Progressive Christianity: Vol 2
March 28, 2005
2. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
…umm, yah. So this has to be one of the toughest questions. What about those who aren’t "Christians" - what is going to happen to them? I’m guessing that many people would be okay with being "progressive" Christians, but when it comes to this question, this is where the lines are drawn, this is where the sides are chosen, this is where we see who "really" are the "true" believers…
If you’ve been a youth pastor before, or involved in any ministry, this IS the question. "What about those tribes out in the middle of nowhere who have never heard the name of Jesus before…what’s going to happen to them? Are they going to Hell???" I hate these questions. For a variety of reasons:
- We’re speaking on issues that we have no say in - these are God-issues. These are not decisions we make, nor do we even have the slightest say in the matter…
- God tells us in Deuteronomy that "the secret things belong to the Lord" (Deut 29.29) and I think we have to take God at God’s word with this. There are things we are not going to know…and we need to leave it at that.
- These are not questions that are going to help us live as faithful followers of Christ in this world. These questions don’t allow us to be present to new waves of the Spirit…and to see and be open to where the Spirit is moving…These questions don’t call us to Kingdom-living.
You may accuse me of simply avoiding the issue-at-hand. And perhaps I am. Purposefully. Because of the aforementioned reasons. I wrote a sermon a few weeks back called "Your God is Too Small." I closed the sermon with this paragraph:
Truth be known, I really don’t want a small God. When it all comes down to it, when I’m standing in line at the pearly Gates, I want to be condemned for having a God that was too big. I want to be “that guy” who believed in a God that was TOO gracious, and a God that was TOO loving, and a God that was TOO HUGE. I want to believe in a God who brings those into relationship with God that we would never guess; a God full of surprises. That is the God I believe in. A wild God who faithfully pursues all, not just a select (or an “Elect”) group.
We need to trust God enough and believe in a God who is big enough to work in other faith traditions. We need to believe that there is truth in other religions, and also realize that Christianity does not hold the market on truth. Jesus is truth - and Jesus is not bound by or to our man-made religion.
All of that said - there is still part of me (having been raised fairly theologically conservative and going go a very conservative evangelical Christian college) that still feels a bit uncomfortable with saying "Everyone’s in - we’re all good." I love hearing Anne Lamott say it, but when the words come out of my mouth, they feel a little bit odd. Am I willing to say that everyone’s faith expression is as true for them as mine is for me. Am I willing to see that Jesus is simply the path I’ve chosen, but that there are other paths to God that stand outside the tradition of Jesus. Or is just about Jesus - or is it about the Spirit as well - should we be listening more to the Spirit and watching when and where She moves…?
I don’t really know where to go with this one — I do know that I’m not God, and that, in the end, these questions are not up to me to be decided. I know that for me, I need to simply love God and love others - and let God take care of God’s stuff. Is it progressive to say that everyone’s in? Sure, I’d say so. Is it progressive to acknowledge that we really can’t have any idea about this question, and just avoid the question to begin with? Sure…that’ll work too I think. I really don’t know where to go from here…any suggestions?
Tags: Liberal-Theology, Progressive Theology
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
March 28th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
nice post. personally i think all faiths are welcome in the “kingdom of god”. but that’s just me.
March 28th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Ekapa — Try rethinking Kingdom as kin-dom, to remove the idea of a hierarchy (go with Reign of Christ if you need a substitute for King of Kings). Substitute kin-dom during the Lord’s Prayer and it will make a difference in your thinking (along with debt/debtors). The idea being, of course, that Jesus came to bring us together has Brothers and Sisters in Christ — as a Family, not as a political structure… as a family that takes care of each other through good times, through hard times, in differences and agreement, etc.
Adam, well-articulated. Where do we go from here? To the masses, one person at a time, through love. We show each person that we encounter that our God is big enough for them, but that doesn’t mean they have to believe like us — but won’t they share a bit about their God with us? And then we see the common ground, and the kin-dom grows. At least, that’s what I’ve been doing. Your calling may be different, but I do believe it’s about finding common ground with those around us — even those who disagree with us. We always have at least one thing in common — we are beloved Creations of the Creator. Be well, Adam. I look forward to your further reflections.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Adam, yesterday I taught an Easter lesson on Doubt, in spired by Doubting Didymus (most call him Thomas, though John 20:24 says he was called Didymus!). The application for you, in this post, is that I applaud the questioning you are engaged in because it is by facing and resolving our doubts that we come to a real and true, honest and stong, faith. As you wrestle with the “isolated tribes” question, I urge you to hold fast to God’s requirement that we acknowledge Jesus as the One who died in atonement for our sins, and that we must submit to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, that we must persevere in love and obedience to Him, and that only in this way can we gain our salvation and entrance to Heaven.
