This piece is part of an on-going blog series called Plurality 2.0 (watch video here). Full schedule of guest authors throughout April and May is available here.
Landon Whitsitt is a pastor, radio producer, musician, and blogger. One day he wants to publish a book and come speak at your church. He is allergic to watermelon, and can cook you the best scrambled eggs you’ve ever had in your life. He likes to garden and torment his wife and four boys. Landon is probably not someone you’d like. Unless you like people like that – then you’d love him.
Within the first 18 months of my time at the church I serve 12 different people decided to leave.
Some gently and respectfully slipped out the door, and others made a big damn deal of their departure, but every single person made it clear that the major (if not only) reason they were leaving was because I believed “that everyone was going to go to heaven.” And they said it like it was a bad thing.
To a person, they could not get it through their heads why I would preach about God’s grace the way I did – a way that (to their minds) absolved individuals of making a decision to be and behave in a way that was different from how they had previously lived. As one gentleman told me, “Let’s face facts – God loves us all, but some people are sinners and are going to Hell.”
Obviously, when someone’s on their way out, that isn’t the time to make clear that I don’t subscribe to “Christian universalism” (that Christ’s death and resurrection is salvific for all, regardless of adherence to the Gospel). Rather, I consider myself a “Christian pluralist” (I believe that God’s relationship with humanity can and does take many religious forms). Regardless, their point remains: in the classic sense, I have no need to convince people to “Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus” and avoid the fiery pits of Hell.
GOOD THEOLOGY AND BAD THEOLOGY
From where I sit, I believe that it is of utmost importance to take into account what a theological system calls us to do as we are constructing these systems. Some systems are more tightly constructed than others. Some make use of narrative as their primary thread, while others make use of propositional statements. But no matter what they look like, there is good theology and there is bad theology. The difference between them is their ethics.
In other words, you can tell whether your theology is Christlike or not by how well it equips you to love your neighbor. What does your understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit contribute to your ability to serve the least of these? How does your experience of the Creator help you to serve Creation? Are humans sinful? How does that affect your understanding of the Church?
What always amazed me in my interactions with the “church leavers” was that while I was being accused of having poor theology (“You think its just fine for a child molester to go on molesting children because they’re gonna be saved anyway.”) I was also witnessing these folks passing harsh and swift judgment upon someone they considered to be “sinful” at best, and “unredeemable” at worst.
Their diatribes usually ended (and so did our conversations) when I cut them off. “I’m sorry, but I will not allow you to speak of So-and-So that way. You may have problems with my theology, but my theology does not allow for us to speak of one another that way. Does yours?”
It’s not that my theology doesn’t allow it because there is a rule against it. Its that it doesn’t allow it because it would be counter to the entire notion of who I understand God to be. Because that’s how good theology is built – an understanding of God should dictate good ethics, and good ethics should point us towards an understanding of God.
WHY I’M A CHRISTIAN PLURALIST
Pluralism is not just an acknowledgment of difference. Pluralism is the answer to the question “How do we live with difference?”
I am a Christian because I know God revealed through the work and person of Jesus the Christ. I am a pluralist because the God I know would not – does not – demand that difference be ignored. I am a Christian pluralist because my understanding of God and creation dictates that my theology acknowledges difference and forces me to act appropriately.
“Do unto others…” I think I heard that somewhere once…
Related posts:
- John Franke on Plurality 2.0
- Makeesha Fisher on Plurality 2.0
- President Barack Hussein Obama on Plurality 2.0
- Nanette Sawyer on Plurality 2.0
Share This Post:
{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s not that my theology doesn’t allow it because there is a rule against it. Its that it doesn’t allow it because it would be counter to the entire notion of who I understand God to be.
In other words, it’s that your theology (understanding of God) rules out such behavior.
This is a rather bitter, incoherent rant. Sounds like your controversial pie-in-the-sky theological universalism is backfiring. Perhaps you should rethink that one based on your own criteria for “good theology.” A psychotherapeutic divinity who accepts everyone with no eye to judgment and redemption is hardly a righteous or gracious divinity. I can understand your parishoners’ frustrations. Libertinism does result from universalism, and you should take the non-universalist position more seriously than you have taken it. It may not be right, and universalist salvation may indeed be true. One hopes, perhaps, that it is. But to rule out God’s judgment and condemnation of the Devil himself is beyond the bounds of theological knowledge — surely you know that. So don’t press so hard for such certainties. They do not exist in this lifetime.
I don’t understand the difference between “Christian universalism” and “Christian pluralism.” Is the former that all will be saved in Christ and the latter that all will be saved and some apart from Christ?
If it is the latter my follow-up question to Landon is: where does the cross fit into this picture.
You may well be right, Jason – I’m often prone in incoherence. However, I would like to take issue with the very foundation of your critique of my thoughts – I am not a universalist. I thought I had made that clear in the post.
Does libertinism result from universalism? Perhaps – who’s to say? – but I am not a universalist. Am I bitter? Perhaps, but I’m not a universalist.
You don’t seem to have paid attention to my words any better than the folks who left the congregation I serve. I wasn’t trying to talk about a “psychotherapeutic divinity” (which is an affront to who God is, btw) who doesn’t even have the wherewithal to kick the Devil in the gut (which Augustine of Hippo said was not even a plausible situation for God to have to deal with – cf. Against the Donatists).
One point, I was trying to make is that I know God as revealed in Jesus the Christ, and the God that I know is gracious enough to not just acknowledge the difference in the world (mostly because God created it) but also commands me to accept and respect it. To do anything other than that is an oppressive, colonizing form of the faith that is (here we come full circle) counter to who God in Christ has been revealed to be. If your god makes you condemn another person to Hell because they don’t have the same story you do (which, by the way, most of them don’t and their stories don’t include a “Hell” either) then your god is pretty paltry to my mind.
So yes, my theology (understanding of God) rules out that kind of behavior. If I may, how does your understanding of the sovereignty of God allow you to engage in that kind of behavior? (that was the main point of the post any way…)
@Tracy –
Sorry, I was typing a response to Jason and didn’t see your comment.
Good question: The Cross fits in for Christians the way it always has.
ie – Jews don’t need the cross – they’ve got their own relationship to the God through Torah.
Another example… Zen Buddhists wouldn’t even want to talk about a god, but I think that the ultimate reality that they speak of is what I mean when I say “God.”
Too bad so many people’s view of salvation is centered around fear and hell when there is plenty of both in our current reality. I never knew how hellfire and damnation = Good news. Thanks for the post.
you should check out the work S Mark Heim who teaches at Andover Newton Seminary (Salvation, Depth of the Riches). I think you would find it interesting and helpful in further articulating your position
@chrs – wow, Heim’s work does look pretty great. thx.
