- christ-buddha-shakti transfiguration mandala by Jack Haas
Few statements cause as much reaction in Christian circles as those proposing that all religions lead to God. After all, it is generally accepted that Jesus himself stated “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
One topical variant on this theme has to do with “Global Religion”, and the idea that Christianity is but one of many faiths which point us towards Divinity, the Sacred, or Enlightenment. And with the advent of Emergence Christianity, with its pluralism, and its revisioning of Biblical Faith, the Emergent Church is viewed by many as leading us away from true orthodoxy into a new religious synthesis. This urge is typified in such statements as
“From Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Native American and Goddess religions, each offers images of the sacred web into which we are woven. We are called children of one God and “members of one body;” we are seen as drops in the ocean of Brahman … we interexist – like synapses in the mind of an all-encompassing being.” (Joanna Macy, Despair)
Before we examine the question of whether Emergents are indeed leading us astray, we need to unpack and identify the underlying questions which make up assertions such as ”those who follow this [emergent] ideology are the founders of the coming global religious order.” (Comment on Emergent Village)
These questions include
- What do we mean by “Global”?
- What is syncretism?
- Is there a pure, static orthodoxy by which we measure truth?
- Does emergence Christianity reject this orthodoxy?
- Should we be suspicious of a false, global end-time religion and if so how do we measure that?
- Are the only choices we have Exclusive Christian Truth, or Global Truth?
Let us set up a framework for a conversation, by addressing each one briefly:
Globalism is a phenomenon that has accompanied progress. The tendency towards a global view has always been there, especially since the age of discovery, but it has exploded in the latter part of the 20th century, particularly as multinational business interests and technology have created a homogenised culture, in its wake destroying many local cultural expressions with a new, overarching dream of consumerist bliss. Contrary to increasing diversity, localised particularity, and awareness, it reduces them. The filmmaker Godfrey Reggio observes: “Technology as the new Terra Firma, has replaced the Earth as the comprehensive host of our life.”
Syncretism is a concept much maligned by those believing that their vision of truth, normally that the “Western Christian Civilisation” is the one correct truth and that this view must be communicated to those falling outside of these categories. This can be accomplished via missionary work in the framework of Western expansionism, or colonialism.
To such as these, to syncretise, or create new beliefs and practices based on multiple cultural myths, is to compromise truth. For example, in a CNN interview, evangelical John McArthur views the Eastern practice of Yoga as incompatible with the Bible: “Why would Christians want to borrow something from pantheism – from a false religion? Why borrow a term which has been part of a false religion for centuries?”
Orthodoxy (narrowly seen as “correct belief”) is usually seen as the absolute mainstream of religious practice. But what many of those with this view tend to deny is how the idea of Orthodoxy itself is born of a relative worldview. In the case of current conservative Christianity, a view of Orthodoxy is born from the assumptions of modernism – The Enlightenment, Age of Reason, Industrialisation, and Colonialism. The spirituality of other ages and cultures is not included in their definition, for example, the Coptic, Syrian Malabar, Celtic or Medieval European traditions, let alone any other traditions outside of the Christian “mainstream”.
The Emergent worldview is by and large a post-modern one. Many of the assumptions of modernity have been rejected and in a costly, often painful process, the core vision of the Biblical narrative has been revisioned. One might say that Emergence Christianity has rejected orthodoxy, but it is also fair to see it as recovering orthodoxy from a pseudo-orthodox Modern point of view. Brian McLaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy” is one such attempt at this recovery.
In the Christian church as it now is configured, deep suspicions remain of anything tainted by a suggestion that there are other “ways” to God. That which pertains to the universal, as is especially prevalent in much Eastern thought, is automatically seen to be anti-Christian. By this logic, “Christian” is synonymous with non-universal. Augustinian thought, and especially Calvinist “predestination” in which some are finally accepted but most rejected by the God of truth, guides this logic.
One expression in recent decades is the group of teachings concerning the end times, in which a false, global religion, associated not with Christ but rather the Antichrist, comes to pre-eminence. The main basis for these teachings is the Book of Revelation, which from a literary point of view is classed as “Jewish Apocalyptic” writing. This genre is widely misunderstood by the modern mind, and many a fallacious argument about current events has come forth from this misunderstanding. And worse, blatantly xenophobic readings have lead many a Christian into deep anxiety about other cultures, political systems and nations, such as interpreting the eagle (one of the four living creature in Rev 4) as representing the United States of America, leader of Free Western Civilisation, thus underpinning a deep mistrust of non-western cultures.
A current meme sees the likes of Tony Blair with his Faith Foundation and Barak Obama with his appeal to Arab-Western reconciliation as heralding in a Global Religion, due largely to statements such this recent one by Obama: “This idea – that we are all bound up, as Martin Luther King once said, in ‘a single garment of destiny’– is a lesson of all the world’s great religions.”
With these thoughts in mind, let us re-examine the basic question: Is Emergence Christianity leading us away from Christ and towards the Global Religion of the Antichrist? Is the proper “Christian” response to reject efforts at interfaith dialog, fearing contamination by impure, non-Christian ideas?
But the fundamental issue here is that this question assumes only two answers:
True, Exclusive Christianity
OR
False Global Religion.
But the binary nature of this assumption completely misses a very plausible middle way: Inclusive Christianity. This is built on Gods universal promise to the world via Abraham, the Incarnation of Jesus, is non-dualistic, finding connections with other mystical traditions, is rooted in all Creation, and holds as central the core idea that “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.”
