What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?
(Fooled you. . . . I bet you thought from the title that this was a Bob or Joe post not a Cathleen post , didn’t you!)
A couple of posts below, there is an interesting conversation on the recent Pew Forum Study, which shows that a substantial portion of the American population (10 percent) are ex-Catholics. The discussion centers around the answers that the Church is providing to American Catholics –too much ritual, too little ritual, too much structure, too little structure, too many demands, too few demands.
I’d like to take the discussion back a level–and look at Christianity in more general terms. This Pope is worried about evangelization–not merely in the context of localized disputes among Christians, but in the broader, global context where Christianity itself is affirmed only by approximately one fifth of the world’s population, and where Christians have ready access to people of other faiths.
So what are the obstacles to evangelization? How does one evangelize? It seems to me that the first step is not to provide people with the answers, but to convince them that one is framing the problem in the right way. As anyone who has taken any Intro to World Religion course knows, the major world religions do not provide different answers to the same problem; in most cases, they ask very different questions. For someone who wants to see an examination of this question within a Catholic framework, see (JA DiNoia, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective).
The basic problem that Christianity sets itself out as answering is the one from the Gospel of Luke: “What must I do to obtain eternal life?” That problem would be unintelligible as a problem to most Buddhists, who want, not heaven, but to escape the endless cycle of birth and rebirth.
I think it’s worth considering whether and how people relate to the problem identified in the Gospel in contemporary first-world countries. I see several basic lines of resistance to this way of framing the problem. First, there has always been worry–and resistance–in Christianity to the idea that God has favorites. Judaism saw itself as in a unique covenant partnership with God, and Christianity continued that idea with the idea of a Church whose true membership was the elect –those who were given divine grace. Some people, through no merit of their own, received it grace; others, for no reason, were denied it. Most preachers (for a stark example, read Calvin) emphasized that we cannot know–and must not attempt to know –God’s eternal will. For many centuries, the urgency behind the need to evangelize was the need to impetus people from eternal damnation–certainly, that impetus can be seen in the Pauline corpus. Over time, Catholicism has finessed the question; Vatican II affirms that God can save people outside the Christian fold who live morally upright and pious lives.
But the problems do not disappear. First, influenced by democratic thought, which itself is influenced by the Christian conviction that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, many people are repelled by the idea of an arbitrary and capricious God who does not give all people an equal chance to love and to know Him. The call for human beings to treat all people as made in the imago dei loses much of its moral force if God Himself treats the vast majority of humanity as if they were throw-aways, to be cast forever into the pit. Interestingly enough, the moral call of Catholicism to respect human dignity in every instance can be turned back on God himself, to call into question the picture of a heaven where the elect few will reside in bliss, and a hell where the damned masses will undergo eternal torments. The idea that God is the Lord of life and death, who can do what He wants, whereas we simply don’t have the power, doesn’t touch the underlying moral issues any more, if it ever did. No lord should have that power. The underlying problem is this: Is a divine being who behaves this way worthy of worship?
But doesn’t the Catholic way of finessing the problem make the problem disappear–God provides for the morally upright of all religions? God does give people an equal chance? Yes and no, depending upon how you conceive of the moral life. Here is the second basic line of resistance. Many sociological and psychological studies show that morality is not simply something one chooses; parental love, support, education, nutrition, etc. all have something to do with it. Many of the “monsters” on death row have had something monstrous done to them. To say that life’s fortunate–the ones who get the good genes, the good parents, the good upbringing, in any society, will also get eternal life, seems to undermine the great reversals of the beatitudes. The poor are disproportionately the ones in jail. The poor, it seems, will be disproportionately the ones in hell too.
Furthermore, as the Pope knows, we’re walking a fine line. If God does give everyone an equal chance, if no one is his favorite, then what is the point of evangelization? It can’t be to win eternal salvation– it must be something else, such as to better know and love God. But in this case, the fundamental question of Christianity has been altered in a fairly significant way. The same question can be asked of theologians like Balthasar (whom I find deeply attractive on this point) in his Dare We Hope that All Men Might be Saved?
What about the attractions of eternal life? Interestingly enough, I think here, too, work needs to be done. The idea of eternal life–of paradise–was formulated in a time and place where life, for most people, was nasty, brutish, and short. In the United States, and in Europe, we suffer from a different problem–ennui, boredom, a slowly freezing sense of despair. The idea of eternal life, as generally formulated–doesn’t begin to touch the emotional problems of first world countries. It seems to be more of the same–and who wants that? In such a context, it seems that may people find the Buddhist notion of release from the endless cycle to be more appealing.
