I begin here so

Presuppositions determine our destination

Presuppositions so determine outcomes. In my first focused writing that I will be going through with a few on Sunday evening I come reasonably clean. If we start at a given point we are probably going to end somewhere predictable. So I open with a personal bio that I suggest is more a personal bias.

If I think the world is essentially a burning building with everyone inside already in danger and eventually they will all burn in Gehenna and I run around pulling people out by the hair I will be deemed a hero. If a person refuses to come, I leave them to burn and pull the next one out I will have ethically been good. A presupposition. However if I view the work of the demonic to dehumanise and objectivise people, ‘befriend’ in order to evangelise (proselytise) and move on till I find someone who was elected from all eternity (or simply responsive in time) then my partnering in the act of pulling willing people by the hair will not be seen as a heroic act but something that even-in-part partnered with the demonic. And given who God is I will still have testimonies as to how he wonderfully broke in and people found salvation. The above I have put in extreme language… but my point is that where we start will shape behaviour, our assessment of what is deemed right, and for the sake of the writing that where we start will largely determine where we end up.

The challenge of belief is not that there are many valid faiths. There are many valid perspectives but not all perspectives are equal. In sharing my perspectives I am not seeking to convert readers to my viewpoint but ot provoke a journey toward their personal convictions. I do not expect to influence (e.g.) someone with a hard line Reformed position, or someone running round with a placard saying ‘Repent the end is nigh!’.

In the mid 90s I read an article that helped explain something. It was on the shift that had been taking place within evangelicalism. Previously to be evangelical was to sit with beliefs that were within a set of boundaries. There might be a few variations within the boundaries (e.g. eternal punishing – and this is normally written wrongly as punishment – in hell, or conditional immortality – again wrongly written as annihilation) but if one was inside the boundaries one was ‘in’ and outside one was a ‘heretic’. The author went on to describe the shift as being to emphasising two questions as being central. One question was with regard to what the door was to reconciliation to the Father, and the second what was the source of authority for one’s beliefs. The ‘correct’ answers to become a millionaire to prove one was still an evangelical were ‘the death on a cross by Jesus’ and ‘the Scriptures’. So far so good! But those who belief Jesus only died for the elect, and those who belief in Universalism both respond with the correct answers. And so it goes on and the diversity of views we see today expressed into current thorny issues such as same-sex marriage simply illustrate how the ground has shifted.

With a personal bias (starting point) we are shaped by our reading of Scripture, our experiences etc., but also by so much that is internal. I was talking to someone recently who was reflecting that a colleague of theirs was reacting to what they understood to be a ‘universalist’ perspective. They reacted with ‘well if everyone is saved why should I bother to follow Jesus.’ I am not a universalist, but if my reason for following Jesus is to avoid going somewhere really nasty it surely is time for me to push a whole lot deeper in my relationship to the Lord. Beliefs reveal so much!

5 thoughts on “I begin here so

  1. will these discussions be recorded and posted online for us to listen to?

    1. Or am I misunderstanding this – maybe these are private related to your writing

  2. My presuppositions have changed or at least evolved and I find revisiting what you think/know you believe is so valuable. Early in life perhaps I was uncritical, accepting, naive , but also nearer a child than now, yet desiring to be child like. I read this, the pastor said that, my parents said etc etc. Though tradition is incredibly strong and what was held with conviction was not easily left behind. I wrote an essay on infant/adult baptism once and the lecturer said that in all her years students had soften to other peoples views, but stayed true to the one they had experienced for themselves- not a definitive poll, but it shows our loyalty to our own experience.
    So now Jesus still died for me and for everyone, but now my presupposition is everyone includes more than I was first taught. Mercy over judgement…
    Look forward to a post Zoom post!

  3. Thanks for the comments / questions… I am not totally sure how to proceed. To start I will do zoom discussions on each of the chapters. That is a guinea pig run (not sure if that is an insult to the people or to the animal???). Then I plan to make it available to a wider audience via zoom and small groups. But the chapters will be posted here somewhere in due course. I am currently on booklet #2 of the writing – will need a few revisions but basically will finish early next week. So #1 is along the lines of a gospel discussion (Stephen your book was great on all this.)
    Book 2 – the ‘church’ as ekklesia. The fall of Israel, the call to be ‘for’ the world etc.
    I consider book 3 will be practical engagement. Either then one more… and a final one on eschatology.

  4. It sounds really interesting and challenging. I look forward to being able to read the book when it is finished. I think our starting point and ways we make God in our image to justify our politics, ethics etc. is such an important issue. I have noticed how difficult it is to change anyone’s perspectives on anything especially in politics. Views tend to be so entrenched and I know I am deeply biased myself before I even start. There are certain facets of God’s nature that I honour/pay attention to/acknowledge more than others and I like to feel comfortable with a God I can see in those terms. I tend to avoid addressing issues I don’t like for instance the issue of hell etc. and am naturally a Universalist partly because there is some scriptural and historical (in terms of writings and views of early church fathers) and partly because I cannot bear the alternative. But then as I said I am possibly making God fit round my preferences and obviously not acknowledging the mystery and what is unknown about those issues. Thank you for this.

Comments are closed.

Perspectives