Perhaps I should have been clearer: I don’t buy the distinction between pluralism and universalism. I think that principled pluralism is tantamount to universalism.
If your god makes you condemn another person to Hell because they don’t have the same story you do (which, by the way, most of them don’t and their stories don’t include a “Hell” either) then your god is pretty paltry to my mind.
Then maybe God is paltry.
If I may, how does your understanding of the sovereignty of God allow you to engage in that kind of behavior?
My theology rules out treating people disrespectfully and demands that I treat them kindly; but by that very token (treating them kindly), it demands my unapologetic and shameless pursuit of truth, and just so does not rule out treating bad ideas with scorn.
I think that principled pluralism is tantamount to universalism.
Yet it is objectively not. I’m sorry, Jason, but you have to deal with my assertion on its own face or show why one thing is another. Just saying it is doesn’t make it so.
Are we really gonna play the prooftexting game? Seriously?
And you didn’t answer my question. I specifically asked about your understanding of the sovereignty of God, and, then, how that relates to your engagement with others. I’m glad that you’re able to tolerate people, but I want to know why you can’t respect them any more than that and fully engage who they are.
Prooftexting? You were the one who invoked the idea that “God as revealed in Jesus Christ” means such and such. I was just showing you who God revealed himself to be in Jesus Christ by referring to scripture.
By claiming that pluralism is tantamount to universalism, I mean that one who is a theological pluralist (i.e., one who thinks that God’s self-revelation is not localized to one religion to the exclusion of others) de facto believes that God saves people of multiple faiths. This means that the salvation of souls is not limited to, say, Islam. If that’s true, then we cannot claim to know anything about the salvation of souls within or without various faith traditions. At this point it seems that the distinction between universalized salvation and selective salvation becomes pointless. This is what I mean by claiming that pluralism entails universalist soteriology. I don’t know how you could escape it otherwise, though I’d like to know how you work it out.
I specifically asked about your understanding of the sovereignty of God, and, then, how that relates to your engagement with others. I’m glad that you’re able to tolerate people, but I want to know why you can’t respect them any more than that and fully engage who they are.
I don’t understand this question.
Aside from basing my universalistic theology on the works of Schleiermacher and Barth and I’m still not sure about the difference between universalist and pluralist what I do know is that I have no idea.
Is it possible that I’m wrong that that I have already punched my own way ticket to hell? (actually, this is a common assumption…so it is what it is) Yes.
I once had a friend say, “if I make one mistake about God, I want to believe that God is too big.” That’s kind of how I live my life. Do I know that everyone is going to heaven (including me)? No. What I do know is that in the end…God. That’s it! What ever happens or doesn’t God will be in control.
On the judgment front, I am pretty sure we receive plenty of judgment while on earth. Whether it’s that feeling of emptiness knowing that your whole life you chased things, or sitting in the electric chair because you murdered a family of 4, or little things like paying a fine because you got caught speeding. These are all judgments and they are all consequences of our own actions. Maybe (hopefully) when I’m dead and (hopefully) talking to God, God will say, “Take a break, there are no cops in heaven”
And maybe God will introduce God’s self in the form of Buddha, just to piss off some people. I think God has a sense of humor…don’t you.
Greg
re: prooftexting – It is not respectful to the scripture to simply link a passage, essentially saying “See, I was right – that’s what it says.” It rarely says what it “says.” ie – In your first link, how did the Jews listening to Jesus understand the word “heaven”? Its not a place you go after you die, I’ll tell you that.
Your understanding of soterieology must be limited to a discussion of God’s engagement with followers of Christ. You cannot apply your soteriology to any other religion – it is a category that does not apply. ie – Classical Christian salvation does not equal Buddhist enlightenment. One must approach these faiths and their respective ultimate goals on their own terms. We say “salvation”, but that is our limited descriptor for a total relationship with the Divine. If we were humble (and I’m encouraging us to be) we would acknowledge that it may or may not be the best way to describe that relationship.
Think about it: For a place like Japan to which sheep are not native, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” makes zero sense, culturally and religiously. Are you saying that those in Asian countries must learn a new religious cosmology as well? Why must they reject an Indo-European cosmology and accept a Semitic one? And if they must, then why did God not introduce the Semitic worldview more widely rather than create the majority of people with a view of the world that needed to be rejected? Seems pretty silly to me.
You said that your theology tells you you have to “be nice” (Does that include calling me bitter and incoherent?), but apparently you get to stop there. I’m asking how your understanding of God’s sovereignty affects the way in which you relate to people. Are you required to fully engage or are you allowed to stand apart? Why?
As I’m sure you do, I have many other things to focus on. I appreciate you giving mental energy to this, but I don’t feel like debating all day long. You get the last word here if you want it.
@Greg – God has pissed me off plenty. LOVE it!
You said that your theology tells you you have to “be nice” (Does that include calling me bitter and incoherent?)
As I already said, yes, being nice does include my hatred of your bad ideas. Your ideas seem embittered and incoherent. Nothing personal, man. Get some better ideas.
Landon,
Thank you for your post. I see the difference between pluralism and universalism and tend to agree with you there.
My concern is the way your theological certainties seem to be trumping your pastoral care to your congregation. You seem to be wearing as a badge of honor the fact that so many people with bad theology have left your church since you arrived. I hope I’m reading that wrong. but if I’m not, aren’t you at all concerned that being “right” theologically might not always be the point of being the pastor of a particular group of God’s people?
Some days you have to meet people where they are at. (sorry to dangle the preposition here…)
Shouldn’t there be room in your congregation for others to have different views than you espouse? I know that not everyone in my congregation agrees with everything I believe, but we try to give each other the space to hold our views and still love each other.
Landon you said about how we are to appreciate the fact that people in China wouldn’t be able to understand the notion of “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. Let’s be truthful here most people wouldn’t understand this notion because we no longer deal with sacrifices but that doesn’t stop us using this when describing who Jesus is and what he came to accomplish. And why do we do this? Because this is what the bible calls Jesus. We have to really explain to these people what this means for the culture that it was said to and what it means. So we cannot say that just because we they don’t have sheep we don’t talk about this. As well “Salvation” may not be the best way to describe this our relationship with God, but it does explain how we get this relationship.
The main thing is that we need to realise what our sin is like before God and appreciate that through the cross we can receive a full atonement and with that we need to proclaim Christ’s gospel to all people.
@Marci – Thank you for raising that issue. I’m sure it does seem that way, since blogging, by its very nature, is a limited and provocative medium.
“Provocative” in that I wanted this post to stir something in folks. I wanted to shock a little in order to raise an issue, and I wanted it to simply be a good read (whether I succeeded in that is up to you all).
