Well, back to distributive justice. As my faithful reader knows, I am a retired business ethics professor. I am going to reproduce below a portion of a lecture I have given many times regarding ethical decision making based on justice as biblically defined. It's a bit long but worth wading through (in my humble opinion). It begins with a typical definition of justice in business circles.
Justice exists when benefits and burdens are distributed equitably and according to some accepted rule.... A fair distribution does not necessarily mean an equal distribution. The shares received by the [affected parties] depend on society’s approved rules for getting and keeping income and wealth. These rules will vary from society to society. Most societies try to consider people’s needs, abilities, efforts, and the contribution they make to society’s welfare. Since these factors are seldom equal, fair shares will vary from person to person.
In market economies such as ours, we have tended to see certain groups as deserving a greater share of the benefits that flow from economic life than others. These would include entrepreneurs, those with considerable means, the well educated and the highly productive. Such groups are best able to enter and succeed in the marketplace.
Other groups, who are less able to put forth effort or be productive (even if willing to) are not seen as worthy of the same rewards from the system; e.g., the handicapped, the poor, immigrants lacking language and other skills, women who insist on having babies, older people, and so on.
Is this what the Bible means by ‘justice’? Certainly, the notion of fairness mentioned in the definition above is included in the biblical definition, as we shall see, but there is another facet which is unique to the biblical teaching.
Psalms 37:30 tells us to speak justice, and Proverbs 12:5 to think it. Beyond this, we are to enjoy it (Proverbs 21:15). We are also obligated to live it (Micah 6:8). It does not seem likely that these are recommendations that we all pursue careers in law. What are they encouraging?
Jeremiah provides us with the answer. That prophet had the dubious privilege of living through the reigns of not only the great and godly King Josiah of Judah, but his rather less successful and faithful offspring. In Jeremiah 22, he gives his assessment of their collective failures. Included in his critique is a clear understanding of what Jeremiah believed was just behavior.
Woe to him [i.e., King Jehoiakim, Josiah’s son] who builds his palace
by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice,
making his countrymen work for nothing,
not paying them for their labor.
He says, “I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.”
So he makes large windows in it,
panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.
Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father [i.e., Josiah] have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.
He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
“Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD.
But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion (Jer.
22:13-17).
Using typical Hebrew parallelism, Jeremiah first defines injustice as exploiting the vulnerable (the king’s subjects), who were themselves poor and in no position to resist his demands. By contrasting Jehoiakim with his father, Josiah, the prophet goes on to define justice as not only avoiding the exploitation of the vulnerable, but in fact becoming their champion. To underscore the king’s obligation in this matter, Jeremiah defines such behaviour as virtually the essence of being a follower of God (“Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD).
Both this definition of justice, and its importance, are clearly indicated in the New Testament. Apparently someone asked James, Jesus’ brother, to define the essence of religion. The answer was not particularly theological. It stressed lifestyle, along two lines: just and morally pure behavior.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27).
James did not learn this concept from anybody strange. He was doubtless a student of the Old Testament, but he had his own brother’s words to underscore the importance of justice. They appear in the book of Luke. Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, had been jailed and was perhaps losing confidence in his prophecy that Jesus was the Messiah. Messianic expectations of the day focused on a great warrior/king who would drive out the Romans and re-establish the Kingdom of David.
Therefore, John sent followers to ask Jesus if he was in fact the “one to come” or should God’s people look for someone else (Luke 7:19). Jesus response was to establish his credentials as Messiah through doing, not war and politics, but justice as Jeremiah defined it:
Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor (Luke 7:22-23).
Hopefully the above is sufficient to establish a definition of justice as the Bible defines it; i.e., not only a concern, but an obligation towards the poor, the vulnerable, the exploitable, the marginalized in the world.
Chewning, Eby and Roels (Business Through the Eyes of Faith) summarize the force of the word aptly:
Biblical justice refers to the ways relationships are structured so that there are no built-in disadvantages to any individual or group. Many of the Old Testament prophets rebuked the Israelites precisely because they had not practiced justice in the marketplace. They treated people and groups of people unfairly. The biblical command to do justice is a call to righteousness; it is a call to do the right thing in the right manner with the right motive.
How would we apply that to the topic of salvation? Well, that's next.
Monday, May 30, 2011
If this is liberation, please pass the chains
I was about to begin a discourse (How does everybody except me write such short and pithy little posts?) about distributive justice, but first an additional illustration of the retributive side of this complex notion. It's from the Christianity Today blog (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2011/02/rob_bells_book.html). It has to do with Rob Bell's latest book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.
[Justin] Taylor, vice president of editorial at Crossway, has not seen Bell's book (though he read some chapters that were sent to him), but he expressed concern with a video. "[T]his video from Bell himself shows that he is moving farther and farther away from anything resembling biblical Christianity," Taylor wrote.
