Calling All Artists, Monks and Storytellers!

 http://newwaystheology.blogspot.com/2011/04/future-of-evangelicalism-artists-monks.html

The Future of Evangelicalism:

Artists, Monks, and Storytellers

by Mason Slater, April 2011

"What is a poet? An unhappy person who conceals profound anguish in his heart but whose lips are so formed that as sighs and cries pass over them they sound like beautiful music." - Soren Kierkegaard

As I look over my bookshelves I’m struck by the thought that Donald Miller was right.

Yesterday Miller wrote about how the Western church is in essence “a robust school system created around a framework of lectures and discussions and study... Churches are essentially schools. They look like schools with lecture halls, classrooms, cafeterias and each new church program is basically a teaching program.”

It’s a fair point, even if he pushes it a bit further than I would. After all, turn over almost any book on my shelf and what does it inform you of? The author’s academic credentials. If they went to the right schools and got the right degree they have legitimacy, if not, well they get categorized under “inspirational”.

Even the fact that books are the medium of choice in Western Christianity is telling. Why books? And why books which, often, read like textbooks?

Nothing against books or scholars, I have a incredibly deep love for both and think both have a vital role to play. But theirs is not the only role.

If the Evangelicalism of our generation is going to be able to reach the world we find ourselves in, to address pressing issues of justice, or to retain some level of unity, we cannot rely only on scholars.

What we need are more artists, monks, and storytellers.

We act on the assumption that the textbook communicates more truth than the novel, that the lecture conveys more deeply than the painting, that a conference is more meaningful than street theater. That assumption was almost certainly misguided before, but in our present context it’s absolutely deadly to the church.

So we need artists (of every sort, writers included) to share our message in a way people will truly hear it.

We talk about justice, well some of us, but if all we do is talk that is no witness.

So we need communities like the new monasticism to give us a picture of what our faith could look like if we were the hands and feet of the gospel we pontificate about.

And finally, speaking of that gospel, we take the rich and messy story of the Bible and spend so much time debating and dissecting it that in the end we either have a reductionist four point track or a massive list of what constitutes the orthodoxy you must hold to be ‘in’.

So we need storytellers who can share the Story without either flattening it out or missing the forest for the trees. Storytellers who can make a point of doctrine come alive, and who can also present a way of talking about our faith which is harder to turn into team X vs. team Y.

When the story starts “once upon a time” it lends itself less to taking sides.

Do scholars and the academy have a place in the future of Evangelicalism? Yes! Absolutely! We need deep and critical thought, we need people who have devoted themselves to studying the history and theology (at least I hope so, or a lot of what I’m doing with my life is going to be a bit pointless).

But that isn’t all we need.

Maybe one way the future of Evangelicalism could look a little brighter is if we stopped deferring only to the scholars and instead had the scholars sit down at the table as equals with the artists, the monks, and the storytellers.

At least that sounds like a more hopeful starting place to me.

Grace and peace.

Why Pick Sides When You Don't Want To?

http://newwaystheology.blogspot.com/2011/04/future-of-evangelicalism-in-which-im-on.html

The Future of Evangelicalism:
In which I'm on nobody's side.

by Mason Slater, April 2011

"Pippin: "And whose side are you on?"

Treebeard: "Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc."

-The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien

This sums up rather well how I feel when I look at the fissures in the Evangelical community.

We have this impulse to define ourselves in opposition to others, to reduce the messiness of the life of faith into a question of this side or that.

There are plenty of examples of this, such as the recent obsession with [the newly released book,] Love Wins . It’s telling that, in many of the reactions, there was little room left in the middle. Either Rob was a heretic, or he was a hero tearing down an oppressive false Gospel.

Those who felt neither of those was the case, which is where I found myself, were left in the uncomfortable position of trying to hold out an alternative which those on either side of us had little interest in entertaining.

I understand that there are important issues at stake, but the more I look at the church the less that splitting into our own sub-communities seems like any sort of solution.

Yes, there are Emergent thinkers. Yes, there is a resurgent neo-Reformed movement that often feels like a new fundamentalism. But maybe tribalism in either direction isn’t the answer.

Because it’s too easy.

It’s too easy to split.

It’s too easy to turn life into a dichotomy where one side is all wrong and the other side (my side) is all right.

It’s easy to pick a side, because once you do you can stop thinking. You decided on your team, and now your team can make all your decisions for you. Word comes from on high to tell us what books or theological positions we should be excited about, and which ones we should attack (along with a helpful list of talking points for why author X is brilliant/a tool of the devil).

What’s difficult is being willing to read both McLaren and Driscoll and find things of value in both, while being discerning enough to critique both as well.

It’s not about sides we can split into life and theology are not that simple.

Sometimes I look at evangelicalism and I feel far older than I should have to feel. more worn, more bruised, like - in another Lord of The Rings reference - too little butter scraped over too much bread.

There is this constant move towards division and strife, and everyone is convinced it’s us or them, with me or against me.

In the meantime thousands of us who want to imagine a Church where unity is maintained amid the diversity [that is] left to the sidelines. Because we’re on nobody’s side, and so, sometimes, it feels like nobody is on our side.

Why Do You Find It So Easy To Believe?

http://rachelheldevans.com/john-locke-easy-to-believe

Why do you find it so easy to believe?

by Rachel Held Evans, 2010

This post was originially published back in January of 2010. In light of our recent conversations about how changes in faith affect relationships, I thought this would be an appropriate re-post. More to come tomorrow and Saturday!

****************************

One of my favorite scenes from the TV show “Lost” occurs down in the hatch, between John Locke and Jack Shepherd.

Arguing about whether or not to press the infamous button on faith alone, John demands, “Why do you find it so hard to believe?” to which Jack furiously responds “Why do you find it so easy?”

It’s a classic moment in Lost history because it perfectly encapsulates John and Jack’s characters, and because it points to a predicament to which we can all relate: Some of us really struggle to accept things on faith, while others seem to find it easy.

And occasionally we get on one another’s nerves.

For example, I relate more to Jack in the sense that I’m a skeptic. I think critically, challenge authority, and ask tough questions about my faith. Many of my friends,on the other hand, rarely wrestle with doubts about Christianity, and can’t seem to understand why I would.“Why do you find it so hard to believe?” they ask.“Why do you find it so easy?” I want to shout.

There are several reasons why their confidence bothers me.

First of all, deep down I’m jealous of the fact that they don’t lie awake at night worrying if everything they’ve been taught is a lie, if God is good, or if He exists. I hate to admit it, but I envy their certainty and serenity.

Second, I’m perplexed because the things that move me to ask questions—disasters like the one in Haiti, religious pluralism, heaven and hell, science, poverty, injustice—don’t seem to bother them like they bother me, and I (unfailry) wonder if it’s because they are less compassionate or less intelligent than me. I wonder sometimes if they are in denial, if they’ve checked their brains and their hearts at the door in the name of blind obedience and easy peace.

And third, there’s that nagging fear that the John Lockes of this world relish in the opportunity to judge me for my lack of faith. We all have the tendency to return judgment with judgment, so the moment I feel vulnerable to attack, I put on the armor of resentment and pride and inform my perceived enemies that they’ve got it all wrong, that my faith is actually stronger than theirs because it can stand the test of scrutiny while theirs remains weak and unchallenged.

Clearly, my frustration with those who find it easy to believe has more to do with my own insecurities and fears than it does with them.

Perhaps this goes both ways. Perhaps the John Lockes of this world don’t find it as easy to believe as I think, and they get frustrated with me because my questions don’t make it any easier.

After all, John ends the conversation with, “It’s never been easy.”

So, to whom do you relate the most—Jack or John? Do you find yourself frustrated with the people who find it hard to believe or frustrated with the people who find it easy?

The Future of Evangelicalism

The Future of Evangelicalism:

A Twenty-Something’s Perspective
http://rachelheldevans.com/future-of-evangelicalism


by Rachel Held Evans

March 24, 2011

The big debate over Love Wins has once again ignited speculation over the future of evangelicalism and the role that young adults will play in it. Last week, Scot McKnight posed a series of questions that I’ve been pondering ever since: Is evangelicalism in a major shift? Are we headed toward a split? Will young evangelicals stick around or head for mainline churches instead?

I grew up in evangelicalism, spent most of my twenties arguing with it, and as I approach my 30th birthday, am ready to rebuild and move forward in my faith. While I can’t address these questions on behalf of all young evangelicals, I can speak from my own perspective, which I suspect is fairly common.

The Divide

The media has focused largely on two movements within my generation of evangelicals.

The first is the young, restless, and Reformed movement, which despite some conflicting evidence, seems to be growing, especially if you take into account the surging popularity of young Reformed pastors like Kevin DeYoung, Joshua Harris, and Mark Driscoll. Along with Tim Challies, John Piper, Al Mohler and Justin Taylor, these guys are totally dominating the blogosphere, (I know, because I compare my stats to theirs more often than I care to admit!), leading many to predict that they represent the future of evangelicalism.