At any rate, I agree with John McGreevy and Peter Steinfels that using the Pew study to push our ideological lines isn’t going to help anyone long term. I also think there are deeper questions at stake. My own increasing sense is that the key points for further reflection aren’t at the level of the answers, but at the level of the fundamental question itself. That’s where the greatest challenge to Christianity lies, at least in developed countries.
Dear Cathleen,
There is a great deal here to ponder, but I think I have to ask something first. Why would you think that question from an obscure lawyer is “the basic problem that Christianity sets itself out as answering”?
Wouldn’t his next question be better: “Who is my neighbor?”
Or something modeled on the response of Jesus: How can I love God more? How do I love my neighbor as myself?
Thanks, Cathleen, for this thoughtful past.
Let me follow up on Jim McK’s good comment. I find it helpful to keep in mind that there won’t be any Church in heaven. Faith will be finished with, hope realized. Only charity will remain.
So the work of Jesus and His Church is meant for this life. The Beatitudes and the message in Mary’s Magnificat are touchstones for the Church’s (that means all of us Christians) mission. Jesus came to teach us about God. That includes teaching us to avoid substituting the conception of some idol for the true God. Furthermore, his teaching tells us how we ought to live with other people and with God’s creation. Loving people, with all that love entails–taking people and their aspirations seriously– is the totality of this teaching.
If we embrace this message, then we believe that the matter of “gaining eternal life” will take care of itself. Or better, that God will take care of it.
To the extent that the notion of evangelization is taken to mean gaining converts to the institutional Church rather than to giving expression by our lives to the “two great commandments,” we fail to give witness to Jesus’ message.
If we talk as if salvation is mainly a matter of”saving one’s hide,” as it seems we do so often, then we have distorted Jesus’ message practically to the point of obliteration.
Jim,
Answering the question “Who is my neighbor” isn’t very important outside the context of “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which Jesus identifies as one of the two greatest commandments (and elsewhere ups the ante by saying “Love your enemies”). And in Mark, Jesus answers the question about eternal life by telling the person who asks to sell everything he has, give it to the poor, and follow him. I think we would all prefer to love our neighbors as ourselves!
The first questions any religion has to answer, in my opinion, is, “Why do I exist? Does my life have a purpose? What is that purpose? How am I to live?” (Or, as Dionne Warwick sang, “What’s it all about, Alfie?”)
I would be relieved to know that there is no life after death at all, because the idea of Hell, for myself and for others I care about, or even for people I can’t stand or monsters such as Pol Pot or Hitler, is intensely disturbing. How can anybody merit eternal torment?
Does any other religion work at evangelizing, at gaining converts, to the extent that Christianity does in all its denominations? Islam is growing and it definitely welcomes converts (and threatens those who try to covnert away from islam!), but I believe it grows mainly through the large families that Muslims have … I don’t beleive that Judaism, Buddhism, hinduism, etc. actively seek out converts, certainly not to the extent of sending their practitioners around the globe, trying to convert individuals and whole socities en masse.
It really seems arrogant of Christianity to presume that other people need to become Christians. I certainly don’t feel any need to convert a Jewish person or to tell a Buddhist that he or she is “wrong” (and I certainly don’t believe that anyone is going to “hell” if they don’t become Christian) … Muslims, on the other hand, ought to convert–if it will get them to give up jihad extremism and oppressing women … but if they can reform themselves that way and stay Muslims, that’s fine by me. Even in their case, I don’t beleive they really need to become Christians …
I think the idea of evangelizing suffers from the same problems, obstacles inherent to many of the church’s teachings–i.e., the teachings themselves might be thought-provoking, inspiring, even worthy goals–but the church spoils it all by saying you MUST do this or you’re committing a great sin, you’re going to hell … instead, the church ought to SUGGEST or RECCOMMEND that THIS or THAT behavior might help you live a better life, be happier, treat other people better, etc. Likewise, the church itself and all christians would do far better to simply live their lives by the underlying principles of Christianity–and thereby convince some people to convert of their own free will because they see how happy and peaceful Christians are–rather than suggesting that you MUST become a Christian or you’ll somehow miss out on heaven, paradise, etc. … I realize that this is a far cry from the messianic message of salvation, but again it is quite arrogant to tell people that they need salvation in the first place–especially when that slavation is based on a concept of original sin (i.e., the garden of eden) that most people do not believe in literally anyway, which certainly has little relevance to non-Christians, and which is patently “unfair” by any imaginable system of justice (punishing countless generations yet unborn for the single transgression of the first two humans, who never even existed …) … better to talk in terms of “inevitable” sin rather than original sin–inevitable in the sense that we will all do things that will hurt other people, things we might regret later, things we wiush we could undo … and then offer Christiniaty as a way to counter the harmful effects of that inevitable sin–if you’ve reached the point where you WANT to counter those effects (physcially or mentally or emotionally bullying people into saying they’re sorry for things they aren’t really sorry for is hardly true contrition)
Couldn’t be a Joe post–much too long!