Taylor pointed to the publishers' description of the book, which does not come out until March 29 from HarperOne. "With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins," part of the description states.
Taylor updated his post, changing some wording and deleting a reference to Cor. 11:14-15: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” Instead, Taylor ended the post with the following paragraph:
Let’s remember to pray. Rob Bell needs to know and teach the liberating gospel of grace—including that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath on behalf of those who trust in him and repent of their sins. And there are tens of thousands of folks who look to Rob Bell as a biblical teacher and leader. May God give much mercy.
I am bringing this to your attention, oh faithful reader, for two reasons:
1. While Taylor thinks twice about calling Bell a servant of Satan, he does suggest that he is far removed from faithfulness to Christian teaching.
2. Secondly, Taylor considers Christian teaching to say that Christ absorbed God's wrath (the retributive side of justice) only for those who trust in him and repent of their sins. In other words, only those with certain knowledge, the ability to understand it, and the further inclination to take it seriously and act upon it. This leaves out, of course, the vast majority of the world's inhabitants, whom Taylor would admit are God's creatures to whom God would love to show mercy.
He calls this the liberating gospel of grace. No thanks.
[Justin] Taylor, vice president of editorial at Crossway, has not seen Bell's book (though he read some chapters that were sent to him), but he expressed concern with a video. "[T]his video from Bell himself shows that he is moving farther and farther away from anything resembling biblical Christianity," Taylor wrote.
Taylor pointed to the publishers' description of the book, which does not come out until March 29 from HarperOne. "With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins," part of the description states.
Taylor updated his post, changing some wording and deleting a reference to Cor. 11:14-15: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” Instead, Taylor ended the post with the following paragraph:
Let’s remember to pray. Rob Bell needs to know and teach the liberating gospel of grace—including that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath on behalf of those who trust in him and repent of their sins. And there are tens of thousands of folks who look to Rob Bell as a biblical teacher and leader. May God give much mercy.
I am bringing this to your attention, oh faithful reader, for two reasons:
1. While Taylor thinks twice about calling Bell a servant of Satan, he does suggest that he is far removed from faithfulness to Christian teaching.
2. Secondly, Taylor considers Christian teaching to say that Christ absorbed God's wrath (the retributive side of justice) only for those who trust in him and repent of their sins. In other words, only those with certain knowledge, the ability to understand it, and the further inclination to take it seriously and act upon it. This leaves out, of course, the vast majority of the world's inhabitants, whom Taylor would admit are God's creatures to whom God would love to show mercy.
He calls this the liberating gospel of grace. No thanks.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Let justice roll down like a river
I'll start with one of my favourite biblical doctrines, that of justice. This concept is really quite nuanced, meaning many different, almost opposite things depending upon the type of justice in view.
The concept of justice that likely springs to mind first is associated with courts, police, and prisons. The street in my town that goes past the local police station and ends at the provincial court building is called Justice Way. This notion of justice has to do with just desserts, redress, punishment, and so on. It is called retributive justice. God's sense of retributive justice was satisfied by Christ's death, taking as Jesus did the punishment for our wrongdoings as fallen creatures. Nothing more is needed to pay, as it were, for any wrong of which we are guilty.
A second kind of justice is referred to as restorative justice. This is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Traditional criminal justice seeks answers to three questions: what laws have been broken? who did it? and what do the offender(s) deserve? Restorative justice instead asks: who has been harmed? what are their needs? whose obligations are these? (Source: Wikipedia)
In the city next door to mine, Langley BC, a very successful restorative justice organization has run for decades. Called VORP (victim offender reconciliation program), it works with the courts to encourage another approach than the typical retributive one as follows:
* encouraging an offender to acknowledge the harm they have done to victims and the community, and to take responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour;
* taking account of the steps offenders have taken, or propose to take, to make reparations to the victim and/or community; and
* facilitating victim-offender reconciliation where victims so request, or are willing to participate in such programs.
For an interview with VORP's founder, David Gustafson, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GLsyk8cLY8.
Christ having satisfied God's sense of outraged justice at human failure, God can with full consistency swing into reconciliation mode. Because God is God, he even took the initial steps to effect this new and improved relationship.
Once a month we celebrate the Lord's Supper (or Communion). I plan these meetings and have used an overarching theme taken from St. Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 5:19: God was using Christ to restore his relationship with humanity. He didn't hold people's faults against them, and he has given us this message of restored relationships to tell others. Because the effects of Christ's death are timeless, reconciliation with God didn't start at the empty tomb. It applied to Abraham, Moses, Mary and Joseph, and to all of us since Christ's death alike.
The third relevant facet of justice is typically called distributive justice, an important concept in ethical theory. Distributive justice deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens in fair proportions. In capitalistic thinking, those who take risks, work hard, invest shrewdly, create wealth and jobs, or facilitate the sale of oceans of beer (i.e., professional athletes) are seen as more worthy of large rewards than others. Marxist thinking saw things differently, as I'm sure you know: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. There are many positions in between.