It’s important to note that this movement is centralized, with clear leaders and denominational affiliation (Southern Baptist & PCA). Leaders in this movement were quick to condemn Rob Bell and his book—many writing scathing reviews based on a few excerpts and some promotional copy

The second group—sometimes referred to as “the new evangelicals” or “emerging evangelicals” or “the evangelical left” is significantly less organized than the first, but continues to grow at a grassroots level. As Paul Markhan wrote in an excellent essay about the phenomenon, young people who identify with this movement have grown weary of evangelicalism’s allegiance to Republican politics, are interested in pursuing social reform and social justice, believe that the gospel has as much to do with this life as the next, and are eager to be a part of inclusive, diverse, and authentic Christian communities. “Their broadening sense of social responsibility is pushing them to rethink many of the fundamental theological presuppositions characteristic of their evangelical traditions,” Markham noted.

While young adults in this movement tend to identify similar influences (NT Wright, Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne), they are significantly less organized. More importantly, most of the young adults in Marham’s survey reported that they didn’t like labels. They strongly preferred “non-denominational” or “follower of Christ” to “evangelical.” Folks who identify with this group would be more likely to welcome Bell’s ideas…or at least not condemn them as unorthodox.

A quick glance at my Facebook profile would reveal that I relate more to the second group than the first. And since I am therefore suspicious of labels and binaries and anything that smells of an us-vs.-them mentality, I feel compelled to point out that most young Christians do not fit neatly into one of these two categories. No one’s faith journey looks exactly the same, and there are many young evangelicals simply trying to faithfully follow their own conscience and conviction without identifying with one group or the other.

The Question

The release of Love Wins revealed some of the serious differences between these two groups the way a florescent light reveals all the blemishes on your face when you look in a mirror. This light’s been turned on before—(I think of the Evangelical Theological Society’s debate with Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd, and the continuing debate between the BioLogos Foundation and Al Mohler)—and I suspect it will turned on again.

So the question is: Can young evangelicals get along well enough to create a new generation of evangelicalism that includes both of these groups?

I would really, really, really like to say YES—because I love my Reformed brothers and sisters, because love evangelicalism’s rich history of diversity, and because I love being a part of tradition that allows for spirited dialog.

…But there’s a problem.

The Problem

The problem, as I see it, can be summarized in the now infamous tweet issued from John Piper: “Farwell Rob Bell.”

Those three words triggered a profound reaction within a lot of young evangelicals because many of us have heard them, in some shape or form, before.

I heard them when Al Mohler dismissed me as “glib and irresponsible” for suggesting that perhaps Christianity is compatible with evolution. (He insisted that the two are not, in fact, compatible.) My friend Sarah heard them when her questions about women’s ordination were met with charges that she didn’t take the Bible seriously. My friend Steven heard them when he was told that his refusal to accept the doctrines of predestination and limited atonement represented a “rebellious spirit” against God Himself. And I’ve heard them over and over and over again as evangelicals in my community have questioned my commitment to Christianity simply because I’m not absolutely certain that Anne Frank is in hell.

See the pattern? It’s hard to maintain unity when differences in theology are met with accusations of heresy, and challenges to certain interpretations of the Bible are dismissed as challenges to its authority. I’m concerned that many of these Reformed leaders are fundamentalizing doctrines that need not be fundametnalized, to the point that a critique of Calvinism is cast as a critique of Orthodox Christianity.

Piper wasn’t simply bidding “farewell” to Rob Bell, he was bidding “farewell” to any of us who agree with Rob Bell, or ask the same questions as Rob Bell, or at the very least wish to stay in fellowship with Rob Bell. It is no longer enough that we too want to love and follow Jesus Christ, or that we too can affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. We’ve also got to ascribe to 16the century doctrines and 16th century interpretations of Scripture…or else be cast out.

If we are going to move forward together—building God’s kingdom together, glorifying and enjoying God together—then we’ve got to be able to disagree with one another without challenging one another’s commitment to the faith. I don’t agree with every aspect of Reformed theology, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that those who hold to it—including Piper and Driscoll and Taylor—are my brothers and sisters in Christ! I would break the bread of communion with them in a heartbeat!

But the problem is that after ten years, I’m getting tired of trying to convince fellow Christians that I am, in fact, a Christian, even though I may vote a little differently than they vote, interpret the Bible differently than they interpret it, engage with science a little differently than they engage with it, and understand sovereignty and choice a little differently than they understand those things.

And I think a lot of other young evangelicals are growing weary of those arguments too. We’re ready to rebuild in communities where a commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ is enough common ground from which to start.

My Predictions

Rumbling beneath all of the evangelical debates about sovereignty, science, heaven, and hell are some serious questions about the Bible. The divide was summed up nicely in a twitter exchange I had yesterday:

Me: @rachelheldevans Halfway through #lovewins and kinda wondering why it got the backlash it did. This is not even close to unorthodox, imo. Your impressions?

Cam: CamMohajerin @rachelheldevans It's unorthodox for people who think the Bible is authoritative and infallible...completely normal for McLaren

Me: @CamMohajerin I think it's unorthodox for people who think their interpretation of the Bible is authoritative & infallible.

So my first prediction is that in the next few years the evangelical community will engage in a serious conversation about the Bible. And I suspect that that will be the tipping point McKnight asks about. Let’s pray that this conversation will be as civil and as loving as possible.

My second prediction is that the so-called “new evangelicals” will in large part drop the evangelical label. We don’t like labels to begin with, and evangelicalism already carries a lot of political and theological baggage. Some will head to mainline churches, others will rediscover the rich history of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and some will leave Christianity altogether. Still others will remain evangelical in spirit, but without the label—opting instead for “non-denominational” or simply “follower of Jesus.”

My third prediction is that the word “evangelical” will go the way of “fundamentalism” as its adherents become increasingly homogonous and as the word becomes associated with dogmatism regarding politics, science, women’s roles, homosexuality, salvation, and biblical literalism.

THAT IS UNLESS my generation—both Reformed and emerging/progressive evangelicals—decide to intentionally preserve the diversity of our tradition, stop launching personal attacks, and move forward together. As I wrote in my “Letter to a Young Calvinist from a Young Arminian”:

As a new generation preparing to tackle the age-old debate about predestination and free will, our positions don’t have to change but our attitudes can. We can criticize one another’s interpretations of the Bible without assuming motive. We can point out the inconsistencies in certain faith traditions without attacking the people in them. We can talk about our disagreements knowing that what we have in common far outweighs our differences, for together we can affirm hat Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again! We are the future of the Church and we have an opportunity here to change the tone.

While I find myself growing more and more pessimistic about that outcome, I still hope for it.

I hope for it every time my friend Amy and I have a healthy, productive conversation about theology, despite our differences. I hope for it every time I’m around my many Reformed friends who are kind, generous, and open. I hope for it every time I see young Pentecostals, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, and Mennonites working together to alleviate poverty, provide clean water, stop human trafficking, and live like Jesus in this beautiful, broken world.

I haven’t lost hope in the future of evangelicalism, but I’ve lost the desire to fight for my place in it. I’m tired of trying to convince other Christians that I am a Christian. As Dan and I enter that stage of life when we will likely start a family, we want to raise our kids in a community of Christ-followers where diversity is celebrated, questions are welcomed, and differences are handled with love and respect…not flippant “farewells.”

We want to get busy, get our hands dirty, start serving and growing and changing the world. This may very well lead us to the mainline, or perhaps to something associated with the Anabaptist tradition, or perhaps to something very similar to evangelicalism….but without the label.

The Use of Meta-Narrative in Hermeneutics

I had a friend recently tell me that Jesus would've corrected Joshua about going to war with Israel's enemies in the OT on the basis of his statements, "Love your neighbors as yourself as a way of showing that you Love God." It got me thinking two thoughts: one, could this be true; and two, am I witnessing a new type of hermeneutical movement that plans on grossly re-writing the OT from a NT perspective by way of refashioning a principle known as "meta-narrative"? The former thought is addressed by John Yoder's latest book and I think the latter is begun to be addressed as well.

I have always been of the mindset to let each Testament stand on their own equally, but of course this doesn't work in light of Jesus and the NT. Jesus (Christology) offsets everything from the way we look at Systmatics to the way we look at Biblical Theology. He is the midpoint of history and the circumventer of all of mankind. But I still think that Joshua must stand on his own and answer for the revelatory light that he had been given then (not now, in the NT era). It is actually our problem as Christians of the 21st Century to determine how, and in what manner, we will "love our neighbor" when dealing with nationalistic issues of security, defense, trade and basic communications. The onus is on us, not Joshua.

Moreover, I'm extremely skeptical of re-writing the OT by this newer, undefined principle of Meta-Narrative coming from the old school hermeneutic of contextual, grammatical, literal. DL Baker's "Two Testaments, One Book" as ever been my guide in this discussion as he over-weights the NT against the OT in light of the Incarnation-Event. So that, when we as NT Christians read the OT we understand its "higher" historical or redemptive significance in Jesus while we sympathize with our OT brethren struggling to obey God without knowledge of Jesus' set examples, words and ministry.

Used aright, I think that this newer Meta-Narrative hermeneutic will be another good addition to the contextual, grammatical, literal reading of the Testaments by postmodern emergent Christians; but used in another sense - in the re-writing (by adding or subtracting) traditional Christian orthodoxy into something else, it may become a mis-leading tool by Christians already given to subjective, eisegetical statements and thought (and this would include both camps, both traditional and emergent Christians!).