Hello Cathleen (and All),
Thank you for this excellent post, which is already generating much interesting discussion.
I have grumbled about my CCD education before on this web log. But I also had the great good fortune to be raised by my Dad, who taught me more about Christianity than any other single person. Dad has always stressed the paramount importance of loving one’s neighbor as one love’s oneself, which is after all what Jesus emphatically asks of us. He also thinks that specific religious affiliation and practice are not that important vis-a-vis how God will treat us after our deaths. Dad’s views are quite similar to those of the three Linns, whose work I much admire. The Linns argue that all of us should feel secure regarding how God will treat us after we die because God loves each of us at least as much as those people we know who love us the most. They don’t dismiss Hell as a possibility, but they argue that we can hope that all will be saved and that if anyone suffers Hell in the end, he wants to be in that state. Father George Maloney, another author I much admire, once remarked, “If you don’t want to love then go to Hell. Hell is where they don’t love.”
By my lights, these ideas makes both the last judgment in the Gospel of Matthew and a particularly controversial Church teaching on salvation much more sensible. Read literally, Jesus’ description of the last judgment would leave all of us condemned, because every one of us has missed an opportunity to help someone else in need. I think a better reading of the last judgment (a reading not original to me) is that Jesus is stressing how important each of us is and how important it is for us to treat each other with respect. Similarly, many of including me have great discomfort with the infamous teaching “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”. But if one interprets “the Church” to mean the people of God (and we have the documents of Vatican II to support this interpretation), well, I think that’s everybody, and then I think the teaching makes a lot more sense to people like myself who are quite ecumenical. On this interpretation, I think the teaching implies is that we can’t experience God’s love if we isolate ourselves from other people, God’s most beautiful creation. On my good days I believe all this wholeheartedly.
Of course, this brings us straight to two of your crucial questions: If the views described here are right, then why become Christian and in particular Roman Catholic? And why evangelize?
I think I should wait to see others’ responses before venturing any of my own. But I’ll add in closing that while I know some Catholics would be outraged to read such an inclusive view as I have stated (and want me silenced no doubt), if we adopt the literal interpretations of the last judgment and the “Outside the Church. . . ” teaching the implications go where I think no one wants to go. I think on the literal interpretations, maybe we should not regard abortion as a tragedy for the unborn, only for those who seek or perform abortions — these unborn humans die without having committed any sins and unbaptized through no fault of their own, so presumably God will show them mercy. Or maybe we should not evangelize — the “invincibly ignorant” people probably stand a better chance then the converts to Catholicism who stumble and commit serious sins. And we could go on. . . .
Hello Margaret (and All),
I agree with you. Joe’s post looks more live a Peter V. post!
Paul Tillich once wrote something that ought to be posted in large letters on the back wall of classrooms (the one the teacher looks at): “No one can receive an answer to a question he hasn’t asked.” I think teachers recognize the truth of the statement, and perhaps it lay behind Aristotle’s famous comment that one had to be of a certain age in order to study ethics. Gabriel Marcel wrote in the preface to one of his books that the work presupposed that readers were asking questions at a certain level, the implication being that if you were’nt you were likely to find it unintelligible.
Often enough teachers also find that students don’t bring the questions that are needed to appreciate a great work of literature or art or philosophy or theology, and it is the art of a good teacher to evoke in students the questions they need in order to understand the work. I believe that David Tracy has said that it is one of the characteristics of a classic that it is able to evoke those questions.
So what kinds of questions need to be asked if one is to be able to understand Christianity? If someone were to ask you: What is Christianity for? Why be a Christian? what answers would you give? Christianity claims universal relevance: “Go teach all nations…” Does this mean that it presumes that there are universal questions? If so, what might they be? What kinds of quesstions must a teacher of Christianity evoke if they are not already being asked? Like the classic work, does Christianity itself, or rather, does Christ himself illumine not only what the answers are but also what the appropriate questions are? I once wrote that Chrisitan anthropology unfolds as the answer to the question: What must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true?
