We had a very satisfying meeting of the youth group at All Saints last night.
During dinner (we eat together before the program begins), I was chatting with one of the teen girls, "Patience", about her new beau, "Jordan." Patience likes Jordan a lot, but a problem is emerging: Jordan attends a conservative evangelical church, while Patience has become an ardently progressive Episcopalian in the finest All Saints Pasadena tradition. Though they haven’t been "going out" for long, Jordan has been making snide remarks to Patience, suggesting that ours is "not a real church". He is, not surprisingly, vehemently opposed to our staunch support for same-sex marriage. He wants Patience to start coming to his youth group on Wednesday nights rather than ours.
"He keeps asking me the same question, Hugo", Patience said; "He just wants to know if I’m ’saved’ or not. I don’t even know how to answer that." And thus over tacos and brownies, I tried to give a very gentle, comprehensible explanation of how conservative evangelicals understand salvation, and why it is that they are concerned with being saved. Patience nodded along, and then asked the follow-up question: "Okay, so that’s what he believes. What do we believe?" Knowing what our topic was for program last night, I told Patience that rather than tell her, I’d try and show her.
Since this was our last youth group before Valentine’s Day, our topic was love. Not dating or sex — those come later in the program year. Rather, we focused on love by talking about the four classic Greek categories of love: storge, eros, philia, and agape. We had our kids illustrate each of the first three forms of love with silly skits (all of which had to involve a group dance, a ping-pong paddle, and a line from the movie "Napoleon Dynamite", the one film every one of them has seen.) After that hilarity, we settled into a serious discussion of agape love. Yes, folks, even at ultra-liberal All Saints, we grounded our talk in Scripture. Specifically, we worked off this section from 1 John. As we did so, we asked the kids to share their own experience with feeling radical, unconditional agape love. Without being prompted, several of our kids immediately began to talk about their experiences in the All Saints community, particularly in youth group. "This is the one place where I’m not judged, where I know I’m loved no matter what", was a refrain that we heard (gratifyingly often).
In non-theological language, I made the case to the kids that salvation (the word that perplexed Patience) could mean different things based on different readings of the bible and church tradition. And while some of our dear brothers and sisters might interpret it in terms of who gains entrance into heaven, All Saints — and other progressive churches — make the case that salvation lies in creating agape community. If there’s one thing that distinguishes progressive Christians from our conservative friends, it’s our conviction that no one gets saved alone! Salvation happens in community, as we are saved not from the lake of fire of Revelations 20, but from our own self-centeredness and isolation. Salvation, for us, lies in living out the greatest commandment, which is to practice unconditional agape love. First we create communities of agape love within the church, and then we carry that message outside the church. We bring salvation through love.
If there was one bible passage I could offer Patience, and the rest of the kids, it would be 1John 4:12: No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. I love the way that the verse makes clear that God will only live in us if we first love others; it’s a very conditional understanding. In a nutshell, this is what All Saints might understand salvation to be: the knowledge that God lives in us and we are making His love complete in the world through our actions and above all, through our unconditional agape love for one another. I think Patience was satisfied with the answer, and she declared that she and Jordan have a big talk coming up about the direction of their budding relationship!
Sometimes, a little voice in my head says to me: "Hugo, this is all well and good, but aren’t you watering down the message of the Gospel? When you emphasize to your kids that religion is, at its heart, only about sharing and loving unconditionally, aren’t you side-stepping God’s saving work on the cross? By not making any judgments and loving on everyone with tremendous enthusiasm, you create lots of moments for hugs and tears and feeling really good, but is that all there is to the Christian story?" My inner conservative evangelical (I have many inner voices) worries that I’m taking an easy, non-confrontational way out; I worry that I’m "watering down" Christianity to a religion that, to paraphrase Lewis, is just "the religion of being nice."
But when I think about agape and my youth group, I think of the end of the gospel of John. You know, the bit where Jesus makes breakfast for the disciples on the beach? He asks Peter three times, "Do you love me?" And when Peter answers yes each time, Jesus tells him, "feed my lambs"; "take care of my sheep." I suppose I’m not the only youth minister who thinks of his beloved teenagers as being like lambs. And in my heart, I believe that by trying my best to love everyone of these kids as much as I can, as intensely as I can, with as much openness and freedom from conditions as I can, I am feeding them just as Jesus wants me to. My conservative friends will tell me that I’m feeding them a diet of sweet sugar that tastes good, but is ultimately not enough to end real hunger — but I’m convinced and convicted that we at All Saints are giving them the real deal.
When all the hugs were over last night, and I’d finished up "checking in" one-on-one with a couple of kids who were going through hard times, I walked to my car and began to cry. Was it just my ENFP personality experiencing the elation that comes from prolonged intimacy with a group? Or was it a spiritual joy that comes from having done what I was called to do? With a fair amount of certainty, I’m going to say it was the latter.
