In light of the new discussion on Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity, I thought these words from the Archbishop were timely and important. Thoughts?
—————————————–
In an address exploring the finality of Christ in a pluralist world on Tuesday, Dr Rowan Williams said people who believed in absolute truth were liable to be branded bigots or intolerant by those who felt that what was right for some was not necessarily right for others.
“Belief in the uniqueness or finality of Christ is something that sits very badly indeed, not just with a plural society but with a society that regards itself as liberal or democratic,” he said.
“This is a world where the ideal is simply to be presented with the choice that makes you comfortable and the question of truth or finality isn’t really allowed to arise.”
The Archbishop admitted that accepting the uniqueness of Christ was “problematic” for many people and that Christians faced the challenge of communicating what they believe.
He added, however, that giving up on the uniqueness of Christ was not “sensible”.
“Christians have claimed and will still claim that when you realise God calls you simply as a human being into that relationship of intimacy with Jesus, then you understand something about God which cannot be replaced or supplemented,” he said.
“The finality lies in the recognition that now there is something you cannot forget about God and humanity and which you cannot correct as if it were simply an interesting theory about God and humanity.”
The Archbishop said that affirming the uniqueness and finality of Christ, rather than being unfair to those who had not heard of Him, made possible the universal reconcilability and fellowship of human beings.
He warned that there was a danger of “treating others as if they know nothing, and we have nothing to learn” if Christians simply believed there was no hope for people outside of the Christian faith.
A belief in the uniqueness and finality of Christ, he said, gave Christians a “generous desire to share” and a “humble desire to learn”.
Complete audio files of the Archbishop's address at Guildford Cathedral and Q&A conversation following the address:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2781
I feel like you are arguing the wrong point here. I don’t know him, but I’ve read his books, including his newest, and there’s nothing there that would conflict in the slightest with belief in the uniqueness and finality of Christ. Frankly, there’s nothing in Samir’s book that I found in my two readings of it that would conflict either. What do you see as the implications of the “uniqueness and finality” of Christ? I think that’s where the point of tension actually lies. Does believing in the uniqueness and finality of Christ in your mind mean that grace is inoperative outside of Christianity? Or that all non-Christians are lacking in salvation?
By “don’t know him” I meant McLaren. Sorry, I guess that’s what I get for commenting at 4am. 🙂
“affirming the uniqueness and finality of Christ”
As I see it, the issue is, what does one mean by those words? In my opinion, it’s time to ask some serious questions and get people to define their terms.
One quick example; even Marcus Borg, who denies the Deity (uniqueness?) of Jesus on Nazareth, would agree that the “finality” of Christ is that “Christ” is the way Christians refer to the logos (spark of the divine) of God that’s in all of creation itself.
Quite frankly, as a twice daily reader of both the Mail & Times, I tend to hedge towards, the
Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. The Archbishop of York, can be found at:
http://www.archbishopofyork.org
He rarely speaks, but when he does, he speaks for many in the Anglican church and many in the UK. No, I am no English, nor am I an Anglican. But, I do have brothers & sister of the Christian Faith there.
I can't always see my own posts – I think it might have something to do with my phone? Hopefully this one will take. If it ends up being a double-post I apologize. For what its worth I love your posts Jeff! Your thoughts on original sin were excellent! What I was trying to say is I think Jeremy seems to be arguing the wrong point. I've never met McLaren, but from all I've read, including his most recent book, he says nothing that would at all preclude the "uniqueness and finality" and Jesus, at least that I could find. I don't think there's anything in Samir's book, certainly not major points, that would prevent a person from believing in the uniqueness and finality of Jesus.
The point of tension seems to be more related to what are the implications of that uniqueness and finality. Does believing in the uniqueness of Jesus mean that grace is inoperable outside of Christianity? Does believing in the finality of Jesus mean there's nothing more to learn? Or that all outside of Christianity remain outside of the saving work of Christ? I think Brian and Samir (and I) would argue no to the above, but that doesn't mean they (or I) don't seeJesus as unique or the fullest revelation of God.
Greg, the point isnt CHRISTIANITY, which you and Samir and Brian try to insist. The point is righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, alone. So your questions become: Does believing in the uniqueness of Jesus mean that grace is inoperable outside of FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST? Yes. Or that all outside of FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST remain outside of the saving work of Christ? Yes. That's not simply human theological constructs. That's Scripture.
In regards to "I think Brian and Samir (and I) would argue no to the above, but that doesn't mean they (or I) don't see Jesus as unique or the fullest revelation of God." On the one hand I take issue with your characterization that they even see Jesus AS revelation of God. On the other hand it is clear they do not believe he himself IS God. Samir is more overt (“We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. to say God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.") Brian less so (though it is clear that Jesus is merely the revelation of the CHARACTER of God.)
