So, this entry will wrap up the series of overly long entries on the Rob Bell controversy, and the debate about the nature of salvation and hell that seems to have developed. Today, to close us out - why I think both positions described in previous entries fall short, and my attempt at a concise, constructive position somewhere in between.
First off, it is probably obvious by now that I do not consider myself an "evangelical" in the sense in which that term is (mis)used in this day and age. There will probably be a whole entry on why that is in the near future, so stay tuned...but for now, suffice it to say I have serious theological differences of opinion with some of the basic presuppositions of the "evangelical" perspective. Conservative "evangelicals" both fail, in my opinion, in one extremely important point in their attempts to construct a soteriological framework (fancy talk for a theology of how we're saved)...the language of choice and decision. YOU choose whether you're saved or not - you have to make a "decision for Christ."
There are some key problems with this assertion, the most notable of which is the (rather ironic) lack of scriptural support for free will in salvation in the New Testament. Perhaps the most stock phase used in "evangelical" circles is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." Problem 1 - the word "accept" is not once - ONCE - used in scripture to describe how we are saved. It is abundantly clear in Paul's letters that, at least from a Pauline perspective, God is the one who does the choosing and accepting. In other words - predestination. Yes, the P-word that upsets so many people and has been misused and abused by far, far too many Christians over time. What I'm not talking about is hyper-Calvinism (or even flawed Calvinistic double-predestination), but single predestination...God elects people for salvation, and this is meant as a comfort - not as a "who's in and who's out!" guessing game, or an excuse not to proclaim the Gospel. We are in such total bondage to sin that we cannot free ourselves, and so God (through the work of Christ) liberates us, and that liberation is brought to life through faith, which is the product of the Holy Spirit working it about in us according to God's Will. We don't say "yes" to God; God says "yes" to us, and simply trust and follow. But all of that is another blog entry, or an invitation for you to read Luther's On the Bondage of the Will. For those who want to trot out verses with imperatives exhorting us to believe, I remind that: 1. Many of them are already addressed to the "beloved" or "elect" (i.e. they exhort to growth in faith more than personal, free will conversion/decision leading to salvation), and 2. As Luther puts it, "the imperative does not imply the indicative" - just because it says "do this" does not mean we are capable in and of ourselves of doing it...it starts with God working in us.
So, conservative "evangelicals" fail when it comes to understanding how we're saved, even though I totally believe that their not quite getting it isn't actually going to affect their salvation. It's like Communion; just because you don't recognize Christ's literal presence in it doesn't mean that Christ somehow isn't present. God's promises are bigger than our doctrinal quibbling. But what about Rob Bell?
Again, with my caveat that this is more a critique of the school of thought to which I think he belongs rather than a specific critique of Bell, I do have to begin with the commendation that, if he roots his thoughts in divine election, Bell is at least closer to orthodoxy in that regard than the more conservative "evangelicals" are. BUT...Bell (in my opinion) errs in that: 1. I suspect he still uses "evangelical" language of choice in framing his argument, just with a different spin, and 2. Universalism is ultimately rooted in speculation.
What do I mean by that? This: when we start making specific claims about who will, and won't, be saved (and I mean more specific than "those who believe" or "those who are in Christ" - basically, if I step outside of the margins of who scripture names), we start speculating. Speculation, while a beautiful thing sometimes, is not particularly helpful in constructing solid theology rooted in the Gospel. It requires stepping beyond the scriptures and making assumptions rooted as much in experience or sentiment as in anything else. The Bible does not clearly say is everyone will or will not be saved; it says that those who trust in Christ will be. Expanding the bubble to include everyone in that is, at the end of the day, speculative. It would be just as much speculation to say that Charles Manson is going to hell, because it requires making assumptions that aren't necessarily possible to back up from scripture.
So, in summary - conservative "evangelicals" (in my Lutheran opinion) botch the doctrine salvation in that they turn into a decision to be made rather than a gift freely given and received, and Bell goofs in that he steps off the end of the soteriological pier without necessarily knowing how deep the water is. Is there an alternative?
I think so. I think it comes in claiming what is both scripturally verifiable, resonant with personal faith experience, and then accepting our own limitations. What is scripturally verifiable: that salvation comes through Christ, that we don't contribute to our own salvation, that salvation is a gift freely given by God on account of Christ, that salvation is inclusive both of eternal life (in the conservative "evangelical" sense of it, albeit perhaps not quite how they, or maybe any of us, imagine it) and abundant life (salvific realization in the here-and-now through doing the work of the Kingdom by serving the neighbor and working for peace and justice), that we are to proclaim this Gospel. These are scriptural affirmations that we can all, hopefully, agree upon.
From there, what is resonant with personal faith: a deep, abiding, faith-filled trust in Christ as Savior, which enables me to grow in love for God and neighbor (in action as well as sentiment). We can trust, from our own sense of faith, that we are saved, and we can share that personal sense in a public manner - in the words of Miguel de la Torre, let's have PUBLIC relationships with Christ, not just personal ones. We're called to community, not self-satisfying isolation.
Our limitations: we're human. We don't know everything. Our ability to interpret the scriptures and know God's Will is undermined by our human nature, which leaves us unable to properly discern just what's being said and what's going on much of the time. If you doubt these, please check out the Church's track record of violence, sexism, anti-semitism, and support of slavery. I'd say that's evidence of our humanity on display. Since what we know is limited to what is loud and clear in the scriptural witness (as interpreted through the lens of Gospel), and what we know from deep personal experience, that is what we can proclaim. We can proclaim that we have been saved by grace through faith for Christ's sake apart from works, and share that with a hungry world...and, at the end of the day, acknowledge that God is the one who saves - NOT us - and that in proclaiming the Gospel both in our words and in our doing the Kingdom-work of promoting peace and justice, we live out that which we are asked to live out....and we leave the saving of people, and the question of what hell is, to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment