Drawing Circles 6

If it were up to you to answer from your gut: "Which issues are important enough to exclude people from heaven over?", what sort of issues would you come up with? If you interview people in your church and asked, "On what grounds should people be excluded from salvaton and fellowship?," what sorts of answers would you expect to hear?

Genocide? Exploitation of children? Drug use? Maybe someone might say "no grounds at all."

How would you respond or those people respond to suggested issues like: "Should people be barred from heaven because they failed to believe in Jesus?" "Should people be barred from heaven who did believe in Jesus but failed to have the right particular beliefs about His divine/human identity?" "What about people's beliefs about resurrection?" "What about people's beliefs about how the Jewish law is related to Christianity?"

Do these seem like foolish, trivial matters that no one should be barred from heaven over? Do these seem like petty arguments over nothing? If so, consider that Peter, Paul, and John were willing to draw lines over these matters.

Peter said people must find salvation solely in Christ (Acts 4:12).

Paul said the Galatians risked losing God's grace over their acceptance of a Judaized gospel (Gal 5:4). Paul also called out by name those who taught falsely about the resurrection and said "the Lord knows who are His," implying that these people weren't (2Tim 2:16ff).

John wrote a great deal of his gospel and epistles to sort out false beliefs about Christology. Particular John combatted the early seeds of Gnosticism that plagued the church for the first couple of centuries. John picked up his pen and took the time to warn people about those who disagreed about whether Jesus really incarnated as a flesh-and-blood human. These people did believe that they were Christians. These people did believe Jesus really was the right way to heaven. But they didn't believe He was really human like you and i are human. Doesn't it seem like a minor difference? Yet John writes:

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist." (1John 4:1-3) [Does it appear that John would've considered the Council of Nicea a petty, insignificant debate?]

My point is this: Do you take it for granted that what seems like a foolish or insignificant issue to you would also seem that way to Christ and His apostles? Just because something feels like a petty quibble to me, does that make it a petty quibble?

Suppose you were a Jew, an inhabitant of Jerusalem all your life, living in the first century during the earthly ministry of Jesus. For as long as you can remember, there has been animal sales in the temple for people who are offering sacrifices. It's a fixture and you probably haven't questioned it much. Would it really seem to you like something outrageous or egregious? i really can't that for sure that it would seem that way to me. Yet Jesus was willing to throw tables around and scare away people and livestock with a whip and yell about it.

So what issues seem petty to me? What debates seem insignificant or a waste of time to me? Whether people believe Christ is the sole way to heaven? The particular way a person needs to be baptized? The particular way the Lord's Supper needs to be conducted? The particular way worship music is practiced?

But just because any of these issues may appear to me to be foolish and insignificant, does that automatically mean that Christ thinks of them the same way?

How do i know Jesus wouldn't shove over pulpits where people teach that non-Christians are okay as they are? How do i know He wouldn't overturn tables in my auditorium and shout about conducting Communion correctly? How do i know he wouldn't throw song books across the room or knock over amplifiers and drum sets and shout about them? How do i know He wouldn't drain baptistries or knock over water bowls and condemn the way a congregation baptizes? If i can't know for certain that i wouldn't think the money changers in the temple was no big deal if i were a first century Jew, what right do i have to assume i'm correct that these kinds of things are no big deal and Jesus would agree?

i'm not suggesting that there is no way to do know at all what does and would matter to Christ and what are important issues. What i'm pointing out is that people (myself included) have a tendency to think that what feels important 'to me' actually is important; and what feels unimportant 'to me' actually is unimportant. Based on that tendency, people can conclude that any matter of religious belief they feel is unimportant, Christ must feel that it's unimportant as well.

But if Jesus drastically challenged the gut-level priority list of some religious people of His own day, then who's to say He wouldn't challenge ours as well? Thus, in the end, i can't assume that it would be petty to bar people from heaven over certain issues just because they seem like petty or unimportant issues to me. If in the end Christ does withhold eternal life from someone over something that i consider trivial, what that demonstrates is that my values are backwards, not Christ's.

Drawing Circles Part 5

In this series of posts, i do not mean to suggest that Christians should spend their time witch-hunting for counterfeits and blowing horns from pulpits about particular people who should be avoided or derided or whatever. i'm also not suggesting that a virtue of discipleship is to focus one's attention on the shortcomings of others. i'm also not by any means suggesting that any delight or pleasure is to be had in the fact that anyone at all anywhere for any reason is lost for eternity.