But what of biblical teaching? Let's deal with that next.
A second kind of justice is referred to as restorative justice. This is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Traditional criminal justice seeks answers to three questions: what laws have been broken? who did it? and what do the offender(s) deserve? Restorative justice instead asks: who has been harmed? what are their needs? whose obligations are these? (Source: Wikipedia)
In the city next door to mine, Langley BC, a very successful restorative justice organization has run for decades. Called VORP (victim offender reconciliation program), it works with the courts to encourage another approach than the typical retributive one as follows:
* encouraging an offender to acknowledge the harm they have done to victims and the community, and to take responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour;
* taking account of the steps offenders have taken, or propose to take, to make reparations to the victim and/or community; and
* facilitating victim-offender reconciliation where victims so request, or are willing to participate in such programs.
For an interview with VORP's founder, David Gustafson, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GLsyk8cLY8.
Christ having satisfied God's sense of outraged justice at human failure, God can with full consistency swing into reconciliation mode. Because God is God, he even took the initial steps to effect this new and improved relationship.
But what of biblical teaching? Let's deal with that next.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted
In the comments section that followed the CTV news article, two submissions in particular made me laugh:
1. Can someone explain this to me? [1] All of the religious fanatics disappear up into the sky. [2] The world then becomes... a WORSE place? I don't follow.
2. I guess it's safe for Sarah Palin to come out of her shelter now.
Well now that the distraction of the alleged Rapture has passed, and the 200 million of the world's inhabitants that were supposed to lift off are still with us (along with the six billion plus that God was presumably leaving behind for later punishment), I'll get back to the topic at hand.
As I have said in previous posts, I am no theologian. Not that there is a consensus among theologians about everything. It is said that where there are ten economists there are twelve opinions. The same could be said of theologians. And philosophers. And political pundits. But I digress.
I am taking the plain person's approach to all this. I posted earlier that I do theology from the ground up. So I am avoiding establishing some overarching ideology into which I must somehow fit all the loose ends. It is not clear to me that God's various revelations of himself are like puzzle pieces that all fit together into a nice rectangle with no pieces missing. If his thoughts are greater than our thoughts; if we look through a glass darkly; if God's ways are far beyond anything one could imagine; if we know in part; if what will be has not yet been made known--how in the world does anyone think that they can write a definitive theology on every point of Christian doctrine without there being room for discussion, if not debate.
So I'm going to push on with my evaluation of another view of salvation that does not assume a) that certain knowledge is necessary for salvation as Pastor Camping seems to believe; and b) that Hell is the default destination for the human race. And my plan is to appeal as best I can to Scripture, which I trust, not to the assured results of systematic theology (Which one?, I heard you say), which I don't trust.
So next we'll tackle the wonderful biblical subject of justice.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Why am I bothering to blog; after all, the world ends tomorrow
Camping's confidence in his prophecy is not shaken either by his mistaken previous prediction along similar lines in 1994, nor by Jesus' own words:
Mark 13:30-32
30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Scaring the Hell out of people, as it were, is a long-time evangelistic approach to effecting conversions. Much of the Christian message has been fear-based, for reasons of both getting folks into the fold, and then keeping them on the straight and narrow once they're in. A speaker at neXus called this approach to spreading the Gospel, somewhat mockingly, 'sort of good news'.
Yet it is on this point more than any other (or at least that is my perception) that the emerging church gets called names by mainstream evangelicals--for suggesting that God does not intend to leave the vast majority of his creatures as company for Satan for all eternity. Why is this such a sore point with those who preach the God of love?
Putting the best possible complexion on it, I guess the emerging church critics believe that the Bible teaches that most people are going to end up in Hell because they have not made a conscious moral choice for Christianity. Therefore, to be faithful to Scripture, of which they hold a high view, they must believe and preach this.
But could they be wrong? Is it possible to hold just as high a view of the Bible and come to another conclusion that takes more of God's love and mercy, and less of his retributive justice, into account?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
This only makes sense if that does
There are times in dealing with Scripture, or any other literature for that matter, when apparent contradictions can be cleared up only if you decide which statement must be the basic premise or principle, and which is a local or short-term adaptation.
Consider, for instance, the various New Testament passages dealing with women, and their role in marriage and in the church. On the one hand, we have passages that seem to place women in a subordinate, or even inferior, position to husbands/men, and others that appear to argue for full equality. How does one reconcile this?
If women are in some sense fundamentally subordinate or inferior to men, then Paul's assertion that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek (i.e., Gentile), slave nor free (Galatians 3:26-28) is nonsensical. But we know that Paul treated Jews and Gentiles as equals, as did Peter once his views on this were clarified by God. Similarly Paul told slave-owner Philemon to receive his runaway slave Onesimus, who had become a follower of Christ via Paul's preaching, as if he were Paul himself. Paul even said that having the slave to help him in his ministry was equal to having the owner (Philemon 1:12-17), calling Onesimus a partner.
