A Review of Bell’s Reviewers (Picking My Wedgie)

The latest Christian controversy surrounding pastor Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins,” demonstrates a scary reality among the Christian community. Here we have a book with no footnotes and only one text in the bibliography, which happens to be a work of fiction, and those within the Christian community that disagree with the message are, for lack of better terminology, “freaking out,” as if this book is the undoing of everything we stand for. How can such a “lightweight” book, as I have heard it called, cause so much drama?

Should we ignore simple reads as if they have no real means to influence? I am not saying that. Bell meant to write a simple and accessible book so that others would consider his position. Surely people can be influenced by simple reads; just look at the “Tao Te Ching,” the “Gita”, or “Your Best Life Now”. Whether this books warrants a reaction or not, I must say that the sort of reaction that seems so pervasive does not seem to work. Does not such uproar generate more interest? Although I believe Bell is genuine when he states that he was not attempting to cause a firestorm, I can bet that it has helped his bank account as well as helped to disseminate his message. Good job, protestors. I bought the book thanks to this publicity. Now I support the enemy; Bell can get a Big Mac meal on me now…What have I done!

Last time I wrote about the common reaction to the book, I had not read it. I have now, and I was right in my assumption: I agreed with Bell in many of his statements, and I disagreed with him in others. No big deal…I am sure that others sometime agree and at other times disagree with me as well. But, I will tell you this. I am not quite ready to tie him to a stake and burn him. All the man really says is that he hopes that everyone makes it to heaven. What is so wrong with that? While he suggests that he sees this as a great possibility, he never comes out and says it is for certain. So, sue him. Does his book downplay the important doctrine of Hell? Maybe. But then again, I find people of varying backgrounds to downplay doctrines I find important, even vital, all the time. Do I discredit all that they have ever said? I would not have much to read if that were the case, except for the things I write. That would be a bit repetitive…

Before I go much further in my critique of the responders to the book, I must say this. I am not trying to suggest that this book does not warrant a response, even a negative one. Most every book warrants a response, and if one disagrees, so be it. However, these public denouncements of Bell and his book are uncalled for. Do I think that this book is great reading for the seeker wanting to be grounded in biblical theology? Maybe not… But, there are many books written by fine Christians that I would say the same about. Heck, I have written things I would not recommend to certain people. As I said in my last blog on this topic, our response should not be to outright condemn the book. A better approach would be to highlight Bell’s concerns, and then offer an alternative solution. (Dr. Timothy Tennent has demonstrated this sort of model very well in his blog response to Bell: timothytennent.com)

What is my point? Well, I find this controversy to be revealing of our Christian culture, and church leaders’ view on said culture. Here we have a non-scholarly take on heaven and hell, in that it was written from a more pastoral and not academic stance, and Christian leaders are worried that their flocks might be led astray. Can such a simple book lead people in certain directions? Surely it can. Just look at all the persons who flock to the messages of Joel Osteen. What does this say about the foundation that we are giving our community of believers? Is it our job as the church to censor any threatening reads that come down the pipe? If so, we would be exhausted in our efforts. There would be no time to preach. Our primary problem is not misleading readings, but our response to such: *Gasp, “Don’t let them see this. It might ruin them.” Instead, we should ground our community in proper and rigorous theological training. This should not be reserved for the seminaries. This should be the Christian reality. If people knew right doctrine, then we leaders could rest easier knowing that they, having the same faith, mental capacity, and education as we, could see what we see, if we indeed find so many flaws in a text.

We should be less worried about Bell and more worried about ourselves. Why are young Christians leaving at an unprecedented rate: they have no theological backing to sustain them in light of defeaters, arguments against the faith. They fall apart because they are ill prepared. We should spend less time censoring books and more time training. We cannot hold everyone’s hand in his or her walk. We have to prepare through proper discipleship: “Teaching them EVERYTHING” Christ has taught us.

Wow…I feel better. I feel as if I just picked out a wedgie that has been bothering me all day. What a cathartic experience…

Where Have all the Miracles Gone?