Nevertheless, several things i do mean to say are:

(1) Exclusivism/Inclusivism is a very practical issue. If you join a religion, you have to decide which one and why. If you join Christianity, you have to decide whether or not to join yourself to a church and why and if so, which one and why. Once you're in one, you may come upon events that force you to decide whether you should stay joined to that church and why or why not. You have to decide whether or not to support that church or others or other ministries monetarily and why you will or won't. The grounds on which you make such decisions are related to questions about whether we should draw circles and on what grounds we should draw such lines.

Furthermore, we already draw lines practically speaking. Do you avoid going to certain parts of your town because you feel they are "bad" parts of town? What makes them "bad"? Would you go to a church full of people who all lived in one of those parts of town? How would you react if someone of a different ethnicity than yourself visited your congregation? Any ethnicity? Would you greet and treat them the same as someone of your own ethnic background? What if a homeless panhandler visited? Would you treat him/her differently than any other visitor? Or what about an ex-con? Or a single-mother with five children who lives in a trailer and just collects welfare checks? Or someone of a different political party than you? What if any of these people started attending your congregation regularly? What if they all joined and became members? Would they be welcomed? Would they be treated the same as anyone else?

Maybe your church is the perfectly accepting congregation and all these people would be impartially embraced. If so, great. Nevertheless, i hope those hypotheticals show that people already do draw practical lines regarding who they will and won't accept as a fellow disciple--someone with whom they ought to participate in joint Christian endeavors. Thus, it's by no means irrelevant or wrong-headed or unwise to ask the questions: "Does God want me to accept absolutely anyone as a fellow disciple no matter what their beliefs/lifestyles/practices?" "Is there anyone God would rather i not recognize as a disciple because of their particular beliefs/lifestyles/practices?" "What criteria makes a person a disciple or not a disciple?"

(2) i have personally experienced (and suspect that others have as well) a sort of cultural pressure to at least act, if not believe, that there really aren't any lines at all. No one can say that anyone else at all is excluded from God because to do so is either immoral (prejudice, judgmental, proud, self-righteous, etc.) or irrational (we all make mistakes, so how can you know you're not making one when you exclude someone, etc.). Should i succumb to that pressure? Does that pressure represent a true position? i am and have been arguing that i shouldn't and it doesn't.

(3) The New Testament makes several claims that are very exclusivist in nature--they draw hard lines. Is it true that Jesus taught not to judge and that He chided those religious people of his day who were extreme exclusivists? Definitely. Nevertheless, Jesus Himself made some very line-in-the-sand sort of claims. In the same sermon in which He teaches not to judge, He also says not to cast pearls before swine and false prophets can be identified by their "fruits" (Matt 7:6, 15f). Thus, even though Jesus condemned 'judging' in some sense, He nevertheless obligated His hearers to be fruit inspectors and decide who the pigs are. He also claims to be the sole route to the Father (John 14:6). He also claims that people who fail to believe in Him will die still in their sins (John 8:24). Peter boldly claimed there was no other name by which people must be saved (Acts 4:12).

So is that it? Just agreeing that Jesus is the sole way makes everything okay for me?

Paul is willing to draw lines based on what a person teaches about the resurrection (2Tim 2:18), and Paul seems to feel that accepting a Judaized version of the gospel is equally spiritually dangerous (Gal 5:4).
John isn't content to let people think Jesus is the sole route to eternal life, but that lines should be drawn about the particulars of a person's Christology (1John 4:1-3; 2John 7-11).

Because issues related to exclusivism/inclusivism are forced before people practically and circumstantially, because of the pressure of tolerance and inclusivism particularly prevalent in contemporary culture, and because of the rampant, bold exclusivist claims found throughout the New Testament, i posit that:

(A) There is nothing un-Christian, irrational, or immoral per se about boldly and unapologetically making exclusivist claims.

(B) There is nothing un-Christian, irrational, or immoral per se about asking what particular issues are or aren't line-drawing sorts of issues.

Drawing Circles (Exclusivism and Ecumenicism) Part 4

Discussing who's a Christian and who's not will always be full of competing motives for just about anyone. i think making any progress in these matters requires a lot of self-examination and prayer to keep our motives and aims pure in the matter.

We may try to favor certain boundary-markers because it works in our favor--certain boundary-markers leave us feeling sure of our salvation and the salvation of some or all dear to us. The other side of that coin: i think we'll have a natural tendency to resist strongly certain boundary-markers because they exclude us or those we love and we don't want to accept that insecurity. "Well, that just can't be right because that'd mean my dear sweet grandfather is in hell." Does the fact that my grandfather was dear and sweet to me obligate God to keep him out of hell?

