religion

Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: Are the doubts that believers face the same as the doubts that unbelievers face?

A: I do think a lot of Christians — because they don't understand the grace narrative — get out into the world and find it very tough to navigate. I think it's because they don't understand the gospel, not because they can't answer all the theological questions.

This comment really summarizes two of my posts last week on the first and second levels of religions, and how at a certain level, all religions are the same (which is what most Americans see according to the recent Pew study), but, at a second level, Christianity is radically different. That second level is the gospel and if people don't get they Gospel, then the uniqueness of Christianity is lost and, honestly, we're no different than anyone else.

Of course, the real challenge with this is that the Gospel is completely contrary to our sinful human nature, because our natural desire is to contribute something to the faith equation, be it good works, choosing God, or whatever else. In the end, because we add these pieces on to what God does, we end up with an understanding of the Gospel that is lacking and, as a result, we regularly find ourselves in places of doubt.

For the Christian then, the key to overcoming doubt and finding ourselves capable of navigating the world, is to come to understand the fullness of the Gospel. For me, the book that really helped in this struggle was Martin Luther's, "Bondage of the Will" (you can read it for free here).

So, how much Gospel is in your understanding of the Gospel?

As the TIME Magazine article in response to the Pew report closes with:

The survey's biggest challenge is to the theologians and pastors who will have to reconcile their flocks' acceptance of a new, polyglot heaven with the strict admission criteria to the gated community that preceded it.

Personally, I don't have much of an issue with this, after all, I want people who come from a variety of background approaches and life to gather each week to hear what Jesus has to say. In other words, I don't think the gate to the entry to the church should have been there in the first place.

But in Paul's letter to the 1st Corinthians, he writes, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (11:26). When we consider this in light of Paul's broader work, we get the idea that, by "Lord's death", he's referring to the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross. In the language of my last post, he's talking about the second level, stuff that, according to Pew, most of us ignore.

So, that brings up an interesting question. If eating the body and blood of Christ involves a proclamation of the second level, and according to the recent Pew report most who bear the title Christians don't really view it as a second level faith, who should be coming to the table?

I should pause here and say that I belong to a faith tradition that adheres to closed communion, a practice rooted in the traditions of the Early Church where, following the Scripture reading and sermon, those who were not Christian or were preparing for baptism were dismissed, the doors were closed, and the service continued with the Lord's Supper. This is because we believe that, in a way we can't explain, in the bread and wine we physically receive the body and blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the strength to live out our Christian life.

Well, in seminary, we were told that the easiest way to determine who should come to the table would be those who profess membership to our denomination (which, dogmatically speaking, is very second level). The idea was that they linked themselves to that body and therefore, in addition to a public linking to a second level confession, they should have been taught that faith as well. However, according to the details in the Pew report, 78% of LCMS Lutherans think multiple religions will bring you to the same destination, which means they aren't holding to a second level confession. (thanks Lutheran Kantor). It seems that somebody simply saying, "I go here." in no way means, "I believe this."

So, how should a pastor respond? Here's my solution, tomorrow, I'm going to do some teaching right before communion. I'm going to talk about the Pew report, the idea of the second level, and invite people to the Lord's Table who wish to "proclaim the Lord's death." I'll also give people permission to stay in their seats if they aren't comfortable making that profession yet. I wonder if anyone will stay seated?

In my previous post I argued that, at one level, all religions are the same in their attempt to fill a fundamental human need and in providing similar guidelines for how to live your life. This is what most people see on the surface of all religions and, therefore, from what they see, all religions look the same.

At this point, Christians might attempt to argue that they are different than this because they don't believe in a works righteousness, but that they need Jesus and grace. But, at the same time, when they talk about Jesus, they talk about making a decision, or making him Lord of their life, or going through certain rites or rituals, or some other thing that they have done that sets them up for grace.

Consider this in light of a comment a friend of mine made a while back. Basically, he argued that the Muslim doesn't deny a need for grace, rather, they believe that it is through the five pillars of Islam that they receive grace. We make a decision, they pray. We have certain rites at church, they fast. Once again, at that level, all religions are the same, it's just a question of what you do to get what you need from God.

This is where classic Christian teaching, something we find very little of in popular Christianity, comes into play. Whether it's God going to Abraham, the nation of Israel, or us as individuals, at its root, Christianity says that while there is plenty we can do to maintain right relationships with our neighbor (the level where it's all the same), it is impossible for us to do anything that will give us a right relationship with God (the second level), which is why we need God to come to us (without us doing anything to prompt God's coming). From what I've seen this is what makes Christianity, at least classic Christianity, different from other religions.

Note: I also address this in the closing section of the elemental life.