Global Religion, if one examines it in the light of the above ideas, is an oxymoron (like “military intelligence”). The word religion, despite our current distaste for it, means “to bind back” and implies connecting to our sources. And Global implies an homogenising of the planet under the modern myth of progress. It does not mean the same as “universal”, which has as its guiding principle balance, not unsustainable, unjust, material acquisition by the few.
So is emergence leading us to Global Religion? Does it have a sinister “inner truth” like many sects, which are going to destroy the very fabric of society from within, and instead of preserving God’s Truth, actually leads us headlong into error of the most cataclysmic sort? I have provided but a few perspectives on this question.
And to conclude, instead of offering a comprehensive rebuttal, let me rather ask some further questions:
- What if the gospel of Jesus and the biblical account stands not for the salvation of just a select few, but of all?
- What if Inclusion is at the very heart of God, who like a divine, brooding Hen, yearns to embrace all people?
- What if “New Age” ideas, which Christianity largely dismiss, hold fundamental truths, vital to Christianity’s own survival?
- What if the Christianity of the future looks much less like Western Modernism and much more like Eastern Mysticism, or something far more pre-civilised, more primal, more creation based, and more cosmic?
- And what if we are in fact right now, not in some future time, already under a global religion – Western Consumerism – and that what is to be feared is not so much inclusive spirituality as homogenising, dehumanising, materialism?
Don Rogers said
Very, very nice, deeeep post, Nic. Now my comments:
John 14:6 has recently come to mean something different (or perhaps more) to me. This verse, of course, is one of the famous “I AM” statements the Johannine gospel gives us. Some time ago when I read “The Moses Code”, I discovered what many people feel today is the real power statement of the God of the Old Testament which is, to me, logically available to us today. In fact, I use that statement in my prayers everyday. Examples are, “I am abundance, I am health, I am (that), I am. We recognize that the statement attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John uses that very powerful statement, ” I AM”. We also recognize that most of the “I am” statements are metaphors. But this one, in John 14:6; what if Jesus was saying, “I am,(with the coma not normally included) the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by I am. What if the “I am” he speaks of here is the “Christ Consciousness” which he had become at his “resurrection”. If this is true, I think he might be saying that the way to understand the true nature of God was this “Christ Consciousness”. If that is true, then John 14:7 takes on a new meaning:
“7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well.”
And to go further, John 14:20 speaks volumes!!
“20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”
Just something to ponder; not really your focus in this post, but I had to mention it because it simply burst into my consciousness in the moment I read your introduction. Now further, to your questions….
“What if the gospel of Jesus and the biblical account stands not for the salvation of just a select few, but of all? “
No question in my mind that it does that very thing…GOD IS LOVE..That speaks volumes as well.
“What if Inclusion is at the very heart of God, who like a divine, brooding Hen, yearns to embrace all people?”
Again, no question in my mind that the heart of God, the core energy if you will, is LOVE for ALL.
“What if “New Age” ideas, which Christianity largely dismiss, hold fundamental truths, vital to Christianity’s own survival?”
I believe they do with all my heart. It is past time we did away with the exclusivity associated with modern Christianity. If this change does not take place, Christianity as we know it is doomed.
“What if the Christianity of the future looks much less like Western Modernism and much more like Eastern Mysticism, or something far more pre-civilised, more primal, more creation based, and more cosmic?”
I pray that it will become so. I am now reading from Matthew Fox and others who state these very things. I am so impressed with Fox and his theses.
“And what if we are in fact right now, not in some future time, already under a global religion – Western Consumerism – and that what is to be feared is not so much inclusive spirituality as homogenising, dehumanising, materialism?”
God, I hope we are or on the threshold of that new age of inclusive spirituality. This was a great post. I would love discussing this one further with all.
Painter ofblue said
Great post! A lot to think about… I love your concluding questions. There needs to be an alternative path to materialism. You have created a beautiful vision of what the world can be, I hope that your vision comes to pass.
Nic Paton said
Don
Thanks for leaping in so enthusiastically. I did think of you when writing it, especially your experience of reading the I Ching (or Lao Tze) was it? I finished the Bhagvad Gita recently and have to say it iss Extremely, no, Massively, reminiscent of Proverbs and Psalms, and also Paul. I can hardly believe how biased I once was against these kind of texts.
And talking of “Christ Consciousness” – that’s another term I have had to reevaluate. I have in fact just finished Fox’s “Cosmic Christ” and his thesis is that Christ is much more present in the world than Exclusive Christianity would have us believe. Being (post)”evangelical” I would have been a little dismissive of Fox’s book as “New Age” musings if it were not for the extensive underpinning of his argument with biblical scripture. One thing I rather admire is his unapologetic (post-catholic) approach – I am normally at pains to address Evangelical concerns in my version of these things. But God will heal this bias, I am sure.
Nic Paton said
Painter of Blue
Thank you for reading and staying in contact. I hope your health is OK – I will stop by soon.
Josh said
I guess the real challenge is to affirm God’s extravagant inclusiveness on the one hand and at the same time be determined to give clear answers to the question what leads us away from Him.
Marius said
Point well made, Nic. I went to have a look at Shafer’s ranting at Emergent Village and his is, indeed, a horribly false dichotomy. The big problem is that the theological history of Universal Salvation/Restoration/Reconciliation has been so well suppressed in Evangelical circles, most are oblivious to even its possibility. Hence the conclusion, either exclusive Christianity, or Global Religion.