Peace,

skinhead

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+howard+yoder

Book Review – John Howard Yoder’s, “Nonviolence”


by Scot McKnight
April 8, 2011

Just war is the game nations play but John Howard Yoder argued it was not a game Christians were to play. Inevitably, as we’ve already seen in this series, someone asks about the wars of Israel in the Old Testament and, to strengthen the argument, connect God to the justification of war.

John Howard Yoder’s last book, published posthumously on the basis of his lectures in Warsaw (Poland), Nonviolence – a Brief History: The Warsaw Lectures , devotes a lecture to “From the Wars of Joshua to Jewish Pacifism.”

Here are the points he makes in this chp:

Two approaches: (1) In the age of Moses and Joshua, war was morally obligatory; Jesus tells us it was wrong. There are significant problems here. There’s a plot in the Bible, to be sure, but it’s not OT vs. NT, Jesus vs. Moses. (2) Some Jesus’ teachings were for the church alone or only for face-to-face relations. He finds both of these arguments “legalistic.”

So he examines the holy wars.

1. YHWH is a warrior.

2. The gods of the ANE religions were warriors.

3. YHWH alone was the warrior in the Red Sea, Jericho, Gideon and Jehoshaphat. The Israelites didn’t fight in these battles.

4. The essence of the Israelite response was to trust YHWH, not themselves and not in their military strategies.

5. Israel had to remain faithful to the covenant.

6. Holy wars ended with David, and the nature of war changed with David. It was connected now to the warriors in Israel.

(But this pattern changes within the pages of the Old Testament — seen in the ambivalence about their being a king and in the lack of political sovereignty under Ezra and Nehemiah. See below.)

But what about today? Do these apply to today?

First, he says, those battles were unique and they were commanded by God, and we’d need prophets to reveal holy wars for today. And, second, Jesus’ listeners knew of mighty deeds by God that led to victory, so his peace plan was not something unusual and utopian and unrealistic.

He then examines, and he’s known for this argument, how Judaism became peaceful within the pages of the Old Testament and developed a pacifistic stance by its end and then on into rabbinic Judaism. He contends that among Jews more than among Christians we find the pattern and practice of Jesus’ own teachings! Few doubt the pacificist ways of Judaism.

Ezra and Nehemiah established a nation without “political sovereignty” (79). Jeremiah showed how to live among the nations peacefully and seeking the welfare of the city wherein they existed. Rabbinic communities were non violent. Why?

1. Blood is sacred.

2. The Messiah is not yet come, but when Messiah comes it will be peace. So be peaceful now.

3. They learned from the Zealot experience not to go that way.

4. How God directs the Gentile world can be trusted but not always known.

5. Suffering has a place in the divine economy.

--------------------------------------------------------
Comments


Maybe rabbinic Judaism has embraced a pacifism, but the state and nation of Israel most certainly has not. But in this present age and time it seems obligatory to at least have the means to defend one’s citizens from invading nations. (Romans 13) A most dangerous entity on earth might be a nation or political party or any entity which calls itself Christian or imagines itself Theocratic. Exception being para-church organizations (I work for one) and of course, churches.

The church is the reality of the people of God today, certainly not meant to live on this world’s terms. To live in the world, while not of it, in and through Jesus. Walking in his way, following him. Which means carrying one’s cross, and never a sword.

Comment by Ted — April 8, 2011 @ 3:56 am

2. This is a good series! I’m a pacifist and dont’ involve myself in civil politics, either. I pay my taxes because I believe that’s all a Christian is suppose to do with the government (give unto Caesar…). I would go further than Yoder and say that because God slowly reveal God’s self to the world, the Israelites misunderstood God’s character. So because the other nations god’s told them to fight, I guess ours does too. Doesn’t this sound similar to the “god tells us to be wealthy.” gospel? You hear in the scriptures what you want to hear. Of course, to accept this view I have, to have to have a historical critical view of Scriptures and not an inerrant view.

@Ted, there are some that would argue even with Romans 13. They would look at the scriptures and say that we are to follow a government who only meets the description, and that there is NO government that does. The only who which does is God’s kingdom. We also have to put it to light that Paul was civilly disobedient and was thrown into jail a few times

Comment by Amber-Lee — April 8, 2011 @ 4:30 am

3. Does this reconcile with the current Jewish state?

Comment by DRT — April 8, 2011 @ 5:56 am

4. Again, hi Ted. And Amber, I agree with your comments. I believe the witness of Jesus and the early apostles is that we put down our carnal weapons. Period.

Comment by Diane — April 8, 2011 @ 7:19 am

The Atoning Work of the King of Kings

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/07/kings-cross-9/#more-15459

King’s Cross 9
by Timothy Keller

Book Review by Scot McKnight
April 7, 2011

ShareTim Keller’s newest book, King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus, examines big questions through the Gospel of Mark, and he knows that “The Turn” in Mark’s narrative happens when Jesus is confessed as Messiah — King — and Jesus reveals that, yes, he is King but as King he will die on the cross. That is “The Turn” and that is also the secret to life.

The text is well-known, but perhaps we’ve forgotten. Jesus asks who people are saying he is. They bumble along with a few names and Jesus then asks more abruptly — who do you think I am? Peter says “King.” (He says “Messiah” but Messiah means the anointed king.) Then Jesus says it is necessary for him to go to the cross and be raised.

Atonement theology/theory can be confusing today, in part because some think substitutionary atonement is wrong-headed and in part because others think Jesus dying as an example or dying as an act of service for others are actually all the death of Jesus really means. Both sides of this debate are in need of re-examining how Jesus (Mark 10:45) and the apostles (say Romans 3:21-26) talk about the death of Jesus as atoning. How do you explain the centrality of Jesus’ death in the Christian message?

The astounding connection of Jesus, the newness of which Keller may exaggerate just a bit, is that Jesus connects King to suffering. Here are his words: “Never before this moment had anyone in Israel connected suffering with the Messiah” (96). Yes, Jesus is King/Messiah, but he came to die. And it is part of the divine plan: hence, it is necessary.

Why? Keller points to three reasons why Jesus had to die:

1. Personal necessity: here Keller dips into William Vanstone (a new name to me) and shows that humans need unconditional love, being loved for who they are, and all humans know is a bit of that but their love is more mercenary (good term I think). We love and get something from it; Jesus loves and needs nothing from that extension of love.

2. A Legal necessity: debt’s can be paid back but justice is not established; justice can only be established through forgiveness. The debt is absorbed. [This section is a bit short and there's more he could have said but didn't have space for it.]

3. A Cosmic necessity: here he’s talking about the demonstrative power of the cross. The section seems to be a mixture of a Grotius and Girard, but I’m not sure. “The cross reveals the systems of the world to be corrupt, serving power and oppression instead of justice and truth” (102). But it also demonstrates the character of God and of the kingdom. He won through losing.

Finally, the text in Mark 8 goes on to show that if we want to be connected to Jesus, we have to die on the cross with him so we can reign through him.

McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 4

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/08/exploring-love-wins-3/#comment-133238#comment-133238

Exploring Love Wins 4

by Scot McKnight
April 8, 2011
Filed under: Universalism

I will begin these discussions of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

The title for Rob Bell’s second chapter — Here is the New There — not only sums up the chapter (and book) but also a burgeoning movement in the evangelical world, and it is one inspired by N.T. Wright’s stuff on eschatology and — to be perfectly honest right up front — sometimes some of Tom’s readers make distortions of what Tom is actually saying. Tom has said over and over that Jesus didn’t save us in order to get us to heaven, but he saved us so that heaven and earth could meet in the New Heavens and New Earth. His emphasis on New Heavens and New Earth is right.

It is that theology that is at work in Bell’s second chapter, and we’ll see if his approach fits the NT.

His repeated words here is that heaven is understood by many as “somewhere else.” Salvation is a story of movement from here to somewhere else and somewhere out there. The Christian story has focused, and he’s surely right here, on heaven and almost as surely that heaven is somewhere else — it’s out there, up there, and somewhere else. And many in the church emphasize who will be there and who will not be there, and he’s surely right about that too.

In your church, is “heaven” somewhere else — ethereal and out there and beyond etc — or is it more earthy? How “New Heavens/New Earth-y” is the kingdom/heaven in your church? When people say “heaven” what do they mean?

The rich man approaches Jesus and asks, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Jesus’ response is “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” This is from Matthew 19:16.

A summary. Jesus’ response surprises many Christians because he doesn’t give the man the plan of salvation but tells him to do the commandments and to give his money away to the poor. Rob says the issue was the question, and the question the man asked was how to get eternal life… but that didn’t mean to him to be a question about where he would go (to heaven) when he died. Rob says the man’s question was about how to enter into the kingdom life in the here and now. That’s where Rob camps in this chapter, and that is why he focuses on heaven beginning now. Thus, the here is the new there. [The old "there" was somewhere else, heaven in the skies, etc.]

I’ll get to something we need to interact with in a moment, but Bell observes that The Age to Come, or heaven on earth, is for everybody [developed later in his book], it is earthy, and that life will not be all new. There’s lots in The Age to Come that is not new. But it will be the world as God designed it — no more war, all peace and love and joy and justice. Injustices will be made right, our angers will be justified. It will be a “restored, renewed and redeemed” earth. This is typical Judaism and pervasively NT-like.

