A Biblical Universalism - Part 5

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism 
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Introduction

At the beginning of this series, I mentioned trying to reconcile the disparities of two dominant theologies in Christianity - Arminianism and Calvinism - but with little success. This led me down a rather different path to what I had expected. I wanted to know what could be strong Biblically, and hold the logical prowess of Calvinism at the same time as keeping to the Arminian values of a God who has good will towards all men. For me, there were not many options, and I supposed that I must resolve myself to accept paradox and essentially give up. That is, until it crossed my mind to look into “Universalism” - basically the belief that all people will be reconciled with God. 

Photo retrieved from http://gdwm.org/2012/04/reconcile-with-one-another-2/

I had never previously looked into Universalism because I had the idea that it was an obscure, unbiblical belief that people held simply because they wanted to. I thought it was one of those beliefs that tickled people’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3) and nothing more. However on the contrary, after some research, I found that there is evidence that it was a belief widely held by the early church. There is also evidence of Universalism being taught by theological seminaries in the early church, and not only that, but it is debated whether it was declared a heresy. You can find some more information here - (scroll to the end and there is a tidy summary of this book). I would like to find a more recent assessment of the records of Universalism in the early church, though it is still thought provoking. 


I still think that some of the thoughts around Universalism are potentially unbiblical or illogical, especially the idea that all roads lead (in their own right) to God, even roads apparently going in opposite directions. However, what I did find were groups dedicated to scripture such as the “Evangelical Universalists”.

Evangelical Universalism seems to be a belief based on a dedication to scripture. Even though there are various sub groups under this “banner”, it was their way of looking at scripture that caused me to view scripture from a new perspective. I took off my long held Arminian glasses and tried to look at scriptures differently to how I had always read them. Within Universalism there are various points of view and with caution I use the term “Universalism” because of the stigma that it holds. I merely use it as a reference to believing that all people will be saved and reconciled with God. From a Universalist point of view, the only major difference to modern mainstream Christianity is that it anticipates the reconciliation of all people before God at some point in the future.

Basic Framework

To believe that all things are reconciled to God does not mean that the core framework of Christianity is changed. Like Calvinism and Arminianism, my understanding of Universalism believes the core fundamentals of mainstream Christianity and holds to nearly all of the common characteristics of the Christian faith, including:

- God is all-powerful, all knowing, and all loving (and I am sure there are many other characteristics, but these are key).

- God created the universe as He desired it to be.

- Humankind is sinful and is in need of redemption.

- God used the Israelites to bring about his redemption plan for the world. Jesus Christ the Son of God then lived, died and rose again to make atonement for the sins of all humankind.

- Some people will believe in Christ for salvation in this current world, and some will not. Those who put their trust and faith in Christ will be resurrected to life and those who do not, will not be.

- There is a “heaven” and a “hell”. Some people will go to one and some to the other.

So what is the difference between Universalism and mainstream Christianity? The difference is that Universalism posits that all people will eventually be reconciled to God, or in other words, people will not necessarily be in hell forever.

Those ambiguous words

Photo retrieved from http://www.writeawriting.com/academic-writing/literary-criticism/

One of the key areas of confusion for people is around the word “forever”. People read “forever” and instantly think (as I did) that its meaning is clear. However, it is not that simple. Take the Hebrew word for "forever" - olam. In Jonah chapter 2, the prophet is praying in the belly of the fish, and in his prayer he used the word olam to speak of the time he spent in the “pit” (supposedly the belly of the whale or the depths of the sea). God rescued him from this pit by causing the whale to spit him out. Clearly, olam did not mean the “forever” that we normally think of. There are three ways that this could be interpreted to make sense for the use of this word. One is that Jonah was speaking figuratively and taking artistic licence. Secondly, that Jonah, being Jewish, had a completely different understanding of that word than what has been translated down to us in English. Thirdly, Jonah was in this “pit” conditionally, based on his repentance or unrepentance. In other words, Jonah could have potentially been in the belly for “forever” - as long as he was unrepentant. Jonah was not continuously unrepentant and was therefore released. It is interesting that in this passage the use of the word olam seems ambiguous and brings to light the dangers of interpreting English words at face value.

Let us go to the Greek word for forever - aion, which is commonly used in the New Testament. Revelation 14:11 and Matthew 25:46 talk about the “forever” or aion punishment of people. Interestingly, aion is a word that is even more ambiguous than olam. Strong’s provides us with the meaning of aion. Two words are used in those verses - one a noun and the other the adjective derived from the noun. Strong’s concordance states that the noun aion means an age or ages long rather than “forever”. Even the adjective aionious (which is shortly translated “forever”) does not focus on the future per se but on the quality of the age it relates to (according to HELPS Word Studies). The Greek for “forever” or “everlasting” when considering the root word meaning of aion, actually seems to mean an indefinite long period of time with connection to its context. The word is used widely throughout the Bible. As I have generally researched out there, there is much debate about the meaning of the word, which in itself implies ambiguity and requires caution. For example, aion has been interpreted to mean life, world, old, age or forever. Ultimately, aion is not conclusive about its meaning. It would be more helpful to interpret it more as an indefinite period of time, letting the context interpret the word.