Just as tempting can be the motivation to keep certain people out of the circle. Maybe there's someone we perceive as having done something unforgiveable or unacceptable or having wronged us so horrifically that we thirst for justice in the matter. Thus, we strongly resist any boundary-markers that might seem to include them or make it easy for them to get inside the circle. "Well, that just can't be right, because that'd mean so-n-so who wrong my family so many years ago is just fine now." Does my disdain and unwillingness to forgive someone obligate God to bear a grudge against that person as well?

i must be honest with myself about what i'm after--what i want? or what God wants? What if God leaves people out whom i want in? What if God allows in people whom i want out? Will i fault Him? Do i know better than God who should be on which side of the line? The truth is, if God leaves out someone i wish were in, God must know better than me about that person or about why certain boundary-markers are necessary. The truth is, if God allows in someone i wish were out, God must know better than me about that person or about why certain boundary-markers are where they are. Thus, at base, i ought to strive to wish for God to prevail in each case even when it conflicts with my personal wishes.

Most recently in my experiences, i'm feeling more obligation to resist the worldly pull toward relativism and the line that goes something like: "well, we're all fallible so we could all be wrong, thus no one has any right or place to insist on standing up for anything." It would be very easy to go along with these notions that are fairly common among Christians my age, and i could fit in far more easily with them if i did go along. And sometimes it's tempting. But i must, instead, listen to my conscience and aim to side with God even if that isolates me or upsets others.

Drawing Circles (Exclusivism and Ecumenicism) Part 3

A third thing that surprises me when people start talking about who's saved and who's not:

Some people (though practically they have religion-specific loyalties) will shy away from any statement of definite, circle-boundary markers.

(1) For instance, some people immediately try to emphasize a case that seems like an intuitively plausible counter-example. Upon hearing that a person must be baptized, such a person will rebut, "but what if a person believes x, y, and z about Jesus and has repented and is on their way to the baptistry and dies? Will God really condemn that person?"

But the trouble here is that "(1)" is a slippery slope. If i 'expand the circle' one step for every one of these kinds of cases, then eventually there are no boundaries whatsoever. If i said, "okay, well a person must repent," the counter example could be the sincere person who has assented to x, y, and z about Jesus but dies just before the point of repentance. Then the next counterexample could be the person who dies just before they otherwise would've believed x, y, and z about Jesus. Then the person who would've listened to the gospel had they heard it, etc. etc. If these kinds of counterexamples are allowed to refute one demarkation between who's saved and who's not, then they refute all of them and there's no difference between who's saved and who's not.

(2) Or someone will argue that you can't be confident in any definite boundary marker, because if you had been born and raised under different circumstances, you wouldn't have come to believe in that definite boundary marker. So you can't say that Catholics are 'out' because if you had been born in Mexico, you'd likely have been Catholic and wouldn't believe that Catholics are 'out.' Or you can't say that Buddhists are lost because had you been born in Tibet, you'd likely have been a Buddhist and wouldn't believe that Buddhists are lost. Thus anything you believe which draws a definite line between who's saved and lost is really just a product of your upbringing. So you can't really say who's saved and who's lost.

The trouble with "(2)" though is that it's self-defeating. If "(2)" is true, then had the person who believes and argues for "(2)" been born under different circumstances, she likely wouldn't believe that "(2)" was true. If "(2)" is true, then belief in "(2)" is not rational or justified, but merely a product of one's upbringing, the same as the exclusivist claims that "(2)" is meant to defeat.

Thus, anyone arguing against exclusive claims by way of something like "(1)" or "(2)" either holds a position that is self-defeating or collapses into relativism.

Forgiveness and Repentance

This is an issue i've been torn about for years. In personal relationships, must repentance precede forgiveness? If someone lies to me, stabs me in the back, etc., can i truly forgive that person before and without their repentance about the matter? All the pop-Christian self-helpy stuff i read says emphatically "yes." But it's not so clear to me.

i was going to cite a montage of scriptures that seem to support either answer to the question, but i'd rather just get to my lack of clarity--

It seems to me that God does not forgive without repentance. If God can forgive without repentance, then why not simply bestow the forgiveness of sins through Christ's blood upon the entire trans-historical human populus apart from any particular prescribed response on the part of man? If i'm obligated to forgive without repentance on the part of the one who hurt me, then why isn't God also obligated to forgive us without repentance on our part?

