Soteriology Is Lame
April 28, 2010
I was asked to write a five paragraph reflection on whether or not I am a “Calvinist” or an “Arminian.” As is my wont, my answer avoided the question, mostly because I do not care and I am a rubbish Systematic Theologian.
In our increasingly pluralized world, it’s important to step back occasionally and ask just what it is that makes us Christian. Debates over the precise role of God versus the individual in salvation are important and historic but also decidedly, “in-house” matters. They are reflections that most often take place after salvation, by Christians who are attempting to explain “what has happened” rather than, “how to make something happen.” This is not to say that the conversation isn’t important, but it is to recognize that the distinctions between Calvinism or Arminianism no longer function the same way as they did in the centuries following the the Reformation nor even during the previous century.
With that said, I believe prolonged reflection and emphasis on the grace aspect of salvation will and should become a central tenant of any Christian conversation about Soteriology—especially when this discussion involves non-Christians. In some sense this represents a “back to basics” approach but it should not mean that our theological reflection should thus become elementary. Rather, I believe the discussion of Grace—an aspect of Salvation that all Christians can gather around—can serve the Church, not only in ecumenical dialogue but also in the Gospel we hope to represent to the twenty-first century world.
First, in our own context, I believe that authentic Grace is ironically one of the hardest theological concepts for modern Americans to accept. This is not because we have trouble believing in a benevolent God, but because it has been ingrained into our consciousness that anything of value has a cost—often quite expensive—and that as Americans, our primary function is to earn and consume. However, historic Christian teaching tells us that Grace is neither something that can be achieved by “pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps” nor something that can be consumed, improved nor marketed. Grace is a gift—an undeserved one. In a society that often uses so-called “gifts” as a gimmick for selling something else, it can be difficult for us to accept a gift from God without waiting for some strings to be attached. These strings come in many forms—getting all of our doctrinal ducks in a row, practicing impeccable personal moral discipline or perhaps having an appropriately “tolerant” attitude towards this or that group. But the fact is, no matter how right or beneficial these ideas may be, they are not a requirement of salvation. We may look at them as additional gifts if we wish, but they can never stand in for THE gift..the BIG one…Grace.
Second, in an increasingly post-Christian context, Grace is a concept not often associated with Christian history. The reality is that many young people in our country grew up nominally or even anti-Christian and this group stands to increase for the foreseeable future. Rightly or wrongly, the dominant post-colonial interpretation of Western History associates Christianity with much of what is seen as the worst facets of Western culture including materialism, colonialism, patriarchy, fundamentalism and hypocrisy. There are a host of complexities that make this interpretation debatable but the cold fact is that this is the popular perception of the bulk of Christianity. We need only turn on the TV to see this confirmed.
Grace however, can change these attitudes. I believe that a Christian who is fully aware of the Grace that he or she has received lives in a radically different posture that is observable by others. If this person is a Christian, they challenge popular stereotypes in a fashion that is unavoidably admirable. The Gospel steps in when we acknowledge that what is being admired is not human effort but the grace of God. An individual who lives gracefully is an anomaly. A community who lives thus is a curiosity. But a movement that does so is magnetic.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
April 28, 2010 at 17:31
Well done.
That assignment is awesome…it assumes that two 16th century Europeans represent the only options for understanding God’s saving grace.
Next up: Reed explains in five paragraphs whether he is a United Empire Loyalist or a Whig.
April 28, 2010 at 18:11
Ha!
April 28, 2010 at 19:58
Reed,
Grace has been a difficult thing to grasp for us Westerners, for we have been conditioned to think that you don’t get freedom for free, or you don’t get something for nothing. Everybody is always looking for a catch? The same, sadly, goes for salvation.
But the active grace put forth by Christ does not have to be a gift that we humans cannot or should not try to reciprocate. When somebody does something for somebody else, then does not the recipient of the action feel motivated to want to return the favor? Indebtedness implies giving something back (and it doesn’t have to be the action of “re-gifting” – HA).
Returning the favor, however, does not have to mean that we are no longer indebted to Christ, nor does it have to mean that we are working/weaseling our way into a higher throne in the Upper Westside of heaven. Rather it is an empowering feeling to think that I too must help chip away at this problem called “evil,” reciprocating Christ’s inauguration of the Kingdom of God, and doing my part in building or growing the new heavens and new earth that is to one to be unveiled.
– That may be a bit of a push, and I am aware of the dangers of saying such a thing (i.e. the unchecked zeal of dominion theology, or myths of WMD’s). All and all, I am on board with the “in-house” dimension of debate, and realize that creedal affirmations like faith/work are not in the same room, as it were, as firmly established canons which are furnished by aspects like Christ-in-God, bodily resurrection and the pending nature of Eschaton (1 Cor. 15:28).