Feel free to check out this great resource for the Greek and Hebrew translations as well as commentaries - Bible Hub

Also here is a collection of quotes from scholars that seem to support the notion that aion does not necessarily mean forever but an indefinite period of time - Definition of forever

The ambiguity of aion should throw up warning signs. It suggests that mainstream Christianity potentially has assumed a reality based on theological “group think” passed down through the ages. Some may say that aion has to mean “forever” because it is also used regarding the righteous having “eternal” life. Yes, this is a valid point – however, it is not based on any understanding of the word itself but on a presumed theological worldview. Just because the meaning of the word threatens our current understanding of our time spent in heaven, for example, does not mean that we reject the meaning of the word. If the word means more or less an indefinite period of time, it may be that even the righteous will not live forever. However, there is no real reason to consider that potential reality because being indefinite, it could mean that we do live forever. God seems to desire an ongoing relationship with people, and there is no reason (that we know of) for Him to cut that relationship short. Either way, the word relates to a quality of time and needs to be read with reference to the current context.

Even if aion meant forever literally, there is no reason to think that it could not be interpreted like olam was by Jonah. “Forever” in hell could mean a condition upon continued dissonance with God. I note that there is no verse that I know of that speaks directly about people “getting out of hell” (please share if you do know), but there is much Biblical evidence that suggests that people will, as we shall see in the next post.

Conclusion

As we have discussed, reconciling all people to God does not necessarily mean rejecting the notion of a hell-like existence, but merely asserts that God will be successful in reconciling all people with Himself at some time in the current/future aion/s. There is much discussion out there about the words assumed to mean “forever” in the English. On closer observation, these words have multiple meanings and are interpreted in multiple ways. These interpretations depend on the contexts they find themselves in and the predisposed theological doctrines of the reader. It would be helpful to not be dogmatic about our preconceived realities, but accept that truth may actually look different to what we have always thought.      

Next...

Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism

Christian Ethics in a Secular Environment

Can Christian ethics and a secular environment be reconciled? Here are some thoughts on the meaning of the “law” within Christianity and how it applies to Social Work ethics or even life in general.

Imagine that you see a sheep in a field. You see the sheep and exclaim “ah, there is a sheep in that field”. However, unbeknown to you, the sheep that you thought you saw was actually a rock in the shape of a sheep; and behind the rock in the shape of a sheep, there was actually a sheep.
-      Did you know that there was a sheep in the field?
-      Were you correct that there was a sheep in the field?
The statement was technically correct that there was a sheep in the field, but what you had in mind was incorrect.
Epistemology is the study of “how you know that you know things” and applies to ethics as much as anything else. As the sheep in the field scenario illustrates, knowledge is largely subjective, meaning that it is from our personal perspective.

Ethics and Social Work
Ethics in Social Work likewise are also subject to interpretation. Not every person will see all aspects of a given situation before them.
For example:
What does it mean to act in the client’s best interests? We may have a vague understanding of what it means, but how that is perceived and outworked varies greatly. This is largely due to our own interpretations.

Context plays a huge role in determining which ethical action to take. Depending on the context, what may seem in the client’s best interests may require an action that will vary from case to case. This calls for humility when working in these situations. We will never have all the knowledge in a given context. We may think we do at times, but one must remember that knowledge is largely from our perspective, even if we may think it is “common sense”… Knowledge is heavily influenced by our cultural background and life experiences. You can say that you believe there is a sheep in the field, but in actual fact, because of our fallible natures and limited knowledge, we should be aware that we could be very wrong. 
Depending on how much we can see of a given scenario or even how we see it from our perspective, no universal ethic will necessarily look the same. We may have a general understanding of what to do, just like we have a general understanding that there was a sheep in the field, but we are ultimately limited in our knowledge.


Even worse than working with a lack of knowledge, ethical practice may even directly conflict with itself. What if you thought you were looking at a sheep in the field and your client or colleague saw a rock in the shape of sheep? Both are looking at the same scenario. Who says who is right?

The Duck/Rabbit picture is a great example. Some people see a rabbit and some people see a duck. Both appear equally correct from each perspective. In an ethical dilemma one must be chosen and each choice with its own consequences.     
So how do we decipher what any particular ethic practically looks like when working with clients?  


Human rights v Moral rights.
Marie Connolly shares an understanding of practical Social Work values that I particularly like, which comes from a rights based perspective. She claims that there are two types of rights, human rights and moral rights. Human rights are concerned with the wellbeing of people, whereas moral rights are concerned about smaller issues in the grand scheme of things. From my understanding, moral rights which could come from asking “what is the right thing to do”, can become troublesome in Social Work because they are often from our personal values and don’t necessarily impact wellbeing greatly. On the other hand, human rights tend to be more helpful when making ethical decisions in Social Work. Instead of asking “what is the right thing to do”, a Social Worker coming from a Human Rights base may ask “what would be most helpful thing to do to produce wellbeing?”. Doing this enables us to sieve through the various decisions available.
An example could be a parent’s rights over their children. It is a moral right for parents to provide for their children, but if the children’s wellbeing is compromised, then the child’s human right comes into effect and overrides the moral right of the parent. It wouldn’t be helpful for the Social Worker or the child to value moral rights over human rights in this situation.

Difference in Christian thought.
Marie Connolly comes from a secular perspective, which I generally agree with. But what about Christians? Much of my upbringing consisted of encountering a variety of Christians that come from different schools of thought. Many Christians come from an objective law focus when it comes to moral rights and I did too for much of my life. Think back to the sheep in the field. An objective outlook would claim that there is definitely a sheep in the field, but a subjective outlook would believe there is a sheep in the field and would admit that due to limited knowledge, they could be wrong.

Congruence
An objective outlook is fine - we are all entitled to our opinion - but this type of Christianity may find it difficult to do social work in a secular context, because of the limitations that an objective outlook creates. I wrestled with this earlier on in the degree. How can I work in a manner that honours the “morals” of Christianity at the same time as “supporting” someone else’s opposing morals? Carl Rogers thought that a person’s psychological well-being was connected with how well they were able to live congruent lives. A person who is able to be congruent between their perceived reality and with their actual experiences, results in less anxiety. For me this has been true. The more I can reconcile my conscience with reality, the more at ease I feel with myself. This makes the place of ethics in Social Work and my interpretation of what these ethics mean to me, very important.


