McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 9: Conclusion

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/21/exploring-love-wins-9/#more-15948

by Scot McKnight
April 21, 2011
Filed under: Universalism

Of the problems Rob Bell wants to deal with in his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, two of them are what God is like in some (distorted) presentations of the Christian message and the focused intent of “evangelism” or becoming a Christian on the part of (perhaps) many. Let’s finish off the last chp of this series with this prayer again:

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.†

Caricature and ridicule have a place in Christian rhetoric, if done well and done with the right intent. Rob caricatures a view of God at work in some understandings of the Christian message. Here’s how he says it: “Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next [no one says God is cruel, but he has caricatured the God who judges to hell as cruel], if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years [this issue deserves more attention in this book and more attention by all of us], no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or good coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring untenable, unacceptable, awful reality” (175).

And then this: “So when the gospel is diminished [and it often is] to a question of whether nor not a person will ‘get to heaven’ [and just listen to so many warrants for evangelism and you will hear this], that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club” (178). I agree: “The good news is better than that.” Again, “When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather than joyous participation…”. Yes, yes, I agree. Enough preachers and parents present the gospel this that it deserves caricature and ridicule.

These are the two primary problems at work in this chp, and probably in this book. We need to get our view of God right and we need to see what the gospel is designed to accomplish.

In this last chp he begins with the two sons and the father in the prodigal son story. His point is that the younger son had a story: that he was not worthy. The older son had another story: that he had slaved for his father, and that his father was not fair. And the father had yet another story: come to the party, you have always been with me, I will accept you. In other words, “I love you.” Three different stories, and the point of the parable is to see if they will accept the father’s story and not theirs.

There is a fundamental problem here: the younger son’s story was true — he had sinned, violently in fact, and he came to his senses, confessed his sin — in terms of not being worthy (and Jesus says that very thing in Luke 18 about someone he approves) — and found the father forgiving. Rob seems to me to cut the fabric of the story’s plot: fellowship, sin, realization, confession, and the discovery of the mercy of the father. The younger son’s story was true and it was in telling that truth that he found forgiveness. Until we tell the truth about ourselves we cannot face God.

At the same time, the older son couldn’t bring himself to see the truth of his own condition, and so refused to join the party. The sons put on display what was at work in Luke 15:1-2: sinners (younger son) and the carping Pharisees and scribes (older son). Again, a good example of his emphasis on choice and freedom, which are at the heart of love (wins). I don’t see three stories with one being true, but two stories — the younger son’s story which was true and the father’s story meshed perfectly, while the older son’s story was false and didn’t mesh with the father’s story. It is tragic to miss the appropriateness of the younger son’s self-perception because it magnifies the gracious, forgiving, celebrating love of the father. In spite of the kid’s sin, the father loved him. And because he came to the father, he enjoyed the party.

Many do suffer from bad views of God and of bad views of the gospel, which he calls the gospel of goats. God is not a slave driver. The gospel is not simply about entrance but about enjoyment … he’s right about this, and too few presentations of the gospel are shaped in the direction that they can lead to this (except the health and wealth folks). The parable of the prodigal son is an excellent place to tell this story of God’s gracious love and offer of fellowship through forgiveness.

And again Rob trots out the all too familiar (and simplistic) stereotype that God punishes Jesus, and while I know some hear this sort of thing, one can’t simply wipe out Romans 3:26 without at least doing some serious thinking: God doesn’t — according to this verse that says God is both just and the justifier — just wink at sin or wipe it away without thinking, but God must do right when he forgives. The way the Bible puts it is that God has to be righteous in forgiveness or it is an unjust forgiveness. Yes, God is the rescuer. But the way the Bible is that God both absorbs sin and injustice — “he who knew no sin was made sin on our behalf” — and forgives. We are talking about God’s self-substitution and not a turning of Father against Son. Yes, I’ve heard careless preaching and I cringe at the way some have presented the gospel in these terms. But it is just as careless to flop in the other direction and dispense with justice in the forgiveness process.

One of his lines: “We shape our God and then our God shapes us” (184). So true: our view of God determines what happens to us. So let’s have a biblical view of God, and that’s what Rob is arguing for. For Rob there are two Gods: one God is Love, the other God is Cruel. No one wants the Cruel God, and I suspect that most who do convey a God who is cruel also think that God is loving. But there’s more here: Is the God who is Love capable of taking in the scope of the Bible or is this a select-some-passages God? Is this the God who is the Warrior-Lamb of Revelation? The God who stands behind Jesus’ warnings about Jerusalem’s destruction?

I want to push back by saying this: I am not yet convinced the God in this book is a God of justice. That may sound utterly nonsensical, but Rob has so distanced God from hell (hell is something humans do to themselves) and so distanced God from disestablishing injustice that the oppressed person may well find in Bell’s God little more than justification for the oppressors and the power of the already mighty. Just recently a friend sent to me a paper on James Cone, the well-known American Black liberation theologian, who argued that without wrath in God there is no love in God. If God doesn’t care enough to dis-establish injustice, God doesn’t truly love those who suffer injustice. Until we embrace the utter justice and justifiable wrath of God we will drive ourselves to a sentimental God or to Marcion’s God. The poor must have a God of justice and the rich need to hear that God is just.

God is Love, but that same God self-describes with “I am holy.” Yes, I agree — the witness of the Bible is that God is love, but how can we simply avoid God’s self-identifying words about holiness? And what does holiness say about some of the topics in this book? Can we simply dismiss the robust view of holiness at work in the Bible when it comes to descriptions of God? For some holiness is the defining attribute of God, for others it’s love. I don’t know why we get into such battles – both are true. God is holy and God is love, and God is lovingly holy and holy in his love. Holiness does not mean wrath; holiness means purity and moral perfection and utter differentness — the ineffability and the infinity of God. So I propose that there’s one expression in the Bible that puts these together in a way that needed more representation in this book: the God who is Jealous, the God whose zeal for his own glory is provoked when his people profane his Name and turn from him in sin. Jealousy and Love belong together and reveal the holy fiber at work in God’s love. Where is the jealousy of God in this book?

Rob says “We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell” (177). Hell, in other words, is not part of God’s world — or connected to God. This problem isn’t this simple. The fact is that Rob believes in hell, and that means God has created a world in which hell can exist. Whether you say God made hell for sinners or whether you say humans make their own hell, you’ve got a God who is connected to hell. God made a world with consequences, and that means we are driven to connect God to the consequences, if only to say God made the possibility of such consequences. We need to ask what kind of God that is.

And I ask this to finish: Why the ridicule like this? “This is why Christians who talk the most about going to heaven while everybody else goes to hell don’t throw very good parties” (179). Those who believe love wins, and who believe God is love and who believe what we believe ought to matter ought not to ridicule others like this. The truth of the matter is that I’ve been to some mighty good parties by those hell-embracing folks and some bad parties at the homes of those don’t give a damn about hell.

