Thoughts on Reconciliation: Introduction
March 26th, 2007 | by Scott |Toward the end of last year I did a lengthy series on non-violence and Christianity. It received tremendous feedback and, although we did not reach complete agreement, the discussion was overwhelmingly civil and productive. Each of us that participated were stretched and challenged by the discussion.
Although there is more that I want to say on non-violence, I believe that my position is fairly well staked out. I am opposed to war and the idea that violence can be redemptive. Again, I realize I may be among the minority but I can argue and defend my position from a conservative and scholarly approach to Scripture.
However, that discussion led me further in my study on entrenched doctrines. For years I had questioned the nature of hell, salvation and God’s love. But I resisted any serious wrestling because I wasn’t ready to understand that maybe I was wrong. That maybe what we have taught and believed about salvation and hell relied on misinterpretations. But now, although I know there is a great amount of risk involved, I want to look at the nature of salvation, or soteriology.
I believe that now is a great time for a discussion such as this as I am encountering more and more people in the evangelical world wrestling with these issues.
Let me begin this study by using a paraphrase of the beginning of my nonviolence study. I am not a universalist. At least I don’t fall in the camp of what people traditionally view as universalism. My views and understandings are far more nuanced than that. Just as pacifism conveys a meaning that is misleading, so does universalism. Allow me to coin my own term: I am a Redemptive Reconciliationist.
Leading into this discussion let me make several clarifying comments as both a disclaimer and an establishment of common ground:
1. I believe in hell.
2. I believe that unrepented sins produce dire consequences.
3. I believe that God’s Sovereignty, His desire that no one should perish, and our free will are not incompatible.
4. I believe many passages that describe the horrors of hell are for believers who will be held accountable for how they engage the lost, the marginalized and the least of these.
5. I believe that God’s justice is bound up in His love.
6. I believe that a Redemptive Reconciliation approach is consistent with a conservative view of Scripture.
In the coming weeks I want us to look anew at the passages in scripture that deal with ideas such as eternity, heaven, hell, punishment, salvation, God’s love, and God’s justice. I will probably reserve this to Monday’s post. I ask several things of you in return:
1. Be civil as always. These are controversial ideas. But I am convinced that we can provide an atmosphere that we can discuss these with brotherly love.
2. Be open-minded to differing opinions. If you can’t handle a discussion on these matters then please skip over these entries.
3. Agree to disagree. Godly men and women can draw different conclusions.
4. Don’t mistake my posts as statements of certainty. I am working through this myself.
5. Please participate in the discussion. But limit it to the topic at hand. If we are discussing God’s love don’t jump ahead to a singular passage about hell.
6. Be patient with me as the moderator. I am on shaky ground.
I am not an academician. I hope that this will be an accessible discussion for us as we wrestle with some weighty topics. There are far loftier minds than mine that I will rely on including Gregory MacDonald, Thomas Talbott, Gerry Beauchemin, and Richard Beck. I also hope my long-time friend Jeff Richardson will be a leading voice in this discussion.
37 Responses to “Thoughts on Reconciliation: Introduction”
By justin on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Ok…
1. I’m really excited about this series.
2. I’m not excited that you’re listening to Hall and Oates. Seriously?
By Scott on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
God loves Hall and Oates. Don’t you, Justin?
By justin on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Private Eyes, they’re watching you
they see your every move
God can’t love Hall and Oates, cause they like Big Brother, and God hates communism.
By Michael on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Salvation is always the ending of the minds fascinated identification with the dead and unchanging image of what it was. It is the complete reversal of the
“natural” order of things a METANOIA - the Greek word for repentance, meaning precisely a turning around of the mind, so that it no longer faces into the past, the land of the shadow of death, but into the Eternal Present.
So long as the mind is captivated by memory, and really feels itself to be that past image which is “I” it can do nothing to save itself; it’s sacrifices are of no avail, and it’s Law gives no life.
After years of therapy, I had a metamorphosis - I asked Jesus to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. He delivered me from my inequities. Praise the Lord!!