Laws made for man
The more I have studied the Bible I have found that I have misunderstood a huge part of the gospel, and much of what Jesus emphasized. Many Christians try to preach the Ten Commandments as a list of written “rules” from God. However, I over looked that Jesus Himself denied that these were “rules” per se. Jesus revolutionised the purpose of a law when he and his disciples picked heads of grain in a field on a Sabbath (which breaks the Sabbath law of doing no work). Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Likewise I believe that laws are made for the benefit of people (therefore making them more like principles), rather than people being made for laws.


Fulfilled in love
To me, what the law produces is a motive of self-concern. E.g. if I follow this law then God will value me. However, more recently I see that Christianity teaches a rather different way of understanding morality and ethics.
The apostle Paul talked about how Jesus fulfilled the law, and summed up the law in what he called one word: “ For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Galations 5:13-14),
Living with the principles of dying to our selfish selves helps me to naturally look outward towards the needs of others, rather than following a law “just because”. This outlook ties in well with Human Rights ethics. Jesus was concerned about people’s wellbeing rather than a set of arbitrary rules. The “rules” or principles Jesus and the writers of the New Testament expected us to live by were for our wellbeing!

I have at times wrestled with Corrie Ten Boom type scenarios regarding lying versus telling the truth. For those who don't know the story, Corrie lied to the Nazis in order to protect Jews in her care. At times like these, I believe it is helpful to look at ethical dilemmas within their context and looking at things from a wellbeing perspective. Sure, it may not be right or helpful generally speaking to ourselves and society to be a false witness, but when it comes down to the wellbeing of another (like hiding Jews from the Nazis) wouldn’t it be more Christ-like to break a law for the wellbeing of another? I ask this remembering of course Jesus’ attitude to towards the law of the Sabbath. 


So how does this outlook relate to Social Work ethics? Just like with Social Work and ethical dilemmas, as a Christian, I will inevitably encounter ethical dilemmas. However, the difference is that I can work with more flexibility regarding what might be considered “Right” or “Wrong” in a given situation. I can live with greater congruence between my personal and professional values.

Following are some of the verses I found helpful to consider when thinking about ethics:

Matthew 5:43-44
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” 

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

Ephesians 4:29
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Romans 14:4-6, 14-15
4 ”Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…
 “14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love…” 

Mark 12:31
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”



I would also like to conclude with some words of wisdom from Captain Barbossa:

"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 4 - MORALITY & EVIL)

So far we've discussed the impact of our (extra-Biblical) worldview on our approach to Scripture. We've used progressive revelation as a practice engagement with the tricky complexities of honest Scriptural interpretation, and being willing to challenge our worldview. We've explored the nature of relationships, and discovered the cognition and communication fall short of defining 'relationship' because of their very nature, and not just because we humans can only handle them imperfectly. In addition, it seems as if God - technically capable of using 'perfect' communication and cognition - seems to have deliberately utilised bias in these things in His pursuit of what really matters to Him - a relationship of love.

Morality

A discussion of morality flows naturally from our discussion of communication, because it functions very similarly. Morality refers to the pattern of our behaviour. Like communication, it is inherently cognitive - we consciously decide what to do, and so it is a window into another person's cognition, but also suffers similar interpretation inaccuracies as communication. And just like communication and cognition, morality finds its true purpose in relationship. It is meant to be person-based, not abstract. We are meant to want to be like Christ and to please Christ, based on our flawed cognitive understanding of Him through our relationship. 

Because cognition cannot reach a static full encapsulation of a person, our morality will never be able to fully encapsulate them either. For this reason, some argue that we are meant to disengage our morality from cognition, and just follow the rules God has set down without question or interpretation, because this is the only reliable way to reflect God. I don't think this is the case, because the only way morality can reflect anything, is through people's interpretation of it - and they interpret it by trying to see through to the person that produces it. We reflect God by being a person that people see God in, and by behaving in a way that springs forth from this person. This cannot occur if our morality is disengaged from our cognition - it actually makes the reflection of God's character less accessible, not more accessible. Besides, the very nature of relationships and people means that things like morality and cognition could never capture a person, even if we disregard the link between morality and cognition. Relationships are meant to be dynamic processes that engage with the other person, and so a static cognition and a static morality cannot fully capture this. 

In other words, you cannot legislate the kind of morality God is after through fixed laws. They could never be nuanced enough, and there is always the possibility of life situations bringing together multiple conflicting values and unique considerations for the relationship which could NEVER be exhaustively described. No doubt God has a preferred way to behave in each situation, but we can only know this if we know God through relationship. So instead of prescribed living, there has always been a need for prioritisation, flexibility, and pragmatism BASED upon the right living relationship with God. I'm not advocating a liberal lifestyle - the relationship I'm advocating includes a desire to submit to God, and also a recognition of the complexity of applying God's values to real life situations. 

But God still legislated morality - if this was not for 'prescribed personal morality', then what was it for? We can argue for some specific purposes behind the OT law e.g. Societal coherence, which was difficult to maintain in a largely 'religious' society where God was never-the-less rarely relationally known, and where cognitive understanding of God was incomplete. But a big reason - the one that applies to ongoing legislation even in the NT - ties back to the purpose of communication. God wants us to see a prioritised understanding of His cognition THROUGH the commandments, and then base our morality on the relationship, which will include submission to our cognitive understanding of Him. Our morality will often look 'prescribed', but the different emphasis allows for deviations that please God when situations arise that aren't covered by the legislation with enough contextual relational nuance. 