The way to enter into The Age to Come is to live the commandments. Here’s his theme of continuity: do now what will happen then and you will be ready and prepared. Back to the rich man… Jesus gave five commands, and it bugs me that Rob missed the love your neighbor from the Jesus Creed here, but I’ll forgive him. The rich man was greedy and greed will have no place in The Age to Come.

So Jesus takes the man’s question about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he’s living now. But the odd thing here is that Rob hereby flattens his eschatology, while I think Rob has a both-and in his theology, and I suspect that man did too, and I suspect Jesus did too. What happens now continues into the life of The Age to Come. That means it is not just now but both now and then. So I agree that what we do now is of immense (and eternal) value. If there is an afterlife or a “heaven,” and if it is eternal, then it an act of colossal foolishness not to live now in light of then.

And I agree that heaven will have lots of surprises. He seems to suggest that it is character that gets a person into heaven (on p. 53). Then this piece of poetic language: “heaven is as far away as that day when heaven and earth become one again and as close as a few hours” (55). He seems to be getting at heaven being super reality of the current reality.

I don’t know where he gets the idea that aion means “intensity of experience that transcends time” (57). I’m thinking it could come from something like John 10:10 where Jesus said he came to bring life to its utter fullness. But I don’t think the Greek term means that except by associations with ideas connected to The Age to Come.

And I agree on the eternal life that is something now and through and beyond death. We are now playing the piano while wearing oven mitts. Nice one. But that very point lands Rob right back where he began, and it cuts against the theme of his aversion to the “somewhere else” idea for heaven, which is part of biblical faith from the time of Daniel 12:1-3 on (resurrection to judgment or salvation; shine like stars).

This response has to be a little long so I’ve put the main points in bold. Just read those lines if you want to see the big picture.

Three points that deserve some scrutiny... the big point I will make is this: Rob sets up an either-or (heaven is out there vs. heaven is here) and pushes hard on Jesus talking not about an endless eternity but about the present, but closer inspection shows that Bell operates (correctly) with a both-and (heaven is both here and there, both now and then, both continuous and discontinuous). In the language of the scholars: he operates with an inaugurated eschatology but seems to overdo the realized dimension. Or he operates with a realized eschatology but also has a bit of an inaugurated eschatology at work.

First. There’s a reason why the ancients, both Jews and Greek and Romans, used a word like “heaven” for where God is and where folks go when they die. Yes, there’s lots of variety in the ancient world; and they used a variety of words, but the NT word is “heaven” and that word means “sky.” And there all kinds of Jewish texts about ascending into heaven. Why did Jesus and the early Christians fasten on that word for doing the lion’s share of work on where God is? Obviously this is phenomenology. God was above and beyond and when we die, if we are righteous, we go to be with God and that means we go to heaven (in the skies). This is at work in the NT but .., but… but… and this is where Rob camps and he’s right. The NT modifies this: it eventually lands not on just ascending into heaven (into the skies) but on a meeting of heaven and earth in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Most Christians need to learn this and the sooner the better. The “final” place in the Bible is the New Heavens and the New Earth — and these two meet in Jerusalem! Read Revelation 20-22. Bell’s emphasis here is correct and important.

Second, I want to argue the rich man in Luke 18 was asking about the future world too and not just the present world. For Jews of Jesus’ day, The Age to Come distinguishes itself from This Age. So, there was This Age and The Age to Come. Bell seems to equate Eternal Life with The Age to Come and to emphasize it as now, but Jesus says those who give up their lives for him will — and this is my translation of Luke 18:30 — “will not fail to receive [first] abundance in This Age and [second] in The Age to Come eternal life.” So it does not appear to me that “eternal life” is quite the same as The Age to Come so much as a property or characteristic of The Age to Come. Eternal life then is the kind of life one has in The Age to Come. [Rob somehow uses the word aion when the Greek word is aionion. The first means "age" with a beginning and an end, and he drives this idea hard. But the second one, the one Jesus uses, according to the standard specialist lexicon, means "pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end." The Latin equivalent of aionion was perpetuus. Rule for writers: use the standard lexicons and if you differ from them you better have good evidence because you are disagreeing with some mighty good scholars who have for centuries pondered the evidence in the original languages.]

So, let me put together what Jesus says in Luke 18: Jesus says his followers will acquire “eternal life” in The Age to Come, which is endless, and that means they would possess a kind of life appropriate to that Age. That eternal life, or aionion, is beginning to work its way into the present. It appears to me, then, that the rich man and Jesus were referring to a future endless reality; in fact they were referring to the future reality and saying it could invade time now — the future can begin now but it is still the future …

But Rob wants to push against this harder (p. 58): “heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time, like days and years, marching endlessly into the future.”

Third, Jews did conceive of The Age to Come in terms of endless time. Rob’s ideas need to be sharpened because Jews did think of The Age to Come in a measurement of time. I could draw on a number of texts but one NT that makes this clear is that the Book of Revelation describes the Age to Come with this description: it involves a Lake of Fire, and the Lake of Fire — which is John’s equivalent for Gehenna in Jesus, which is also called the “second death” — lasts “for ever and ever” (Rev 20:10), and there the words are aionas ton aionon, or “ages of ages.” Their way of saying this would be like this: The Age to Come is one Age piled on top of another on top of another. It is not some kind of abstract infinity but a measurement of time expressed in an endless quantity of Ages: Age after Age. [See below for more of this.] The New Heavens and the New Earth have that same property, but instead of a fire it is a place where all things become New (21:1-8). In fact, I would say the Jews did think of The Age to Come in a measurement of time. And they used what was the longest one they knew: ages upon ages.

Now let me turn this inside out, and for those who are deconstructionists, that’s what this is. “Here is the new there” is Rob’s line. OK, but… the new heavens and the new earth are different enough from what is now here that Rob’s here-is-the-new-there is actually somewhere else because it is not the same place as we have now right here. The here-is-the-new-there is all new so his now-here is not his there but a new-here and a new-there. It may be here, but here will be so different that we can take off our oven mitts and play the piano and dance to the eternal music. The minute you start talking about taking off our mitts you enter into the “somewhere else” (at least in part).

Now reduced to its simplest form: When the rich man asked Jesus about eternal life and Jesus used “life” in his response, they were both talking and thinking about what it takes to participate in The Age to Come, that future endless glorious rule of God when heaven and earth meet in the New Heavens and New Earth. Jesus was saying it can begin now, but that now will continue into The Age to Come, which is eternal and where death will be no more. The Here, then, is a foretaste of the There.

The rich man, I suggest, was asking a 1st Century version of what some ask today when they say “How do I get to heaven?” Our answers will nuance “heaven” but they aren’t in a different category altogether as Rob contends.

[Another Jewish expression for eternal as endless is found in the Jewish Josephus, when commenting on the Pharisees, and he was one of them at one time in his life, says the "souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment." Jewish War 2.163. The term "eternal" here is not aionios but aidios, and that word (like aionios) comes from aei, which means "always." Josephus, the Jew, the former Pharisee, sees punishment as endless in duration. The good have a soul that passes into another (eternal?) body via resurrection. See also Antiquities 18.14, which gives a variant on this same idea with aidios again meaning eternal punishment and the good souls being given a new (eternal) life. More at Jewish War 2.154-155, where endless punishments are stated.]



McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 3

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/06/exploring-love-wins-2/

Exploring Love Wins 3

by Scot McKnight
April 6, 2011
Filed under: Universalism — scotmcknight @ 5:01 am

I will begin each post in this series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with this prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

People ask questions about the faith for a variety of reasons and I want to sketch four — there are of course other reasons. Some ask questions because they want to know. This sort of person asks a good question and then sifts through the Bible and sorts out theological history and intellectual options in an attempt to find the truth. Some people ask questions in a more careless fashion — they ask questions, some of them quite good — like How can God be all powerful and all good and have a world like this? — but don’t seem to want to find answers. They just don’t work hard enough. They are proud of having good questions. Some ask good and middling questions but the questions are a cloak for doubt. They don’t ask to find an answer but they soften their overt doubts or unbelief by expressing them in a question. Others ask questions to befuddle and to bewilder — all with a desire to confuse in order to lead to other questions that are behind those questions in order to find deeper answers. I think Rob is trying the last approach in the chp we are looking at today. [Again, help out this conversation by FB sharing it or by Retweeting it.]

The questions he asks in the first chapter are piled on top of one another, one after the other, question, question, question. They are probing one major issue: If we believe in an afterlife, and if that afterlife is entered as a result of some “condition”, what does it take to get in? What do you think? Please stop and answer that one. That’s the question this chp provokes.

Touching on one Gospel text after another, he is led to this laundry list of options, and I eliminate his white space: “Is it what you say, or who you are, or what you do, or what you say you’re going to do, or who your friends are, or who you’re married to, or whether you give birth to children? Or is it what questions you’re asked? Or is it what questions you ask in return? Or is it whether you do what you’re told and go into the city?” (16-17)

Bell observes that “almost everybody, at least at first, has a difficult time grasping just what Jesus is” (17). Then this: “Except for one particular group.” Then he points to the demonized people. Not that this matters that much but, no, that’s not right. The Gospels clearly present a spectrum from outright rejection (those who sin against the Spirit) to passive inattentiveness (“this generation”) to various forms of belief and obedience, like the disciples. The disciples, in their sometimes failures, represent those who have genuine faith. And then he points also to the woman who washes his feet know him — but why choose her? Aren’t there also plenty of others? Well, he’s sampling and dipping in and out.