DAISYs, TULIPs and Open Theism

 

by RE Slater

April 21, 2011

Pertaining to that system of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I have applied Dr. Olson's interview with Homebrewed Christianity to Calvinism's flaws (part 1, part 2) for the direct and immediate purposes of showing the logical consistencies that is found in Arminianism but which is so poorly understood by today's evangelic rank-and-file. In my estimation, it is one of the reasons why emergent Christianity is disliked by traditional evangelicals who mis-understand Arminian doctrine which perfectly balances God's Love with Man's Free Will.

These discussions are provided in hopes of persuading our evangelic brethren to better behave their tongues and speech when loudly declaring Emergent Christians as heretics (found exquisitely verbalized in reaction to Rob Bell's book Love Wins). Dr. Olson gives to the reader a very clear idea as to the illogic of Calvinism and, I think, of the demeaning popular charges of false doctrines being lumped upon the Love Wins readership who wish to discover the beauty and necessity of God's Love for all mankind.

However, Emergent Christianity's seminal ideas and missional message has been uniquely expressed through Love Wins... that God loves His creation and is actively involved in loving His creation. This is the heart-and-soul of the good news found in Jesus Christ who is the Incarnate God become fully man and fully God,  as He messages God's love to this, our fallen, wicked world. Who atones for our sin, propitiates for our offenses, justifies our repentance, and is resurrected to place stamp-and-seal upon our glorification into the Father's name in this life and the next.

Thus, I would direct the reader towards investigating the tenants of Arminianism's DAISY system and its doctrines of "God's Love" and "man's free will" to help more fully digest and appreciate Dr. Olson's separate discussions presented on Calvinism's major flaws. In addition, I have added here my own several observations that I think lend credence to the Arminian claim of logical consistencies.

 

Arminianism's DAISY System

First, for the uninitiated, the moniker DAISY, stands for, among other things, something that simply makes me want to crease my eyes and smile when I think of the open, sun-drenched flower of the field we call daisies - each so friendly and inviting to the heart-and-soul as to whisper good cheer and love to all, who gather and look upon its crowned head.

Otherwise, as a doctrinnaire system it stands for:
 

D - Depravity of all

A - Atonement for all

I  -  Inclusion of all

S - Salvation as gift to all

Y - You, or anyone, may accept or reject

It revolves around the idea that "God's love is for the purpose of creation and not simply for God's greater glory" as Calvinism would state. That God is glorified because God loves, not because He banishes His love from the non-elect, the undestined, the hell-bound. No, God is glorified because he seeks all mankind, loves all mankind, receives all mankind. This is how God gets glory and is glorified - not simply for who He is, but by what He does because of who Hhe is. As Irenaeus would observe, "The Glory of God is man fully alive" and we can rightly say that God's love is the purpose for creation.

Further, God's (prevenient) grace is always resistible (vs. Calvinism's "irresistible" dogmas) and when it's no longer resistible than it becomes salvific grace.

Alongside this concept is that of common grace which is not salvific but holds back the worst effects of the fall so that man may create just societies - great societies - societies that worship and honor the Creator God. Common grace is given at the very act of creation and is distinguished from God's attribute of mercy that is given to man at Adam's imputed Fall.

Because man is fallen (we call this total depravity) the initiative must be from God, which then avoids the semi-pelagian (sic. pelagianism) monikers Calvinists heap upon Arminian doctrine that it is man-centered. For it is not man who first reaches out to God but it is God who first (and continuously) reaches out to man through his prevenient grace (grace that is given to man in his depraved state, in his pre-decision state of being). Thus, salvation's initial (and initiating) act, reciprocating act, and final act is always God-centered.

Too, God's grace is a gift that we do not earn nor merit but is accepted upon the basis as a gift. Nor does the very act of exercising free will invalidate its reception as that of a meritoriously-earned gift. For it is in the nature of man's free will to chose, and in this case, to chose God's grace gifts of love and mercy. Calvinists claim that Arminianists "earn" God salvation by the exercise of our free will, however, the Arminian claims that man is simply "endorsing" the gift God has already presented to him through His grace (in this case, Himself, His love, and His eternal life in all of its sin-departed fullness). Salvation by it's very nature is a transactional GIFT which is "unearned" needing only to be "endorsed" (much as a $100 check given to us as a Christmas or birthday gift requires our signature to cash it in) . A personal grace gift which we may receive, or refuse, but which is totally unearned by its recipients).

 

Lastly, the Arminian doctrine of free will guards and protects the character of God from becoming seen as a monster who elects or (double) predestinates a large portion of mankind (but not all of mankind) to hell. Whom God professes to love and yet casts into hell's deep away from His very essence that professes love to His creation. Moreover, Calvinism's TULIP system makes God out to be a kind of devil who lies about who He is, His intentions and purposes. That shows God to be defective and not good, nor all-wise and all-loving, by declaring purposes of "limited atonement" whilst at the same time deceptively declaring His love for all mankind. 

The Five Points of Calvinism's TULIP System

T - Total Depravity - man is born into, and enslaved to, sin thus causing man to be totally unable to seek or love God because man is evil in every portion of his being.

U - Unconditional Election - God elects men unconditionally by mercy alone and apart from any foreseen virtue, merit or faith in those elected. Conversely, God has chosen from eternity that He will withhold Himself from the non-elect, those men and women whom He will condemned to His eternal wrath.

L - Limited Atonement - or "particular atonement" asserts that Jesus' work at Calvary's cross is limited, and applied, only to the elect of God who will be atoned my Jesus' death. Hence, Jesus' atonement is theoretically given to all mankind but practically limited only to the elect of God.

I -  Irresistible Grace - God's saving grace is only effectually applied to the elect so that over time the elect can no longer resist God's grace and must submit to His will of saving grace. A grace which is determinative and co-op's man's free will to effectually cooperate, believe, repent, or obey. In effect, man becomes an automaton and not a free willed agent. One who is elected and therefore bade to enter into God's elective grace.

 

P - Perseverance of the Saints - God is sovereign and cannot be frustrated by any human or human agency, nor by creation itself. Those whom God calls into communion with Himself will continue in faith until the end, whereas those who are not called will fall out of the faith. Conversely, those who fall away either never had true faith to begin with, or, were not effectually called by God. 

Variants to Calvinism's 5-Point TULIP system

Supra-Lapsarianism, or High-Calvinism - the Fall allows God to chose some to salvation and some to damnation.

Infra-Lapsarianism, or Low-Calvinism - the Fall was indeed planned but without reference to whom will or won't be saved.

4-Point Calvinism known as Amyraldism or (hypothetical) Universalism - where limited atonement now becomes unlimited atonement.

Hyper-Calvinism, that states that not all men are called by God's grace to salvation, but only the elect few.

