Reconciliation – post #2

In this second post I will try and lay out some of the presuppositions I hold that will shape where I go with future posts. If there is absolute disagreement with the presuppositions I guess any conclusions I will bring will automatically be disagreed with.

---

Presuppositions

We all approach theology with presuppositions and I consider what follows are some of mine that undergird my views. To acknowledge them is important.

Scripture

Scripture is of paramount importance, but it is an unfinished ‘book’. Not unfinished in the sense that I can break the pages open and insert some fresh text, but unfinished in the sense that it does not bring us to a conclusion on every aspect. There is, for example, no text that outright condemns slavery, nor even one that indicates a dream that slavery will disappear prior to the parousia. There are no unequivocal passages that speak of the abolition of patriarchy. This makes the task of progressive theology deeply challenging to those of an evangelical persuasion, and I appreciate that what I write in this article might indeed be challenging. 

We do not add to Scripture in the sense that we make any idea carry biblical weight.

Yet we do not stop where Scripture stops – it gives us a thrust and a momentum beyond the pages but in the same direction as we found in the pages. It is often said that the book of Acts is unfinished and we are living (or should be!) in Acts 29. The final word of Acts is the word (without hindrance)… without a ‘stop there and go no further. The direction that the Spirit empowers is toward the fullness as will be revealed in the parousia (commonly translated as ‘return’ of Christ, but with the word essentially meaning ‘presence’ a test as to how faithful we are to the trajectory will be the presence of Jesus – and not a Jesus simply of our theology).

We are not to decide the line of ‘in’ and ‘out’

A focus on ‘eternal’ things, commonly thought of as ‘eternal destiny’ and who is ‘saved’ is probably not where the Pauline Gospel is centred. There are distinctions in Scripture, such as ‘do good to all especially those of the household of faith’; there is the recognition of those whose faith is centred on the God of Israel. God is said to be the ‘Saviour of all, especially those who believe’. In what sense is he also the Saviour of those who do not believe (‘all’)? The same terminology is used in the Pauline text where he instructs Timothy to bring ‘the books especially the scrolls’ (2 Tim. 4:13). He does not mean bring only the scrolls but make sure they are brought in and bring as many books as you can also. Texts such as those indicate there is a ‘wideness in the mercy of God’ and that we are not to be those who declare who is in and who is out. Paul might have been pleasantly surprised when finally Timothy came with all the books as well as the parchments. Perhaps we will be likewise surprised. (I often say I am not a Universalist, but have a sneaky suspicion that God just might be!)

If we focus too tightly and insist that we know who is in and who is out we will be replacing God with our knowledge (maybe a kick back to Genesis 3?) and we will probably see no value in any act that contributes toward a better future.

Good works are good!

All have sinned, all fall short, all need salvation, but this does not mean there is no value in what we can term ‘good works’. The ‘righteousness that is as filthy rags’ was a verdict given to the outward obedience to a set of religious practices (ones that seemed to be ordained by God), the phraseology was not given as a blanket statement to describe anything good done.

Evangelicals have been fearful about ‘salvation by works’ and this is indeed something that the Reformers helped us steer away from. A belief in ‘salvation by works’ falls short primarily because it presents a faulty image of God, that we can earn salvation. We do not earn with the God who has always taken the initiative to bring us to our future.

The concept of the law court acquittal also falls short. James exposes this when he says faith without works is dead. There is a false over-divide between ‘justification’ and ‘sanctification’. We dissect something in life to see the inner working, but life does not exist with the divides we make. And perhaps we should also lose the temporal succession of justification comes first then comes sanctification; perhaps the process can be reversed at times! What if someone is on the road to a greater level of sanctification and has not yet arrived at the place of knowing they are justified!