So, Jeremy – you obviously did NOT listen to the Archbishop's message in its entirety, did you? Or if you DID, you think HE is unorthodox?
You can certainly change "Christianity" to "faith in Jesus Christ" if you wish – I would still answer no to the above two questions, because I believe Scripture would answer no. How else would you explain Romans 1, where Paul says God's divine nature and invisible attributes have already been revealed to all creation, if God's grace wasn't active outside of faith in Jesus? Or Colossians 1, where Jesus holds ALL THINGS together, and reconciles ALL things to himself? What about when Jesus says that a Roman centurian, who would have paid homage to Caesar and worshiped other gods, had greater faith than he had seen in all of Israel? Or the story of Melchizedek in Genesis, where he is acknowledged as a High Priest of God, even though the "God of Abraham" hasn't set up any high priests yet in the story, and won't for 400-plus years?
You would also exclude Calvinists from the faith under this definition, who at least believe that prevenient grace is operable outside of faith in Jesus. Archbishop Rowan Williams would also have to be outside the bounds of Scripture in the very talk you just posted. Have you listened to the whole thing? The bulk of the second half of his remarks were focused on acknowledging that God may be at work in people outside the Christian faith, including those who have no faith at all. It hit many of the same points Samir does in his book. Would Dietrich Bonhoeffer also be outside of Scripture when he says "It is true that ALL human beings as such are 'with Christ' as a consequence of the incarnation, since Jesus bears the whole of human nature"?
Greg,
Your use of the quote from Bonhoeffer is taken out of context. Not only that, but also the concept. Bonhoeffer was a "confessional" Lutheran. Bonhoeffer, believed in the entirely human AND entirely Divine. In order to take Bonhoeffer in context, his true statement, must be weighed with the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) and the Solas. Sola Christo, Sola Gracia, Sole Fide, and not last nor least, Sola Scriptura.
You do a great injustice, to a great man, when you choose to use Bonhoeffer that way.
My German, is lacking. Speak it, but read or write, takes a bit. In Bonhoeffer's englisch version, "The Cost of Discipleship", he mentions, "cheap Grace" (preiswerte gnade, von Christus). This I think, is what Jeremy was getting at, in this article. The current sitting Archbishop of C, Samir, and the like, miss the point. Christ offers His Grace, bought at the greatest of price, these men, offer a cheap alternative. Christ, Messiah Yeshua, is anything but, a "cheap" proxy.
So what precisely did I get wrong? I don't deny that he spoke out quite strongly against "cheap grace". But as I understand it, his Christology entailed ending the division of the world into sacred and secular, and thus all of reality under his control, and that Christ was the one who was "pro me", and always came toward humanity. He insisted that Christ was to be found in the other, in relationship, in community, and that because of the incarnation, humanity and God were no longer seperated. Since Christ is for me, and for the other, he stands between me and the other, so as a Christian I can only see the other through the lens of Christ. That's a far cry from saying God's activity and work and grace are wholly inoperable in the world apart from faith in Jesus.
"Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness w/o repentance, baptism w/o church discipline, Communion w/o confession.
Cheap grace, is grace w/o discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, Living and Incarnate."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship"
I guess I still have no idea how I contradicted that. And I'm not sure how swapping Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes is going to help (but for the record, "While we distinguish between pious and godless, good and evil, noble and base, God loves real people without distinction." Bonhoeffer – Ethics). I think the point remains, to say that God's grace is wholly inoperable outside of faith in Jesus is a dubious proposition, not just because of Bonhoeffer, but all the other examples I cited, what I would consider to be the whole narrative flow of Scripture, and plenty more examples and important theologians besides.
That is exactly one of the points made in the Archbishop's talk: Christ CAN be visibly at work in those that don't know the name and that WE limit God by making up arbitrary boundaries in which WE want him to work. The use of the "sound bites" in this post, which narrows and limits the Archbishop's message considerably, makes me suspect that Jeremy did not actually listen to the full audio message. And if Jeremy takes the message to heart, it should have a positive influence the tone of his future posts on McLaren's book. If you have not, I HIGHLY encourage you to do so! I listened to it on my iPod on a run, and caught myself saying "amen" out loud several times! I agree with you in your observation on Brian and Samir, and think you will find that they seem to be already at work doing the work the Archbishop is hopeful of. After you've had a chance to listen to the full audio message, comment back – I'd love to hear your reaction! I'm not always in agreement with Rowan Williams, but I can't find much to argue with in this talk.
I got to listen to it 2 nights ago at work – it was excellent! Like you I didn't find much to disagree with – I thought it started out a little slow but got more and more engrossing as it went on! I'm hoping to listen to it again sometime, but at home, so I can listen straight through without interruptions.