His point, so I would infer: getting in might be the way the gospel is presented, but there’s a list of options about how one gets in. His chp rhetorically baffles the reader to get us to ask: What does it take to get in? [If we believe in the "in vs. out" gospel. I do.] And what does this whole getting in or not getting in stuff say about God and what the faith is all about? Is getting in what it is about? Do many present the gospel this way — in an “in vs. out” approach? Let’s take a good look at what we’re doing and saying and ask this question.

But is there confusion on the part of the Gospels? I don’t think so. One needs only to read the Gospel of John to see his terms for proper response, like faith/believe, and abide, and obey. Or examine the “enter into the kingdom” sayings of Jesus — and I can’t quote them so will list them (Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; 10:17-27; Matthew 5:20; 7:21; 21:28-32). But Jesus’ rhetorical aim is not to bewilder by listing but to provoke his listeners in order to gain their attention so they can see the all-consuming claim of Jesus on life.

I will put this differently: from one person to the next the Gospels show us that Jesus did not say the same thing. He didn’t say “Do these three or four things and then you can enter the kingdom.” Shame on our evangelistic simplicities. No, he summoned each person out of their own particular and concrete realities, revealed what it was that stood between them and him, summoned them to see that this is the First Commandment all over again — have no other gods before me — and make the absolutely stunning claim. It’s all about coming to Jesus, surrendering to Jesus, trusting Jesus, obeying Jesus, or following Jesus. Variants on a theme, folks. Variants on a theme.

That trust in and commitment to him was the new first commandment. These demands aren’t designed to bewilder but to stun us into attention and to dig into the depths of our soul and say “Will you give yourself to me or not?” Rob’s book never really comes back to this listing of options, but I think his book does answer the list of questions by synthesizing an answer in chp 7 into this: We respond to God properly by accepting his love story of us instead of the bad story we’ve got of ourselves. He summons us out of our story into God’s story. I like that approach too.

There’s much more to say, and we don’t have space for it. You can read my take on the theme of this post in One.Life: Jesus Calls, We Follow, pp. 109-119.

Book Review - "Who Can Be Saved" by Terrance Tiessen

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830827471/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jescre-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830827471

Who Can Be Saved?:
Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions

by Terrance L. Tiessen
February 2004

Editorial Reviews

"This book does two things impressively well: It skilfully clarifies many issues that too often are blurred in the discussion of world religions, and it argues the author's own views with gracefulness, maturity, and cogency. Professor Tiessen thus takes his proper place in the forefront of evangelical theology of religions with a book that will become a reference point for all further work in the field." (John G. Stackhouse Jr., Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture, Regent College )

Product Description

Throughout history millions have lived and died without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite vigorous missionary efforts, large populations of the world today have never been evangelized. And now religious pluralism has set up shop on Main Street. The question "Who can be saved?" forces itself on the minds of Christians like never before.

• Is there a wideness in God's mercy?

• Does God reveal himself in a way that invites all people to respond positively in saving faith?

• Does one have to be an Arminian to believe so?

• Or is there a way for Calvinists to see how God might reveal and save apart from the explicit "gospel" and yet exclusively through Jesus Christ?

• And if so, what does this say about the role of religions within the sovereign providence of God?

These are big questions requiring thoughtful care. In this intriguing study, Terrance L. Tiessen reassesses the questions of salvation and the role of religions and offers a proposal that is biblically rooted, theologically articulated and missiologically sensitive. This is a book that will set new terms for the discussion of these important issues.

Amazon Reviews

David Stump (August 9, 2006) - The question of who can be saved from a "christian" point of view is considered in this book. Must someone be cognitively aware of the facts of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection to be saved? If so, just how many of the facts? And to what extent of accuracy? What about people in other relgions? What about babies? The mentally incapacitated? That's what this book is all about, and it is a detailed and very deep thought out work on the matter. This book requires some real mental effort, but it truly is a mind opening read for bible believing christians. The author goes beyond the typical conservative fundamentalist christian reaction to non-christians, and within this book, displays very careful and penetrating thought to the above mentioned sort of questions. One may not end up agreeing with some of his conclusions, and the author does come from a calvinistic perspective, (which is totally fine with me) however, if the author's calvinisic stance bugs you, don't let this one aspect of the book keep you from the immense value of this work in so many other areas that it deals with. This book will truly expand your mental horizons on this crucial subject. I have not come across very many works as valuable as this one pertaining to this subject. The main value of this large work is that it is a penetrating and stimulating read on this subject. It will really get your mental gears turning. This book helped to broaden my horizons concerning God's salvation amongst people in other cultures and religions without softening in any way the truth of Jesus as the pinnacle and apex of God's redeeming activity for humanity. Should be required reading for theologians and missions minded christians. A Tour de force. Another very interesting work somewhat related in concern is: The Gospel In A Pluralist Society by Leslie Newbigin. These sorts of books take seriously the biblical claim that the good news of Jesus as God's saving activity is indeed the true locus of God's saving activity, and yet these books seek to place that biblical truth in the wider scope of the global perspective of other cultures and/or religions. Must reading for christians in a cross culturally connected world that ours has become.

Orville B. Jenkins "Research Guy" (August 21, 2006) - In 2004, I read the 30-page Internet précis version of this book, annotating it heavily as I read and interacted with the author. I later bought the book, and will now read more deeply in the full version of the book. This is an extremely thoughtful and excruciatingly detailed discussion of the state of people in cultures who have not heard the specific message of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Tiessen evaluates everyone who has written anything on the topics, systematically going through every perspective, objection or proposal on each aspect of the question he considers. He includes a proposal of how the strict Calvinist [full determinist] view of election and predestination by God can accommodate the proposal that God has offered to every individual in every cultural setting, whatever the external knowledge or social situation, an adequate lopportunity to hear and understand the core meaing of God's call to himself in repentace and faith, while allowing for the rejection of so many.

Tiessen believes and lays out in extensive detail his beliefs that in every culture God has a way of working with every individual to present an adequate understanding of himself, to allow for an adequate opportunity to "be saved." This is based on the scriptural foundation of the relational, covenantal concept of salvation [commonly ignored or misunderstood in today's western individualism]. I found his logic and analysis superb and his proposals on most fronts acceptable.

I found, however, that I got very frustrated with the nit-picking logic of his attempts to defend traditional Calvinism. He indeed developed levels of probability and causality that are not commonly dealt with, and his reformulations seem to overcome several traditional criticisms of Calvinism. His proposal likely seems hopeful and welcome to Calvinists. This new logical defense of an ultimate deterministic view of the final response of individuals to God's call irons out a few of the difficulties facing a reconciliation of the obvious free offer of reconciliation to God to every person and nation with the few statements that attribute to God a free and absolute sovereignty in all things, including the grace granted for forgiveness of sins and salvation-reconciliation to him.

I found the same problem in the final level of deep determinism I find with all deterministic forms of thought. No matter how thin you slice it, in the end, it skews the intent and meaning of the biblical declarations from the dynamic, experiential and relationship cultural worldview of the east in to into a western, philosophical worldview that required clear and stratified categories of logic and metaphysical structure. It is just inadequate to limit the statements of the biblical writers to a foreign set of logical and metaphysical categories that come from a whole different worldview. Calvinists just can't seem to handle the paradox this dynamic mindset causes in the strict Greek philosophical approach so beloved of even the modern Western mind. They just can't seem to leave it unresolved.

Tiessen's excellent detailing of logical possibilities in the metaphysic of election (predestination) still finally still came down to one declaration that contradicted another, when he says that there is a full and free opportunity to hear and understand, but in the final analysis, the Lord's prior free choice not to choose this person prevents the individual from making the final response, however or in what form he heard the call.

I enjoy the dynamic approach of the eastern thought, which is very similar to the African worldview of dynamic relational realities I have lived with all of my adult life. Even in the Western forms of thought, there are better ways to accommodate the apparent contradictions, even in western thought. An obvious one that has been productively used for over a century is called Process Theology. Another valiant attempt now under attack by retrenched thinkers who can't give up their Greek way of thinking to allow a real biblical culture to speak to them, is Open Theism.

I recommend this book to anyone serious about probing the problems and possibilities of the possibilities in Christian doctrine for the salvation of peoples who have not heard the overt message of the gospel as understood by the western Christian faith. Tiessen has done more than anyone I have read on this topic, and I feel he has admirably succeeded, despite the deep problem I mention in this one section attempting to accommodate traditional legalistic Calvinistic theology.

The bonus is that when you read Tiessen's book, you will be exposed to virtually every other contribution on this topic, from every other perspective, now and through history! An amazing work to have come from one man's mind and pen!

