5 Minute Answer

My dad called me an atheist the other day. This is not the case at all, and he wasn't serious, but it made me realize how my beliefs and opinions on much of Christian tradition come off sounding like to one of more conservative faith. I didn't think much of it, however. My friends know more or less where I stand, so I rarely have to define my faith to them. New issues arise, and they find out my thoughts on it, but it isn't revolutionary to them; they know where I'm coming from. I'm still overly-blasphemous at times (in good humor, of course), and unfortunately vulgar depending on the company, but little I say needs defense, because my friends know when to take (or not take me) me seriously.

I was somewhat troubled, however, when I was explaining to my mother a bit about Anselm's "fides quaerens intellectum" (her Sunday School class is using a book that, upon opening to the introduction, included a heading "Faith Seeking Understanding" and nowhere gave any mention of Anselm), and she asked me why I was a Christian, or if I was one at all. I suppose she asked me because I was expressing my dissatisfaction with Anselm's theory. I was saying that I didn't like the idea of coming to the table with assumptions, and interpreting one's experience in order to fit the prior assumptions. The question caught me off guard, and I did not know how to respond to it. For a while now I have barely considered myself a Christian. I have thought of myself as a "liberal Christian," or most recently a "Judeo-Christian Agnostic," but I have long known that my beliefs lie outside what most Christians would call "Christian". My first response was yes, of course I consider myself a Christian, but then I conceded that it all depended on how you defined Christianity. As a "Judeo-Christian Agnostic" it is much easier for me to explain what I don't believe rather than what I do believe.

Telling your mom what you believe when you know full well that she would label it non-Christian and therefore wrong and hell-binding is a difficult thing to do when you have to go to work in 5 minutes. This is the stuff of hour-long conversations, not 5 minute quibbles.

Needless to say, I got nowhere in my defense. When people ask me something about my beliefs and I fear that they may react strongly against it, I always try to explain the "why" before explaining the "what." For example, I love using the example of the Passover as it relates to the crucifixion. John's gospel records the crucifixion occurring before the Passover meal, whereas the synoptics record the Last Supper as the Passover meal, therefore the crucifixion occuring the day after. The theological significance of this is that John wanted to portray Jesus as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So if Jesus didn't really die on the day of the Passover meal, did he really die as our atoning sacrifice? But how can I explain this in 5 minutes? It seems that any theology you can explain in such a short amount of time is not a very deep one. I tried to address the statement of Jesus as "Lord" and "Savior," but that would require somewhat of a word study on these words and redefining them from each biblical authors writings.

It seems that most Christians may be able to say that they are Christian because they "believe Jesus died to save them from their sins." Unbeknownst to them, however, is the reality that they are actually expressing a specific theory of atonement that was put forth not simply from the Bible, but from medieval theologians, and it is not the only theory out there that is "Christian." Now, one of the five fundamentals of the early 20th century says that one must believe in the Sacrificial theory of atonement for one to be a Christian, but that is hardly the only way one can look at the crucifixion and remain biblical. I think that any pithy statement of believe carries a lot of weight, and the terms must be defined before one can claim them as gospel and bet their eternal soul on them.

It almost seems as though it would be easier for me to start off the conversation by admitting that I am not a Christian, and then as I explain my views, let my audience determine whether or not they accept my opinions as valid and encompassed in the broad Christian tradition. Not that I need it to, but it seems that if people believe that you are a Christian they treat you as an equal (since most people around here claim to be Christian). I sometimes wonder if I'm intolerant because I don't tolerate people that don't tolerate others. Does this make sense?

I can be arrogant in my faith, because behind my faith stands much education, personal research, and reflection. In a matter of months I will have a degree in Religion, and I would be lying if I said that this reality didn't make me somewhat arrogant of my beliefs. However, if someone is not a Christian and has come to their faith through education, study, and serious thought and personal reflection, then I will respect them much more than a fellow Christian who believes because his/her parents brainwashed them to believe.

Although I seem to be detracting from my initial point (assuming I had one to begin with), I suppose what I want to emphasize is that the relationship between God and man is a simple one, and yet it isn't. When explaining what I do believe, it is very simple. I believe in the love of God towards man, and man's moral responsibility to share that love with his fellow man. Now when I am questioned as to how that ties in with Jesus and the traditional dogmas of the Christian religion, it gets really hard. I would have to explain biblical criticism and historical/contextual studies of specific books of the Bible; I would have to discuss history from 1st century gnosticism to 5th century monasticism to 12th century scholasticism through 17th century reformed theology, and then the crisis of the 19th century that the 20th century tried to clean up before I could adequately explain my faith as it ties into the Christianity of today.

I'm not part of an "anything goes" religion, but I think that different people find their way to God in different ways. My way falls most closely in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but I lack belief in many dogmas that most would call essential to the faith. Does that make me un-Christian? Perhaps, but it does not make me ungodly. One of my favorite illustrations is Jesus' story of the "least of these." Many will come to heaven and Jesus will say "I did not know you." Many will respond and say "But we did everything in your name, for you!" And he will tell them that they didn't feed him or clothe him, and that every time they did these things, they did it to him. Jesus feels with us, he experiences life with us, he has that solidarity. In the same way, I believe those that feed and clothe him will get their inheritance in Heaven even when those that claim they lived in Jesus' name may not. Now my opinions on the afterlife are perhaps not completely biblical, but I believe my interpretation of this particular story of Jesus is. I think God would rather us love our neighbor than convert them. This, I believe, is what the true Christian message is, which is why I still like associating myself within the Christian tradition. Unfortunately I anger more than I love, it seems, because of the lack of love I see in my fellow men.

That's the easy answer, I suppose. I am Christian because I love. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. I think that's a 5 minute answer.