannot believe that most people will not go to heaven—a neccessary conclusion of typical Evangelical teaching, as represented by the Joel Belz essay under discussion. But then, this is why I am a liberal Episcopalian.
Whoa, we are criticizing Bush because he doesn't believe "The Bible" to be literally true?
Which Bible, containing which books, with which translation?
Of all the things to get upset at Bush about. That is truly funny.
I'm not a big fan of citing polls-- for reasons philosophical and practical. In any case, being in agreement with Bush should probably give one pause-- rather than reaching the strange inference that one is "in good company"!
In a vital sense, Christianity is the least exclusive of any religion that has any significant semblance of justice (i.e., universalism). Salvation is free-- given the grace of God-- if one only accepts it.
"Most people will not go to heaven" is certainly not inevitable in Christian theology. But of course, God will allow people the dignity of their choices, even if it means continuing the separation from Him for Eternity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
>"Most people will not go to heaven" is certainly not inevitable in Christian theology.
Unfortunately, your necessary condition for salvation—accepting the free gift of salvation—will be met only by a fairly small proportion of the American population, and an extremely small proportion of the population of many other countries. So, while it is not inevitable that most people will not go to heaven, it is rather like a sports team that is far behind in the standings, but hasn't yet been "mathematically" eliminated from the playoffs.
Mike, it might be semantics, but I don't think that's what Belz meant. Bush might claim that (not sure)-- as many do-- but no one actually believes in all of the Bible literally. It would be more accurate to put "literal" on a spectrum-- with too much or too little leading to error.
It should also be noted that Christianity's opponents are generally (and ironically) among those who read it most literally.
I'm not in a position to judge the proportion of people that have/will accept God's grace. "Fairly small" allows for a wide range, so I could live with that (vague) language. As to the assertion that there would be a higher proportion of Americans, I wouldn't take that bet.
The analogy to the sports team doesn't work. Those are different sorts of improbabilities (and at different levels as well). There is no necessary reason, aside from the problems of "human nature", why many more people might accept God's grace in the future.
There are various schools of thought about these questions within the pale of orthodoxy-- from more "exclusivist" to more "inclusivist". A key verse here is John 14:6 where Jesus says "no one comes to the Father "except through me". Some take this to mean a required belief/trust in the bearded God-Man from Galilee. Others take it to represent Christ's atonement for anyone who goes to Heaven.
Building on the latter, Romans 1:20 tells us that Nature testifies to God and His character-- and Romans 2:14-15 describes our consciences-- so that "none are without excuse". In other words, everyone (except a few people who have chosen to be too clever by half) knows that there is a God and that we don't measure up to His standards. In such a position, reasonable people will choose to accept God's mercy and grace. Beyond that, there is Scriptural evidence and modern anecdotes that God responds to "seekers" by providing more evidences.
Of course, one must be in a position to choose (or given God's justice, He may decide to choose independent of any choice). So, there are various thoughts about the young (references to an "age of accountability"-- most directly in Dt 1:39 and Is 7:15), the mentally challenged, and those "who have never heard" (about the bearded man from Galilee) including pre-Christ and the proverbial tribesman in Africa.
Of course, the blanket (albeit vague and potentially unsatisfying) answer to these things is a reference to God's Justice. Whatever people think-- on all sides of these questions-- presumably God will take care of business...perfectly.
Eric, didn't you just say something akin to "We don't know exactly what's going to happen, there is no way to neatly wrap this all up, but God knows, and I believe he will take care of it...perfectly."
Which seems to, ironically, put you very near the position that Bush espoused, which criticism of seemed to be the entire point of linking this article and commenting on it.
Yes, my response to William was a near replica of the detailed discussion provided by President Bush.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home