Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out ”” who are sheep or who are goats.
Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain.
Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask. A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?” If yes, then we are saved.
“A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?†If yes, then we are saved.”
Wow.
Just wow.
Would somebody please tell me if this is the Anglican party line. If so, I’m out. Why did Jesus speak of sheep and goats if He didn’t mean it?
[blockquote]Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief?[/blockquote]
If we agree with Scripture that “the Word was God,” “all things were made through him,” and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” then we have no problem imagining such things. We can imagine them because when he came us among us, he did indeed fuss!
Psalm 139.
[blockquote]Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask. A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?†If yes, then we are saved.[/blockquote]
BTW, this is a classic example of the Pelagian heresy. We are not saved by God’s action in the incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are saved by our good intentions, combined with attempts to make things better.
Talk about putting God in a box! Yet I hear this sort of sentiment all the time from Episcopal clergy. From the same people who are quick to assure people that “Your life is of infinite value to God” comes this kind of drivel too.
If God cares infinitely about you, then He also will convict you when you sin because He cares about your personal salvation. Why is that so hard to understand?
Jesus said it in a different context, but I think it applies to John Shepherd and his ilk too: “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.” – Mt. 22:29
Maybe I’m reading him wrong, but it seems to me that this priest has confused a saving knowledge of and belief in Jesus with an ongoing process of sanctification.
How very …………….. Episcopalian of him.
[blockquote]At least three things stand out. The first is that this salvation is experienced corporately, not individually. The Old Testament writers speak in terms of a community in which the presence of God could be experienced within a fellowship bound together by devotion to God. For the writers of the New Testament, Jesus was never to be thought of as a personal saviour, as though He were our personal toothbrush.[/blockquote]
Actually it’s both. What about Paul’s very personal statement in Galatians 2:19a,20: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved [b] me [/b] and gave himself [b] for me [/b]”?
[blockquote]Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats. Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? [/blockquote]
Well, yes, actually. It comes down to the essential question: What do you think of Christ? And the sheep and goats passage (Matthew 25:31ff) he refers to is not disconnected from that. For when we listen to the story closely we notice how Jesus mentions three groups of people. There are the groups of people the King places to his right and left “like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.†But there are also those the King refers to as ‘the least of these my brothers and sisters.’ Readers of Matthew will understand these to be the people who have faith in Jesus. They are followers of Jesus, disciples of Christ. Jesus, then, is saying that the nations of the world will be judged on how they treat his brothers and sisters. For his brothers and sisters are his agents he sends into the world as his ambassadors and messengers and as heralds of God’s kingdom. In his final instructions Jesus said to his followers, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.†Well in this scene that Jesus painted for us, the end of this present age has finally come. The mission of his people is at last complete. And in this future time the King calls the various peoples of the world to account for how they treated those he sent to them. So, yes, it does matter.
Ross+
I thought Salvation was about repentance, being washed in the blood of the Lamb, taking up the cross and following Jesus…
The late Flannery O’Connor would have loved this scene. The uncouth strange woman in the street with her sign, “If your not saved, your damned,” confronting the sophisticated clergyman, who “intuits” her bad faith and is, thereby, led to give a sermon which exhibits his bad faith.
Ross got it right!! There are sheep, there are goats, and there are “brothers.” This gets missed a lot of the time, when this scripture is preached. And though there is disagreement, sometimes, about whether Jesus was referring to “brothers” in His developing church, or whether He was referring to His brothers of the nation of Israel, the fact is – – Jesus is talking about how the sheep and goats treat(ed) His brothers. And I am His brother!!
As are you, if you have individually accepted His atonement, for your own sake. The Pelagian nonsense perpetrated in the article is just that – – age-old Pelagianism. It was called heresy when it first appeared, and it is still just that, now.
#12: It’s interesting: St. John Chrysostom interpets the Sheep and Goats in Mt. 25 as related to…precisely…individuals, and does not use the construction of sheep/goats/brothers as the usual biblical scholarship would have it. Certainly, it is “the nations” who are gathered to the glorious King who sits on the throne. “Nations”, not a large crowd of individuals. Yet…St. John, no American individualist/revivalist…focuses on the individual’s crisis of ministering to, or not ministering to, the Son of God clad in ‘the least’.
But, as we approach the celebration of The Son of God becoming man, of the flesh of the Virgin Mary- a particular Man, yet also “Israel” personified- maybe we should revel in this unsolveable paradox: the Covenant Maker who weds a whole people to Himself, while caring for each member of that “people” with the tender care of the Good Shepherd!
