Protestant Christianity has always had disagreements, divisions and arguments, some trivial and unnecessary, occasionally important.
It seems to me that a significant divergence and debate over the last decade has been about what Jesus expects of his followers.
The evangelicals say repentance and faith. Some progressives say living right and loving our neighbour.
Let’s look at this question.
The battle lines
As long as I’ve been a Christian (more than 60 years), and probably much longer, evangelical Christians have been suspicious of Christians who seemed to them to be weakening the faith. (I’m not just talking about the hard right evangelicals now in the US, but the classic evangelicals whose exemplars were people like Billy Graham, CS Lewis, John Stott, Tim Keller and Rick Warren.)
Last century the criticism was of “liberals”, not so long ago it was “emergent”, and now it seems to be “progressives”.
“Progressive” Christianity is criticised in many ways, and one of the consistent disagreements is about what Jesus requires of us today. (We won’t explore other issues such as Bible, sexuality, judgment, etc, here.)
Evangelical belief
Ever since the Reformation, evangelical or Protestant Christians have always emphasised the importance of a personal faith in response to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. This response should include something like the following elements:
- The depth of our sin and God’s judgment on it.
- Our inability to save ourselves.
- The death of Jesus as the payment of the demands of God’s judgment.
- Our response in repentance and faith.
- Our assurance of salvation on this basis.
The salvation formula is generally less clear about how to live after that. Church attendance, daily BIble reading and prayer, and personal morality (generally in terms of sexual ethics) were strongly encouraged, but with definite teaching that these didn’t “save” us, only Jesus’ death could do that. Loving our neighbour through caring for the poor and sick or working for justice seem to take a secondary place.
“Progressive” emphases
“Progressive” Christianity isn’t a strictly defined belief system, but “progressive” Christians have noted the strong teaching from Jesus that we love our neighbour. They tend to feel that the evangelical gospel doesn’t properly reflect the importance Jesus places on how we live and act towards others.
Some “progressive” Christians accept the evangelical statement of the gospel (more or less) but add to it extra imperatives on the kingdom of God and loving our neighbour.
But other “progressive” Christians tend to downplay the evangelical gospel. Some feel the idea of God requiring a human sacrifice to allow him to forgive sin is blasphemous. Some feel that limiting God’s salvation to those who specifically put their faith in Jesus is unjust and unloving.
So these Christians emphasise living by the values of the Sermon on the Mount and are less concerned about belief.
I have an opinion on all this (fwiw)
I don’t like labels, because they tend to polarise and restrict, but they are useful as brief descriptors. So I have an evangelical history, while I now find myself closer to “progressive” Christianity.
Critique of evangelical position
The “progressive” critique of classic evangelicalism seems just. The gospel it presents may be close to some of Paul’s statements of the good news, but falls way short of what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God, his role as king, and his call for us to respond with fidelity. (For more on this, see Salvation by faith alone?.)
It seems clear to me that God his calling his church today to give greater emphasis to loving neighbour.
Stepping back from this particular issue for a moment, it seems clear that the church needs to rediscover the first century Jewishness of Jesus, and learn to interpret his teachings in that light. The scholars have known this for several decades, but the church is way behind, mostly.
Critique of “progressive” position
So could Jesus be interested mainly in our behaviour, our love and care of our fellow humans? There are two reasons why I think this isn’t the case.
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet
Historians of all beliefs and none confirm that Jesus wasn’t just a moral teacher, but was an apocalyptic prophet announcing the incoming reign of God on earth. Christians believe he was also Son of God, saviour, healer, etc, as well. We cannot ignore his call to love God, believe his words and enter the kingdom, without distorting who he was..
His teaching at the Last Supper (an event in all four gospels) shows that he saw a connection between his ministry and the Jewish sacrificial system. We don’t need to accept the most wrathful expressions of penal substututionary atonement to believe that Jesus’ death was something more than an example.
Therefore it seems that making ethical lifestyle teaching our main emphasis isn’t true to the Jesus of history. At the very least, the kingdom of God and some form of the atonement must be part of any honest teaching about Jesus.
