Camping and the Christian Carnival

This week's Christian Carnival is up at Fish and Cans (be warned, the page loads pretty slowly; I think it's got too much stuff in its sidebar), and includes my post on Inclusivism and Injustice plus a whole lot of other stuff.

I also just started reading this fascinating article at The Weekly Standard on the changes in parenting practices over the last 50 years (HT: Maverick Philosopher, who's back after taking a month off blogging). I haven't had a chance to finish the article yet, but it's worth a look.

In any case, I'm about to rush off to go camping with my family, so I won't be back til Saturday. God bless and have a great week!

Inclusivism and Injustice

On my last post, commenter majorsteve asked some questions about the fairness of the Bible's claims that Jesus is the only source of salvation:

Ken you have written before on the topic of "why I am a Christian". I had a fleeting glimpse of how that topic is related to my leaning away from exclusivism.

If I were to write about why I am a Christian, the discourse would most certainly emanate from the fact that I was born into a Christian household in the U.S., specifically, in northeast Texas, therefore the chance of me turning out to be Jewish or Muslim or Hindu was virtually nil. At the same time, if I had been born into a Muslim home in Saudi Arabia the chances of me being Christian would also be virtually zero. The chance of me converting to Islam is similarly slim as is the chance of a Muslim in another part of the world converting to Christianity. Although every religion has its apostates, does God really expect significant numbers of those who've endured decades of cultural and societal indoctrination to hear The Word and then suddenly see the light? If so, why?

Also, is it possible to get into heaven and NOT believe in exclusivism? If not, then what is the entire list of things I must believe in order to get into heaven? Is there such a list?

These are all good questions, and I didn’t want them to go unnoticed. I don't think he's alone in asking them either, given that a recent poll found that 70% of Americans, including 57% of Evangelical Christians, now believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life" (HT: Exploring Our Matrix). I certainly can’t claim to have final answers to these questions, but I wanted to make a few points, building on what I have said previously:

One the one hand, I don't think God is as much concerned with our particular beliefs as he is with our trust in him, with our love for God and neighbor (see, for instance, Matthew 22:37-40). Though John 14:6 is widely claimed as the proof that the Bible sees belief in Jesus (in this life) as the only means of salvation, this is not the whole story. After all, this verse only says that we must come to God through Jesus, it doesn't spell out what that means, and the answers the rest of the Bible gives seem rather less exclusively focused on belief in Jesus. Saving faith is not about passing some kind of theological multiple choice test.

For instance, when Hebrews 11 lists the Bible's heroes of the faith, not one of them had ever heard of Jesus. These Old Testament saints trusted God as far as they knew him, and that was apparently enough. That being the case, I hardly think that mere mental assent to exclusivism (or any other doctrine per se) is a requirement for salvation, even if God is an exclusivist (of which I am not convinced). More to the point, note that in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus says that those accepted at the final judgment are not the ones who claimed the proper title or belief in this life, but those who fed the hungry, welcomed the homeless, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned. Similarly, James 1:27 claims: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

On the other hand, the Bible is clear that we do need genuine faith to be accepted by God, and while I can't rule out that those who follow other religions might find a similar faith, neither can I assume that they will. Certainly not all religion (not even all so-called Christian religion) points people to that kind of faith and love, and it's up to us to spread that news. Is it unfair that some go through life in cultures that never tell them of God? Perhaps, but that's an inevitable corollary of human freedom: our choices always affect those around us, and that includes helping to create the societies our children are born into (on that point, see here, one of my very first posts). As so often, C.S. Lewis sums this up well, in Mere Christianity (also quoted here):

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more. (pg. 64)

Newbigin on The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society:

The Christian believer is using the same faculty of reason as his unbelieving neighbor and he is using it in dealing with the same realities, which are those which every human being has to deal. But he is seeing them in a new light, in a new perspective. They fall for him into a different pattern. He cannot justify the new pattern in terms of the old; he can only say to his unbelieving neighbor, stand here with me and see if you don’t see the same pattern as I do. (pg. 11)

Do Muslims Worship the True God?

