What is salvation?
October 1, 2007
Question 8: What is salvation?
This is the last question in the “What is…” Series - if you’d like to explore any of the other questions and responses, please check them below.
Past “What is…” Posts:
Question 1: What is the gospel? | Response
Question 2: What is truth? | Response
Question 3: What is evangelism? | Response
Question 4: What is prayer? | Response
Question 5: What is theology? | Response
Question 6: What is church? | Response
Question 7: What is sin? | Response
[For more information on what to do with this post - go here and here.]
Tags: 4-Spiritual-Laws, Atonement, Community, Individual-Salvation, Salvation
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
October 1st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I always give the answer, “It depends on what you want to be saved from”.
Jesus seemed to reference something different each time he spoke with someone about their lives because he tailored his prescription to their individual need. If a person is hungry then salvation is food. If a person is suffering oppression then salvation is justice. If the person is greedy then salvation is freedom from their need for possesions. If a person is deep in despair then salvation is hope.
I think the traditional Christian idea of salvation being some kind of immortality or a good status in after-life is bad theology based on an ancient superstitious worldview. If you see no feasible hope for the correction of your situation then why not imagine a fix in after-life? If it keeps you going and out of despair then I guess it is a good thing. Personally I don’t find that helpful. In my view, salvation is the end of suffering in this life.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I like Mike L.’s answer, because, right now, this is the begged question of my own theological outlook - what are we saved from, and also what are we saved for? The idea that the entire life and work of Jesus was done just so that we could fly away on wings in the clouds belittles the sufferings of Jesus, and misses the point of much of the ministry of Jesus.
Of course, this hardly answers the question constructively, which is why I personally feel stuck on this issue. I keep thinking, “OK, fine, what then?” “Salvation”, I think for me, right now at this moment, means relief from the despair one feels as one gazes about the world. Salvation is deliverance to hope, giving strength for the upbuilding of loving, vital communities. It isn’t much, yet, but I think it’s a start.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Salvation is the restoration of relationship to God.
That is both an eternal thing (by and by, pie in the sky, flying away on angels’ wings may not quite capture a snapshot of eternity) and a present thing. For example, why did God heal people by telling them that their sins were forgiven? Yes, he restored the man whose friends dug through a rooftop, but that was AFTER he told him his sins were forgiven. The immediate need of being able to walk was secondary to another, greater need - it is the meeting of the greater need that is true salvation. Forgiving sins restores relationship to God.
But I also want to emphasize the urgency of meeting the immediate need, as people may not be able to understand the greater need until the lesser is met, because it is so overwhelmingly urgent and pressing from our viewpoint (so the hungry, the poor, the orphan, the thirsty). Thus, the manna in the wilderness or the feeding of the thousands.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
I agree with Daryl.
To answer the somewhat rhetorical questions posed by geoffrey, we are saved from separation from God, and we are saved for worship. Worship takes many forms one of which is seen in a congregation’s worship service. But worship is anything done to the glory of Christ: A life lived praising God; a life of serving others; a life of forgiveness, justice, peacemaking, and reconciliation.
Mike - “I think the traditional Christian idea of salvation being some kind of immortality or a good status in after-life is bad theology based on an ancient superstitious worldview…In my view, salvation is the end of suffering in this life.”
What do you base this idea on? Do you not trust that Jesus statements about salvation, eternal life, increased suffering, and the kingdom of heaven are authentic? If that’s the case, could you say why? I’m not trying to be malicious, I’m just interested in understanding better.
As Daryl said, there is urgency in meeting the felt need, and alleviating suffering. But the doctrines of heaven and eternal life and the resurrection are there in Scripture.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Charles,
I don’t think Jesus made any such statements about salvation in after-life. I feel those statements are made by the later generations of Christians in response to their design of Jesus as a source for gaining a better status in after-life. It is a response to the martyrdom of 1st and 2nd century Christians. I don’t think you will find those statements in the earliest accounts of Jesus teachings. The references used to support the traditional view often twist the words into meaning after-life and are a product of later Greek thinkers superimposing thier dualistic spirituality back onto the lips of Jesus. The modern over-literalization of John’s Gospel narrative is a great example.
Daryl,
What exactly is relationship with an eternal spirit? Is that word “relationship” really healthy for humans to use in reference to God? He doesn’t call me on the phone, hug me, or have conversations. If a human relationship is the model for communion with God then it is certainly an unhealthy model or one that is destined for failure based on the nature of man and God. I’ve been wondering about that lately.