People need the Spirit of God
Psychologists have found that people who believe in a loving God and feel part of his cosmic purposes have better wellbeing and a stronger sense of meaning and purpose. To encourage a person to live an ethical life without giving them the spiritual resources or motivation doesn’t seem to me to be either effective or truly following Jesus.
The best of both worlds
So I believe we need both.
We can improve on the gospel understanding of the evangelicals to be truer to who Jesus was and what he taught.
And we can include in “the gospel” the social justice and care of the “progressives” without giving up the spiritual component.
That’s what I think. How about you?
Main graphic by Oladimeji Ajegbile and RDNE Stock project.
Well, it seems to me that “believing” in Jesus would also mean following his ways and teachings, it would be hypocritical not to do so in my opinion.
So, your Right Wing rich “conservative” Christians are just hollow shells in my view holding on to a desperate believe that just because they believe Jesus existed they would be saved.
I believe Jesus existed and that he gave some lessons on how to live a good life but I don’t believe that entitles me to special privileges.
Mahatma Ghandi lived a good life but he wasn’t a Christian. In fact he said “God has no religion”, which I also believe. But according to strict Bible interpretation, he would be damned to hell, or whatever punishment unbelievers are supposed to receive.
So really , “Salvation through Faith alone” is a pretty silly concept in my view, because it assumes one can do bad things as long as one “believes” in Jesus.
I can understand how you see this, but I think it’s very complex. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that God wants to give eternal life to human beings.
• So does he give it to everyone? Even people who are so anti-God that they don’t want it?
• Does he give it to everyone who asks, or everyone he knows wants it (since he knows everything)?
• Does he set up some sort of test we have to pass, like being good (or good enough, say 7/10), or everyone who signs on to join a church, or everyone who loves their mum???
• And how long does he give everyone – just this life, or a longer life, or as long as they need after they die?
Once I start to think like this, I feel that all or any of these could be true. So I have my views but I’m thinking I don’t want to pretend to know too much.
There could more options.
Perhaps all life is eternal but it’s like climbing a ladder. If you make an effort in one life, you go up a few steps, if not, you go down. Once wisdom is gained in one life, it flows through to the next and helps you on your upward path.
So I generally agree with your last point “or a longer life, or as long as they need after they die?”
I think that solves the problem of people who never get to know Jesus in one life, they have many more opportunities to do so.
Yes, I’m sure there are many more options, but since I believe Jesus was from God, that eliminates or makes improbable some of them. I’ve never been a fan of reincarnation. I think it doesn’t work if we don’t remember our past and the lessons we learnt. Also, human nature tends to harden through life, so having an extra set of lives mightn’t make much difference. But I can see that it might be a hopeful view for those who don’t follow Jesus.
I think it (reincarnation) doesn’t work if we don’t remember our past and the lessons we learnt.
I think this can be thought of similar to computing where you have programs and data. The program( a person’s spirit) stays with them through their many lives, but it acts on different data( experiences, relationships etc). Programs can always be changed and improved but they operate on a different data set during a particular life. But as you say, it is complex.
It seems to me that to truly follow Jesus, one must sell all one’s possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and live a live of frugality among the population. (Luke 18:22). Gandhi may have done this, but I don’t see a lot of evidence of it among today’s Christians.
If Christians don’t do this does it debar them from reaching Heaven?
I can see how that might work. But how can we benefit from past experiences if we don’t remember them?
Yes, I think you are right, there is a real issue here. Not just with this matter, but there are others where Jesus’ teaching seems to be extreme by modern standards. I think we must understand that:
(1) Jesus, like other rabbis of the time, often used figures of speech including hyperbole. e.g. I don’t suppose he seiously intended people to pluck out their eye to prevent certain sins that depend on our sight (Mark 9:47).
(2) While Jesus lived in this non-material way, it is recorded that he was financed by some well-to-do women (Luke 8:1-3). So whatever he meant by this teaching, he maybe didn’t intend it to be as drastic as we might think.
