We have a special place at home that we call the ‘plastic cupboard’. It is so named because this is where we keep all the tubs and containers that we have yet failed to throw away. I am not sure what it is about plastic but it seems to have a life of its own. The knives and forks are obedient as they sit waiting in the cutlery drawer. The plates and dishes follow all the rules and stay where they are put. The plastic items seem to wait for any opportunity to make a dash for freedom as soon as the door is opened.
Every once in a while we attempt to tidy this cupboard and find all manner of things that we had forgotten were in our possession. The same could be said of the drawer containing old phone chargers and other associated electrical items.
I often feel like this with some of the theological and ecclesiological baggage that we have collected over the years. We develop views on things like hell, the second coming, worship, and salvation that we feel sure will be useful to us, but they get pushed to the back of our minds with a variety of questions that it seems we are not allowed to ask.
If we dared to ask whether it might be safe to throw out some of these views we would risk being called a non-evangelical or worse still, a liberal. In fact, it seems that some evangelicals try to deflect from an honest debate by throwing the ‘L’ word at anyone, who raises one of these awkward questions that most of us have but rarely feel safe enough to pose.
It seems that it is all too easy to fall into the liberal camp without even noticing: I am not talking about necessarily doubting issues such as the Trinity or the resurrection here. I am talking about genuine questions about how we interpret and use scripture. It seems that to offer even an alternative interpretation of certain key scriptures is to risk being placed in a group known as the heretics. We have to face the reality that some of the things in our theological store cupboard need to be questioned.
My old friend, Dave Gilpin (54), senior leader of Hope City group of churches, did this in a sermon he gave following Rob Bell's questions about whether more people might actually be saved than we had once thought. (55)
I listened to Dave with interest as he offered alternative views on how those who had never had an opportunity to hear the gospel might stand before God. I couldn't help think at the end that Dave wasn't that far from Rob Bell's ultimate conclusion. Now he either hadn't read 'Love Wins', which I find hard to believe, or he hadn't realised that much of Bell's angst was in reaction to the influence that Calvinism has upon the church in the USA.
Dave is a gifted communicator and I always welcome hearing his views, but he is not alone in his dismay at people like Bell and the questions they raise. He is also not alone in being part of the number of Arminians who find it easy quote Calvinist writers in defending the gospel. The problem here is that speakers like John Piper and Mark Driscoll would not recognise the gospel that Dave and others are defending; at least not in the fullest sense.
Francis Chan (56) released his antidote to the Bell’s controversy and offered a similar response of not really answering Bell's questions whilst appearing to do so. It seems that some were drawn in by the humble and conciliatory style of his promotional video. In my opinion, his tone is a fine example of sophistry.
He employs the sophist's skills of presenting an argument that is hard to disagree with only to deliver a conclusion that is not really connected with his original thrust.
Before you feel I am being harsh let me quote a few Calvinist commentators on what the belief system really means.
"It’s not true to say that God loves everyone. Certainly not in the same way that He loves His children. And this is perhaps the best way to get at the question and why it’s striking to us. Does God always work for the joy and the happiness and the good of His children? Yes. Does He want to see all of His children come to believe in faith in Him? Yes. Will God in the end see that all of His children believe in Him, rejoice in Him, belong with Him forever? Yes. Are all people God’s children? No." Kevin DeYoung (57)
"Although, it was not necessary that God save any people at all, in his love he chose to save some." Wayne Grudem & Elliot Grudem (58)
“You have been told that God is a loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good sky fairy who runs a day care in the sky and has a bucket of suckers for everyone because we're all good people. That is a lie... God looks down and says ‘I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you,’ and we say that is deserved, right and just, and then God says ‘Because of Jesus I will love you and forgive you.’ This is a miracle.” Mark Driscoll (59)
Even someone like Rick Warren (60), who skirts around the edge of both camps, uses the usual evangelical selective use of scripture when he tweeted:
'God WONT ask "Were you a Calvinist? Arminian? Pentecostal? Catholic? Orthodox? Evangelical? He’ll ask “What’d you do with Jesus?'
I reckon if we looked hard enough we might find that the actual words of Jesus suggest that God would probably ask "How did you treat the poor, hungry, thirsty, naked, and imprisoned?" (61)
This brings me to the main part of the problem as I see it. Those who want to exclude people like McLaren, Pagitt, and Bell often accuse them of not taking scripture seriously. This is not an accurate description of where they stand and it does a disservice to them and to issues at hand.
I would suggest that it is possible both to honour scripture and take it seriously whilst coming to different opinions about its meaning. If I were to quote the following scriptures to you and suggest that God is more inclusive than some evangelicals seem to feel comfortable with how would you respond?