James’ last post in the our inclusivism bloggersation focused especially on the case of Muslims and whether their view of Jesus is comparable to that of the early Church. I haven’t commented on it because I don’t really feel qualified to do so, but I wanted to point out that John Piper and Rick Love have been debating almost the same subject recently. Rick argues that Muslims do indeed worship the true God (though, “in ignorance”), Piper claims that they worship a false one. Justin Taylor lists their contributions (and defends Piper’s view) at Between Two Worlds.

Inclusivism and Universalism - To Hell With Sin?

In Michael’s latest contribution to the present conversation, he accused James of being “on the fringe of universalism.” James has denied the charge, though continued to maintain a strong form of inclusivism, which makes this a good time to fulfill my promise to explain how I both affirm inclusivism (though not as strongly as James), and yet deny universalism. The problem is this: If we accept that it is possible for a person who did not know Jesus in this life, to nonetheless be saved by Jesus, how can we expect that anyone will fail to be saved?

Surely, it will be argued, if it is in any sense possible to come to Jesus after death, everyone can be expected to do so. If God really is all good and loving, surely everyone, upon reaching his throne, will see that and believe. Doesn’t Paul say that “every knee will bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10-11)? Does he not say that “just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many [oi polloi] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Jesus] the many [oi polloi] will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19)? If we interpret the first “many” to mean all people, should we not interpret the second in the same way? If so, then Christ’s death is sufficient to save everyone, so how can it fail to do so?

This is an attractive argument, but taking it all the way to universalism means ignoring Jesus’ own comments about hell, his parables about the final judgment (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46), his claim that “wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction, and many [polloi] enter through it” (Matthew 7:13), and the Bible’s ever-present distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous. Thus, while Paul’s universalistic sounding comments can perhaps be used to support inclusivism, they cannot easily prove full universalism - unless we conclude that Paul disagreed with Jesus (and/or the Gospel writers) on this point.

Some might suggest, however, that Jesus’ comments are only meant to scare us into being good – like a parent that tells their toddler that if they don’t stay in bed the boogie monster will get them. Maybe God only threatens hell so we’ll follow him more readily, not because he actually intends to send us there.

Leaving aside the fact that this is actually a very disturbing picture of God, it simply cannot be maintained. The problem lies in free will: If God has any need at all to convince us to follow him, that must mean that we have a choice in the matter. But if human beings truly have a choice whether to accept God or reject him, then the possibility that some will in fact reject him can never be denied.

If it is true, as it seems to be, that our sins can become so entrenched that it becomes impossible for us to root them out ourselves, then ultimately we are all faced with an inescapable choice to either seek God’s aid, or remain in our sin. But that’s a problem, because it also seems to be the case that many people (and indeed, all of us are in danger of this) have embraced particular sins so thoroughly that not only are they unwilling to seek help in overcoming them, but they take offense at any suggestion that they need help. Unless we propose that God completely override their will, then such people might well condemn themselves to hell (which really means: choose to separate themselves from God). In such a tragic case, even God cannot help them.

For if God cannot justly override a person’s will to damn them (as any inclusivist must affirm), can he justly override a person’s will to save them? No matter how many chances God gives a human to repent, the possibility can never be denied that some, through pride, will still reject his offers. As usual, C.S. Lewis sums this up it best, in The Problem of Pain (the whole of this book, by the way, is directly applicable to our topic):

There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, especially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully ‘All will be saved.’ But my reason retorts ‘Without their will, or with it?’ If I say, ‘Without their will’ I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’ (pgs. 119-20)

This post is part of a continuing conversation.

Inclusivism Bloggersation

The present discussion of Christianity, inclusivism and related issues has grown quite extensive, crossing (at least) four seven eight blogs, so that I find myself unsure how to introduce the subject at the beginning of each post. For the sake of readers who might drop in on a post (or the blog) unaware of where we have been, it seems a good idea to compile in one place a full accounting of the discussion so far. Michael has helpfully been keeping such a list at the beginning of each of his posts, but this will give me a single place to direct people. The participants (so far) include Michael Halcomb, James McGrath, Drew Tatusko and myself (Ken Brown) - plus several additional commenters [UPDATE: and now Quixie, R.T. Jones, Owen Weddle, and prophets and popstars]. Since Michael and James started this, however, I’ll give their posts pride of place:

The debate started at Michael’s blog: When Politicians Say They're Christian
James posted his first entry: Take the Flaming Meteorite Challenge (Starting a Bloggersation)
~Ken responded: The Flaming Meteor Challenge Revisited
~Drew responded: Who benefits from Salvation?
Michael posted his first entry: A Response to James McGrath
~Ken added: Inclusivism and the Atonement
James posted his second entry: Community of the Saved or Salvation of the Community
~Drew responded: Who Benefits from Salvation? II
~Ken responded: More Inclusivism and Salvation – Response to James McGrath
Michael posted his second entry: A Rejoinder To James McGrath
James posted his third entry: Continuing Diablogue About Salvation and Christianity
~Ken added: C.S. Lewis on Inclusivism
Michael posted his third entry: The Ensuing Riposte with James McGrath
James posted his fourth entry: A Brief Reply to Michael Halcomb
Michael offered (his fourth entry): A Humorous Reply to James
~After first embracing Michael’s response, Ken added: Inclusivism and the New Perspective on Paul
James posted his fifth entry: Paul and Pluralism (A Reply to Ken Brown, Continuing the Bloggersation)
Michael posted his fifth entry: On the Fringe of Universalism? McGrath Blurring the Lines
James posted his sixth entry: Relegated to the Fringe (The Bloggersation Continues)
~Ken responded: Inclusivism and Universalism - To Hell With Sin?
~Drew responded: Who Benefits From Salvation? III
~Quixie responded: monitoring a blogologue...
~R.T. Jones has been following the conversation: The Soteriology Bloggersation
Michael posted his sixth entry: Michael Halcomb Clarified
James posted his seventh entry: A Muslim Who Loves Jesus (Part Of A Continuing Bloggersation)
~Owen responded: Regarding the inclusive/exclusive debate
~Ken pointed to a related conversation in: Do Muslims Worship the True God?
Michael posted his seventh entry: Is Confessing Christ Necessary: Restarting the Conversation
~prophets and popstars responded: a response: who benefits from salvation?

There now, that wasn’t so complicated, was it? ;)

I'll keep this page up to date, and add links to my other posts pointing here. Now, let's keep it going!

Inclusivism and the New Perspective on Paul

Ok, I lied. I told myself I'd take the weekend off from blogging. Then I thought I'd just get on for a minute and see if anything new had been posted. Before long I was posting a long reply. Now I'm reposting it here. Hello, my name is Ken and I have a problem.

The following is a modified version of the comment I just added to James’ latest offering in the present discussion of inclusivism and salvation (all I’ve changed are the pronouns). The topic is “the new perspective on Paul,” which essentially says that Paul is not writing against those who think we can earn our salvation through “good works,” but rather against those who think that Jewish ethnic boundary markers are what delimit the people of God. Paul is not worried about people trying to earn their salvation, but rather that some people thought that Gentiles could not come to Christ unless they first became Jews. [UPDATE: see here for a fuller introduction to the new perspective]

This post is more technical than my usual (this is why I don’t normally post on Biblical Studies issues!), but the subject is important to the present discussion. So if it’s helpful to you, read on; if not, that’s ok too (go enjoy your weekend!):

I think that more still needs to be said about the new perspective than merely that James and Michael (and I as well) both accept it. Granted that Paul was not opposing works-righteousness legalism, there remains a vital question within the new perspective on which James and Michael (and I) seem to disagree: why did Paul think that those traditional ethnic markers were no longer the distinguishing feature of the people of God? I think James is right in saying that Paul had seen uncircumcised Gentiles experience God's spirit, and therefore concluded that such Jewish boundary markers no longer applied. Such explains his anger at those who would continue to try and exclude such believers, of whom God had already displayed his acceptance (Gal 3:1-5 makes this explicit, and 2:11-16 and 5:1-15 fill out the picture). But when James goes the next step and says that the same is true of the distinction between Christian and non-Christian, I think he ignores Paul's own line of argument. Paul makes clear (e.g. in 2:15-21 and 3:10-14, and even in 3:1-5 itself) that it is precisely because of "Christ in me" (2:20) that these things are true.

