“Can you tell us what God was before he was a Christian?”

A Jew?

It is only left for us to weep and wonder if the scourge of liberalism knows no end.

Is the archbishop a football player?

Awsome Brian….

#3, too funny! 

(more specifically a linebacker?)

Without comment from me, a meditation:

Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

  He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
    “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’

“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’

“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Luke 13:22-30 (New International Version)

Bishop Duncan’s comments at the end of the article were gentle, restrained, and right on target.  His observation…

“What the archbishop’s sermon did was twisting the classic Christian understanding in a way that took the narrowest possible reading of traditional Christianity.”

… applies beyond far beyond Tutu to a standard strategy amongst the theological left (e.g. the Atonement is “divine child abuse” etc.). 

It’s very sad to hear the reporter (no doubt correctly) say that: “Few others appeared to share [Bishop Duncan]’s theological reservations.”  I suppose, however, that it’s good that the leaders of the new movement are now coming out of the closet regarding their rejection of basic creedal teaching.  Until KJS, the claim was that they were all orthodox creedal Christians too: that the ONLY thing they differed on was one narrow specific question of sexual ethics as it affects gay people.  Maybe all her media interviews have emboldened the rest to be more honest.  Certainly I do feel that the more honesty and transparency we can have on this question of basic creedal belief the better.

This sort of makes me sad because Bishop Tutu was in Omaha on Monday and preached one of the best sermons I have ever heard. Ah well, such is life.

Quam asinus caballi.

Tutu wandered off the map along time ago, from the days when he was a reasonably orthodox Anglo-Catholic school teacher, then cleric- notice the red beanie he insists on wearing, along with the title of ‘archbishop’. Now he figures he knows better than Jesus about God.
Well, he was a brave man in the 1980s, but he was always a theological lightweight and he’s totally unable to deal with the complexity of historical theology or modern theopolitics.

I can’t understand how persons like Desmond Tutu can continue to call themselves Christian.  Either they don’t believe what Christ himself said or they don’t believe the Bible is a source of authority on the life and teachings of Christ.  If it’s the latter, I’m not sure on what they base their objection other than their whim.  I am sorry that Christ is a stumbling block to some “Christians.”

Our Heavenly Father was the First Christian:

“Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ: As he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.”
- St. Paul, to the Ephesians

The Father knows the efficacy of Christ, as it was through Him that Creation was accomplished, and through Him that Man was redeemed to the Father.  Old-fashioned, I’ll wager, but true none the less.

I should live so long as to be “not a Christian” as Desmond Tutu!

St. Jimbob,

Thanks for stating the old fashioned and obvious. I am reminded of a sappy old hymn from my childhood…

I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
I love to tell the story, because I know ’tis true;
It satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.

Refrain

I love to tell the story, ’twill be my theme in glory,
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

I love to tell the story; more wonderful it seems
Than all the golden fancies of all our golden dreams.
I love to tell the story, it did so much for me;
And that is just the reason I tell it now to thee.

Refrain

I love to tell the story; ’tis pleasant to repeat
What seems, each time I tell it, more wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story, for some have never heard
The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word.

I love to tell the story, for those who know it best
Seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest.
And when, in scenes of glory, I sing the new, new song,
’Twill be the old, old story that I have loved so long.

Heck…why stop there…what was God before He was an Evolutionist?
Tutu has been reading too much Spong lately…and spending too much time in America.  TEC is rubbing off on him.

Fred,

He may be a “nice man” but he is no Christian.  The two are not necessarily synonomous.

Make that, “synonymous.” 
Must proofread, must proofread….

I believe you have lived that long Fred. I don’t think there is a lot of difference between your theology and his.

Nowell

#13,  I think you got there a long time ago.  You’ve never come across as a Christian here…

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  ...  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.  We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”  — John 1:1 and 1:14 (NIV)

Q.E.D. :  God has been a Christian from the beginning.

He may be a “nice man” but he is no Christian.  The two are not necessarily synonymous.

In my experience, they are mutually exclusive.

#21, then why do you even bother with this blog?

#21, what experience would that be?

Your Mistake, William, is to assume that you are the one striving through the narrow gate.  Saying one loves all humanity is one thing.  Living it out is another.  I know plenty of mean universalists, just as I know plenty of mean Christians.  But you stand condemned by that parable, just as everyone else.  Christian identity is secondary to what might be Christian virtues.