Indeed most Christians are unaware that Clement of Alexandria; Origen; Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch; Athenagoras; Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gregory of Nyssa; Ambrose, Bishop of Milan; Jerome (in his youth); Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus; Theodore of Mopsuestia; John of Antioch ; and St. John Chrysostom were all proponents of universal restoration.
Jacques Ellul summarises inclusive Christianity beautifully in his 1989 book ‘What I Believe’:
“I believe that all people are included in the grace of God. I believe that all the theologies that have made a large place for damnation and hell are unfaithful to a theology of grace. For if there is predestination to perdition, there is no salvation by grace. Salvation by grace is granted precisely to those who without grace would have been lost. Jesus did not come to seek the righteous and the saints, but sinners. He came to seek those who in strict justice ought to have been condemned.
A theology of grace implies universal salvation. What could grace mean if it were granted only to some sinners and not to others according to an arbitrary decree that is totally contrary to the nature of our God? If grace is granted according to the greater or lesser number of sins, it is no longer grace-it is just the opposite because of this accountancy. Paul is the very one who reminds us that the enormity of the sin is no obstacle to grace: Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20). This is the key statement. The greater the sin, the more God’s love reveals itself to be far beyond any judgment or evaluation of ours. This grace covers all things. It is thus effectively universal.”
russ.... said
Nic.
some great responses to your wonderful post from Don, Marius and co. these sorts of questions are usually my native terrain but my head is fried with the daily rigours of life at the moment, what with our impending move back to South Africa. in the meantime, please forgive me but i will be wandering in amongst you and curating the virtual coffee.
blessings to you all & thank you for your grace.
till soon.
Russ….
Jeromy said
Nic, thank you for this well thought out post. I have come to understand God’s more universal reconciliation as well…and the funny thing is that for me, it is WAY more about God and Jesus’ work on the cross than ever before.
Here are a few places where I address my thoughts:
http://www.mendingshift.com/2009/01/07/the-war-is-over/
http://www.mendingshift.com/2008/03/23/here-i-stand%E2%80%94on-gods-love-for-all-2/
ScottL said
I found this interesting quote the other day on Tim Challies’ blog:
‘The ecumenical call [in the mid-20th century] was not for truth and salt; it was supremely for oneness: the greater the unity of ‘the Church’, it was confidently asserted, the stronger would be the impression made upon the world; and to attain that end, churches should be inclusive and tolerant. But it has never been by putting unity first that the church has changed the world. At no point in church history has the mere unity of numbers ever made a transforming spiritual impression upon others. On the contrary, it was the very period known as ‘the dark ages’ that the Papacy could claim her greatest unity in western Europe.’
I don’t post this quote arrogantly, but rather to remind us we must be established in truth to also move forward in unity. I don’t believe this means agreeing on all small nuances of theology. But this does start with Christ and professing who He really is as revealed to us in Scripture.
I long for a unified church, and I long for us to reach people’s of all nations. But I also long for them to know the truth, for truth sets captives free.
Nic Paton said
Thanks to all who have commented: Josh, Marius, Russ, Jeromy and Scott.
Josh:
The mystic in me would usually deemphasise clarity. However, for the sake of those tainted by Enlightenment thinking, we should as you say give clear answers. And absolutely, affirming inclusive extravagence is no longer negotiable.
Marius:
I appreciate your painting a historical backdrop for us. And indeed, a surprizing number of contemporary thinkers come to these conclusions.
I’m a little intruiged by Jerome though: what went on there? All paths are possible I guess.
BTW If you care to see the backissues on UR on this blog, here they are:
http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/category/universal-restoration/
Russ:
All debates on UR require a barista at some point or another. I’ll have the usual – 4 shot expresso.
Jeromy:
Thanks for those posts – and letting your flag fly. I relate to your apologetic approach – I do not mean meek, but rather thorough. I too passed through evangelicalism, and I am always mindful of how that part of the family thinks.
I look forward to the advanced fruits of this adventure, to a suffusing of grace, and to what comes out of that. Once we get over this punative God syndrome, we might start to appoximate the new Eden again.
Scott:
Again, I identify with Tim Challies’ view, because for many years I believed that ecumenical meant compromised. And if it does mean “unity via democracy” then I’d tend to agree. If this unity was merely the lowest common denominator of opinion, well I agree its not what I envision.
I now believe, “divided (diverse) we stand, united we fall”, so that what Matthew Fox calls “Deep Ecumenism” becomes a virtue and a worthy goal. And homogenised, doctrinal unity becomes a mere political tretise.
As for knowing “the Truth”, well I could not agree more. I myself have been set free quite a bit by what God is doing. We are being changed from “glory to glory” and coming into the fullness of constant, ongoing revelation.
ScottL said
Nic (and Jeromy and others)
How does the emergent church present concepts like sin?
And please know I’m not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to understand the conversation.
nic paton said
Hi Scott – I’ll probably have to speak as an inidivdual with an individual journey here.
I was introduced to christianity via anglicalism and then the charismatic movement. Each of those traditions have their own myths (I use this word to imply beliefs, not to mean “untrue”) of sin.
Fo most of my life I saw sin largely as acts of ommission or commission. As I became more mystical, this simplified into seeing sin as that which separates, from God, each other and the cosmos. I relate it now to not loving, or to not being aware (whatever is not of faith is sin, says Romans).