Beautiful post. Knock it off. How do you expect your progressive atheist readers to stay that way when you articulate a theism that strikes so close to the heart of our own values? ;-)
More seriously, I think this is good opportunity to say thanks for this blog. I’ve been reading for a year (maybe a little longer; it’s hard to keep track of that sort of thing), and in that time you’ve unwittingly done a lot to help me work on my Christian = Jerry Falwell stereotyping. And no doubt I’ll be looking to the things you write about your faith more in the coming years, as my university threatens to head down a path of intolerance based on ‘Catholic doctrine’.
(Apologies to all for that last bit. We’re having an extremely tense month here.)
Keep up the great work, Hugo!
and this is where you sort of start to lose me. i was hesitant to start reading your blog in the first place, some months ago, because i am one of those “evangelicals” of which you speak (although quite, quite liberal,as we go). but you have drawn me in with what was a suprisingly consistant gospel message (i do not mean that to sound condescending in any way). and it is very nice to see someone openly call themselves a feminist who professes a belief in Jesus.
in one respect, we skirt along the same belief–because i feel that relationship with Jesus is the center of Christianity that is, of course, manifested in love. Love for God, and love for all human beings (and other creatures). But if unconditional love for others, in the context of community or not, is the All, then there is no need for Jesus.
for Peter, the important question was about loving His sheep because Peter already believed in the saving work of the cross (john 6).
i just think there needs to be some balance–i do believe that many conservative evangelicals have gotten it wrong by saying: i “believe” in the cross, that is enough. but on the other side, “liberal” christianity often is too soft–i can forget about jesus as long as i’m kind and loving.
still, i’ll keep reading.
“Patience nodded along, and then asked the follow-up question: “Okay, so that’s what he believes. What do we believe?” Knowing what our topic was for program last night, I told Patience that rather than tell her, I’d try and show her.”
I was struck by this question. Why does she need you to tell her what she believes?
That implies that you are there to tell her what to believe instead of saying “this is what I believe and what I am trying to teach you.”
A not-so-subtle difference.
I think you missed another “3 with Peter” that confirms your churchs understanding of “agape” in Jesus. That was that even though Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times on the way to the cross, Jesus, knowing it would happen, still loved and forgave him. And did nothing but shine love and forgiveness from that cross.
That’s what I think the conservative factions of christianity miss, even suffereing the terror of that cross and sacrifice, he didn’t stop loving and forgiving. Even his enemies who put him there, even those closest to him that betrayed him.
What better example of all encompassing love could there be?
Even though he still loved them Johnny - they still did wrong.
This is what liberal churches miss is the need to repent from wrong behavior, because they will not pronounce something as wrong. Serial adulterer? Oh, well, that’s fine. We love you. God loves you. And true enough, God does love you - but you are on the fast train to Hell - eternal seperation from immmanence - if you don’t turn from your bad behavior and mend your ways.
Hugo,
This is another (as always) well-written post here. Let me respond to a few points.
“If there’s one thing that distinguishes progressive Christians from our conservative friends, it’s our conviction that no one gets saved alone!” I think you’ve described accurately the views of many non-denominational and low-church evangelicals, Hugo, but not denominational ones. I think it was Peter Moore of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (I may be wrong on that) who once said, “Salvation always begins with the individual but never stops there. It always ends in the community of the church.” Among mainline evangelicals in particular, there is a different ecclesiology from the other evangelicals I mentioned, so that the Christian life does not just boil down to “me and Jesus.”
“Salvation happens in community, as we are saved not from the lake of fire of Revelations 20, but from our own self-centeredness and isolation. Salvation, for us, lies in living out the greatest commandment, which is to practice unconditional agape love.” Now this is where we will part company, Hugo. Beyond the question of whether anyone will be eternally separated from God (since we’ve discussed that before, I won’t repeat it here), salvation does not equte to agape love. Agape love is a fruit of salvation, but not salvation itself. I think that here you are treading on dangerous ground, confusing a fruit of the Holy Spirit with justification (unless I’m misreading you, of course). And Jesus came to deliver us from things far more serious than “self-centeredness and isolation,” but our own rebellion and sinfulness that keeps us from being holy as God is holy.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
People who think that consistently practicing loving kindess is easy or soft make me kind of worried.
Somewhat related:
One of my favorite Jewish proverbs is: The world stand on three things: On Torah (which can also mean wisdom, knowledge, and learning), On Avodah (which can mean worship or labor/work) and On Gemilut Hasidim (which means acts of loving kindness).
Will, Patience asked “what do WE believe?” She was asking about how All Saints interpreted salvation, not how I thought she should believe.
