 |
| Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi |
Even though Gandhi didn’t at all identify himself a Christian, and clearly never really grasped the concept of grace or God’s forgiveness, Jesus’ sermon on the mount was one thing he strove to model his life after. In fact, he followed Christ’s teaching to such a degree that most Christians would call him radical. His life mimicked Christ’s in many ways (just read his biography next to a gospel account).
As he went on to transform an entire nation, armed with nothing but the humility of Christ, he read about every morning (in addition to his Hindu scriptures), the evidence of the power of Christ’s gospel of reconciliation is, in my mind, made overwhelmingly clear.
Now, here is what I am thinking. If to be “Christian” means to follow Christ in teaching and practice, is it possible that an “unbelieving heathen,” a Hindu even, could actually have been a more authentic Christian than many who name themselves Christian?
Just so the conservatives won’t accuse me of blasphemy, let me simply ask the question this raises: Which is more important, how correctly we believe or think about God (orthodoxy); or how we live and act in relation to God (orthopraxy)?
SPF
Orthodoxy has to inform Orthopraxy. Without correct belief (i.e. understanding of the Gospel and what Christ did) we won't have right practice. So Ghandi has right belief in the morality presented in the SotM(among other things) and acted on them. That is commendable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, apart from the work of the Spirit in someone's life, it is still filthy rags, as Isaiah and Paul say (IS 64, Phil 3)
So without right orthodoxy we are just living out the law, which is missing the point, and Christ altogether. Transforming a nation helps in this life now, but doesn't do much for anything after (new heavens, new earth, etc.) So in the end, he acted VERY morally, but still missed the point. Our righteousness is only found in Christ, not what we did/do.
That's a very good Christian answer, and I can't really argue.
ReplyDeleteBut do you really think that the Spirit was not active in his life? Do you really think what he achieved amounts to nothing but 'filthy rags' from an eternal perspective? Would it be possible to do the tremendous good he did, without the power of the gospel at work in and through him?
I have to think about the countless number of saints that have performed incredible exploits for God, bearing much lasting fruit, even though their theology was seriously flawed. I won't name anyone like John Calvin, for instance. Oops.
Can anyone really ever attain perfect orthodoxy? I don't think so. But does that mean we can never live properly?
If someone doesn't know the full truth, does that mean the gospel, when lived out practically, will not be tremendously powerful and bear fruit nonetheless?
I think what Gandhi did couldn't be called following the law at all. He had no illusions of attaining righteousness for himself. He was completely others-focused. In fact I would say of him that he followed the spirit of the law by loving his neighbors and his enemies, which is exactly what Christ came to tell us to do.
I feel like he lived out the gospel much more than I do, even though I may have a much greater understanding of orthodoxy.
Gandhi knew that Jesus taught principles of truth. He believed Jesus enough to model his life after him. I don't know to what degree Gandhi believed in the claims Jesus made about himself, but to me it's humbling to see that a man without the label "Christian" seems to have a better grasp on how to live like one than I do. May Ghandi's life make us jealous and move us to connect our revelation of Jesus' nature with the appropriate deeds.
ReplyDeleteI will quote Calvin, your favorite, for you. haha I think you would agree...
ReplyDelete"In reading profane(i.e. secular) authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we should avoid offering insults to Him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts we insult the giver."
So in the end all of what Gandhi did that was good, was because his creator gifted this to him. He took the good teaching of Christ, applied it, but still somehow missed the main point (john 1, 1 Cor 15, etc) Plus I think he missed that point that good works have to point back to the ultimate source of good, God. Temporary peace is good now, and feels right, and is right, but there is more. Someone who is at peace with God and someone who is at peace with themselves looks much different.
With all that said, we can learn a lot from Gandhi. I think the spirit had to play some role in the good he did, but imagine this. We, as believers, have the spirit dwelling in us, as promised by Christ. So what is holding us back, with the full power of the trinity behind us, from doing greater things than Gandhi? What are we missing about this Gospel, that should be changing us? How can we use our "right belief", let it change and shape us daily, and be even more of a light in this world that Gandhi was? Maybe not at that scale, but in the places where God has divinely placed us (spouses, kids, co-workers, people we are discipling, neighbors) Among those we will find people in need, the poor, orphaned, widowed, marginalized. I am getting myself excited here. Let's go do something be known for orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Once again, good reminder Sean!
Well said.
ReplyDelete