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients who might have been mistaken about the reality of God? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

Scripture in Context of Ancient Near Eastern Religion

The Scriptures cannot be separated from the historical, religious, or cultural setting in which it was written. If it is, then an essential message is missed. A vital importance as to the purpose of Scripture goes unrevealed, and thinkers then hold a lower view of Scripture than is warranted. This is not to suggest that its context as it relates to space and time has no real bearing for those of another space and time, like the modern reader. On the contrary, Judeo-Christian theology is set apart in that it uses history as a vital vehicle to teach theology, and that is just the point. God uses real, unrepeatable history to teach us of His nature, and He begins His teaching on a great scale with Israel. Thus, to understand the Bible, we need to understand Israel and how they saw the world.

Just as a nation's history is of utmost importance to the future decisions of that community, so the Scripture is of utmost importance to the Christian community, giving us a trajectory and purpose. Without historical context, we might wrongly appropriate or miss portions of Scripture for our life today. Furthermore, and more important for this particular discussion, if the historical context is ignored, then one will never see the stark contrast and uniqueness of Scripture as compared to the various pagan religions of the day when Scripture was actually written, a contrast that is purposefully demonstrated by the Scripture. By coming to understand that much of what is said in Scripture, although applicable to the modern reader, was primarily important for the purpose of giving the ancient reader a set-apart  (holy)worldview from the entire rest of the world, we might come to understand how the Judeo-Christian faith differs from all other religions of old, and seeing this contrast demonstrates the importance of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

In modern times, with the applications of critical scholarship, which has many merits, many persons see the emergence of all world religions as coming from some common and basic human need to explain reality in order to have comfort or control. The main focal point of the conversation would be in discussing how Israelite religion, what we might call YHWHism (remembering that Judaism is a particular later development of the overall belief of all Hebrews, the religion shared by all twelve tribes, not just Judah), the beliefs shared in the OT canon, came from the same starting point that all Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) religions come from. It is a convoluted conversation, filled with many errors, but if the secular scholar concludes that Israelite religion had to have a different origin than its ANE contemporaries, then he or she has to face the reality of that origin. Instead, many secular, critical scholars begin with a priori idea that Hebrew faith had to come from the same humanistic concerns as all the other ANE religions.

In other words, all religion is just an expression of a shared, inner human desire to have purpose and guidance. In light of this claim, many have come to the conclusion that religion is a manmade device and is a hindrance to coming to know truth. In many of these persons’ minds, humanity needs to come to grips with our finitude and take responsibility in light of such truths. One of the biggest proponents of this worldview in more modern times is Simon De Beauvoir (1908-1986). In her book, The Ethic of Ambiguity, she contends that humans, as the highest life form, have a responsibility to develop an ethic that benefits life in general. We take God's place in deciding what is right and wrong. Others of the same mindset (that religion is a ploy for control/comfort and that human life has no purpose or value assigned by a creator ) differ from Beauvoir and the like and simply suggest that life came about by chance and has no real purpose and cannot be given any value by any means. Nihilism then becomes their lens to view the world. Either conclusion makes since in light of the assumption that all religions are essentially the same and that humans are alone in their intellect. One simply demonstrates a more optimistic view than that of the other. However, is it true that all religions are the same? And what would it mean if one foundational, ancient religion were different than all other ancient religions?

The earliest historical worldviews, other than those given in Scripture, revolved around the influence of paganism, and monotheism did not take hold (in any lasting sense) until the Israelite community was formed. Some might suggest that the only distinction between monotheism and the polytheism of the pagans was the number of gods. This is a very uneducated claim, and has little to do with reality. The idea of how many gods exists is intrinsically related to the worldview/philosophy of the religion. There do exist others, scholars at that, that suggest that Hebrew thought did emerge from ancient near Eastern (ANE) myth, but over time they developed their own thinking, paganism evolving into monotheism. To suggest such comes from that a priori philosophy that all religion emerged from the same origins, and this too has little to do with reality. To think that the Hebrews ever borrowed from others to create the basis of their culture is to misunderstand the Hebrew people. They have always distinguished themselves, and they account all their misfortunes to times when they have assimilated. There is almost no illusion to myth in Scripture, and when there is, it is contrasted with the transcendent thought of the Hebrews. Thus, the theory of myth as foundation for the Hebraic worldview has to contend, with little backing, that the Hebrews’ thoughts over time changed so drastically that they swiftly and completely ridded themselves of this mythical undergirding. In other words, what is being suggested is the wild theory that while the Hebrew sources for Scripture and earliest thoughts revolved around mythic thinking of the pagan world, the Hebrews eventually completely removed all this talk as they developed their own religious writings, the Old Testament. This is to say that they eventually removed their whole foundation. This fantastic view of the development of Hebraic thought is all based on a philosophy, and this is proven by the claim that, while there is no evidence anymore due to the radical stripping of all evidence by these Semites, the foundation used to be there, even if we cannot see it. Now that is faith, misplaced as it is.