Perhaps it is uncomfortable but there are numerous mentions in the New Testament about a judgement according to works. Jesus told the story of the sheep and the goats being separated out on the basis of how they treated others. Both groups respond with the same words – ‘when did we…?’ Those who were told to enjoy the kingdom were evidently not seeking to prove how righteous they were, this was not salvation by works. The over-emphasis on ‘by faith alone’ for salvation left Luther struggling with the letter written by James, terming it an ‘epistle of straw’. If faith in the Pauline corpus is reduced to ‘belief’ then we do have a major tension when we come to the book of James. However, James makes clear it is not a question of an either / or but that genuine faith has an outworking. ‘Faith without works is dead’ and he claimed that he would show his faith by his works, insisting that even the devil has faith! Faith alone he claims is devilish.

In Romans Paul said his goal was to bring about the ‘obedience of faith’ among the Gentiles; not an obedience to the law but an obedience to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.

The over-emphasis on ‘salvation’ in the sense of being ‘safe’ with a ticket to enter heaven has caused a divide between the ‘evangelical gospel’ and the ‘social gospel’. ‘Do good to all’ is a continuing requirement, and I suggest that given the strongly political words that consistently appear in Paul’s writings that we have to rethink ‘salvation’ as far more for a purpose than as a status. Surely it is when Israel loses sight of her election for the world that we can track from that point her increased captivity.

For those who see their calling as leading people to faith in Jesus in a more classic evangelical sense my plea is that we do not treat people as objects to be witnessed to. By all means share our faith in the context of respect for the person and by no means are we to reject them as friends if they do not respond. Friendship evangelism that treats people as objects is neither friendship nor evangelism.

And for those who see their calling as ‘doing good to all’ I ask that we do not replace Jesus with our activity. Scripture exhorts us ‘to be ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within us’ and that answer is not merely about a set of values, nor simply of a philosophy of life but is firmly centred on the person of Jesus.

The calling of the ekklesia

A final presupposition is with regard the word (ekklesia) that we translate as ‘church’. It certainly, and not surprisingly, carries meaning from the Hebrew Scriptures where it was used for the people of covenant when they were called to listen to the voice of God or were being sent on ‘mission’. It was used when there was action connected to who they were. In the wider world of Paul’s day it was used to describe the officially appointed deciding body of a city or region. The New Testament uses many words to describe those who are within the covenant people, but ekklesia is the central word. This indicates that there was a strong sense that the ekklesia of Jesus Christ was to take responsibility for their appointed setting. This would involve an authority to create space where certain things could flourish and others not. Like the salt of that time it was used as fertiliser to promote growth in the field and as a disinfectant with regard to the ‘dung heap’.

The body of Christ (another term common in Paul) is not simply about activity, so I am not suggesting reconciliation promotes human ‘doing’, after all before Jesus sent the 12 out as apostles to heal the sick, cast out demons and proclaim the kingdom, he chose them to be ‘with him’. The ‘doing’ came from a place of well-’being’.

I grew up with George Ladd’s theology of the New Testament which helpfully centred so much on ‘the kingdom of God’. He stated, and I have repeated many times, that the church is not the kingdom but is ‘the agent of the kingdom’. Incredibly helpful to distinguish the two, but I suggest that it did not go far enough. I would propose that the church is the body that is to take responsibility for agents of the kingdom to rise. And by pushing it to that point the implication is that not all ‘agents’ (individual or corporate) will be those affirming a biblical statement of faith!

I consider that the above presuppositions will explain why I explore what follows as I do. The centrality of Jesus as the person through whom God has been present to initiate the reconciliation process and as the person through whom the process will be completed is central to me; likewise Scripture as laying down the parameters and the trajectory for our journey is essential. Those two, under the power of the Spirit, invite us all to be involved in the ‘ministry’ (service) of reconciliation.

Is that work limited to ‘reconciliation to God’? I think not. And is that work limited to those who are committed to a Jesus-centred faith? Well Paul seemed to have space for others beyond simply the members of the ‘household of faith’ and maybe as important was that they had space for him (Acts 19:31).