Neo-Orthodoxy, Neo-Calvinism, Christian Reconstruction, and modern-day Calvinism are all variant responses in the Reformational faith movement to the Age of Enlightenment in its scientific, social and political imports. These deal more with the process and applications of the beliefs of Calvinism as a church culture and as a religion.

I should lastly note that by-and-large, evangelicalism is based upon Reformed theology and that Calvinism's systematic doctrinal TULIP system does not fully define Reformed theology. Rather, Reformed theology is a very large, very consistent, hermeneutic dispensing with the approbation of the Scriptures through covenant theology and all its particular details related to the covenantal ages of the bible.  And because of this, has given rise to many other systematic points of departure within Protestant faith communities, associations, denominations these past 500 years. But this is for discussion at another time. 

Some Observations about Open Theism

Within Arminianism has grown a new branch known as Open Theism that says the future is unknowable because God doesn't know the future decisions of his morally "free" creatures (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, John Cobb, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell). This concept, and related arguments, are based upon the nature of time rather than on the nature of God. And so, this is not a declaration against God's sovereignty and omniscience. Rather, it is an observation about the nature of time being "unknowable" (see references here). - R.E. Slater

 

"For the future is composed of some  things that are already settled, and, some things that are possible and not already settled. And that God knows them exactly as they are in that way so that God's knowledge is co-extensive with reality. As such, God knows all true facts of the past, the present, and the future." - Roger Olson  (in an interview with Homebrewed Christianity)

 

Further, says Olson in his interview, "Arminians are traditionalists when it comes to understanding God's foreknowledge, that God knows the future exhaustively and definitively so that it is not necessary to push Arminians into Open Theism as claimed by classic Calvinists (who seem to simply not like Arminianism and wish to push it off into whatever direction that will get it into the most trouble)." - Roger Olson

But rather than get into the particulars of this any further, I will publish at a later date more extensive articles on the eschaton of God, his foreknowledge and that of man's freedom and relationships as relates to all three groups. To this we should also discuss Universalism and its implications. - R.E. Slater

Final Observations on
Biblical v. Systematic Theology

Overall, I find myself to be a "systematic" eccleticist who tends to critique systems and take the best out of all of them; who purposely and objectively re-frames logical philosophic discussions towards what I think is the overall intent and meaning of the Scriptures. And since deductive logic and syllogistic systematic theology is a specialty of man and not of God's narrational Word per se, we may do this. Man's words are not God's words, and we may agree to debate one another's logicisms and fallacies of internal doctrines, finding in each argument its strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, in the end, we do not wish to work from a systematic theological viewpoint that I have here presently focused upon within this section. But from a biblical theological viewpoint that is rigorously defined while left open-ended to the changing societal perspectives, needs and apprehensions of the ages of man over time.

 

For within the field of systematics we may only expect to uncover theological paradoxes, logical frustrations, and philosophic debates. Whereas, within the heart of biblical theology we may find the expression of the mystery of the Godhead, of creation and the salvation of man, his hope or his demise. That we can speak to these tender issues with sublime wonder, thanksgiving and humility. Which, I think, is the heart-and-soul of a new form of Christianity currently known as Emergent, or Emerging, postmodern Christianity.

 

And it is through biblical theology, not systematic theology, that we can do this task - and do it very well indeed! - through the study of biblical theology as applied to the Scriptures. But when we do we must know why this is, and how we must proceed, as the only sure course of apprehension and expression of our Christian faith, according to the will of God and the power of His Spirit. 

 

 

For More Information

Arminianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Prevenient Grace - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

Calvinism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism

Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-pelagianism

 

 

 

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

Fatal Flaws in Calvinism - Part 1

The first fatal flaw in the Calvinist system revisited

http://rogereolson.com/2010/10/02/the-first-fatal-flaw-in-the-calvinist-system-revisited/

by Roger Olson

October 2, 2010

Recently I wrote about flaws and fatal flaws in theological systems. All have flaws. Some also have fatal flaws. One I mentioned that I see in the Calvinist system (as articulated by some leading Calvinists) is the dual claim that everything without exception is foreordained and rendered certain by God for his glory and that certain heresies (probably all heresies) detract from, diminish, demean God’s glory and rob God of his glory.

Some respondents here have attempted to defend these two claims by arguing that God’s glory is eschatological or that (and this seems to amount to the same) certain things that detract from God’s glory are foreordained by God because they are necessary or helpful for his full glorification. I’m not convinced that these defenses relieve the contradiction. Here’s why

I will use an analogy. Imagine a husband whose wife has been diagnosed with a terrible cancer. The doctor tells him that the only cure is a three step treatment of chemotherapy and that the first two will destroy her health while the third, which cannot work without the first two, will cure her. After the third step of the treatment she will be cancer free and completely restored to health. The doctor asks the husband if he agrees to the treatment in spite of the fact that it will make his wife extremely ill at first. The husband jumps to agree–Yes, of course, start the treatment!

The doctor sends the wife to a clinic where they begin the first step and the wife becomes gravely ill. The second step makes her worse, bringing her to death’s door. She is in such suffering the husband becomes angry with the clinic and technicians who are adminstering the treatment but does not withdraw his permission to continue the treatment. He still remembers that all this is necessary for his wife’s full recovery.

However, during the second step he puts pen to paper and writes a letter to the CEO of the clinic and to the American Medical Association and to the local newspaper’s editorial pages editor blasting the second step of the treatment as doing great harm which is against the medical community’s code of ethics. He brings charges against the nurse who is administering the therapy and the clinic where his wife is staying during the treatment.

Strangely, however, he doesn’t bring charges against the doctor who ordered the treatment. He is still grateful to him and sings his praises everywhere.

The husband continues his emotional crusade against the clinic and the treatment administered there because it is making his wife so ill, all the while knowing this is necessary to make her well.

Finally, a friend takes the husband aside and says “Aren’t you being illogical? I understand your inner turmoil over your wife’s suffering, but you know the medicine that is making her so ill is necessary so the next medicine they are going to give her can cure her. And you aren’t withdrawing your permission to keep treating her. Don’t you think you’re being unreasonable to keep up this crusade against the clinic?” The husband looks at his friend and says “My wife’s cure is future; right now she’s suffering terribly. There’s nothing unreasonable about fighting what is making her so ill even though I know it is necessary so that eventually she’ll get well. Someone has to point out how toxic this second step is.” His friend says “But you know its toxicity is exactly what is necessary for the third and final step to work.” The husband replies “Yes, I know that.” The friend just looks at the husband and shakes his head in bewilderment.

In my opinion that is an exact analogy to the illogic of those Calvinists who claim (often vehemently) that some heresy detracts from God’s glory or diminishes God’s glory or robs God of some of his glory (etc.) all the while confessing that God foreordained it for his glory (i.e., as a necessary step towards his full glorification). Just as there is a fatal flaw in the husband’s thinking and acting in the story, so there is a (the same) fatal flaw in Calvinism’s polemics against heresies. I cannot take them seriously. I can only, like the husband’s friend, shake my head in bewilderment.