Why would you see an after-life as a “greater need”. I would argue that starvation, oppression, domination, etc. are much greater needs than any kind of superstitious belief in an after-life, heaven/hell, reincarnation, etc. It is this fascination with after-life that is destroying our faith of Christianity as a source for transformation and rejection of the values of Empire.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Mike,
Ok, now that I know a little of where you’re coming from, what reason do you have to assume that the words attributed to Jesus were “a response to…martyrdom” and “a product of later Greek thinkers”? And why do you think John’s Gospel is “over-literalized”?
It seems to me, please tell me if I’m wrong, to come from an a priori assumption that there is no afterlife. If there is none, Jesus didn’t teach about it, and we shouldn’t be at all concerned about it. But this seems like faulty logic to me.
And it seems hard to say that statements such as “you will be with me in paradise” and “I’m going ahead to prepare a place for you” mean something other than what they have been accepted to mean. Of course, if you don’t think these are authentic statements, then it’s a whole different issue.
As for the relationship issue, you’re looking at it backwards. Human relationships aren’t the model for communion with God, but communion with God is the model for Christian relationships.
We disagree about some basic things here (it appears the same with Daryl), which leads to the disagreement about what is the ‘greater need’.
If you believe in eternal judgment, then it is clear that forgiveness and unity with God in the afterlife is more important than eating today. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his soul?
I partially agree with you that “fascination (I’d call it obsession) with the after-life” is causing too many Christians to ignore the “weightier matters of the Law”. When we emphasize heaven too much we end up ignoring our calling on earth. But since Jesus spoke quite often of everlasting life as the reward for our dedication to him on earth (we’ll just have to disagree about the authenticity of those statements) it is clearly important.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
In his answer, Charles writes the following: “To answer the somewhat rhetorical questions posed by geoffrey [sic], we are saved from separation from God, and we are saved for worship. Worship takes many forms one of which is seen in a congregation’s worship service. But worship is anything done to the glory of Christ: A life lived praising God; a life of serving others; a life of forgiveness, justice, peacemaking, and reconciliation.”
First of all, that is not a “rhetorical” (somewhat or otherwise), but the very heart of the matter. Second, being saved from “separation from God” - how are we separated from God? Psalm 139:7 reads, in the REB:
Where can I escape from your spirit, where can I flee from your presence?
And please don’t tell me this is only for those who have already “accepted Jesus” or “been saved”, because if that divine presence, always pursuing, never flagging, was not already there, the “salvation” in question would be impossible. In other words, being “saved” from “separation from God” does not answer the question.
Being saved “for worship”? So, if we aren’t “saved” we don’t truly worship? Are “unsaved people” therefore not entitled to the sacrament? How do we determine that? More to the point, by claiming that worship is more than liturgy, we get another begged question - if the pursuit of peace and justice can be counted as worship, are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (like the monks of Myanmar), and others who pursue peace and justice outside a Christian context “hidden Christians” in Karl Rahner’s patronizing phrase?
I do not believe my questioning is helped here. I believe that salvation comes from God the Father, embodied in the Son Jesus and a gracious gift through the Spirit. Yet I am still at a loss as to what “salvation” means in any abstract sense; I believe it is only the sum, and always in some way both more and less than the sum, of the experience of salvation of Christians.
Man, this is long. Sorry.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Charles,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. I consider that the believe in after-life was a response to martyrdom because it is the only thing that can allow these scripture to continue being of value. If we must take them as a whole including the ancient superstitions and beliefs then the “whole” is pretty ugly and ignorant. Luckily we are no longer are stuck in modernity which demanded we accpept it ALL OR NOTHING. Now in our postmodern culture, we can savor the truth-filled metaphors for their deep insights without accepting the myths as literal history.
Modern science tells us that bodies decay and don’t live on and that no “soul” exists in our bodies, so ancient philosophers were incorrect in their assumptions. Actually, I doubt that Jesus had a belief in a disembodied soul since the ancient Jewish view of resurrection was a bodily resurrection (this was Paul’s view also) which would happen in the last days and began with Jesus as the first fruits of this resurrection. However, I do acknowledge that Jesus did likely have a belief in after-life. Not all 1st century Jews did (in particular the saducees). I accept Jesus’ teaching on life, community, purpose, and hope, but I wouldn’t accept a 1st century citizens views on after-life any more than I would accept their views on cosmology or automotive repair.