The reality is that it is much easier to affirm Hebraic thought was radical and revolutionized thought from the outset, not that it began one way, but totally went against its foundations so that no record shows a strain of its old self. Monotheism did not just bring with a new idea of the number of the gods, but the idea of God as transcendent and the creator of nature, not nature itself. This idea was revolutionary for human thought. It was completely different than anything ever thought of before. Before talk of the uniqueness of Hebraic thought might be expressed, we must first speak of the worldview of pagan myth, a reality very often not understood by modern thinkers. It is truly foreign to our thought process, but it used to be all that existed, as far as broad sweeping worldviews are concerned. History is clear on this fact. This is not to say that God was not at work in the lives of humanity, but humanity before the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant had wondered very far away from God and had developed humanistic views of reality.

The Pagan world did not distinguish between subject and object. People were simply part of one great whole. Individuals interacted with the world and saw the world as an extension of everything else. The world, and the things in it where not just things for the ancients. They did not see things in nature as objects, but other individuals like themselves. The overwhelming reality for the ancients was a sense of continuity. While there was recognition of nature, humanity, and deity, there was not a distinction made between the three in the sense of separateness. They are all parts of one whole. The conclusions that are made from this sort of thinking lead to a wholly different worldview than that of the modern thinkers’. For example, since all things are essentially the same, human value is downplayed (this view of religion is still evident in Hinduism). For the vast majority of the ANE, with the one exception of the Hebrews, the reality was that everything is in the same realm and somewhat connected to the divine, pantheism. Therefore humans had some interaction and bearing on nature and the divine. This is why they created idols. If something looked the same or sounded the same, then it was the same. If the idol represented a god, and looked like that god, and the ANE pagan thought it did, then the idol bearer could manipulate the god by manipulating the idol. Incidentally, this is why one of the Ten Commandments suggests that humans are not to make idols. God is saying that such an idea is wrong. God cannot be controlled. For the pagan, this intellectual idea had a very practical function. If I am like the gods, and my reality reflects theirs’ and vice versa, then I have some control. If I do something here, then it is done in the heavens. This is the thought behind magic as a religious practice.

Two of the greatest distinctions for the ancient thinker were 1) their view, or lack thereof of history, and 2.) their idea of continuity. For the ancient pagan, the only reality that had any bearing upon the person was the present. There was no value given to human history. While there was a primeval history of the gods creating this realm, that had no bearing on reality in the present. While there are examples of "historic" writings in the ANE, the value of such writing was not as it is today. the ANE thinker did not view history as something to learn from, rather it is something to manipulate (just like the gods) in order to determine certain outcomes. Neither did the future have any value. Only what happened to “me” had any bearing on the self. Greeks did find social value in history, but not in any real transcendent sense, at least not as early as the Hebrews (Undoubtedly the Greeks eventually bring a high level of sophistication to this way of thinking). History did not pertain to the gods as a tool to teach humans. The Oriental world also recorded history, but found no eternal value in history because it always changed. The idea of God and history as intricately related was unique to the Hebrews.

Continuity, as previously explained, meant that there existed in the earliest history of the world no distinction in the minds of people between subject and object. There was only continuity, and this recognition was of utmost importance for the self. Others had no real value since they are just a small part of everything else. When God reveals Himself as other and distinct from the world, the Hebrews begin to understand themselves as distinct as well. For the first time, people were observing objects as other, and they contemplated how things worked. This is the most fundamental realization for modern science, and it was the Hebrews who first made this distinction. The Greeks later develop this thought from their own philosophy, but it is the Hebrew people who, as a whole, first note this as a reality. The majority of the people who upheld myth denied the early Greek philosophers their recognition. Only the Hebrew culture can claim that as a people they were the first to introduce the importance of history and subject-object distinction across their whole culture (as primitive as it might have been). And this reality is attributed to the event, some merely recognize it as a story, of YHWH’s revelation to Abraham, when God reveals that He is other. It did not take long before the Hebrews realized that if God was different from them, that they might be different from other things as well. In other words, they are not the same as the trees, the rocks, and other objects of nature.  The Hebrew Scripture stands alone in the ancient world as holding a subject-object distinction, which is the common view of the modern world that we take for granted. Without the contribution of Monotheism no one can be sure when a high regard for history and subject-object distinction would have entered the world.