But I don’t think such explanations fully negate some of the difficult teachings and I recognise the dilemma and perhaps even hypocrisy of Christians like me. I can only say I don’t feel able to live to the letter of his teachings in several areas, including this, though I do try to live simply and to give away a reasonable percentage of my income.
I don’t think my failure in several areas of Jesus ethics is the end of the matter, which gets us back to the idea of salvation by faith or by allegiance, but not by attaining a high evel of obedience if that is even possible..
I can see how that might work. But how can we benefit from past experiences if we don’t remember them?
Think of it like a mathematical model for prediction of weather, streamflow, the stock market etc.
Past data is used to improve the model, but the model then acts on the current data, eg rainfall, air pressure, stock prices to determine what to do next.
The model is like our moral compass that has been shaped by past experiences, it is not necessary to remember each former event to act in a moral way.
I don’t think my failure in several areas of Jesus ethics is the end of the matter, which gets us back to the idea of salvation by faith or by allegiance, but not by attaining a high evel of obedience if that is even possible..
Yes, times have changed and maybe we shouldn’t expect strict adherence all the time. My problem is people always quoting the Bible telling other people how to live but not applying it to themselves. This definitely does not apply to you, I was thinking more of the quite wealthy tv evangelists touting for donations. It would be interesting to know exactly where the money given to them goes, I doubt it’s to the poor.
Jesus, like other rabbis of the time, often used figures of speech including hyperbole. e.g. I don’t suppose he seiously intended people to pluck out their eye to prevent certain sins that depend on our sight (Mark 9:47).
Trouble is, when you go down that track, the Bible becomes open to cherry picking, ie some quotes could be genuine, others can be regarded as hyperbole when it suits people to say that..
It seems a bit of a rabbit hole to me.
That’s an interesting analogy, but a little mechanistic I think. An old person is different to a young person, so I can’t help feeling that “you can’t put an old head (from a past life) on young shoulders”. But doubtless my Christian conviction is influencing my conclusion.
Would you say you believe in reincarnation, or hope it is true, or just wonder if it is true?
I really agree with you that so many Christians are inconsistent and even hypocritical. Of course I’m not exempt, though I hope I try to rise above my weaknesses. I appreciate your kind words.
As they say in the computer business, I think this is a feature, not a bug. There are some situations where we need very clear rules with no ambiguity – think road rules that we drive on the left, stop at Stop signs and red lights, etc. But I don’t think the Bible is intended to be like that, though many Christians and many critics think it is. I think God is looking to see how we respond and whether our intention is good even if our actions fall short. In a sense, life is an exam, and to test our motivations requires there to be options and ambiguity. Of course I think the Bible gives us information and direction, but I don’t think it is precise in everything to allow for growth which comes through being tested and making choices – which is how we grow in all aspects of our lives.
An old person is different to a young person, so I can’t help feeling that “you can’t put an old head (from a past life) on young shoulders”.
That’s a biological constraint, our brains have to develop so we can properly apply our moral compass to the challenges of this life. You could not expect a baby to suddenly make decisions on important matters until they have the brainpower to do so.
Would you say you believe in reincarnation, or hope it is true, or just wonder if it is true?
Reincarnation is the only thing that makes any sense to me.
There are too many questions regarding religion in general that have no answers for me.
Why would an eternal being limit his children to one life and make them suffer for the simple mistake of not going to a Christian church or being born into a different religion or other factors outside their control?
As I mentioned with Gandhi (possibly the most Jesus-like person in history apart from Jesus) who lived a life of service but is doomed because he was born into the wrong religion.
If God wanted all his children to find Jesus, why wouldn’t he make all children be born into Christian families?
Anyway, I think I have bothered you enough.
I’m sorry if I have disrupted your site. It’s been good exchanging views with you because you are obviously a free thinker with an open mind (but not gaping as some would say!).
All the best.
