Quote - Smallville

From tonight's episode of Smallville:

Saving someone, truly saving them, is not about knocking them out and throwing them in a dark room; it's about helping them find their way back to the right side.

Life and Death

Timothy Mills, a secular humanist, just posted an article of his on donating one’s body to science, which is worth reading:

People's fear in contemplating such donations is immediate and profound. The fear of death cannot be set aside with a quick dose of reason; the prospect of having their body (or the body of a loved one) treated other than how they wish after death can cause true emotional distress. I would be a poor humanist indeed if I were to ignore such pain just because it isn't rational.

Nevertheless… [t]he gift of one's body suits every bit of humanist philosophy: care for others, value for education, and a dedication to reality over superstition and wishful thinking. I can think of few better epitaphs than on the marker of the plot used to inter the remains from the anatomy lab I visited: "To those far-sighted people who have contributed to the advancement of medical science & research."

Though I am a Christian, I find this perspective very interesting. After all, even if we are to be physically resurrected, it wont depend on reanimating “the same molecules” that composed us previously. Regardless of interment method, those will have long since dispersed. Our identities are not defined or limited by the molecules that make up our bodies (which are constantly replaced even while alive). Indeed, for a Christian to think otherwise is to accept the very physical reductionism that leads many to reject resurrection not just as unlikely, but absurd.

That doesn't mean, however, that we should be flippant with the body as though it were unimportant (nor does Timothy imply that we should). To treat it as a mere shell that may be discarded at will is a profoundly un-Christian view, though far too common among Christians. The body is sacred because the world is sacred. Flawed and broken though it is, the world is the “good” creation of God and is neither to be exploited nor rejected. It is not our duty to seek escape from world but to play a role in renewing and remaking it. The body is, after all, called “a temple of the holy spirit,” a locus of God’s presence on earth. And if giving one’s body to science might perhaps advance the goal of remaking the world (though certainly in a way St. Paul never anticipated), it is worth considering.

But there is another question to consider. This month’s issue of Touchstone just so happened to include its own series of articles on Christian burial. Though agreeing that burial is not a prerequisite for the Christian hope of resurrection, they do note the importance of having physical and respectful reminders of the dead. We live in an age with a profoundly unbalanced view of death. Though our entertainment is full of violence and death, we work harder to hide from its reality than probably any previous culture. We spend billions on cosmetic products and surgeries intended to keep us looking young. We hope for scientific breakthroughs and medical treatments to extend our lives ever longer (even while we grow steadily more comfortable with abortion and euthanasia, so long as they are done privately and out of sight). Meanwhile our elderly are shuffled off to nicely manicured rest-homes, until they are finally removed to nicely manicured graveyards in which we spend little time. Even our churches are no longer built with cemeteries nor other reminders of the dead.

Perhaps it ought not to surprise then, that when we are faced with the reality of death—when a hurricane strikes, a suicide bomber attacks or a loved one falls ill—we are shocked, as though we had forgotten the most undeniable fact of our existence: Everybody dies. However we might try to deny or delay it, death is inevitable. Science and medicine, diplomacy and law, these may hold death off for a time, but none of them can offer ultimate freedom from it. Young or old, suddenly or with ample warning, we will all die, and we must ask whether our treatment of the dead recognizes this fact or blinds us to it.

What this means for a Christian’s consideration of donating their body to science (or even just cremation), I’m not certain. On the one hand, doing so risks becoming another symbolic denial of death, another means of hiding its horror and perpetuating the myth that science can save us—or at least our successors—from the inevitable. But on the other hand, symbolism is not the only important matter. Burial is, without a doubt, expensive and impractical, and in many circumstances these latter concerns are significant. Moreover, though neither science nor medicine can support the ultimate hope many place in them, they are noble and important pursuits worthy of support. If through one's death it might be possible to save lives, that is not a possibility to be rejected lightly.

No matter what we decide, however, it is a valuable exercise to stop and consider the issue from time to time, and to reflect on the meaning of our choices. We must ask ourselves whether, in our treatment of the dead and our own plans for the future, we are unwittingly supporting our culture’s denial of reality, or reminding of both the essential goodness of this world and its inevitable dissolution.

Which reminds me: I really need to make a will.

"Practical" Christianity

I hope you all enjoyed your weekend. I'm probably up to my sleep-deprived eyes in poopy diapers, but hey, I wouldn't have it any other way! The following was first posted here.

A common reason people reject or abandon Christianity is a feeling that it simply isn’t practical. For many in the average church, there is no obvious connection between what is preached on Sunday morning, and what they actually do the rest of the week. Talk of grace and eternal salvation, however uplifting, is often perceived as irrelevant to everyday life.

The problem is that we have shied away from the one aspect of Christianity that really is applicable – its moral teaching. Actually, that isn’t quite correct. The church hasn’t abandoned its moral teaching, but too often it has distorted it. Publicly, at least here in America, we have focused ever more attention on berating the surrounding culture for its sexual practices and selfishness, while paying ever less attention to the state of our own lives. Thus, the non-Christian world sees in Christian morality only a collection of harsh and unnecessary rules, because that is how many of our loudest advocates announce it.

Privately, countless churches do a wonderful job of living out the love of Christ, but as a whole, the Church in America has done a poor job of expressing its moral viewpoint to the outside world. How rarely do non-Christians hear that the heart of the gospel is actually a call to die to yourself, that you might live? How often do we show this by our actions?