Again, the Greek philosophers were the closest to the Hebrews in thought, but the Hebrew people still hold the genesis of many thoughts we take for granted today. No other ancient people other than the Hebrews thought of the idea that reality had a beginning. For the Greeks, the world was assumed eternal. Today most persons believe in creation ex nihilo, whether these persons are atheistic or believers. Moreover, the Greeks were trying to figure out who their gods were. The Hebrews knew their God and worked from there. Their God was the maker of all things, and He was not that which He made. If God made humanity, humans have worth, and if He is personal then He is part of history, and history is important (this is not to say He is subject to history, but He is a part). With all this in mind, we can explore our world, but we cannot manipulate fate. On so many fronts, the biblical worldview, first revealed to the Hebrews, stands alone as a way of thinking in the ANE. Thus, the Bible is not just one of many books written, but it stands alone as a whole other system of thinking altogether. Therefore, one is not warranted to toss out Christianity based on his or her view of religion as a whole.

Many scholars will point out that the myths of the pagans and the stories of the Bible have similarity, but they do not continue to speak to the differences. When the stories seem to have similar qualities, the thought that should come to mind is to see where they differ. For example, most ANE creation accounts, which do not really focus on creation at all, but the gods’ interactions and the accidental making of humanity, focus on gods creating reality from chaos and battle. When the Genesis account opens, God is not at war. There are no other gods over which he must establish Himself. He does not have to struggle to create, and He creates all that is, not just placing things into some order. Moreover, everything is purposeful. Man is not an accident, but the crown jewel of creation. Where else is this expressed in the ANE? On a superficial level, similarities can be seen, but the messages of each are completely different. The ANE, just like our world today, has shared vocabulary and constructs (such as literary genres). It is not that these documents share a common vocabulary of sorts or a common structure that we should take note. It is how they use these constructs to speak their thoughts, and, as shown above in this one example, Pagans and Hebrews thought very differently. They did not come from the same starting point. 

The Bible stands alone, and any self-respecting scholar should deal with it as such. This means that the Bible has a whole separate genesis than all other religions and that the Hebrew people, by some means, became the first people of recorded history to make the subject-object distinction, the distinction we base most of our value of truth (especially in the practice of science) today. Were the Hebrews just that much more in tune with reality and smarter than everyone else? That is a possibility. However, it is unlikely that these people that spent so much time in captivity, exile, and wandering would find the time to philosophize on their own. It is much more likely that someone revealed to them these truths, and since there were no ANE contemporaries in their world that held this belief and the Greeks only developing similar ideas later in history, there were no people capable to give the Hebrew people such a thought, a more plausible idea is that it came from elsewhere, and the Hebrews suggest that this elsewhere is the mouth of the divine, transcendent God. We have no better explanation, no matter how hard we try. It is probably prudent, then, to take them at their world.

For more on this topic: Oswalt, John: The Bible Among the Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2009).

Love Considers: A Blog About Job, Bell, and the Concerns of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

In recent weeks, there has been a firestorm of controversy surrounding the latest publication by pastor Rob Bell. Bell has recently felt led to write a book entitled, Love Wins. His critics have called Bell a “universalist” and the like and have condemned this work. My purposes for this particular blog post are not to explore the particulars to Bell’s theology. For curiosity’s sake, I will tell you this. I have not even read the book, but I suspect that there would be aspects of his writings that I would agree with and others I would not. In his last book, Velvet Elvis, I came to understand some of Bell’s views, and I find him to ask proper questions while giving less than proper solutions. Often times, he presents one side of the coin while only alluding to the other side, creating in others’ minds, those who come unwittingly to the reading, a theological provincialism.

