Over HERE I have been engaged in a fascinating discussion about the universal aspect of Christ’s saving work. I confess that I appear to be in the minority for right now but I have hope that this will change 
This comment was made in the course of the discussion:
If people who never hear are saved, then we should cease all evangelism and missions, lest someone hear and reject. Neil
This is my response. I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this…
Neil, if salvation were soley about going to heaven vs. hell after you die than you would have a point. But that is not salvation.
I believe scripture teaches us that salvation is about being caught up in the dream God has for the world. You and I, we who know this Jesus, we get to be part of that dream!! It is an amazing thing to know you are loved and forgiven by the creator of the universe and get to live this life in such an abundant way – with a purpose that speaks to the hope we have in this God who intends to renew and recreate the world – when the heavens and earth are joined together forever. How cool is that!!!! We get to be “co-laborers” with Christ as we work to build the kingdom with God “on earth as it is in heaven.” That is our mission. And to those of us who have been given much much will be expected (Luke 12).
We love others because we have first been loved by this God. We have come face to face with Love. That is what compels us to evangelize. Not to win “converts” that we can move from the category of “hell bound” to “heaven bound” but to recruit disciples who will be part of this dream that is God’s. Judgment will come. But that is God’s judgment – not ours. Our task is to point to the one who is Lord of heaven and earth and through whom all things are being reconciled to God. Our task is to tell the world the truth about themselves – they are saved, therefore, repent and live unto God.
That is why we evangelize. Isn’t that a far more robust reason to do it than to presume one’s eternal destiny rests upon my witness? Isn’t that quite arrogant of us?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Church, Evangelism, Jesus Christ, Universalism
I really like what you are saying in this quote.
I think that we have to get beyond the idea that Christianity is just about heaven and hell.
In fact, I think that I would go further than you and try to find a new word to say this. I think the world evangelism is hopelessly lost in modernistic deductionistic thoughts that we need to find a new way to talk about bringing people into the story of God.
I feel a post about this coming on.
Coldfire-
I look forward to reading that.
I think you may be right. Some of our terminology may have to change, especially if it freezes us in bad thinking and doing. Most Christians have a very limited view of evangelism and the thoguth of doing it strikes fear in their hearts. “What? You want me to convince people to follow Jesus or they will go to hell?” Not only is that a great deal of pressure but it seems intuitively wrong and short-sighted (not to mention unbiblical).
N.T. Wright says in Surprised by Hope that the church needs to rethink it’s understanding of evangelism. Evangelism, he says, is about announcing that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord and to invite people to be part of what God is doing in the world – a plan begun Easter morning. I think that is a good start.
peace.
Salvation is as much about who we are becoming as it is about where we are going.
Joe,
I think it certainly includes where we are going but I am not so sure I would say that is the point in the same way as it is about who we are becoming and what we are doing for God’s world.
I don’t get the sense anywhere in the Bible of people being saved out of a desire to go to heaven one day when they die or to avoid hell. Israel was “saved” so that they could be a blessing to all nations and a light to the world of what God is doing. I think our salvation is similar to that.
Chad,
Yeah, I agree with you, which is why I put it in the order I did. I do believe Salvation is about spending eternity with God. It is also about who we are becoming. Many many times, those who would disagree with you in this discussion have forgotten the part about who we are becoming. I was trying to lend my support to you in as few of words as possible.
Sorry about not being more clear.
Now before any “lurkers” get all in a tither about me going one or another on this discussion, as my wife would say, just simmer down.
lol@simmer down.
Thanks for your comments. And yeah, be careful – you wouldn’t want to look like you agree with me too much. Your entire calling, ability to teach and desire to go to school as God leads you might be called into question
Your entire calling, ability to teach and desire to go to school as God leads you might be called into question
Not to mention my salvation and right to breathe air. I already have enough grief over going to the church I go to.
Salvation includes a sanctifying process, a change of heart and mind, a transformation inside working out, and a translation from one kingdom to another. But let us not diminish the eternal aspect of redemption. If we have only hope in this life, we are of all men most miserable.
Eternal life with Christ after this 80 years would seem to have an important place in the discussion.
Rick –
I certainly agree that salvation includes all of the processes you describe. And we need not diminish the eternal aspect of salvation in order to heighten the present reality of salvation (something that is far too often left behind in the ashes and underscored far too much).
The old adage “I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved” I think is tried and true. The future salvation we leave to God and we have hope and confidence in the One who is Judge. It is this present salvation that presently concerns us.
Chad,
I would have emailed this to you but didn’t have an addy for you. As I will say in a post later this afternoon I do strongly disagree with your conclusions.
However, as I also told you recently, unlike many others who likely hold the same view of Christian Universalism, I do respect you for having the integrity and intellectual honesty to speak plainly about your beliefs.
Please also know the post is in no way intended as a mockery of those beliefs. I sincerely do think the way someone at that other site is speaking to you is uncalled for. I would have told you there but my IP Address is blocked from accessing their server.