By Jeff_R on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
I’ll be listening and, perhaps, commenting if I believe I have anything useful to add.
Some factors to consider that have re-shaped my thinking on the topic (most links below are to Richard Beck because they are nice summaries of a lot of good ideas):
(1) the shift away from thanatocentrism driven by the recognition of the immense evil and horror in much of human existence - compounded by the ever-weakening idea of liberal free will and moral luck
(2) the emergence of a hard concept of God’s justice and the difficulty in reconciling that with anything approaching everlasting punishment
(3) a movement away from Enlightenment ideas of human reason as the trump card in soteriology
By Jeff_R on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Also, on the idea of evil and horror, see this.
By Scott on Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Beck’s stuff is incredibly enlightening. He has helped to shape much of my thoughts on the matter.
By dave turner on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
very much looking forward to this.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Scott - Maybe it would be helpful to start with some founding definitions or concepts? Like, what are we being “saved” from? Why is “saving” necessary? Why would we be created only to be set up to be destroyed? What does it mean to be “saved”?
By len on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
When I first read the post last night my initial response was the same as Jeff’s. My first question was “what does it mean to be lost?” I would like to see us take this slowly and deliberately, even though there will be that temptation to push ahead quickly.
On another note: what part of hell do you think is reserved for those who post vulgar Celine Dion videos?!
By Scott on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Len, I think it would be the part of hell that would play that video on a loop
But, as to you and Jeff’s suggestion, do you think that’s the best place to start? Where I was planning on beginning was our relationship to God. I guess I see that as coming prior to any question of lostness. We were created to be in relationship with him, first.
But I can do it the other way as well.
And I agree that this should be done slowly.
By len on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I think all 3 of us are asking the same basic question. Lostness and salvation can neither one be adequately explained without understanding of our relationship, or lack thereof, with God. Since your thoughts are the basis for the discussion, you should go forward in the manner most comfortable to you. The rest of us will have no problem jumping in.
By Scott on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Len, I think you are right. I guess that goes back to Jeff’s question: “Why would we be created only to be set up to be destroyed?”
We have to ask some pretty tough questions about God if this is the case.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
There’s even a school of thought on that last post of yours (13), Scott, that argues the cross was about God “making up for” the pain and suffering of the creation he made - in a sense, the cross as an “apologetic” for our suffering - God suffering, not to wipe away our sins, but to demonstrate God’s pain at having caused us so much pain. See this post for an interesting discussion on that perspective.
By KS on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Jeff R: Maybe it’s just the cynic in me, but I don’t think God needed to apologize to us for our falling away. I do think he hurts with us, but placing blame should not be done to him.
I do agree with all three of your idea about starting slowly. But am not sure any of us are going to be able to answer the question of why God created us if he knew we would not follow him.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
At the root of the issue of salvation is what we are being saved from. It seems odd that I must be saved from my pride or lust, when God doesn’t have to answer for putting me in a situation where I cannot help but sin.
What if what we’ve being saved from is not our moral imperfection (which we cannot help), but from the brokenness of creation that places upon humanity this endless suffering and tragedy all around us?
Whether or not we can agree on an answer is certainly debatable. But we all, in fact, already operate (and must operate) with our own answer to this question. Everyone has already answered the question, but most people don’t think about it. We all operate under an assumption of why we are here - that assumption - whether we acknowledge it or are aware of it or not - drives the rest of our epistemology and theology. I thought this dialogue would be about getting our (unstated) assumptions out on the table and subjecting them to reason and Scripture.
By Scott on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, I think part of the problem (for me at least) is I operated for so long with that litany of assumptions that were so contradictory. I reconciled eternal punishment and a loving God, salvation and damnation with a flippant “that’s just the way it is.”
It’s long past time we put these assumptions on the table and give them an objective look.
By KS on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Instead of “thats just the way it is” I tend to lean to “God is God and I am not”. It would be good to look at the issues, but it would be foolish to think we have the answers to all the questions.