Johnny, indeed — agape love, as the apostle tells us, forgives all things.
Chip, as always, a thoughtful reply. Thanks for the Peter Moore comment. Honestly, most of the conservatives I know are very low-church non-denoms, and that skews my views!
I work with All Saints youth because I am convinced that Christ died for me on the cross and gave me the power for a new life. Yes, we are justified by His sacrifice on the cross. As an evangelical I believe that. But just because that is the source of our justification, that doesn’t mean that the most important Christian task is to convince others of that truth — it’s already happened! Jesus doesn’t need us to verbally assent to his atoning death and resurrection, he calls us to practice agape love as the primary task of a redeemed people!
Tara, I’ll agree that loving kindness isn’t easy. It’s a constant spiritual discipline. Eros is easy, philia is easy, agape is hard — but incredibly rewarding.
Hey Hugo - I love the explanation of Love as the central tenet of Christianity but what I’m not hearing is an explanation of what liberal Christians believe about sin and atonement. What I understand is that one of the central tenets of Christianity, liberal or conservative, is that people “sin.” There is a tally somewhere of how much people sin and that Jesus died on the cross to wash away the tally. Evangelical, conservative Christians believe that in order to get your tally of sins washed away you have to believe in Jesus. And because your tally of sins is washed away, you get into heaven. But, if you don’t believe in Jesus, your tally of sins sticks and you go to hell.
What that presumes is that someone is keeping track of your sins and when you die, that someone sends you to heaven or hell. And then you stay there forever. And for me, this is the main reason why I’m not a practicing Christian. I don’t believe a merciful god would be keeping score like that or banish you to anywhere. I think if we do live on after this life that we will always have the opportunity to grow and banishment to hell doesn’t make sense in that context.
And in the context of your explanation to Patience, if someone doesn’t love enough, does that mean they are going to hell in the agape Christian paradigm? I’m curious.
I think what some of these responses demonstrate is a difference in viewpoints–some focus on the fact that we must repent and forsake our sins in order to receive the blessings on the Atonement, while others feel that the Atonement has already been accomplished, so we need to put our sins behind us and focus on how to continue to live worthily of the resulting blessings. This will probably ruffle some feathers, but I think the 1st view tends to lead to a judgmental approach, evaluating not just our own sins but everyone else’s, to make sure we’re properly repenting. This overlooks the fact that it is not our duty to assess how well someone else has overcome their weaknesses–our duty instead is to love them as well as we can. We can help them to change, but we also have to provide a place where they feel welcome and valued even when they have trouble changing. In contrast, the 2d view may lead to a complacent approach that the only thing we need to do is be nice to each other, and that the Atonement, while a wonderful thing, is already in effect so why worry about it. Perhaps we need to find a balance between the two?
I’m going to join Heather in asking you theology, Hugo…
My mom once told me why she didn’t believe in Hell, and left the Catholic church. She said to me:
“I’m a parent. When I punish my kids, it’s to teach them so they’ll be happier adults who don’t make the sorts of mistakes that lead to unhappiness. It’s not revenge. Eternal punishment doesn’t make sense to me; what sort of loving parent takes revenge on his children?”
I can accept that being away from God is its own hell, and that we make choices that keep us away from god. That if you’re acting away from that loving centre, you’re shunning God’s light and love. But I can’t really reconcile agape and Hell as punishment, or Hell as eternal, unless, of course, when we die we become shadows frozen in time unable to learn. In which case, “I’m” not there anyway.
Which is one of two reasons why I’d never claim to be Christian, Quaker though I am. It’s the one thing I’ve never reconciled; I wonder your take on it?
Gosh, I’ve got quite a lot to say about heaven, hell, and universalism — but no time in which to write at the moment. Letters of rec must be written first!
I think my own understanding of the role of a loving church community in salvation is rather more apocalyptic than yours. When I read the New Testament (especially Paul) I get a strong sense that the formation of churches, repentance from sin, and all the rest of it are means of preparation for the transformation of the world that they felt was coming. Therefore the main difference I see between that and what you say here is the NT’s sense that things are unfinished — we are ever striving to become holier, the church is but a glimpse of the Kingdom that is to come, etc. And this was an era when miraculous healings and prison breaks seemed to be the order of the day. I’m not sure if you mean to say this, but you make it sound like by creating a loving community, salvation is already realized. I’m Mennonite enough to feel that salvation does indeed begin on earth, but I wouldn’t say it ends there.