Not at all. You are welcome to comment as much or as little as you like. I appeciate your comments and the opportunity to discuss.
I too think this. There are actually three different Christian views on this:
1. exclusivism: only those who specifically believe in Jesus are saved (a common view).
2. inclusivism: God judges everyone fairly on the basis of the light they have been given.
3. universalism: God’s love is so strong that everyone is saved in the end.
I hold #2, with a slight lean towards #3. I think that is in fact a Biblical view.
That sounds reasonable.
What is your view on the method of Salvation?
Does it depend on the return of Christ?
eg
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (NIV): “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”
That seems to imply that all those who are dead will be resurrected even if their bones have turned to dust and that it won’t happen until Christ returns at an undetermined time.
Are there alternatives in the Bible to this?
That’s an interesting question, which I haven’t thought about before. Here’s a few thoughts ….
1. There were Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament but few recognised Jesus when he came. Jews would say that was because he wasn’t the Messiah, but Christians would say that was because he was a different type of Messiah. So I’m guessing that the end times, Jesus’ return, etc, are going to be quite different to what most Christians expect.
2. The Jews who believed in resurrection (not all did) thought it would happen at the end of the age, so anything a first century Jew (like Paul) wrote would likely reflect that perspective. Paul’s language on timing may not the the essential part of the teaching.
3. Bible alternatives? Jesus said to a guy crucified with him “Today you’ll be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43).
4. My guess is that God and the afterlife are outside of our universe’s time – either outside of time altogether or in another and quite flexible time. So any timing of events is maybe meaningless. Perhaps Moses could die and I could die 3,300 years later and both enter the age to come at the same time.
All speculation, but interesting.
My guess is that God and the afterlife are outside of our universe’s time –
If God is eternal that would have to be the case. Our Universe is expected to die at some stage, but scientists think that multiple universes are being created all the time with their own space and time.
So if anyone is to be “saved” for eternity, then salvation must extend beyond our universes time frame, possibly somewhere where matter does not exist but “souls” do ?
Who knows, but as you say it’s interesting to speculate.
That is probably what most Christians think, but I think there is a growing move away from it. I and many others think that the Christian hope is NOT a disembodied soul living on, but the resurrection of the body. Of course not a body EXACTLY like what we have now, but analogous to it. And not a physical world exactly like we experience now, but something like a perfected version of it. Or something (we cannot understand much yet).
1 Corinthians 15:50 (NIV): “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”
That seems to indicate that there is a higher form of existence than the body?
Yes, I agree – at least, a higher form of existence than our current bodies.
The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians says a lot about resurrection, including that:
(1) the age to come is about bodily resurrection, not disembodied souls;
(2) the new body will be more glorious (imperishable) than our current body (perishable); and
(3) Jesus was the “prototype” and our resurrection bodies will be something like his – i.e. physical (he could eat fish) but not physically limited (he could appear and disappear).
I wouldn’t want to pretend I can understand all that, but that’s what I see there.
Corinthians also mentions a spiritual body
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
What do you think the nature and function of the spiritual body is? Is it our “identity” that exists after the body dies and is then inserted into our resurrected body at “salvation” time? If so where is it in the meantime?
I feel that we get to a point where this is all speculation with no real basis. Interesting, but not to be taken too seriously. So I’ll give my thoughts in that spirit.
I think Paul is referring to our resurrection body – what we’ll have in the age to come. It is “spiritual” not because it isn’t material, but because it is eternal, uncorrupted, etc.
I think maybe that is what happens, but I don’t think our identity (i.e. our character, memories, etc) is the psiritual body. Out resurrected body is the spiritual body (I think).
I don’t think there is any sensible “meantime”. I think we go out of this time and straight into the new age time or eternity. LIke I said, Moses dies, I die and Jesus returns are all different times here, but are all the same time in the age to come. Who could possibly know, but that’s my guess.
As you say, interesting but speculative. But if the Bible contains the truth we should find it there.
On the other hand getting bogged down in detail is perhaps not a good idea, it detracts from the main message.