The trouble is that we too often accept the assumption that the value of a thing lies in its utility. Dying to yourself is not practical; it doesn’t pay the bills or get you ahead on the ladder of success. Quite the contrary, it might even mean paying other people's bills and letting them go ahead. In the long run, this results in community, love, and mutual encouragement, but in the short run, it is hard, so we avoid it. Instead of dying to ourselves, we rest content in our cheap grace or pile harsh condemnation on those around us. In all that, we forget that Christian morality is intended to be a lively and liberating way of life, the outlines of what it means to be truly human. As N.T. Wright puts it in Simply Christian (by the way, Matt, I’ve changed my view of this book; the second half is excellent):

Only when we have set all that out quite clearly can we ever speak of “rules.” There are rules, of course. The New Testament has plenty of them. Always give alms in secret. Never sue a fellow Christian. Never take private vengeance. Be kind. Always show hospitality. Give away money cheerfully. Don’t be anxious. Don’t judge another Christian over a matter of conscience. Always forgive. And so on. And the worrying thing about that randomly selected list is that most Christians ignore most of them most of the time. It isn’t so much that we lack clear rules; we lack, I fear, the teaching that will draw attention to what is in fact there in our primary documents, not least in the teaching of Jesus himself.

The rules are to be understood, not as arbitrary laws thought up by a distant God to stop us from having fun (or to set us some ethical hoops to jump through as a kind of moral examination), but as the signposts to a way of life in which heaven and earth overlap, in which God’s future breaks into the present, in which we discover what genuine humanness looks and feels like in practice. (pg. 224-25)

If we want to change our culture, we must start by changing ourselves.

Quote - C.S. Lewis on Human Destiny

C.S. Lewis, in The Weight of Glory:

It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or another of those destinations. (pg. 15)

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)

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!

Quote - Salvation and Selflessness

O my Lord, if I worship you from fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship you from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates. But if I worship you for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face.

Who said it?

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.

Hell Abolished, God Adopts Gold Sticker System

Since we're on the subject, there's a humorous article at The Wittenburg Door that relates to the previous post… well, sort of. Here's an excerpt:

HEAVEN—One week after beginning His new Self-Esteem Initiative, God reports mixed responses to the biggest change in Human-Divine interaction since the Incarnation.

“We’ve seen gains in both behavior and morale,” the Almighty said during a press conference in Chattanooga, Tenn., “but it’s not conclusive whether these trends will hold.”

Last week’s policy change came as a surprise to many. “It took a few days to get used to receiving a sticker whenever I did a good deed,” said Roberta Davenport of New York City, showing off three stickers on her coat that say “Good Job,” “Well Done,” and “You’re A Star!”

As reported at last week’s press conference, after reading a book on self-esteem in children, the Lord realized that all “Children of God” could benefit from immediate positive reinforcement.

“As it turned out,” the Lord said, “tossing sinners into Hell was seriously damaging their self-esteem.”

Don’t we all feel better now.

The Flaming Meteor Challenge Revisited

James McGrath, of Exploring Our Matrix, has begun a “blogversation” with Michael Halcomb on Christianity, salvation, pluralism and related issues, all of which are relevant to my interests here at C.Orthodoxy. James begins with an intriguing thought-experiment that can be used to determine whether you are an “inclusivist” or an “exclusivist” when it comes to salvation (i.e. whether you think that belief in Jesus is necessary to salvation). He calls it “the flaming meteorite test”:

Basically, it involves a reenactment of the story from Acts 10 about Peter being sent to communicate the Gospel to Cornelius, a non-Jew who has nonetheless been righteous enough to be noticed by God.

Now, imagine that, as Peter is on his way to tell Cornelius about Jesus, a flaming meteorite appears in the sky, heading towards Cornelius' house. BAM! It is levelled and all inside are killed.

So, the question is, how do you view Cornelius? On the one hand, he had already through his righteous life achieved recognition in God's eyes. On the other hand, he had still not been told about Jesus. If you think that God can have a place for Cornelius in his kingdom, then you are an inclusivist. If you think that Cornelius came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades but not salvation, then you are an exclusivist.

He admits that, like all thought-experiments, this is a simplification. For instance, one could believe that folks like Cornelius could be saved without hearing about Jesus, but still believe that not everyone will be. Or one could believe that ultimately everyone will be saved, but might disagree about how this will happen (perhaps they will turn to Jesus after death). I tend to think that it is possible, though not certain, that people can be saved by Jesus without hearing his name before they die (just consider the Old Testament patriarchs), and so I think Cornelius would be safe.* I guess that makes me an inclusivist, but I have a somewhat different take on James’ thought experiment:

Let’s imagine that Peter knew that this meteor was bearing down on Cornelius’ house, and knew that if he hurried, he would have time to warn Cornelius and save him from death. Do you think the possibility that Cornelius might see the meteor himself, and so escape without Peter’s help, would justify Peter in leaving him to his own devices?

I ask this because I think sometimes inclusivistic thinking tends to short-circuit evangelism – since we conclude that it is possible to be saved without ever hearing about Jesus, we feel less motivated to go and tell people. But that is a dangerous game to play with other people’s souls. Granted it is entirely possible that they might find God without ever reading a Bible or meeting a Christian, we can no more assume that, than we could assume that since Cornelius might see the meteor himself, we have no need to warn him about it.

*Note: I don’t deny that salvation is found only in Christ, merely that one needs to know that to be saved by him. Neither am I affirming universalism; I believe no matter how many "chances" God gives, some people will still choose to reject him.

UPDATE: This post is part of a continuing conversation.