Camassia, I agree completely. But while we are here, we can’t be focused on a “pie in the sky by and by” theology that sees this world as some sort of Marine boot camp from which we hope to graduate ASAP. Do I believe in an eternal life to come? Absolutely. But what we know — that the first century church perhaps did not — is that Jesus is tarrying on His return. While none know the time and the hour of his comeback, perhaps He is waiting for US to build His Kingdom of radical justice and love. So until He calls me home, my job is to take care of the sheep here. And I take care of ‘em best not by promising a wonderful meal tomorrow, but by feeding their emotional, spiritual, and physical hunger in the here and now
Hi all
I’m a Quaker too. I like Walter Wink and Rene Girard for christology. I understand sin as what happens when we are possessed by the demonic forces: including those which animate the whole structure of the industrial growth society as it rampages across the earth laying waste and destroying.
Atonement is God’s way of giving us a bath and setting us on our feet again after we have been muddied up - when we have got colonised by the landslide of evil which perpetually rolls around us in human society, confusing and hurting everyone. Jesus exposed the Powers of violence and empire and showed them to be unrighteous: for us he suffered and in doing so, won as he revealed God’s truth: that sin can be overcome by God, and death is not the end of an act of truth. The action of God’s power - grace and love and truth - is to clear the confusion from our minds and send us out again into the world to live out that truth and power.
I haven’t ever got my head round an afterlife: I understand eternal life to mean sustainable and powerful. I guess that’s part of my being a biological scientist. So Hell has to be metaphorical for me. I need Jesus’s sacrifice and his leadership as well, (as I experience he is alive & with us in spirit), to free me from the Powers of destruction and violence. It’s a rebirth for me to follow Jesus: an alteration, growing-up again but this time learning to depend on grace, faith and love instead of on worldy influence, violence and ‘playing the game’.
See, I think it is watering down the Gospel to act like the Kingdom is even possible for humans to build. Like I said, the NT church had all sorts of amazing things going on and yet still took the attitude that things to come were greater. I don’t think that’s “pie in the sky”, I think it’s humility about one’s own achievements compared to God’s. I mean, the NT church believed that it was building the Kingdom, but that was because it was “the body of Christ” — that is, Christ was building it through them. The image of Jesus waiting around for us to perfect ourselves until he’ll deign to come back doesn’t strike me as an improvement on the Marine-boot-camp version. The thing that agape love and renouncing sin have in common is that they’re both things that common sense tells you is impossible for human nature to do (consistently at least), and are therefore characteristics of God.
And here is the fundamental misunderstanding of Hell. God doesn’t send you to hell - you go there of your own free will, by walking away. The best metaphor I ever heard was that the road to hell was wide, but at the gates of hell was the cross, which you had to walk past to get in.
I’m perpetually amazed at secularists of all stripes who resent deeply someone telling them to so much as tie their shoes, but are angry with God because he won’t “fix the world” by taking away free will.
Camassia, when I joined Pasadena Mennonite, I was told by Jim Brennemann that Mennonites believe we can make the Beatitudes (the conduct code specified in Matthew 5) an earthly reality. As I understand Anabaptist theology Mennonites believe that one of the gifts of grace is the strength to prepare the Kingdom by living in communities of love. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Mennonite teaching?
Gonzman, fair enough — your position is not that far from Lewis’ in the Great Divorce.
And Camassia, I don’t think Jesus is "waiting around" passively — we have been given new life and new power through the cross, and that power came from Him. Thus we are really co-creating with him, building the Kingdom. It’s where I like the language in 1 Corinthians 3:9-11. We are God’s fellow laborers; Jesus laid the foundation with His sacrifice on the cross, but it is our agape love that builds the building.
That’s how I read the passage, anyway… I know my bible pretty well, but I do tend to play "proof-text poker" more often than I ought!
In response to: “And here is the fundamental misunderstanding of Hell. God doesn’t send you to hell - you go there of your own free will, by walking away.”
Who created the possibility of hell? Who set up the system if it wasn’t God? According to Christianity, God created heaven and hell. The Christian version of the God-created system says if you “choose” to sin you go to hell. You go “there” of your own free will but hell is “there” because God made a “there.” And what I’m saying is, I don’t buy that if there is a God that he, she or it would create separate spheres for people to live in eternally, or a system with an end to forgiveness.
Well Jim Brenneman and I don’t see eye-to-eye on everything theologically, but that’s also very Anabaptist. However, the distinction I’m really trying to make here is between something being in process, and being completed. Like I said, the NT church obviously believed it was building the Kingdom, but it seems equally clear that it doesn’t expect to finish the task until Jesus returns. The fact that it’s had longer than it expected to work on it doesn’t inherently mean that therefore, it’s supposed to finish it itself. I was getting this feeling from your post of, “We’ve created an accepting community, therefore we’ve made heaven on earth.” It sounds borderline arrogant. It also makes heaven sound exceptionally mundane. I mean, loving communities are wonderful and necessary, but they don’t conquer death, make the blind see, create glorified bodies or any of the other things the NT promises. I guess I’m coming at this from a somewhat unconventional angle since I see heaven as the end product of transformation, more than a reward for good behavior. I’ve got a bit of Origen in me, I suppose.