As for the question of innateness – I do not believe in the Augustinan “original sin” idea which makes us “sinners by nature”; I believe we are originally blessed. However, we are born into sin, and all are tainted by it. Sin leads to death, and its not a triviality.
What is your view?
ScottL said
Though I am part of a charismatic church community (but not to be identified with TBN), I have a reformed leaning in regards to sin. So I do lean towards an Augustinian view of original sin and the federal headship of the first representative of humanity, Adam.
I know Christians can be overly defined and overly technical in their definition of sin, but I am not opposed as seeing sin as omitting in our lives that which God has asked/commanded and committing that which God has asked/commanded us not to take part in. Its overly technical, but not outrightly wrong. No doubt God has asked us to walk in things and not walk in certain things. Yes, it is true and beautiful that loving Him and our neighbour is the sum of all such commands. But, even simple things as gossip about another or bitterness toward another are actual things we have ‘committed’ that keep us from loving them. Or withholding a specific word of encouragement that God is prompting is an omission of loving our neighbour. So, though it is definitely summed up in loving God and our neighbour, the NT (and even OT) does flesh this out in an expectation of specified commands. The word ‘command’ can be a deterring factor, scary in our world of ‘freedom’, but the word is used in Scripture. It doesn’t have to be a scary word. His commands are good. They keep us on the path of life!
You said sin is ‘not being aware’. What are we not aware of?
You also stated that you don’t believe we are ’sinners by nature’, but you went on to state, ‘we are born into sin’? How are we born in sin and ‘tainted by it’ from the beginning, but don’t have a sinful nature by birth? Now, do know that I believe that as we become new creations, the old sinful nature dies through our resurrection to new life in Christ. But I do believe humanity is born with such a nature. And it’s the Holy Spirit that has come to bring death and resurrection to us that Christ died and rose for! Our old man and sin nature is the nature that must die, the old self that must be put to death and buried, as Paul refers to in places like Rom 6.
So, those are some brief thoughts.
Jeromy said
Scott and Nic,
For me, the quandary we find ourselves in with “original sin” is that we have traditionally attributed more power (for lack of a better word) to it than Christ’s work. Romans 5 states that sin and death entered the world through one man and applies to all men. Now, the theology goes, everyone, whether they believe it or not, who is born has the damnation of sin upon them…young, old, and whatnot. But the kicker is this. Romans 5 goes on to say in a pattern that if that is the case, then HOW MUCH MORE has life entered the world through one man for all men. But somehow, where as with sin and it’s damnation which applies to all men regardless, the life and forgiveness of Jesus seems to only apply to the few (contrary to Paul’s words, all men) and these few have to belief it for it to be true. To me, it seems like a horrible double standard being applied, one which ultimately gives WAY more power to Adam and sin then to Jesus and life. So this idea of original sin for all men seems rather dark and confusing in light of Jesus’ work and life. But that is simply my opinion…I do not speak for anyone other than myself.
nic paton said
Hi Scott and Jeromy
Jeromy I think gets the balance right by appealing to the ultimacy of grace. I’d agree with his view and his understanding of the original sin quandry.
But perhaps I’d go one further, to refute the innateness (being at our core) of sin, while still acknowledging it ubiquity (being everywhere).
For me its like a fish, born into water. The fish is NOT essentially water, but it exists in water. We are not essentially sin, but we live in it and it taints all we do and are.
Scott I know this might sound heretical. The backdrop to my journey from standard evangelical theology is documented on this blog. The angle I have taken is examining the doctrine of eternal punitive separation aka hell. This – the understanding of our destiny – is inextricably bound to the question of our origins.Take a look at the offerings, and I’d welcome ongoing comment:
http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/category/universal-restoration/
One last point that I see appearing in the writings of emergents like Brian McLaren is that our notion of both punishment and reward are way too individualised. In classical evangelical / reformed theology the whole onus for destiny is the moral life of the individual. But if we can get a more cosmic take on these things, we would view righteousness as awareness and alignment with Gods purposes in the context of the whole, not an individual scoresheet.
ScottL said
Jeromy -
No doubt that the power of Christ is much greater than that of Adam. It is available to all for freedom from sin, death, and the enemy. Absolutely amazing! I want it and I want to see others smothered in it.
In regards to Rom 5, we have to be careful to pluck one phrase/verse out of the whole of Rom 5, or the whole of Romans, as I’m sure you are aware. Vs17-18 says -
‘17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.’
Interestingly, I have found that reformed/Calvinistic believers can grasp on to Rom 5 as a case for limited atonement. Why? Because of use of the word MANY in places like vs15 -
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
They see the word MANY as pointing to NOT ALL, hence limited atonement. But, again, I would challenge THEM (not only you) to keep this passage in context. What Paul is ultimately doing in Rom 5 is comparing the one work of the one man, Adam, that led to condemnation to the one work of the new Adam, Christ, that led to righteousness and eternal life. Rom 5 is not necessarily written to tell us WHO gets it. It is ultimately comparing the work of the first and second Adam.
My challenge to my reformed friends is, if you want to us the word MANY to refer to Rom 5 teaching limited atonement and that Christ only did His work at the cross for SOME, then you have to see that the word MANY is also used in regards to Adam’s work, and thus, only SOME have entered this life in Adam. Therefore, we find that none of this matters for SOME. But that is silly.
