David Hopkins, editor of Next-Wave, suggests that the church ought to stop trying to ‘save’ people. Or at least, he argues that the sort of ‘personal salvation’ on offer in the church today simply doesn’t work in a postmodern climate. It doesn’t make sense to people. What people are looking for is ‘to have a sense of wonder restored’. You can read what he has to say here.
This has got to be worth thinking about. We have assumed for a long time that Christianity is a religion of salvation: you start off being lost, you welcome Jesus into your heart, you get saved, and you go to heaven rather than to hell. If that simple narrative is defunct, what do we replace it with? What do we do with all those metaphors? What is the narrow path that leads to life? What does it mean to move from darkness into light? What sort of condemnation or judgment should people fear? What does it mean to be saved? Can we still go out with the gospel and honestly claim that we are offering people the same deal that the first disciples offered to the world? Do we think anyone really wants it?
What does it mean to be saved?
I think that there may be a problem with the question. Salvation is what it is. The “definition” of salvation does not change with the times. Just because we live in a postmodern context does not mean that man is lost in sin and in need to eternal life as found in Christ. To be saved means that God, in His mercy and grace, has taken us from a place of condemnation in sin and put us in a position of relationship to Him as Abba.
The question should be “what does it mean to communicate salvation”? And I’m not just talking about the much-overused cliche “the methods change but the message stays the same!”
The idea of “conversion” is not what is at stake here. What the Church needs to re-learn is what salvation is all about post-conversion. NOW THAT I’M SAVED, what does it mean to be saved? (And I have a sneaking suspicion that this was your question all along. Sorry if I misunderstood.) Does it just mean that I’m going to heaven when I die? Does it just mean that I can overcome sin and temptation? Or this there more to it than that?
I love the idea of “a sense of wonder restored.” If there is anything missing from the Church’s understanding of salvation it is this sense of wonder and amazement at God, salvation, the Christian community, etc, etc, etc. Many church’s do, in fact, have all of the trappings of “wonder” in their worship services, but it is difficult to find many individual believers who practice this sense of wonder from day to day in the midst of their frustratingly ordinary lives.
This has got to be restored to the concept of salvation - living a life of constant, real-life amazement in God’s presence. That is so much more than going to heaven when this life is over.
I know that answer doesn’t address all of the questions that you pose in your post, but it is my initial reaction to your comments. I have a few more thoughts to share, but I will wait until later so that I can make sure they are clear in mind before I try to communicate them.
I'm beginning to like this em
I’m beginning to like this emphasis on wonder more and more. I’m in the process of putting some articles on the site from a colloquium on transcendence that I attended in Oxford. The discussions opened my eyes to a dimension that has been missing from our spirituality.
The problem I have with saying that ‘salvation is what it is’, is that it is not clear how we have arrived at our understanding of ‘what it is’. I agree with the general statement about the transfer from condemnation to a relationship with God as Abba - but even that is not a theologically neutral or culturally indeterminate statement. The distinction between the essence of an idea and how we communicate that idea is a difficult one to sustain. Postmodernism has alerted us to the power of language to misrepresent and manipulate. It does seem worth going back and rethinking (not merely restating) even these fundamental issues.
If you’re prepared to put some thought into this, why not write it up as an article?
Quoted: "Postmodernism has al
Quoted: “Postmodernism has alerted us to the power of language to misrepresent and manipulate. It does seem worth going back and rethinking (not merely restating) even these fundamental issues. “
Wow. I think you’re exactly right. Language CAN be manipulative. It CAN prove to misrepresent important ideas and conepts. Manipulation is more a problem of the motive or intent of the communicator, and that cannot be fixed by “rethinking” the issues. But misrepresentation is more often than not a problem with the understanding of the communicator. And I think you are right on target when you say that we need a “rethinking (not merely restating) or these fundamental issues.”
Misrepresentation happens most often, in my experience, with oversimplification. For instance, in my first post I reduced the meaning of salvation to a single, terse sentence. My motives were not wrong in this, but I did commit an error in by simplifying an idea that is more complex than we know. Brennan Manning provided some wonderful imagery when he said that, “We could more easily contain Niagra Falls in a tea cup” than to understand salvation.
And yet, Christ’s Church has been given the responsibilty to present salvation to all of creation. This is tough. It is an awe-full responsibility. So, your question seems all the more appropriate.
“What does it mean to be saved?”
Somehow the message of salvation needs to be understood in a such a way that its meaning transcends culture, language, border, race, and ever personal experience. At the same time, though, salvation MUST be applicable to culture and experience. The struggle for the Church has always been to understand God and salvation in terms of both absolute transcendence and intimate immanence.
So, what does it mean to be saved? Well, I’m not sure yet (if I’m trying to rethink it, that is), but I’m sure that it must be understood as both cosmic and intensely personal.