Because morality is cognitive, it will change with progressive revelation and an evolving cognitive understanding of God. It needs to be emphasised that God does not want us to take the burden upon ourselves to guess / determine the 'next phase' of morality and progressive revelation. Its also worth mentioning here that morality (and to a lesser extent, communication) DOES have non-cognitive influences, which could potentially reflect non-cognitive aspects of the relationship. These are, however, much less precisely expressed and are readily overwhelmed by cognitive influences.

You can see that morality behaves much like communication and cognition - dim but important reflections of the underlying important spiritual love relationship. The intrinsic biases of morality must also be deliberately designed by God as they are natural consequences of deliberately designed cognitive biases. And just like we don't need to properly cognitively understand the God we love, we also don't need to legalistically and un-critically 'submit' to any particular legislation from God in order for the love to be real - but we DO need to engage in the process of submission. 

Evil 'Gaps' in the Relationship

I've talked a lot about what a relationship intuitively means to us, and about how our modernistic mindset can cause us to wrongly perceive many 'normal healthy' aspects as imperfections. But we all know that there ARE real cognitive deviations and gaps in our relationship with God, things that should not be considered healthy. And often it can sure seem as if its the 'healthy aspects' of normal relationships that become the culprits. Using our example of progressive revelation, it is often the intrinsic bias in communication and cognition that leads to problems in our relationship with God - and yet we've discussed them as natural and healthy, and something God has deliberately designed. What is it that makes some 'imperfections' normal and healthy, and others problematic? What is God's purpose behind allowing 'gaps' in the experience of Him through relationship, when He knows they will often cause problems? If modernism is wrong and many gaps are actually healthy and good, can we find another way to talk about the reality of bad gaps, ones that are real deviations from God's ideal relationship?

I think we can :) Lets start with some definitions - these are entirely my own definitions, which I think are supported by Scripture, but they're open to debate in the comment section! 'Good' and 'Evil' are terms which describe the quality of the experience of God through relationship. God is intrinsically 'good', and everything else is 'good' to the degree that it brings about the experience of God. 'Evil' is any lack of 'good' i.e. any gaps in the experience of God's goodness. This makes sense from a more Jewish perspective as well, where 'good' and 'evil' refer to something close to 'function' and 'dysfunction'. If God's fundamental aim is for us to experience Him in a relationship of love, anything which fulfils this function (i.e. our experience of God's character through His expression) is 'good', while anything that does NOT fulfil this function is 'evil'. Evil is intimately linked to sin, because sin harms our experience of God through relationship. Because these things are tied to relationship, you can see that 'good' does NOT refer to an attainable 'full' end outcome, but rather to an ideal uninhibited experience of a process (the ongoing relationship). Even from an eternal perspective, the 'good' all things work toward is an ideal ongoing relationship with God. Likewise 'evil' refers to the inability to have this ideal uninhibited experience of the process of relationship.

Note that both of these terms are dependent on your perspective. From an eternal perspective, we know that ALL things work together for 'good' i.e. are functioning (ultimately) to enhance our experience of God through relationship, even if it is 'evil' from a temporal perspective. And this makes sense, since ultimately all things are in some way an expression of God and Christ, even if you think He is merely 'permitting' their existence. God says that He Himself performs 'evil', where the experience of God in relationship is clouded or confused in a temporal sense - and yet he also says that all His actions are 'good' in an eternal sense. Also, both of these definitions are dependent on our interpreted experience of God from various perspectives, NOT on how well God is actually expressing Himself (I'm sure He is never actually limited in the expression of Himself, even temporally). This is why some 'normal' aspects to relationships, like incomplete cognitive understandings and varied and incomplete expressions of God, can be perceived as 'evil' when occurring in specific contexts. Its not these healthy normal aspects that are the culprit per-se, but the entire context has led to an impaired experience of God, which means the whole situation can rightly be called 'evil'. I believe 'evil' will not exist in heaven, but this is not because I think relationships will fundamentally change - I still think God will express Himself in varied and incomplete ways, and that our cognitive understanding of God will be incomplete and growing. Evil ceases to exist in heaven, because God will express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will experience clearly (in a temporal sense). In this life, 'evil' exists because God chooses to express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will NOT interpret clearly, even though they ultimately work toward enhanced experience of relationship.

Scriptural 'gaps'

Its obvious at this point that Progressive Revelation ties into our discussion of 'evil'. From many perspectives it enhances our relational experience of God, and is clearly 'good'. But from some perspectives progressive revelation can also be called 'evil'. You've probably felt this already yourself, when considering the implication that God has deliberately introduced bias into our cognitive understanding AND into our morality . As I've discussed earlier, much cognitive bias is a normal part of healthy relationships, but in some contexts it can also function as an 'inhibition' of our experience of God through relationship, especially when we can sense the spirit-wrought ache in our hearts for a more accurate cognitive understanding. It is thus sometimes a temporal 'evil' designed by God as part of the 'good' of progressive revelation. The 'good' of progressive revelation becomes more obvious as the revelation accumulates to produce a more accurate picture, and as we learn things from God that would not make as much relational sense if not for the previous 'unbalanced' cognition, and as we realise the limited role cognition and communication can play in relationship anyway. We should experience these unbalanced views of God as part of the ongoing expression of our relational God - simultaneously acknowledging the 'evil' this can encourage / allow from our temporal perspective AND the 'good' from other perspectives.