Paul's point in Galatians, as I understand it, is not that all barriers have been broken down, but that for those in Christ, the curse of the law, which previously hung over the Gentiles (and indeed, assuming N.T. Wright’s reading of Deuteronomic theology is correct, the Jews too), has been exhausted. The problem was precisely those who, by continuing to insist on the necessity of Jewish boundary markers, were in essence denying that Christ's death had accomplished anything (cf. 2:21).

James is right that this has little to do with opposing works-righteousness, but it has even less to do with abolishing the line between Christian and non-Christian (admitting that such terms are anachronistic), for it was precisely because of their acceptance of Jesus that the Galatians experienced the Spirit at all (going back to 3:1-5). It was because the were “in Christ” that the curse of the Law held no danger to them, even though they remained uncircumcised. Thus, when 5:6 says “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love,” it must not be ignored how Paul introduces this: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision…” (emphasis added). The same is true of Paul’s striking claim in 3:28 that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” for he immediately completes the thought like this: “for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (3:28-29; emphasis added).

Perhaps more than Michael is, I’m willing to concede that it is possible to “belong to Christ” without knowing it, but it seems to me that, to claim that this in any way abolishes the distinction between Christian and non-Christian is not just to go beyond Paul, but to contradict his clear intent.

UPDATE 2: Be sure to read the comments on this post; Michael has highlighted an important point on which I should have written more clearly!

UPDATE 3: This post is part of a continuing conversation.

C.S. Lewis on Inclusivism

Carmen mentioned the character of Emeth, from C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle (cf. especially chapter 15), who served a false god, but in such a way that Aslan (the Christ-figure) nevertheless recognized him as a true follower of his. Of course, this is fiction, merely a thought experiment like the rest, but it might be helpful to supplement it with one of Lewis' more explicit statements on the subject. This is from Mere Christianity, and I agree with it completely:

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more. (pg. 64)

UPDATE: This post is part of a continuing conversation.

More Inclusivism and Salvation - Response to James McGrath

James has posted his second contribution to the present discussion of salvation and inclusivism (see also here, here, and here, and my previous responses here and here). I was going to reply directly on his blog, but since my comment grew rather long, I’m going to put it here as a separate post instead. This will also be somewhat applicable to Alex's excellent comment on my previous post. James said:

Is the Christian community to understand itself as a community that seeks to ensure that those within it have the characteristics of salvation and a genuine relationship with God? Or are those who have salvation and a genuine relationship with God those who are part of the Christian community?...

If we take the former view (as I do), then it is not that Christianity is a group that one enters because only therein one can find salvation, but one enters it either because it offers a community of those who have had a particular experience of God and are united by it, and invite others to have it....

I think that Paul would have been the first to recognize in those outside the Christian community who showed the defining features of true faith in God (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control...) individuals who knew God and stood in a right relationship to God.

I may have to take a page from Michael’s book and say I don’t know how well either position fits with mine. The second option in particular is ambiguous, because I think defining “who is part of the Christian community” is a bit precarious – does it include all denominations, or just a few, or just those people within (a/any) denomination who truly follow Jesus, etc. If “the Christian community” simply means, “every true follower of Christ, no matter where they are” then I would probably agree with the second option, but with a large qualifier that one can be “a follower of Christ” without, perhaps, knowing much of anything about Jesus (as James says, like Abraham). But that seems a little tautological to me, rather like saying “you’re a Christian if you’re a Christian.”

So that leaves me with the first option, which again I can agree with, but only with qualification: Yes the Christian community is seeking “to ensure that those within it have the characteristics of salvation and a genuine relationship with God,” but that sounds rather like the Christian community is, in essence, no different than any other devout religious community, except that they might perhaps have a few more of the right answers, or might follow “the important rules” a bit better. Again, hopefully both those things are true of the Christian community (though they are not always, even among the genuinely saved), but they don’t seem to really get at the heart of the matter. The Church isn’t just a fan-club; it is a kind of union or mutual abiding with Christ (according to Paul and John respectively). Spelling out exactly what that entails would take a lot of exegetical discussion, and to be honest I don’t have it all figured out myself, but I do think the New Testament conception of being “in Christ” involves more than simply adhering to his teaching, or even trusting and following him.