By Scott on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Kenny, I don’t think anybody has stated that they have all the answers. However, I do think that we can look at the claims of Scripture as to the character and nature of God and see where some of our assumptions and conclusions are ill-defined and incomplete.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
“it would be foolish to think we have the answers to all the questions”
I agree. It would be more foolish to think we don’t have to take positions on the questions, however.
This is like the person who claims to be neutral (agnostic) regarding the existence of God. We can say “we don’t know” all we want, but at the end of the day, you will live your life based on either the assumption that God exists or the assumption that he doesn’t. It’s just not logically possible to live in between those two alternatives, despite what we tell ourselves, our behavior will betray us.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Thus, if you live as if God punishes moral sin and excuses moral sin if you acquiesce to certain intellectual tenets, you are taking a particular position on what you believe the answer is about why God created us.
If you live as if God loves all humanity and will ultimately save all humanity, you are taking a different position about what you believe the answer is about why God created us.
None of us can claim infallibility or the right to speak for others. But all of us will decide what we think the answers are - none of us can, practically, be “undecided”. Belief is not what you think; it is what you do.
By len on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Jeff,
are you stating in post 16 that your assumption is that God is responsible for our sins? I personally think there are more options than just the 2 you mentioned.
When are you coming to Nashville for the marathon?
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Len -
There are a lot of variations on the two options, but the major fork in the road only has two tines. Regardless, the point was to be illustrative of the fact that we all live our beliefs. We talk about “not knowing” things etc., which is all well and good, but at the end of the day, we have to live and make decisions and in order to do that we have to act on certain assumptions about how we believe the world works. Our actions are precisely accurate indicators our true beliefs.
Lots of “atheists” live lives of devout faith (though they don’t want to admit it); lots of “believers” live lives of practical atheism (though they’ve never thought about it). Saying “we can’t know things for sure” is just an excuse to not have to explain our behavior.
RE:16, I’m refering to a position that interprets the cross as an act of reconciliation between a broken and alienated humanity and a sorrowful and suffering God who longs to make things right. That may or may not get interpreted as responsibility.
Further, and just to be upfront, I believe all the endless subterfuge and evasion offered up by Calvinists about how God is sovereign, but not culpable; in authority but not responsible, is just, it seems to me, untenable.
The concepts of weak volition and moral luck are central to the idea that we are only partially morally free and that to some (a large?) degree, we are not free to choose, despite what a lot of theologians have otherwise held. I included references to some reading on both these topics in an earlier post here.
By Jeff_R on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Len - The Country Music Marathon is the April 28th weekend.
By KS on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
As I stated in the post, it is great to discuss it. It just seriously bothers me that we may be arrogant (I said we, not anyone in particular) to think we could come up with all the answers.
My view would be that God created us to be serve and honor him. We have obviously fallen off that path and Christ was sent as a way we could “reconnect” with Christ. I believe those who do not follow him (Muslims, Budhists, Atheists, etc…) will go to a very real hell.
By Jeff_R on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
KS -
Does it concern you that many of the people you refer to as going “to a very real hell” are people who were raised entirely within their belief system (i.e., never heard of Jesus), loved their families, served their neighbors, sacrificed for their friends and did everything they know to do to honor God as they understood him?
How do you reconcile that perspective on the majority of humanity when God says it is his will that none will be lost? How do you reconcile that with him being a loving and compassionate God - and a God who does not favor one over another?
How do you reconcile that with the fact that if all these folks are doomed to Hell, we aren’t doing anything about it?
By KS on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
The last one is what concerns me. I figure God will sort out the rest.
But as for the theory…
I read verses where Jesus mentions it is easier of a camel to go through the eye of a needle, or “narrow is the way”. Parts where He mentions going through Him to get to the Father.
By len on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Jeff said, “It seems odd that I must be saved from my pride or lust, when God doesn’t have to answer for putting me in a situation where I cannot help but sin.”
If I take this to its logical conclusion can I then say: “It seems odd that Jesus would tell me to have a pure heart and then place me in a world where I can’t help but lust.” We can also insert non-violent in there as well as any other number of sins. James does tell us that GOD does not tempt any of us to sin.