Nazis and Communists were committed to the “human flourishing” of a master race or “new man” or whatever. And we know the results – far more traumatic to humanity and the planet than whatever evil this guy projects onto religion.
Tell you what, I don’t want a Shepherd like this leading any flock I am part of. But this nonsense is simply an extension of TEC like political correctness, a new coat of paint on inclusivity. which is beginning to weather badly. Corporate salvation? A collectivity? Larry
This article is frightening on multiple levels. The author is either scripturally illiterate or highly selective in his forays into the Bible. He is either ignorant of the traditional church teaching on salvation or willfully fails to engage it, instead grappling with a strawman of a street evangelist (you hit it on the head, Phil!). His effort even fails the reason-prong of my analysis, in which liberals place so much stock: the author substitutes assertion for evidence and argument without any assurance of why we should believe him. And where is the much-vaunted liberal charity? His condescension oozes from every sentence.
And this man is the dean of a cathedral!?!? Lord, have mercy upon us all. Please. Now.
And no, Helen, this is not the Anglican party line: see the Articles of Religion, Articles 9-18, for a concise statement on what historic Anglicanism has confessed on the subject at hand.
I enjoyed the essay. I think it is more essentially “semi-Pelagian” than Pelagian, but I don’t see a problem with that. I do see how one could read it as Pelagian, however.
I’m not sure why this is theologically incorrect, or an inaccurate statement about the way God works. The notion of human flourishing as being God’s concern is true, I think – there’s plenty in scripture to back that up. And more recently, philosophers such as Whitehead and theologians such as John Taylor have gone that direction.
This article has got me so agitated, that I have to come back to the comments box one more time with the following treasure for the author:
Two things strike me about this particular Article of Religion: one, it is the only use of the word “accursed” in any of the 39 Articles, and second, there is no mention of “self-actualization” or “being all we can be” anywhere in the text.
As a curative for those of us suffering from our exposure to Dean Shepherd’s piece in the TimesOnline, I recommend a slow reading of 2 Peter 2.
I also want to examine statements like “I thought Salvation was about repentance, being washed in the blood of the Lamb, taking up the cross and following Jesus…” This is undoubtedly true, and I believe it, being a Christian.
By for my atheist Aunt, she has some questions: what is the difference between repentance and changing one’s mind, or admitting one’s failures or wrongdoings? What does God have to do with that? And do we need to be washed in real blood? Or is it symbolic blood? Do we have to physically carry a tree? Or is it like living with cancer or surviving being tortured? And does Jesus want us to be tortured? And is Jesus someone I encounter in my mind, that is created through my brain cells, and is Jesus necessarily called Jesus?”
Timothy Fountain’s note about human flourishing is well-noted. It should also be noted that capitalism is about human flourishing as well, albeit self-directed. I didn’t see anything in this article that could remotely be attributed to Stalinism: if anything, it is more like a liberal version of the prosperity Gospel.
As a clergyman, a succinct “yes” might have been in order. I don’t think it was an odd question what was odd was the need to overthink and sermonize on a simple question.
Rev. Sheperd’s editorial is useful as a corrective to some evangelical protestant approaches to salvation that focus on a moment of salvation. But those evangelical approaches do more justice than he does to the theological function of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. From Sheperd’s column, it’s not clear why we cannot just jettison those otherwise embarrassing doctrines.
Historically, Christians have taken ideas from Aristotle, Marx, and Adam Smith, about how to restore creation. If restoring creation is all Rev. Sheperd is interested in that is not a bad start. But such a horizontal message is also at best an incomplete version of the good news of Jesus as most Christian doctors have understood it.
The corruptible taking on incorruptible is only tangentially related to a commitment to providing clean water for all people, though I would think clean water is fairly important for human flourishing (try drinking tap water contaminated with Entamoeba histolytica and a few days hence you will see what I mean). How does a commitment to clean water get us linked up with Jesus–his incarnation, death, and resurrection–about this Sheperd is no help.
Dr Witt
BTW, this is a classic example of the Pelagian heresy.
It really isn’t Pelagianism because Pelagius argued that salvation was in the control of the individual. The argument that Dean Shepherd is making is that everyone is going to heaven, salvation is what we make of our time here.