'For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison....' 1 Peter 3:18-19
'All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.....' 2 Cor 5:18-19
'For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.' Col 1:19-20
Now if I see in these verses (and many others) a sense in which God is not limited in the salvation he offers, you have the right to challenge my understanding. You will no doubt have to contextualise in order to do so because you can't apply a literal reading; the verses literally say 'once for all', 'reconciling the world', and 'reconcile to himself all things'.
Please note here that as I have written earlier these verses do not convince me that universalism is the only possible answer. In addition, I suspect that Bell, having based much of his writing upon the work of NT Wright, is not convinced either.
They do make me want to suggest that the gospel is perhaps so much bigger than most evangelicals have allowed themselves to believe; certainly much bigger than Calvinists have taught.
The point here is that I may be wrong in my understanding of these verses. In response, you may well want to argue a different viewpoint. What I don't believe is accurate, is to suggest that I am not respecting scripture: this really won't do if we are going to have an honest discussion.
We all need to start by acknowledging the magnolia paint effect upon our thinking and then approach the text and each other in a more open way.
I noticed this on occasions when trying to raise the thorny issue of women in ministry. I offered a few views of the heavy verses that form the small amount of teaching on the matter; in doing so, I mentioned the word ‘contextualisation’. By the response I received you would have thought I had questioned John Calvin’s intelligence.
Here is my initial problem with such a response. It belies the fact that everyone contextualises.
My challenge is to compare the, admittedly selective, choice of quotes from Calvinist speakers and the few verses I have used, to suggest that the gospel might be more inclusive. You don't have agree with me, but I would ask you to recognise that all sides contextualise and that saying that I, and those that think like me, do not believe in the Bible is not an effective way of dealing with the issues raised.
Lesslie Newbigin puts it like this:
‘If the gospel is to challenge the public life of our society, if Christians are to occupy the “high ground” which they vacated in the noon time of “modernity,” it will not be by forming a Christian political party, or by aggressive propaganda campaigns. Once again it has to be said that there can be no going back to the “Constantinian” era. It will only be by movements that begin with the local congregation in which the reality of the new creation is present, known, and experienced, and from which women and men will go into every sector of public life to claim it for Christ, to unmask the illusions which have remained hidden and to expose all areas of public life to the illumination of the gospel. But that will only happen as and when local congregations renounce an introverted concern for their own life, and recognize that they exist for the sake of those who are not members, as sign, instrument, and foretaste of God’s redeeming grace for the whole life of society.’ (62)
Bishop Newbigin was one of my favourite pastoral theologians. He had a pastor’s heart and a theologian’s thought process. In this short section he shows how understanding the gospel is not about protecting the high ground. This is the political stance that I highlighted earlier. I am sure that there are many Christians, including leaders, who have wanted to raise the type of questions that Bell has done, but have feared the fallout from their constituency - the evangelical church.
It is perhaps worth noting that Newbigin said that to understand the gospel correctly, we need to remember that 'Jesus didn’t write a book. He invested in people!' This investment in people is an excellent picture of how God operates in a non-tribal way. Human nature tends towards tribalism with the result that it is far easier to silence dissenting voices by excluding people who do not fit within our own view.
During a management training session a delegate told me an interesting story in response to our discussion about tribalism in the workplace. He had been to London to watch his Yorkshire rugby team, Huddersfield, play against Lancashire rivals Wigan.
After the match his group of fans went to a nearby pub to celebrate. A short while later a group of Huddersfield fans came in and both sets of fans enjoyed the kind of humorous banter that rugby is know for.
On the same day Liverpool had been playing Chelsea at football, and it wasn't long before a group of Liverpool fans came in for a drink. Immediately the rugby fans of both Wigan and Huddersfield joined forces in barracking the soccer fans about not supporting a 'proper' sport.
The Wigan tribe had joined together with the Huddersfield one to produce a new rugby tribe when they encountered the Liverpool football fans. Then, as if choreographed to prove a point, they were joined by some Chelsea supporters wishing to make merry. At this point the fans of Wigan, Huddersfield, and Liverpool, all being from the north formed a new tribe in their commitment to singing against the southern supporters of Chelsea.
Tribes are not a rigid framework. They can change depending upon the context in which we find ourselves. I think that this is an excellent picture of what happens within Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular.
Arminians and Calvinists will remain divided upon the things that they believe to be essential. They will, however, join forces in responding to those in the emergent church as if they are united in a common belief.
The point here is that tribalism, however understandable, is not a useful position from which to have meaningful discussions.
The biblical narrative may well describe the journey of some distinct tribes of people, but its trajectory is always heading towards revealing a God who is reconciling all things
No comments:
Post a Comment