I need help in understanding how the use of my own free will and choice is somehow God’s fault. If we introduce the concept of a culpable, mistake-prone (or even mistake-possible) God then a pretty serious domino effect is started. I haven’t had time to read your links yet Jeff, but I will get there. If you can point me to some specific starting places I would appreciate it. I’m really looking forward to this discussion and agree that we need answers.
Jeff, if schedules allow I would enjoy meeting you for dinner that weekend.
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
This will be a fun discussion. There are problems that have to be sussed out.
I may move up the character and nature of God post to tomorrow.
But, somehow, I have to figure out what I can preach about the book of Revelation on Sunday in the meantime.
By Jeff_R on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Len -
I think one of the key issues is to think about our idea of free will. Traditionally we think that we are liberally and radically free to make any choice.
However, the unrelenting drumbeat of neurophysiology and psychology tell us that we are not nearly as free as we once thought we were. In fact, data seems to indicate that most of our moral choices are hard-wired. We’re not good because we choose to be good, we’re good because our brain chemistry dictates those kinds of choices.
Of course, this could run right into chemical determinism, which some are ready to leap to. I believe, however, that there remains real and legitimate (if somewhat contingent) free will, but it’s not nearly as radical as we have believed. This “weak” free will puts a very different perspective on salvation and how we reconcile God’s justice and mercy with his judgment.
I agree that we bear responsibility for what free choices we make. But what if many of the choices we make are really not free? For example, if someone were to approach you today with the teaching of Islam and try to convince you that that religion is the truth, what kind of honest shot would the person have? As it turns out, not much more of a shot than you’ve got to go so Iran and have an open Bible study with someone and come away with that person praying the “sinner’s prayer”. Sure, it happens on rare occasions, but the fact is that most of us are just programmed by our upbringing and culture and are pretty hard-wired when it comes to a lot of choices.
If God causes/allows that “programming” to exist/occur, is it just/fair for him to then punish me for making choices that I had no choice but to make?
This wouldn’t imply God had made a mistake, but it would require us to interpret some passages differently in light of that reality.
The earlier links I referenced dealing with a post-Cartesian world are especially informative regarding the idea of the emergence of this view of weak free will.
You wrote,
“It seems odd that Jesus would tell me to have a pure heart and then place me in a world where I can’t help but lust.”
But isn’t that exactly what’s happened? Unless your contention is that every person has the immediate power to not sin in every instance, I don’t see how you’re left with any other conclusion.
I agree that there is a tension created by the lifestyle Jesus lived. But perhaps Jesus told us to seek after a pure heart not because “if you don’t you’ll go to hell”, but because “if you do, you’ll be living a kingdom-kind-of-life, which is the only way you’re going to experience real life anyway.”
I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t teaching and exemplifying the perfect human life - he absolutely was. I’m saying that for all of us in different areas and to different degrees, we will be unable to make right choices because of how we are hard-wired. The issue is whether we will be held fully responsible for our hard-wiring or not or whether God’s grace will cover us and bless us despite our imperfections. Then the only question that remains is “how far does the hard-wiring go and God’s grace after it?” What if I’m culturally hard-wired to be Hindu? Can God’s grace cover me? You can quote a Scripture saying not knowing Jesus will send you to Hell. I can quote one that says lying will send you to Hell. How graceful is God? How wide is His mercy? How deep is His love? Does He have the power to affect His will - when He said His will is at all would be saved?
Send me an email at jeff_richardson@hotmail.com and we’ll try to coordinate schedules for that dinner in Nashville!
====================
KS - I would say we have the behavior of the “last one” (i.e., not doing much to “save” the lost), because most Christians, despite what we say, don’t really believe the God we believe in (the loving, merciful, just, righteous God) would really send good, honest, pious people to an everlasting Hell just because the FedEx truck with all the Gospels of John arrived late to the village.
Our behavior indicates our belief. I’m just trying to be honest by saying that I really don’t think God is going to send people who are sincerely seeking him to an everlasting torment because they failed a multiple choice test or didn’t have access to the “right” sacred texts.
This resolves issues with some passages of Scripture and introduces others.