As for the book of John, I don’t see it as over-literalized, on the contrary it is overtly metaphorical. But often modern Christians over-literalize its iterpretation. None of the gospels are the “gospel of Jesus”. As much as we may try to paint the letters red, they are not. Each gospel tells us as much or more about the authors beliefs in what Jesus meant to them rather than retelling factual history. John’s gospel is clearly the latest written, the most Greek and clearly the most influenced by Greek dualism. Jewish ideas about after-life were not “spiritual” but physical. Buring bones in boxes preparing them for literal physical resurrection was a common practice in the 1st century but ceased shortly after the greek/romanization of Israel’s philosophy was complete a few centuries later.
I’ll stay away from the comments about relationship since this isn’t my blog and I don’t want to steer the converstion away from Adam’s important topic. Feel free to comment on my blog if you would like to continue that discussion. I’m interested in your comments.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 am
Geoffrey -
I said that the questions were “somewhat rhetorical” because you began to answer them in your post. That is the only reason.
Separation from God: Of course we aren’t totally separated from God. But without Christ we are not united with him either. David says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. (Ps. 22)” That verse from Ps 139 says we can’t escape God or hide from him, which is true, since he is ever-present. But w/o Christ we are no more united with him than we are united with the air around us. We breathe it in, it gives us life, but we are not one.
If we aren’t saved we don’t truly worship: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him…They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. (Ro. 1:21, 25)” If a person is truly worshiping God, she has already accepted his truth and put her faith in him. She is saved. And no, an unsaved person is not “entitled to the sacrament.”
I did not say that “the pursuit of peace and justice can be counted as worship”, I said that worship is anything done to the glory of Christ. If you don’t know him, you are not seeking to glorify him. We are not saved by our good works, they are a response to our salvation.
A question: you used Trinitarian language here. How does your position on salvation (as you’ve described so far) interact with Trinitarian theology? If Christ is the second person of God, and he spoke so often of eternal life, what leads you away from that to your current thoughts?
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 am
Mike -
It seems (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re saying that you’ve chosen to understand statements about the afterlife as responses to martyrdom because the alternative is “ugly an ignorant”. Is that an accurate statement?
I don’t mind ugly, and I don’t mind ignorant, because humanity will never escape those two traits. Here’s the real question: how do we decide which parts are true and which are myth and metaphor? That matters a great deal to me. Sometimes I feel as though the prevailing wisdom is that no supernatural statement in the Bible is authentic or literal. Therefore we can trust that Jesus told parables and taught people to feed the poor, but we cannot trust that he healed anyone or taught his disciples that they would do “greater things than these”. I don’t mean to apply this viewpoint to you, I’m just describing what I see.
I think that pretty much everyone in Rome in the 1st century knew that bodies decay. But modern science can’t tell us anything about the existence of a soul, can it? How would it detect one and measure it? Can science detect spiritual things? I don’t actually believe in the disembodied soul myself, but the question of it’s existence is not one science can answer.
Why would a 1st century person’s view on the afterlife be any less valid than his views on “life, community, purpose, and hope”? Actually, that’s not even the important question. The important one is this: Who was Jesus? Was he the 2nd person of the Trinity, or was he simply a great rabbi? If he was (is) God the Son, then his belief in the afterlife is the truth.
I’m going to make some assumptions here based on your statement…they are open to correction: you believe that the Gospel of John is “overtly metaphorical”. I take this to mean (assumption) that you believe the status and miracles attributed to Jesus are not literally true, but are simply metaphors conveying other meaning. You seem to be (assumption) basing this on the findings of modern science, and the postmodern freedom to compartmentalize the Gospel into truth and metaphor, apart from internal structure.
That position is based on assumptions. You must assume that the stories are myth and metaphor. You must then figure out the most plausible explanation for their existence.
“John’s gospel is clearly the latest written, the most Greek and clearly the most influenced by Greek dualism.” John’s gospel doesn’t seem influenced by Greek dualism so much as contextualized for a Hellenized audience.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Charles,
To your first question digging into why I’ve chozen a this particular view of afterlife… I’ll answer “yes” but I’m not entirely sure I understand the agenda of the question.