Interesting set up with the clergy there.

++Tutu’s message was supposedly one of reconciliation, but the only reconciliation that TEC’s interested in is based solely on THEIR terms.  Anything else would be irrelevant as far as they’re concerned.

RE: “then why do you even bother with this blog? . . . “

So he can give us an example of neither Christian belief nor that of being a nice man, thus nicely coupling the two antitheticals???

; > )

[Just kidding, Brian . . . I was unable to resist—I’m a sinner.]

My guess is that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels would have had something to say about folks who loudly proclaim that such and such a person isn’t a “real” Christian because they didn’t hold the “proper” beliefs — something about whitewashed sepulchers ....

He may be a “nice man” but he is no Christian.  The two are not necessarily synonomous.

Quite true, but I don’t know how any of us is competent to declare that Desmond Tutu is no Christian.

That he is not a faithful Christian teacher, on the doctrinal points addressed here - this we are competent to judge and declare, insofar as we look to the Scriptures as interpreted by the Church through the ages.

Oh, yes, as to the business of God’s not being a Christian:  of course He isn’t.  God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Christians are those who are joined to Jesus Christ, who die with him and are raised to new life in him, through baptism in this trinitarian Name.

Unfortunately, Desmond Tutu uses this to score cheap points off Christians with whom he disagrees about foundational theological issues.

Not having the complete text, nor having heard the text as it was spoken, I can still yet say that it’s interesting that Tutu did not deny that Christ is the only way. He made an interesting twist on the whole issue, by seemingly interpreting Christ as being much more inclusive than usually conceived, perhaps even along the lines of Rahnerian “anonymous Christianity”.

RE: #30 -

It’s entirely possible to say that Christ is the only way to the Father without all of the specific religious meaning that goes with being “a Christian”.  Jesus is the only way to the Father and, obviously, that way must be open to all men of all times and all places (I think this is what His decending into Hell is all about). That some will not explicitly enter the Church and identify as a “Christian” is obvious, although it hardly applies to anyone reading this: we have heard the message and are, therefore, responsible to be baptized, repenting our sins and confessing Christ.  God knows the fate of the Dalai Lama, I don’t. 

Now, how all of that relates to Abp. Tutu’s laugh line, I don’t know. I suspect he does indulge the shallow universalism common to liberal protestants, but I don’t know that.

“My guess is that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels would have had something to say about folks who loudly proclaim that such and such a person isn’t a “real” Christian because they didn’t hold the “proper” beliefs”

The Jesus portrayed in the gospels said such things all the time.

Only in the Anglican Communion would views like Tutu and Spong be tolerated.

“He invoked his friendship with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist leader who has been exiled from his homeland for nearly 50 years. Although others would be embittered, the Dalai Lama is filled with “bubbly joyousness,” he said. “You have to be totally, totally insensitive not to know you are in the presence of someone who is holy and good.” He then asked, “Can anyone say to the Dalai Lama, ‘You are a good guy. What a shame you are not a Christian’?”

Yes - Jesus and his apostles could easily ask this. Unless he is a universalist (and I think he has damned GWB and other conservatives to hell, at least rhetorically), Tutu seems to believe in some kind of popular works-righteousness, whereby the people he deems ‘nice’ are acceptable to his god. What prophetic insight this man possesses! I do believe he makes up his religion as he goes along, because whatever it is, it isn’t historic Christianity.
I wonder how much he knows about Tibetan Lamaism as well. Doesn’t he know that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha, and that belief in and obedience to ‘God’ has nothing to do with the atheist system of Buddhism?

Honorary doctorates are such debased coinage - I wonder why any self-respecting academic institution still awards them? At the very least they should check the academic credentials of the candidate, to see whether they are capable of achieving a higher doctorate in the normal manner. In many cases an honorary fellowship would be a more appropriate gesture of respect.

In the ecclesiastical world, one nowadays automatically assumes that all such awards are bogus or baseless, unless proven otherwise. Mr Tutu must have a cupboard full of diplomas and fancy robes, but he is not a theologian, and no ludicrous academic ceremony can turn him into one.

If one defines Christian as accepting Jesus as Lord and savior of the world, then God (the Father), God (the Son), and God (the Holy Spirit) IS a Christian.