Robert Veale (May 12, 2008) - Initially I thought 500 pages must be too long to make the case for the wider hope for the unevangelized. After reading the book I have changed my opinion as this book filled with thoughtful ideas and relevant observations. Along with Pinnock and Saunders, Tiessen posits a the case of hope for the unevangelized. His presuppositions are clearly described. Tiessen upholds a high view of scripture and the uniqueness of Christ in salvation and therefore is included in the evangelical camp. Interestingly, he shows how the wider hope is compatible with monergism. One strong area of the book is the area of how God can reveal himself in surprising ways to those who do not know the name of Jesus. God can even reveal himself through other religions even if those religions and fundamentally far away from the God of Israel and His revelation in Christ. I didn't agree with every point but the time I spent reading was very worthwhile. For those interested in this topic, this should be a must read along with "No Other Name" and "The Wideness of God's Mercy".

McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 2

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/04/exploring-love-wins-4/#more-15446

Exploring Love Wins 2
Scot McKnight
April 4, 2011
Filed under: Hell, Universalism

Because of the firestorm created, I am beginning these discussions of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

Hell. That’s the subject of conversation today. And God. Our view of God is implicit and explicit in our view of hell. The question then is what view of God is suggested by your view of hell? And, how does your view of God shape your view of hell? [Forgot: If you like this conversation, please FB share it or Retweet it.... thanks.]

I want us to sit back for a moment to consider the single-most important problem Rob Bell is facing and seeking to resolve in this book. That problem for him is how many in the church, and by and large most in the 19th and 20th Century of American evangelicals, have understood hell and who and how many populate hell. And what that view implies about God. Here are the three big facts, and you correct me if I’m wrong here.

• Those who have heard the gospel and who have accepted it will go to heaven.

• Those who have heard the gospel and not accepted it will go to hell.

• Those who have not heard the gospel will also go to hell.

I am aware that some, I don’t know how many, believe in a fourth line:

• Those who have not heard the gospel may be in a special class, and could be judged in a different way — on the basis of the light they have received from natural revelation. [At the end of this post I briefly discuss other options.]

But my experience in the evangelical world, which historically has been more or less exclusivist (salvation only in Christ, but also understood as consciously responding in this life to the preaching of the gospel itself [again see end of this post]), does not lead me to believe that there’s much reason for hope for those who have not heard. And there’s no hope for those who have heard and who have not accepted the gospel. Yes, some are much more optimistic about the fate of those who have never heard the good news about Jesus Christ, but Rob is not responding to the optimistic evangelical.

But this sketch of three or four points isn’t all of Rob Bell’s problem.

If one takes that third fact seriously, and many evangelicals have done just that, it means that most — let’s say the vast majority — of humans will go to hell because most have not heard the gospel at all. And vast numbers who have have not accepted it. Witness contemporary Europe for instance, or much of Russia. Add now to this the millions and millions in the Far East, most of those in Africa until the missionary movement, those in Muslim countries and millions in South America and other places not mentioned on this good globe of ours… and then add to this those who a thousand years or ago in far off places … you get the picture. The problem that arises from these three (or four) facts is that God created millions and millions of human beings over time and only a select number of them will go to heaven. The problem that arises, therefore, entails what we believe about God.

Of course, there are some theologians and probably loads of Christians who have believed otherwise. But the fact is that if one believes salvation is only in Christ (exclusivism) and that to be a believer one must consciously believe the gospel, then Rob Bell’s caricatures or exaggerations are not as far fetched as some might be suggesting. And the more one fudges in the direction of inclusivism — that there’s a wideness in God’s mercy, or that there’s a different judgment for those who have not heard (and it’s merciful etc etc), that those who died before they were born, or before the age of accountability, etc — the less one fits the stronger exclusivist category. It’s fair to ask “Why infants who die will be saved but not those who have never heard?” And it’s fair to ask “If infants can be saved, why not others?”

I don’t believe anyone should be "for-or-against" Rob Bell’s book until one has grappled with this problem. It won’t do just to poke at Rob’s soteriology, or lack of interest in how the atonement occurs … yes, those issues need examination. But the problem probed in this book, as I see it, and this is dawning on me the more I ponder it and the responses, is this:

I believe most evangelicals Christians, and I won’t speak for Catholics and Orthodox etc, suppress this problem to where it doesn’t really matter. Furthermore, they not only suppress that question but they suppress what it makes them think about God in quiet moments. So, there’s a fifth approach that many take today:

We don’t know what becomes of the millions, perhaps billions, who have never heard the gospel.

But, this appeal to agnosticism is for far too many a cop-out. It is too often born in a conviction that doesn’t have courage. Many of these are true-blue exclusivists but don’t like its implications, so they say “I don’t know” or “That’s in God’s hands.” [On other kinds of agnosticism, see below.] Some use agnosticism as a cloak for a universalism or pluralism they don’t want to admit.

So, I contend we have to get inside this problem and explore it through the problem itself and not explore it simply through our already confident soteriology or doctrine of Scripture. The problem is that no matter how strong your view of Scripture or salvation you have to come to terms with who and how many are in hell or who and how many will be saved. We might not know numbers, but our theology will inform us about the “who” and that will also mean the “how many” is also clarified.

I’ve asked a question like this — how many North Koreans will be in hell? – a number of times to friends in the last month and I’ve had very few say “All” or “Most” but instead there’s been a nice genteel “I don’t know.” But that “I don’t know” seems to me to fly in the face of the dogmatism against Rob’s much softer — almost all or all or he hopes all — view.

You can’t condemn Rob’s view until you face the problem and tell the world your quantification theory. The more you say “I don’t know” the more Martin Bashir is asking you what he asked Rob Bell.

Some other options:

1. Double predestination, which is appealed to rarely and even more rarely claimed publicly in this sort of discussion, would say "For those who have not heard the gospel ... if they were elect, they'll be saved. If not they, they'll not be saved."

2. Other terms often used are inclusivism (that God saves through Christ but includes others on the basis of what work, and that inclusion is based on response to truth) and accessibilism (that God somehow reveals his saving truth to all humans who have ever lived, and has done so at least one time in the life of each person, and judges on that basis but salvation is only through Christ). I am ignoring post Vatican II Catholic thinking and Orthodox thinking because it does not appear to me Rob is speaking into those contexts.

3. Religious instrumentalism teaches that God uses other religions to point us toward God and, in some forms, that Christ is present in those other religions though in a lesser way than is present in the Christian faith.

4. It seems to me that many evangelicals, if not most, understand exclusivism through the lens of what Terry Tiessen calls "ecclesiocentrism": salvation is coextensive with the church whose responsibility it is to proclaim the gospel. So, exclusivism here means through Christ but that "Christ" is known only through the gospel, which is made known by the church's witness.

5. There are two other kinds agnosticism: some are optimistic, like John Stott and R. Mouw, and others are pessimistic, like J.I. Packer and D.A Carson.

This sketch was helped along by T. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830827471/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jescre-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830827471

---------------------------------------------------------------

Selected below are miscellaneous comments to McKnight's blog above that show the various struggles Christians go through in attempting to work out the many expressions of God's love and justice; eternity-issues both hear and later; what "the kingdom of God" can mean now and later; what the good news of the gospel really is (or isn't); the expressions of Christ's atonment v. the TULIP system; how our "theology" more-or-less reflects our view of God, the Cross, the concept of salvation; and the list goes on-and-on. So here are some snapshots that were thoughtfully written by conciencious readers to Rob Bell's book Love Wins.

skinhead

---------------------------------------------------------------


Mel, there are good reasons to take the “agnostic” view but they have to be good reasons and not — as I often hear — a cop-out from confessing some hard beliefs. I could be wrong on this one, Mel, but it seems to me that part of Rob Bell’s audience is those who don’t want to own up to what they are really saying about hell and about God. I read through a number of studies of late, one by Chris Morgan and one by Terry Tiessen, and don’t see “agnosticism” as a consciously worked out theory so much as one way exclusivists don’t admit to themselves what they believe. For instance, Stott is agnostic but very optimistic; Packer and Carson are only partly agnostic because they are (I use this word guardedly) pessimistic.


Dan, how is that statement “unfair”? I believe it’s the case. One should say what one thinks if one is going to say Rob’s view of how many go to hell is wrong. Yes, I agree, many do say what they think. I’m not sure what apologetics books are saying has anything to do with the current wave of criticism of Bell’s book. I am asking those who speak against his view say what they think.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, brother, you’re jumping the gun on this one. Yes, all the problems and issues are interconnected but first we’ve got to get the “problem” sorted out – the problem Rob Bell is addressing. Do you think the “number in hell” and what that says about God is the problem Rob Bell is addressing?

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff, I don’t say it is “illegitimate.” I clearly outline a few kinds of agnosticism. I am against using agnosticism as a cop out, and frankly I’m seeing it on both sides today: some use it to cloak universalism or pluralism while others use it to avoid stating the real implications of their exclusivism.

Rob Bell, so I think, is asking people to own up to what they say they believe.

BTW, I doubt very much that most careful thinkers on this topic are actually full blown agnostics.

And I also doubt very much that “I don’t know” was at work in the missionary movements of church history.

Comment by Scot McKnight — April 4, 2011 @ 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this paragraph:

“Faith is being confident about what God has promised; presumption is being confident about my own speculations. God obligates Himself by His word, but He is not in any way obligated by my speculations.”