I think that’s why I agree (somewhat) with our conservative brethren about the emphasis on loving people “just as they are.” Not that you shouldn’t do that, but that God’s ultimate purpose for them is not for them to remain the same. So “I love you as you are” goes along with “prepare for some really big changes.” This is apparent to me in the rest of 1 John — his discussion of love goes along with some very sharp warnings against sin and false teaching.
But (simply to play out this line of thinking), suppose God did offer people a choice: follow me or don’t follow me (the basis of free will). But if everybody ended up the same place regardless of their choice, then it’s not really free will, is it? In this sense God HAD to create an “other place” for those who chose to walk the other way.
Also, we do have to realize that most of our imagery of hell comes from Dante, and not the Bible. Whether or not is is a lake of fire with demons poking people with pitchforks is up for debate. That it is the place apart from God, set up for people who choose to say no to God - that is the point. More C.S. Lewis there.
However, your final point is intriguing: “a system with an end to forgiveness.” There are Christian scholars who would say there is never and end to forgiveness, for those who choose to accept forgiveness. It’s just that, like in “The Great Divorce,” once the choice is made, it only gets harder and harder for people to change their mind.
I just wanted to add (lest I’m misunderstood) that a good analogy for God’s love for us is that it’s like the love you’d have for your five-year-old child. You love him unconditionally, but you also want to help him mature into the adult he’s meant to be. Paul uses a number of analogies like that (especially when he’s talking to the Corinthians).
Camassia, theology aside, you and I agree very strongly that we shouldn’t just love people without seeking to help them transform. After all, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”. Where liberals and conservatives break with each other is over the issue of what constitutes the nature of the sin we are trying to overcome!
Do I want my teenagers to become less selfish? Absolutely. Do I want them to become more generous? Absolutely. Do I want them to work through the narcissism, the self-obsession, and the pettiness so inherent to adolescence (and adulthood)? You bet. Do I want them to experience themselves as incredibly loved, as God’s favorites, and thus called to love others and create communities of love? Yup.
Am I concerned with whether or not they are virgins on their wedding night, or whether in following eros, they are drawn more to men or to women? No.
Am I concerned with whether or not they embrace sacrificial living and giving? Hell yes.
Am I picking and choosing the Gospel passages to support this? I don’t think so.
“loving communities are wonderful and necessary, but they don’t conquer death, make the blind see, create glorified bodies or any of the other things the NT promises.”
I don’t think we’ve even begun to see what loving communities can do. We don’t live in a world like that yet. And we never will if we don’t believe that it is a goal worth pursuing whole-heartedly.
Also, Dan, what you wrote really doesn’t make any sense. Why is there a need for a heaven and hell at all? It’s such an outcome oriented approach to faith, and a bit simplistic and offensive (not the belief in heaven/hell itself necessarily, but the idea that following God is meaningless if there isn’t some kind of personalized cosmic consequence). Why don’t we all just end up dead? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust…
I think this is a wonderful post, although I am fundamentally atheist with Buddhist ideals. The only issues I have with a lot of religion is that the actions of a person can be (for some, not all) less important than their faith and belief. I’ve had people of various faiths tell me that unless I believe in (some type of their) God, something bad will happen to me.
I know this is off-topic, and I find that you give me a lot of important insight into the liberal Chrsitian ideals. However, what is your religious view of people that are not Christians?
BTW, I am quite impressed by your youth group. I have gone to many, many churches as a kid and teen- through invitation from friends. some were very positive experiences, others less so. I was delighted to read about your explanation of love, as it’s a concept that people often assume is obvious, yet a complex one worth of discussion and deep thought. It’s wonderful to see that you’re not assuming that people (or yourself) know what love is, but allowing people to express and discuss the topic in such a joyful way.
Catty, I have great respect for other faith traditions, and for those who have no faith tradition. At the same time, I believe that there is something absolutely unique about Jesus Christ and a relationship with Him. While I will not be shy about sharing/witnessing my experience, I will not be so bold as to claim that those who do not share my faith are barred from paradise.
I think it’s quite wonderful that you are not shy about sharing your positive religious experience. From what I’ve seen of my religious friends, religion can be a great source of pride, joy and guidance. I do not mind talking about religion, not listening to people share their religion and their experiences in a positive light. One of the reasons that I support freedom of religion is that it allows people to express what they get out of religion and share it with others if they choose to do so. It’s great for me to be able to read about positive things happening in your church, positive things happening in your life, etc. Even if I don’t share the religious aspect in terms of being a believer, I do see the joy that it brings and it’s a wonderful thing to witness.