As for the issue of what is “true” and what is “metaphor”. The answer is that all of the bible is true and all of the bible is metaphor. It is true in that it always conveys truth. It is metaphor in that it always uses literary symbolism to tell those truths. It is always both. I think you confuse “historical accurateness” with “truth”. That is a common modern western mistake. They are in 2 different things. We should never look to the bible for historical facts. We are forced to try and infer many facts based on biblical writing where no other historical writings exist, but that is not its purpose and it is a poor document when forced to be something it is not.
For example, it is silly to look to Genesis for FACTS about the origins of the world. It is however a wonderfully TRUE story about the state of mankind. The purpose of Genesis is not to once and for all state the comprehensive understanding of the origins of the universe and the evolution of man. Copernicus and Darwin (and now current scientists) are better equiped to answer those particular questions.
The same goes for issues of after-life which were hotly contested in first century Israel. It is reasonable to assume Jesus had a position even though we don’t have any writings of his own. What we do have is several views of his life and words through a metaphorical lens. Each lens may paint him in a different light. What the lenses tell us is more about the owner of the lens rather than the person the lens sees.
As for miracles… I feel those storeis ARE true, but on on a metaphorical level. That makes the story of GREATER value than mere historical facts. They are more than literal not less than literal. For example Jesus did march to Jerusalem to cast out the demons which infested and controlled the city and his mission was to drive the demons along with their Pagan cohorts out of the city. That is true statement about Jesus and his mission, but the story is told through a parable about a man who is “possessed” and has his unwanted guests cast into a herd of swine and cast into the sea. The symbolism of unclean animals (Pagans) and infestation of demons (corrupt temple leaders) is hard to miss once we recognize that the purpose and truth of the story is in its metaphorical meaning not in its literal meaning. So I would say that is a very TRUE story. Seeing the story as symbolic allows it to be true even today. If we had to bend our modern minds into thinking that people literally are demon possed then the story looses all credibility and becomes a mere fairy tale. But it is MORE than literal. Jesus taught his followers about God with symbolic stories so why wouldn’t his followers teach about him in the same way?
Another examle is the miraculous birth story and assention story of Jesus which were created to set Jesus in opposition to Caesar. Caesar had a miracle birth and magical assension story which was told to reinforce his status as the “son of god” and “savior of the world” in Roman Imperial theology so the symobolism was applied to the story of Jesus and is TRUE even if it isn’t historically factual. The “truth” is that Jesus is their/our Lord and not Caesar. That “facts” are irrelevant to the truth.
That was the problem faced in Modernity. People had to choose between enlightened knowledge and sacred truth (Science vs. faith). But post modern thought allows us to see both the sacred truth without rejecting modern knowledge. When viewed through this light, the plausibility of the stories and the reasons for thier telling is much more clear.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
There was no agenda to the first question, just curiosity.
In reading I get the impression that you believe that an intelligent/enlightened person cannot believe any of the supernatural stories in the Bible as historically accurate. If that is the case, then we are destined to disagree.
You also seem to treat postmodernity as a savior in itself: saving us from having to the claims of the Bible in order to follow Christ. But you accept “modern knowledge” and science as describing all that is, so we cannot accept the text as historically accurate, while asserting that there is “sacred truth”.
But science can’t tell us about the existence or non-existence of a spiritual plane and it cannot measure spiritual things. You also speak as if the question of origins is answered; this is far from true. But, that’s not an issue for this question.
When it comes to salvation, I believe that removing claims to historical accuracy of the supernatural statements about Christ is a reduction of the scope and beauty of salvation. It moves from eternal union with God to temporary physical comfort. The former is complete and unceasing, while the latter will come and go, and in the end we’ll die and none of it will mean anything.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Charles -
In your response you ask the question regarding the Bible and what it says about “eternal life”. As that phrase is never actually defined, I feel quite free to either ignore it, or at best interpret it as Paul Tillich did, which is to say that “eternity” are those singular moments that seem to transcend time, moments in which we live not for ourselves, but for others.
As for “spiritual things”, the “supernatural”, in your last comment, I can only say that these, too, are pretty meaningless words.
The “second person of God”? That’s pretty lousy theological language. Jesus, as the incarnate Word of the Father in the Spirit, is the Second Person of the Trinity. Trinitarian language is a recapitulation of the wonder and mystery of the work of God manifest in Jesus Christ, beheld in the Spirit. It is also the mystery of grace, the means of salvation - whatever that may mean. I still think an abstract definition, apart from the experiences of actual Christians is pretty weak. At best, for me, “salvation” means letting go of my own concerns, freeing myself of pride, humbling myself before others. Tied in with the “kenosis” hymn in Philippians, I think we have a pretty clear Trinitarian link here.