Chad, I won’t trouble you further here but should you wish to talk further privately my email addy is apprising@hughes.net
Chad,
Ken’s claim that his IP address is blockd at .info is not true. I checked all the blocked IP addresses today. His isn’t one of them. How do I know? B/c there are none that are blocked. One more lie by Mr. Silva
Ah Joe Martino of Rob Bell’s church, I always feel the such love from you. I’d be careful throwing the word lie around as I have witnesses to the Forbidden screen.
Ken, I am not sure what is more disturbing: The fact that you would take time to write an expose about me or the fact that you believe your readers give a hoot about what a student pastor in rural North Carolina thinks about anything.
I do thank you for the free blog press though.
Chad,
It is quite liberating to be freed from being the arbiter of the soul’s of humanity. For many years I was driven in my preaching to make sure everything was just right……make sure the sermon was perfect, the altar call just right, etc. I feared doing something, anything to keep someone from getting “saved.”
You are right to call such thinking arrogant. Once I figured out I wasn’t God I relaxed a bit. The gospel is the good news and I gladly share it. I’ll leave it to God to sort it all out.
Bruce
PS. Yes Ken, Joe and now Bruce. Sigh. Bad day for you I know
Chad,
Since you wanted this public, it was hardly an expose, or an “attack” as you referred to it at the other site. In fact, I felt I was actually pretty kind in what I said concerning you personally.
And you needn’t flatter yourself, the issue is you have explained Christian Universalism in such a way in which many can at least grasp what it is. If I had found someone else detailing this heresy I would have used their words instead.
But, being that William Willimon is your former Bishop and you are very well aqcuainted with Rob Bell’s teachings, we see that your view of Christian Universalism has been shaped by them. This is important information for my readers to know.
Ken,
I never called it an “attack.” What I said on the other site was that I should send you a thank you note for the free press. Your piece is nothing more than an expose of my blog. Sure, you say I preach “another gospel” but I have come to expect that charge from you. What was entertaining, however, is that your article offers no evidence of why it is another gospel other than the fact that I have Rob Bell’s church on my blogroll.
And I was not flattering myself, as you try to frame it. I think it is ridiculous that you would think anyone cares what a rural student pastor in North Carolina thinks about this. There are plenty of people out there who have thought on this much longer and written much more in a much more detailed and succinct way than I ever will. Why don’t you right an expose on them? Rob Bell or Willimon could care less if I think this or that about their books and teachings and rightfully so. If linking stuff on my blog to wonderful bible scholars and teachers like them is what you call “discernment ministries” than, seriously, you are still playing tee-ball.
Bruce -
Amen. Good to meet you! Thanks for coming by and sharing with us.
It is indeed liberating to realize we are not God nor ever will be.
grace and peace.
[...] Chad [...]
That may be the quote of the day!!!
[...] evangelize or grow in holiness meaningless. I tried to provide some answer to this in my post, Why Evangelize? Willimon reminds us that although there is a completed quality to God’s work on the cross [...]
Chad,
I really like what you have said. To participate in the kingdom and “be” love for people goes so far beyond evangelism and traditional ideas that it’s not even funny. It’s sad actually.
But I would say that you didn’t really answer the original rebuttal or argument, which is that in telling someone, they might become aware enough of the story to actually deny it. The question is then a philosophical, although absurd one, of the Catch-22 of evangelism (which exists even in the traditional framework as well.) By telling someone we are making them aware of what they can then reject. And which is better: naive non-decision or conscious rejection?
I would say that it’s a moot point. For both practices (a traditional evangelical approach and kingdom oriented participation) produce the same problem. I would also suggest that conscious rejection is a more robust place to be in, because at least the mind is contemplating God, AND it doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind, while the Spirit works.
Jonathan-
Thanks for coming by! I have been meaning to drop by your blog and congratulate you for making Ken Silva’s watch list. Well done
I think you are right by pointing out that Catch-22 as well as the problems both sides of the equation face. I agree with you that conscious rejection is a more robust place to be in. It is room for the Spirit to work when one’s sense of self is disrupted. Abram could have said no when God said “GO” and had he, I imagine he would wrestle for quite some time with the “what if?” while settling for the status quo of Chaldea. We need to be in the business of opening spaces of discomfort so that the Comforter can do what the Comforter does best.
With that said, however, I think our posture towards humanity plays a big role in what sort of discomfort we are causing. I think our task as followers of Jesus is to love – and that without agenda. This love, this sort of grace (free gift) that we show those who do not yet know they are saved, will discomfort them in a healthy way – a way that makes them long to know more – to toss and turn at night wondering, “what sort of love is this?” I liken it to speaking in tongues, which I play with here, The Incarnate Tongue, if you are interested. People can sense if we love them solely on the basis of converting them. To me, that is not the love of Christ.
What do you think?
peace.