“Provocative” in that I think most progressives are (as I have said elsewhere) wusses. Progressive thinkers have been bullied into submission for too long because they are afraid of offending someone. I have come to the end of my patience with those holding a limited and limiting worldview trying to force it on the rest of us through bastardized, postmodern logic – “You say I should be inclusive of everyone, but you can be inclusive of me.” I am intolerant of intolerance, and I’m not ashamed of that.
But it is also “limited” in that there are pieces to the story that cannot be contained in 650 words.
One of those to leave had (I thought) become a good friend of mine before he and his family (wife and in-laws) left and began a smear campaign in my small town. I still have people say “Oh you’re that pastor So-n-So talks about” 1.5 years later.
“Limited” in that I didn’t have the space to say that I told every single one of them that our congregation would be poorer (in the communal sense) without them and that all our tradition requires is that we all profess Jesus as Lord. My theology begged them to stay, theirs forced them to leave. I cried a lot.
“Limited” in that an unapologetic blog post is not able to communicate the many amazing things that are happening in our congregation precisely because some of those folks left. They were holding people back from Christ’s mission and ministry.
I agree to a point about meeting people where they are at. But I also contend that mostly our job as pastors is to lead – we’re not chaplains or babysitters. Some will not want to go where you are leading and some will simply not want to be lead. But I was called there for a reason, and it wasn’t to equivocate on the love and grace of God. Where I and the Session believe God is leading us is to a place that is too expansive for some folks. And we just had to learn to be okay with that.
Prooftexting! Imagine that. The fathers never did that did they! Especially not St. Augustine!
What rubbish. The entire history of the formation of Christian Trinitarian and Christological doctrine is about the greatest exercise in prooftexting that has ever taken place.
It’s good to know that there are at least 12 people familiar enough with scripture to go elsewhere when they discover that their church no longer has much concern for rightly dividing the word of truth.
During a worship service tonight, we were given this quote from Tom Long, which seems on point in some of this discussion: “This is what judgment is: It is not God setting things right. It is God saying to us, ‘I love you so much I am not going to put up with this anymore.’ The great theologian Karl Barth once said, ‘Do not fear the wrath of God; fear the love of God, for the love of God will strip away everything that stands between you and God.’”
Πωμω Βρυισινγς,
What an incredibly hurtful, and frankly, uninformed thing to say about a pastor and his congregation. If I didn’t know Landon better than I do I would think him very taken aback by your ridiculous critique of a church into which you have never entered and a blogpost limited by a 650 word limit. To conclude based on every bit of information that you currently possess about Landon and the church that he faithfully has served for some time now that the “word of truth” is not properly divided there borders on the absurd. Landon and I have our disagreements but we can at least discuss them in a fruitful manner. Your response suggests that you lack that ability. Nonetheless, God loves you and so do I. Hugs.
@landon
Re: prooftexting – How large a passage should be quoted to back up a theological opinion? Usually an accusation of prooftexting sounds like you whining because someone actually used scripture to back an opposing opinion. Are we supposed to have a reasoned discussion about this without using the Bible? For all your mention of how God is revealed in Jesus, you didn’t give even a paraphrased example of how that revelation supports your position.
Re: How the Jews understood heaven – Ok, you gave one, but it’s pretty suspect. It doesn’t matter how the Jews understood heaven, it mattered how Jesus meant it. There were a lot of things the Jews, even the disciples misunderstood. Like the nature of the Messiah’s work. Since they all understood the Messiah to be a military leader that would vindicate them against Rome, does that mean Jesus wasn’t him?
Re: Christian Pluralism – How does this theology square with Jesus as revealed? That Jesus said that those who don’t believe are condemned. He also said that the road to salvation is narrow, and that few will find it, while many go to destruction. He said to go into “all the world”. You might argue that his idea of “all the world” wasn’t the whole planet, but that ignores his divinity.
You said, “If your god makes you condemn another person to Hell because they don’t have the same story you do…then your god is pretty paltry to my mind.” But few of us believe that that is what God is doing. This is a blatant straw man, and pretty far below the intellectual level you seem capable of.
Re: Intolerant of Intolerance – As far as I can see this is a philosophically untenable position. I guess it all depends on your definition of the word tolerant though.
When I first read Jason’s statement about you being bitter, I thought he was over the line, but now I think he’s right on. You show quite a lack of respect (something you suggest we should all be showing to those with different views) for him and his ideas. You’ve basically refused to engage him if he quotes the Bible, and been something akin to snotty about it. You “quoted” him by putting something he didn’t say (“be nice”) in quotes, despite the fact that what he did say (“treat people kindly”) is much deeper than that.
My last comment is that you’re position, re: Christian salvation not being conceptually applicable to other religions/cultures, is not revealed or even implied in Scripture. It is the antithesis of Paul’s mission. If Christian salvation can’t be applied in a context of Hinduism or Buddhism, it certainly shouldn’t have been applied in polytheistic Rome.
In light of that mission, yes, everyone should learn a new “religious cosmology”. Are we to pretend that today’s religious landscape is any different than that of the first century? Did Jesus say to only evangelize the Jews and the diaspora, because everyone else had a different belief system? And why is the implication of “fully engaging” people with different beliefs that you must accept their beliefs as valid? It seems to require only that you accept their humanity as equal to yours.
Finally, in your advice on how to tell good theology from bad, you really gave no examples of how Christian Particularism is bad, and Pluralism is good. You showed how some people do bad things with their theology, but that doesn’t make the theology bad and more than people doing bad things in Jesus’ name makes Jesus bad. Logically, Particularism encourages full engagement – which must include sharing the Gospel – while Pluralism discourages it (at least in the case of religious people).
You’re position and defense, as articulated here, lack cogency and seem poorly thought out.
. . . . . .
@Jonathan
You are moving towards my point here – I think it is ridiculous to have the “Lamb of God” notion be one of OUR primary descriptor of who Jesus was and what his work was. I find the notion of sacrifice fruitless, and I yearn for something more immediate and relevant to make sense of Christ’s death and resurrection. If the best God can do for 2009 is a metaphor from 50CE, then we’re all up a creek.
Yet…the moment anyone suggests that, the Anselmians come out of the woodwork to defend their Substitutionary Atonement argument.
The best God could do was become flesh in a first century Palestinian Jew who was crucified in 30CE. This is the scandal of particularism.
Sacrificial imagery is so passe. No depth in it at all.
@Jamie
I’m as “informed” as I need to be after reading the “dialogue” between Landon and Jason. As for visiting his church, I’m just glad I could get a nice quick summary of his ideas about theology without having to sit through a 45 minute long sermon. Or worse yet, not sit through one and anger the poor guy by being number 13.