(But I like Brian’s #1 response the most.)

“Can you imagine that there are those who think God is a Christian?” he said to laughter from a mostly appreciative audience. “Can you tell us what God was before he was a Christian?”

AB Tutu makes a pithy statement and gets a nice laugh from the audience, but he is asking the question backwards.  Since God stands outside of time and space, seeing our finite human past, present and future ‘simultaneously,’ names and titles like ‘Jew’ or ‘Christian’ are simply the way to identify those follow Him at a specific time in our history.  Scripture tells us that before Jews and Christians, they had names like Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham.  Perhaps the question could be, “Before God called the Jews and redeemed us in Jesus, what were his followers called?”

The Gordian,

Tutu was head of the truth and reconciliation commission.  You flippantly say that Tutu has condemned Bush to hell, but you offer no evidence - you’ve made him into a caricature.  Tutu forgave people who tortured other people.

How would we find out if you were right, Gordian?  It seems that the proper analogies are the parallels about sinners and Samaritans.  You would be in the place of the pharisee, who knows he is a Christian and is glad he is not like the others. 

Gordian, your knowledge of “historic Christianity” is of one tradition that you have selected.  There are other sides of Christianity as well. 

Rolling eyes, if I recall, Jesus said a lot of things about those protecting “historic beliefs.”  Those would be the pharisees.  From my vantage point, that seems to be the place of plenty of traditionalists, who know they follow the rules and are glad they aren’t made like the people of other faiths.

Gawain, I said ‘rhetorically’ - please read carefully. Tutu’s hostility to Bush, Israel etc are well known. Tutu constantly gives his political preferences (which are usually half-baked and predictable) a religious patina; he is the first to claim that his god is on his side. As for forgiveness - nobody ever tortured Tutu, so I don’t see how he could forgive other men’s sins against other men.
My knowledge of ‘historic Christianity’ is not sectarian but one that would be shared by the vast majority of Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox - the ‘Great Tradition’ that would be shared by the pope as much as Billy Graham. Your own view of the Christian faith, as I’ve read it over the years, is decidedly sectarian and eccentric.

Abp. Tutu did yeoman’s work on the reconciliation commission and deserves credit where credit is due. That he is a theological lightweight is clear, but hardly a put-down; I would say the same of myself.  The rest of Gawain’s complaint is vintage Gawain, demonstrating the judgementalism and self-righteousness for which he condemns others.  ...yawn… 

I do remember a news video of Abp. Tutu saying that if the west didn’t do whatever it was he thought they should, then “to hell with the west”.  Even at that, I would write it off as self-righteousness of a rhetorical sort, with no soteriological import.

And we wonder why people are fleeing from organized religious institutions.  People are rejecting the church and its leaders…not Christ.  In most cases, I don’t think they even get to know Him!
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

#15, Funny you mention Spong; I believe I recall reading he helped consecrate Tutu.  How appropriate.  It certainly argues that there is objectively something spiritually transmitted in the laying on of hands, doesn’t it?  Not necessarily holy, of course.

Gordian, I hesitate to put the pope and evangelicals in the same category unless you would argue that the foundational aspect of Christianity is that homosexuality is disordered.  If anything, it is the evangelical view of scripture that ended up undermining scripture’s unity.  Thank God for it, however.  It took it out of the Roman Church.  Unfortunately, soon came John Mill. 

Tutu didn’t, perhaps, know torture, but I wouldn’t whitewash his experience under Apartheid.  As far as his politics, he is entitled to his views, and may have good reasons for them, even though they might be wrong.  What I object to is the easy slander upon his intellect and integrity.  It doesn’t do anyone any good.

Gawain, your comment on evangelicals and the pope (papacy?) makes no sense to me. I was talking about the uniqueness of Christ and the triune nature of God, not homosexuality.
Of course Tutu is entitled to his views, but not to claim divine sanction for them, any more than Pat Robertson is. Unless he is talking about a god of his own conceiving (which I increasingly suspect, given his remarks), one which is not to be confused with the God of the Christian Creeds.  As for his intellect, it is no slander to say that he is a theological lightweight and that he contradicts himself, as well as the Creeds. I don’t doubt his integrity, nor that of his opponents.