The only time I get peeved is when people assume that their religion makes them a better person regardless of their conduct, simply based on their beliefs. I also admit that people that attempt to get me to convert against my interest and will annoy test my patience.
And here is the fundamental misunderstanding of Hell. God doesn’t send you to hell - you go there of your own free will, by walking away. The best metaphor I ever heard was that the road to hell was wide, but at the gates of hell was the cross, which you had to walk past to get in.
I’m perpetually amazed at secularists of all stripes who resent deeply someone telling them to so much as tie their shoes, but are angry with God because he won’t “fix the world” by taking away free will.
Don’t confuse lack of understanding of concepts of eternal hell with lack of understanding of free will, Gonz! I’m utterly with you about the second: my favorite way of saying it is that “God is not Santa Claus”… *g*. I’m very comfortable with God not fixing the world except through and with us.
OTOH, I do have a problem with eternal Hell; and cannot identify as Christian; but I’m not a secularist. There are lots of folks of my generation that I know in the same theological boat; some embrace secular humanism as their ethical centre, but that’s different than being an *atheist*. They’d be largely agnostic or, more usually, “spiritual”: they have a sense of the divine that collides horribly with various experiences of Christianity they’ve had but tends to sound pretty much on the same page as that Christ guy. If Christianity was *just* Christ’s teachings, you could probably call us all Christian. The whole Yahweh/blood offering/Leviticus/Christians bombing other countries/Falwell thing usually gets in the way.
I’m comfortable saying that we must choose to come to God, and that God is always there for us to turn to: hell is when you don’t choose to come to God. Perhaps it gets more difficult the longer you stay away (although I know of a number of people with hit-the-bottom conversions), but it feels utterly wrong that that should be a time limited proposition.
With a fair amount of certainty, I’m going to say it was the latter.
I would as well. :-)
“But just because that is the source of our justification, that doesn’t mean that the most important Christian task is to convince others of that truth — it’s already happened! Jesus doesn’t need us to verbally assent to his atoning death and resurrection, he calls us to practice agape love as the primary task of a redeemed people!”
I think you’ve been listening to some low-church evangelicals again, Hugo. :) I wouldn’t say that “the most important Christian task is to convince others of that truth” because that means that human beings are only here on earth to get people through the fire escape. It’s like the old evangelical (maybe even fundamentalist) adage that I used to hear quite a bit back in the ’80s: “If you’re on the Titanic and the boat’s hit the iceberg and is sinking, you don’t want to be rearranging the chairs on the deck; you want to be getting as many people into the life boats as possible.” It was used both to promote the importance of evangelism and, at the same time, denigrate being overly concerned about the world. I was at least a little skeptical of that assertion back then, and I now would call that a view that’s skewed way too far in one direction. It takes one very important task of the church and individual Christians, evangelism, and stuffs that task into a way-too-small box.
While there is some truth to that POV, the Scriptural portrait is far more complex. We are presented as fallen creatures, people who have lost the ability to relate rightly with their creator. We are in exile from the garden of Eden, to use biblical imagery, and what can get us back there? Joni Mitchell got close to the mark when she penned the words, “And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden,” but we don’t have any ability to do it ourselves. Furthermore, all of creation also is in exile, cursed because of the fall.
As you noted, Hugo, the solution is through Christ’s death on the cross. However, the story does not stop there. We are moving towards a new heaven and a new earth in which the effects of our fall are reversed. And this is a world in which everything will be brought under the rulership of Christ (Ephesians 1:10).
What I see missing in your mostly fine description, Hugo, is the sense that humanity is still, by and large, separated from God. Yes, Christ’s death on the cross is a complete, finished work — but it is not automatically applied to everyone. A person must still “repent and believe the good news.”
And that means that we must always work to reconcile others to God (2 Corinthians 5). That point in itself means that we’re not just concerned about a fire escape! Some people do need to know of Christ’s work on the cross, and to say that they don’t is to minimize humanity’s separation from God. Others need to grow as Christians to become closer to the God who loves them. Evangelism and discipleship are both, properly speaking, activities devoted to reconciliation.
And because reconciliation is such a broad work, evangelism is not limited to verbal testimony to Christ’s work on the cross. It does involve agape love, as you point out, Hugo. We both know St. Francis’ admonition: “Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary, use words.”
So agape love is important, Hugo, yes. Is it “the primary task of a redeemed people”? Well, not quite. The first has got to be to love God with all of our heart, mind and strength. The second is to practice that agape love among others. And we have the Great Commission to make disciples in all nations, a task that is for the church until the end of time.
Hugo, demonstrating agape love and telling people of Christ’s death for them are not in opposition to one another! We practice agape love by telling people of their need to repent and turn to God. We also practice agape love in a myriad of other ways, and we evangelize, yes, without words. It’s not either/or, but both/and, as you well know, Hugo.
