These are the words we sing at least twice a month here at Emanuel; they come from the ELW's setting for a Service of the Word. Putting aside my personal conviction that we can't commune often enough, I will say that if nothing else, having SotW twice a month has been nice if for no other reason than discovering this lovely Canticle of Thanksgiving.
More than the music, though, its affirmation of the central truth of Christianity - that salvation is the work of God, for the sake of Christ's work on our behalf - is a much needed clarion call, inviting us both to proclaim that which we believe and affirm, and to reflect upon it both in public worship and private devotion. Into all of this, enter the recent controversy sparked by Rob Bell's latest book (which, fair warning, I have not had a chance to read yet) and his thoughts on hell and salvation in it. While some have been upset about these doctrines being questioned or re-packaged, I appreciate his willingness to "go there" and not assume that the presentation of salvation and hell most upheld by "evangelicals" (as a Lutheran, I resent the co-opting of "evangelical" by a branch of the Church which, in my opinion, flirts entirely too much with confusing Law and Gospel...but that's another blog entry) must absolutely, positively be the only acceptable or biblical way of framing the matter. That's not to say I agree, or disagree, with Bell; I'll reserve that judgment for when I read his words for myself. I just appreciate his having the chutzpah to start a conversation on the subject. If there is one thing I have come to genuinely dislike about the branch of the Church in which I was raised, it was the aversion to questions and active debate. We're richer as a Body when we actually discuss and debate what it means to be that Body; we cheapen the faith we share when we take it for granted. But again, that's another blog entry.
So, then...what's all the fuss over? The main accusation directed toward Bell, at this point, seems to be that he's a universalist - basically, this means he's of the conviction that everyone will be saved regardless of whether they have had the sort of faith-conversion experience that "evangelicals" point to as being necessary for salvation. With that, Bell re-packages the idea of hell as being a state of being/the reality of evil present here and now in human existence rather than a future destination for those who die outside of Christ. Heaven, too, gets re-packaged as the in-breaking, eventually to be fully realized, renewal of the created world back to God's original vision of it. Keep in mind that this is my read on Bell's words based entirely off of other people's (most "evangelicals") reading of Bell's book...so don't sue me if this isn't 100% accurate.
It's pretty obvious why this has sparked controversy. "Evangelical" readings of scripture, in which humans are faced with a decision that must be made by each individual at some point in life (whether to accept Christ as savior, or not to do so), absolutely relies on a literal heaven and hell. If there is no hell, then there is no reason why anybody should bother following Christ - it's a lot of sacrifice for relatively little payoff. God's love here is unconditional open to all people, but ultimately bound by God's sense of justice - if you don't get right through the administrations of Jesus, then God (despite God's love for you) has no option but to condemn you to hell because God cannot stand unrighteousness because of God's holiness. Thus, no hell=no impetus for conversion, and beyond that, no hell=God potentially being tainted by unrighteousness that God can't stand.
For the sake of those who might think I'm showing my biases a little too much with my quotations around "evangelical" (which has a lot more to do with my being cheesed off at their robbing the ACTUAL Evangelical Church, those of us who were branded by the Roman Catholics as "Lutheran" in an attempt to connect us to our supposedly "heretical" forefather)...there are certainly strengths in the "evangelical" argument. First off, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to deny that their presentation of the issues is consistent with some major trends in Christian dogmatic tradition. The notion that "evangelicals" represent the entire history of orthodox Christian doctrine is absolutely ridiculous (ten minutes with a Church history textbook will dispel that notion), but they certainly do represent some major elements of Anabaptist thought, as well as traditionally orthodox beliefs.
Secondly, the "evangelical" position does use scripture to shore up every point in its doctrinal stance, even if they (in my opinion) fail at interpreting scripture in many instances in that the Gospel is occluded as a hermeneutical key by an often overly rigid insistence upon "literal interpretation." But again...that's another blog entry.
Thirdly, "evangelicals" do a very solid job of NOT cheapening God's grace into divine license to do whatever you want without fear of consequence. As critical of "evangelical" Christianity as I tend to be, this element of it is praiseworthy. That said, the tendency among "evangelicals" to turn this into "don't drink and keep your clothes on until you're married" while ignoring the fact that scripture has a lot more to say about economic injustice than abstaining from vices (though it's far from silent on that point, too) is disturbing and reflective of a reading of scripture through the lens of the "American Dream" rather than through the Gospel, but...Lutherans do the same thing, to our discredit, so we'll call it even.
Since this entry is becoming....1. Insanely long, and 2. Borderline scream therapy for this recovering "evangelical," we'll call it a day. Stay tuned for Part 2, in which I take a look at Bell's assertions (as I understand them) and plug them into the Gospel-o-meter!
No comments:
Post a Comment