Sadly, the Nicene Creed is a formation of disputed truths rather than an affirmation of faith. Heretics are deviant insiders and help define the faith. Augustine, despite his nicer theologies, considered people outside the church hopeless so much so that it was okay to force them inside. “Coge Intrare.” And we have been living with this ever since. Vatican II gave us other options. But the restorationists are fighting those.
This abstract from Jstor on the “Politics of Heresy” by Lester R Kurtz is worth pondering.
“Heresy ad orthodoxy, it is argued here, are two aspects of the social process
within which belief systems are defined and articulated. A number of
characteristics of heresy are outlined: it is both near and remote at the same
time, and the heretic is a deviant insider. Heresy has social origins but in
turn influences social arrangements. The heresy hunt, in which heresy is labeled
and heretics are suppressed, serves as an anxiety-relieving ritual for
institutional elites and facilitates their dominance within the institution. A
case study of heresy, the “modernist controversy” in Roman Catholicism, is
examined as one of the most important events in early modern culture and an
important aspect of the conflict between science and religion.”
I sem to remember that JPII said the beginning of evangelization is listening,
I think he meant in the rule of St. Benedict sense “listen with the ear of the heart.’
When we held a seminar on spirituality and seniors at the State Conference on Aging a couple of years ago (led by an 80 year old and wiise nun), it was evident that to engage folk meant we needed to hear their stories and that they had to see a real example of the love of Christ we talk about so much in the way we approach.
Jesus gives us the two great commandments to be saved by. All men might be able to come to that in some ways.
To be drawn to the faith in Christ, we need to appreciate (as in the Pauline reading last Sunday) that God so loved His son died for us – us with all our warts and feet of clay.
Still it is in emulating that Love (“have this mind in you…)
I can only conceive that the drift away (implosion?) of Church members is that the experience of the love of Christ and the hearing with the ear of the heart has not happened very well.
If the great push for evangelization is essentially didactic, I think it’s doomed to failure.
If I understand the gist of this interesting question, I think that the answer is best found in Catholic doctrine.
(Surprised?)
There’s this idea in the Tradition that salvation is not just a matter of accomplishing the goal of heaven. Rather, it’s the acquisition of glory. Glory admits of degrees. So one can be saved in a richly transformative way, or in a barely transformative way.
This can be put into negative terms (a la Gregory of Nyssa, I believe) in which the imago dei is obscured and must be cleared off and polished. Again, this process admits of degrees.
Let me suggest cryptic answers to the first two of Fr. Komonchak’s questions, namely What is Christianity for? and Why be a Christian?
Christianity is for keeping the message and work of Jesus available in the world. The call and privilege to take part in this Christian task is the reason for being a Christian.
I indicated above what I think the message and work of Jesus consists in. Of course, I do realize that His work is in the most fundamental sense continued by the Holy Spirit.
I’ll take a stab at Fr. Komonchak’s other questions later.
“ .. there has always been worry–and resistance–in Christianity to the idea that God has favorites.” I think that one simply has to look back 50 or so years and come face to face with Catholicism’s “extra ecclesia nulla salus” as it was applied at that time.
I think that this is the position that I find most tolerable:
“The question we have to face is not that of whether other people can be saved and how. We are convinced that God is able to do this with or without our theories, with or without our perspicacity, and that we do not need to help him do it with our cogitations. The question that really troubles us is not in the least concerned with whether and how God manages to save others. The question that torments us is, much rather, that of why it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith—why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? And with that, we are once more confronted, though from a different approach, with the same question we raised yesterday in conversation with God and with which we parted: What actually is the Christian reality, the real substance of Christianity that goes beyond mere moralism? What is that special thing in Christianity that not only justifies but compels us to be and live as Christians? …. We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them. And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people’s damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. That is very human, but the Lord’s parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time. Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving-kindness of God. “
Excerpted from ‘What It Means to Be a Christian.’ By Joseph Ratzinger. Translated by Henry Taylor. Original German version published in 1965.
Can someone please give me a good interpretation of John 14:6?
Jesus said to him (Thomas), “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
I am far from an adherent of sola scriptura, but this passage has always baffled me and I have yet to have an explanation that contradicts what this seems to say.
Bernard: Sorry for getting in on this late, but I was wondering in what way, if any, your description of Christianity would differentiate Christianity from something that remains entirely Jewish.