Let's assume, then, that Paul considered women to be co-equals with men in every aspect of church and family life. There are certainly examples of this in his various letters:
1. 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
2. Philippians 4:1-4
1 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! 2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.
3. Romans 16:3-7
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. 6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Note in the two latter passages that St. Paul refers to three women--Euodia, Syntyche, and Priscilla--as co-workers in the same way as he does men such as Clement and Aquila. And Junia (the older English versions render the name in the masculine form--Junius) is called an apostle!
If my understanding of biblical teaching of full equality is true, it is much easier to understand Paul's statements in other places that women ought to do this or that in ways that suggest subordination. We see the apostle, in other contexts, make such temporary, local, and cultural adaptations at times for longer-term gain, such as his different treatment of the rite of circumcision for the Jew, Timothy, versus the Gentile, Titus, both close Christian workers and friends of Paul's.
But enough of this. What I want to do now is to see if it can be similarly argued that there is not an inherent contradiction between the biblical declaration that "God is not willing that any should perish" and "Fear God, who can kill the body and the soul, and then cast you into Hell.
Consider, for instance, the various New Testament passages dealing with women, and their role in marriage and in the church. On the one hand, we have passages that seem to place women in a subordinate, or even inferior, position to husbands/men, and others that appear to argue for full equality. How does one reconcile this?
Let's assume, then, that Paul considered women to be co-equals with men in every aspect of church and family life. There are certainly examples of this in his various letters:
1. 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
2. Philippians 4:1-4
1 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! 2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.
3. Romans 16:3-7
Note in the two latter passages that St. Paul refers to three women--Euodia, Syntyche, and Priscilla--as co-workers in the same way as he does men such as Clement and Aquila. And Junia (the older English versions render the name in the masculine form--Junius) is called an apostle!
If my understanding of biblical teaching of full equality is true, it is much easier to understand Paul's statements in other places that women ought to do this or that in ways that suggest subordination. We see the apostle, in other contexts, make such temporary, local, and cultural adaptations at times for longer-term gain, such as his different treatment of the rite of circumcision for the Jew, Timothy, versus the Gentile, Titus, both close Christian workers and friends of Paul's.
But enough of this. What I want to do now is to see if it can be similarly argued that there is not an inherent contradiction between the biblical declaration that "God is not willing that any should perish" and "Fear God, who can kill the body and the soul, and then cast you into Hell.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Am I into the cult yet?
Before I go on, I just want to check with the watchdogs as to whether I've strayed off orthodoxy yet. I'm saying that on even a very conservative basis one can argue that being a member of God's Kingdom and being a Christian are not identical.
Obviously any follower of God who died before Jesus' resurrection must be considered a Kingdom colleague. There are some who take a dispensational view of theology who would argue that God's way of dealing with human beings differs from dispensation to dispensation, and that in this dispensation of grace (as opposed to law, for instance) that the basis of salvation is different. This is a pretty suspect view (if still common enough in limited circles) and I'm not aware that it would be considered mainstream even in evangelicalism.
I suppose there are some people who think that babies who die in infancy, and people who are cognitively challenged are still tainted by original sin and must accept Christ or go to Hell, but again this is a minority view.
And the notion that people who have never heard the Gospel might still make it on the basis of attempting to live a life of godlines--based on their ability to apprehend and obey God's revelation of himself via creation, conscience or some other mean--has found support in the Roman Catholic church and other conservative circles.
I hope, then, that so far I've passed the litmus test.
But with the exception of children who die young, or the mentally challenged, the examples above represent people who have made some kind of effort or commitment to align themselves with God or godliness. It could be argued, then, that they all were destined for Hell first, and then made a decision to serve God (or conscience), thus passing over a threshold and entering the Kingdom at that point.
But what damage would it do to Scriptural principles if we were to alter this argument as follows?: What if human beings had to make the decision not to serve God (or conscience), rather than the decision to serve him.
Obviously any follower of God who died before Jesus' resurrection must be considered a Kingdom colleague. There are some who take a dispensational view of theology who would argue that God's way of dealing with human beings differs from dispensation to dispensation, and that in this dispensation of grace (as opposed to law, for instance) that the basis of salvation is different. This is a pretty suspect view (if still common enough in limited circles) and I'm not aware that it would be considered mainstream even in evangelicalism.
I suppose there are some people who think that babies who die in infancy, and people who are cognitively challenged are still tainted by original sin and must accept Christ or go to Hell, but again this is a minority view.
And the notion that people who have never heard the Gospel might still make it on the basis of attempting to live a life of godlines--based on their ability to apprehend and obey God's revelation of himself via creation, conscience or some other mean--has found support in the Roman Catholic church and other conservative circles.