Thus, while I agree with much of what James says, especially that biblical “faith” has as much to do with trust and faithfulness as it does with “belief” (as many today would define it), I don’t think we can so easily evaporate the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, even if we maintain that God can rescue even those on the wrong side (for at one time, we all were so). It seems to me that Paul is not abolishing all such boundaries, but rather shifting them from membership in Israel, to “membership” in Christ. If I may be permitted to wander into the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, it is noteworthy that the New Testament’s strongest affirmation that “the dividing wall of hostility” has been broken down, appears precisely in the midst of a discussion of our essential oneness with Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22). It is precisely because we are one in Christ that the barrier has been destroyed.

In the end, I don't know if I am disagreeing with James, or merely seeking to clarify what he has said, but I look forward to further conversation.

UPDATE: This post is part of a continuing conversation.

Inclusivism and the Atonement

I’m still eagerly awaiting the next round in James’ and Michael’s conversation, but my post from yesterday raised some questions about God’s judgment and what it takes to be saved from it, which I have so far only briefly addressed. I mentioned that I am an “inclusivist,” in the sense that I believe it is possible for God to save non-Christians, but I am not a “universalist” in the sense that I still think that at least some people (perhaps a great many) will not be saved. It seems worthwhile to explain and defend each of those claims, so this post will deal with my acceptance of inclusivism. The next one (which I may post tomorrow) A later post will focus on my denial of universalism.

I think the New Testament is clear that “salvation is found in no one else” but Jesus. It is only because God himself took on human form, died and rose again, that humanity has any ultimate hope. Explaining how I reconcile that with inclusivism will require discussing the nature of the atonement, but I don’t want to get bogged down with complicated theories right now. Thankfully, there is a relatively easy way to remember the big three (moral influence, substitution, and Christus victor): Prophet, Priest and King.

This is a very old distinction, but I owe the reference to my former professor, Hans Boersma, whose outstanding book on the atonement is a must read: As Prophet, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection reveal what it is to be truly human; their example teaches us how to love and sacrifice and hope. As Priest, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection have, in some sense, allowed him to bear our sins in our place, and so cleanse us from them. As King, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection have actively defeated evil, not just on a personal level, but on a cosmic one. Though debates rage over the precise nature and interrelation of these elements, I believe that all three are essential to the significance of Jesus’ incarnation.

So I do not in any way deny that Jesus is the only means of salvation, but neither am I convinced that God’s justice requires that a person must have heard or embraced this truth before death. And yet, as my previous post indicates, I think we should nevertheless live as though this were a requirement. How can I say this? The answer goes right back to my understanding of the nature of the atonement: If Jesus really is the victorious King who defeated evil once and for all, then that effects everyone, not just those who hear about it. By the same token, if Jesus really is “our great High Priest,” his death was sufficient to cover all sins, even those of people who never hear of him. To give an illustration: A prisoner released from the gulags might not understand the political changes that made his freedom possible, but he is free nonetheless. Yet at the same time, a foolish man may refuse freedom and remain in his cell, or accepting this freedom but refusing to change (i.e. accepting Jesus’ victory, but not his cleansing) he might quickly find himself re-imprisoned.

That’s where the third aspect of the atonement comes in: Jesus didn’t just rescue and cleanse us; he also showed us how to live. His example is not tangential to salvation, but essential to it. It is only as we follow his road of sacrifice and service that we can share in its goal – resurrection. Since Jesus has already won the victory and borne the cost, this doesn’t imply that we can earn our salvation, yet neither is it enough to simply “believe the right things.” This truth cuts both ways: it means both that a person is only truly a Christian if they are a follower of Christ, yet it also means that the road of self-sacrifice and service is the road to Christ, and can lead to him even if the person following it doesn’t know the destination.

But that is a hard road, and the chance that someone will choose to follow it without the hope that Jesus offers is tenuous, at best. Therefore, it is possible to follow Jesus without knowing it, and thus it is possible to be saved without hearing his name. But we can by no means assume that the average person will do so, any more than we could stand by and do nothing as a flaming meteor plunges towards our neighbor’s home. Perhaps they won’t listen to our cries (“What? You want me to go outside? But American Idol is on!”), or perhaps they might recognize the danger themselves and be wise enough to flee it; but if we’re not willing to risk ourselves to warn them, we’re not following Jesus either.

UPDATE: This post is part of a continuing conversation.