Olson is a professor of theology at Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, he blogs, and publishes a bunch of books….including ones for a general audience.

 

 

 

Proceed to Part 2 -

 

Fatal Flaws in Calvinism - Part 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/04/fatal-flaws-in-calvinism-part-2.html

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

Fatal Flaws in Calvinism - Part 2

Another fatal flaw in the Calvinism
http://rogereolson.com/2010/10/04/another-fatal-flaw-in-calvinism/

by Roger Olson
October 4, 2010

The second fatal flaw (that I will describe here) in (at least some) Calvinism is worse than the first because it touches not only logic but God’s reputation.

Many Calvinists claim that God loves all people. The only way to make this work within the TULIP system is to redefine love so that it loses all meaning.

THE crucial question facing Calvinism is why God does not save everyone rather than “pass over” many damning them to eternal suffering forever (when he could save them because election to salvation is unconditional).

As Wesley said, “love” such as this makes the blood run cold. There is no sense whatsoever of “love” compatible with being able to save the loved one from eternal loss and suffering and not doing it.

The usual answer offered by Edwards-inspired Calvinists (the majority among evangelical Calvinists today) is that hell is necessary for the full manifestation of God’s glory because all of his attributes, including justice, must be displayed without prejudice to any.

As I have said before, this demeans the cross as if it were not a sufficient manifestation of God’s justice.

Another way in which many evangelical Calvinists attempt to resolve this conundrum is to say that God blesses the reprobate during their earthly lives. He showers many blessings on them which shows his love for them.

However, this is simply to say he gives them a little bit of heaven to go to hell in. That does nothing to rescue the truth that God is love and loves everyone from being qualified to death.

Calvinism simply cannot account adequately for the love of God; this God (of double predestination) is not a God of love and does not love everyone.

One leading evangelical Calvinist bit the bullet on this and said famously “God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.” Really? What love is compatible with being able to rescue someone from absolute, total, everlasting torment but refusing to do it?

The most important fatal flaw in Calvinism is that it departs from the biblical portrayal of God as loving and not wanting any to perish and falls into self-contradiction by saying that God loves everyone but refuses to save them even though he could.

Of course, some Calvinists will argue that for his own reasons God can’t save everyone. But why? Is not no sovereign and omnipotent? Is his love shackled by his wrath?

Others (and some of the same) will argue that God’s “love” is different from ours. Read evangelical Calvinist Paul Helm’s treatment of this in his book Providence; he rejects that notion most pointedly. (But then, in my opinion, falls into contradiction himself.)

Some Calvinists argue that God actually regrets having to damn anyone. Why would he if it brings him glory? And the same Calvinists explain God’s choice between the elect and the reprobate as “according to his good pleasure.” Why would something that brings him pleasure cause him regret?

One leading evangelical Calvinist offers an analogy from the American Revolution. According to this analogy George Washington signed the death warrant of a young officer for cowardice. He wept as he signed it, but had to sign it to keep order among the troops.

Well, that analogy simply doesn’t work. To make it work, Washington would have to have condemned the one officer to death while pardoning another officer who committed the same offense. Also, Washington, presumably, did not foreordain or render certain the condemned officer’s acts of cowardice.

Some Reformed theologians solve these fatal flaws (reducing their fatality) by amending the Calvinist system in favor of so-called “single predestination.” Presumably that is what revisionist Calvinists like G. C. Berkouwer and James Daane (to say nothing of Karl Barth, Hendrikus Berkhof and other continental Reformed thinkers) have done.

Some Reformed theologians such as Alan P. F. Sell amend Calvinism so far as to make it compatible with Arminianism (although they do not say so). For a Reformed systematic theology that is fully compatible with Arminianism I recommend Sell’s three volume Doctrine and Devotion (2000) the first volume of which is God the Father. Sell, by the way, was at one time theological secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Olson is a professor of theology at Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, he blogs, and publishes a bunch of books….including ones for a general audience.

Continued from Part 1 -
 

Fatal Flaws in Calvinism - Part 1

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/04/fatal-flaws-in-calvinism-part-1.html

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

 

 

The Future of Evangelicalism

The Great Emergence (of) Christianity: Changing the World
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/The-Great-Emergence-of-Christianity-Changing-the-World.html

By Phyllis Tickle
posted on August 09, 2010

********

Phyllis Tickle is a renowned author, editor, and lecturer. Once the academic dean for the Memphis College of Art, she became a trailblazer in the fields of Christian publishing and ministry, as a founding member of the Canterbury Roundtable and the founder of the Religion Department for Publishers Weekly. Winner of several of the most prestigious awards in the publishing world, and holder of two honorary doctorates, she has authored over two dozen books in American religion and spirituality, including a series on fixed-hour prayer and her recent book, The Great Emergence, documents the appearance and development of emerging forms of Christianity in the postmodern context.

********

“Emergence Christianity” is changing the way we see politics, obedience, the kingdom of God, and even the Trinity. The Age of the Spirit has dawned.

No short piece of commentary can hope to speak with either credibility or utility about the future of Christianity globally. Even to speak of the future of Western Christianity in so attenuated a fashion as this is suspect; but at least one has a somewhat increased hope, if not of hitting the mark, then of coming a bit nearer to it.

Whether one chooses to speak of Western culture or first-world culture or, more accurately, of those parts of the world that practice Latin or Latinized Christianity, the truth is that the cultures and societies that are so denoted pass, about every half a millennium, through times of major upheaval. Every aspect of their common life, be it economic, political, intellectual, or sociological, undergoes massive re-structuring; and that storm of pervasive change always involves, as well, a re-structuring of the forms of religion(s) that hold hegemony at the time of shift. We are in such a time now.

Is There One Evangelicalism? (C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism, Part 3 On the Dire Need for the Imitation of Christ)

The upheaval or tsunami we are passing through in the 21st century is the Great Emergence; and just as the Great Reformation of 500 years ago gave us the rise of the nation-state, the birth of capitalism, the growth of the middle-class and, oh! by the way, Protestant Christianity, so the Great Emergence is giving us Thomas Friedman's flat world and the globalization of its cultures, the ‘mergonomics' of the world's economies, the non-nuclear and/or extended family as a norm, the ascendancy of information and technology as the basis of barter, and, oh! by the way, Emergence Christianity (not to mention emergence Judaism as well).

Like its most immediate sibling of Protestantism, Emergence Christianity is composed of many member parts. If Protestantism presents in real life as Baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans and Methodists and Evangelicals, etc., so Emergence presents in real life as Emergings, Emergents, Missionals, Neo-monastics, Hyphenateds, Fresh Expressions, etc. And as was the case with Protestantism, so it is with Emergence. All the member-parts may be distinguishable one from another, but they all are held together and seen as belonging together, because they all share with one another a basic set of sensibilities, a similar world view or context, and a common mode or timbre of conversation. They all are (and know themselves to be) kindred member-parts of a new form of Christianity that is birthing now and here in the same way that Protestantism birthed from within Roman Catholicism 500 years ago.