Hello Jimmy (and All),
Awesome! Thank you for alerting us to the remarkable passage from ‘What It Means to Be a Christian.’ I am sold, I need to get myself a copy next time I treat myself to a book. And I think you and I agree. The answers to some of the questions Cathleen raised I favor appear to be implied by the passage you posted, namely, we should want to become Christian and practice the Christian faith in gratitude for the love Jesus already has shown us, not for any reward we might think only His “favorites” receive. And evangelize so that others can know they have always been loved.
A stab at answering Fr. Komonchak’s question about what, if any, questions are universal.
I doubt that any particular linguistic formulation of a question is or could be universal. But I think that is not only possible but also likely that, every culture has some expression of thought about the point or meaning of human existence and even of the material world. The unspeakable “question” that I would posit as underlying the various cultural questions is whatever it is that makes it possible to translate, however imperfectly, the questions of one culture into those of another. All translation requires some work, some translations more than others.
By way of a parallel, let me point to the fact that we can talk about the topic of language , but can only do so in some particular tongue. We can translate one tongue into another only because there is something like this “Language” which has nog particular vocabulary or syntax of its own.
Fr. Komanchak concludes with the question What must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true? Now, that’s a question guaranteed to have a long life. All I can say is that it has a companion question, namely, What must be true of human beings if they can truthfully either doubt or deny that the Christian message is true?
Joe Petit–At bottom, Christianity differs from Judaism in its conviction that the Messiah has indeed come and is the God-man Jesus, who reveals both the trinitarian nature of God and the destiny of human beings to sharing in His risen life.
Cathy,
Other than some general comments that I offered above, I am at a loss to answer your question. I have no problem with the fact that others will be saved outside Christianity while I remain convinced that Jesus is still the most preferable option. I am sure that so called heretics are just as close to Jesus as long as they imitate the Samaritan. And I do believe that Jesus is true to his promise by always remaining with Christians, both Catholic and Non. And Jesus is with that believing community which much of the time does not include the hierarchy.
I am so torn by knowing that the Holocaust happened in the midst of those who call themselves Christian as well as the plight of the American, Canadian and South American Indians which was caused by Christian missionaries. Yet some have miraculously found their way to him despite dubious emissaries.
I have trouble with your insistence on framing the question when it appears that framing the activity or living the life of Christians is what appears to be lacking. The Apostles were very simple and unlearned people and they do not talk as much about framing the question as by living the life. You might answer by noting that what I am saying is obvious but is that not the crux of it? It never bothered me if a priest or a bishop did not know an answer. What bothered me is when they have ignored or tried to act better than their brothers. What is devastating is not that they don’t remember what Jesus said but that they do not breathe what he lived.
Why can’t academia concentrate on this or at least give it the attention it deserves. Will it mean that Catholic academia will be considered as simpletons and not get the respect of the scientific community or the hierarchy?
I know that it may be difficult to find many like Ted Hesburgh. But should not there be more approaching him? I guess others have alluded to this above when they mention how evangelization begins with listening but then the talk goes elsewhere. Maybe we should spend the whole year in examining how we listen. Because it does not seem we are getting there any other way.
Your question is a great one. How do we respond? We say that “words fly and example attracts”, yet we keep the words flying and the example rare. How would a speaker’s tour look in which people focused on example? It would not sell would it? But it might attract more followers. Are we the wise of this world who are bypassing the message or is the gospel bypassing us? Can we attract without being obnoxious like the evangelicals? Can we examine why the downtrodden will be filled with good things and the rich will go away empty?
What and how are we to frame the gospel?
Thank you all for your posts here, and particularly to Cathleen Kaveny for the question. Is this an example of Catholic midrash, if that is not an inappropriate term?
I wish this type of discussion and richness could be more widely available. Just the thought of these issues is a wonderful catalyst for a deeper probing of faith.
Maybe Fr. Komonchak will respond to the questions he posed. I am certainly interested in his thoughts.
(BTW, for those interested in hearing him speak, see the Boston College video he made at http://www.bc.edu/church21/webcast.html and scroll way down to the Jan. 16, 2003 lecture. Attach a face and voice to the name. From about 43 and/or 49 minutes on, interesting thoughts on the selection of bishops.)
Overall, Bob Nunz’s comment rings true: “I can only conceive that the drift away (implosion?) of Church members is that the experience of the love of Christ and the hearing with the ear of the heart has not happened very well.” Amen.