But with the exception of children who die young, or the mentally challenged, the examples above represent people who have made some kind of effort or commitment to align themselves with God or godliness. It could be argued, then, that they all were destined for Hell first, and then made a decision to serve God (or conscience), thus passing over a threshold and entering the Kingdom at that point.
But what damage would it do to Scriptural principles if we were to alter this argument as follows?: What if human beings had to make the decision not to serve God (or conscience), rather than the decision to serve him.
Does being a member of God's Kingdom = Being a Christian?
Those who hold to the traditional view that Hell, rather than Heaven, is the default position for sinners (also known as human beings) would equate being a member of God's Kingdom with being a Christian. How could one possibly be in Jesus' "fold" without having first committed to him?
But this is not such an easy argument to make. It would eliminate Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, all the Jews who passed through the Red Sea, Rehab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets. What is so special about these folks? They constitute the faithful of the Old Testament listed in Hebrews chap. 11 who are viewed as followers of God every bit as much as any New Testament character. My goodness, of Moses it is said, "He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt (v. 26).
Keep very much in mind that Moses never heard of Christ. Isaac was a coward. Jacob was, well, Jacob, a very mixed bag indeed. Rahab was a prostitute (but also an ancestor of Jesus), David an adulterer and murderer, and Noah a drunkard (at least once, and look what happened). Gideon made an idol that led his countrymen astray, and what can we say about Samson? Hebrews chap. 7 refers to Melchizadek, a Canaanite not a Jew, as the priest of God Most High and a prototype of Christ.
Even if we were to take the most conservative and traditional approach to the writing of the Bible and suggest that Moses produced the Pentateuch, a number of those listed above would not have had access to it as it would not have yet been written. For many there was no Temple in Jerusalem or its forerunner the Tabernacle, as they proceeded those centers of worship by centuries. For some there were not yet priests of God. It would be difficult to make the case that all of them had a concept of monotheism.
Yet all were members of God's Kingdom, as were New Testament characters whose death proceeded that of Jesus, such as his father Joseph, Simeon and Anna.
What about those who have not reached the age of accountability? I don't necessarily buy this concept, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is true. No one who falls into this category could be called a Christian in the sense of making a decision to turn their backs on sinfulness and to accept Christ as Saviour, for by definition they are not yet able to make a moral choice.
And those who are judged by the light they have? I guess I don't need to spell out that one.
Now if you truly believe that only those who hear Christ preached and accept him are candidates for salvation and for Kingdom membership, then I really have nothing to say to you. You have consigned to Hell every human who dies in infancy, every severely mentally delayed person, and every one who has never heard of Jesus. Presumably you have another way of dealing with those who proceeded Jesus, unless you've committed Abraham, Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah and all the prophets to eternal fire as well. At any rate, your vision of salvation is so narrow as to make God the least just and gracious of deities that one could imagine. Fill your boots.
But for those who are trying to understand salvation in light of God's ardent wish that all should be saved, and who would not place arbitrary blockages in people's way, at least accept that Christ's atonement allows God's love, justice, mercy, and grace to beam throughout his creation, and gives him the opportunity to accept those who couldn't possibly know about him for reasons that include that none of us Christians have taken the opportunity, or made the necessary sacrifices, to tell them.
But this is not such an easy argument to make. It would eliminate Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, all the Jews who passed through the Red Sea, Rehab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets. What is so special about these folks? They constitute the faithful of the Old Testament listed in Hebrews chap. 11 who are viewed as followers of God every bit as much as any New Testament character. My goodness, of Moses it is said, "He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt (v. 26).
Even if we were to take the most conservative and traditional approach to the writing of the Bible and suggest that Moses produced the Pentateuch, a number of those listed above would not have had access to it as it would not have yet been written. For many there was no Temple in Jerusalem or its forerunner the Tabernacle, as they proceeded those centers of worship by centuries. For some there were not yet priests of God. It would be difficult to make the case that all of them had a concept of monotheism.
Yet all were members of God's Kingdom, as were New Testament characters whose death proceeded that of Jesus, such as his father Joseph, Simeon and Anna.
What about those who have not reached the age of accountability? I don't necessarily buy this concept, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is true. No one who falls into this category could be called a Christian in the sense of making a decision to turn their backs on sinfulness and to accept Christ as Saviour, for by definition they are not yet able to make a moral choice.
And those who are judged by the light they have? I guess I don't need to spell out that one.
Now if you truly believe that only those who hear Christ preached and accept him are candidates for salvation and for Kingdom membership, then I really have nothing to say to you. You have consigned to Hell every human who dies in infancy, every severely mentally delayed person, and every one who has never heard of Jesus. Presumably you have another way of dealing with those who proceeded Jesus, unless you've committed Abraham, Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah and all the prophets to eternal fire as well. At any rate, your vision of salvation is so narrow as to make God the least just and gracious of deities that one could imagine. Fill your boots.