As for Landon having faithfully served his church for however long, that would be the point that Jason and now I am contending. No one propounding the sort of philosophy we see in Landon’s posts is faithfully serving anyone. In fact they are harming them by convincing them of things that just aren’t true, things moreover which pertain to salvation, blessedness, and the hereafter. If the counterfeiting of earthly goods is a serious crime, how much more is the counterfeiting of things eternal.
Now I’m sorry if my rather direct approach doesn’t “resonate” with you. But I subscribe to a different philosophy when it comes to intellectual matters (theology being primary among them). Theology is a battlefield, the most important ground of which cannot be conceded. Perhaps Landon wouldn’t subscribe to my martial metaphor, but he is no more exempt from criticism than someone wandering around in no-man’s-land trying to hand out “hugs” is exempt from a mortar. As a teacher I will continue to equip the youth to see through intellectual shallowness. Sometimes this will involve harsh criticism.
@Charles
Thanks for the comment.
prooftexting – Oh, good golly. It’s not the size that matters…its what you do with it.
Come on, didn’t you read my explanation? My frustration with prooftexting is not the use of Scripture (I’m a freaking preacher!), but the arrogance to simply link to a passage and say that it means what you say it does. The fact is that I think the way Jason used the text was disrespectful to the text. There were too many unanswered exegetical questions to do that, and, in doing that, he was attempting to assert some power over me because, apparently, he had God on his side. (Yeah, I know he didn’t say that, so don’t go calling me “snotty” again.)
How the Jews understood heaven – And you know what Jesus meant how? Because of a piece of book that was written 2-3 generations after Christ by people who never met him? And you want to argue that there was no cultural influence there?
I know we’ll disagree here, but the truth and beauty of these stories is not found in their veracity. If we base faith on that then we have not done ourselves any favors. Of course the story says that the disciples misunderstood, but we know what and why they misunderstood for certain how? Oh right – a book that was written 2-3…
Christian Pluralism – How does it square? Well, I’m writing a book on it, and I’m sure Adam doesn’t want the manuscript to be copied into his comment section. So, until then, I would invite you to read this: http://foxyurl.com/4ov
I don’t think I was offering up a straw man, but I do appreciate that you think I have a strong intellect. Thank you.
Intolerant of Intolerance – Sure, it lacks any modifier that answers the question “What kind of intolerance?” I’m going for poetry with the phrase. For a further explanation you can read this: http://foxyurl.com/4ox
Make whatever judgment you want about me being snotty. I felt that he was wrapping poor behavior in pretty words.
Particularlism v. Pluralism – I agree that some do things with their theology that are not appropriate. This is precisely why I frustrate progressives as well – their logical consistency often seems off to me. I don’t think some “Christian Progressives” should be calling themselves “Christian.” I think they’re fine, but they’re cheapening the term by using it.
The basis of a Christian Particularism lies in its belief about its own supremacy. By definition, if I am required to accept your position I have to give mine up. And the reason I have to give mine up is because I am wrong and you are right about [fill in the blank]. And the reason you are right is because you say that your god says so, and “here’s the proof in this book…”
Is that what you mean by “sharing the Gospel”? If so, that is not full engagement as you claim, but oppression and colonization.
Pluralism, on the other hand, requires a full disclosure of one’s point of view and reception of another’s. Anything less would be disingenuous. (And this is another reason why many progressives don’t like me.)
Thanks for the “lack cogency”and “poorly thought out” critique… Seriously, this is a blog post, not a dissertation. If y’all would tone it down and have some grace this might be a bit easier (and a lot more fun) for all of us.
@Tracy
Ah….now self sacrifice I can dig. I can dig that BIG. “No greater love…” – right on, sister.
But a God so concerned with the logic of a rule system that someone’s gotta die? Not a chance.
Re: prooftexting, Much of scripture is difficult and needs careful exegesis, but I think what Jason is getting at by simply linking these two parables of Christ is that your ideas are so patently counter-scriptural that one hardly needs to do much exegesis to catch a whiff of ridiculous.
With the existence of verses like those linked, your soteriological musings are about as tenable as the claim that, say, Christ made no reference to the God of the old testament. It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to spot the lie here any more than it takes a marine sniper with a Rockets courtside season pass to spot Yao Ming.
So if the passages linked by Jason aren’t contra your position. Why don’t you tell us what they mean? Do this, and then we’ll have something worth discussing.
@landon
Not every time someone accuses a person of lacking cogency and being poorly thought out does it need to be a graceless insult. I think Charles was being perfectly honest with you about what he thinks of your intellectual position, and as someone who claims to admire “full disclosure” I would think you could stomach or possibly even appreciate that kind of honesty, especially when it was delivered with as little sting he delivered it.
Also, a dissertation is not the only place that human beings appreciate cogency. Most of us appreciate it in everyday speech as well, especially from a pastor and on such important topics.
@Πωμω Βρυισινγς
No.
@Πωμω Βρυισινγς
That is “I’m not interested in answering your questions.” If you find my other ideas unworthy of discussion, then quit discussing them.
That’s fine, but you just leave everyone with the feeling that you haven’t an account of those passages. And therein lies your dwindling attendance.
Re: your ideas, done.
Landon,
Self-sacrifice entails giving your life so that someone else might live. How does Jesus’ self-sacrifice enable others to live? In what sense was Jesus’ death sacrificial and not just a martyrdom?
In some sense we have to say that Jesus died for us. That is, his death is of some benefit for someone. How did/does his death benefit anyone? This is the kind of question atonement theology seeks to answer.
It is fine to criticize an Anselmian or Thomistic or Calvinist or Barthian take on the atonement (all of them advancing a form of substitutionary atonement – though Anselm is best seen as a proponent of a satisfaction theory, but I won’t quibble over that detail). It is another thing to offer a constructive alternative that can account for the numerous biblical texts that use the sacrificial metaphor, and to account for them in such a way that says more than: ‘the notion of sacrifice is barbaric and outdated.’
I am not asking for a full atonement theology in a blog comment. All I am saying is that your dismissal of substituntionary atonement raises these questions for me, and I don’t think it can be dismissed glibly.
@Tracy
The reason I dismissed it “glibly” (as you say) is because I see a discussion of Atonement as only tangentially germane to the topic of Pluralism that I have been prepared to discuss. I appreciate your question, but that’s not a topic I have time to delve into right now.
Prooftexting Sometimes – not always, but sometimes – a plaintext reading is enough. There are always unanswered exegetical questions. And when they’re answered, there are usually more. What should we do?
2-3 generations… – We’ll have to agree to disagree when the texts were written, and by whom. As for where the truth and beauty are found, it’s both in their veracity and in their symbolism. It’s quite alright to believe that the text means what it says, and something else as well.