If forgiveness does not require repentance, then it seems like evil isn't taken seriously and Christian forgiveness is little more than passive resignation (which is very hard to swallow).

If forgiveness does require repentance, it seems like there's room for nursing wrath (which is even harder to swallow).

So what does God expect me to do about forgiveness?

Calvin on Pascal's Wager

The Public Reading of Scripture

Paul tells Timothy to "give attention to the public reading of Scripture." (1Tim 4:13) Paul instructed that his letter to the Colossians be read publicly in the Collosian church and the Laodicean church. (Col 4:16) Ezra read the Law of Moses to the Jews restored to Israel out of captivity. (Neh 8:1-3) And Jesus participated in the public reading of Scripture in the synagogue. (Luke 4:16-21)

Of all the churches of which i have been a part, probably between 1/2 - 2/3 of them included a regular scripture reading in their worship service. Among those congregations that included the public reading of scripture, most of those were token readings done during the Lord's Supper. Others that included public scripture readings did so as a prompt for the sermon. I may be alone in my impression, but most of the public scripture readings in the Church of Christ i have personally witnessed seemed cursory and chore-like. The public reading of Scripture was never an end in itself, nor itself an organic, key-stone-like part of worship, but rather a brief defense or explanation or prompt of a practice. As a musician, i'm thinking of a "grace note." A grace note is not a note in itself played rhythmically or melodically for its own sake. A grace note is a note which is so closely fixed to another note to create the illusion that the more important note has an extra texture or layer or thickness it would lack without the grace note. In my experience, the public reading of Scripture that takes place within the Church of Christ is at best a metaphorical "grace note." (i grant you that the Bible gets arguably more attention than this from preachers with stylistically Book-Chapter-Verse-saturated sermons; but i would argue that even then the scriptures such preachers quote are really "grace notes" attached to the arguments and claims they wish those scriptures to support.)

Why?

The Church of Christ historically developed out of a notion to 'return' to the Bible and the Bible alone rather than creed or tradition. Yet we have no tradition of showcasing the Bible in our worship. Some of us pride ourselves on being "people of the book," yet "the book" often receives little spotlight (if any) in our assemblies.

There's a high school friend of mine that i studied with and who was baptized as a result. His parents, devout Methodists, were quite concerned about his conversion to the CoC. He doesn't know for certain, but he suspects from various clues that they visited a CoC to see what it was he had gotten into. He remembers walking in on a conversation they were having which he gathers was a critique of the CoC service they had visited, and he heard his father ask, "Why weren't there more Scripture readings?"

Is that not a valid question and worthy critique? If we claim to do everything just the way the Bible says it (not that i believe we necessarily do, but the claim is a common one, right?), why are there so few readings in our assemblies? And when there are public readings in our assemblies, why do they occupy such a state of de-emphasis? --why do they merely "piggy back" on our other practices?

My thoughts here were prompted by reading a small-but-significant section of N. T. Wright's book The Last Word. Notice a few quotes:

If scripture is to be a dynamic force within the church, it is vital that the public reading of scripture does not degenerate into what might be called "aural wallpaper," a pleasing and somewhat religious noise which murmurs along in the background while the mind is occupied elsewhere. (130)

Wright speaks here of degeneration, but has public scripture reading in the CoC ever occupied a place more significant than "aural wallpaper"?

In our public worship, in whatever tradition, we need to make sure the reading of scripture takes a central place.

The primary purpose of the readings is to be itself an act of worship, celebrating God's story, power and wisdom and, above all, God's son. (131)

To have a reading that lasts about ninety seconds, flanked by [songs] that last five or ten minutes, conveys the same impression as a magnificent sparkling crystal glass with a tiny drop of wine in it. The glass is important, but the wine is what really matters. (132)

And Wright remarks critically: Western individualism tends to highlight individual reading as the primary mode, and liturgical hearing as secondary (133)

Is Wright correct or is he mistaken? If he is even close to correct, i'm nearly frightened when i reflect that i have never seen public scripture reading treated this way in the CoC. What is emphasized in a CoC worship service? I think a nearly hunanimous answer would be the sermon and the singing. Scripture readings never occupy the same emphasis and prominance had by the sermon or the singing. Scripture is never publicly read for its own sake as an act of communal worship and edification. It is at best an accent tacked on to other practices. The scary thing is that public scripture reading in the CoC is often done in such a way that the worship basically would've had the same quality and impact with or without that scripture reading.

Is our de-emphasis of public scripture reading a tradition worth keeping?