Please continue the conversation…
“So what kinds of questions need to be asked if one is to be able to understand Christianity? If someone were to ask you: What is Christianity for? Why be a Christian? what answers would you give? Christianity claims universal relevance: “Go teach all nations…” Does this mean that it presumes that there are universal questions? If so, what might they be? What kinds of questions must a teacher of Christianity evoke if they are not already being asked? Like the classic work, does Christianity itself, or rather, does Christ himself illumine not only what the answers are but also what the appropriate questions are? I once wrote that Christian anthropology unfolds as the answer to the question: What must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true?” -Joe.
Joe’s questions are rather different from mine–indeed, they merit their own thread. Joe is doing two things which I am not doing. First, he frames the problem as one of a teacher-student situation. But that’s not quite my problem. My problem is a prior problem: in our day and age, why should anyone sign up for the education offered by Christianity? Why should anyone be a disciple? Why study so hard to solve the problem that Christianity says it will solve? Christianity proposes not only the solution _-faith in Jesus Christ–but also the problem–sin and its consequences, particularly its eternal consequences in terms of alienation from God. One does not have to read far into the history of the early Church to see that this is the operative framework. Two thousand years after the question was originally framed in that way, is the question still the dominant question facing us?
Second, Joe’s approach is the Barthian approach of “the best apologetics is a good dogmatics.” That may be true for people thinking their way to a deeper faith. But I think you already need faith to proceed. I don’t think Barth, good Calvinist that he is, would deny it. Joe asks “What must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true?” The question I would phrase it is: “Well, what’s the basic problem facing human beings if the Christian message is true?” Christianity says it’s the cosmic drama of sin, redemptive sacrifice, and eternal redemption. My sense is that in first world countries at this point in time, people may have objections to the traditional account, for reasons set forth above.
Jimmy, that’s a great quote from Benedict–it’s also a substantial modification of the emphasis of the tradition. I wonder if Benedict still would endorse that statement. I am not sure that statement engenders a strong stance toward conversion and evangelization. It’s about tilling your own garden.
You know how people hold up signs that say John 3:16 at a football game? I’m guessing that those who do this see “eternal life” in binary or apocalyptic terms, as the basic entry (or not) into heaven.
To promote a more Catholic view I’ve often thought of getting this license plate: 2COR318. That is, “All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit.”
To my mind 2 Corinthians is an unusually helpful book not only for one-line catecheses such as “For our sake God made him who did not know sin to be sin so that we might become the very righteousness of God” and “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” and “So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation,” but also because the Letter gives evidence that Paul himself has grown. As far as I can tell, if 2nd Corinthians was written by Paul (which scholars dispute), then he has matured significantly in the spiritual life since the time he wrote 1 Corinthians. He isn’t speaking and “knowing” Christ, and him crucified, but he has somehow learned to live Christ crucified and to be at peace with that. (The way I’m saying this sounds maudlin but it’s not so in 2nd Corinthians.)
St. Catherine of Siena said, “All the way to heaven is heaven.” I think this is the way Catholics look at salvation, or again in Paul’s words, “For God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor 4:6).
The questions presented seem to ask “What’s in it for me?” I am not sure we will ever get a good definition for Christianity from that type of question. “You will be killed, like Christ was killed.” “Tithe.” “Give up family life.” These can be covered up with beautiful promises of pie in the sky when you die, donations returning a hundredfold and celestial families, but I do not see those as being the heart of Christianity, the question that drives our faith.
What is Christianity? It is something that God is doing.
Why be a Christian? As a response to God’s love.
Why evangelize? So that God’s love for each person will be appreciated to their benefit and ours, and to the greater glory of God (and us reflections).
How do we evangelize? “approach all cultures, all ideological concepts, all people of good will… with the esteem, respect and discernment that since the time of the Apostles has marked the missionary attitude, the attitude of the missionary.” (JP2 HR12)
I should stop here, lest I finish with “The sky will open. The Light will come down. Celestial Choirs will be singing…”
But first I must recommend JP2′s first encyclical, _Humanity’s Redeemer_, on these issues. He offers the universal question — people cannot live without love — and explicates its connection to Christ, salvation and evangelization. (not always convincingly, but it is a good statement of “Catholic teaching”.) B16′s first encyclical is good too, but I have not digested much of that yet.
Cathy: You wrote:
>> Joe asks “What must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true?” The question I would phrase it is: “Well, what’s the basic problem facing human beings if the Christian message is true?” <<
I find these two questions nearly indistinguishable, since you couldn’t answer the first without asking the second.