Institutional Skepticism – Political, Social, Religious

When we set out, then, to discuss so opaque and laden an issue as the future of even just Western Christianity, we first must take care to engage without prejudice all the member-parts of the ecclesial and doctrinal mix. Given that, and because the Western Christianity of the right-here and the right-now is in the midst of so major a re-configuration, perhaps all we can responsibly do is name as predictive some two or three of the more deeply embedded characteristics of Emergence Christianity as it assumes its place beside Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Christianity and begins to react to, and interact with, them. [I think of emergent Christianity as a flavor or a character of these mainline denominations and not as its own denomination or sect – skinhead].

1. Whether one speaks of Emergence Christianity or of one of its member-parts, one is still referring to an entity that has been born out of the pervasive and abiding fear in our times of any institution, regardless of whether that institution is social or political or religious.

1a. When Dietrich Bonheoffer spoke, decades ago, about religion-less Christianity, he may have intended, as can be argued, something other than what is forming among us now, but that does not make him any the less prescient or his term any less applicable. Emergence Christianity, like every other part of Great Emergence society, is deeply persuaded that the institution -- any institution -- by its very nature must strive to preserve and further itself. It therefore follows that the institution -- any institution -- will always argue passionately and often monomaniacally that the greater good is best served by its own continuation at all costs.

1b. Emergence Christians, because they are dwellers in Emergence times, will argue, on the other hand, that it is the community that takes precedence, the gathered community out of which direction and order must come, the community in concert as the source of authority, except . . .

2.  . . . except that, even while sharing that general fear of institutions, some Emergence Christians fear as well (and will continue to fear) the tyranny of the group, the risk of error inherent in unfettered immediacy, the lack of economy patent in having constantly to re-invent all the courses of life.

3. Those who share these reservations and who wish to find some common ground between the suspect, self-perpetuating emphases of institutions and the vitality of the autonomous community will, by definition, be hybrids. As such, they can reasonably be expected to exert a considerable and perhaps aggressive influence on the question of just where authority does lie and/or is going to lie in the church of the next half-millennium. In scripture?

4. Then what is the nature of that authority? What are its exercises and what is the existential nature of its being? With the passing of Christendom, how far into political and civil affairs does that authority verge? And how far, even, into ecclesial ones? These are the questions that will occupy the next half-to-whole century of Latinized Christianity and that will, by the way, bring it into direct conflict with its non-Latin siblings.

Strong Focus on the Trinity, Especially the Holy Spirit

If one of the principal hallmarks of Emergence in general is a chariness about institutions, then just as surely an increasingly more Orthodox or eastern understanding of the Trinity is likewise a principal hallmark of Emergence Christianity in particular. That is to say that Emergence Christianity is far nearer to the position of a co-eternal, co-equal triune, indivisible Godhead than, in all probability, has been any other form of Western Christianity in a thousand or more years; and that shift will have enormous repercussions for the Church, including its validation of an increasing Pentecostal and charismatic form of praxis and belief. The Age of the Spirit has come, just as many of the mystics had promised it would. Authority will rest not only in scripture, as Luther and Protestantism had argued, but also in the intentions of the Spirit as they are revealed to, and discerned by, the devout in prayer and in congress with one another. It is a shift of historic proportions.

Living in the Tension of the Kingdom of Christ (the Church) As Here, But Not Fully

Perhaps the most dramatic change, however, is in the conceptualizations of "kingdom" that have entered the conversation with the coming of Emergence, changes in how "kingdom" itself is to be understood or envisioned. If God is a perichoresis that dances in us human beings and through us and with us, then the dance is not about us. It is about the Whole, about some mystery that is palpable but not subject to dissection or even to naming. It is not about any particular one of us as separate from, or independent of, any of the rest of us. It is all of us in aggregate, for none of us is in any other way than in aggregate. It is the dance, and we are both the dancers and the music.

Within this understanding, then, only radical obedience, like radical Trinitarianism, makes sense. To not lose all for the sake of this perichoresis is to be unworthy of it, just as we were told by Him 2,000 years ago. Nor is the kingdom some kind of top-down, political structure. Such, Emergence Christianity says, is indeed the false imaging that has strangled the faith and the faithful for long enough. No, the kingdom is a lacework of inter-connected and equi-connected nodes or pods, like a spider's web that vibrates when any one of its strands is touched . . . like the internet when any one of its sites makes contact with millions of other nodes, and reality is changed thereby. The kingdom is horizontal, not hierarchal. It is here, and it is now. Most certainly, it is not over there and later.

The Arising Formation of a New Christian Anthropology

Such a re-definition of the kingdom is a direct challenge to the established definitions of many Western Christians and communions. Moreover, because it is a self-aware and well-argued challenge, it will also be a provoking one that demands engagement from older communions within the larger body. Inevitably, of course, each one of those older communions will be changed to some greater or lesser extent by the very engagement itself. More to the point, however, at least in terms of the Latinized Church's near future, is the fact that shifts in understanding or belief about the Trinity and about the Kingdom both rest upon, and demand, a new anthropology. One of the ironies of Emergence, both civil and sacred, is that we have come into a time when we no longer know what a human being is. We can neither describe consciousness or its etiology nor even justify its ancient claim to being imago dei.

Descartes' famous Cogito ergo sum may have consoled 400 years of our recent cultural and religious history, but it is now jestingly referred to as "René's Folly" or the "Cartesian Error" for good reason. And knowing not who we are or how constructed, nor by what means organized, makes us more like unto Adam in the Garden wearing a fig leaf out of new-found modesty than Christians have been for many a century. It ultimately may be, then, this questing for a new anthropology that history will later say of us was our greatest burden and our greatest gift as the Church marches into yet another new millennium.

From Modernism to Post-Modernism

From modernism to postmodernism: evolution vs. accommodation

http://rachelheldevans.com/article-1209840010

Rachel Held Evans
posted on May 2008

A reader recently contacted me with a good question about a topic I address on this blog and in my book:

“While reading, I noticed you made the correlation that Christianity has evolved from modernity and now must evolve again into post-modernity. I suppose I would question, ‘Why are we evolving from one cesspool to the other?; I think understanding our philosophical presuppositions is important when addressing Christian Theology, but at the same time I think it's time Christian's stopped playing by culture's philosophical rules. We have to realize we can't rewrite the scriptures (or even grossly re-interpret them in error) just to follow another culture's philosophical trend.”

This is a good question, which I attempt to address in the introduction of my book.