What Jesus meant can only really be determined by what he said. And he said quite a bit about heaven. Of course, by calling into question the validity of the things written about him, you remove the responsibility to deal with what he said. It’s now an option to deal strictly with the feelings and beliefs of some other people. If you feel this is the way to go, we have no hope of seeing eye to eye.
Intolerance – I read your post, and while I feel it’s a better explanation of your position, it’s no more tenable. The way you speak about fundamentalists put you in the same category. You’re intolerant as what you view as falsehood. You say a lot of true and right things in the post, but what it comes down to is that your “worldview/opinion” is better, and so any conflicting view is not worthy of tolerance.
In essence, the basis of your worldview (that of pluralism) is its belief in its own supremacy.
ParticularismYou’re description of Christian Particularism is not exactly generous, but accurate. I don’t find fault with your description, except for the trivializing of the “proof” and “the book”. I actually see nothing wrong with appealing to the Bible for evidence in support of my beliefs, or for criticism of them.
Sharing the Gospel – It’s a bit far-fetched to compare sharing the Gospel from a particularist position to “oppression and colonization.” It doesn’t entail any kind of force. Any person is free to accept or reject the view that’s shared with them. Hyperbole doesn’t typically invite engagement, but furthers existing polarization.
You say that “Pluralism, on the other hand, requires a full disclosure of one’s point of view and reception of another’s.” This is something you are unwilling to offer to fundamentalists and “fundagelicals”. I’m completely on board with full disclosure on both sides, which is the basis for this site.
Cogency – Cogency only requires your argument be internally consistent, not fully explained. You should be able to pull it off in a paragraph.
This is a very interesting conversation to me, for the content, but also for your reactions when your ideas are challenged. I don’t know you, so I don’t know your personality, but your responses tend to carry a slightly hostile tone. I hope I’m mistaken, because I’d like to continue.
Landon, if you’re going to start kvetching about not having space in a blog forum, perhaps a blog forum is not the best place to make the kind of claims you have made here. Perhaps there isn’t enough space for you to give due consideration to the weighty topics at hand. Perhaps blogging is a wretched medium for attempting any kind of theological discourse.
If that isn’t the case, and if you will insist that blogging isn’t a wretched medium for attempting theological discourse, then you are bound to defend yourself and avail your ideas of critique. Otherwise you will come off looking like a fool. (And don’t think that your quasi-liberal friends reading this, who remain silent, aren’t thinking that as they read this correspondence.)
As someone who would place themselves in the category of “quasi-liberal friend” of Landon even though we have actually never met..I would concede that I don’t quite “get” all that Landon is arguing here and I think that there are some who have brought good critique and have challenged him appropriately.
I also really don’t care.
If my theology is different than yours then that’s ok. Because I believe in a sovereign God (and am often seen as TOO Calvinistic in that), I believe even if Landon is completely full of crap, (which seems to be the opinion of several commenters) God will eventually work it out for good even if he is driving the bus straight to hell (which I contend is my job).
Landon is not responsible for other people’s salvation (gasp!), so even if he believes and preaches that you need to where an all black sweatsuit, nikes, and drink the “Kool-Aid” God will take care of it in the end. Even if Landon convinces 500 people that our salvation is just around the next comet.
Now hear me clearly that does not absolve Landon from faithfully following and preaching the gospel in a way that he has discerned from the Holy Spirit or from me or you (person who’s name is in Greek that I have no time to parse or get the humor in) or anyone from engaging with him about his interpretation, challenging him, or even gently nudging him to see the err in his ways.
It does however require us to chill out, I’m not sure that anyone brought anyone to Jesus because they won an argument, I think I read that somewhere.
Blessings and love to all,
Greg
I also really don’t care.
Apathy is for shades and shadows.
It does however require us to chill out, I’m not sure that anyone brought anyone to Jesus because they won an argument, I think I read that somewhere.
You probably read that right after the line in a book stretching to argue that when Jesus says that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he really meant something else.
But seriously, of course you’re right. Winning arguments doesn’t save souls. But having good theology does. Landon is a m i n i s t e r of the Gospel. As such he is supposed to have good theology. He doesn’t. He therefore deserves to be questioned, especially when he posts his opinions in a public forum that poses as a place for “open dialogue”(!!).
Bless. Yes, bless, and do not curse. But bless with the hot coals of truth that sear the soul and seal it for the end.
I am no doubt going to regret dipping my toes into this water once again… While there is nothing “quasi” about my liberalism, I am a good friend of Landon’s and evidently I was “remaining silent” and reading the back and forth posts. So I will correct that now.
Jason, I appreciate your devotion to the word of scripture, though I don’t completely understand what you are arguing. Is it possible for you to succinctly restate your position, which I think I have lost as it has been spread over a great many posts. Can Jesus not be the way, the truth, and the life while also allowing for other ways, truths and lives? I am a little confused on this point in all the back and forth. But then I am pretty new to this whole theology thing.
@Jason
Of course I care, but I also know that Landon’s beliefs do not make mine (or yours for that matter) less valid or faithfully discerned. That was my point in “I don’t care”. I will still love my neighbor, I will still seek community, and I will seek to do good, even if Landon is a jackass (which I don’t believe he is…well at least in this case ;-))
After studying the Greek of the passage you refer to, I believe that Jesus saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life” could be translated as “I am a way, a truth, and a life” but that is neither hear nor there. If we are to follow in “the way” of Jesus we are called to never exclude folks. Does that mean we allow them to do whatever they want? No, but it does mean that before we can attempt to speak into their lives or beliefs that we should sit down with them and have a meal (I pretty sure Jesus modeled that) and try to figure out why they do/believe the things they do. Then after building a relationship (a life) with them we can speak (truth…BTW I hate that word because of the way it has been used to justify atrocities) into their lives.
Honestly, no one is going to change their minds because of your (or my) witty, cogent blog comment.
Blessings,
Greg
@Greg
I am totally a jackass, and I resent that you though otherwise.
You totally beat me to that exact reply, by like 5 seconds.
@Charles – I, too, would like to continue. Lemme get back to you.
@Greg – I’m interested in what it is that I’ve not made clear.
After studying the Greek of the passage you refer to, I believe that Jesus saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life” could be translated as “I am a way, a truth, and a life” but that is neither hear nor there.
If anything, the absence of the definite article indicates a more expansive interpretation than the English “the Way, the Truth, etc.,” conveys. It means, “I am Way, Truth, and Life,” and thus, at the very least, an English translation ought to stress that it means that Jesus is THE way. (John well could mean that Jesus determines what the word “way” means in the first place!) Greek has an indefinite pronoun, and had the author wished to convey the sense you read into the text (“a way” as in, “one particular way”), he well could have, but he didn’t.
(truth…BTW I hate that word because of the way it has been used to justify atrocities)
You hate truth because of liars? That makes no sense.