If we get to heaven and Rob Bell turned out to be right I will dance an eternal jig that everyone I have loved, but who haven’t loved Jesus in this life, has been shown mercy beyond what I thought was taught in scripture. However, though I would be delighted to discover Bell was right all along, I don’t think that is clear in scripture, and while it is a great thing to hope, it can be a dangerous thing to believe and teach.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I heard a Sunday school lesson several years ago by Sam Waldron, he is definitely a old school, calvinistic baptist and is fairly influential in the reformed baptist movement (he has written one of the only modern expositions of the 1689 Baptist (Calvinistic) Confession of Faith).

For some reason he was on the topic of hell and children, especially newborns. His basic points were that (1) the bible teaches hell is the destination for people who do not repent and believe and (2) we need to trust in the goodness and mercy of God that whatever the conclusion is, God is still good and just.

I think he wanted to be both faithfully exclusivist and hopeful at the same time. That is where I find myself.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin,

Good points, but let me push back slightly. It is not without import to say that one’s view of how many go to hell says something about God. And I’m not making a case for what to believe here. For many, to say that God sends millions, or billions, to hell forever — and we can say it is their fault and that God doesn’t “send” but that people “choose”(forget the nuances a minute) — is to say something about God, too. In other words, there’s a “theology” at work in what we believe about hell and it has a direct connection to what God is like. It is a fact that some think this shows that God is sovereign, gracious to those whom he is gracious, and to others that God gives us freedom and to others that God is sadistic. I don’t take that last view, but I don’t think it is deniable that a theology is at work in one’s view of hell. Two simple options: for some it proves God is holy and just, eternally so, and for Rob Bell, because he hopes for an empty hell, that God is loving, eternally so. Yes, of course, there’s a spectrum here but my only point is that hell implicates God.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie,

I think your comment (26) is partially true and partially false. While I agree that more spreading of the gospel is demanded from an exclusivistic theology, the gospel is almost exclusively spread in this age, and in the past several centuries by people who held an exclusivist theology.

William Carey, George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, C.T. Studd, John Paton, David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards, Jim Elliot, Amy Carminchael, Lottie Moon, the moravian brethren, John Knox, John Calvin, Martin Luther, etc. there isn’t a single, famous, missionary since the reformation that I can think of that didn’t hold an exclusivistic theology.

Likewise, in our time, the biggest senders of missionaries, by far, within evangelicalism are Southern Baptists, but we could also talk about Heartcry, China Inland Mission, etc. Exclusivists support missions a great deal, but I do agree they could, and should, always do more.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------
 Jose,

Are you sure that the Jesuits weren’t exclusivists. I seem to recall that the whole reason they did stuff like torturing people during the inquisition was to save the people from heresy (and hell).

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree that I, being an exclusivist, am usually a practical agnostic because I just don’t like dealing with the weight of hell. I abhor the thought of it, and cannot bear to think very long about it, but it has never really negatively affected my view of God. It could be because I was an adult convert and knew what I was signing up for, and loved Jesus despite that doctrine.

The fact that this doctrine repulses me personally, doesn’t change the fact that I still see God as infinitely loving and just.

Last thought, if the eternal (time) punishment of hordes of sinners makes us recoil in horror and question the nature of God, why doesn’t the infinitely horrible (intensity) punishment of God own perfect, sinless, spotless son, who never deserved any punishment for anything, but bore the full weight of the father’s wrath, similarly make us recoil.

I ministered to a muslim in college who found to thought of a father pouring out his wrath on his blameless son incomprehensible and refused to the gospel for specifically the reason that doesn’t give most Christians a second thought.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I see a connection between how we view hell and how we view God. What is being assumed here, however, is that the traditional view of hell is somehow biblically accurate. This is a huge assumption.

Which Hebrew word means “hell” in the OT? Sheol? That is NOT the traditional hell, so the OT does not support the traditional hell view.

Which Greek word means “hell” in the the NT? Gehenna? Hades? Gehenna was an actual place in Israel. One could walk over and see it. It would be like me writing about Manhattan, and years later translators substituted their word “hell” for my word Manhattan as though I was talking about hell and not Manhattan. Hades is also a word with a meaning in Greek — but in Greek mythology. If we assume that their mythology is correct on this point, then Hades is where everyone goes when they die. This is not the traditional view of hell, either. Moreover, is Jesus validating Greek mythology when he says Hades?

So, it appears to me that neither OT nor NT vocabulary support the traditional view of hell. I was raised believing this view, and do not consider myself a liberal, agnostic, or atheist. I am a Christian, but am having a difficult time continuing with the traditional view of hell anymore. The word is just not there in the Bible!

Therefore, my view of hell is that is not a doctrine clearly defined in the Bible. Yes, punishment and judgment, but these are not the same thing as hell. God, to me, is then the one who loved the world, sent his son, and will reconcile all things unto himself (Colossians 1:20).

Comment by keo — April 4, 2011 @ 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

keo,
 
Thanks for your comment, but it is ahead of our discussion of hell next week. But I’ll give you a hint of where we are going. As I explain in One.Life “Gehenna” is as surely a burning pit outside Jerusalem as “heaven” is the blue sky (ouranos means sky), but neither Jesus nor his Jewish contemporaries were so flat-footedly literalistic to think “Gehenna” could not also be a metaphorical term for a final destination. And any study of the Jewish apocalypses makes that abundantly clear. The traditional view of hell, I would suggest, is more derived from Revelation 20-21 than just “Gehenna” in Jesus’ teachings. More of this next week.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin, purgatory for Catholics is for Christians who need to be purged of venial sins. Rob connects purgatory to hell, which is decidedly not (or mostly not) Catholic (for Catholics purgatory is the antechamber to heaven and not at all connected to hell). Furthermore, he pushes the universalism theme in connection to purgatory so he’s got far more going into purgatory than Catholic theology, which again is only for Christians who are certain of hell and how need to be purged of sins. So far as I can see purgatory is not about a second chance, and Rob explores that theme too.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

K. Rex Butts,

I agree that there are difficulties with these issues, but the way to deal with them is to get the evidence on the table — say Acts 10:34-35; Rom 2:14-16; Acts 17:24-30; Romans 10:9-10 — and to process theories in light of what the texts say and don’t say, so that we say is within those parameters. There are really solid reasons why the Church has always been exclusivist, for instance, and why it has been more than wary about universalism and second chances, and there are reasons why there have been discussions about those who have not heard, but yet not entirely optimistic either. These issues deserve exploration.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Scot – I may be misreading you, but it seems like you’re saying “I don’t know” is not an okay answer and is a copout. Why? I’ve always understood that we should speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where its silent (generally…I know there’s always implied things we say, etc.). Since Scripture doesn’t say anything clear about all those that haven’t heard the Gospel, then why do I have to have a strong opinion. The times that I’ve said “I don’t know” to non-Christian classes of students they have appreciated it and it became a starting point of conversation. When I say “I don’t know” I truly mean that I really don’t know. There’s no hiding what I really think. Just my experience and opinion. Again, I could have misunderstood and want to understand better.

Comment by Matt — April 4, 2011 @ 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

To add to that last post, I come from a conservative exclusivist background. If I had to answer I would say that God would only hold them accountable for what they knew and it’s very possible people from Korea who don’t hear the Gospel could get in based on God’s grace and mercy. But again, I feel like I’m talking about something I am unsure of.

Comment by Matt — April 4, 2011 @ 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Matt,
 
I’m not saying that and I’ve not communicated it clearly enough so I will say it again: For some agnosticism is a cop out; I think I said “for far too many”. Others are in the bracketed discussion at the bottom of the post, and those are being agnostic about what the Bible is not clear about. But there are many, many who really are strong exclusivists who may have hope for a few but overall think all the others are going to hell who say “I don’t know.” That’s the agnostic I’m picking on here.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve noted jabs at making God’s love the controlling attribute (e.g., Rob Bell) and others arguing for God’s holiness being supreme. With belief in the unity of God and that God’s attributes do not create schizophrenia in God, we need to ask how does “hell” equate with God’s justice? If as a finite being I sin 75 years worth of sins (i.e., a finite number) how is God just in *punishing* me eternally? Secondly, if Jesus died for my sins (even if I never believed in him or received him), why does God require a second payment? Mine. Is that not double jeopardy? Jesus paid it all (in my case) and I have to pay it all for eternity. Let’s talk justice, too, and not just love and holiness.

Comment by John W Frye — April 4, 2011 @ 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

John Frye (72),

That is why calvinists will contend that you cannot say Jesus died “for every individual”…he died for his elect.

To put it more succinctly, I think this was Boice’s paraphrase:

Calvinists believe in limited atonement, explicitly, they believe that the atonement procured by Jesus was limited in scope, it only secured salvation for God’s elect. However, (exclusivistic) arminians also believe in limited atonement, implicitly, they believe that Jesus’ death provided a limited atonement for every individual, but that the atonement was “limited” in its effectiveness. It doesn’t actually forgive all of your sins, bring you into right relationship with God and usher every individual to heaven, it requires that each individual, who already received this “atonement” cooperate in some manner for the atonement to be effectual.