For now, that is enough criticizing Bell. I want to use our reactions as a catalyst for another topic altogether. Before I begin, I do not suggest that everyone who has had something to criticize about Bell’s book has done so unfairly (For example, I find Dr. Timothy Tennet’s blog post to be very gracious.). I merely write this as a reminder, mainly for myself. However misplaced one finds another’s ideas to be, and I use Bell as an example, one should also consider the concerns of the other that led him or her to his or her “ill conceived” ideas. Sometimes it is a deep concern, even a painful concern, which leads to these thoughts. Some people, instead of being attacked, should be heard. They speak from pain or concern, and what is worse than being overrun during times of real concern. I really feel that Bell has a painful concern in that many Christians are too willing to be satisfied with a narrow doctrine of Hell, so much so that they would say, “Well, they [the damned] deserve what they get,” as if some of us do not deserve such. How does that demonstrate love? How is this Christian? Are we not to be a people that promote love and grace? Would we not rather err on the side of grace? Is universalism the answer? No. Does Rob Bell think so? Maybe, I have not read the book. Is his concern legitimate? Most certainly. Do I have an alternative answer at this point? Maybe, but that is not the purpose of this particular post.

We all know the story of Job. Here is a man who has lost everything, and, in the end, all he wants is to be heard, to even submit his grievances before the Almighty. And then comes his comforters. In light of Job’s devastation, they sit silent for seven days. But, then they open their mouths. They tell this man that it is his sins that led him to lose all. But, Job knows, according to the wisdom of his days, that he is innocent. His comforters have good motives, to clear the name of God. But, instead of listening to Job’s case, they just steamroll right over him, and there are many Job’s comforters that are out there today, too quick to speak (even after seven days of silence) and too stubborn to listen. If we are to offer a corrective, might we offer it in love and with consideration of the catalyst for the misplaced idea? Let us consider the pain and concerns of others. And that is pretty much all I want to say on the topic for now.

Bright blessings to you all

Rev. Tab M. Miller

The Spirit of Dialogue: How Should We Act In Light of Theological Differences?

In our interactions with others, whether they be Christian or otherwise, we need to set boundaries. With this in mind, I submit the following exercise of setting my own personal boundaries implicitly based in biblical foundations, as I prayerfully understand them, for others to glean what they will. We must keep in mind that the theological liberties (in an authorized, not inherent, sense) that are afforded us, specifically those that allow us to hold to our differences concerning the faith, are given, not as an inerrant right, but as an allowance of grace. The Lord is very aware of our inadequacies and, more to the point, our stubbornness.

Since it is not a right that we disagree, but an opportunity (for one or both sides to be incorrect without being subject to complete consequence) given to us as a concession for our deficiencies, we must not be content or complacent in our disagreement, for proper/right understanding is at stake (See note: The Importance of Right Doctrine). Instead, we should work diligently with each other through study, prayer, and healthy dialogue to try to bridge the gaps and to try to establish more faithful perceptions of truth that can be agreed upon if enough patience and explanation take place within healthy dialogue.

All involved must remember that if we are to truly consider ourselves brothers and sisters in the faith, then it is our duty, an obligation we owe to each other in the name of love, to treat each other as such. If we are children of God, adopted by grace through faith in Christ, then we all (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wesleyan-Arminians, to name a few) must be concerned for the well being of each other, wanting God to be exalted in proper understanding of His divine truth. We are not each other’s enemies. It is important that we keep an openness, realizing that each side potentially has something to offer.

Often times, our theological differences are a matter of semantic over-emphasis as a matter of protecting our own position. In other words, one might choose to use a term (e.g. prevenient grace for the Wesleyan and common grace for the Calvinist), simply because it leans toward one camp over another, but the same person might hold a very nuanced definition of the term that other's might never realize if they do not ask. Just as we should never pigeonhole a person based on their affiliation to a particular political movement (e.g. calling all who are concerned with social and/or environmental justice “liberals”), we should never assume we know all there is to know about a person’s beliefs because he or she considers himself or herself a Calvinist or Wesleyan (or anything else for that matter). Moreover, if time is taken to fully listen and attempt to understand others' positions, instead of wasting time coming up with a counter argument that might be gratuitous, missing all that the person is saying in the first place, then one might (in many, but certainly not all cases) come to realize that the other person’s views are not so different after all, and might not differ in the least, except for emphasis and terminology.

On the one hand, one should not presume to know the extent of another's theological understandings until that person has thoroughly exhausted all the resources that the person in question has provided. Keep in mind, there does come times when there is a need to argue for one's own side in light of another's statement, even when one has not read all that the person whose position is in question has provided. In those instances it is important to note that the position that one is arguing against is an assumed position, unless the person has provided concrete evidence on the particular topic, even if more is stated elsewhere. In other words, all theological dialogue (at least those conversations that do not include a heretical voice) should be participated in with a sense of humility by all those involved. However, because right understanding is at stake, this is not to say that dialogue should not be done passionately. It should. It should be done with a passion to discover truth.