I am still not sure I am following. How are you defining those terms? The Way, the Truth, and the Life.
@Jason
I don’t hate “truth” (whatever that means to you). I hate the way the “word” truth has been used. I also hear it mostly from people that say things like “hate the sin, love the sinner” which makes about as much sense as “hating truth because of liars”.
Thank you for that wonderful argument on the translation of the John passage, and it makes sense, but I also think that there are other equally valid positions.
@Landon
The difference between Christian universalism and Christian pluralism. I think you mean that Christianity is the way to God, but you are open to listening to other viewpoints in hopes of understanding their path more. Is this close?
PS how does everyone get those fancy italics in their comments?
@Greg
Close. The only way I know to have a relationship with God is through Christ for that was how I was called. But I cannot – will not – rule out that God has called others in a different way. Christianity is a unique, but not exclusive, way to follow God.
The italics come from using HTML code.
. . . . and in case you guys haven’t picked up on it yet, the terse, somewhat-ironic, witty tone of my comments is intentional, to the effect that the silent audience out there not commenting will at least be made aware that there are intelligent, thinking people who haven’t given up on traditional ways of thinking about the Gospel. You don’t need to abandon your faith to be intelligent, and you don’t have to abandon intelligence to be faithful. Down with pietism.
If we are to follow in “the way” of Jesus we are called to never exclude folks.
You’re right: we may not exclude folks from hearing the Gospel. As Christians, it is our glorious duty to bring people to a knowledge of the good news – that God loves us and gave himself for our sakes. But that doesn’t mean (a) that the Gospel does not entail exclusion of any kind (say, of prostitution or political oppression or greed or what have you); or (b) that Jesus himself does not reserve the right to exclude folks from his kingdom.
“that Jesus himself does not reserve the right to exclude folks from his kingdom.”
I will grant you that, but I am not sure that Jesus has used that right based on the information we have. You might point to tax collectors in the temple, but Jesus wasn’t necessarily against tax collectors (ie Zaccheus) but maybe some of their practices.
“that the Gospel does not entail exclusion of any kind (say, of prostitution or political oppression or greed or what have you)”
I would agree that “god loves you, and god love you enough not to stay that way”. The Gospel and Jesus as far as I can tell never excluded people, Jesus might exclude practices but always exhorted the people to “go and sin no more.”
Maybe I’m too idealistic or missed the mark, but I believe the Jesus event was about God’s reconciliation with the world and humanity. IF that is the case how can there be reconciliation in the context of eternal exclusion? Before you say it the “tough love” argument is bupcus.
Greg
@Jamie
The terms way, truth, and life are fairly obvious to me as terms in the English language. What’s the confusion here?
There may be none. We are just using those words without a mutual understanding between ourselves and that is somewhat disconcerting as this conversation proceeds, so I am just asking if you would offer a little “fleshing out” of meaning that we might try and achieve common ground.
doesn’t the next part of the statement logically explain it? “no one comes to the Father except through me” (paraphrase-ish)
To which Landon would probably respond “but not everyone is interested in coming to the “Father.” But then, relativism is predictable.
Jason:
“theterse, somewhat-ironic, witty tone of my comments is intentional
Landon:
“Provocative” in that I wanted this post to stir something in folks. I wanted to shock a little in order to raise an issue, …“Provocative” in that I think most progressives are (as I have said elsewhere) wusses. Progressive thinkers have been bullied into submission for too long because they are afraid of offending someone.
As one of those folks who has kept out of this conversation. May I be so bold as to say, its not that I don’t find points of agreement with the both of you. But I find the way you are using this, albeit imperfect medium, is spoiling any fruit from this discussion. Your messages are getting clouded by the styles. Do I have to be a bully so I don’t have to be a wuss? Do I have to be terse in order to be understood?
Honestly, I like the questions Jason raises about consistency and faithfulness to Scripture and tradition (After all its not just our faith, but that of generations past as well. They may indeed have wisdom to commend to us). And I do appreciate what Landon said in his originally post about the tight relationship between our theology and our ethics (namely the way we treat one another).
However, wittiness, irony, sarcasm, provocation, are all tricky and sometimes insidious devices to use in communication. It’s a rare mind that can throw them out there and expect rhetorical flourishes to just ‘make sense’ to the rest of us. I like what alot of you guys say, but man its tough to read through. When in doubt, shoot straight and shoot humbly, please?
While I am saddened that my style has turned you off (and thank you for your caution), I make no apologies for my confident way of communicating. I’m not sure what you mean by “shooting humbly” but if it means equivocating on the reality that I think God is more inclusive, holistic, and complex than Jason wants to allow then I’ll opt for arrogance.
However, wittiness, irony, sarcasm, provocation, are all tricky and sometimes insidious devices to use in communication.
Point well taken, sir.
Maybe I’m too idealistic or missed the mark, but I believe the Jesus event was about God’s reconciliation with the world and humanity. IF that is the case how can there be reconciliation in the context of eternal exclusion?
Yes it was about God’s reconciliation with the world and humanity. But the answer to the question of the meaning of that idea depends on how we define “reconciliation.” If we define reconciliation as universal salvation, well, then, the game is rigged to begin with. But if we at least admit that how “reconciliation of God to the world and to humanity” gets worked out may be finally beyond our grasp here and now, and if you’ll also admit that we have created wills, then the possibility of eternal distance–of human beings, at least!–from divinity must remain a possibility. Let’s not forget the line in the Creed that tells us that Christ will come again to judge the quick and the dead. I never said (read above) that one should not hope for such things as universal reconciliation of all to all. But I object to predicating a theological posture on the supposition that universal reconciliation of all to all is a certain fact. It is, I’m afraid, more of something we hope for.
. . . .and pray for.
This brings me two questions:
1. Why is eternal distance required for reconciliation? Isn’t temporary distance all that is needed?
2. When you judge others (say, in disciplining a child), is it an absolute judgment? Do you not also reconcile them at the same time, or afterward? Who ever judges someone with a loving concern and yet still feels the need for permanent distance from them?
@Mark
1. You’re asking this question as if Jason or one of his intellectual ancestors made the decision between eternal and temporary. But we don’t get to decide if it’s eternal or temporary distance that’s needed.
2. Disciplining a child isn’t comparable. Sentencing a felon is a more apt comparison. Pertaining to your last question, you should check out Matt Chandler’s Are There Two Wills in God?.
@Charles
Why do you get to decree that the metaphor of disciplining a child is not an apt one? Is it because you buy into the Anselms of history rather than the Abelards?
@landon
Likewise, why do you or Mark get to decree that it is apt? It’s an opinion. Isn’t “decree” a bit of a strong term? We’re talking about a comment I typed at my kitchen table.