By Jonathan on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
It’s time for me to return to my role as most unlikely teammate of KS in the discussion on the SF blog (a role I first popularized during the non-violence discussion).
I’m feeling the need to express something that is, I think, along the same lines as what Kenny is trying to say. I’m all for re-examining entrenched doctrines and beliefs, trying to understand scripture as a whole in a consistent way, and changing my views as necessary. On c o C hot-button issues like instrumental music and women’s role, my views have changed quite drastically from what I was taught as a child to what I came to believe as a maturing adult. So please don’t take this as evidence of a closed mind.
However, (like Kenny I think) I’m feeling the need to make a pre-emptive disclaimer of sorts. In general, I think I will lean more toward accepting at face value what may appear to be contradictory aspects of the nature of God as revealed in scripture (e.g., is love and desire that none should perish in contrast with statements like:
rather than denying much of what is (at least seemingly) plainly taught in scripture in order to satisfy some sort of general philosophical consistency regarding God’s nature and ours.
That is, I’m more likely to humbly accept that I will never completely understand God (without diminishing the importance of trying to do so) than I am to deny much of what seems plain from scripture in order to achieve a consistent view that is more palatable to my own sensibilities.
From Romans 9
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, I understand that completely. I believe in punishment but I now view it in the terms of God’s love not a never-ending vindictiveness. Much of this will come up in my next post, but I believe that God IS knowable. And I also believe that the understandings of the original readers and the interpretations of passages such as the ones you cite are exceptionally informative to us.
I want us to look at these passages from the original languages in their original contexts and attempt to posit that there is a “consistent view”
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
I think it’s also important to point out, as I will in coming entries, that these are not new ideas. The early church had leanings in this direction.
By len on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
I want to point out that I totally agree with Jeff’s thoughts about our actions indicating our beliefs. That is a biblical thought, too. If I am not concerned about the lost when my belief is that they are eternally lost then there is a major problem. Maybe, however, it is my actions which need to come in line with my belief instead of my beliefs coming in line with my actions. Romans 1-3 does have a lot to say about universal guilt before God.
By Jeff_R on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
The other thing I suppose we should note is that all of us are at different points along the line. If I believe what I wrote earlier about hard-wiring (and I do), then our beliefs change only very slowly and reluctantly. Much to our dismay, few people are “reasoned” into new beliefs.
So I do agree with KS that no one should enter this discussion hoping to convince others or “win the day”. It just doesn’t work that way. (Watch any political debate and then listen to the interviews afterward of the audience - everyone comes away believing their man carried the day!)
At best, we can share where we are on the journey. IF some folks are at a particular moment where something that is said is resonant, so be it.
We are all, like it or not, closed-minded to a large degree. The only question is at what point did we close our minds - and at what moments do we open up?
I didn’t arrive at my positions quickly or easily. But I am also utterly convinced of their rightness. In fact, I can’t believe I ever thought otherwise. Obviously, most of you feel the same way about the positions you currently hold.
Some people hold the literal reading of Scripture as a higher value than consistency and rationality in derivative beliefs. In fact many people in fundamentalist movements do. However, I approach it the other way. That if God intended to give us an intelligible, understandable revelation in the form of written Scripture, that he would do so in a manner that does not contradict his laws of consistency, logic and reason. This is not to say there isn’t mystery, but where there is mystery, it would be stated as mystery - not as a contradiction or logical fallacy.
Thus, if I read something that strikes me as irrational, my first instinct is to say “I’ve misunderstood what God has said here”, rather than to say, “God has revealed a logical fallacy to me so I must believe it”.
That’s my approach to Scripture. It is subservient to God’s revelation - the message is not constrained by it. When an overarching principle of Scripture (God’s justice and love, for example) contradicts my interpretation of a specific passage (eternal torture of folks who never heard about Jesus), I’m forced to consider whether I’ve misinterpreted something.
And in my deliberations, the specific passage must be subject to the overarching principles, not the other way round.
By KS on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
JeffR: Interesting points about scripture. Wonder if that would apply to the non-violent parts…
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
KS - Absolutely!!