On the other hand, as for the individual making the initial argument, it should be his or her duty in the first place to explain terms to the fullest extent that the individual is capable, especially for those terms that are central to the arguments. Remaining vague in order to maintain use of loopholes and to avoid entanglement is not respectful of the argument or the person one is trying to persuade. In fact, it might be deception. One should be willing to take his or her argument out its logical conclusion to test the strength of one’s case. To do anything less is to risk misleading others by an esoteric rant on tradition. This is not to suggest that one must be fully studied on any matter he or she wishes to discuss, only that they should have a humility in their words (even acknowledging gaps when they are apparent) if it is the case that there remains more to be gleaned, and is this not the case the majority of the time?

Often times, we hide behind the concession of grace that allows us to disagree, not wanting others to pop our theological bubble. We often agree to disagree before any discussion has ever happened, wanting to avoid all conflict. However, if one detects such a weakness in his or her own understanding, then the best thing for that person might be to learn from others, even those that do not align with his or her own tradition. This can be a painful process (I've been there), but through pain comes growth (I would rather betray tradition than betray/ignore truth).

Keep in mind to test the spirit of others who wish to dialogue with you concerning theology. Some are out there to cause dissension and not unity. Others are not spiritually mature enough to discuss disagreement without resorting to anger and/or ad hominem attacks. However, once you do decide to enter into dialogue, be sure to listen intently, not assuming you know precisely what the other is going to say before they say it, and always allow the other to have the chance to qualify any ambiguous statements.

As a final statement, I must recognize the fact that sometimes the only resolution will be to maintain disagreement. This is not the preferred outcome, but, at least until a later point in time when both/all companies involved have had a chance to reflect, some level of disagreement must be tolerated for the sake of brotherhood, and the greater good is being unified as the one body whose concern is not self promotion, but others, especially the lost, who benefit little from our internal bickering and much from our unified efforts. In other words, never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the greatest possible good. Sometimes, the perfect scenario is inhibited by influences outside our control, and, in those cases, we should not resort to an extreme in which those involved are stifled from any further dialogue or common work together.

Our Place as Participants in The Redemption Story

Note: While I usually reserve my longer theological writings for the ministry website, I felt led to place this article on my blog as well. I felt led to do so because the following expresses where my heart is now in Christian ministry. Also, further revision might be made in the near future, but I was anxious to share as soon as possible. I hope you enjoy.

"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." -The Apostle Paul, Philippians 2:12

For one to think that he or she as an individual is the end of the redemptive purposes of God, to think that the individual soul is that goal and beyond each of us there is no more concern so that we are not responsible in ourselves to move forward in the process of redemption (of self and others) is to think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of our privilege as believers. To put this a bit more simply, we should not assume that it is God's prerogative to set us free in salvation so that we might live in comfort knowing that we are "good to go," all the while living as we wish, wallowing in our sin. Salvation is the beginning to every Christian story, not the end. Once we accept Christ, we are not done; we are just starting.

If it were the case that God had no eschatological goal/s within human history, but only wished to set apart a people for future glory, the modern, Western equating of justification to salvation would be a much more viable option for coming to understand God's dealing with humanity's crisis of sin. In other words, if God had no particular will for the trajectory of human history, but only wanted to establish true relationship with each of us after death, then it would make sense that all He would need to do is forgive us of all our sins, past, present and future, and allow us to go on unchanged until death and glorification. This is not to say that this would necessarily be the case, only that it would make much more sense than it does in light of the way things really are. We are not in an intermission awaiting death.

The eschatological goals of God (the goals that bring this age to completion in harmony with God's will) are purely set on the redemption of all things. Moreover, all that is God's that pertains to this reality is called to join Him in this redemption process, and are we not part of this "all" as Christians? Are we not His to do with as He wishes? As we will further discuss in a moment, we are called as representatives, ambassadors, of our King to the world. Representatives must reflect the character of their king in order to demonstrate what they mean when they suggest that their king acts this or that way, especially if the king's ways are so totally foreign to the ways of the people the representatives are in dialogue with. And our King's way is certainly foreign to the world to which we present His message; is it not?

