Curious Christian

Good thoughts. The bigger issue with someone like Rob Bell is that he’s, at worst, teaching and, at best, insinuating that our response to Christ in this temporal life doesn’t matter. If the love of God is going to draw everyone into God’s arms eventually (according to Bell), then Jesus isn’t really necessary. While I agree that Bell doesn’t grasp some of Jesus’ tougher teachings (I can’t say that I do either), he is in a position of leadership and is held to a different standard. I would agree that claiming his salvation is at risk is extreme, but I would also argue that he should not be in the position of leadership that he is in.

LikeLike

Calvin J. Koepke

Hmmmm…could post man. Well said, and to the point. And I think you’re right. Nice work.

LikeLike

Tim, ah yes, whether he should have the teaching authority he does, given his teaching is so unorthodox, is a different question. I’m inclined to agree that discipline / discipling is required. Important question is how should discipline / discipling be exercised in this fluid multimedia world of ours?

LikeLike

Andrew Park

Do you have to have the salvic formula “right” in uniform `mirror image theology’ with “all those in the real know”.
I also say, “Well. No!”
Trouble is that some (many?) fundamentalists think that anyone who differs with them slightly over any theological doctrine or belief “must be of the devil or deceived thereof”.
Personally, I know and enjoy the friendship of many universalist and liberal theology Christians and have often seen the love of Christ in them.
That’s the distinctive quality of a real Christian: Do they have the love of Christ in them? Not “Do they have the `correct’ theology ie. a theology which we agree with due to our own personal prejudices and biases?

LikeLike

I suppose the tricky thing is getting the balance right. Not over-emphasizing the importance of theology but not under-emphasizing it either. After all, isn’t this in a sense a theology about the limits of theology?

LikeLike

Andrew

I have a work colleague of mine with whom I have had many `faith conversations’. He believes Jesus is the Son of God and the true Messiah. He lives life as a Christian missionary, and loves others in the name of Christ. He is a man who applies the Sermon on the Mount very practically in his life toward God and others. He believes he is justified by faith and saved by grace. He is in life what I would call a good example of a `man of faith’, a man of peace, a man whose life is based upon and driven by the teachings of Jesus’ Gospel. He has consistently dealt with me and respected me as his brother in Christ. But guess what? He is a Jehovah’s Witness. Doesn’t believe in the Trinity because I guess he just doesn’t understand it and his traddition teaches against it. Well, just like my other friend who does believe in the Trinity, but doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth like I do, but who is just as passionate for Christian mission as many other Christians I know, I don’t take his dispute on that issue against him. Despite his issues with the Trinity, I do believe this JW man does have Christ’s Spirit in his heart and that he is my brother in Christ. While theology is important to how we live our faith, and what we share with others about it, I don’t think it is the final say in whether we are acceptable to Christ or not. ( perhaps I am on the verge of being a universalist, you think? Well I’m not, because I also believe in hell – whatever that is – and that people need to become saved by Christ from sin).

LikeLike

Lucy J

Just throwing this into the mix: At 12 years of age, Jesus confounded the religious leaders in the temple with his knowledge and authoritative approach to the Scriptures and interpretation. Already he was respected for his “theologizing”. Later in his mature adulthood, Jesus used knowledge of the Scriptures and his unique gift of making it applicable, relevant and salient, but was vilified by influential “theologians” of the day who were in “religious power positions”.
It appears to me that Jesus respected the “art” of theologizing since he used it wisely to reach and teach whomsoever was listening at the time. He encouraged his followers to treat each other and those in the broader community with respect and compassion, but to also stand up against oppressive politics through a life-affirming and life-giving life-style i.e. contrary to the inhumane practices of his day.
Perhaps we could approach theology in the same way… respect it’s worth, joyfully mine its myriad aspects deeply, but also, instead of gearing up for theological demarcation disputes, learn to live together more harmoniously with our fellow travellers on the journey of life… have a meal with some theological strangers and trust God to help us build Christ-inspired bridges of communication instead of constructing egotistical execution blocks.
I’m not trying to sound universalist. I’m just trying to be theologically and incarnationally humane.

LikeLike

I think there’s a place for critique (even mutual critique) providing we’re being constructive.
Some disagreements are over trivial issues, and where that’s the case we should all be prepared to let them slide. But some disagreements are over far more substantiative matters, and where that’s the case I think a firmer stance is required. Burying disagreements doesn’t lead to genuine reconciliation and restored intimacy (consider how this plays out with Aboriginal reconciliation). Dealing with disagreements openly and respectfully, with truth and love in equal measure, that’s what I think is needed if we’re genuinelly committed to one another as Christians.
I don’t think it’s universalist to suggest a Jehovah’s Witness could be saved, if the love and faith of Christ is indeed so evident in him. Where I think it becomes more universalist is where people are declaired saved, even when firmly rejecting the life and teachings of the saviour to the death. The universalist challenge is often framed in terms of “what of those who never knew” but this, in and of itself, does not differentiate them from inclusivists. I think the sharper challenge, the one that brings the deeper issues to the foreground is, “what of those who did know and still rejected.”

LikeLike

Lucy J

Granted, Matt, but I’d still rather have a meal with someone who differs on theologically substantiative matters than having them “make a meal of me” or vice versa. In my experience, reconciliation comes when disagreements are worked through in a truly respectful and hospitable manner… and as you have said, “with truth and love in equal measure”.
I also agree about the sharper challenge/deeper issue you raise… makes me wonder, though, how many chances does the rejector get?

LikeLike