There’s a difference between “chastening” and “judgment”. If we’re discussing “absolute judgment”, it’s more akin to sentencing a felon; disciplining a child isn’t comparable. We can disagree here without getting excited.
This entire muddled “conversation” may benefit from the wise words of one K. Barth:
“And now the end has come. So listen to my piece of advice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis! Keep to the Word, to the Scripture that has been given to us.”
–Karl Barth, on the event of his formal farewell to his students in Bonn, just prior to his expulsion from Germany in 1935.
As well as Tillich:
“If you allow the Bible to grip you as tight as you are gripping it, you can never go wrong.”
Two thing:
1) @Jason
I think that now is a good time to point out that when I speak of what happens after death or in heaven or salvation for that matter. I am speaking in terms of hope/pray for, not in terms of “fact”. Also, I don’t think God is above the idea of “rigging” the game (God hardened Pharoah’s heart…for example) but I also see your point and would agree, that if you choose to separate yourself from God, then well…that’s about it.
2)@Landon
Well in that case sir…we are in agreement!
Wow – Landon, you created quite the conversation here. I’ve been following as these have all been coming into my Inbox today.
On a COMPLETELY unrelated note – what do you all think of the “Threaded Comment” option. I just enabled it a few days ago and it seems like some of you have been using them. I only set them to go two levels deep…is it helpful? Or is it easier to just @reply to someone…?
Yup – I guess that’s my calling in life: Stir the pot, stir the pot…. ;)
I like the threads. It helps to isolate the many sub-conversations that take place in a forum like this.
I would like to hear how you preach God’s grace. Do you have a website where you publish audio? My contact info is in my Google profile (click my name above). Thanks!
Why do you get to decree that the metaphor of disciplining a child is not an apt one? Is it because you buy into the Anselms of history rather than the Abelards?
What’s wrong with buying into Anselm? Just another “prooftexter”, I suppose. If you attempt to answer that question, I bet you’ll respond not with an argument from biblical exegesis but from some sort of modern disdain for theological talk of God’s wrath, suggesting that the kind of God that would get angry or have to have his wrath appeased is a wicked deity. That is Marcionite at best, and classic European anti-Judaism at worst. Good luck purging Scripture of anthropomorphisms like wrath, vengance, hatred, enmity, passion, mercy, and grace.
Abelard is fine, but the moral influence theory doesn’t do justice to (1) the identity of the Son as divine or (2) the significance of the Son’s obedience to the Father’s will. I could go on, but you won’t be convinced. Some seminary professor or other taught you at some point that Anselmian substitutionary atonement is inherently wicked and makes people go out and slaughter people or some such nonsense. And, as you said, ethics dictates theology. But then again, it’s quite likely that Anselm’s theory never made anyone do any such things, but rather the the opposite:
“Substitutionary atonement then, seen in historical context, provided the exact opposite of what its modern/postmodern critics claim – liberation from guilt and shame. While the card may have been overplayed by Evangelicals, abusus non tollit usum. As a corrective, may I suggest reading Anselm instead of contemporary Reformed theologians.
Then again, complaining about Evangelicals can get you a book deal.”
I am going to offer one final thought before I am done. I’m sure it will not please some of you, but…I don’t really care.
This thread has demonstrated why progressives, heretofore, have avoided these conversations. This is why we have decided (despite being called cowards and told we are going to look like fools) to bow out of these discussions. We refuse to play the rigged game you have set up, and are then branded heretics, despite our very faithful stand within the tradition to your protest, of course). We have all played your game for years, and found it wanting.
Most of us have slipped out the back door. We are silent because everyone knows (except some of us quasi- and not so quasi-liberals here) that you don’t reason with a drunk. Theological Particularism is a strong wine.
But those of us who stay and defend the honor of the disparaged others get crucified. We are told we are the minority and that it is our theology that causes our churches to shrink (I wonder what the new members we’re receiving tomorrow would say to that?). We are told that we need to play nice, and not be bullies. Read the polemics of the Hebrew prophets and engage the anger of Jesus in the Temple and then let us discuss ethics.
This entire thread has demonstrated the point of my post: Our pluralism allows us to allow you to have your theological vantage point, and as long as we can all work for the healing of the world, then we have no problems. But your particularlism, by its nature, does not allow you to recognize the difference that is us, and you seek to root it out to (I believe) the detriment of God’s Creation. You seek to eradicate our desire to follow our Christ to a more just world. You seek to tear away from us the one tread that ties us to our God. Your poor ethics have betrayed your poor theology.
So, am I angry and bitter? Yes. Just as Paul was angry and bitter with those who came to Philippi preaching circumcision, the ones he called “dogs.” I am not bitter because of what you have done and said to me. I am bitter, for you are making a relationship with Jesus for others more difficult. You are taking the call to come and receive rest into a work camp. It is colonization and oppression, Charles, for the force is one of shame and guilt.
I have been one of you. If Paul was a Hebrew’s Hebrew, the I was the Christian’s Christian. I have known and preached and believed and lived everything you are offering here. It is a stage we all go through (it is natural) and some of us choose to stay there. But for those that do not, we find a much more expansive God – a more inclusive, whole and complex God. And in light of this freedom I now know in Christ, I find the restrictive faith you offer to be skubola.
And with that, I am done.
Amen!
I have to say that I’m saddened but unsurprised at your…emotional withdrawal. From your comments I feel that we’ve been having a disconnected conversation: one in which you have resisted a “rigged game” that no one was playing. I’m left to wonder what this game consists of, and why you believe it to be rigged.
I gather from your apparent lack of understanding of the viewpoints you’ve been opposing in this forum that you’re previous experience as “one of us” involved cultural fundamentalism, rather than theological particularism. I can’t think of any other reason an intelligent person would project so much onto the position.
Christian particularism is not about control, or turning “the call to come and receive rest into a work camp.” It’s also not about the healing of the world. It’s about honoring Jesus as he was revealed to us, which means placing him above all others. This doesn’t make relationship with him more difficult.
I’m not sure what you refer to as a “work camp”. Is it the burden of trying to understand and teach Christ as revealed? The expectation that we will put whatever incompatible beliefs we were raised with behind us in order to fully commit to him? I can only surmise that your social and cultural environments promote “tolerance” as the highest sign of morality. I do not, which makes me and oppressor, using shame and guilt as tools.
To be sure, some use shame and guilt as tools to such an end as you describe. But they aren’t confined to fundamentalists and particularists. You have repeatedly used it in this forum, when describing what you see as our inability to view others as human, our refusal to “accept” them, our “poor ethics” and “poor theology”, and your ridicule of our position as a “stage we all go through” which is apparently lower than that which you have reached.