In light of this reality, Christian righteousness cannot merely be alien righteousness imputed by the blood of Christ through the forensic pardoning of justification. For to represent God is to be like God, and to be like Him, we must be transformed by Him. While it is certainly true that we are righteous simply for the fact that we are hidden in Him, this cannot lead us to believe this is all that God has in store for us in the redemption process. To be His representatives we must be changed to be made like Him. If it is our purpose in salvation to fulfill this call, then being made righteous has to be a part of that process so that others will take notice of what it is to be like God, and this is only done by the impartation of righteousness by the Spirit of God. In other words, this is not done by our own means; we are only being made in His likeness because Christ has afforded us the opportunity to be temples of the Spirit, where the Spirit has the chance to work in us in order to make us whole.

The majority Western worldview of redemption that has its roots in reformation thinking is inadequate when it suggests to the world that salvation is mostly concerned with justifying the sinner, as if we are an end within ourselves and have no real purpose once we are saved. At the time of the Reformation, it was the reformer's job, such as Martin Luther, to (in the words of Timothy Tennet) defend the doorway of faith. Justification is that work of God that introduces the believer into the faith. It is the entry into the faith. For so long, the church of that day had been preaching the idea that the church itself was the entry way to salvation, and the reformers were reminding the church that it is by Christ that we enter into the church. It is by grace through faith alone that we come to know Christ. This had been lost, and the reformers had to put all their efforts to reestablish this truth. This explains why Luther had such issue with the book of James, wishing to remove it from Scripture. To continue with Tennet's analogy, while Luther was in the doorway of faith, James was in the living room, teaching us, not how to become a Christian, but how to live as one.. In His faithful defense of the doorway that teaches us how to become a Christian, Luther began to ignore what lay in store for the believer. He sometimes ignored the fact of how we are to be a Christian once we are one.

Today, this reformational over-emphasis might not be explicitly expressed by the leaders of the Western church, but it is surely implicitly expressed when these teachers focus so heavily upon justification (what God does for us) with little to no mention of sanctification (what God does in us) when reflecting upon salvation, and what a danger it is to only tell partial truths. While justifying pardon is a crucial point within the order of salvation, we were not bought by the blood of Christ in order to be set free in a purely autonomous sense, even if only until death. In fact, humans cannot be purely autonomous. We must choose who we will serve. We will always be dependent upon the will of God (if we are to truly submit to Him). We were bought at a price for a purpose, to be God's, not our own.

It is not within God's eschatological, redemptive purposes to remove our responsibility and redemption from the realm of space and time, or space-time, however you wish to look at it. Instead, the story of redemption, which is His will, is unfolding around us, and hopefully, if we are submissive, through us. We are to be participants within the story. God has deemed it necessary that redemption break through in the here and now, and while sin, death, and the lost will remain with us, as the weeds remain with the wheat until harvest, we are called to over come sin in the here and now so that we might join hands with the Father as we serve His purpose in saving souls. Therefore, sanctification (actual change) is not an option, but a necessary part of salvation, if the saved is afforded the time here on earth to minister after justification (In other words, while we can be saved even moments before death, if we are given the grace to remain in the world, we must move forward).

Our call to be demonstrators of God's holiness in order to impact the world is given throughout the Scriptures, but for lack of space, I will give but a few examples. The first portion of Scripture that comes to mind explicitly demonstrates our playing a crucial role in the redemption story: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). It is certain that we are called to forgive the transgressions of others when they harm us, but, as my pastor, David Yarbrough, recently reminded us as his congregation, this is not what our Lord is specifically referring to at this juncture. Instead, Jesus says this very thing after telling His disciples to receive the Spirit of God. With the Spirit, we are called to spread the good news of God's forgiveness to the world. We are God's agents of redemption. While, as Pastor Yarbrough reminded us that Sunday morning, we cannot forgive others their sins ourselves, we, as temples, have the ability to bring the Spirit within us out into the world and the ability to proclaim God's forgiving power as the Spirit speaks through us. Thus, our call within the redemption story allows us the privilege to share with new believers, as well as brothers and sisters who have stumbled, that by the acceptance of Christ, their sins have been forgiven.

