If this is not a rose, email me and tell me what it is, please. g,epp@accesscomm.ca |
This story was told to me and others on
Saturday:
A self-declared atheist was so
enamoured with the peace and justice emphasis of some Mennonites that
he began hanging around with them, participating in their activities
and discussions, etc. At some time—while discussing this, that and
the other—a partner in the conversation said, “You're a
Christian, aren't you.” The atheist was indignant: “By no means;
I'm an atheist, I believe in no God.” Troubled by this confusion,
he began to read in a Bible that had been gathering dust on his
bookshelf. What he read there filled him with consternation.
“Oh s**t!” the story has him
saying. “I AM a Christian.”
Like most stories, the interpretation
of this one belongs to the one hearing it. I heard it in a church,
told to my fellow Mennonites so I pretty much know what
interpretation was intended: the word of God is not bound by the
strictures we place upon it. At least I think I know this. As I get
older I'm finding that what I once considered ordinary concepts are
muddier—rather than clearer—than they used to be. Go figure.
If I were to retell the story, it
would be with the intention of illustrating that categorical thinking
is rote thinking. When we declare someone to be “a Christian,”
for instance, it's pretty much impossible to know what the declarer
is saying unless you know where he's coming from. For a certain
member of my family, it means the person in question is a “born
again” person, a category that includes members of churches for
whom “born again” is the essential, fundamental marker, and
excluding all members of churches for whom it's not and, of course,
all agnostics, atheists, materialists, secularists and any of the
vast number of “ists” we talk about. (For a more refined
definition of the “born again” Christian, a browse through the
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada Statement of Fundamental andEssential Truths will help.)
There are signs
that we are all becoming less “categorical” in our thinking as
time goes by. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, for instance,
includes 30 or so member groups and although it enunciates a common
creed which most could probably assent to (in part, if not entirely),
it's almost certain that if they were to begin a debate on the
details of this common creed, their cooperation on mutually-held
concerns would end. Such is the nature of linking faith to Creeds
that seek to set in stone (or, at least, on paper) “what we
believe.” As is, they are able to speak with one voice on many
issues. Rote thinking has been set aside for that purpose.
So could even an
atheist be a Mennonite or a Baptist, a Pentecostal or a Catholic?
What if he attended worship, learned the songs, participated in the
activities but continued to insist that he didn't believe Jesus was
God, but rather a very good prophet worthy of our loyalty and the
best pattern for living? Given that, would it come to him one day
that, “Oh s**t, I actually AM a Christian?”
(Conversely, I
imagine there's a “Christian” out there somewhere who picked up
Christopher Hitchens God is not Great and said after reading
Chapter 15, Religion as an Original Sin . . .
“. . . Oh s**t, I AM
an atheist!”)
A rose isn't
described by its name; call it pigweed if you like, its brilliant
colour and pleasing aroma won't change. I think there's a famous
quote that makes that point. By a guy named Shakespeare, if I'm not
mistaken. Through the mouth of Juliet, I seem to remember.
No comments:
Post a Comment