Summary

Reality is not as idealistic as I've been suggesting in the series so far. 'Evil' refers to NON-healthy gaps in our experience of God through relationship. But its not a simple division between gaps which are 'evil', and gaps which are normal and 'good' (i.e. the nature of relationships and cognition and morality). These descriptions depend on your perspective, and since there are usually multiple appropriate perspectives, there is usually a mix of recognising 'good' and 'evil' in these gaps. And some apparently 'evil' aspects may in other contexts be considered normal and 'good' aspects to healthy relationships, and continue to exist in some form in heaven. Importantly, all forms of 'evil' are ultimately 'good' and serve to enhance our ultimate experience of God, because permitting their existence is still itself an expression of God, and He is ultimately good (which is why He works all things work together for good). Progressive revelation demonstrates this nicely, as this variously biased revelation - with all its 'problems' - is still 'God-breathed' and good and trustworthy as part of the expression of His character. 

Do you agree that morality should be relationship-based, and thus more flexible / pragmatic than mere legislation? 

Do you agree with my relational-experiential definition of 'evil' and 'good'? 

What do you think of the assertion that 'evil' is ultimately good (from an eternal perspective), and an expression of God? 

Would life or Scriptural interpretation be easier / better if things could be definitively  divided into 'good' and 'evil' categories, instead of being both from different perspectives?

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll explore how relationships deal with the 'evil' gaps we've just discussed - through 'faith'. This will open up some more possibilities to discuss, regarding what God is doing by deliberately creating / allowing these gaps (especially those we find in Scripture).  
• After that, I will have (almost) finished my defence of the bias God has created within Scripture :) And I can work toward positively addressing how God wants us to approach His Scriptures, given its divine inspiration, purpose, and 'gaps' / biases. 
• Then we'll  explore this in more detail over some of the phases of progressive revelation. 
• And then onto the practical implications of a  proper vs improper approach to Scripture.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil (this post)
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 2 - PROGRESSIVE REVELATION)

Last post I introduced the importance of  approaching Scripture honestly to allow it to speak to us as God actually intended. I expressed my concern that our subconscious faithfulness to our extra-Biblical worldviews has led to us (Christians) to add additional (unnecessary) 'requirements' to our approach to Scripture. In particular, modernism inclines us to approach Scripture as if 'detailed cognitive understanding' was of ultimate importance, because modernism requires detailed cognitive information about God in order to place Him in the grand scheme of things, and inform us how to relate to Him. We often simplify Scripture in order to allow it to fit with our worldview, and end up being faithful to a curated form of Scripture, rather than to the real deal in all its uncomfortable fullness (including those aspects that don't fit well with our worldview).

I'm not implying that these 'uncomfortable aspects' are the major themes of Scripture, and that there is little evidence for e.g. a consistent thread of doctrine, common unity in the faith amongst the authors, God's mercy in the OT and his judgment in the NT, etc. But no one needs encouragement to be faithful to these aspects! We need encouragement to be faithful to the uncomfortable aspects, because this may require us to challenge our worldview (and this is difficult because it gives us a framework for how we think and feel about, well, everything).

Our worldview may also have us believe that considering these things faithfully is actually violating the 'faith' God expects us to have. So I reiterate again, my aim is not to challenge things for the sake of it. I just want us to be willing to challenge our worldview IF being truly faithful to Scripture and God requires it.

Progressive Revelation

Today, as a kind of expanded 'introduction', I wanted to focus primarily on unpacking ONE particular aspect of Scripture that we simplify - the progressive revelation of God's character. It nicely demonstrates the uncomfortable complexity of Scripture, probably more than any of the other aspects I mentioned. And it opens up more discussions at once, than any of the others.

Most obviously, progressive revelation refers to the Scriptures as they were recorded. For example, the law was given progressively over the course of a generation, and not instantaneously. Subsequent additions were made as the Jews unpacked their culture and history in the promised land. There were many prophets, many of whom we have no record of, though some were recorded and eventually deemed 'inspired'. The NT was written over many years, and much of the church for years only had access to a mix of SOME of these materials (as well as many additional letters, which were lost over the years).

But I'm not just talking about new 'facts' being revealed about God over time. This is hardly controversial. There's also the progression in the amount and fallibility of the 'communication' available to God's people. Jews were being circumcised into the covenant community, and having faith that pleased God, for many generations PRIOR to Moses writing a word of the OT. They relied primarily on oral tradition taught by many varied 'rabbis' with varying degrees of training and experience. We could (potentially) argue that God preserved 'direct perfect and unbiased) communication through this diverse array of human instruments, but I contest this is unlikely, and we tend to argue this mainly to protect our worldview. The bottom line is that a huge number of godly saints did not have access to any 'direct perfect and unbiased' communication about God, or to the subsequent 'detailed cognitive knowledge' we deem so important today. The NT also did not exist for many years of the early church, yet these people were baptised into union with Christ. Again, they had access mainly to oral stories passed around (verified of course by the Apostles, but many of these Christians never heard directly from the Apostles - it was all third or fourth hand). And for much of the early history of the church, the OT was minimised as a source of useful instruction (either because it was deemed to be 'evil', or allegorical). So again, these believers had restricted access to any 'direct perfect and unbiased communication' about God.

Finally, and most importantly, Christ Himself - the fullest revelation of God, this time in a more 'relational' kind of communication - took his timing in coming, and even his first coming was only a partial revelation, while we await His return. Even in heaven we will continue to experience Him, meaning that He will not have finished 'expressing' Himself for eternity.