The next portions of Scripture demonstrates for us that it is not our call to merely proclaim the good news, but to live it out, to demonstrate for the world that our sins are really forgiven and that God has the power to deal with them within us as we live set-apart, holy lives. First, let us look at the OT foundation for this concept: "...the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when through you I display my holiness before their eyes...I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and [make you] be careful to observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:23b, 27). Up to this point the Lord is admonishing His people, Israel, for not being good representatives among the nations of the world. Instead, they have made God seem weak and have profaned His name because they had not been living holy lives. In order for us to be representatives, we must take on that Spirit, which allows us to "follow [His] statutes and [to] be careful to observe [His] ordinances." This is affirmed in the NT by Christ when He tells us through The Sermon on The Mount: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

For us to be part of the redemption story has been God's intent since the beginning. His eschatological purpose for His people to be a part of the redemption story has been revealed time and time again, and has always been God's purpose for His people, as demonstrated in His promise to Abraham, the blood father of the nation of Israel and the Spiritual father of all who call upon the name of the Lord: "...in you all the families of the world shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:3b). God has called us, His people, for a purpose. We do not sit in waiting. We are to join in His work, for He has called us to do so: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). He is with us to the end of the age, until His eschatological goal has been fulfilled He will be working through us for that goal.

In conclusion, I have often heard it said and wholeheartedly agree that Christianity is the only religion that concerns what God does for us instead of what we do for God/gods. However, we need to understand this in its fulness. While it is true that Christianity is largely about what God does for us, we must not allow that to make vague the truth that another aspect of the Christian life concerns what God does in us. Consequently, Christianity concerns what God does through us. For what would be the point of changing us in the here and now if this change was not to make any sort of outward, even social, impact. And this is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible to accept the equating of justification alone with salvation, if God had given no revelation of an eschatological goal in redemption. If I am not called to represent God, then it is not as important that I reflect His image. But, if I am, then it is of utmost importance, and we must dismiss any thought that would have us assume otherwise.

What We Lost and What is at Stake

To say of humanity that we are lost does not begin to bring about the sort of anguish that should be brought about in light of our fall and depravity. The real question is this: What are we lost from? For it is not just life that we lost, but a sort of life, a way of being that is hard if not difficult to grasp by the sinful heart, but, if only glimpsed at, will create a deep and devastating longing that can last a life time. That our God is a God that would will our happiness forever is a concept that has been lost on humanity and even some Christians. But that is why we were created, and that is exactly what we threw back into God’s face when our own selfishness led to a desire for what was not ours to take. The tree and its fruit represents more than mere disobedience; it represents a whole shift in being, a gaining of a perspective, the knowledge of good and evil, which was not really a gain at all, but a loss. This tree represents division between man and God. It represents a division within man himself, man who was created to desire God now, through disobedience, has taken on a new desire, a desire that leads to death, a desire for self. The tree represents the desire of self over God. But who is capable of lifting himself up? Strong as one may be, no one can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. We were made to be carried by God, but we chose the fruit of selfishness which created and revealed in man a division between good, outward focused reality and evil, inward focused reality. If the fall of man, demonstrated in the selfish act of choosing from the one tree that man was to ignore, created a division, a break in the human nature, what is the nature that we lost? We lost the nature of God, being made in His image, and this being demonstrated in the separation of man from God. And what is the nature of God, the image, which we lost? God is love. We lost love. To make our fall anything less than the loss of love is to downplay the sheer horror of what was truly given up by our transgression. This is not to say that God stopped loving us, but something even worse. While God continues to love, we chose to set up a barrier so that His love could not reach us and fulfill us as it once did. If God would have just given up, it might not sting so badly, but in His persistence we see the horrible reality of what sort of love we transgressed. We have tried various theologies to numb and downplay the issue. In anguish, some have suggested we really did not lose much. We are merely pawns in God’s game. We shift the blame or make it trivial. But, we must face reality. We threw love back in Love’s face. How retched? But, hear the good news. We are called to return. We all are called. While love was lost, while love was stripped from Love, Love never stopped searching for the objects of His desire. While we did not want to have anything to do with Love, Love never changed. He still desires us. In order to turn from the sin that we fell into, we must turn from the self, and this is done by the grace of Love. Our own broken nature calls us back to Love, but we cannot tear down the barrier we set in place. All we now have is a plea to Love. Thank Love that it is the nature of love to return to the lost, to even those who have betrayed Love for spite. There is no other motive of Love, but love. Try as we might to shift the story, we will eventually have to accept the truth that what we lost was God, what we have lost is Love. Love is at stake, not mere life, but life abundant with Love. What is at satke is God, the God of our fulfillment. He seeks us all in Love, for Love does not discriminate or show favoritism. Oh how lost we would be if Love was not loving. Praise Him.