Salvation in a Pluralistic World: "Lord, What About Him?"
One of my favorite bloggers and cyber-brother, Trevin Wax, has posted a summary review of a new book entitled Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. The book contains argument for four of the prevailing views on the question of "Who is saved," "Is Christianity the only and exclusive means of salvation," etc. There are hundreds of sub-questions contained within those questions, and the proponent of the four views seek to touch upon as many of the issues as feasible.
Trevin's review was brief but edifying. I guess my concern with the entire endeavor is twofold: one as pertaining to the theme of the book, and one concerning Trevin's closing remarks. Regarding the latter, Trevin and I are ordinarily of one mind, in form and format, on nearly 99.9% of the issues both he and I raise, and I feel compelled to point out that this issue does not in any way detract from the respect I have for him. If I had a theological question, Trevin is one of the handful of people in the world that I would trust with a response.
Having said that, my first concern is the subject matter of the book itself. Each of the contributors to the book, John Hick, Clark Pinnock, Alister McGrath, R. Douglass Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, strives to support their view of the inclusivism/pluralism debate eloquently and with ample scriptural/philosophical support. But the very question each is trying to answer is, well...how can I put this...indicative of a more serious spiritual problem than the potential answer may be illuminating (did that make sense?).
Let me put it like this. Look at the final narrative of the Gospel of John. The very last paragraph of the Gospel acts as an ancient autograph, a summary of what was written and a testimony as to the identity of the author. But the penultimate paragraph, the last story John leaves us with (and we must take seriously its rhetorical positioning in the Gospel as a whole), describes the following scene:
Do all ethical religions lead somehow and for some people to God? Is Gandhi in heaven? Will he be bodily raised in the new heavens and new earth?
What is that to you? Follow me!
Will all "good" people be saved, leaving to God what is meant by "good," irregardless of religious belief?
What is that to you? Follow me!
If salvation is in Christ alone, do we know the fate of those who have never heard the gospel?
What is that to you? Follow me!
Do you believe that Jesus is Lord? Have you pledged your allegiance to this Lord, promised and strive to forswear the legion of others who claim lordship over different facets of your life? Have you devoted your life to helping, by whatever method you can, to bring the kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, utilizing not only the message but the method of the cross? Do you believe that He is Risen, and as such a new age has been inaugurated? And do you hope for the culmination/completion of that new age by a fresh act of grace from God to come?
If so, are you still concerned with the question, "What about him?" What is that to you? Follow me?
Let me put it another way. Actually, let me allow John Wesley to put it, from a section of his writing devoted to another mysterious yet contentious theological issue: God's "foreknowledge."
In other words, heaven is not full of philosophers.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't find it useful to ponder, meditate, and converse about such issues. But I think the danger far outweighs the potential reward. And the danger is this. In asking such questions, what we are trying, in essence, to do, is to define God, and through that definition, to control Him. I think that was the point of Jesus' rebuke to Peter. I think that was the point of Yahweh's response to Moses when he asked for God's name. And when Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me," was He speaking to the world and all of human history, or, as the entire context of John 14 suggests, to this particular faith community, who would then carry the message out to the rest of the world? And when Jesus uses the word "me" in that context, in what sense is he using it? In the mainstream Christian sense, or perhaps in the sense of Josephus who, in the same cultural/historical/linguistic context, told a captured rebel leader: metanoesein kai pistos emoi genesesthai, or, “repent and believe in me.” Josephus was not claiming any divinity, but was simply saying "believe in what I believe, and live your life accordingly." Like N.T. Wright says, I think Jesus meant more than Josephus did, but he certainly didn't mean less.
And, finally, my qualm with Trevin's closing remarks:
This book does more than address the question of salvation in our pluralistic world. It leaves you with a firm understanding that the very identity of God himself is at stake in the debate.
The very identity of God himself?! Look, I know a little about posting, and when we get to the end of a long post after a long day, our best and brightest may not come out. Given another chance, I don't think Trevin would have gone that far. Because, and I know Trevin would agree with what I'm about to say, the identity of God is not at all at stake within the inclusivism/pluralism debate. As N.T. Wright would say:
“My proposal is not that we understand what the word ‘god’ means and manage somehow to fit Jesus into that. Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross--and that we take our courage in both hands and allow our meaning for the word ‘god’ to be recentered around that point.”
No one has even seen God; the only begotten son has revealed Him. And that is the case whether you are a normative pluralist, inclusivist, universalist, or however else you answer the question, "Lord, what about him?"
My proposal is that perhaps that is not a question in whose answer we should stake so much, and certainly not the very identity of God himself.
Or, in other words:
What is that to you? Follow me!
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Trevin's review was brief but edifying. I guess my concern with the entire endeavor is twofold: one as pertaining to the theme of the book, and one concerning Trevin's closing remarks. Regarding the latter, Trevin and I are ordinarily of one mind, in form and format, on nearly 99.9% of the issues both he and I raise, and I feel compelled to point out that this issue does not in any way detract from the respect I have for him. If I had a theological question, Trevin is one of the handful of people in the world that I would trust with a response.