I think that "saved" is a pos
I think that “saved” is a position. We human beings must be placed in that position. I define that position as being “in right standing with God”. What do I mean by that? Simply that God accepts those “saved” as being acceptable to dwell with Him as family forever. I like the way Eugene Peterson paraphrases it in Titus 3:2-7, “It wasn’t so long ago that we ourselves were stupid and stubborn, dupes of sin, ordered every which way by our glands, going around with a chip on our shoulder, hated and hating back. But when God, our kind and loving Saviour God, stepped in, He saved us from all that. It was all His doing, we had nothing to do with it. He gave us a good bath, and we came out of it new people, washed inside and out by the Holy Spirit. Our Saviour Jesus poured out new life so generously. God’s gift has restored our relationship with him and given us back our lives. And there’s more life to come -an eternity of life!. You can count on this.” Is the question “how”? What part do we play in it? What part do we play in communicating it? How do we help others find it? Are we responsable for helping others find it? When my wife told me about Jesus and his desire to have a relationship with me over 25 years ago I sensed such a strong compulsion with in me to respond that I did. Why did God require that step of faith (my crying out to Him to save me) from me? I don’t know. Does He require it of all. Perhaps not in the same way or cirumstances, but somehow He asks faith in Him of us all.
Saved + Destroyed vs Saved + Aware
Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The question is not how it turns out for you, and all the KofG within you, for “the end” is written already: “Grace (is) with you => all”; And for clarity the grace of “our” Lord: “Jesus Christ” (not Christ Jesus). Such “pure religion” (our Lord and Saviour: Jesus Christ) sent by God our Saviour notably arrived “undefiled” and also remained “unspotted”, the “visit” thereof to those “afflicted” (with a bad case of grace + law = life + death) notably a round trip: “that Jesus Christ is come” (“come” denotes that J => C paid a “visit”).
And if His Grace (Grace being the blessed and only Potentate, which is intended purpose of the “shew”) is with you (all within you), who can be against you? Obviously “many” can be, and are playing such a “contrary part” (Titus 2) in the shew, shewdown thereof having two parts: “their part” vs “your part”, as noted for us in 1Peter 4:14. Yet even though they sayers be “many”, and we who find grace at the throne of grace in time to help (via the narrow way) be “few”, God given victory is unto “us” of them vs us, and it’s notably “through” Jesus => Christ: “the end of the law” (the end of law imputed sin and death). So, when law imputed sin ceases, then sin and death vanish.
The question is not how does it turn out, not if the end is written. Rather the question is how well do “you” play “y(our)” part (which begins with “you”, ends with “our”, denoting whatever applies to “you” applies to “all” the KofG within “you”).
God our Saviour, who sent Jesus Christ our Saviour, did NOT send JC to condemn(law) the world: John 3:17(2Corinthians 3:7); No, not this. Rather that: the world might be saved, and notably “through” him, which speaks of the world going “through” (in one side and out the other) of J => C; going from Jesus: “born under the law” to Christ: “the end of the law (end of law imputed sin & death to all). For when no law, no sin imputed; and if no sin imputed, no dead end.
But for clarity “the end is not yet”; Not yet if there is still any law (sin and death) consciousness unpurged. For “the end” we’re told to endure unto to be saved only (rather than saved + destroyed after) notably has no mention at all of any such law (sin and death).
God our Saviour will notably have two things of all men: (i) all men saved (deliverd) “and” (ii) all men aware of what they’re saved (delivered) from: law (sin and death, dead end thereof a deadly sting of law, the source and strength of sin (Romans 5:13; 1Cor 15;56), the source of “old” age whereby all perish, the source of infirmities (Heb 7), sin consciousness witch brings forth death to you => all, as a “sting”… unless the conscience is purged of law (sin & death).
So, what follows being ransomed is purging, purity of maturity, to the point of charity never faileth; Charity being pure grace (grace void of law), which is mercy full (mercy void of sacrifice), which is peace full. Such is perfect love(God), and against such Spirit-u-all fruit “there is no law”. Selah.
Which things (two sons = two covenants) are an “allegory”: Galatians 4:24. And the allegoric script-u-are, of plural and contrary scriptures, written aforetime for our learning? Cast the bondwoman (this Agar = Mt Sinai = the law) and her son (the result of the law: sin and death, dead end thereof to all if any go there, to law, and fail to keep all the law all the time, a mission impossible, a schoolmaster that fails every student, to bring us to C: end of law).
Our Father, deliver(save) us from “evil” - Matthew 6:13 (Lk 11:4) We are delivered(saved) from the “law” - Romans 7:6 Thereby, connecting our biblical dots, we know law = evil.
What else do we know by connecting our biblical dots? Whatsoever is not of faith is sin: Romans 14:23 The law is not of faith: Galatians 3:11 Thereby we know law = sin.
And sin, when it is finished, brings forth death… a dead end God, who cannot lie nor die, will not have, not then, not now, not ever.
Therefore His Grace does not compromise with law, rather abolishes it to the point of blotting it out, to the point law: sin & death vanishes. What is “ready to vanish”: Heb 8 “shall vanish”: 1Cor 13. How? Every mouth spouting law, thereby imputing sin and death, must be stopped, lest the unthinkable happens: a latter end worse, perhaps sevenfold worse if seven other spirits more wicked come into play, play their part: seven vials of (law worketh) wrath poured out on all earth dwellers. Not on my watch!
The “grace” of our Lord: “Jesus Christ” with you all. Amen.
Daniel Miles www.godshew.org
What is wonder?
