What is Distinct about Christianity?
Thirty years ago (and little has changed) Hans Kung identified the reality that when Christianity is confronted by the world religions, which also seek to reveal truth and provide a path to salvation and when Christianity is placed in a pluralistic setting, where it is only one of many attempts, the question emerges "What is there special about Christianity?"
His answer: Jesus himself.
None of the other religions, great or small, however much they may occasionally venerate him in a temple or in their holy book, would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, archetypal for man’s relations with God, with his fellow man, with society.
To the Christian, Jesus is not just a model for how one is to relate to one’s God, one’s fellow humans and one’s society, but rather Jesus is the model. As far as philosophies that have emerged over time (whether through evolution or revolution), philosophies aimed at restoring lost dignity in the human race, however good and beautiful certain philosophies may seem in either their theory or application,
however much they may occasionally respect him [Jesus] as man and even set him up as example, [none] would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, and archetypal for man in all his dimensions.
Kung argues that while it seems reasonable to suppose that Christianity will be relevant only by devoting her energy to doing first what others will do later (by taking the lead in issues of social justice for example…), in fact the primary goals of the Christian is to "speak of what is [his/her] own, bring it home, make it effective." What is ours, is Jesus. Christianity only becomes relevant "by activating the memory of Jesus as ultimately archetypal" and this activation process no doubt leads to a doing first what others will only do later.
Consequently Christianity cannot be reduced to any kind of "eternal ideas, abstract principles [or] human attitudes," but rather exists only where the "memory of Jesus Christ is activated in theory and practice." However commercialized the slogan ‘what would Jesus do?’ may have become, it is central in the activation of the Christian message, while a knowledge of the real Jesus allows us to attempt to better reflect his example.
Thoughts?
K.
In essence this means that Christianity is a personality cult, rather than a typical religion. In my books this is a good thing if Christianity’s claims about Jesus’ nature are true, which I believe they are.
Comment by Theophilus — June 8, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Yes, it is about Jesus, but its about more than that, too. Its about what Jesus did. How he came into this world with a mission: to teach us the way to heaven, to take all our sins upon himself and to die for us on the cross, to rise again. I think this is what makes Christianity different. It encourages us to accept that we are all sinners, and to see in Christ our Saviour and our Lord. Look at two of the most humble and beautiful statements or prayers of the New Testament, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner,” the tax collector in the temple, and “My Lord and My God!” Thomas, the apostle when he witnessed the resurrected Jesus. That is what Christianity is to me. An opportunity to come to know the Lord and be saved. We should be praying daily that everyone will have the opportunity, because we do know that not everyone will take it. Kate
Comment by Kate — June 8, 2008 @ 9:19 am
I think that all that can be seen under the banner of Jesus. If Jesus is the example (rather than simply “an” example”) for our relationship with God, each other, and society, clearly Jesus transforms everything. As far as redemption, Jesus teaches the application of the Law as taught by his contemporaries will not save us, but rather that by loving God and reflecting God’s love on those around us will. So I agree.
K.
Comment by K. — June 8, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Kate and Theo nailed it before I got to it! Jesus is everything to us. Without Him, none of the religion is worth a grain of sand. With Him, however, lies eternity.
Comment by Rudolph Carrera — June 9, 2008 @ 12:54 am
This is Christianity!? It leaves the most important thing out: the Incarnation! It doesn’t even speak of Jesus as being G-d, but only as the model of how to relate to G-d. This concept of Christianity practically reduces it to the ethical system implied in the model of Jesus. The very idea that “Christianity will be relevant only by devoting her energy to doing first what others will do later (by taking the lead in issues of social justice for example…)” overlooks what has historically been regarded as the primary purpose of the Incarnation: the personal salvation of every individual. What could be more relevant than that? This is a definition of Christianity made by a man who has lost his faith.
Richard
Comment by Richard — June 11, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Richard, I see what may be a misinterpretation on your part which may have coloured at least part of your judgment here. Nothing in Kung’s statement is being reduced to simply the ethical realm. In fact it is the opposite. Let me repeat my claim but place in bold what I perceive you passed over (although I could be mistaken in my interpretation of your comments).
“Kung argues that while it seems reasonable to suppose that Christianity will be relevant only by devoting her energy to doing first what others will do later (by taking the lead in issues of social justice for example…), in fact the primary goal of the Christian is to ’speak of what is [his/her] own, bring it home, make it effective.’ What is ours, is Jesus. Christianity only becomes relevant ‘by activating the memory of Jesus as ultimately archetypal’ and this activation process no doubt leads to a doing first what others will only do later.”
Regarding the salvation of individuals this comes by a renewed relationship with God, and Jesus serves as the mediator between God and man, if we are to believe Paul. Jesus serves as an example, rather, not ‘an’ example, but ‘the’ example for how one is to relate to God. Jesus serves as such an example precisely because of the Incarnation.
Your comments about a “lost faith” may be attributed to what I perceive to be a misinterpretion of what has been stated here, but even if there has been no such misinterpretation, to describe a man (who I condede will no doubt leave this world with a mixed legacy) seems rather extravagant wouldn’t you say?
K.
Comment by K. — June 13, 2008 @ 9:30 pm