Having said that, my first concern is the subject matter of the book itself. Each of the contributors to the book, John Hick, Clark Pinnock, Alister McGrath, R. Douglass Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, strives to support their view of the inclusivism/pluralism debate eloquently and with ample scriptural/philosophical support. But the very question each is trying to answer is, well...how can I put this...indicative of a more serious spiritual problem than the potential answer may be illuminating (did that make sense?).
Let me put it like this. Look at the final narrative of the Gospel of John. The very last paragraph of the Gospel acts as an ancient autograph, a summary of what was written and a testimony as to the identity of the author. But the penultimate paragraph, the last story John leaves us with (and we must take seriously its rhetorical positioning in the Gospel as a whole), describes the following scene:
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to
him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow
me!"
Do all ethical religions lead somehow and for some people to God? Is Gandhi in heaven? Will he be bodily raised in the new heavens and new earth?
What is that to you? Follow me!
Will all "good" people be saved, leaving to God what is meant by "good," irregardless of religious belief?
What is that to you? Follow me!
If salvation is in Christ alone, do we know the fate of those who have never heard the gospel?
What is that to you? Follow me!
Do you believe that Jesus is Lord? Have you pledged your allegiance to this Lord, promised and strive to forswear the legion of others who claim lordship over different facets of your life? Have you devoted your life to helping, by whatever method you can, to bring the kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, utilizing not only the message but the method of the cross? Do you believe that He is Risen, and as such a new age has been inaugurated? And do you hope for the culmination/completion of that new age by a fresh act of grace from God to come?
If so, are you still concerned with the question, "What about him?" What is that to you? Follow me?
Let me put it another way. Actually, let me allow John Wesley to put it, from a section of his writing devoted to another mysterious yet contentious theological issue: God's "foreknowledge."
Yet when [God] speaks to us, knowing whereof we are made, knowing the
scantiness of our understanding, he lets himself down to our capacity, and
speaks of himself after the manner of men. Thus, in condescension to our
weakness, he speaks of his own purpose, counsel, plan, foreknowledge. Not that
God has any need of of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand.
Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves!
It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing
the things in heaven or earth, and as predestining or fore-ordaining them. But
can we possibly imagine that that these expressions are to be taken literally?
To one who was so gross in his conceptions might he not say, "Thinkest thou I am
such as one as thyself?" Not so: As the heavens are higher than the earth, so
are my ways higher than thy ways. I know, decree, work in such a manner as it is
not possible for thee to conceive: But to give thee some faint, glimmering
knowledge of my ways, I use the language of men, and suit myself to thy
apprehensions in this thy infant state of existence...
Oh that men would praise the Lord for this his goodness; and that they
would be content with this plain account of it, and not endeavor to wade into
those mysteries which are too deep for angels to fathom"
In other words, heaven is not full of philosophers.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't find it useful to ponder, meditate, and converse about such issues. But I think the danger far outweighs the potential reward. And the danger is this. In asking such questions, what we are trying, in essence, to do, is to define God, and through that definition, to control Him. I think that was the point of Jesus' rebuke to Peter. I think that was the point of Yahweh's response to Moses when he asked for God's name. And when Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me," was He speaking to the world and all of human history, or, as the entire context of John 14 suggests, to this particular faith community, who would then carry the message out to the rest of the world? And when Jesus uses the word "me" in that context, in what sense is he using it? In the mainstream Christian sense, or perhaps in the sense of Josephus who, in the same cultural/historical/linguistic context, told a captured rebel leader: metanoesein kai pistos emoi genesesthai, or, “repent and believe in me.” Josephus was not claiming any divinity, but was simply saying "believe in what I believe, and live your life accordingly." Like N.T. Wright says, I think Jesus meant more than Josephus did, but he certainly didn't mean less.
And, finally, my qualm with Trevin's closing remarks:
This book does more than address the question of salvation in our pluralistic world. It leaves you with a firm understanding that the very identity of God himself is at stake in the debate.
The very identity of God himself?! Look, I know a little about posting, and when we get to the end of a long post after a long day, our best and brightest may not come out. Given another chance, I don't think Trevin would have gone that far. Because, and I know Trevin would agree with what I'm about to say, the identity of God is not at all at stake within the inclusivism/pluralism debate. As N.T. Wright would say:
“My proposal is not that we understand what the word ‘god’ means and manage somehow to fit Jesus into that. Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross--and that we take our courage in both hands and allow our meaning for the word ‘god’ to be recentered around that point.”
No one has even seen God; the only begotten son has revealed Him. And that is the case whether you are a normative pluralist, inclusivist, universalist, or however else you answer the question, "Lord, what about him?"
My proposal is that perhaps that is not a question in whose answer we should stake so much, and certainly not the very identity of God himself.
Or, in other words:
What is that to you? Follow me!
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
You make some good points here, Raffi. I stand by my closing remarks and plan on a follow up post to explain why.
Grace to you.