Many thanks to those who have added their insights to this topic. Because of its richness of discussion, this Commonweal blog is my blog of preference, but I have been rummaging around Google Blog Search for other comments about the Pew Report on Religion. This comment of an Episcopalian priest may interest some here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/evangelism/the_challenge_of_the_44_percen.php
The author is Andrew T. Gerns.
—–
Joe McMahon
Joe, I guess I see your question as being far broader than mine. Which means that it is false that they’re “nearly indistinguishable” but quite true that “you couldn’t answer the first without asking the second. The second, narrower question, I think, is the urgent question for those contemplating the plausibility of a potential new religion. Does the central existential question posed by that particular religion seem plausible?
Cathleen Kaveny and Fr. Komonchak– Forgive me if I’m missing the point of your questions.
Cathleen, re your “central existential question:” In “A Secular Age,” Taylor starts out by noting that, at least in the West, the death of a loved one confronts us with the question of what was the point of that love. Does it any more matter? He sees this, if I read him correctly, as an intimation that there may be something transcendent to our daily life here that can and often does, at least temporarily, lead a person to reflect on the kinds of religious claims that float around in our culture. I take it that if Taylor is right about this, then there is an opening for an exploration of this issue in more depth. I’ll abstain here from speculating about what form this exploration might take. Whether what I say here addresses the issue of your central existential question I just don’t know.
Fr. Komonchak, to ask about what must be true about human beings if the Christian message is true necessarily opens the question of “What must be true about human beings” sans phrase. Whatever constitutive capabilities and vulnerabilities human beings as human beings have mutually intersect . So , in the absence of a full blown philosophical or theological anthropology, I would think that only a partial, and tentative, answer could be given to your question.
Again, if I’ve just wholly missed the point, I’m sorry.
How did things get so confused? As this thread develops, people are speaking past each other or just do not understand each other. Is there something wrong with this picture. Fulton Sheen used to say if what you write cannot be understood by an eight grader, then maybe you don’t understand it yourself. After a promising opening do we have to go back to the drawing board?
Justin martyr was so impressed by these Christians who are willing to give their life for their faith that he became one. After the Constantinian upheaval, Augustine made fun of the Donatist martyrs and the church in general vied for the relics of the martyrs since there were few who were willing to give their life for the faith in the fourth century and thereafter.
Jesus said that the servant is not greater than the master. What would he have to say about the post-Constantine church? From then on there was more expediency than imitation. Do Christians professors need to be prophetic as well as didactic and dies Garry Wills have something to say to us? Do we need to reexamine the Constantinian merger?
Mr. Dauenhauer:
I’m not sure what your question is. My proposal was simply that a theological anthropology is not constructed solely on the basis of a pre-existent philosophical anthropology but explores what the Chriatian message of redemption implies or assumes about the human condition. I would say that without exploring these, only a partial, and not a full-blown, anthropology can be worked out. But, as I say, I’m not sure where your puzzlement precisely lies.
Okay, how about this: I agree with Joe about how a theological anthropology is constructed. I agree to a large extent that the best apologetics is a good dogmatics. I agree with Taylor that the death of a loved one raises questions about the point of that love.
All of that agreement is from my stance within the Christian tradtion–about which I’ve learned a lot from Joe for many years..
But the puzzle I’m pondering now–and it’s a puzzle, not a position–is how and why evangelization–which is different and broader than apologetics –is different in this postmodern age in first world countries.
A Buddhist would say to Taylor, “you’ve got the wrong question–you have the wrong desires–you need to reshape your desires and not go seeking after something you can’t find.” Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are options for poeple today–because of the internet, because of literacy, because of pluralism.
Why sould someone who spends their life working with the homeless and down and out and drug addicted and addled—and who sees the contingency of good morality, a prosperous life–want to worship a God whose grace is arbitrary? Now, you can reform that view–Kathy’s progressive account of salvation, Gregory of Nyssa, Blathasar–all of that is wonderful, andn I believe true. But we are taking the edge of the urgent question as asked by the early Church. And we are, it seems, (or the Pope is in Jimmy Mac”s quote) removing the urgency from the need to evangelize to “save souls.”
So why is our QUESTION: the central question of Christianity, which persuasive?
Cathleen, I admit that I have no full answer to propose to your puzzle. Just two comments that I think bear on it. First, why would you grant that God’s grace is “arbitrary?” I wouldn’t. Second, could it be that presenting the “saving souls” as “urgent” has somehow distorted the kind of evangelization that ought to come from the loving lives that Christians ought to lead, loving lives that offer a witness to their own faith, but without an off-putting “urgency” to convert another person?
