Someone recently heard my podcast and posed the often asked, and never severely answered, "what is the difference between ghandi and christ?" i will say that i'm way out of my league with that question; however, i will post my response to this person's e-mail below:
i honestly find your question very challenging because i truly don't understand the difference between king, ghandi, and christ myself. the part of me that was raised christian wants to say that christ is sovereign in an incarnational sort of way that peacemakers like ghandi are not. however, there is an equally strong voice inside my mind that wonders what is the difference between christ's life and that of ghandi? both lived for divine causes and in the end gave up their life for the greater cause of love. also, i often feel that harping on differences between christ and ghandi (or whoever on that peaceful plateau) is only perpetuating divisiveness.
in summary, i will say that i appreciate postmodern philosophy in that i feel i can hold this particular ambiguity without any compulsion to solidify my beliefs. i'm content in my lack of knowledge, but i still want to learn more.
I will end this by asking the same thing I asked this person who wrote me, what are your thoughts on the topic? i clearly don't have any answers. so i will open up the floor to thoughts and ask anyone who reads this to put in their cup of tea on the issue...
5 comments:
Hello, A.J.!
I hope the peace of God rests on you! Back when I didn't know God, you were the only person who ever shared the Gospel with me on a one-to-one basis. I'll always remember that, and I'll always be grateful!
Just out of curiosity, where do your postmodern influences lie? Who are the authors that you've read about postmodern philosophy?
The kind of postmodernism I'm reading about in my studies seems to be a far cry from the postmodernism you seem to follow.
I say this because the way I understand the postmodern worldview is vastly different from the worldview I infer from your posts. Postmodernism, as I have come to understand it (primarily though the writings of Dr. Lawrence Wood), seem to be primarily against the kind of modern (Kantian) philosophy which assumes anyone with enough rationality will come to a predefined conclusion (all outside one's tradition, history, knowledge, personal experience, etc). That is to say that (in the mind of Kant) things were either fully knowable (observable reality), or entirely unknowable (spiritual, unobservable reality).
Postmodernism, (from what I can understand from what I read) said that Kant was far too short sighted. He didn't take into account that his reality (that everything of substance can be observed) was based on his own scientific tradition. In a sense, he forced his tradition on everyone else, and said it didn't exist.
The impact this has on Christians is huge. The formation of the universe is not based on the tradition of science, but based on the tradition and the narrative of Scripture. We can't look a Jesus and claim he was just a normal person as Christians, for our Christian narrative says that He is the one and only Son of God. If we see Jesus as a human with over-eager disciples, we are no longer looking at Jesus though the eyes of a Christian, but though the eyes of a scientist (who says Jesus can't be Christ, couldn't have done miracles, and couldn't have been raised from the dead because they have the presupposition that those things can't happen).
For the Christian, who has faith that the Bible says what it means, Jesus and Ghandi could not be farther apart. Christ was the Holy, only Anointed One of God, and Ghandi was a normal, created being. Through the life of Jesus, all of creation can experience freedom, while the freedom that Ghandi offered was temporal and limited.
I think in 50 years, high school kids might not know who Ghandi is before they talk about him in class. Ghandi made a HUGE impact on the world, but the impact that Christ made is far, far greater. Christ came to deliver the whole world, while Ghandi helped (and was helped by many, many others in his movement) to help free one nation.
I'm really not trying to be dogmatic. Jesus is the only One who can save up from ourselves (by killing our "selves") so we can live for something greater. Just as a side note, if you are frustrated with Evangelicalism (which I am too!!), you should pick up a book by Shane Claiborne called The Irresistible Revolution.
True freedom can only come from the truth of the Gospel. Shane does a good job of emphasizing that, and showing what Jesus can look like when His Spirit is allowed to flow from those who will empty themselves for Him. He makes tons of references to Ghandi and Mother Teresa.
I'll always love you like a Brother, A.J., and I'll always remember the amebas.
-Brett
Hello again, A.J.!
Your response gave me quite a bit to think about, and I've thought about it quite a bit! I have somewhat of a question/statement something about something you said.
You said:
I'm also heavily influenced by a quote that Tony Campolo said to Tony Jones about emergentists. He told Tony Jones that emergent shouldn't stand for anything, because the second they do so they become like every other branch of Christianity.
This is a puzzling statement to me in a lot of different ways. What is the context? How can one "not stand for anything," and how is being like another branch of Christianity bad?
I know tons of people have done a lot of stupid, selfish, evil things in the name of Christ, but that doesn't make the Church a bad thing.
How can one be a follower of Jesus if they don't take stands on anything? At the very least, wouldn't one need to take a stand say say the words of Christ are true and worth following?
The way of life that Jesus taught was a holistic way of life: it permeated one's assumptions, values, emotions, actions and spirit (all are equally important).
I'm interested in the way you view Scripture and Jesus Himself.
Peace be with you!
-Brett
"I'm also heavily influenced by a quote that Tony Campolo said to Tony Jones about emergentists. He told Tony Jones that emergent shouldn't stand for anything, because the second they do so they become like every other branch of Christianity."
Hey Brett,
Concerning the quote above, I don't know that context since I heard the quotation mentioned in Tony Jones' podcast out of context.
Now, I'm fully aware of the paradox of that statement, since "standing for nothing" requires one to take a stance "for nothing." However, I'm more than willing to accept that seemly paradox at this point.
I try and understand Christ as a human and as the incarnation. As of recently, I've been really interested in the theology of the incarnation and it's effect on my worldview. I'm reading a pretty neat book called "Christ" by Jack (forgot his last name) and it has some great insight into the logical meaning of the incarnation.
Since you mention the holistic view of Christ, and I think it's difficult to do such a thing. I don't look at everything that Christ did as "perfect." I think, since He is the incarnation and able to interact as a human, then it's not a great stretch to think that Christ made mistakes. Therefore, it's difficult to look at Christ holistically and it's more important to break his life down into what we have available to us, which is seemingly very little.
Best,
A.J.
Hello!
Jesus is/was/always will be,God.
There have been many people who have lived their lives with great dignity, for the promotion of peace, who've taught by example...but they were not God.
Thanks!
"Jesus is/was/always will be,God. There have been many people who have lived their lives with great dignity, for the promotion of peace, who've taught by example...but they were not God."
I'm responding to this quote. I actually strongly agree with the latter portion of this quote. However, I think the former argument in it reveals an obvious assumption that we humans have access to celestial knowledge of the holy in so much that we can determine who is God and who isn't God. I think it's painfully arrogant to claim that "I" have obtained this information.
Yet I will concede that there is a sort of normative arrogance in making any faith statement such as, "Jesus is God." In fact, I think it's quite impossible to say anything concerning faith or the lack of faith without having some sort of arrogance attached to it. I say this because every faith statement I make, whether it's a theistic or atheistic one, is derived by staking a claim to some divine knowledge whether that knowledge is divinely theistic or divinely atheistic.
Post a Comment