For August 13/14, 2007 Synchroblog titled Christianity: Inclusive or Exclusive?
In this growing political season (in America), we are encouraged to define ourselves: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, Liberal...pro-this and anti-that...and we make those definitions based on what we believe are essential and important issues. Those issues help us decide where our voice will land come vote-day. Those issues are all-important, and without knowing where people stand on issues, we would not know how to vote. Philosophy is critical here.
Not so in the church. Because, like it or not, salvation is not a democracy.
This post could be about any of a number of issues in Christianity; I have chosen one to focus on.
There is always ongoing discussion in the emerging/missional/postmodern church about salvation; i.e. is it exclusive (only for the chosen saved), inclusive (all are saved by Christ whether they know it or not) or universal (all paths lead to God)? Last fall I was introduced to another bold option, the opt-out-ism which says we all are saved by grace unless we consciously reject that grace.
Once we have defined our soteriology (is that the right big word?), we can begin determining who is saved and who isn't, even among Christians. We will try to convert people to our perspectives, as if getting one more vote for exclusivity will win the war. We believe that God will change how He selects the chosen few by majority vote.
Unfortunately in the church, all too often we are taught we are to love everyone, but only as long as they are just like us. Only if they have not only the same religion we do, but also the same theology we do. Associating with people who don't "vote" the way we do might cause us to change our "vote" and sway the polls.
But seriously, is this a democracy? Does our theology really change anything? Do we get to vote on which theology, at the end of eternity, guarantees salvation? Whatever we believe, and we can defend it to the death, does what we believe about salvation change how God does business? If I believe in hell or not, if I argue with you about who might be going there in the end, does it have any impact on whether or not hell actually exists or anyone goes there?
Why then do we spend so much time arguing theology, as if it's the politics of eternity?
We tend to believe it's our theology that saves people. We argue for souls based on sacraments, baptism, atonement...but those things, whatever you believe, don't save. Jesus does. Whether or not Jesus saves only a few, many or all mankind isn't changed by our theology.
Well, if our purpose isn't getting people into our theological camp, what is it?
I have heard it said it is more important to be kind than to be right...because if you are not kind, you are not right. If this is true, maybe we could introduce many more people to Jesus with kindness and love than we presently do with theology. I think we ought to concern ourselves with what we CAN change, that is, getting people in the door. Not the door of a church, mind you, but the door of a life of love, with Jesus. And that happens with kindness. If loving others as we love ourselves is the true mandate, the gospel as Jesus reported it to be, then we are wasting our breath on these issues, breath we could be expending in conversation and relationship with those who haven't yet met Jesus at all.
Then simply let God take it from there.
Other Synchrobloggers on this topic (I will update links to the individual posts as they become available):
Sally Coleman
Julie Clawson
Mike Bursell
Sonja Andrews
Sam Norton
David Fisher
Cobus van Wyngaard
Steve Hayes
Jenelle D'Alessandro
John Smulo
Tim Abbott
In this growing political season (in America), we are encouraged to define ourselves: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, Liberal...pro-this and anti-that...and we make those definitions based on what we believe are essential and important issues. Those issues help us decide where our voice will land come vote-day. Those issues are all-important, and without knowing where people stand on issues, we would not know how to vote. Philosophy is critical here.
Not so in the church. Because, like it or not, salvation is not a democracy.
This post could be about any of a number of issues in Christianity; I have chosen one to focus on.
There is always ongoing discussion in the emerging/missional/postmodern church about salvation; i.e. is it exclusive (only for the chosen saved), inclusive (all are saved by Christ whether they know it or not) or universal (all paths lead to God)? Last fall I was introduced to another bold option, the opt-out-ism which says we all are saved by grace unless we consciously reject that grace.
Once we have defined our soteriology (is that the right big word?), we can begin determining who is saved and who isn't, even among Christians. We will try to convert people to our perspectives, as if getting one more vote for exclusivity will win the war. We believe that God will change how He selects the chosen few by majority vote.
Unfortunately in the church, all too often we are taught we are to love everyone, but only as long as they are just like us. Only if they have not only the same religion we do, but also the same theology we do. Associating with people who don't "vote" the way we do might cause us to change our "vote" and sway the polls.
But seriously, is this a democracy? Does our theology really change anything? Do we get to vote on which theology, at the end of eternity, guarantees salvation? Whatever we believe, and we can defend it to the death, does what we believe about salvation change how God does business? If I believe in hell or not, if I argue with you about who might be going there in the end, does it have any impact on whether or not hell actually exists or anyone goes there?
Why then do we spend so much time arguing theology, as if it's the politics of eternity?
We tend to believe it's our theology that saves people. We argue for souls based on sacraments, baptism, atonement...but those things, whatever you believe, don't save. Jesus does. Whether or not Jesus saves only a few, many or all mankind isn't changed by our theology.
Well, if our purpose isn't getting people into our theological camp, what is it?
I have heard it said it is more important to be kind than to be right...because if you are not kind, you are not right. If this is true, maybe we could introduce many more people to Jesus with kindness and love than we presently do with theology. I think we ought to concern ourselves with what we CAN change, that is, getting people in the door. Not the door of a church, mind you, but the door of a life of love, with Jesus. And that happens with kindness. If loving others as we love ourselves is the true mandate, the gospel as Jesus reported it to be, then we are wasting our breath on these issues, breath we could be expending in conversation and relationship with those who haven't yet met Jesus at all.