The opposite stands true for those who want to be inclusive regardless. We can’t use the word ALL to refer to any and everyone being in Christ regardless, for we have to consider that the word ALL is also used to be fully inclusive of everyone into the first Adam, thus condemned. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
But my proposal is that Rom 5 is ultimately about comparing the work of the two Adam’s, not to tell us WHO receives that benefits of that work. And it is those that stay under the first Adam that receive the wages of his work and it is the those who enter into the second Adam that receive the wages of his work. Even Rom 3:10-18 tells us how we all enter the world – in a serious case of utter sin. Things don’t bode well for us entering in the world (albeit a work of Christ by the Spirit). And Rom 3:23 tells us the overall summary – all have sinned and fallen short of the beautiful glory of the perfect Father. Ouch! But 3:24-25 tell us the good news – that we receive justification and righteousness and redemption in Christ. But, the catching pointing is that this is ‘to be received by faith’, as Paul states (vs25).
And I think this stays faithful to the WHOLE teaching of Scripture. While I think each verse, phrase, and even word can speak to us, when we consider such topics, we need to keep things in the context of a passage, and in the whole of the Scriptural teaching. I can’t see the point of Paul in Rom 5 to tell us WHO gets to receive this gift in Christ. It’s more about comparing Christ’s work, the second Adam, with the work of the first Adam. Therefore, Paul uses both words ALL and MANY. Neither one of those words can be used to back up a Calvinistic teaching or any kind of Universal Reconciliationist view (I do not say that demeaningly about UR).
We must be faithful to the teaching of the whole text. That is the call of those who want to study the Scripture.
Nic -
I have not been able to read your story yet. I hope to soon. Just to let you know my heart and story: I am by no means a typical evangelical. That word can describe me as I believe the tenets of usual evangelicals about Christ being the only way, the Scripture being the authority for our lives, etc. But I know that word carries a bunch of baggage, as any label. I am a conglomeration of some reformed, charismatic, enjoying my beer and pipe while believing apostles and prophets still exist today. It is hard to peg me.
So do know that I am open for conversation and that I try and not bring some overly evangelical position. Good stuff and discussion.
nic paton said
Scott
Thanks for your enthusiasm – I’ve just realised you are in the pipe sucking Eurozone, not the gun toting US. (Although sadly that’s not so true any more.)
I do not see you as a typical Evangelical, and I am more prodding that theology than you specifically.
Your views on Romans 5 are reminiscent of Thomas Talbott, whose magnificent book “The Inescapable Love of God” I review here http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/the-inescapable-love-of-god-by-thomas-talbott/.
Specifically, this bit is relavent to our discussion here:
It is not just the average believer who suffers from bad thinking; Talbott takes on distinguished current thinkers and revered church fathers as well. He shows Augustine’s thought on the issues of Judgment to be fundamentally flawed. For example, he exposes the Saint’s explanation of the key text 1 Tim 2:4, describing “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”. Augustine manipulates its meaning shamelessly: “… by all men we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided”. [p 49] So he arbitrarily forces “all” to equate to “some from all categories”.
ScottL said
Nic -
Thanks for coming back to me. I browsed your article on Talbott’s book. As I’m sure you would expect, I am somewhat wary of any Universal Reconciliationist view that includes all of humanity into the redeemed community regardless. I understand us wanting to have a hope of such, which, by your words, Talbott was presenting more a hope not a doctrine. But, what I have found in regards to more UR, inclusivism and other universalist views is that a lot of these thoughts are based upon the person’s own ideas, almost as if they speak out of their own feelings and experiences. What I mean is that they say things such as: ‘I know God is a God of love and He desires to save all. If He is ultimately defined by love for all, then He will ultimately make salvation and redemption a reality for every person.’ ‘A loving God does not punish,’ it would be stated. ‘Or, if He does, it is to reconcile.’
It does sound nice, and in the end, if it is true, I will worship Him for it. But I am wary of trying to base this on our own ideas and concepts. I do realise many have damaged the idea of justice, sin, judgment, wrath and other such things as we read about in God’s character in Scripture. And, importantly, we must also distinguish between those who are God’s children and those who are not. Sure, I understand the case that we are all God’s offspring in regards to creation. But sin, our sin (even if one does not want to accept original sin), has estranged us from the household of God. Thus, our way into the house is through adoption as sons and daughters.
I just read 2 Cor 5:11-21 today, a beautiful passage. Vs14-15 says, ‘For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.’
Vs15 sounds really nice – ‘one has died for all, therefore all have died.’ But again, the problem with plucking this phrase out from the context of the holistic teaching of Scripture can lead us to form concepts that are not faithful to the whole counsel of what we have. Reading all of the context, the ALL seems to refer to those who ‘those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.’
I am reminded of Jesus’ words before His crucifixion – ‘The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.’ (Matt 26:24)
If Judas will ultimately be reconciled to God, even through some sense of just judgment for a time, then why would Jesus say it would have been better if Judas had never been born? It’s a terrible thing to consider, but if Judas would have received relief at some point from the judgment unto reconciliation, why would Jesus have said it would have been better if he had never been born? Because, with the hope of ultimate reconciliation, at least Jesus could have said, ‘He’s going to have it hard for a while. But thanks be to My Father that it will be over soon.’
I don’t pretend to understand God’s justice in a full sense. I do believe His justice undergirds and strengthens His mercy. When I look at His justice, His mercy tastes so so so so very sweet – better than any Belgian beer! And His mercy does the same, undergirding and strengthening His justice. When I taste His mercy, I am so very humbled at the justice and complete righteousness of our Father still willing to save me and call me into His bosom.