Is God big enough to save the isolated tribesman? Of course! How? No clue; we’ll find out in Heaven. Is God big enough to work through other religions? The answer has to be a firm, “Yes, if.” IF they somehow acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior and submit to Him. If your loving desire to include everyone causes you to forget that one essential requirement of Christianity, then you will slip down a very slippery slope to a place you don’t want to be. At that place the word “Christian” loses all meaning. If your love for people and your desire to see everyone saved, causes you to ignore the requirements of real salvation and extend the promise of salvation to those who do not meet the requirement, then you are, in reality, extending to them nothing more than a lie…and that is not love.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Adam,
I’m thinking about those who would even admit that they just want to do what they want. Know what I mean? What about them? Do they get to be in the “kin-dom,” too? Maybe that’s not the right question. Maybe we should ask if they even want to be in the “kin-dom.” And then we have to ask ourselves if God will MAKE them be a part of it.
If we can acknowledge that some people obviously don’t even want to belong, then maybe we can start asking questions about other faiths that at least want to seek truth outside of themselves.
So while I don’t want to be too quick to judge or dismiss the beliefs of others, I’m also not ready to believe that whatever others believe is what’s right for them.
Even as a follower of Christ, I think I have to look beyond my own subjective experience of Christ. I have to be willing to be informed and guided by other people, the Bible, and even the culture surrounding me.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Though I’m sure he is not the latest favorite, C.S. Lewis is fairly “progressive” on this question, depending on who he is being compared to. You may already be familiar with his thought on this (if not I can give you the references).
He allows that God may work salvifically through other faith traditions, but still maintains that Christianity is the fullest expression of God’s truth, and if others are saved in other faith traditions, it is still through Christ that they are saved (whether they recognize it or not). This may still be more than you want to say, but I think it’s an attractive way to be open to God’s desire for all of us to be saved while still holding to some pretty plain scriptural statements (”way, truth, life, no one comes to the Father except through me” etc.).
March 28th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Adam,
I am not sure about the metaphor of a big or small God. I want to be the guy who embraces God in all of God’s particularity. Here’s my issue. If we say there’s a God behind Jesus Christ, a mysterious X, we always assume that this God will somehow be more inclusive, more just, more generous, more loving, more gracious, more righteous than the one we see borne witness to on the pages of the Gospels. But what if the hidden God has a left hand? What if the mysterious X says “No” more than “Yes”? What gives me hope for the salvation of all sinners, those inside and outside of the Church, is the wondrous combination of justice and mercy that embrace on the cross. Here infinite righteousness honors infinite love. Infinite holiness honors infinite grace. The Good News of the Gospel is that there is a cross at the heart of God (Rev 13:8, 1st Peter 1:20).
Karl Barth, while lecturing at Princeton Seminary, was asked if he believed God only revealed himself through the Christian religion. Barth replied no, insisting that God doesn’t reveal himself in ANY religion, but through his Son Jesus Christ. The problem with some progressive Christians is that they don’t take Marxist critiques of all religion, especially Christianity, seriously enough. Feuerbach isn’t enough, we must go deeper. I don’t view any religion as an automatic vehicle of God’s working and ways. Everytime God works through one, whether it be the Christian one or another tradition, it is a miraculous instance of God’s self giving in Christ, an event that the Church can’t claim possession or ownership of.
SCJ
March 28th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Micah, that’s certainly one of those points of C.S. Lewis that many people like to pass over, but he certainly does go there. I remember reading Lewis’ subtle universalism in “The Last Battle”…the part about any worship and service paid to _____ (what was that other god called?) would be directed to Aslan…very interesting stuff…but not something that everyone also remembers (or wants to recall) about C.S. Lewis.
March 28th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
The other god was called “Tash”, as I recall.
He was a particularly nasty god as well. I think that makes Lewis’ universalism all the more radical.
Now that I think about it, the REAL bad guys in that book were the ones who mixed the worship of Aslan and Tash (thus creating the syncretistic hybrid “Tashlan”). The syncretists were much more evil than the “honest” Seekers of Tash.
food for thought, no?
March 28th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
nice Barth ref Scott..