At the same time, I’m hesitant to say that evangelism is the most important task of the church. The church corporate is more for discipleship than evangelism — to build Christians up to grow in the love and knowledge of God, and to empower them to serve God. (Evangelism probably is more the work of individual Christians than the church corporate.) Evangelism is not more important than discipleship. Justification is not more important than sanctification. If we are to become “little Christs,” as Lewis said, than we need to become reconciled to God not just through justification, but sanctification.
But to tack back to the other side, repentance and conversion always precede the fruit (though not the working) of the Holy Spirit. As human beings we are able to love, yes, but not in the sense that God intended until he provides us with the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. Agape love is impossible for us when we are separated from God. We grow into being able to express it as we grow in Christ. So repentance and conversion do not lose their significance, Hugo.
One day, all of this reconciliation will be complete so that everything is under the lordship of Christ. That does not mean that everyone will have submitted to Christ’s rule. Individuals are free, within the bondage that their sinful nature places upon them, to turn to or reject Christ. But, even so, we’re still moving toward a new heaven and earth where all of the effects of the fall will have disappeared. And nothing could be more glorious than that.
“But just because that is the source of our justification, that doesn’t mean that the most important Christian task is to convince others of that truth — ”
Perhaps not in convincing but in sharing. I’ll grant you that most evangelical doctrine we hear (and live?) is functionally gnosticism. Yet, what you shared was a beautiful and absolutely necessary part of living out our response to God’s love, “the uttlerly gratutous love by which we live amazed.” But you forgot, as I read it, that the living is a response to a specific person (Jesus), in thanks for a specifice act (his self-sacrafice on the cross), for a specific reason (our estrangement from God.) Without the action to which we are responding, the response can lead to a self-satisfaction that we are “earning” our salvation. It un-moors (sp?) it from what “everyone, everywhere has always believed.” (I think I butchered that, but you get the reference.)
Unless you want to argue that all who perform good acts are doing so in Jesus’ name, a la Lewis in “The Last Battle.” Still, given the opportunity to witness to Him, and draw others to look outside themselves — a lifelong process, I’ll grant you — this seemed a good opportunity to share message of forgiveness (first), leading to loving others (second).
Steve
Chip and Steve, thanks. Chip, we’ve never met — but you’ve been a tireless and irenic advocate for a more orthodox (small “o”) position; you have a nice way of rebuking my excesses while reminding me of the central commitment of my life.
Steve, after seven years of friendship, you are part of that small voice inside of me that I referred to in the post… looking forward to lunch!
Uh, just read Chip’s post after posting mine. Ignore mine . . . . what Chip said.
Stephen
Too late, my brother!
Bless you friend for preaching SOMETHING!
Hugo, I’ll look you up if I ever get out to LA and see about having lunch!
You’re on, Chip!
Hugo, nice post and good discussion. I wish I had time to respond today. However, it’s continuing to be one of those times when there is no time, IYKWIM.
I just have one problem with this statement…
“One day, all of this reconciliation will be complete so that everything is under the lordship of Christ.”
I don’t know, but this type of language really bothers me. I’m not interested in a world that has just one religion- I like the fact that there are many. I think there’s wisdom to be found in different religions for different ways, and I’m somewhat cautious of people who feel that their religion is… the best, not just for them, but for everyone. I see a huge difference between having a deep connection and wanting to share it with others, and those wanting a world where their religion has domination. I understand that Hugo is christian, and I also understand that Chip is as well. I have respect for their religion and will fight to defend their right to practice it. It’s just that any world dominated by a single religion is is something that makes me shudder, squirm in my seat and turn pale.
Catty:
The comment that bothers you is a truth claim, no different than, “I think there’s wisdom to be found in different religions for different ways.” You believe that all religions are . . . equally valid? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Here’s the rub: all religions make exclusive truth claims, even the claim that there is no truth.
Chip (and I) believe in the truth of the Christian religion with the understanding that the various manifestions on earth are imperfect. Yet, the truth of a particular religious tradition is a different question entirely than how those beliefs should/or shouldn’t be manifest in the “public square.”
Stephen
Hi, Catty,
I hear you, and I understand why you would be disturbed by such a statement, as I used to be an agnostic. Let me first clarify that I wasn’t saying that there is no truth or wisdom in other religions. J.R.R. Tolkien once talked to C.S. Lewis about how you can find moral truths, pointers to God, and even echoes of the Christian gospel throughout different religions. Tolkien was, though (and Lewis came to be), convinced that the Christian faith was true in its upholding of Jesus Christ as not merely a good, praiseworthy teacher, but as the Son of God who died so that human beings could be reconciled to God, even though they had long ago made the choice to live apart from God.