In the end, we are told to believe the good news because it is good news in the midst of the bad news about sin and estranging ourselves from our Creator. If we all get reconciled in the end, I need not tell people of the good news of life in Christ. I can start proclaiming something else – the good news that we all ultimately make it regardless. I find a hard time establishing that from Scripture.
Thanks for enduring my long comments. I do have a hope for humanity – at the cross. But I am swayed by Scripture that humanity must respond to that saving work as the Spirit calls them. There are no doubt questions forever and ever in all of the nuances of thinking this through. But I believe we are to call people to the King who says, ‘Repent’. Repent from what? The disgusting reality of sin that we, ourselves, had committed. And I do believe the time to repent is now, not later after some period of judgment. Forgiveness is free, but it is free through the saving transaction of the currency of the cross as stamped upon us through the Spirit’s work of repentance from that which put God on the cross.
Gavin Marshall said
Haven’t had time to read all the comments – so maybe this has been mentioned, but the question that’s missing is really what is meant by ‘God’ or ‘divinity’..
ScottL said
God in Hebrew is elohim.
God in Greek is theos.
(They really didn’t use capital letters back then.)
Both are the general word for the divine one, or God, whom a people served, worshiped, etc, etc. Scripture establishes there is one true elohim/theos. Scripture also lets us in on a little secret – this God whom the Hebrews served wanted to be known as Yahweh. Scripture also shows us (through the full revelation of the new covenant) that this one true theos, known as Yahweh, has manifested himself as three persons – Father, Son (Jesus), Spirit.
That is a brief summary of the historic, orthodox understanding.
Jeromy said
Scott, thanks for your comment to me. It seems as if the assumption is that those who hold to a more universal view of God’s grace and ultimate reconciliation are not considering the WHOLE of, and are doing a very poor job of studying, scripture. I understand that I have only given a brief touch on the subject (which was more about the subject of original sin, how we believe it effects us, and the double standard being used). I have provided a few links in my original comment. In the “here I stand post” I include the following scripture: http://www.mendingshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/reconcilation-scriptures.doc . Feel free to visit this and the other links to learn a little more about where I am coming from. If you have any questions, please ask.
Thanks again.
Gavin Marshall said
Scott – is Yahweh really a name? Wasn’t it more a statement of non-name – I am who I am.
ScottL said
Jeromy -
I am sure you do study the WHOLE of the text, and I do apologise if I said you weren’t willing to look at the whole text. I only gave a good and general hermeneutic of considering the whole. Thanks for clarifying that is your desire. And I do realise you were more focusing on the concept of original sin.
Still, I am not sure that the text referred to in Rom 5 could be used for universal reconciliation, if we even consider the purpose of that one passage.
You and Nic keep leaving me so many links. I hope to get to them all.
Gavin -
Name is that by which we call someone, and in a Hebrew understanding, name points to character and who the person is. So, I think it’s ok to say Yahweh is His name. It is what the Hebrew text refers to the one true God as. But that name is unlike any other name, almost superseding the idea of name, at least from our perspective.
Good stuff.
russ.... said
when people need some respite from exploring UR & the holy name of G-d, there’s some virtual coffee & herbal tea next to the cubist rendition of Simon van der Stel.
blessings to you all.
/r
Gavin Marshall said
The minute we name someone or something – it gives us a handle on that thing/person – in our mind. We’re able to control it to some degree – call the person, ask of the person, conceptualize the thing named.
The problem with that, however, is naming something or someone also creates separation. It moves it from being an experiential mystical NOW event (not sure how to put this in words).
So sure – in order to relay a message, naming is useful – which was the case here in the story of Moses asking ‘who shall I tell them sent me’ (or however that went down – can’t remember).
The thing is – a couple of thousand years down the line, people play with the names, but that actual primordial experience – the awe and mystery of the experience that I AM – there’s not enough of that.
Yes – that is the ‘orthodox’ ‘christian’ ‘historic’ ‘correct’ terminology, theory, theology, whatever, but from what I’ve experienced, doesn’t even come close to being the tip of the iceberg. I think christianity, generally speaking, is still too busy looking through a ‘glass darkly’ and has no idea what it means to see face to face – so caught up in a certain period of time, in a specific culture, mythology and cosmology, that it is little more than the blind leading the blind.
ScottL said
Gavin -
No doubt it is hard to ‘pin down’ God and I don’t want to try and say I, or we, can do that. Still theology is about getting to know the God as presented in Scripture and confirmed by the Spirit. So I’m ok with theology, ’studying God’, as long as we don’t get too stuffy on all the nuances. And be encouraged to not be completely down on the ekklesia, since you, too, are a part of that redeemed community. Or I assume you are (as I don’t know you and what you would say). And so am I. This is a group we’re going to spend eternity with enjoying the One we walk with. No doubt we’ve done some bogus things, things we should be ashamed of and repent of. But as a whole, I think the Head is consistently being faithful to do what He said He would do – ‘I will build my ekklesia – even in the midst of our boneheadedness.
What happened with Moses amidst that bush did actually change things forever in our relation to this beautiful God we serve. The recognition of calling Him Yahweh was so very important, hence the ‘name’ is used thousands of times throughout the OT. And, we also know Jesus picked this up with His ego eimi (I am) statements in the NT. So, even continuing into the new covenant, this name speaks. When we get a glimpse of Yahweh, whoa, it is something. And we get a pretty good glimpse of Him in the Christ.