Blessings,
dM
April 28, 2010 at 20:24
@dM
I couldn’t agree more. I really do believe “works” are a part of the Christian experience. My post above wasn’t to attack the idea of Christians acting like Christians, but to create some distance from fierce theological categories that end up muddying the discussion. As my buddy Luther says, “Our faith in Christ does not free us from works but from false opinions concerning works…” -The Freedom of the Christian
April 29, 2010 at 15:22
Reed,
I guess my critique was a subtle one. I felt as if the mood of your account on Grace reduced works a bit too much (the sweep of the argument in the 3rd paragraph)…
– Namely, I take issue with the part when you conclude that grace is a gift that we humans are undeserving of. I am not sure about that conclusion. While God’s grace does come unexpectedly and without any kind of conditional return on investment, I am not sure if that necessarily means that we are not worthy of such a gift; indeed – I daresay – that humankind does not demand or even call for such a gift of grace.
God made a good, nay, VERY GOOD, creation; humans took on the image of God and was given rule over it as co-creator; able and willing ambassadors (even after sin — see Gen. 5 and 9). Thus, redemption (aka re-tracting/putting-back-on-track) was all about, and is still all about, getting creation back on its right footing (right-standing or “righteousness”). The ball is now in our court, and I think that our court (earth) is a firmly established investment, and very much deserving of it.
God isn’t handing out sketchy, subprime loans, in other words. While at times it may look like that is very much the issue, paradoxically enough his investment will pay off in the end; there is a big merger on the horizon between that of heaven and earth, right? And such a merging is not without deserving qualities on each side…
Does this make any sense?
BTW – that quote by Luther is awesome!! I have never come across it. So much for the justification by faith alone moniker! Indeed, just as Marx wasn’t a Marxist, it seems Luther wasn’t a Lutheran..
April 29, 2010 at 15:30
Grace and Soteriology includes us, but is bigger than us humans; even the mountains are mourning, affected by sin. God wants to reclaim the good mountains from those who are decapitating them. In West Virginia mountains are literally being reduced to rubble as miners mine for valuable raw materials therein. And, of course, what about the gargage “patch” running up and down the spine of the West Coast, stuff that doesn’t biodegrade and will be there for a long, long time..
April 29, 2010 at 22:25
You sound like a Calvinist to me.
I like the last paragraph of this post.
April 29, 2010 at 22:46
Hmm… I am not a big fan of any -ist suffixes. They usually lead to pidgeonholes — especially when religion/creed is involved.
April 29, 2010 at 22:51
you’re totally a suffixlessist.
April 30, 2010 at 4:26
(1) Even in the NT stories of Jesus, he never asks what makes himself a Jew — the equivalent of your desire to see “what it is that makes us Christian”. I don’t read anything matching your statement that ” ‘in-hous’ matters”.
(2) This atheist agrees that “Grace” is an important position for the heart. But we must understand it as our non-independence, or intimate relationship with those around us and even those far away. It is Grace from others, not spirits, that matters. Oooops, my Buddhism came out.
[Hello, just visiting after you visited my site]
April 30, 2010 at 6:01
Dude, I am totally not a suffixlessist. I love suffixes almost as much as prefixes..
May 1, 2010 at 7:02
@dM
I think you will find that we are largely in agreement on this matter. The historic tradition of Christianity has always affirmed salvation as both Gift and Task. How these two interract is up for debate, but I think you can find the basic notion in all “orthodox” thought on the subject. However, I would agree that the above post is heavier on the Gift aspect than the Task aspect. This is not because I do not affirm Task, but because the pastoral concern I was addressing above was better approached from the Gift angle.
@Josh
Thanks for your comment. I actually grew up with a general notion of Wesleyan Sanctification but I do agree the above post is heavy on the “Irresistible Grace”-ness. I’ve never considered myself a Calvinist but I’m not opposed to the idea. If I am, I’m probably not very good at it.
@Sabio
Welcome back! Unfortuantely, I think I’m misunderstanding what you’re asking. What I hoped to communicate in the first paragraph was that, among other things, extensive discussions about “Calvinist” this or “Arminian” that are “inhouse” in the sense that most people outside the Christian tradition find such doctrinal hairsplitting quite useless. Do you disagree?
May 2, 2010 at 20:56
The spontaneous happening of Truth and thus of Grace is not through the mind–it is at the feeling-heart. Truth and its associated Grace are not propositions to be argued over against other propositions. Truth and Grace are self-evident because the feeling-heart authenticates it in the moment of reception.
Truth and Grace is an embrace, just as love is. You do not, and can not get argued into love. It is self-evidently right.
One responds to Truth and Grace as one does to love, simply through recognizing it. It is not about argument, not within or about the domain of the mind and its endlessly multiplied yes/no opposites (and oppositions)
May 2, 2010 at 21:28
Reed, Calvinists don’t need to be good at anything–they’re saved by grace alone.
I’m a theological mutt–some Calvinist, some Wesleyan, some Anabaptist.
May 2, 2010 at 21:40
and a Presbyterian pastor!