But for those who are trying to understand salvation in light of God's ardent wish that all should be saved, and who would not place arbitrary blockages in people's way, at least accept that Christ's atonement allows God's love, justice, mercy, and grace to beam throughout his creation, and gives him the opportunity to accept those who couldn't possibly know about him for reasons that include that none of us Christians have taken the opportunity, or made the necessary sacrifices, to tell them.
Monday, May 16, 2011
My commitments
Billy: The Commitments?
Jimmy Rabbitte: It's a "the".
Deco: How do you spell it?
Jimmy Rabbitte: T-H-E.
That particular quote comes from a film entitled The Commitments, a 1991 movie about an Irish soul music band with some talent but little luck. Their version of Mustang Sally is the best there is (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1pl5f_the-commitments-mustang-sally_music). For whatever reason, I can't hear the word 'commitment' without thinking of them.
Irish accents and rollicking music aside, I want to lay out my personal theological commitments before I go any further in my blogging. I say this because I am looking at an understanding of critically important biblical teaching (Who then can be saved?) that is associated with the 'emerging church' and I'd prefer not to be labeled in advance as apostate, eschewing orthodoxy, or any other pejorative statement.
Why should I be concerned about being unfairly criticized? A prominent evangelical pastor here in Canada has employed terms such as those that follow in describing the emerging church as he sees it:
-a dangerous Trojan horse
-grave danger
-spiritually hazardous
-unbiblical doctrinal positions
And that's only in the first nine pages!
Those who oppose this movement are described at the end of the booklet as "all who earnestly and humbly desire to stand for the truth for the glory of God..."
I see myself as a conservative Protestant holding to the historic tenets of the Christian faith. This I believe:
1. There is one God in three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. All humanity is made in God's image; i.e., there are in God's created beings attributes that mirror the image of the Creator himself. I would include in this a strong sense of right and wrong, creativity, love, community, justice, and self-sacrifice.
3. Nevertheless, all of humankind and creation are 'fallen'. God's creatures are unable to live solely for God and fall short of what he intended us to be and to do. This has not eradicated God's image in us entirely, however. God's creation has also been marred by humanity's abuse of same and, as with humans, is less than was intended when God brought it forth.
4. The relationship between God and his creatures has been severely strained, and were that estrangement not healed, humanity would be lost; i.e., we would forever be separated from a family relationship with God and would have to live with the full consequences of our choices.
5. God has never given up on us, even when we have (wittingly or unwittingly) given up on him. He has done everything he can do to heal our relationship and sweep us forever into his arms, short of violating our free will.
6. God is able to accept us with all our shortcomings because Christ accepted the consequences of those failures and bad choices upon his own shoulders through his death and resurrection. No other act, no other person, no other sacrifice could accomplish this.
7. Life is eternal. While life on earth in only a small portion of this everlasting state, our time here is of great importance in terms of our priorities and our fundamental choices. I say this because the choices we consciously make on earth will shape the form of life to come.
8. The results of Christ's death and resurrection are cosmic and timeless; i.e., they affect all of humanity and all of creation from the beginning.
9. God has not operated in secret. He has revealed what we need to know in a variety of ways, most prominently through the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
10. I describe my understanding of God's revelation as prima scriptura, which holds that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, charismatic gifts, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, and the views of experts. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.
If this is liberalism, I'll eat my Bultmannian shirt (sorry, inside joke).
With respect to the important issue of salvation, as my regular reader knows, I have established the following in previous posts:
1. I don't believe that God is arbitrary. To say that Christ's atonement (the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ) is sufficient for all but efficient only for some (Calvinistic teaching) is abhorrent to me. This teaching posits that God arbitrarily chooses among the "undeserving" those whom he will draw to himself by his irresistible grace, with the rest left to their own devices.
2. I don't believe that all humanity will be ultimately reconciled to God either. This makes a mockery of free will.
3. I don't understand the description of Hell literally. Hell means final separation from God, but eternal conscious torment is a misunderstanding of the apocalyptic language of the New Testament.
4. I believe there is a wideness to God's mercy that evangelicals underestimate and classic liberals overestimate. But the liberals are closer than the evangelicals.
With that being said as background, here we go!
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger.
(from the 'Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' speech of Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, 1598)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
I did it my way
When I bit off more than I could chew,
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall
And did it my way.
Frank Sinatra was a old sinner, of that there is no doubt. But he did have an abundance of talent as a singer and actor. Many of his songs will outlive him for generations, not the least of which is the anthem-like I Did It My Way, the most covered song in history (and written, by the way, by Ottawa native Paul Anka). You can hear old blue eyes sing it at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6426242044766176794#.
The song has an appeal that I respond to, even though I equally believe with St. Paul that I can do all things only through Christ who gives me strength (Phil. 4:13). How do I reconcile being Sinatra-ish and Paul-ish simultaneously? I guess this comes from two things:
a. God does work through his people as individuals in keeping with their dispositions, talents, and circumstances. The it in 'I did it my way' is 'God's will'.
b. I'm a Sutherland. My late father, siblings and myself seem hardwired to strike out on our own, without a lot of encouragement, to do the things we value.