As for life not meaning much without some sort of afterlife - hogwash. That’s only true if you think that it’s all about rewards and punishments. There is an intrinsic meaning to life I find in my daily round with my family and friends, at work - it is being for them, working for them, loving them simply because they are, doing the best I can not because the work I do is important, but because it is the work I am to do right now. I do not do it because I will be rewarded with wings, and it does not have meaning because God endorses it. It has meaning because, I believe, the world is a little better for the love I give my kids and my wife; for the work I do, for the interaction in community with friends.
If there is nothing at the end but the silence of oblivion - so be it. If there is the whole panoply of heaven and hell - so be it. I am not distracted by such fanciful musings because, to be honest, to my mind, there isn’t much I can do about it. I trust God to make up the slack, as it were, and I leave unanswerable questions, such as heaven and hell, to one side.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Geoffrey -
Eternal life seems pretty well defined in Scripture. If you choose to ignore it, or redefine it, I guess that’s up to you. I choose to define “eternity” as “eternity”. It’s pretty poor exegesis to say that “eternal” or “everlasting” can be referring to a moment that clearly ends.
Just because I didn’t define “spiritual” and “supernatural” in my post doesn’t mean they’re meaningless. But again, if you choose to ignore them, it’s your call.
The Trinity is God is the Trinity. I used the phrase because I’d used “Trinitarian” in the previous two sentences, and felt I was sounding a little redundant. As for your statement about the “recapitulation” of mystery, that sounds like you are just trying to avoid the possibility that the “‘kenosis’ hymn in Philippians” is literal truth. Because if it is, you have to deal with the fact that Jesus is “in very nature God”, making his belief in the afterlife literal truth. Saying something is a “mystery” tends to be an intellectual cop-out.
I did not say that life is meaningless without an afterlife. What I said is that if “salvation” is simply the alleviation of suffering, then your salvation will come and go, and when you die it (the salvation) means nothing. Which is a greater type of salvation, and which is more in line with the narrative of Scripture?
If you don’t believe the statements of Jesus or the statements about Jesus are literally true, my last questions will be pretty hollow. That’s fine.
I actually agree with you about the meaning that we find in life. But that has little, if anything, to do with the question of salvation. If you choose to downplay or ignore the clear statements about heaven, hell, condemnation and salvation, then the questions will seem unanswerable.
I think this has gone quite beyond what Adam had in mind, so I’ll follow Mike’s lead and not burden this comment page any more. Feel free to comment at my site if you wish to continue it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Charles,
I don’t see postmodernity as any kind of savior. It is just an observation of our current vision of reality which is no longer bound by the either/or duality of modern thinking. We no longer have only 2 choices. Viewing the language of Christianity as symbolic language rather than JUST literal language allows us to move past the old 19th and 20th century arguments between liberal atheism and conservative fundamentalism. Progressive and faithful is a new option (at least new to many Evangelicals).
Believe what you want about the literal historical facts, the important points are always made in the metaphorical layers and on those layers we should be able to agree. We can even agree on those layers with other religions that make the same statements but with entirely different metaphors. It is perfectly healthy and acceptable to have an enlightened liberal veiw of the world without having to toss out the Bible simply because its authors had an ancient pre-enlightenment understanding of the world. We no longer have to fight our ancestors of faith who formed the doctrines of the protestant reformation just because they had not yet come to grips with the enlightenment and were still wrestling to absorb all it had to offer. We can accept their truths about life without accepting their ancient understandings of the universe (including heaven, hell, God, etc).
Can a intelligent/enlightened person “believe” in supernatural and superstition things? Absolutely! intelligent people believe all sorts of odd things. I sit on the left side of the sofa everytime my favorite football team is on offense and on the right side when they are on defense. It works almost every time! Of course science can’t prove it works, but it certainly adds to my enjoyment of the game. I feel the same way about superstitious religious items. They may not be accurate but they certainly add to the richness of life.
POST-modern doesn’t mean ANTI-modern. It means absorbing and accepting all modernity had to offer but realizing that there are many truths buried in the ancient pre-modern myths of our past that should not have been tossed out just because during modernity we realized the stories which held and transported those truths over the centuries are not literally true.
