Categories: book-review, christianity
Tags: Christianity
Date: 30 October 2005 18:17:58
I mentioned previously that I've just finished reading "What the Bible really teaches: A challenge for fundamentalists" by Keith Ward (Miffy has also just finished it coincidentally). It's given me tons and tons to think about. Apart from minor irritation at the title (though I suspect that might well have been ironic) it presented a number of issues commonly (or less so) taught by the Church (such as the coming of Christ in glory, salvation, sin and grace, the sacrifice of Jesus, heaven and hell amongst others), but often in a way that I'd not heard taught before but which made a lot of sense to me of things which previously had been a bit hazy (understatement). A couple of things stood out for me. One was his use of the principle of sublation (i.e. biblical teaching developing over time and so some teachings supercede others during the course of time. He defines it as "to negate and yet to fulfil at the same time".) It seems this would be really useful applying this to what I've previously considered as straightforward contradictions in the Bible.
The other thing was that there was, it seemed to me, a universalist assumption behind the book (i.e. that God desires all to come to know him and so will make that possible regardless of whether or not they have prayed the "Sinner's Prayer"). Now this is something that I've wanted to believe for a long time, but previous Church teaching that I've received (of the personal relationship with God/praying the sinner's prayer/Christianity the only way to God kind of thing) means that I sometimes find it a bit troubling. If everyone gets saved, what's the point of being a Christian? of evangelism? of seeking to know God more? if we'll all find out eventually anyway and will all live happily ever after. And yet. I've also been troubled by the tendency of some Christians to be certain of who is and who isn't a Christian, and therefore who is in and who is out (and I admit that this describes me in my early days). The Bible (I thought it was in 1 or 2 Peter, but can't find it on a quick skimming) talks about "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and at the end of John's gospel Jesus basically replies to Peter's question about what will happen to John by telling him to mind his own business. These suggest to me that I need to concentrate on my own walk with God, and leave other peoples' salvation to him - he can manage absolutely fine without my help! I've also over the last years become aware of a lot of people who don't necessarily profess Christian faith but who demonstrate God through their words, actions, lives, and I really do struggle with the thought that God could reveal himself through them and then consign them to an eternal fiery pit of torment. I guess what I'm saying is that I think God is much bigger than the boxes we make people tick, and I don't have any problem with the thought that more people will be "saved" than just those who believe a certain set of doctrines, but the leap from that to "absolutely everyone" is still quite daunting. I'm not sure if it's daunting because it's wrong, because I'm being held back by previous churchy baggage, or because I'm just being woolly and want to stop thinking complicated thoughts now because my head hurts. But anyway, it's food for thought that I'm enjoying almost as much as the pumpkin pie that's right now just been thrust into my hand (mmmmmmm), I think I'll have to reread the book again at some point and see if I raise my eyebrows less at it the second time round. It's interesting though that this is the first time that I've felt comfortable considering universalism as compatible with the Christianity of the Bible.
[Forgot to add: I think one of the things I like about the idea universalism is that it gets away from the dualism inherent in a lot of traditional teaching - saved/unsaved sort of thing - and moves evangelism/witnessing away from the high-pressure "if you don't believe this you're damned". I think what I mean is that if you see the opposite to being a Christian as being condemned to Hell and it's only one or the other choice, then that is a huge responsibility and burden for the Christian and clearly one that then forces you to *do* more and focus on numbers. Whereas if it's more subtle than that - being a believer/follower of Christ in this life is the most fulfilling way to live but isn't the only criteria for salvation - it frees the believer to live their life and witness to the goodness of Christ without the "bums on seats" pressure which more often than not is counter-productive. I don't know. Maybe I'm a hopeless heretic. Maybe I'm deluded. But my earlier framework for understanding the world, as filtered through the lens of charismatic evangelicalism, no longer makes enough sense to me of the world around me. This, for me, seems intellectually to make more sense of the contradictions and of what I see in the world from where I'm at right now. I don't believe any less or love God any less (the reverse actually), and I would still want (and for me think it's vital) to explore faith within the Christian church rather than outside it. But these questions are resonating more than the previous certainties, which is why I'm exploring them]