What must I do to be saved?

A friend of mine once said that the quintessential problem of the church today is faulty understanding of Law and Gospel. At the time, I condescendingly dismissed such a thing (which I regret doing to a friend). Fast forward to the past five weeks, and I have been buried in articles and commentaries on the book of Galatians desperately trying to understand what Paul meant by “The Law”, and I hold to my position of understanding these concepts. They are not the quintessential problem of the Western church.

Do not jump to any conclusions just yet about what I am saying. I still strive to understand exactly what Paul meant by the Law, but there seems to be few ideas circulating that harmonize the paradoxical nature with which Paul speaks about the law. 

Now, I have come to some convictions that have brought me a great deal of peace and understanding about this subject. These few things however have helped me to realize that with the exception of a few  clear truths, almost everything I held with staunch absolution has been shown to be either erroneous or an over simplification that misses the point altogether. Maybe I’ll take some time to write out those conclusions, but that’s not the point of this post.

My question is whether or not one must understand these ideas of seaming abstraction in order to be, a word we toss around with little thought, “Saved”. Must one understand cognitively the imputation of Christ’s righteousness through his atoning death on a cross? Must one understand the narrative of the Jewish people in the Old Testament in order to come to a “saving knowledge” of the Gospel truth?

I’ll give you two examples of why I ask this question: On the news two weeks ago, a story was done about a onetime homeless woman who now drives around on a scooter handing out hats and gloves to people on the street in Lancaster city for free. When asked about this, the toothless woman with the blind eye said, “God has been so good to me, and I just wanted to let other people know how good he is.”

Story two: Every once in a while I catch wind of things that trendily get said in conservative Evangelical circles. These are usually the same people who mock terms like “Missional” for being trendy, yet do not realize how mindlessly they’re feeding on the propagated trends of Christian radio.  So something I’ve heard a few times is that “ours is an intellectual faith.” I think this is wrought by all kinds of elitism and classifications which exalt the few over the many, and causes us (especially those in leadership) to look suspiciously at the people in the pews. 

Mind you, I am one who loves academia. As I compare the two however (and I will place myself in the second narrative), I sense that the woman, without a mention of substitutionary atonement, without a mention of Christ’s imputation of righteousness being applied to her sinful account through faith, I must conclude that this was a woman who loved God and simply put: Got it. I get the impression that she knows more about Jesus and is known more by him than myself, and any other intellectual elitist who places such burdens on people to ascend to God in knowledge and keep people out of the vast Kingdom that belongs to Christ the Lord. 

I am not proclaiming a Christ-less Gospel. Based upon many hours of study and arduous research, I have found the easy answer to the question I have posed above to be severely lacking. In fact, it has been built upon the wrong questions which we have been taught to ask of our bibles. 

Personally, I always felt the need to question my own conversion story because it did not consist of the typical packaging of a divine revelation or understanding of Christ’s death and resurrection. It was a prophetic word being spoken into a crucial moment of my life. I did not understand what I know now, but what I now understand is that I was known by God and his Son long before I understood how.  I think it is quite possible that people are Christians without being able to articulate in a fashion that suites our ears that itch for certain words or concepts.

It's like asking when Peter became a Christian. Was it when he professed Jesus to be the Christ (and then immediately rebukes Jesus for saying he must suffer)? Was it when he called on Jesus to "save him" while walking on the water? Was it when Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit in the upper room? That's the wrong question. If the entire narrative of the Gospel leads to the death of the Messiah as the means through which people receive salvation, than how could Peter be a Christian before the death and resurrection of Christ?

Answer: IT'S THE WRONG QUESTION! It focus' on the salvation of the individual, a nice little remnant of a guilt ridden Monk consumed with how to escape the fiery torments of hell (please excuse the caricature, Luther remains a personal favorite).

It's like the Grinch discovering that Christmas wasn't about the gifts, it was about "something more." Perhaps the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ means just a bit more than our location when we leave this world.

Perhaps I should devote some time articulating how so. For now, I sleep.