A Changing 'Image' of God

'Progressive revelation' inevitably extends to the broad picture of God presented by Scripture. We minimise this a lot to protect our worldview, but God presents a picture of Himself that markedly changes over time. Try it for yourself - read the Torah as a Exodus Jew would have read it, without any of our modern sensibilities (e.g. about Justice, slavery, women's rights, violence, etc) and without the rest of Scripture to 'balance' things out. This is just one example, but it becomes clear that in the initial stages of the OT God expects His Holy people to willingly and brutally massacre foreign children, without qualms. The God we see now (given the whole story from OT to NT) would expect people to have a heart which naturally flows out in efforts to STOP such behavior, and which would certainly question that command to massacre (was it really from God?), and at least have some qualms about it.

If we argue that God is truly unchanging (as He says), what we're saying is that for much of the OT, God blatantly restrained Himself from revealing these incredibly relevant and important 'balancing' aspects of Himself,  and thus was deliberately creating bias in how His people perceived Him. And it was not just the general populace - it was the judges, prophets, priests, holy warriors, kings - God expected His people to perform in a way which is only consistent with a lopsided view of God.

God may have been slowly weeding this deliberate bias out with subsequent revelations, and working toward a more harmonious 'accurate' picture of His unchanging Himself. But we are still left with the NT apostles differing quite radically on their doctrinal emphases. While this might not seem as drastic as claiming that they held to contradictory doctrinal 'facts', it's still saying that the God that James saw was rather different to the God that Peter saw, that Paul saw, that John saw, etc. We could go so far as to suggest that they disagreed over aspects of God's character or priorities. A common example is the relationship between works and salvation - as a broad generalisation, Paul placed works as a definite outflow of salvation, Peter places some works as a requirement of salvation (e.g. baptism), and James and John placed works and faith alongside each other. Again, we could protect our worldview by drawing attention to the 'balancing' beliefs that the apostles held, which minimised the eccentricities they communicate in Scripture and make their theologies harmonious - or sometimes, when we can't find the doctrines we're looking for, we just assume the apostles held them. But I want to value the Scriptural tendency to communicate the eccentricities very clearly, sometimes more clearly than the harmony. Scripture doesn't seem as concerned with this 'harmony' as we are.

Dividing Scripture

This discussion obviously raises questions about 'dispensationalism' vs 'covenant theology' vs other variants. As you've probably guessed, I think both views are simplifications. Progressive revelation contains components of both.

There is a consistency to the way God relates to people throughout the ages - through multiple, varied, deliberately biased (and incomplete) expressions of Himself. I'll delve more into this in later posts, but the point for now is that 'progressive revelation' is NOT saying that some 'phases' of revelation were superior to others. All of history has been in constant a state of incomplete revelation, where God has NOT yet made known his fullness in a cognitive sense. Instead, every incomplete revelation naturally combines with others over time / exposure to produce a more and more complete communication - hence the term 'progressive'. The flip-side is what I think is an obvious conclusion from any straightforward reading of Scripture - that our view of God and how we behave as His people is meant to change, between e.g. the Exodus and now.

The difficulty is trying to describe how we are meant to approach this change. Some attempt to arbitrarily divide Scripture into sections that apply in different ways to us (and some don't apply at all). But I think this approach is not faithful to Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest a division between some parts of the OT which are relevant to us today, vs those which are not. It was always considered as a whole by every Biblical author. Even when we try to 'divide' it up, we run into trouble - e.g. we want to keep SOME of the laws about money and property, but not others. We want to keep SOME of the laws about sex, but not others. We want to keep some of the basic laws of the 10 commandments, but want to avoid the punishment associated with disobedience. Jesus and Paul both affirmed the permanent usefulness of the WHOLE law as a unified unit, and condemned the legalistic use of the WHOLE law as a unified unit. There is very little suggestion that how we fundamentally relate to the law is meant to change now that we are in the NT era - the verses commonly used to support this position tend to demonstrate instead that our relationship toward the law was ALWAYS meant to be a particular way (including in the NT era). So if our approach to Scripture has not fundamentally changed, and all of Scripture is approached in a consistent way, how does the Bible expect our behaviour as God's people to change over time? Its because as revelation progresses, the clarify of our vision of God naturally progresses as well, even though our approach to every revelation is fundamentally the same and unchanged. And our relationship to God assimilates this change.

Summary

A faithful approach to Scripture must value the fact that detailed cognitive knowledge did not seem like a priority for God throughout much of the history of His people. It must value the fact that God seems to deliberately create bias in the minds of His people, which has evolved over time. What does it look like when we value these things? That's the sort of question I'm hoping to answer in this series.

OK more comments please :) How does this discussion make you feel? Are there other ways that progressive revelation manifests itself? Or other questions that it unearths? Do you think God is pleased when we consider these things?

Coming Soon...

Next week I'll start a little more logically:

• I'll discuss that God's fundamental aim in us is a relationship of faith, and that everything (including Scripture) works for this fundamental aim. I hope this will pave the way to discuss the usefulness and limits of cognition and communication (two important aspects of Scripture) when it comes to relationship. 
• From there we will discuss WHY God seems to not only allow the intrinsic weaknesses of cognition and communication, but seemingly encourages it (demonstrated nicely by e.g. progressive revelation). This requires us to engage with the broader issue of why God allows ANY confusion to exist about his nature (e.g. the existence of evil, sin, etc). 
• I'll discuss how the faith relationship works in this context (i.e. in the real world of confusion regarding God's nature). And we'll specifically explore how the faith relationship responds to three phases of progressive revelation (the Torah, Christ's first coming, and the possibility of further revelation). 
• I'll discuss how the Jews approached Scripture in an unfaithful way and the problems this created, and then re-visit how we Christians do the same. And then I'll discuss some implications for Christian unity, discipleship, missions, etc. 

A lot to get through! It'll take time...

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation (this post)
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

'Faithfulness' vs 'Historical Criticism'?