Perhaps this explains why my favourite Bible characters have certain common traits: ego strength, stubbornness, putting what seems right over what is popular, always getting in trouble. These include the prophet Jeremiah, governor Nehemiah, deacon Stephen, and the apostle Paul himself. My mother would have summed up her spouse and brood this way: Not always right but never in doubt.
By this time you may be wondering why I'm going through this little personal striptease. While I typically have the courage of my convictions, it's not my policy to talk about myself very much. I'm doing this to explain the modus operandi behind this series of posts that I'm publishing right now.
There are a number of people who have written about this topic that I've been exploring; i.e., membership in the Kingdom of God is the default position for people, rather than something you have to fight your way into. At neXus the name one most often hears is Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (2010) and Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in 12 Simple Words (2011).
Another is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. Wikipedia quotes Bell as follows:
In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it." You can watch Bell attempt to defend (not terribly successfully in this case) the positions espoused in this book at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA
Bell's views constitute the cover story of the April 25, 2011 edition of
Here's where the Sinatra-ish part of me comes in. I have deliberately avoided reading McLaren, Bell, or any of the other leaders in the emerging church movement. This has nothing to do with arrogance, or not wanting to be swayed by heretics, or anything else. I have simply found over the years that I prefer to work out an issue for myself first, and look to the proponents and critics afterwards. I'm a seminary graduate, a published author who has done a lot of research, and I have a pretty good command of Scripture. I also have, as I've told you before, a lively suspicion of systematic theology which I often find constitutes shoving loose ends through a preconceived grid.
Therefore, I'm plodding my way towards conclusions that make sense to me, always ready afterward for useful critique. I find that this avoids placing arbitrary constraints around an issue, and keeps me being labeled another duped disciple of some guru or other.
For what is a man? What has he got?
If not himself - Then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Okay, taking stock.
1. The Christian religion, to the largest extent, has held to eternal and conscious existence for every person in one of two places after physical death--heaven or hell.
2. The Church has traditionally taught that as a result of original sin all human beings are under a death sentence (physical and spiritual). Hell is the default position for everyone unless one learns of Jesus' atonement, recognizes their need of him, and consciously accepts him as Saviour.
3. In recent times, some otherwise orthodox Christians have suggested that the Hell of eternal torment may be metaphorical, in which case those who die without Christ are annihilated; i.e., they cease to exist. Such proponents include John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Michael Green, perhaps also John Wesley and C.S. Lewis. Billy Graham does not necessarily espouse annihilationism, but he dismisses eternal torment.
4. There are also some conservative individuals and churches that accept the possibility of entry into God's kingdom without knowledge or understanding of the work of Christ. These exceptions take two forms:
a. The age of accountability - A child (or a mentally handicapped person) cannot make a conscious moral choice. Thus they are safe from eternity in Hell until they reach the age of accountability (such age not defined in Scripture), at which point they now assume the default position and must accept Christ.
b. Judged by whatever light they have - Those who have never heard the Christian message cannot be held accountable for it. Therefore they are judged on the basis of the extent to which they have attempted to follow their consciences and live a life of godliness. Billy Graham and Robert Schuller appear to hold to this view, and it can be found as well in the Roman Catholic catechism.
These two beliefs appear to be built on the doctrine of God's justice. The just God could not hold someone accountable for information they do not have, or for not making a decision beyond their moral ability so to do.
This may or may not be so, but one other idea comes out of the positions above: one can be a member of the Kingdom of God without being a Christian.
5. Since the Reformation the doctrine of predestination has become a dominant one in many Protestant circles; i.e., that not only is Hell the default position, but that only those whom God has chosen in advance will be saved from Hell, and that all others are lost before they start.
6. Counter to this is the universal reconciliation view that no one goes to Hell, and that ultimately every human being will be reconciled to God and to each other.
7. I rejected both of these positions as failing to take seriously the doctrine of human choice, or free will. I also found the doctrine that one cannot be saved without certain knowledge of the work of Christ to be wanting, on the basis of biblical teaching that says that God is not willing that any should perish.
So where are we left?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Theology from the ground up
Christianity would be a lot more fun if it weren't for two aspects of our faith that at times make it almost unbearable. The first of these is the reality of evil and suffering. The second is the doctrine of free will, or human choice. The two tend to come as a package deal.
I can't be bothered to give you the usual theological explanations for these two phenomena. I find that they satisfy me cognitively, but leave me cold in the affective domain. I draw my own conclusions on the basis of human experience rather than from systematic theology books.