Also, remember that we will continue to look through a ‘glass darkly’ until the final summing up of things. It is impossible to see face to face in a full sense. We do keep growing and get a little more understanding as we move forward. But the face to face won’t happen until we actually see Him face to face.
And, though we don’t want to rest our faith on the study of former periods, there is importance in considering that which has come before us. We can’t view ourselves in a vacuum as if this all started recently. We come from something that’s been going on quite a while. It’s that beautiful cloud of witnesses. So I want to know what God was saying back then because I am walking with that same One. I want to have some idea of their culture and history so that, when I read Exodus or Ezra or Malachi, I don’t jump in with a 21st century expectation and understanding of certain words. We won’t be perfect at it. But they are our fathers and mothers. They can teach us a lot, at least they can teach me a lot.
Nic Paton said
Scott and Gavin
I see you are becoming acquainted. I think if we had to down the circles that represented us we would come out at a configuration with some overlap.
I do not want to commit the “sin of naming” in this context – rather, there is a conversation happening which I encourage. In most other contexts I would create the “blessing of naming” – testifying the one to another as in saying “Here is Scott, hes’s a friend of mine, even if he smokes a pipe”, “This is Gavin – trust me, he has something of relevance for you, even if he smokes a pipe.”
If I may bring your convesation back to the original context – “global” “religion” and “inclusive” “christinity” – this type of exchange and “critical openness” where we really hear the other and yet remain true to our convictions and traditions.
One of the “sins” of modernist christian orthodoxy is its inability to hear those outside of its mien, or its own stated circle of correctness. And a “sin” of liberal pan-everything-ism is its tolerance of everything, and an inability to deal with hard issues like sinfulness.
Having said that, I think Gavins take on sin is going to be far more Eastern than Scotts, and will be closer to the concept of “maya” – illusion; sin as being unaware of our innate divinity. Whereas Scotts view concerns a individual, innate, state of fallenness: the “disgusting reality of sin that we, ourselves, had committed.”
I see some sort of middle path here, a theology of sin and salvation that take seriously enough personal responsibility (western), while acknowledging our blindness to innate divinity, and our being as part of an all consuming whole (eastern).
One of the ways where I see western christian orthodoxy needing to grow is de-individualising the emphasis, viewing sin as a more cosmic concept. Brian McLaren for example sees this emerging:
“there is no social transformation without personal transformation, and no personal transformation without social transformation … and that key theological terms like “salvation” and “gospel” fully and beautifully integrate and embrace both.”
Gavin Marshall said
“What if the Christianity of the future looks much less like Western Modernism and much more like Eastern Mysticism, or something far more pre-civilised, more primal, more creation based, and more cosmic?”
Now we’re talking
But would you be able to call it christianity? My question, as always, is whether it is worth it to try and change something that is so set in it’s ways – it’s like trying to move an already existing highway into the jungle to get closer to the trees. Why would you want to bother ‘converting’ a whole movement that is quite comfortable in it’s illusions of orthodoxy, you’re could get more than your fingers burnt (figuratively speaking of course – fortunately christianity is a little less violent than it used to be..)
Gavin Marshall said
PS. – thanks for the introduction – we were posting at the same time. Scott – nice to meet you. We should smoke a pipe together sometime..
Nic Paton said
Gavin
Categorically, yes it is worth it. I don’t care if its called c/Christianty or not. Emergence is bigger than me. It is cosmic. And for me, Christ remains at the centre of it.
I am not trying to convert anyone as much as I am trying to live a vision of God. Sure, I have a POV and will argue it. But my “success” is not dependant on persuasion. It will be measured in that most elusive of qualities, Love.
BTW my friend, I have a new darbukah (for those who go “que?”, its a middle eastern goblet drum, favourite of Temple Beard Melchizidek, who had 14 number one hits in the 530’s (BC)).
Lets play!
Gavin Marshall said
PPS – in re-reading my previous comment – I know it sounds a bit harsh. As usual – playing Devil’s advocate. I understand where you’re at with the Curator type of role – and it’s admirable. I certainly don’t have that kind of patience.
At the same time – I do think there is validity in my question
Gavin Marshall said
LOL – once again posting at the same time. Definitely time to play – especially since we’re so good at hitting the drum at the same time!
Nic Paton said
Dear Satan’s Legal Representative:
You must be getting well paid, doing lots of representing!
Let’s call a drum circle soon.
ScottL said
Nic -
You had stated that a more eastern version of sin is this – ’sin as being unaware of our innate divinity.’
Do we have an innate, inward divinity? I am aware of the beauty of the image of God imprinted upon every human being and, even greater, that God comes to reside in the redeemed community by His Spirit. But is there an innate divinity for humanity apart from His work in our heart? Maybe this is a more eastern phrasing of the imago dei?
And, as a side note, I am very aware of how sin effects the cosmos, creation and all that does exist. Creation/the cosmos is groaning for this all to be set right. Sin is quite effective in destroying life wherever it is, but thanks be to Him that has restored life to us so that we can have little tastes of the age to come now.
Gavin -
You stated – ‘My question, as always, is whether it is worth it to try and change something that is so set in it’s ways – it’s like trying to move an already existing highway into the jungle to get closer to the trees. Why would you want to bother ‘converting’ a whole movement that is quite comfortable in it’s illusions of orthodoxy, you’re could get more than your fingers burnt (figuratively speaking of course – fortunately christianity is a little less violent than it used to be..)’