The Christian faith holds that everything was created by Jesus Christ, and that everything exists only out of his will and for him. This world is not as it should be, because humanity’s choice has affected all of creation negatively. However, God is at work to set the world the way it was intended to be before humanity’s bad choices, although we only see glimpses of the coming world now.
I know that this can be a hard POV to accept; as Steve said, it really is an exclusive truth claim, just as other religions make claims that contradict the claims of other religions. Strictly speaking, though, the Christian claim is not one of one religion having “domination,” but rather of God restoring the creation to the way it was intended to be. And in that “new heaven and new earth” (words taken from the Bible), Jesus Christ is recognized, loved, and worshipped for who the Christian faith testifies him to be.
In hope,
Chip
While I will not be shy about sharing/witnessing my experience, I will not be so bold as to claim that those who do not share my faith are barred from paradise.
Hugo - how do you reconcile this statement with John 3:16-18, Mark 26-27, or similar type passages? I understand *my faith* is vague (all aspects or just some), but do you think eternal life is available for those who reject Christ (or perhaps more accurately never accept Christ)? Is there some minimum requirement for paradise? Can you lay any foundation other than Christ?
wonderful post. But there is some connetion between the social and the personal. It is by being saved together that we create “breathing space” for us to be saved personally.
Well said, yet one sided. I posted a longer response on my blog at:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-do-you-get-saved-in-anglican.html
Although I really, truly sympathize with the pastor who posted this article, I believe he frames the issue in an EITHER/OR debate: Either salvation is individual, other-worldly, and about doctrinal correctness (as in Fundamentalism) or salvation is communal, this-worldly, and about loving social justice (as in Liberalism). I think this is too simplistic. Salvation is rather both-and.
If your Valentine’s meeting was about “Love”, why didn’t you give them the verse that really tells Christians about it: “We love because He first loved us.”
We don’t get to have a relationship with God just because we show love to others. There is not a thing we can do to get God to love us more, and not a thing we can do to make him love us less. Period. He loves, because he is love. And we love because (and only because) he first loved us. And if you don’t agree with this, then use the Bible to defend your position. Anything else is only opinion.
There is really NOTHING you said to your youth group that could not have been said by any adult of any stripe or religion. There was nothing in your “teaching” that characterizes you as a Christian. What you seem to be giving them is complete sugar. I love sugar—as do most of us— but it doesn’t grow me, sustain me, or give any long-term benefit whatsoever.
Reading your blog seriously depresses me. I am in despair when I think about someone with your theology having access to young people’s minds, and being a person that they perhaps look to for spiritual counsel.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is RADICAL, counter-intuitive, opposite of how this world works. It is not a mix of love and sweetness and light. It is a “glorious sword”. I will pray for you and your ministry (and yes, I hate how patronizing that sounds but don’t know of another way to say it.) I truly will pray for you and for Patience, and especially for Jordan.
You say “that doesn’t mean that the most important Christian task is to convince others of that truth — it’s already happened!” Is “it” the convincing? If you didn’t do “it,” who did? Maybe the lack of “it” is why Patience asked her question. Maybe Jordan is saying things she never heard said in All Saints. Or if “it” means “that truth,” convincing others remains a separate task to be done by us. I was convinced through clergy and others saying “I believe this” regularly, and by matching their actions to their words. (You don’t have to confront people with “you must.”)
The Second Great Commandment flows from the First - it is not a stand-alone “greatest.” I John 4:9-11 precede 4:12. 3 years of learning and 3 denials by Peter preceeded his 3 affirmations. Children and newcomers need milk before they get meat (Heb 4:11-14, I Pet 2:2)
Canon Harmon observes on T-1-9, “Hugo’s definition is too horizontal.” The cross-bar must be elevated on The Cross to have its full value and effect. Philanthropy is a ground-level shadow of God’s agape.
The “little voice in [your] head” is right.
you are a disgrace to males of your species. are you sure you’re even a man? i certainly have my doubts.
Rick notwithstanding, I’m very grateful for the many thoughtful and kind comments on this thread, and over at Kendall Harmon’s place. I’m especially grateful for those who have responded to my post with prayers for me and the All Saints youth program. That’s the generous Christian response to disagreement, and I am open, truly open, to where the Holy Spirit will guide me.
Beautiful post, Hugo.
You said: ‘As I understand Anabaptist theology Mennonites believe that one of the gifts of grace is the strength to prepare the Kingdom by living in communities of love. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Mennonite teaching?’
I can’t speak for Mennonites, but that strikes me as a thoroughly anabaptist thing to say. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we go about building the Kingdom - like some super-powered Marxists - as much as we believe that God will work through us to do it.