Whether we like to admit it or not, whenever the world changes, Christians instinctively change with it, and my “theory of evolution” is that God actually created us that way. It seems that whenever followers of Christ begin to inadvertently fundamentalize things that are not, in fact, fundamental to the faith (like geocentricism, the church’s authority to sell indulgences, the separation of the races, etc.), God allows our environment to challenge us and force us to evolve. He might use a telescope, 95-theses nailed to a door, or a March on Washington, but the result is always a re-thinking and reassessing of what it really means to know and follow God.

Evolution is just the painful process of distinguishing the true fundamentals of the faith from those we have invented along the way and adapting our beliefs and actions accordingly in order to survive in a changing environment. Sometimes we evolve because our environment disgusts us, sometimes because it challenges us, but always because the legitimacy of our faith depends on it. The same adaptability that allowed Paul to become all things to all people applies to the Church collectively. The ability of the Body of Christ to change-to grow fins when it needs to swim and wings when it needs to fly-is what keeps it alive and vibrant and relevant in this ever-changing world.

Now when I talk about the influence of culture on the Church, my metaphor of evolution should not be mistaken with accommodation. Accommodation is the opposite of evolution. Accommodation happens when the Church simply gives up and gets eaten up by the culture, when it fails to evolve as a unique creature and becomes indistinguishable from the rest of the world.

In the Middle Ages, when the papacy abused its power by waging the Crusades, selling indulgences, and issuing simony, church leaders had accommodated to a culture of greed and violence. Likewise, when Christians in America succumb to our environment of materialism, we risk losing the humble, Christ-like attributes that are supposed to set ups apart from the rest of the world.

In times like these, true disciples may become endangered species, but by the grace of God, they have never become extinct. The Church is forever indebted to those prophets and prophetesses who have, at critical times in history, spoken out against popular accommodation, often sacrificing their reputations or lives in an effort to preserve the integrity of the Church. (I think of John Wycliffe, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sojourner Truth, and Martin Luther King Jr., ) In fact, some of the greatest accomplishments in history, such as the abolition of slavery, resulted from counter-cultural action from the Church. Evolution can only occur when there is a distinction between allowing the culture to inform and influence us (as it inevitably will), and allowing it to control us. The trick is knowing the difference, and therein lies the struggle.

When it comes to modernism and postmodernism, I don’t really think one is worse than the other or that they are inherently good or bad. They just are.

Modernism brought with it great advances in science and technology. It helped Christians more reasonably articulate their faith, and provided a framework that supported their efforts to abolish slavery and make progress on major human rights issues. At the same time, the Enlightenment’s emphasis on intellectual autonomy and rationalism has led to the assumption that in order for Christianity to be intellectually viable, God’s existence must be proven empirically. I think the evangelical community has gotten to a point where it is so steeped in modernism’s emphasis on rationalism that it is obsessed with apologetics, emphasizing orthodoxy (right belief) over orthopraxy (right action).

The advantage of postmodernism is that it draws attention to the fact that all knowledge must be taken on faith. However, postmodernism, (though less defined), has its problems too, particularly as it is (mis)interpreted by popular culture. For example, when people say all religions are “more or less the same,” I worry that we’re moving to a point where we fail to recognize the unique differences between world religions and the things that distinguish the gospel of Jesus from other belief systems.

The thing is, it’s pretty much impossible not to be influenced by one’s culture. To assume that, as Christians, we can stand outside of our own interpretive communities and interpret the Bible and our culture objectively is actually a very modern way of thinking. It’s just not that easy to “rise above” one’s place in time and history in order to render a judgment about it.

I don’t think we are moving from one cesspool to another, just one age to another. There are things we can learn from the culture. There are things we should challenge about our culture. But I think it is inevitable that we will be changed by our culture.

Jesus, God in Sandals

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310293995/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=racheleva-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0310293995

Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions

by Rachel Held Evans
pub. June 15, 2010

Excerpts from Chapter 8

The most startling thing I noticed as I grew more acquainted with the Gospels was that Jesus had a very different view of faith than the one to which I was accustomed. I’m not sure when it happened, but sometime in my late teens or early twenties, it was as if Jesus packed his bags and moved from my heart into my head. He became an idea, a sort of theological mechanism by which salvation was attained. I described him in terms of atonement, logos, the object of my faith, and absolute truth. He was something I agreed to, not someone I followed…

But Jesus rarely framed discipleship in terms of intellectual assent to a set of propositional statements. He didn’t walk new converts down the Romans Road or ask Peter to draft a doctrinal statement before giving him the keys to the kingdom. His method of evangelism varied from person to person and generally involved a dramatic change of lifestyle rather than a simple change of mind. To Jesus, “by faith alone” did not mean “by belief alone.” To Jesus, faith was invariably linked to obedience…

...Needless to say, that was a strange summer. It wasn’t the summer that brought an end to my doubt, but it was the summer I encountered a different Jesus, a Jesus who requires more from me than intellectual assent and emotional allegiance; a Jesus who associated with sinners and infuriated the religious; a Jesus who broke the rules and refused to cast the first stone; a Jesus who gravitated toward sick people and crazy people, homeless people and hopeless people; a Jesus who preferred story to exposition and metaphor to syllogism; a Jesus who answered questions with more questions, and demands for proof with demands for faith…a Jesus who healed each person differently and saved each person differently; a Jesus who had no list of beliefs to check off, no doctrinal statements to sign, no surefire way to tell who was “in” and who was “out”; a Jesus who loved after being betrayed, healed after being hurt, and forgave while being nailed to a tree; a Jesus who asked his disciples to do the same…

It occurred to me that if my faith managed to survive all of these doubts then this radical rabbi, this God in sandals, would require more from me than ever before. This radical Jesus wanted to live not only in my heart and in my head but also in my hands, as I fed the hungry, reached out to my enemies, healed the sick, and comforted the lonely. Being a Christian, it seemed, isn’t about agreeing to a certain way; it is about embodying a certain way. It is about living as an incarnation of Jesus, as Jesus lived as an incarnation of God. It is about being Jesus…in tennis shoes.

Is Emergent Another Name for Evangelical?

If this guy’s an evangelical, then maybe I am too
http://rachelheldevans.com/roger-olson-evangelical

Rachel Held Evans
April 14, 2011

Roger Olson calls himself a post-conservative evangelical, and in this podcast interview with Homebrewed Christianity, he explains why he hasn’t given up on evangelicalism.

Considering our recent conversation about the future of evangelicalism and my generations’ discomfort with that label, I thought you’d be interested in his remarks. What’s more, Olson touches on just about every topic that’s been keeping me up at night over the past ten years, and does so in a way that makes me think “If this guy’s an evangelical , then maybe I am too.”