Brian from T19, he seems to be saying that salvation is what we do – you do as well (“salvation is what we make of our time here”). How is that not “in the control of the individual”? It seems, really, to make God unnecessary at all and salvation something we will do today and tomorrow, or maybe with a five-year plan.
Sherri2
His argument is for Universalism (i.e. everyone goes to Heaven no matter what) whereas Pelagius believed there was no original sin and that we chose good or evil and that determined whether or not we went to Heaven or Hell.
Brian from T19,
Certainly there are differences between the historical Pelagius and what some of his followers (often unawares) believe. My last two sentences summarized the specific way in which I consider the expressed viewpoints Pelagian. I wasn’t addressing other aspects of Pelagius’ theology, which might or might not be relevant, e.g., the question of universalism or Pelagius’ theology of infant baptism.
Good on ya, mite! Phil @ # 11 has it just right: all the rest comes down to troublesome Aussie flies …
Well, it’s predictable that T19ers would dislike this; but I don’t think he’s actually saying what you’re reading him as saying.
When he says:
and later on:
I believe that what he’s saying is that belief is not what gets you to salvation; and that in no way contradicts orthodoxy. I don’t believe that most reasserters would suggest that when you die you’re given a pop quiz, and if you write down homoiousian when you should have written homoousian, well, too bad, eternal torment for you.
Rather, I think that most reasserters would say that salvation has something to do with faith, which is a different thing than mere belief. The devil, as the adage has it, believes. Faith, if it is real, leads inexorably to metanoia, transformation; which I believe is what he’s getting at when he says:
That’s not how a reasserter would put it, of course; nor is it the direction in which a reasserter would likely pursue the thought. But I don’t think he’s being as entirely unorthodox as y’all are saying.
As for Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, I will say that I myself have trouble seeing how it’s possible to take a strict line against Semi-Pelagianism without being forced to adopt hardcore Calvinist-style predestination; and that’s something I can’t do. If sola gratia is really as sola as that, then where does free will enter the picture?
Dean Shepherd’s assertions are what I used to hear as mainstream United Methodist theology. All about that social gospel stuff getting you a bigger mansion in Heaven. My last pastor opined to me one time that she could not “believe in a God that would consign anyone to Hell.”
The older I get the more I understand theology to be like science. Unless you have a good degree of precision, you will wander all over the place. It may all average out O.K. eventually, but boy will you get some ridiculous outlier results in the process.
More buzzing flies warrant neither old fashioned fly paper nor wild swatting; rather some more careful theology than that offered (admittedly via a newspaper) by our Dean and some comments. Though it is a pity that we must subject the likes of O’Connor to dissection: the message of [i]Wise Blood[/i] is necessarily and beautifully in narrative form!
1. To play the individual dimension of salvation off against corporate ones is just a red herring. Scripture declares both.
2. The old Sunday school tag – we have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved – also refuses to play the time dimensions of Scriptural salvation off against each other.
3. Further confusions are therefore rebutted on the basis of the two previous Scriptural denials. Am I saved? is a perfectly valid and eternally important question. Just as both my and my local church’s witness to fostering human flourishing is probably a fruit of this Gospel salvation. For none may truly flourish apart from the Father’s free gift of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus. As Irenaeus would say: For the glory of God is the living man, and the life of man consists in beholding/the vision of God.
QED: The Dean’s witness, and notably that of the contemporary Anglican Communion’s, I would warrant, requires more care-ful “boldness†and less obfuscation. Then “she’ll be right … mite!â€
From this I gather that being saved involves having the right attitude. That is too close to political correctness for my comfort. It is too easy and cheap as well, I think. Paul says we are to be New Creatures…surely not a corporate thing and surely a lot more than the sum of our considered positions. Jesus leads us in the narrow way…that too doesn’t sound like a corporate thing. Jesus looks for individual faith in us. Faith in him. Doesn’t sound too institutional to me. Then there is that matter of picking up one’s cross…I wonder what the Dean thinks of that and how he deals with it. It is a fairly profound request of us all…
“Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain.”
What does he mean by “flourishing” or “freed to be all there is in us to be?” If it is to be as “human” as we can be, then it seems absurd for Christ to have died for that, nor does scripture seem to tell us that. If it is for us to be as Christ-like as we can be, then, yes. At the Last Supper, He told his disciples not just to love their neighbors as themselves, but to love as He had loved them. If this is what Dean Shepherd means by “salvation” – the faith to love others as He loves us, then OK. But, you know, the Dean never says that, does he? We really don’t know what he is talking about… I wonder if he does?