Barth writes, -To realize that religion is really unbelief, we have to consider it from the standpoint of the revelation attested in Holy Scripture- (Ibid). Thus, revelation contradicts and displaces religion, our attempts to -think of God and to represent Him- according to our own standard. This revelation for Barth is Jesus Christ who -replaces and outbids those attempts, putting them in the shadows which they belong.-
Barth goes on to say that -No religion is true. It can only become true, i.e., according to that which it purports to be and for which it is upheld.- In order for religion to be classified as true, it must be adopted by and marked off by revelation, which again for Barth is Jesus Christ. The Christian religion can be considered true not because it is not guilty of idolatry or other sins but because it is true -only as we listen to the divine revelation.- Listening to the divine revelation means accepting the judgment of revelation on all religion and allowing ourselves to be led beyond that judgment. Accepting the futility of any attempts at religion, Christians allow themselves to be the first judged by God-s revelation and then through faith in which the grace of God is present, be led to belief. Barth goes to great length to ensure that Christianity is not regarded as true because of some -inward worthiness, but only by the grace of God, proclaimed and effectual in His revelation.- Christianity is only true because of Jesus Christ, not because of any theological or doctrinal systems.
adam…im doing an independent study through my blog on Christianity’s relationship with other religions..might be revelant to some of your thoughts here…good stuff..
peace
shivers
March 28th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
it’s a big question. and i think it is appropriate to defer it to God - we simply cannot know for certain.
and yet, i do think it has implications for us as faithful followers in the world and for people in search of the constant movement of the Spirit.
I’m not sure how to answer the questions more than for myself (what I believe), but if we say that it is only by accepting Christ that people are saved, then that affects our work as faithful followers in this world. For we all desire for all to be saved (at least in our good moments), so if they must accept Jesus as the Christ in order for that to happen, then we really need to be persuasive and aggressive in evangelizing and spreading the faith, for the good of others.
If, on the other hand, we believe that God (who is not behind Jesus in my theology of the Trinity, but one with Jesus) works through other religions, then we need not focus so much on converting people as perhaps working for social justice or helping people encounter the living God, in whatever form. Or whatever other aspect of the Gospel we believe is primary, or that which we are called to do.
I don’t know what the answer is, I’ll personally take my chances on being damned for a God that was too big rather than risk believing in a God that is too small, but whatever answer we come to (as individuals, as communities, as churches) it will affect our actions in the world, not to mention where we look for the Spirit.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
This is why I like process theology, because salvation is not the point. The point is answering God’s call in our lives — which may lead to experiences that feel like what we would call salvation, but are not the point of the journey. Instead, the point of the journey is to respond to the Divine Lure.
March 28th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
aristotelian logic anyone? - Does God contradict Himself is His revelation? Can two propositions that are in contradiction be equally true? ‚ÄúI am THE way, and THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” If God is speaking through other faiths and contradicting Himself in other revelations - wouldn’t He be a liar? How could this very statement of Christ and (assuming there are other revelations) telling Buddhists NIrvana is attained the practice of meditation and of good religious and moral behavior be equally true? …the muslim and the five pillars?
Would a loving God be as vague as you or point #2 proposes or would the specificity of the revelation God in His Word point to the true narrow path to God? The premise of such questions about about isolated tribesman is not about the tribesman…its a question about the character of God. Is He just? I believe that no one is treated unfairly before the throne of God…His own character would not allow Himself to deny His own love, mercy, justice, righteousness, holiness, etc…
Adam, why would you be condemned for thinking God is too big or too gracious, etc.? God Himself declares those things about His own nature in His word…but He is not constrained by our conceptions of how we think He should work. Do concepts of heaven and hell are seem unjust from a universalist mindset because no one wants to be left out for following their own path or is God’s justice again being called into question? I think one could be condemned for the pride/idolatry of attempting to make a God comprised of other gods who reigns in a kin-dom…
Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
-James
March 28th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
As I wander the halllowed halls of Princeton I mutter…
There are two sorts of hypocrites; ones that are deceived with their outward morality and external religion; and the others; those that are deceived with false discoveries and elevation; which often cry down works, and men’s own righteousness, and talk much of free grace; but at the same time make righteousness of their discoveries, and of their humiliation, and exalt themselves to heaven with them.
March 28th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
What the HELL is that supposed to mean?
March 29th, 2005 at 9:24 am
I had been hoping for the spirit of Elijah to come and God raises Jonathan Edwards up from the dead. Good to have you back!
March 30th, 2005 at 11:06 am
In response to the second post:
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An’ how’d you get that, eh? By exploitin’ the workers — by ‘angin’ on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an’ social differences in our society!