Adam, sorry for cluttering up your blog this side conversation. I’d love to hear your comments.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Charles -
Please point me to where “eternal life” is explicitly defined in Scripture. As the whole idea of “eternal life” is caught up in the Christian idea of salvation, I’m not sure how irrelevant that is.
I am not ignoring anything. Simply because the Bible “says something about something”, or someone says the Bible says something about something, does not make it meaningful. In fact, there is much in the Bible the meaning of which I puzzle over, or pass over because it is just silly, whether it’s Joshua “stopping the sun” or Elisha calling bears down on children who make fun of him.
I do believe that one difference between us is that I begin with the Bible; you end with the Bible. I do not mean this in a belittling way, by the way. I am just observing a difference of approach to these matters.
As to salvation - again, this is the best I can do right now - salvation is the sum of the experiences of salvation by those who claim it as part of their experience of God. For me, it is about surrendering myself for others and for service to God. This is vague, I know, but, like I said in my very first comment, this is a work in progress.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:21 am
My wife has noticed I’ve been a little too focused on this, so I’ll be as brief as possible.
Mike -
There were always more choices than “liberal atheism and conservative fundamentalism”. I haven’t subscribed to either.
The important points made in metaphorical layers get their validity/authority from the historical facts. If the history isn’t factual, there is little reason to care more about the story of Christ than the stories of Achilles, Romeo, or Beowulf.
The beliefs about life of our ancestors of faith were rooted in their beliefs about Heaven, Hell, and God; and the former were not more transcendent than the latter.
Sounds like you don’t truly believe that your seating position affects the outcome of the game. So you have just made my point that you believe that supernatural beliefs aren’t “accurate, but they certainly add to the richness of life.” But it is perfectly acceptable to have a view of the world enlightened by science and still believe that the supernatural events of the Bible are literally true and historically accurate.
How did we “realize” the stories weren’t literally true? You say that as if it’s settled fact. It isn’t.
Geoffrey -
I didn’t say that eternal life was “explicitly defined”, I said “well defined”; similarly to the Trinity. Here are a few hits, though: “In my Father’s house there are many rooms…I am going there to prepare a place for you…I will come back and take you to be with me (Jn 14:2,3,4)”; Paul’s discourse on the resurrection in 1Cor. 15; 2Cor 5:1-10; Phil 3:17-21; 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11. These verses describe what will happen to believers. They can be paralleled with statements about eternal life as the reward to those who believe.
You said you “feel quite free to…ignore it.” Choosing to “pass over” something is ignoring it. So, just because you choose to ignore something doesn’t make it meaningless.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that I “end with the Bible”, but that’s okay.
This wasn’t exactly brief…sorry. I’ll catch you on another question.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Charles,
The important points made in metaphorical layers get their validity/authority from the historical facts. If the history isn’t factual, there is little reason to care more about the story of Christ than the stories of Achilles, Romeo, or Beowulf.
I strongly disagree with the notion that only historical factual stories have value and authority. How about the prodigal son or the good samaritan? It seems that myths and parables are profoundly MORE true than historical facts. The reality is that those ARE historically accurate stories. Not because there was a single prodigal son or good samaritan, but because there are millions all over the world. Myths, unlike history, are not simply true once but they are true again and again and again.
Every culture in history has encapsulated their great truths inside myths. Myths are wonderful vessels that carry and preserve truth for generation after generation. The stories of a Israel’s exodus from slavery or a Jesus’ rebellion against Rome would likely have withered and died if they had not been captured in mythical language and prose. For example, without the resurrection story, Jesus’ teaching might not have survived. The resurrection is in many ways what “literally” kept Jesus alive for us. Without the resurrection there would be no Christ.
This directly relates to Adams origianal question of salvation. The myths of heaven and hell are extremely important because those stories and symbols preserve very important truths about life. We need heaven and hell. We need those truths about life which are contained in the myths. It is unfortunate that what we often glean from the stories is the surface layer details rather than the deeper meanings.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
According to the center for progressive Christianity (linked to by this blog) progressives 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.
Sorry but this just doesn’t cut it. While I affirm that some may know Christ without annunciating it (CS Lewis), we can’t in the end leave ourselves in pure moral relativity. EXAMPLE: If I said Jerry Falwell, and Tim Lahay were the greatest theologians ever–you might see my point.
Salvation is this and nothing else emerging sisters and brothers: that future point in time when God will not count our faults against us, but rather He will see Christ, and will allow us in his presence.