:) Well, I’m new here to the forum…and this is a great place to weigh in as I find this particular topic of great interest to me.
Salvation as the “restoration of wonder”…it’s very appealing emotionally, but then what is “wonder”?
Is it a wonder that is substantially different than my wonder at discussions of black holes and quantum physics, etc.? If not, then why worship the God who saves…? Why care about what that God says, does, etc.?
I think that if God is our ultimate concern, then the concept of wonder must be fleshed out… a wonder that is compelling and totalizing in its scope.
I don’t know if all that is just babble…but would love to hear some thoughts…
Also...
Also,
Salvation as a matter of location…not as being “saved from”, but as “saved TO” something.
could Saved=Moved?
Moved from one place, locale, state of being to another?
How do we articulate that location change, if the concept of location change is the verbal marker we want to use.
Welcome to OST, TheologyOnTap!
I tried to take the idea of wonder a bit further in a separate thread. I don’t know if that was at all suggestive. It might also be worth exploring the salvation as position argument in another thread - I think it might be quite fruitful.
But on the sense of wonder theme…
The astronomical analogy is interesting. Wonder at the mysteries of the cosmos can take many forms, running from the simple wonder of the layperson who has picked up a few facts about the universe, who lies on her back in a field and imagines herself glued to a rock in the cold vastness of space, through to the much more complex, engaged, analytical wonder of the astrophysicist, who still has barely scratched the surface of cosmic truth; and there is also the wonder that expresses itself through non-scientific stories: the man in the moon, the stars are angels or gods, the planets control our destiny, and so on.
Is the sense of wonder the same in all these instances? At what point does a false or naïve sense of wonder become something more knowledgeable, authentic? Is the wonder of the scientist more or less true and compelling than the wonder of the poet or artist or visionary? Is the artist more committed than the scientist?
I’m not quite sure where these questions lead us. But I’m interested in the wonder expressed by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan.2:46-47; 3:28; 4:2-3, 34-37). He did not belong to the covenant people, he did not have the law, he was religiously and psychologically confused in the extreme, and yet he could still marvel at the glory of the God that Daniel and his friends worshipped. Was he in any sense ‘saved’?
Nebuchadnezzer was saved?
In a sense….I say cautiously….but yes…
I remember hearing a speaker that upended my understanding of salvation.
He talked about how anytime one encounters a new understanding, reality, etc. that radically changes YOU, then in essence you have been “saved”….
He was speaking at a conference and when the worship music was finished he got up and said, Wow, that was a great time with God in worship….I just got saved…
Later on after hearing another speaker speak things into the life to the attendees, things that must have resonated and changed him…given him an “AHA” moment…
He got up and said…”aftering hearing this guy speak…I just got saved!”
He started to break down salvation as some forensic distinction between “justification” and “sanctification”…
I don’t know…
what do you thinK?
So I guess to me...
I’ve increasingly come to a place of saying…
Salvation is not just “the prayer and be done”…
But I was saved as I prayed in the car with my parents as a child, I was saved when a speaker spoke relevant truth to me, present truth, that challenged me AND changed me. I was saved when I had an AHA moment on the toilet the other day….
I was saved, I’m being saved, I will be saved….
hmmmm…..
I can live with that…today… ;)
Can you? :)
i'm saved from...to...
hi theologyontap,
i cannot really understand the traditional salvation narratives : "well, you accept that jesus died because of your sins, and then he frees you from them, and you go to heaven" being a trite example. because, sure, in the FUTURE god will sort everything out, and right all wrongs and create new heaven and a new earth, and we shall be given second life, but what about NOW ? i go right back to the start of the good news of mark where jesus kicks off his tour :-
mark 1:15:
the good news is… ? that god frees us from the bad stuff, and mark backs this up with healing stories. and this is NOW. CURRENT.
it’s got very little to do with heaven, with our final home. we have to leave god to deal with that, we have to trust him, we have to let him be god and manage that, it’s his call.
saint paul has to be credited with expounding/expanding on this central idea of life change (see romans 8).
for me, to be saved is to be saved from the wheel of doing the wrong thing, and freed to do the good things god has lined up for me to do (ephesians 2:10)
how profound is this exactly ? how spiritual ? not very. jesus says at the end of john 3, past the bit that people quote all the time
john 3:20,21:
we get our focus right, on god and integrity of living, and then he gives us success in our endeavours to do good things.
james 2:14 makes clear for me that salvation is dependent on my day-to-day life decisions and actions :-
god helps me be good and achieve good results, but i have to WANT it, and PURSUE it. and in the process, he transforms me.
people will accuse me of holding to a "social gospel" i suppose, but it’s what i understand when i read the bible, so since the bible itself explains that it can teach me about what god wants, and since jesus promised the holy spirit to guide/convict, i can’t be TOO far wrong, can i ?
one love,
jo.
Fable of Being Saved
Another Eph. 2:10 person! Yay!
But I’ve come to take it a step further: not only view “being saved” as a process but a faith-dependent process. That is to say, if true faith must express itself in action, and if salvation is the fruit of faith, then salvation is dependent on action—it is meant to be continually striven for like a runner strives for the prize.
The verse suggests to me that there is a purpose for which God graciously offers salvation, specifically to act as a holy betterment agent in this world (“good works” is opposed to ritual observances in Sermon on the Mount, among other places, so it doesn’t mean “pious!”). What happens if we fail to meet God’s purpose at all? The examples of our historic predecessors (Mat. 5:13) and the fellow who completely neglected his gift (Mat. 25:30) are not the least bit promising.
I’ve also come to this understanding because the verb tenses used to describe salvation are all over the place: “you have been saved,” “you will be saved,” “we are being saved.” Moreover, several books of the New Testament were written for the primary purpose of encouraging disciples to meet their salvific purpose. They contain some of the most harrowing warnings in the Bible.
“Faith without works is dead.” James
“The immoral person shall not enter heaven.” 1Cor. (“immoral person” evokes the sense of repeated unregretted action.)
“…all were baptized …and all drank …from a spiritual rock …and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless …they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us…” 1Cor
“For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it …if it yields thorns and thistles, …it ends up being burned.” Heb.
I think it’s possible that the NT contains differing perspectives on salvation. I’ve constructed the following allegory to attempt to illustrate:
During the floods of 1989, a man was reluctant to leave his newly purchased farmhouse. Ignoring the call to evacuate, he instead filled bags from a sand pile on his lot as the water started to rise around his property.
Now this man had an odd quirk – he was unable to resist pouring over himself whatever water was at hand. He had learned to live with this compulsion by always wearing a waterproof jacket, by having drinks only out-of-doors, and by using a latrine rather than a proper toilet. Hence, as he slaved on his retaining wall, he would constantly reach over and scoop up some river, until his yard became slick with mud.
Soon it became evident that the river would overtake his lone efforts. He remembered a beat up old dinghy that the previous owner had left behind in the shed. Inspecting it, he thought, “It doesn’t look like much, but I think it’s my only shot at surviving!” No sooner had he launched himself from the high side of his sandbag barricade than the river came crashing through the other side, inundating the whole property to a depth of several feet.
Though the man felt a pang as his house was swallowed up, he eyed the distant shore with hope. “I am saved!” he cried, as he dropped his oars to splash himself with both hands…
Yes, I think we should probab
Yes, I think we should probably take much more seriously the this-worldly aspect of salvation. Nebuchadnezzar goes from overweening pride (4:30) through a process of extreme abasement and humiliation (judgment?) to the point where he praises God and is restored to power (34-37). The word ‘saved’ is not used but it looks very much like it. So what is his status? He is not a member of the covenant people. Is he unique because he is a king (cf. 5:18-21)?
The Status of NEB. (abbreviat
The Status of NEB. (abbreviated version of the guy’s name)
I think that his status is part of an ongoing thread and pattern we see throughout scriptures..
We see Melchizidek, converted Egyptians in the Exodus, Rahab, Naaman, the Syrophoenician woman, NEB. ;), We see many Samaritans enter the kingdom after encountering Jesus…then POST Jesus…the gospel is given to the Gentiles…
It highlights how God seems to be in a habit of overturning and undermining our tendency to dissect God and make empirical claims about Him Doctrinally…
If this is the case…then it leaves us asking some pretty intense questions about our current views of Salvation as they presently stand…
Pluralistic, Inclusivistic, Exclusivistic….
We can formulate a NEW language about Salvation…but should we not be clear as to the present(“old”) language and what we do or do not accept there?
hmmmm….? makes me wonder…
would love to hear your thoughts…
btw, have a great Holiday Season… I wish we celebrated Boxing Day here in the USA. :)
hello,
hello,
as with most things in my life, I came across this site/forum in a very loopy and roundabout way: while researching the notion/possibility of “post-postmodernism” on the web, I ran across a few Christianity-related sites, which is somewhat ironic since I am something of a pomo Christian who, after searching through the conventional “organized church” top to bottom, for about a decade (LONG story), finally decided to follow the advice of many of my closest kindred spirits and soulmates and return to the tried and true practice of “following my heart” through the tangled web of the world. Anyway, I stumbled onto this forum and found the few topics discussed here to be interesting and provocative. i’m very much a theological rebel/visionary/eclectic, and I’ve found my “calling” over the years to be in building bridges of communication and connectivity between some of the pretty diverse communities representing the huge range of things I’m interested in. anyway, hello, its nice to have found this little enclave :)
the issue of language in regards to “salvation” is extremely interesting. I always think of this quote I encountered a few years ago while I was living at an Eastern Orthodox monastery out west, from the 19th century russian monk Theophan the Recluse: “Words are mere implements of this world, but silence is the Mystery of the Future Age.” And another one, from a friend of mine, John Zerzan, who is a critical theorist, anarchist, and philosopher of the “primitivist” school of thought: “Words bespeak a sadness; they are used to soak up the emptiness of unbridled time. We have all had that desire to go further, deeper than words, the feeling of wanting only to be done with all the talk, knowing that being allowed to live coherently erases the need to formulate coherence.”
Anymore, I keep coming back to the realization that all I can really do is speak from my personal experience, and must state it as such at the outset. “This is how things have been for me”, but obviously I am only one person out of over 6 billion, my realizations and thoughts and etc. can in no way be binding on anyone but myself. The subjective-objective “dilemma” is another conversation in itself, so I won’t really open it up here, but I’ll just say that in my spiritual life, after hashing through some pretty frustrating theological issues and conundrums, I came to the point where I had to choose to sacrifice my own sense of “certainty” about salvation and pretty much about the entire realm of soteriology in general, in order to preserve a subjective sense of the inherent validity of my own experience. My experience of God and Eternity, of the love of Christ for the entire Universe, and the logical necessity and intuitive inevitability of the ultimate reconciliation of ALL of it, flew so far in the face of “orthodox” conventional Christian theology that i had to give up the “certainty of salvation” that I clung to to fervently when I first “got saved”. The more I see, the less I can coherently say about anything, about “where God is” and “where God isn’t” for example, and looking back at the whole course of my life, the point in the stream at which I “got saved” was in the longer view purely incidental at best, in no way central to the Neverending Journey I’ve always found myself on. it strikes me as kind of funny how the more central salvation becomes (of ourselves, of our friends, of the world, of everything), and the more I internalize the Golden Rule in terms of my approach to life, the less words I can find to even approach the subject. Evangelism becomes purely an endeavor of Love, and I find that combatting ideas which foster hatred, intolerance and division and hinder free and open communication, ends up being far a more important endeavor to me than trying to corner people into some verbal agreement with a formulized program based on a few verses in the book of Romans. And it has worked for me, I outgrew my “crazy convert” phase years ago even though I can still relate firsthand to the mindset behind that “new christian zeal”, and thus be tolerant of it when I encounter it (uisually in the form of someone who just “got saved” last week trying to convince me that I’m going to hell because I’m “not really saved” or some such thing. And what do I know, for all I really *know* about myself (owing to my uncertainty which was the price I paid for the depth I sought to embrace) the kid who’s screaming in my face calling me a hellbound sinner is absolutely right, and so that anxiety and uncertainty too, I embrace, and I dive in deeper and abandon myself more utterly to the Power which holds every atom of my body and of the entire universe together, and I end up discovering (subjective realization here, I’m in no way trying to state a “truth” or anything) that even in the deepest of Hells, there also I find the Light of Christ, waiting to be embraced by any and all who would see it and take it into their hearts.
On the flipside, I’ve found some of the most “righteous” places to at the same time be the most corpse-filled. So… who knows? All I know is that I don’t, I just… take it all one day at a time, I guess.
but yeah, I would wager that an *ultimate* language about salvation is impossible, in that an ultimate language about anything is probably impossible. The further we go into the realm of the visceral, the nonverbal, and the ineffable, the more fluid language and meaning become. I personally believe that human consciousness is evolving in ever-deeper and ever-higher ways, that this can be both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ depending on how it is implemented, and that the goal for any of us is to stay on top of it and even get to the point where we can pioneer the direction of this consciousness (r)evolution, rather than merely be carried along with it like the mass of people generally are. Christianity has been notoriously bad about resisting change and self-evolution, and then when the mass culture takes a certain change of direction, the evangelical church is always right there ready to turn out a parroted simulacrum or facsimile version of the “secular” whatever-it-is. This has always bothered me, but I’ve never felt that it “had to be that way” for any reason. But reinventing something as large as Christianity is no small task, and reinventing it NOT according to the latest trend in mass-culture but rather in a genuinely forward-looking and futuristic and loving/benevolent/conscientious direction, is an even more daunting task. i feel that it’s possible though, if I didn’t I would have rejected any and all things Christian a long time ago. the fact that I’m “still here” after giving myself an incredibly-extensive self-education, for me anyway, says a lot.
yes!!
exactly… when subjective experience becomes primary (as I believe it needs to be, lest Christianity die out clinging in rabid fear to things like fundamentalism in increasingly-more-futile attempts to preserve “absolute truth” in the face of a world that IS extremely diverse and pluralistic, like it or not), then… boundaries start coming apart. Where does “salvation” begin and end? Who can say?
There is some relevant physics that connects with all this as well, having to do with the non-existence of “Time” as we commonly think of it, and considerations and implications of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, etc. But in the words of someone we could all probably accept as a brilliant thinker, CS Lewis, “This moment contains ALL moments” (from The Pilgrims Regress). Every point, every event, every configuration of elements in an infinite-dimensional timespace (our brains merely filter out excess information so we *experience* all this as 3-d and linear-time-constrained!), is always happenning… in a very real way we are ALWAYS “getting saved”, not only in terms of “saying the prayer” but also in every other way we can imagine, in the same way that we are forever being born and forever dying and etc…. we are immersed in eternity even now, our brain (the ‘reducing-valve of consciousness’, as Huxley described it) merely limits us to experiencing the degree we are prepared to handle at any given time and place…
I believe that insofar as consciousness and thinking and information-speed has passed out of the analog age, is well-immersed in the digital, and is fast on its way toward the quantum and by extension multiversal… I think the ONLY task for forward-looking Christians of this century is the task of reinventing and reformulating ALL of theology (and everything else relating to the Christian faith) in quantum terms and in a multiversal context. Insofar as that is how more and more people in the world already *are* thinking, for the church(es) to cling to the “tried and tested” forms of the past is tantamount to suicide, especially in this highly time-compressed critical-mass age we live in and WILL live in for the remainder of our lives…
The iconoclasts were more right than they ever knew; yesterday’s revelation becomes today’s rut becomes tomorrow’s coffin.
but anyway, those are just some thoughts from someone who’s something of an “outsider” these days, in a certain respect. take it with a grain of salt obviously…
and again, it was nice to have found this little forum and site - very cool :) I like the idea of “open source theology”, the Kernel most definitely needs upgraded, desperately so…
pax Christi, david
Teilhard de Chardin
This and your previous post are consistent with the view of God fostered by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whose writings have helped reconnect me to a sense of faith and belief. Seeing God as the force behind evolution, he also depicted Christ as the "animator" in addition to redeemer.
I think the church often paints itself into a corner by relying too much on the Bible and not enough on experience and observation. Limiting our knowledge of faith to writings that don’t reflect a current understanding of the cosmos (including us in that cosmos) restricts our abilties to reimaging and extend our view of God, creation, Christ, etc. The cosmos has become a source of "progressive revelation". We still have to decide whether our faith is in something or nothing, and I think the odds are with something.
I like the idea of location c
I like the idea of location change. I think that gets at the idea of being saved both from an ultimate destination and being saved to a new life that can be lived now. The real point of salvation I believe is a new life to be lived now with the benefit of life in heaven forever with our Father. I will have to look into the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Your point, Chuck, about using progressive revelation is an interesting one and I would like to hear more from you about that (I know this is almost 4 months from when you posted it, but I hope you are still there). Wouldn’t you say that there would still have to be some kind of filter for us to know it was revelation? The scriptures do tell us that God speaks to us through his Holy Spirit. The Spirit does tend to use the scriptures as a primary means of communication and allows us to filter the things that come our way. Otherwise, how would we know anything was from God or not? Feelings or hunches are not that reliable. I am not saying here that everything we observe can be confirmed by the scriptures. The bible is not a scientific text book, encylcopedia, dictionary, medical guide, etc. But it does give us a filter or worldview through which to process the data we receive from progressive revelation. So how does this work? Would the text give us the anchor points creating the field in which we can speculate and/or recieve progressive revelation? Or, is that the point at all? We see alot of tensions in scripture that we can’t comprehend this side of heaven (predestination/freewill; Fully God/fully man, etc.) So maybe we aren’t supposed to figure it all out. I think we do need to contextualize the gospel but what changes and what stays the same?
As I mentioned in the thread
As I mentioned in the thread about sex before marriage, I think salvation is a fluid process. It is something that takes space and time. It is nurtured and grown. Is there even a point at which “salvation” occurs? If there is a point in which “salvation” occurs, are we as outsiders to others experiences to judge or determine at what point it occurred if at all? I do think the church should stop trying to save people. Where in the New Testament do we see Jesus or the disciples trying to save people? People were forever changed by coming in personal contact with the divine. People approach Jesus wanting to be healed Jesus would say go for your faith has saved you. No tracks, no 7 steps to salvation and no prayer of acceptance.
Salvation as lifelong process
First time for me here - interesting to read where we are all coming from…
I think a very strong case could be made, both from Scripture and from the history of the Church, that salvation is a lifelong process… in the reformed protestant understanding that involves election (naughty word to some!), regeneration (neglected in our day), justification (perhaps what we usually refer to as “getting saved”), sanctification, and ultimately glorification.
It does seem that at different points throughout her history, the Church has had a tendency to overemphasize one particular component of salvation… for example, Rome in the pre-Reformation era (and in her system of doctrine as a whole) seems to equivocate salvation with sanctification… hyper-Calvinistic groups place too much focus on election… while perhaps the Boomer/evangelical/seeker movement overemphasized the justification aspect which led to a “let’s just get ‘em down the aisle” mentality. It seems to me that we need to hold all in high esteem and not only of equal importance, but equal necessity.
So where does the millenial emerging church fit on the scale? Are we recovering a full balance and biblical understanding of the process of salvation? One of my fears, as alluded to, is that we have lost sight of the truth of regeneration - namely, that our minds are so darkened by our own sin, that we cannot enter into any genuinly fruitful discussion of ANY narrative, much less the Christian one… that it is only through the sovereign life-giving work of the Spirit that we are made new creatures, liberated from the dominion of sin. What happens to the church of today and tomorrow if we lose this core truth? Any thoughts? Am I just too cynical?
jon9uk@yahoo.com
salvation is a purely human experience so to understand it it is necessary to understand humanity. i have come to realise that most of me is actualy contructed on things that aren’t honest or truthful. my entire life experience and the formation of my character has been built around, from my very first years, the experience of others and therefore incorporates thier faults. All truth is God truth, so for me to have any validity, or for me to be Godlike and eternal - the two are the same - i need to be built upon God from whichever part of me represents the deepest part of me. this is what this world is about. it is me dieing to self and living for/in God.
Salvation as reconstruction of character?
I find that a rather compelling expression of what it means to be saved on a personal level: we change the formative influences in our lives. What is missing, however - from the point of view of developing a ‘theology’ - is a sense of the wider context in which the individual is ‘saved’: What does it mean to be part of a saved community? What is the purpose of a saved community? What impact does the recovery of spiritual and moral integrity that you describe have on the ‘unsaved’ society in which we are embedded? What is the relation of that community to the seminal events of the first century? What implications does this have for the future? I’m not saying you should have addressed these points - you just got me thinking! Thanks.
Saved?
Three Wishes: Grace Mercy Peace.
The concept of being saved, although clear in the Bible, is still under debate among “carnal” christians, unlearned children who are told: “be no more children” in Eph 4 (especially not “more the child of hell” than former hypocrites, vipers, fools, and blind guides: those who sit in Moses’ seat: law - Mt 23); For childishly imputing sin (and by law: Rom 5:13) just for the “hell” of it, not only makes all sinners, none righteous, no, not one (God is one), but makes such life + death = a dead end, a living hell for us all till these adult “children”, some even called “babes” (not yet weaned of law: Heb 5), grow up to be the perfect (merciful) “man” kind God said let “us” make in the beginning where the end is declared (Is 46:10).
Aside from the biblical fact “there is no respect of persons with God”, none, which reasons either all are saved or all are unsaved; and obviously what God will have is all men saved and aware what they’re saved from, which is flat out stated in 1Tim 2:3,4….
Aside from the obvious universal reconciliation “that God” will have (and it’s not optional), probably why universalism is going around the world like wildfire, is the biblical fact there are two sorts of saved, temporal and eternal salvation (again of all, since there is no respect of persons with God)… We learn of the temporal sort in Jude 5, which speaks of saved + destroyed after, which is kinda like life + death = a dead end. Many take this route, the broad way, to destruction; and due to ignorance, unaware that eternal salvation, via Jesus => Christ (going through such a door, way; in one side and out the other) is via pure grace. For the other wise, devilish wisdom, grace + law is as saved + destroyed = an oxyMORON with a BAD ending. Hence the problem ignorance, solution awareness.
Hence there seems to be more awareness lately that adding any “law worketh wrath” to “grace is sufficient”, even a little, is a deadly sting, to all; for a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
It’s time, especially on the prophetic “third day” (beyond 2,000 AD), to let law be the dead tesator of the NT it was meant to be, so grace may be of full force to all (Heb 9). And time to realize the Bible is an “allegory” (Gal 4:24) “written aforetime for our learning” (Rom 15:4), and a “mystery” to be solved in time, since there is neither mystery nor time for such in eternity, where understanding prevails (not law, which is only for ignorant children who fail to realize you become a man kind by putting away child-ish things like grace + law).
So, as Solomon the wise guy exhorts: “with all thy getting, get undertanding” (Prov 4), also clarifying what sort, since there are two sorts of understanding to sort out. He notes the sort we ought to get (in order to get it) is the sort which when embraced results in thy head (Christ: the head of every “man”) being crowned with “grace” glory, the second and better of two glorys, the one we all are being changed into (from glory to glory) as by the Spirit, the Spirit of grace, all grace and no law at all (all mercy and no sacrifice at all, in accordance with the will of God: Mt 9:13).
So, the Bible ends well, when his angel plays the last trump it, ending with “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.”
TgooLJCwya. Amen. www.godshew.org Daniel Miles
salvation
“The LORD said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.” Exodus 3:7 __________
I grew up preoccupied with personal salvation (this seemed to be the orientation of the church’s teaching and the sole reason for the existence of the church). Then, salvation seemed to be a fire escape from a wrathful deity. There seemed to be a contradiction between the grace of God (which covered a multitude of sins) versus all of the rules I felt I was expected to follow. I came to view salvation as something I had to work towards. I constantly broke the many rules in spite of myself. I felt underserving of the grace of God. I lived with the fear that I was “unsaved.” I don’t have a sense of whether or not most Christians live with this sort of thinking nowadays or if this is characteristic of some fundamentalists. This was a very inward-oriented theology and I didn’t have any sense of social justice. To make a long story short, I saw salvation as a human effort towards God. I understood the church as a miserable place for miserable people serving a miserable deity. I now see salvation in a totally different light. Salvation is an effort or motion by God towards humanity. This impulse receives energy from the force of divine love. I quote a verse from Exodus above. The Bible has many salvation stories. People are saved from oppression, illness, hunger, sin, guilt, and even death. Salvation can mean an act that results in inclusion of the marginalized and result in justice for victims. When I read these Scripture stories, it strikes me that God actually initiates the process of salvation out of the deepest and most profound love and concern for humanity and creation. If the Church can be understood as the Body of Christ in history, then salvation is an ongoing and expansive process rippling outward from God —through humanity created in God’s image— throughout the universe.
Salvation is for the here-and-now
The problem with most of Christian talk about salvation is that it is a question about "eternal destiny" - the "Where will you spend eternity?" question. Salvation is something for the here-and-now. It is for the world - the entire creation. Salvation affirms that the destiny of created reality is with God. The distinction between heaven and earth is not geographical. Spatial images function as metaphors and symbols for the disruption of sin - the ways in which we exclude God from our lives and society. To be "in Christ" is already to have that relationship restored. It is to be filled with the life of God. For individuals, therefore, salvation is something that we enjoy now and is supposed to transform life, living, choosing, acting and wrold-making here and now. Its purpose is to include us in God’s mission of transforming this world into the Kingdom of God (cf the petition in the Lord’s Prayer: "Your kingdom, your will be done on earth …" In one sense, the question of where we "go" after death is supremely uninteresting: if we share in the Life and purposes of God, we share in God’s future. Being saved is about the transforming of human life and living and incorporating us into God’s work through the same Spirit that filled Jesus.
Lawrence, thanks for your com
Lawrence, thanks for your comments. I think this is a wonderfully nuanced but provocative statement:
Re: What does it mean to be saved?
First of all its not the church that saves people. Rather the church like the deciples gives the good news that the world has been saved by Jesus and all that you have to do is aknowlege it.
The question remains what are we saved from? By daring to disobey the one and only comandment, Adam fell from the paradise of Grace. If you were to put your finger into a flame, then you would bring upon yourself a burnt finger. Likewise Adam and Eve bought upon themselves and their offspring the curse of destruction. Their heavenly indistructible bodies of light became corrruptible, destructable bodies. How terrible to think that we were destined to go from a state of existence to non existence? Notice his remark when Jacob thought that he lost his son Joseph: "I will go down to Hades in mourning to join my son." (Gen 37:35) Why did he say Hades when in his mind he knew that Joseph was eaten by wild animals, shredded to pieces and not buried? Because Hades was the netherlands where the dead would go. Should this event have happened in this postmodern world, the true believer may have stated "One day, I will join my son in heaven with our God and Saviour Jesus Christ!" In fact, all the saints of the old testament were in Hades. Consequently, throught the first Adam, humanity would end up in Hades regardless of a saintly life. There is no turning back.
Jesus (GOD) joined us in this fate but in addition opened the door to a new life in paradise. On the day He died, paradise opened its doors. That’s why He was able to tell the thief "assuredly I tell you that TODAY, you will be with Me in paradise." If the reader is still asking saved from what? then pay attention to what happened immediately upon HIS death.
"The tombs opened and the bodies of many saints rose from the dead and these AFTER His resurrection came out of the tombs, entered the holy city and appeared to a number of people."
How much more "wonder" does one need in a postmodern world?
The narrow path (really the narrow gate) is the riteous life in corrupt society in which we attemp to follow all of Christ’s teachings such as "Love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." Cursing those who curse you and hating our enemy is the wide path. It’s easy and tempting to do what’s in our evil nature to curse back and fight back. Likewise, it’s easier and instinctly preferable to enter the wide gate that leads to destruction.
Notice the message in Rev22:3. The curse of destruction will be abolished….. night will be abolished; they will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will be shining on them." The Lord God is not shining on us now. That is what is meant by we are living in darkness. In our present state, we would not bear that light as is evidenced by scripture. The best of us (Moses, Daniel and John) could not bear that light.
The Christian message is the same from the time of the deciples until the end of time; "For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son. So that everone who believes in Him may not perish but may have eternal life." (John 3:16).
May your eyes be opened and your abilities wisely used to spread this message. God bless you.
Deacon Adel Ibrahim Coptic Orthodox Church
Re: What does it mean to be saved?
Christianity is a religion of salvation. We start off separated from God. Cut off from the life source by our sinful rebellious natures, and “by nature we are children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). We are born stuck in sin and unable to come out from under it, and so we are born deserving of God’s just judgment. We all deserve, just as our sin and His holiness demand, to be completely separated from His presence. To die and be cut off just as He warned in Genesis 2:17. Not only do we deserve this Hell, but rather, because of our sinful nature, we freely chose it. We are born, as Paul says, “under sin.” Meaning “there is no one righteous enough. No, not even one. There is no one who understands God, no one who even seeks God. We have all turned to our own ways of independence and have all together become unprofitable” (Rom 3:9:12). So there is no one even looking for God or heading in the right direction. So when you question if anyone really wants the Gospel, the answer is no. Nobody wants it because nobody’s even looking for it.
This is the exclusive claim Jesus made when He said “I am the way” (John 14:6). While all of humanity looks for a way independent of God, whether it be the way of their own righteousness or a way of merely coping with the pain and hopelessness that there is no way, Paul says “But now the righteousness of God apart from all human effort and searching has been revealed” (Rom 3:21). That righteousness was and is found in Jesus Christ. And that is the very definition of the word grace – unsought, unearned, undeserved. So when we are brought from darkness into light, we are brought from death to life (Eph 2:4), and as we continue further and further into this new life we discover more and more that “it is a gift from God.” We discover it is by “grace that we have been saved” (Eph 2:8). Nothing from ourselves. Nothing we were looking for, but sheer grace.
The Gospel is not a pitch we are selling. It is “the power of God to save” (Rom 1:16) that we are allowed to see and participate in. This is the bold and often confrontational message the disciples offered their world, and they did it with the knowledge that it was God’s work and they were mere sowers of His Gospel message. The results are and always have been His.