-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/04/saved-by-grace-judged-by-works.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'll have to think more on the distinction between salvation and judgment...
But anyway, I guess I find McClaren’s last point troubling, mainly in that it seems to automatically presuppose a bifurcation between works and grace . . . as if works can't be a means of grace (or if “works” and “grace” operated on two distinct ontic realms). In other words, it seems to suggest that God does “grace” and we do “works,” but such a configuration already assumes that human beings are autonomous individuals who can actually do something (or anything) apart from the grace of God (hints of Pelagianism?). To argue that we are saved / justified by grace and judged by works, then, is to dichotomize “works” and “grace,” which is but a variation of bifurcating “faith” (associated with grace) and “works”. I don’t think McClaren really pushes away from Luther (or Protestantism) in this regard.
Secondly, the same could be said in reference to his understanding and articulation of judgment and salvation/justification. McClaren seems to operate from the traditional Protestant bifurcation between judgment and justification / salvation . . . as if one were saved or justified before the eschatological judgment when God literally declares one righteous (or declares one unrighteous/damned for that matter). It seems his previous dualism has led him into yet another one in order to render this theological construct consistent. I find it scary that he separates justification/salvation from judgment.
Just some random thoughts for dialogue :)
I remember that Welsey talked about grace as being like air. God breathes air/grace into us. We respond by breathing out (works by grace). Until we respond, we have no capacity for further grace. This breathe in and breath out process continues for as long as we live. Everything is by grace, but ongoing experience of grace is enabled by our grace-enabled response. If we choose not to respond, we stifle the flow of grace.
In this sense, we could still be "saved by grace and judged by works" - as in we are judged by how we respond to the grace we have received.
That makes some sense to me, but I'm still a little off balance by this challenging idea. Thanks for helping us think about it together. These comments are fulfilling McClaren's idea of "knowing with" others.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/pr...
Sorry--am having trouble with TinyURL creator...
Easter Blessings!
Soteria is personal salvation, which is what we mostly mean.
But Sozo, which is actually used more frequently, refers to the overall renewing work of jesus Christ through the Kingdom, as prophesied in Isaiah 61.
Jesus says that those who love him will keep his commandments, and they will know the truth, and it will set them free.
When jesus is talking to Zaccheus, and the tax collector says that he's going to give back a ton of what he took, Jesus says "and now, Sozo has come to this house, and become of it, Zacheus has found Soteria".
Everything about the Judaic way of looking at the world was about knowledge leading to action. The idea that you could just know something without it actually affecting the world was meaningless...they would have been appalled at our modern methods of dealing with education.
So, there is no salvation that doesn't result in works. If you have been saved, and this doesn't push you as a reaction, out of the repentence (life change) of your existence, away from sin (missing the mark) and toward the true nature of humanity, then you're not actually saved.
You cannot have Soteria without Sozo. But plenty of people try. They say "Oh, I had Soteria at this service when I was 7". And they're asked "yes, but where is the Sozo in your life?" and they say "oh, that's for people in ministry".
But there is no such thing as "Disciples" and "Christians" being separate entities in the bible. You are a Disciple, or your an antichrist. A sheep or a goat.
The note about the sheep and the goat isn't that they didn't know what they were doing, but rather that they didn't realize that they were directly serving (or rejecting) Christ...actively engaging in, or refusing Sozo lifestyle.
Judgment is all about reorienting existence with how we were created to be by God...relational, in community, accountable, agape living, etc. Judgment is that process of bringing us back into line, just as sin is missing the mark.
If we tell our congregations that they can be disciples of Christ, without their lives being part of a mission of healing for the world, then we are lying to them.
I think we are so suffering adverse and lacking in personal accountability that the idea of judgment for the righteous has become a dirty thought. Basically it boils down to a theology of God is going to fry everyone that doesn't agree with me, while I gratefully accept my new flat screen TV that goes with my complimentary mansion, and if I am lucky God is a Universalist Muslim and he throws in 72 virgins as well. I mean seriously, the theology is no different, than the escapist theology touted by terrorists as an excuse for killing bystanders for goodness sakes.
I need to be judged. I am a fool, an idiot, a slacker, a weenie and a jerk. If God doesn't want to help me become better through placing me in the kiln of his holy character then he is no better than the devil.
He's a father, looking for the moment that he can rush to his prodigal son. If we will not accept that and be changed with it, how can we truly claim to be saved?
No apology needed. I think you are tracking along quite well. I also like your scripture references, taking the time to look at them in context. I like the movement of your view as you speak of salvation as connected to transformation that makes a difference in the world we live in us; Christ's work in us. I think the misunderstanding by many however is that our salvation gets us off the hook for being responsible for Christ's good work in us and through us as the Body of Christ. When that happens salvation is just reduced to securing our reservations for heaven after we die. This kind of shallow view of salvation is incredible inconsistent with the Way of Jesus.
I think this is one reason the "emergent" conversation is resonating with so many Nazarenes, because it taps into the optimism of our Wesleyan heritage and our views of God's sanctifying work and holiness. Our tradition has embraced the idea that we don't have to wait till we die start bearing good fruit in this lifetime. In fact the expectation is that we don't wait and that we live as fully as humanly possible into God's sanctifying work that enables us love our neighbors as ourselves to the best of our ability today. For this we believe God will hold us accountable.
Thanks for sharing Peggy. I think you are right on track.
Peace,
James
Peggy
For a long time I have felt like Jesus and Paul were sometimes in tension. Many of Jesus' parables sound like a works-based judgment (e.g. sheep and goats, and cutting down a tree that doesn't produce fruit). However, Paul (and most of Protestantism) advocate salvation by grace not by works (especially in the verses you quoted). I've really struggled at how to make sense of this.
McClaren seems to be suggesting a synthesized view which seems to fit with the over-all thrust of the Bible. We are welcomed into God's family by grace - free forgiveness, no strings attached, but we are judged based on what we do from that point on. Do we live in response to the grace we have been given? Do we care for the poor and welcome the outcasts? Do we use our resources and gifts faithfully for God's Kingdom? Do we evidence the fruit of the Spirit?
Like I said, I'm not sure how this works out. I mean, God's invitation of grace extends past our failures. If we are unkind with a spouse or reject an opportunity to serve in favor of a trip to the amusement park, I don't think we are forever "cut off."
I guess part of the suggestion is that "judgment" doesn't only mean "going to hell." There are other kinds of judgment. And "salvation" doesn't only mean "going to heaven." Both salvation and judgment are much fuller, rounder, more robust than these limited definitions. I'm not sure yet what exactly the good definitions are, but I'm very interested in all of us continuing to work together to figure this out.
God absolutely has prepared us to do good works, but that is not how we will be judged. Romans 3:20 makes this clear by saying, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." To be judged by our works would be to place us once again under the law.
When we appear before the judgment seat of Christ, we all deserve death and hell. But in 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." In other words, His righteousness gets credited to us by grace through faith (see Romans 4) and that is what gets us into heaven, not our works.
The Bible teaches that Christ died for us to set us free from the law, sin, death, and the devil. Paul again reiterates this in Galatians 2:16 -- "[We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." If we are judged by our works, NO ONE will enter heaven. The only work by which we are judged is Christ's finished work on the cross! To assert that we will be judged by anything of our own doing is ludicrous!
The Bible does mention being rewarded for deeds here on earth which are done as believers for His glory, but we are not JUDGED by them. We are saved by grace, meaning when we are judged Christ's righteousness counts as our own, not anything we have done (or failed to do)!
On hell, it is clearly taught that death, Hades, and all those whose names are not written in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire at the end (Revelation 20:14-15). Call it hell or whatever you want, it is clear that at the end there is a lake of fire that lasts for eternity. Notice in the passages in Revelation 20 that the dead are being judged for what they have done, by their deeds. But those written in the book of life seem to be secure, not judged by their works. This seems to be something no longer taught in today's churches, and how sad! Jesus constantly warned of being left out of the banquet hall where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, even referring to this place as Gehenna (translated hell in most every translation), a place where trash was burned.
On point two, McLaren is simply embracing postmodernism. This is not entirely bad, but be aware that it is nothing new, it is a man-made philosophy that is "emerging" in today's culture.
This is not some stubborn clinging to being Protestant (versus Post-Protestant, even though these are just buzzwords), this is pure biblical truth. The new kind of Christian being described by McLaren is subtly learning to trust in something other than Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross, and is being taught to focus on themselves rather than Christ. McLaren is dangerous material, bro.
I close with the wisdom of Paul in his letter to the Colossians: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ... . When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:8, 13-15).
Also, when it comes to "systematic models" of atonement, their are severely different ones, all of them reveal something unique concerning God's atonement, but God's atonement itself is far more comprehensive than our various descriptions of it.
Your advice from Paul is good in Colossians 2:8, 13-15, as it reminds us that our systematic views and human philosophies of how we understand God should not replace our dependence on Christ himself. You seem very concerned about "embracing postmodernism", and I think there is wisdom in making sure we are not taken "captive" by this lenses. We need to be aware of our lens(es) so that our trust is not in our own understanding but instead in everything we acknowledge God beyond our understanding of him.
With that said, I wonder how much you are aware of the dangers of modernity, and how its lens has the equal potential to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ? I wonder if you are aware that you can be "taken captive" through the hollow and deceptive philosophy of modernity , which like postmodernity, can fool us into depending on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Perhaps surprisingly to you, I agree that post modernity has its dangers and we need to help one another remove anything about it that can obstruct our view of Jesus. But, If you have the obstruction of modernity lodged firmly in your own eye, I am not sure you are in a position to help with the dangers of postmodernity.
Take a hard look at modernity and how it has corrupted the gospel and then come back and help us make sure post modernity does not corrupt it.
I see what you are saying about "judgment." It can also be a separate judgment apart from being admitted into heaven, a judgment that determines other aspects of your eternal destiny other than "you get to go to heaven." However, it is important to clarify that the ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus Christ (John 14:6), and that is solely by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). If you are referring to judgment as an event that has no bearing on eternal life in heaven or hell, but has to do with post-salvation (one has already been admitted into eternity with Christ), then I see your point. If not, please shed some more light on your "cog in the wheel of [the] systematic model of atonement."
Thanks again and I eagerly await your reply!
I’ll start with your P.S. then move on into your previous comment. I think the question of a “literal hell” is interesting because the question is often transfixed on life after death. I think the question is funny because it often reduces the reality of hell on earth to just figurative language and it is not taken seriously or literally at all in regards to being a present reality. In the end the question is really less about a belief in hell and more about a belief in a particular form of salvation (or the lack thereof) that takes place after we die. The problem with this focus is how it reduces the gospel and the message of salvation in Christ in a way that takes the Kingdom of heaven, and the antithesis of the kingdom of hell, less seriously in the world today.
With this in mind, and to answer your question more directly, I believe heaven and hell or eternal realities that we encounter in the world today. Regardless of what happens when we die, it is TODAY that matters and is the only thing we can do anything about. Often when Jesus talked about hell, it was in the context of rescuing the least of these from the separation, marginalization and oppression. The rescuing was always spoken of as a present reality, though with an eternal dimension (with present and future elements) to it that I will not deny.
My point can be seen in the verses you quote and how you have change the emphasis of Jesus’ meaning. You said, “the only way to HEAVEN is through Jesus Christ (John 14:6)”, yet Jesus actually says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” In this verse he is speaking of being able to see that Father, see God, and being connected to him in the world they were living in at the time. Jesus is not talking about life after death. I am not saying that we can go to heaven after we die without Jesus, just that isn’t the point Jesus was making. In this context Jesus tells Phillip that if you have seen him as a man walking around with them, then they have seen the Father. He then tells them if they struggle to believe that he is one with the Father, at least believe in the works they have seen him do. Then Jesus speaks of the works they will do and how the Holy Spirit will not leave them orphans. He says that even after he goes away, they will still see him and live because he lives. Jesus tells them that when they experience this life they will realize that he is in his Father, and they are in him, and he is in them. The whole point Jesus is making is about seeing the Father in the here in now with skin on (first in Jesus himself, then in his Body, the church, being filled with the Holy Spirit) as God does the works of the Kingdom in us and through us here.
Likewise Dan, when you quote (Eph. 2:8-9) your view of being “saved” seems to infer that you are speaking of “from hell”, yet that isn’t the context of Paul’s letter. The context of Paul’s letter is about a present reality as Paul tells us that God “made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions” (v5). Even though Paul makes it clear in verses 8 and 9 that we are saved by faith and not works we do on our own, he makes it clear in verse 10 that God’s salvation is present in us today as we become “God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works”. And why does Paul even bother to bring any of this up? He tells us, “Therefore” we should live in solidarity with one another whether we are Jew or Greek because though we were all once far off Jesus has brought us near. Paul’s whole point is get people to live into the present reality of the Kingdom of God where we find solidarity with one another as Jesus has found solidarity with us regardless of our own merit and this will transform us all and how we live with one another today.
All this demonstrates what I meant by my reference to the weakness of various systematic ways we can explain salvation. In this, we take verses and make them cogs and gears in larger systems which we create to help us see how these things relate to one another. This is sometimes helpful, but it also has the danger of changing the context of these verses to justify the system we relate them too rather than the narrative they are originally a part of. You are quoting me these verses in reference to particular theological systems which is a result of modern thinking and categorizing that both has its usefulness and its dangers.
Most theological systems that emerged from modernity are designed to talk about salvation more exclusively in terms to heaven and hell. It’s not that these verses fail to have any application to this, just that it often looses the context and intent of the original narratives in exchange for the new systematic context. I think the reason these systems are focused primarily on heaven and hell is because that was the medieval context that modernity emerged from.
It is interesting to note that the Protestant reformation, (which took place and took off because of a changing and emerging modern world as evident by things like the printing press and growing literacy), did not question what the Catholic Church said salvation was, just how it was attained. At the time of the reformation, though not always throughout all of Catholic history, the emphasis of salvation was about going to heaven. One of the biggest objections of the Protestant reformers was the selling of indulgences, which demonstrates that the focus was so much about getting into heaven that the Church could literally sell tickets.
Most of the systems that emerged though our various protestant traditions (particularly those that are most “reformed”) in the modern age, though a revolutionary correction concerning the gospel, did not stray that far from the emphasis of a “heaven and hell” context. Some did go beyond this more than others, I think Wesley was one of them as were some other traditions; but even these started with heaven and hell as an assumption of the core message even though they began to expand their systems to include how God works salvation (sanctification) in us today.
My point is that these systematic approaches can be helpful as people began to use them to connect the dots of our biblical narrative. But sometimes there are assumptions in the way we connect these dots that can cement a different context than what the narrative of scripture actually presents. Again, I think you can see the difference in your emphasis of the two verses you quoted as you seemed to perceived them to be more about salvation in terms of heaven and hell and how that is different from the emphasis of the actual narrative. You’re thinking systematically, which isn’t bad, but you have to understand that these systems are not the gospel, they just attempt to describe it; and they describe it well in some ways and poorly in others.
I hope you don’t feel I got too carried away in my explanation. I just kind of got on a role after I ate my Wheaties for breakfast this morning.
Peace,
James
I just had lunch with Dan today. He's a good guy, as you can probably tell from his comments here. I look forward to future face-to-face conversations with him when we have more time to talk! :)