Then simply let God take it from there.
Other Synchrobloggers on this topic (I will update links to the individual posts as they become available):
Sally Coleman
Julie Clawson
Mike Bursell
Sonja Andrews
Sam Norton
David Fisher
Cobus van Wyngaard
Steve Hayes
Jenelle D'Alessandro
John Smulo
Tim Abbott
19 comments:
"I think we ought to concern ourselves with what we CAN change, that is, getting people in the door. Not the door of a church, mind you, but the door of a life of love, with Jesus. And that happens with kindness."
This is a great thought Erin. Love this post.
Thanks Cindy. I had hoped that wasn't too fundamentalist of a comment...
i agree with this post immensely. i think, in the end, there is an intoxicating false security that comes from thinking that "you're right." and it is this sense of security that drives people to do very funny things in many diverse ways.
it's an easy thing to get drunk on. i know i used to.
but i quit.
There is only one thing to say to this:
ROCK.
ON!!
Theology as the "politics of eternity"! That's great. I've heard it said that "the language of politics is deception." If that is the case (and, in most cases, it seems that it is), what does that say for our politics of eternity?
Just follow Jesus and stay close to his words, and we'll be alright, now.
Jon - We all want so badly for everyone to "get in" that we all work to pull people into whatever requirements we believe are necessary to "get in". But in the end, I think the only requirement is to love Jesus, whatever that looks like in our lives. After all, that's what He Himself said.
Sonja -
Thank.
You!
Hi Jenelle - Hm - so deception is the politics of eternity? I like that!
And I agree wholeheartedly with you.
nice thoughts. I've heard it said that no matter our theology we all need to act like universalists and treat all people with brotherly and sisterly love like Jesus did.
I think that's a great point, Julie, to act like universalists. It's hard when so much of religion wants us to draw boundaries...but I try.
"I've heard it said that no matter our theology we all need to act like universalists and treat all people with brotherly and sisterly love like Jesus did."
Maybe universalist is the LABEL for me then.
(What's a universalist?)
Nate - I only have a basic understanding that universalists believe everyone will be reconciled to God in the end, regardless of their beliefs. I think they refute the doctrine of hell existing at all.
You might try these articles atWikipedia or the Christian Universalist Association for more detailed info.
assuming all universalists have the same theology of hell.
grandpa thinks that everyone was pardoned by jesus' death. so everyone will get to be in god's presence come the next age. but since god is a consuming fire, those who are not prepared to meet him will feel themselves burning in the purity of the nearness of him.
just one universalist's view.
me? i think jesus' death did exactly what it was supposed to do. so i believe everyone has a life that will be eternal.
and im also beginning to think that our father is indeed a giving and gracious father. i think he will give all his chlidren the desires of our hearts. so i think that people will be grouped in the next age with people of like spirit and mind. (however that works, i don't know. just an amoebic theory right now.)
so although everyone has eternal life, the "party people" will all be together in one place, (or perhaps subdivided even more to tailor the perfect parties and guests with one another. and the judging, the self righteous...the ones who essentially HATE parties wwould be together forever in their own place without the party people in their faces anymore.
and they'll have the rest of eternity to decide if it was really all the homosexuals, the bikers, the prostitutes, the hippies, the rockers, the metalheads, the potheads, the deadheads, etc. that were the problem. or if it was them. and vice versa. the party people also get to decide. was it the church-people who were the problem? or was it us?
which one is heaven and which one is hell? hmmmmm.
just a theory. universalist view number 2.
(sorry about getting word vomit on your blog again. i try to keep it short. really.)
Wow ... Jon ... have you read any Sartre? He wrote a play called "No Exit" that describes just what you're talking about. Though, being an existentialist I think there wasn't quite so much God in it.
Well said. If you think of heaven as a big concert hall, who knows how many back doors and side entrances God has included in his design. Certainly not me.
So if someone says they have a ticket to the kingdom, I can’t argue – even if their ticket looks different from mine. Instead, we can be on the look out for those who don’t feel like they’ve been invited. Because Jesus gave us an unlimited supply of invitations to share.
Jon - I'll get out the Lysol ;-)
Seriously, I do know there are many facets to universalism the same as with mainline Christianity. And I do probably fall into the mix somewhere, although I haven't defined where that is yet. I suppose it's "something else". Hehe.
I guess I ask this - Are God/Jesus ABLE to save everyone if they want to? If so, who am I to say whether or not they actually DO. Like Julie said, I guess I'll treat everyone like I'm a universalist until I know otherwise, which won't likely be this side of heaven.
Sonja - Sounds like heavy reading. I'll leave that to the brains like you and Jon.
Ed - That's pretty much where I stand - I don't know if there's a good theological word for it, but essentially if someone claims to have a relationship with God, I tend to believe them. I just haven't decided if I think that relationship MUST included Jesus - I know mine has to - in order to be valid.
In any case, I guess I don't think it matters so much who *I* think is saved or whatnot. I think God's big enough to decide that for Himself.
I'll just be kind and leave the being right up to Him.
Post a Comment