A couple of weeks ago the Pope said something far less than wise that the worldwide media hopped all over.  Retired Archbishop of Philadelphia, and friend of the show, Charles Chaput, penned the best response I have seen.  I am not Catholic, and as such I do not want to get into this debate per se, but I do want to comment.

The Archbishop described the issue this way:

According to news reports, Pope Francis suggested that, “[Religions] are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God.” He went on to say, “If you start to fight, ‘my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn’t,’ where will that lead us? There’s only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God].”

The archbishop works very hard to provide an apologia for this apparent abandonment of the Catholic church’s preeminent position amongst religions while at the same time defending that position.  I would sum up the archbishop’s interpretation of papal intent in this way – “All religions seek to scratch the same itch, but only Christ can end the itch altogether.”  (That’s called “evangelical Protestant blunt speak.”)  I have no idea if that is what the pope was trying to say or not, but it is an idea I have heard expressed over and over and over again.  Within my own expression, Presbyterianism, I have heard explicitly what the archbishop is trying very hard to say that the pope is not saying – that there are many paths to God.  Hence, I hold my Presbyterianism at arm’s length.  But let’s go back to the archbishop’s understanding of the pope.  Accepting it at face value one is led to ask, “What is it about Christianity that makes it stand apart so?”

This is, in fact, a question I ponder often.  I think there is a theological answer and a practical answer – kind of like theoretical science and applied engineering.  The theological answer is, of course, Christ Himself and His sacrifice.  Christianity is unique in that its path to God is sacrificial, not merely difficult, but sacrificial, and that the sacrifice is made by God, personally.  But this morning I want to focus on the practical answer to the question.

Christianity starts with the fundamental assertion that mankind is corrupt – not misguided, or flawed, or addicted – corrupt.  Corrupt to our core, not in need of a new idea or a new path, but in need of a total rebuild.  It is like the difference between remodeling a house and tearing one down to the foundations and starting over – other religions being the former and Christianity being the latter.  Christianity does not seek to guide us in a new direction – it seeks to remake us, from the ground up.  (That remaking is in the image of the Almighty and hence we get back to the theological answer to our current question, but, again, for another time.)

In our pursuit of “relevancy,” and perhaps even in pursuit of the theological answer, we have abandoned this fundamental and unique assertion of Christianity.  And that abandonment explains so much.  Consider my post from this past Thursday.  Too many Christians are content with a makeover when what they really need is a remaking.

As we go to church this Sunday morning let’s ask ourselves what it is we seek there, if it is not total reconstruction then I would suggest we give that a try.