In line with the series I'm currently writing about Scripture (and yes, the next post is coming, eventually...), check this article out:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/12/inerrancy-historical-criticism-and-the-slippery-slope/

In summary:

1. The modern inerrantist tends to equate 'being faithful to Scripture' to 'affirming inerrancy'.
2. As a consequence, any attempt to critically analyse the inerrancy of Scripture is automatically pitted against faithfulness. Those who deny any truth in the Bible are blatantly unfaithful to it, while those who hold to inerrancy but define 'errors' slightly differently are being mildly unfaithful to it.
3. This is demonstrated nicely in the straight-line graph, where faithfulness decreased as historical criticism increases.
4. Actually, we all accept a degree of 'historical criticism' as being necessary for 'faithfulness'. For example, we may accept that a complete lack of awareness of historical context may result in slight errors of interpretation. Hence the most literal straightforward 'inerrant' interpretation may actually be mildy unfaithful to the Scriptures as they were intended to be read. 
5. Hence the first paradigm is wrong. Faithfulness actually maximises at a specific degree of critical analysis.
6. This is demonstrated nicely by the curved graph. Only after a certain point does faithfulness start decreasing with more critical analysis.
7. Once we accept this more accurate paradigm, we can begin discussing things a little more meaningfully. Where exactly does the point of maximal 'faithfulness' occur? What makes us decide 'thus far and no further' when it comes to our optimal degree of critical analysis? These are useful and important things to discuss, rather than dismissing and ignoring them as 'unfaithful' questions.

What are your guy's thoughts?

P.S. For those who worry, I certainly don't agree with everything this author writes. But I think he's refreshingly genuine and honest (more than many evangelical bloggers) when it comes to faithfully approaching Scripture...

Christianity vs Maturity?

Before I release the initial post of the series I've been working on for a while (regarding our approach to Scripture), here's a nice little article to contemplate :)

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/11/04/rugged-rationalism-and-the-churchs-alternative-story/

To summarise it:

1. 'Evidence' (e.g. logic, 'science', textual criticism) plays a relatively minor role in 'conversion to unbelief / atheism'
2. Instead, the deciding factor seems to be that the narrative 'unbelief' offers is one of honesty, problem-solving, maturity in the face of our complex reality - more so than the person's previous / alternative 'belief' system. 
3. 'Evidence' is then offered as a supporting factor which integrates well with the preferred narrative.
4. This implies that the church's mission attempts should not be primarily focused on 'evidence', even if we think we have lots which integrates well with our preferred narrative. This will only alienate people who are preconditioned (by their preferred narrative) to reject these 'evidences' in favour of their own.
5. Instead, the church should seek to provide an alternative attractive narrative - one which is MORE honest, mature, and pro-active in the face of our complex reality, than the person's previous experience of 'belief'.
6. The best initial step in evangelism, then, is to spend life with people, come alongside them, invite them to church. The goal is to help them grasp a narrative that can handle their complex reality in a way which is mature. 

Some thoughts of my own - If we fail to provide a narrative which is attractive, there are several possibilities:

• Christianity is not real, and hence can't handle reality. If Christianity is real, an alternative MORE mature narrative must be possible.
• WE probably need to adjust our understanding of the Christian narrative, so that it becomes mature enough to handle the other person's complex realities. This requires humility, a Christian value strangely lacking in many evangelical strategies.
• Of course there are other things (besides 'maturity')  which make narratives attractive. Some may be able to be superseded by Christ's narrative, but others may be fundamentally opposed to it. We can't provide a narrative which is exclusively attractive on all fronts, or exclusively supported by all the evidence. Whatever the case, our aim is the same - to provide a narrative which is SUPERIORLY attractive, and which is supported by evidence.

What do you guys think? Especially keen to hear from the atheists out there :)

EMERGENT CHURCH

The 'emergent church' is essentially the postmodern church. It simply challenges modernistic assumptions found in today's global Church, and attempts to allow Christianity to function in a more 'organic' way - free from these assumptions (but they don't tend to define or limit what this might mean). It is not primarily about defining any new mind sets or ways of looking at things. It doesn't even necessarily condemn the modernism (or bondage-to-modernism) that it challenges. Many emergent churches begin to function and express themselves in a way which appears totally foreign to us modernistic Christians - it can seem jarring, bizarre, and divisive. But their insistence of questioning (rather than answering) makes it impossible to decide on a definition of what the emergent church thinks or does (such defining is, after all, a modernistic aim!)

I've read lots about the 'emergent church' and have wholeheartedly rejected it (for lots of 'good reasons') in the past. But I've never seriously listened to any of its proponents, which is all they want us to do. The other day I started doing just that, and I now have mixed feelings, having asked some novel questions about my belief system. This article will not attempt the impossible task of defining the 'emergent church' and what's right/wrong with it! Instead I'll just describe the conclusions I have arrived at about my own belief system. Most of it has been helpfully influenced by the emergent thinking, but the last two paragraphs in particular describe the conflict I have with their excess focus on their own novel questions.

I'm really interested in other people's experiences and opinions of the 'emergent church' or post-modern concepts. We have talked about it lots in previous posts but I think it would be worth summarising your views in the comments below, as well as any new insights :)

Christianity is primarily about a heart-resounding with God's glory.

The Holy Spirit gives rebirth which frees our hearts to experience its greatest enjoyment in the expression of God's glory. We begin to focus on Christ as a personal embodiment of all-important beauty. We submit the importance of our own identity (worldview, meaning, purpose, worth, validity, definition, etc), to the importance of God's glory being expressed and enjoyed. The mind of Christ is that He Himself did all this, emptied Himself for the sake of God's glory - and so this is what union with Christ means (death to self, rising to God). But the full implications of our new heart desires and union with Christ are only realised as the heart perceives the glory of God so that it CAN enjoy it - and this glory is not fully expressed in this life, and is certainly not accurately or fully perceived by us.