Within about an hour, Olson talks about:

• What Calvinists misunderstand about Arminianism
• What many Arminians misunderstand about Arminianism
• The future of evangelicalism
• The advantages and disadvantages of labels
• The missional church
• Neo-fundamentalism
• Open Theism
• Homosexuality
• Atonement (I loved what he said about the meaning of the cross)
• The Gospel
• NT Wright
• Rob Bell
• The unfinished work of theology

Books by Olson include:

• Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
• How To Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative
• The Story of Christian Theology
• Questions To All Your Answers

Kudos to my friends Tripp Fuller and Bo Sanders for scoring the interview and asking some great questions.

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

Want to be an Evangelical Arminian?

Roger Olson will Help

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/04/07/want-to-be-an-evangelical-armiian-roger-olson-will-help-homebrewed-christianity-96/

By Tripp Fuller • Apr 7th, 2011 • Roger Olson Podcast

I am pumped to share my conversation with Roger Olson. This card carrying ‘evangelical Arminian’ joins the podcast to explain common misunderstandings around Arminian theology, the ethical problems of being a Calvinist, the nature and future of evangelicalism, Open theism, the Rob Bell controversy, and the impact of the homosexuality debate in American evangelicalism. It was really a blast to get to talk with Roger and will be looking forward to next time (because I am sure the Deacons will want more!).

  

Olson is a professor of theology at Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, he blogs, and publishes a bunch of books….including ones for a general audience.

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

12 Ways to Make Arminianism Cool Again

Love requires risk and risk requires freedom,

love risks to love -

w/o conditions, expectations, qualifiers or obligations.

it is freely given, freely risked, freely offered.

it's response is in the form of a "relationship"

of an "I" and a "you"  -

previously non-existent

be/come alive with a "you" and an "I".

 

 

 

Today I felt like laughing and thought you may too. Rachel had a great blog on Arminianism and so I thought it should be passed along in the fun and the banter that it creates. On a side note, my personal preference leans towards Arminianism and the DAISY metaphor was great; so I think I'll keep it and kiss the TULIP goodbye. Too, Emergent Christianity necessarily favors Arminianism which is another reason that the idea of "God's love" gets so bantered about, misused, misunderstood, and held hostage by Calvinistic dogma. A little Arminianism will help open God and his love up to the mystery of life and meaning in much more encouraging ways than the dry desert lands we too often find ourselves lost within by our fellowships or our own hearts. Peace my brothers and sisters, and enjoy the laughter - we mustn't always take ourselves too seriously!

skinhead

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


12 Ways to Make Arminianism Cool Again

http://rachelheldevans.com/12-ways-make-arminianism-cool

by Rachel Held Evans

April 18, 2011

Roger Olson’s interview (http://rachelheldevans.com/roger-olson-evangelical) with Homebrewed Christianity got me thinking about how, with all the talk about the Neo-Reformed movement, Arminianism has been underrated. Maybe we just need some better PR. Here are some ideas:

1. Petition Microsoft to make Arminian an actual word so that bloggers ranting about the pros and cons of Armenians don’t sound like complete racists.

2. Create a Stuff Arminians Like blog. Entries could include: love, freedom, and “secretly wondering if we’re not elect.”

3. Three words: Driscoll. Boyd. Cagefight.

4. Instead of the “Gospel Coalition,” we’ll form the “Gospel Welcoming Committee.”

5. Get Roger Olson some thick-rimmed glasses and a pipe and send him to Catalyst.

6. The Calvinists have their own flower, so why shouldn’t Arminians? But instead of TULIP (“total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints”) we’ll adopt the DAISY (depravity of all, atonement for all, inclusion of all, salvation is a gift, you can accept or reject).

7. Start referring to Donald Miller as “Arminian Donald Miller.” (I don’t know if he’s actually an Arminian, but it’s worth a try.)

8. To counter the “young, restless, and Reformed” movement we’ll create the “middle-aged, Arminian, and not-in-the-mood-to-argue ” movement.

9. Start a “I bet we can find 1 million people who don’t want to be predestined to hell” Facebook group.

10. Launch an Arminianism Awareness Day to address some of the common misconceptions about Arminians—that we think grace is earned, that we have a “man-centered” theology, that we’re all dispensationalists, that just because we lost that one argument with our Calvinist roommate back in 2003 we’re always wrong.

11. Calvinists make T-shirts that say “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy.” Arminians can make T-shirts that say “Arminius is my homeboy…but not in such a way that I uncritically accept everything he teaches” (because we’re nuanced like that).

12. Keep talking about how real love requires freedom while extending kindness and grace to those with whom we disagree…because living your theology is more important than arguing it.

Can you think of a #13?

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

Humorous Commentary (Just for the fun of it)

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

Audie - (Spoken in deep confident voice) Look at me..Look at your Calvinist, now back to me...back to your Calvinist...I'm on a horse but I'm letting him choose where we go, now look at your Calvinist....don't you wish you were on the horse with me??...Arminian's we may not know exactly where were going but we will have more fun getting there!!

Tim - T-shirt: Calvinism: 500 Year of Reasoning Logically to the Wrong Conclusions

Dave - Arminimergent!

Rachel - Lol! What a mouthful!

Dave - Guess maybe I'm complegalitarimolimergent. Suddenly it all becomes clear...

Alan - Please, you Arminians most certainly don't want to become the annoyance that the neo-reformed crowd is, do you? On a more serious note, one of the most critically undefined terms in Roger's interview was the word "freedom" and you have used it in a serious way in #12. Theologically speaking, what is "freedom"? My sense is that most people who reject Arminianism do so over how this word is understood. Can we understand our freedom apart from God's freedom?

Cherie - #13. Another 2 ideas for T-shirt and/or bumper sticker:

JOHN WESLEY WAS NOT A CALVINIST (although he may have embraced some Reformed notions).

or,

ARMINIANS RULE!!! (well, metaphorically, because the idea of ruling kind of goes against our nature...)

chad - My wife already made a shirt for Roger Olson that says "Arminius is my homeboy" as a gift from his TNT 2 class last summer. You should ask him about it.

Cherie - Love this list. Re: #11, you should totally include the "(because we're nuanced like that)" on the T-shirt.

Nick - Perhaps you could call the distinction "John Calvin, Origen and the Stoics vs. Everyone Else."

Melinda - I like DAISY ... it was the first flower I heard associated with Arminianism, though it was as "daisy"-- re, "He loves me, He loves me not." I think we can TOTALLY rock that.

Cherie - I also like the daisy metaphor, because it's an open-faced flower. Tulips, once they open up, fall apart...

Chad - I think the problem is, Arminianism

Niki - The only reason Calvinism sounds cool, let's face it, is thanks to Calvin and Hobbes. Without C&H, Calvin would just be another theologian's name (well, and a movement, but I digress).

Ed - I think it's all about the name. I agree with Chad and Niki, though Calvin has two syllables and Arminius has 4. That's a huge number of syllables. Also, Calvinists can also say they're "Reformed," but Arminians don't have a word of their own even though they came from the same reformation. I think we need to keep things simple.