WOMAN: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That’s what it’s all about if only people would–
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don’t have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,–
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: –but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more–
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh — who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ‘ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen — strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you here that, eh? That’s what I’m on about — did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn’t you?
Jesus uses the word “kingdom” - we can’t ignore it, we can’t change it. What you dislike about that word may be precisely what God intended it for.
March 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Of course Jesus uses the word “kingdom,” but if you think he meant us to create monarchical churches, I think you’re quite mistaken. In fact, Jesus radically redefines the cultural understanding of kingdom (for a good example, see Mark 10:35-45). So, yes, he uses the word. But he shook the foundations of that word’s meaning to the core, and “what God intended” was not an upholding of the socio-political status quo.
March 30th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
A kingdom is the domain, where a king, has dominion. IOW,A king only rules where he has a country and people to rule over. Hence the word’s actual meaning.
Jesus talked of a kingdom where He is King. He said it is not of this world. John 18:36-38
Mark 10 is not permission to bring down the socio-political sytems of the earth.
Rev 11:15 and 19:11-16 make it abundantly clear that this will only occur at His return. Please don’t give me the standard “Revelations is just metaphors” argument, as the point of the “metaphor” is the same,i.e. only He will establish the Kingdom in its fullness. What makes what you preach any different than the Kingdon now and dominion theologies of hyper-charismania?
March 30th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I understand the conversation between the “sons of thunder” and Jesus in Mark 10:35-45 in the following way.
Just prior to this section in Mark, Jesus predicts his suffering at the hands of the “chief priests and scribes.” Immediately following this prediction, James and John come running up to Jesus and ask, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you” (10:35). Jesus asks them what they want. Their request is a place at Jesus’ “right hand and one at [his] left, in [his] glory” (10:36). At this point Jesus turns the conversation on its head by radically redefining what it is they want in terms of what it is he can give them. He says, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” As is typical of the disciples in Mark’s gospel, they have not understood what Jesus’ has just said, and they reply eagerly, “We are able.” Jesus then grants that they will indeed drink the cup and be baptized with his baptism, “but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” Jesus skirts the question of places “in glory” by stating that such questions do not concern him.
At this point in the story the rest of the disciples are disgruntled with the request of James and John. So in 10:41-45, Jesus radically redefines what it means to “rule” by painting a picture of service. In other words, the “kingdom” that Jesus preaches about here is not one of “dominion” in the literal sense, but of service. So to praise Jesus as King means to praise him as a ruler over a kingdom of service:
“But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:43-45).
March 31st, 2005 at 10:31 am
Kellen -
“Of course Jesus uses the word ‘kingdom,’ but if you think he meant us to create monarchical churches, I think you’re quite mistaken.”
Perhaps He did not intend “monarchical” churches, but it is abundantly clear, even from the passage you cited, that He intended hierarchical ones. Take verse 44 - Jesus does not say that all will be equal, but that “whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.” Yes, this is a radical departure from the world’s system of lording it over one’s subjects, but it is still a hierarchical understanding.
“So, yes, he uses the word. But he shook the foundations of that word’s meaning to the core, and ‘what God intended’ was not an upholding of the socio-political status quo.”
I never said it was. You see, from Sibeal’s original post, he/she was not just speaking “among you” as Christ was - Sibeal said quite explicitly “use Reign of Christ if you need a substitute for King of Kings.” While it may help us and our prayer life to not regard our fellow humanity in a hierarchical/monarchical fashion, there can be no doubt that Christ is Lord. Departing from that for the sake of comfort or ideology is not true to either the biblical witness or Christian tradition. In my opinion, it is a dangerous heresy.
“Jesus skirts the question of places ‘in glory’ by stating that such questions do not concern him.”
He does no such thing! He does not avoid the question or state that it does not concern Him. He, in fact, affirms their ability to drink His cup and be baptized like Him, but says those places are not His to give - which is an acknolwedgment of the Father’s authority and once again we are back to a hierarchy.
See, I think we’re more or less on the same page. To say that laterally, ie among people, we should strive for equality is fine and something I agree with. (That is not to say that individuals don’t have different roles & vocations, though.) However, we cannot try to force that kind of equality into our dealing with God by denying his King-ship, as Sibeal implied. Yes, Christ is the king of a kingdom of service, but He’s still the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, which means He is definitely in charge. The Bible uses both “kingdom” and “family” to describe the Church, which means that both point to the true reality of heaven. We cannot favor one over the other.