For this reason calvinists are, generally, very ready to say that universalism is a much more logical position if you believe that Jesus died “for every individual” because they see little reason for Jesus to pay for the sins of someone on the cross, only to see that person, let’s say Hitler (assuming he never repented and believed), also pay for those sins a second time.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin,

Thanks for commenting on atonement justice (77). I am aware of TULIP and the dreaded middle L–limited atonement. Within the TULIP system, it all fits symmetrically. But double predestination or God actively choosing some and passively passing over many, leaves us with a God who decrees the eternal conscious torment of billions. And according to comment 66, God finds “pleasure” in the eternal torment of billions of conscious being bearing God’s image because, after all, God is God. Yet, may Calvinists back off the L and say, as Arminians do, that Jesus’ atonement is sufficient for all, but applied only to those who respond. IMO, that implicates God participating in the double jeopardy for one set of sins….Jesus’ death (sufficient to satisfy the wrath of God for ALL) and requiring the eternal punishment of the unhearing-the-gospel sinners and the gospel-hearing, but unrepentant sinners.

Comment by John W Frye — April 4, 2011 @ 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

John Frye,

I think that it is important to remember that TULIP is, at best, a sincere attempt to harmonize scripture in a logically consistent manner. I think there is a biblical basis for its teaching, but the only reason there is an “L” in TULIP is that people starting asking “If Jesus has already ‘paid for the sins’ of the entire human race, then why are some people still going to end up in hell?”

Calvinism has a lgical answer – “he didn’t really pay for the sins of the entire human race”

Universalism has a logical answer – “you’re right, they won’t”

And other belief systems, on this point, are murkier or less logical.

Likewise regarding other dilemmas, calvinism and universalism are less logical, biblically faithful, or both.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

“Any thoughts on why this teaching is so strongly resisted?”

or

“Why people that are exclusivist are so against the idea of Heaven and Hell being present here and now through the decisions that we make?”

This isn’t about exclusivists just loving the doctrine of hell, and that God sends people to hell, and that it is eternal. It isn’t about our preferences at all, it is about what we view as the most biblically faithful exposition of scripture. We could be wrong, but that is, generally, the motivation for people who aren’t fond of Bell’s theology.

I have said on this comment page that I will dance a jig in heaven if he is right, or if any universalist is right. Throw Hitler and Pol-Pot in heaven too and I will still be ecstatic that no-one is suffering, but it isn’t about what I want heaven to look like. I, and most exclusivists, think the bible teaches one thing and that some people teach something contrary to the bible and that teaching things contrary to the bible can have bad consequences if they do indeed turn out to be wrong.

You could contend that even if he is wrong, it isn’t a big deal because noone is going to stop evangelizing, or telling people to repent and believe, or that noone will really believe they can put of repentance until after death and keep enjoying their vices in this present life. I think that, based upon my reading of the bible, widespread acceptance of a “second chance after death” theology could have terrible consequences and eternity is at stake, so up to this point, I’m not a fan of it.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

I have a few issues with your discussion – 1)”Many of these are true-blue exclusivists but don’t like its implications, so they say “I don’t know” or “That’s in God’s hands.” [On other kinds of agnosticism, see below.] Some use agnosticism as a cloak for a universalism or pluralism they don’t want to admit.”

When I say I don’t know or It is in God’s hands means that I have grappled with an issue, sought clarity through scripture and truly can’t find a clear answer. This isn’t a cop out. If we could totally understand/quantify God, then He wouldn’t be God. There is a reason that God didn’t spell out totally ABC what Hell was/looked like. But if you believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, then Christ is the only way to heaven (you know – I am the Way, the Truth, the Life, no one comes to the Father, except by Me., I am pretty sure He meant that). SO, where does that leave the little man in Tibet (what my friends and I have affectionately named those who have never heard the name of Jesus)? I don’t know. If you can say with certainty that you do know, I would like the scripture upon which you base this knowledge. I do know antedoctal evidence where missionaries have reached new people groups and when reached, they said we were just waiting for the name of that which we already know.

The issue I have with Love Wins (and what my friends and I can’t get past) is that they say that if everyone is not reconciled in the end, then it says or shows the blood of Christ was not enough. I say that to deny the existence of an eternal consequence of not accepting Chrsit is to deny the Justice of God. We have so neutered God. If you read through the WHOLE Bible, God is a God of mercy – yes, but He demands Justice. Even after Christ, He demanded justice – Revelations anyone?????

My other issue is that if everyone is reconciled in the end, if Love conquers all, then why earth. Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven, if not to see as many saved as can be saved? If there is no eternal consequences to our choices, then why not bring heaven back NOW and let us get on with eternity? I don’t get it. That would be a cruel God that I would want no part of.

Comment by Lori Jefffries — April 4, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lori Jeffries: Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven, if not to see as many saved as can be saved?

And there it is: the one-sentence summary of why the usual exclusivist, Four-Spiritual-Laws, “all the non-Romans pages of my Bible are stuck together” evangelical soteriology sucks.

It tells me that my life is a waste of time and I’d be better off dead. It is objectively pro-suicide.

Discuss.

Comment by Mark Z. — April 4, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree DRT. I think I would go full bore epicurean if all this world was just sounds and fury, signifying nothing. If there is no heaven or hell, then we should, in the immortal words of Dave Matthews Band “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die…tripping billies”

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin#122, One of the great joys of my life that I have found is that the upside down teachings of Jesus are indeed true. I have found my greatest pleasure and most satisfaction in giving rather than receiving, and in the relationships with others and the world rather than making the world the way I want it.

Without a heaven or hell I think we should still live the life that Jesus teaches us because he is right, we can experience the Kingdom of God here and now and it is wonderful and beautiful unlike anything else.

Comment by DRT — April 4, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lori #113 I wonder if you see the dualism presented in this comment “if Love conquers all, then why earth. Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven”. Do you see you are pitting earth against heaven? The physical (bad) against the spiritual (good)? It’s dualism… more specifically gnosticism. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s how it sounds when I read it. I think we can all agree that in Genesis God declares His creation “very good” and in the Incarnation I see God re-affirming His declaration. We were not designed for Heaven, we were designed for earth… that is where God put us from the beginning. In Jesus, we see God bringing about his Kingdom here on earth “as it is in heaven”.

N.T. Wright wrote a wonderful book about this “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church”.

Comment by Ann — April 4, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

The kingdom is a society doing the will of God — on earth.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Scot. Now, I hope the following is clear. To “get inside” the problem, as you invite us to do, I think we have to deal with what it means to “be saved”, which also means dealing with the question “What is the good news?”. Remember a while ago when you were asking questions about the subject of another book (sorry, can’t remember which) and you were trying to ascertain what peoples’ experiences had been wrt what they were told -as Evangelicals- about “how to be saved”? And the significant majority of people said that what they were taught “in the pew” was basically “turn or burn”? And remember how you kept saying, no, that’s not what’s taught, it’s more nuanced than that? And remember how people kept telling you, “But Scot, that *is* actually what we heard and understood, not only as children but also as adults.” What people heard was hardly anything like your definition, except sometimes the relational aspect vis-a-vis God and others was included. But really, the only message of salvation most of us heard was, “Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior so that you can go to Heaven (a far-off place) after you die, and avoid Hell (also -probably- a far-off place).”

Both of these questions touch on the Kingdom of God, because that is the subject of the announcement of the good news, according to the Gospels. As an Evangelical, I heard that the KoG was what we got when we “got to Heaven” and/or was “only spiritual” – again, having nothing to do with your definition. A notable exception was John Wimber, who, as someone who believed the Gospels should be the lens through which the rest of the bible was to be interpreted, at least grappled with the concept and incorporated it into his vision for the church. (He didn’t have the formal linguistic and historical training to do much more with it than that, which was perhaps a good thing at the time.)

The interesting thing to me is, in your comments in the post, you go along talking about “being saved” and “accepting the gospel and going *to* Heaven/Hell” with seemingly no reference to the definitions you just gave me. I see an incongruity there, an incongruity I’m not sure you grasp: it seems you are using the same vocabulary that you say isn’t really involved in the “Evangelical message” of “salvation”. I think this is at least part of the inner problem you want us to address, and is related to eschatology as well. (So the circles of theological ripples widen… )

I think Rob is addressing the on-the-ground, in-the-pew teaching. I think at least part of the reason you couldn’t, in your part 1, “hear” what he was calling toxic is that maybe you can’t yet see the incongruity. The way Joel in comment 70 explained it was the way I read the quote with which you had difficulty. Now, I could be wrong. At the same time, I’m just putting it on the table that you might have a bit of a “tin ear” to what Rob is hearing from people who tell him their stories, because you couldn’t seem to hear the common thread in the overwhelming majority of the stories people were telling you in that other series about what they were taught was “the Gospel” and what constituted “salvation”.

That said, I really, really appreciate the tack you are taking. It sounds like the book is, more than anything else, an interaction with a sort of “sociological” circumstance that Rob keeps encountering, and you recognize its importance as the real issue, not simply a matter of bare doctrinal correctness.

Dana

Comment by Dana Ames — April 4, 2011 @ 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Dana, I agree: the categories being used in the various lines are the categories used by the very common approach to salvation, and it is the categories Rob is using in his book and seeking to deconstruct. And, yes, I would not frame the gospel story this way. The first book you are talking about is McLaren’s — and your summary is a softened version of his Greco-Roman narrative. Rob’s approach is much closer to the ground level of how the average evangelical hears the gospel message.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 5, 2011 @ 5:53 am