Ed - Here is the new Arminian acronym I propose - N.I.C.E. - Not . Interested in . Calvinist . Exclusivity. Then we can just say we're "NICE" Christians, and we're good... ;)

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

 

McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 8

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/18/exploring-love-wins-8/

by Scot McKnight
April 18, 2011
Filed under: Universalism

Share“There Are Rocks Everywhere” is the most controversial and important chapter in Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. This chp is going to take some special grace if we want a good conversation. 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.†

I want to sketch the substance of this chapter because it provides a sketch of how it is that God’s saving presence is made known to all people who have ever lived. Some people have profound religious experiences, seemingly out of nowhere, and some of them come to Christ as a result of those experiences. [Again, if you like this post or conversation, please Tweet this or FB share it. Thanks.]

This chapter is about the omnipresence of Christ, and by presence he means really present in an engaging and “God wants to save you” way.

What is your take on this chp? What are the implications of Christ’s omnipresence for world religions? For God’s mission to all people? Or backing up a paragraph: How does this kind of experience happen when it is not part of a church, or the gospel, or a preacher, or anything?

Bell finds a similar idea in the Rock that Moses rapped in Exodus 17 — and Paul tells us that the Rock was Christ. This is typology, not ontology. From this Bell asks how else Christ is present, and observes that early Christians believed Christ was present everywhere. Within proper limits, I agree: Christ is present everywhere. Christ is creator, Christ is life, where there is life Christ — the Life and Life giver — is present. This should not be denied by Christians with a robust view of Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 — Christ is Creator. All life is from God.

This fundamental conviction leads Rob to ask where Christ is also present. If Jesus is the Life and Life giver, Jesus is also “the ultimate exposing of what God has been up to all along” (148). A robust view of God’s mission in Christ will agree with this statement but it will want to ask, too, how distinctive the work in Christ is. What God did, is doing and will do is all summed up in Christ.

What Christ is doing, Rob says, is bringing unity to all things. Here he draws again on his universal reconciliation themes in the Bible — Colossians 1. Christ is the Life of all things and of everyone. John 12 where Jesus says he will draw “all people to myself.” And the “other sheep” of John 10.

Then Rob makes two major logical inferences: “As obvious as it is, then, Jesus is bigger than any one religion.” [He takes a cheap shot at our faith when he says "especially the one called 'Christianity'" (150). Especially? How about "including"? Why take a dig at the Christian faith and not others?] Next move: “Jesus is supra-cultural. He is present within all cultures, and yet outside all cultures” (151). So, “we cannot claim him to be ours any more than anyone else’s” (152).

There is so much possibly being said in this, and so little that is explicit, that I’m not sure what to say. But it sure sounds like a de-privileging of Israelite and Christian culture to me. It sounds like minimizing of the truth of Christian orthodoxy. When he says “we” who is that? If that is the Christian cultures of this world, then I disagree with him significantly. We don’t own Christ and he speaks against our culture, but to say that our culture has no more claim than an explicitly anti- or non-Christian culture makes no sense to me.

He’s too harsh on the Christian claims (or Jewish claims in Romans 2) but he’s seeking to expand our sense of the omnipresence of Christ. Anyone who believes in omnipresence has got to admit an important point here. The issue is whether or not that presence is a loving presence, and more particulare, an “I’m here to save you” presence. The issue is whether this Rock is present in a saving way — revealing salvation in an exclusive sense.

Sometimes people who have never heard about Christ and then who hear about Christ say “That’s who we’ve been looking for. Or that’s who we’ve been worshiping. You gave us his name.” Missionaries know about these stories. I believe the missionaries are right and I believe those people were and are experiencing the true Christ. How common is this? It’s rare.

Next logical move: He is the Way, Truth and Life. “What [Jesus] doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and and restore the world is happening through him” (154).

He clarifies now in ordinary, if very simplistic, academic terms: Bell says he’s not a traditional exlcusivist, he’s not an inclusivist (here he’s talking more about pluralism), but an exclusivist on the other side of inclusivism. God saves only through Jesus, and God is saving all through Jesus … but this means who is “Jesus”? And he pushes against the narrow views to this expansive, omnipresent Jesus, and in this expansion one has to wonder if the content of the gospel is falling out. He’s got an expansive Christ, an omnipresent Christ, an anonymous Christ, and he’s got that Christ saving in all of history and across the whole world.

He brings up three (pastoral) points:

1. We are not to be surprised when people stumble on this mystery. [This omnipresent Rock.] “Sometimes they use his name; other times they don’t” (159). OK, but… I’ve got questions I’d like to raise, a lot of them in fact.

2. None of us have cornered the market on Jesus. Of course, we haven’t. But, I ask, do some have the truth of Christ more than others? Did Jesus? Did the apostles? Do the NT writings? Does the Church? More than Islam? Buddhism? Atheism?

3. It is our responsibility to be careful about making negative lasting judgments. “We can name Jesus, orient our lives around him… and at the same time respect the vast, expansive, generous mystery that he is” (160). What’s he affirming and what’s he really denying?

I question whether he has (speaking in terms of missiology) sufficiently affirmed the distinctiveness of Jesus in the apostolic gospel, or a little more broadly, in the Bible. I question whether he has affirmed the privilege of the biblical and Christian tradition. I question whether, pastorally, he has so maximized the presence of Christ that gospel preaching, evangelism and missionary work are no longer necessary. This is getting too close to some kind of religious pluralism or religious instrumentalism, or perhaps better, less than a robust affirmation of the necessity of faith in Christ. In the Rock chapter not only the atonement metaphors no longer are in play but neither is his dying-to-live idea.

I do think Bell has discovered some of the theological categories at work in what to think of the salvation of those who have not heard: once you admit the deity of Christ, once you admit that Jesus is the Creator and the life that sustains all of life, once you admit the omnipresence of Christ, and once you tie to these the universal dimensions of God’s mission and reconciling work and once you believe that God loves all and wants all to be saved … you’ve got the possibility that Christ really is at work everywhere and to everyone. There might be some that believe this omnipresent life/Christ is general revelation and not the saving manifestation of Christ, and that general revelation does not save. This deserves more attention in Bell’s discussion. But I have major questions about whether or not Bell is dispensing with the cross in favor of a gentle omnipresent Christ. The content of the Rock simply isn’t clear to me.

And the universal scope of God’s mission in Christ, when tied into the omnipresence of Christ, does not mean all are saved. What it means is that everyone hears or knows or somehow encounters the one true God who saves in Christ.

What seems possible in an omnipresent Christ is some kind of “accessibilism” and a clear affirmation of everyone’s ultimate, final accountability before God.

Or what is at work perhaps is some kind of “a wideness in God’s mercy” or “God holds people accountable for the light they have received,” with the belief that the “light” is Christ at work.

But anything that minimizes the content and cross of the apostolic gospel of Christ is not sufficient.

This chp is inadequate for me to deal with the questions its raises.