This heart-resounding God focus minimises the importance of modernistic 'pillars'.

First, we can be honest about the insecurities of our identity - admit doubts and failings, accept challenges that shake the foundation of what holds us together. We won't react with emotion or avoidance or aggression to the things (or the people) that expose our insecurities or the flaws in our worldview. Instead we will embrace all of this! At worst, these things do not threaten what is of ultimate importance to us (the expression and enjoyment of God's glory), and the deep cracks in our identity and worldview - our doubts and weakness and confusion - actually identify us with Christ more (who went through the same in His sufferings). Also such deep honesty about ourselves frees us to truly empathise with others, including how they see us (in all our flaws). And often it will enable us to work toward a better perception and enjoyment of God's glory together.

Second, we will be able to escape the 'death drive' of having distant goals that are meant to fulfil us, but which require sacrificing too much in order to have any chance of attaining it. The world is rife with the problems caused when people sacrifice holiness, relationship with others, or peace with God for these aims. And extra problems are created merely by the unattainment of these goals - unhappiness, inability to enjoy the present, and lying to ourselves and/or others (either keeping this goal secret, or keeping the ongoing failure secret). Even good goals - holiness, spirituality, good works, closeness to God - can be wrongly persued as a 'death drive', leading to these problems. We can avoid the sacrifice required, AND avoid the problems associated with wanting but never attaining to such goals, because what is of ultimate importance to us is the enjoyment of the expression of God's glory. This glory is both present AND future, and besides the death-drive's self-focussed fulfilment has been submitted to God's glory as part of our identity. We are free to admit our failings and confusion over our goals because these are not primary.

Third, we will not insist on any particular cognitive knowledge of God as necessary or important in a blanket sense (such as a creed). What is important is the heart change that God brings, and the subsequent heart-resounding and enjoyment of the holistic expression of the glory of God. We will direct our attention to whatever that is required to woo the heart, and to satisfy the heart with the expression of God's glory - trusting God to use our efforts as He sees fit, and to cover our flawed perception and expression of Him. We will find unity in this common heart-resounding faith (which is often expressed in different doctrine, because no one has found the perfect full cognitive expression of it), rather than demanding exact doctrinal sameness. And we will accept that disagreement is part of the process of working together to improve our perception of the expression of God's glory.

There is danger in focussing on this minimisation, instead of God's glory.

Identity, goals, and cognitive knowledge are all still very important to God! While they do not define our ultimate aim or enjoyment, they are very helpful, and God mandates their use in the service of His glory and our enjoyment of it. Heart change is not defined by perception of God's glory, but by enjoyment of His glory - nevertheless, such enjoyment IS revealed as perception occurs. Likewise, perception is not defined as cognitive knowledge, but cognitive knowledge is one way to perceive - and it is required in some measure to talk about God, which is one of the main ways God intends us to woo hearts and help OTHERS to perceive! So, we will continue with cognitive beliefs and expressions, and attempt to improve them together, and use them as accurately as possible for the goal of enjoying God's glory, trusting God's grace to cover our flaws and fill the message with spiritual life. We will submit it all to God through union with Christ, and seek deep honesty about our flaws and doubts and insecurities, focussing on corporate love and enjoyment of God's glory together even when cognitive experience of this isn't the same, and encourage true empathy with others (which includes seeing ourselves as they see us, with all our flaws).

We also need to be careful to continue to aim for the right things - union and love of Christ, NOT merely being shocked out of our faulty modernistic thought system. If this is all that happens, we have failed drastically. We need to remember that everything needs tailoring to context - we do whatever is required to help each other progress in our perception and enjoyment of God's glory. Sometimes our faulty cognitive expression is NOT helpful to that person at that time. Often, in the process of communication, our perception of God's glory is lost on the person, and their disagreement is actually an unwitting affirmation that they have the same faith as us and are looking for true perception of God's glory. Sometimes non-cognitive perception is most helpful, which may require being shocked out of a modernistic approach to God. One cannot mandate a particular approach, and I believe often the division caused by the drastic and new questions of the 'emergent church' are simply not worth the benefit (just like modernistic arguments about correct doctrine are often not worth the benefit).

Finally, we need to be vigilant and not let the current OR emerging pagan culture corrupt the Church's pure and contrasting message. This contrast is just as much against secular modernism as it is against secular post-modernism. We need to maintain a delight in old and fixed things (such as God), rather than undue fascination with what is new and novel and 'relevant'. And we need to be careful not to paint another false veneer of 'happy relevant honest challenge-resistant post-modernism' instead of 'happy secure cognitively-sound modernism'. Both are hypocrisy.

May God help us keep the ultimate aim of enjoying His glory in sight, and may He help us communicate clearly with others!

Is Islam a religion of peace? - Debate

Off topic a bit from what we have been discussing lately, but here is a very interesting debate about whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. I found it quite insightful around several issues including:

- How Muslims interpret the Quran
- How should paradigms be judged
- The effects of social contexts on beliefs
- Contextualising versus plain reading
- Social change

It is long, but a good watch. I started out as unsure, but for me the opposition to the motion won this debate. It sounds like (though I have never read it) the Quran can easily be misinterpreted. The ones putting forward the motion seemed to suggest that you need to be a scholar to interpret the Quran correctly and that plain reading could lead to violence. However, an important point made by both sides is that it is possible to be a peaceful Muslim, but as pointed out evidence suggests that the Quran is not easily interpreted in a peaceful manner.