It seems you have a bad taste in your mouth towards what we might term (just for discussion sake) the historical orthodox Christian community. No doubt there has been some atrocious and heinous things done in the name of Christ, stuff that breaks His heart way more than it frustrates us. And, though we usually no longer resort to war as in past centuries, the war of words continues to be very discouraging. It is true that many don’t want to listen. We are truly hurting one another.
But I still don’t think our conclusion has to be that we throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I think it would be good to humble ourselves and remember that we have come from somewhere, even if that somewhere has not always been helpful. The Scripture calls them a cloud of witnesses. The Scripture speaks encouragingly about this cloud.
As an example, I come from a particular family. I don’t specifically like everything that I have experienced as part of that family (and my children will say the same about the family my wife and I raise, I don’t doubt). But I know that they are my family and I cannot deny them. I come from them, have learned much from them, and cannot severe that tie. Even if I tried, it will be known that I am a son of my father. And that’s ok.
If we write off 2000 years (or actually longer) of our faith, we might just be embracing a little too much pride, also called arrogance. I don’t want to be in that group, lest my heart becomes callous. Again, there are things that need to fall by the way side. But I would presume there is more to learn from and consider dearly and less needing to be discarded. As I had mentioned before, I am convinced that Jesus has been faithful to build His ekklesia, even in the midst of our faults and failures. And that will be true for the years to come. I find hope in His words.
Nic Paton said
Scott:
“… is there an innate divinity for humanity apart from His work in our heart?”
This frames the question well, especially as coming from those who are in the wake of the Reformation. And I find it very difficult to frame a definitive anwer.
But an attempt to do so needs to take a few things into account:
- The book of Genesis states “It is very good” before it introduces the idea of Adams fall. Proponents of “original sin” as doctrine want to start the canon at Genesis 3.
- Our orthodoxy does not have proprietry ownership of the concept of salvation, despite the general bandying about of an understanding the Jesus as “THE way THE truth and THE life”. I believe in this saying of Jesus, but see him in cosmic and mystical terms, in addition to the historical ones which are necessary to testify to an Incarnational God. Many of us are defining Christ as the Christ WE understand, but that will always yield a limited picture.
- Augustine and Calvin have emphasised a particular (and often errant) dogma based in a world view which some reject, and emphasising punishment and predestination over mercy and freedom. We see their traditions as normative, but I now believe them to be abberations.
- An understanding of the Universal nature of Grace, and the idea of apokastasis, brings a very different slant to our discussions of original sin or our interpretations of Genesis and Paul. But we need to overcome our deep prejudices first.
I have struggled to make this transition from the evangelical myths to a more cosmic, grace based one. Thomas Talbott suggests, “Universal Reconciliation is a clear and pervasive theme in the letters of Paul … the standard ways of explaining away this theme are untenable, even contrived”. For most of my life I would have seen this as dangerous but I now understand what he is getting at, and agree that much of what I previously saw as a forgone conclusion, was in fact often quite contrived.
One of the basic questions I asked was “Is hell as portrayed by the christian tradition true”? You might not be as bothered as I was by this question, but I was, and it was that which drove my investigations.
I know you are challenged by URLS, but I would love you to read my deconstruction of the Lazarus story.
Gavin Marshall said
The problem with christianity is that it is a book based religion, so the focus is primarily on believing the right thing. A really good friend of mine used to always say ‘words don’t have meaning, meaning has words’. That is why I ask the questions I do – challenging the words used.
A mythology is a collection of stories that both point us to, and give us context for an experience. This doesn’t necessarily have to be a ‘religious’ experience. Just the awesome/ful experience of being alive is a mystical experience, although most of the time it takes some kind of whack to the side of the head (to use a phrase from von Oech) to snap us out of the habitual pattern of who we think we are.
What I’m getting at is that the Universal Truth, ground zero – whatever you want to call it, – it is describing an experience.
This experience is ‘captured’ in words. Words vary based on culture, cosmology, language, environment, social expectations and so on.
So – from where I’m sitting – Global ‘religion’ is only really a possibility when one looks beyond the words. You don’t have to discard them, but hold them lightly, and also be open to tasting the words of other cultures. The experience, however, is transcendent – it goes beyond words or concepts. It is primordial, that out of which all things have their being. Neither personal or non-personal, intelligent or random – it is that out of which all intelligence, personhood, sentience comes.
I think this is what al of the mystics point to – this experience of I AM. The problem is that then there is always the ‘coming down the mountain’ into the field of time, habitual patterns, rules and theology
John L said
Nic, the older and more ignorant I get, the more I’m convinced that something along the lines “extravagant inclusiveness” must somehow be an integral part of a creation that reflects perfect love. IF the cross can be contextualized in ways that overcome religion and socio-religious programming (Christendom), then The Way has a shot at unifying the world under a common understanding of perfect grace. Short of this, most forms of syncretism leave us with a cheapened, diluted cross.
On this same theme… few people can watch Wade Davis’s 2008 TED Talk and not be profoundly moved in their understanding of spirituality and culture.
Enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/62tl3v
Chad said
Nic –
Wonderful post. Thanks for your diligence.
This entire thread functions as a rhetorical lesson lauding God’s universal love for all in that even Jeromy is allowed to comment here
Love ya, bro!
grace and peace,
Chad
Jeromy said
Ouch Chad (but I know that even you, one day, will be restored and loved by God)
Chad said
Tis the reason I embrace CU – it is the only way I get a shot!