Fr. Komonchak, I think I now see your point and grant it. My concern is that someone might present a Christian anthropology that, at least in my view, would not sufficiently recognize the complexity of a well developed philosophical anthropology. For example, a Christian salvation history would, I think, make some claims about what human beings can receive and indeed have received from Jesus’ life, death, resurrection. The Eastern churches,for example, talk about this as “deification.” That is something of an answer to several issues that a philosophical anthropology might well find paradoxical, at best, in human experience. It is important, I think, to be clear that wrestling with these paradoxes philosophically is not simply superceded by the theological “solution.” The tension between what can be ascertained by philosophy and what theology can deliver remains and is important for both the philosopher and the theologian. Or so I think.
I appreciate Cathy’s tenacity in pursuing this thread, but I think Bill has a point to make as well.
As this has gone on, I kept thinking we should look at what’s happening politically – NPR had a piece on how the Obama folowers are talkin gabout their participation becoming a “movement” that will last long after the election.
That spark sprung up by a call to be more than (not a “demand” as someone from the right offered on another thread,)
During the past month, on the VOTF discussion blogs , the notion that we need a Quixote(s) to create an impossible dream was tossed around.(Of course, I kept thinking iof the finale of the musical where the cast sings “The Impossible Dream” while Quixote is led away by the Inquisition.)
I kept thinking too of the Gospel passage where the man who has kepo the comandments asks Jesus what more he can do.
“Sell all yo uhave and give to the poor,” he’s told; he goes off sad because he has many possessions.
The early mustard seed of the Church was driven by the love Christians had for one another – a Love driven by the Spirit, who, granted, “breathes when and where He will.”
Folk have a deep need for that spark i submit, to become more. The spark will not be generated by profound essays and the halls of academe, but the lives of others as individuals, groups and institutions.
So we can’t have a thread that would explore the intellectual challenges Christianity faces and the intellectual contributions it can make to an understanding of our world and to efforts to redeem it. It’s not as if we haven’t had any threads on politics!
Let’s not get into the trap “The Imitation of Christ” set: You know, “It’s better to feel compunction than to know how to define it.” As if one had to choose!
In the seminary I must have heard ten sermons warning us against intellectual pride; I don’t recall a single one warning against intellectual sloth!
In the spirit of TGF.
Q. What Must I do to Gain Eternal Life?
A. Make the nine First Fridays.
Just to say something a little more strongly, I take “eternal life” to be qualitative as well as quantitative. It’s not “only” an extension to life but an increase of life in the here and now. If I understand correctly, this increase continues into the next life and the task in this life is to develop the capacity to live more abundantly, to learn to bear “the weight of glory.”
The wedding feast at Cana is one scriptural image of glorification, in which the insipid takes on a developed richness. I think that this is something that our age would like to hear about. We’ve had enough glamour, I should think, and enough envy. Enough gourmet kitchens. There is a true glory and real freedom, and I think that’s what the Church has to offer.
Risking repetition, I agree that Christianity is about living life more abundantly, not about doing something in order to be saved.
Consciously or unconsciously, does anyone here go to Church in order to gain heaven? Why do you go? Are you motivated by the supposedly “central question of Christianity”?
“Let’s not get into the trap “The Imitation of Christ” set: You know, “It’s better to feel compunction than to know how to define it.” As if one had to choose!
In the seminary I must have heard ten sermons warning us against intellectual pride; I don’t recall a single one warning against intellectual sloth!”
Pertinent analogy. The point is one can capture eternal life with feeling it rather than defining it. If one had to choose the IOC has it hands down. It is just that theologians and philosophers, while they can be very helpful, sometimes confuse things. People idolize certain leaders because of the belief that the Messiah is out there somewhere.
I believe that Budhists, hindus, Moslems and others can be in God. But I do not see where their message can compare to that of Jesus. I am not a Christians only because I was born into it. And there will be more in heaven of the poor and downtrodden than the privileged and comfortable. I believe in the revelation in Jesus Christ as more complete, despite the criminals who have been Christian leaders in our history. Why can’t we attract Buddhists with our love in God, framing our lives, rather than framing our
question better unless we should say that salvation is not the end of pain but the beginning of joy.?
Living life more abundantly is not possible unless one loves one’s enemies/nieghbor.
Intellectual challenges are fine with the IOC inclusion.