Although my late, sainted father-in-law never said these words to my knowledge, they certainly suited his view of human existence: "Life is hard, then you die." While not entirely lacking joy, happiness, or contentment in his life, he still plowed through the years with a sobriety, a wariness, and the conviction that "we are not of this world", which in the main he found baffling and off-putting.
In some ways, I don't blame him. Not only is human existence one of constant compromise as one tries to live in this world of shifting and relative principles, values, and goals, but one has to hold to absolutist notions of the goodness, power, and love of God while trying to explain why bad things happen to good people. I nearly lost my faith when six aviation students, some of them my students at Trinity Western University, encountered very bad weather and flew into the side of a mountain. One of them was a former police officer with a lovely wife and a young family who left his profession to attend a Christian university.
People of faith have gone various directions with this. The Calvinists remove the problem of free will by holding to predestination of the saved and the damned. The universalists try to remove the problem of suffering by maintaining that every human being, no matter how evil, will eventually be reconciled to God and to the humanity that they have brutalized for a life-time. Mr. Hitler, meet Rev. Bonhoeffer and Rabbi Cohen. Shake hands and hugs all round.
Ron Sexsmith's song (see my post of April 26/11) falls into this latter category:
There's no need to be saved
No need to be afraid
Cause when it's done
God takes everyone.
Here's my problem. God appears to take our life on earth very seriously. I often wonder why he does. It's such a short time as compared to the eternity that is to follow. It's so full of pain, hopelessness, and despair for so many of the world's inhabitants. Yet he sees it as so important that not only does he permit horrid things to happen, but more often than not he does not interfere with what goes on, no matter how opposed these events are to what he says is his will. The controversial book The Shack by William Young wrestles with this reality.
Through all this garbage Christians are to be faithful, joyful, optimistic, and self-disciplined, even when the world appears to be going to Hell in a hand-basket.
God's plan made a hopeful beginning
But man spoiled his chances by sinning.
We trust that the story
Will end in God's glory,
But at present the other side's winning.
The only conclusion that I can come to about this is that God places an incredibly high value on free will. Nothing else can explain it.
[Well, that's not strictly true. God not really being all-loving, all-powerful, or everywhere present would also explain it, but then we're on to a very different topic.]
If human choice, and the consequences that flow from it, are that important to God, why would he, in the final analysis, cast it aside either by predestination (no real choice), or universalism (no real consequences).
Thus I am looking for middle ground that makes better sense of God's revelation than the tradition of certain knowledge, which I have been exploring in earlier posts. neXus is on that road with me. Taking God's revelation to its logical conclusion, what is the eternal fate of his creation?
I can't be bothered to give you the usual theological explanations for these two phenomena. I find that they satisfy me cognitively, but leave me cold in the affective domain. I draw my own conclusions on the basis of human experience rather than from systematic theology books.
Although my late, sainted father-in-law never said these words to my knowledge, they certainly suited his view of human existence: "Life is hard, then you die." While not entirely lacking joy, happiness, or contentment in his life, he still plowed through the years with a sobriety, a wariness, and the conviction that "we are not of this world", which in the main he found baffling and off-putting.
In some ways, I don't blame him. Not only is human existence one of constant compromise as one tries to live in this world of shifting and relative principles, values, and goals, but one has to hold to absolutist notions of the goodness, power, and love of God while trying to explain why bad things happen to good people. I nearly lost my faith when six aviation students, some of them my students at Trinity Western University, encountered very bad weather and flew into the side of a mountain. One of them was a former police officer with a lovely wife and a young family who left his profession to attend a Christian university.
People of faith have gone various directions with this. The Calvinists remove the problem of free will by holding to predestination of the saved and the damned. The universalists try to remove the problem of suffering by maintaining that every human being, no matter how evil, will eventually be reconciled to God and to the humanity that they have brutalized for a life-time. Mr. Hitler, meet Rev. Bonhoeffer and Rabbi Cohen. Shake hands and hugs all round.
Ron Sexsmith's song (see my post of April 26/11) falls into this latter category:
There's no need to be saved
No need to be afraid
Cause when it's done
God takes everyone.
Through all this garbage Christians are to be faithful, joyful, optimistic, and self-disciplined, even when the world appears to be going to Hell in a hand-basket.
God's plan made a hopeful beginning
But man spoiled his chances by sinning.
We trust that the story
Will end in God's glory,
But at present the other side's winning.
The only conclusion that I can come to about this is that God places an incredibly high value on free will. Nothing else can explain it.
[Well, that's not strictly true. God not really being all-loving, all-powerful, or everywhere present would also explain it, but then we're on to a very different topic.]
If human choice, and the consequences that flow from it, are that important to God, why would he, in the final analysis, cast it aside either by predestination (no real choice), or universalism (no real consequences).
Thus I am looking for middle ground that makes better sense of God's revelation than the tradition of certain knowledge, which I have been exploring in earlier posts. neXus is on that road with me. Taking God's revelation to its logical conclusion, what is the eternal fate of his creation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)