I offer a final critique: the God you speak of is no more whole or complex. He seems, in fact, quite simple. A simple explanation to the problem of pluralism is to posit a deity that is okay with everything.I’m not sure of your particular type of pluralism. Perhaps John Hick’s version, god of the axial religions, who sees any “ethical” religions practice as being directed to him, even if the religion is non-theistic. Or is it Christian Universalism, allowing everyone to do, believe, and worship as they please, and still receive the blood of Christ? There are others, I’m sure, but all have the same simplistic image of a God who feel better about our limited and conflicted understanding.
At the end of this I can only shake my head. As I try to understand your decision to insult our faith then leave, it looks to me like you got mad because we wouldn’t agree with you. You’ve showed a startling lack of open-mindedness for a person who believes so strongly in the call to “accept and respect” difference. You’re more like us than you think.
This entire thread has demonstrated the point of my post: Our pluralism allows us to allow you to have your theological vantage point, and as long as we can all work for the healing of the world, then we have no problems. But your particularlism, by its nature, does not allow you to recognize the difference that is us, and you seek to root it out to (I believe) the detriment of God’s Creation. You seek to eradicate our desire to follow our Christ to a more just world. You seek to tear away from us the one tread that ties us to our God. Your poor ethics have betrayed your poor theology.
I don’t really know where to begin with this rant. At the very least, to accuse us of “poor ethics” because we have taken up a theological argument with you–which you instigated with an admittedly “provocative” blog post–is ridiculous.
Most of us have slipped out the back door. We are silent because everyone knows (except some of us quasi- and not so quasi-liberals here) that you don’t reason with a drunk. Theological Particularism is a strong wine.
We could go round and round about who is drunk on the Zeitgeist.
Read the polemics of the Hebrew prophets and engage the anger of Jesus in the Temple and then let us discuss ethics.
. . . .that was precisely our point in referring to Anselm. . . . .
But for those that do not, we find a much more expansive God – a more inclusive, whole and complex God.
You’ve said this many times. The question remains whether the God you’ve found recognizably belongs to Christian tradition–the tradition of Creeds and Church–or more the product of late modern liberalism in America.
Well, if Landon is permitted a rant, then I suppose it’s my turn. The reason “we” have been challenging the things you have written here, Landon, is not because we have a secret agenda against you, or that we think you are automatically suspect because you call yourself a “progressive.” No doubt growing up in the world you grew up in has made you unduly paranoid, but rest assured, that is not the source of my antagonism, at least.
My antagonism comes from this. The air and tone of your original post displays the attitude of someone who has thrown off the simple-minded thinking of the Christian faith for something higher and better, purer and more palatable. It leaves one with the impression, not that you believe and want to believe in a deeper way the things you were taught as a child, but that you do not really believe those things any more, and that you have moved on to greener pastures.
That may or may not be the case. But the way you so glibly dismiss what makes good sense to many, many Christians is not excusable. It is downright intolerant of a great swath of real live believers. And it is not to be tolerated in a forum like this or any other. The main reason for MY antagonism has much less to do with your self-identification as a “progressive” or what have you, and much more to do with the fact that you wrote this post thinking you would get your head stroked by all the Pomo doters. I am here to show this tiny little corner of the internet that there are a multitude of ways to think through the traditional dogmas of the Christian faith without moving on to greener pastures.
Yes, our fundie-forbears did nasty things. But guess what? They didn’t have a monopoly on the truth and grace of the Holy Spirit and his mighty Christian tradition. You can still believe those things you were taught, if only you will give it a chance. The creeds make sense. Christianity — classically conceived — MAKES SENSE. It’s the truth! (Or so we believe.)
I am not suggesting you don’t think it makes sense to some people, nor am I suggesting that you don’t think Christianity makes sense. What I am suggesting is that dismissing a two-thousand year old religious tradition takes more than 600 words on this blog. It also takes more than your young pastoral life can grant you. Again, I am here to demonstrate that there are boundaries and rules worth regarding and respecting as reverently and rightly entrenched. If we do not regard them as such, we will only come off appearing to be an island of thought unto ourselves. That is a kind of intellectual arrogance. Many progressives think that people like me, who care of theological truth, are arrogant. But I am only attempting to pay due regard to a tradition of thought that preceded me and still stands high, high above me. That is humility, not arrogance. And it is that kind of humility this world so desperately needs.
and Amen!
I am not a “post-evangelical”, I have never been a “fundamentalist” in the classic sense of the word. I have always questioned always wanted more, always thought of God as bigger than my little bubble of life…so I say to Jason, with my liberal, progressive theology I am believing more deeply the faith I was taught as a child. The exclusivity of Christianity has never been something I have understood, because for me it is putting God in a box, that just doesn’t fit.
Jason, as I have kept track of this blog (not something I am prone to do) I have come to respect and admire your contribution to this conversation and the challenges you have made to Landon and me are (I believe) faithful and done in the spirit of love (even if our language and tone did not always so that). I also rest my faith firmly on the shoulders of those that came before me, whether that is Justin, Calvin, Knox, Barth, Tillich, Guthrie, or my dad (who I happen to respect a great deal).
I do also see Landon’s point and while I would never try to tell you what your faith is (even though I have tried to cut off standard rebuts to my points) I think that as someone who faithfully reads the Bible, attempts to listen for God’s leading, humbles myself to the will of the church (ie ordination process), and listens for the voices of those long departed. I often feel that I am an outcast, not a Christian, and in the words of one of my colleagues a false teacher. These are harsh words and I don’t take them lightly, in fact they hurt, not in the form of I need to feel pain before joy but in the way of I have devoted my life to the spread of the gospel (I am a candidate for minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC (USA)), I have taken the tests, I have run the race, and when you say that I what I have come to believe after decades of study and prayer is flat wrong and detrimental to the God I love, and the Christ I worship it cuts like a dull blade through my heart.
I don’t think that you, Jason, have done that type of injury to me or to Landon for that matter. I don’t believe you are heretic, nor to I think Landon is…I guess what I am trying to say is that I respect your right to believe in the way that you do and I would want you to do the same.
Blessings,
Greg
I <3 Greg Bolt.
I <3 Jason, Landon, Charles, and Greg. I love more people than Landon, therefore my ethics are better and my theology more beautiful.
No tag backs.
I appreciate the fact that, Greg, you aren’t rebelling against the faith of your fathers. You and I would be (have been?) debating not the place of faith itself, but the validity of each of our received traditions as relatively full expressions of Christian truth.
Landon, I’m afraid, is something of another story.
Tracy is funny. Of course everyone respects everybody’s “right to believe.” This isn’t America, though. It’s the Church. These are matters of spiritual life and spiritual death. And so they are worth debating courageously and candidly.
March on, then.