Comments on: advice to young pastors: will you be a friend of sinners?

By: commonman

commonman — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:13:50 +0000

The conversation about universlism will continue the old evangelical stance on exclusitivity is real hard to swallow for most people in and out of the church and it is probably the biggest stumbling block for those who are looking in and wondering what this has to do with unconditional love. I have struggled with the salvation issue more than any other issue in my walk as a Christian with no resolve accept for trust and hope for Christ being the merciful judge.

By: Happylad

Happylad — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:27:42 +0000

I think the way the Carlton Pearson issue has been addressed by some in the comments has been that the congregants of his church sinned in their response to Carlton’s change in theology. I think you might be judging the congregants in this instance. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Their church has always held a certain position and then suddenly, the pastor receives a revelation from God that changes everything. That’s not what they signed up for. If I’m a pastor and I make a massive shift in my doctrine, I have to expect that many will not follow me. That’s not what they agreed to when they joined. It makes sense to me. Doesn’t it make sense to you?

By: Billabong

Billabong — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:16:30 +0000

The really frightening thing about judging others is that we seem to enjoy it so much.

By: Ebony

Ebony — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:54:58 +0000

Point of clarification:

I did not share the Pearson story in order to talk about the merits of universalism, et. al. I shared the story to:

1) address a minor point in Ken’s original post — about congregations who choose to report their pastors to national organizations. The Pearson example shows that membership usually goes elsewhere.

2) address the overall point of the blog entry. “Will you be a friend to sinners?” From everything I’ve heard, Pearson truly wanted to be a friend to sinners.

Nowhere in my post did I advocate universalism, or final judgment, or anything like that. The best long view on the future outside of the Bible’s “Sufficient for the day is the trouble thereof” is actually an (atheist) author and pen friend/correspondent of mine, Philip Pullman. His take on it is “Time shall sort us all out, I suppose.” That’s where I stand on universalism. Where I stand on Pearson’s universalism: time shall sort that out, I suppose. Where I stand on the experience of responding to human suffering that led to Pearson’s universalism: dear Lord, let my heart break with the things that break the heart of God also. Are we saved by our theology? By our doctrines?

Then again, this conversation has much lower stakes for me as a congregant and sister in the faith than it does for leadership. Perhaps this is what happens when laypeople like me wander mindlessly into pastoral conversations. You have thought long and much about these matters; comparatively, I have thought much less about them and will resume lurking and learning. (However, if ever you find yourselves in debates about education and language policy, I shall “go and do likewise.” )

By: ken

ken — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:57:01 +0000

response to comment 14 from mark1, This is from Genesis 2, which is dealing with the mysterious heart of the human condition in its broken state. This story reveals something that I think is the product of revelation rather than reason per se: that the heart of the human “missing the mark” is not that we are immoral vs. moral, but that we succumbed to the temptation (and continue to live out of the result of succumbing)to think that we could be like God by knowing good and evil. This is why so much that pases as “Christian thought and discernment” is actually just a working out of our core problem–that we think we can be like God knowing good and evil. So we judge the daylights out of everyone (but ourselves, usually). This is powerful tug that you see when Christians jump quickly to moralizing, especially on the moral choices of those other than themselves. It’s in our fallen nature to do so. Bonhoeffer talks about this a lot in creation and fall and his other book, ethics.

By: Joao

Joao — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:35:14 +0000

Mark 1

I accept the fact that universalism is the more comfortable view, but just because it is more comfortable to our sensibilities, does not mean it is true, especially with a careful study of scripture, regardless of what Clement or some other single person might have said in the past.

If punishment alone purified, Jesus’s death on the cross loses its meaning. Why die for mankind when just a little purgatory for sinners will do the trick?

But I think Ken’s perspective is key here (loved the post, Ken!), we certainly are not wise enough to figure out exactly what happens after death and need to be humble about those speculations.

As my grandfather would say when presented with very speculative theological questions; (he was a Prsbyterian-Baptist-Presbyterian pastor) ‘I am so glad that is not my problem, but God’s.’

By: Mark 1

Mark 1 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:37:20 +0000

Ken, thanks for the reply. I was with you for your first two sentences, but beginning with the word “WE” I lost you. If I try to summarize the part of your response that I don’t understand, I get this:

The heart of our fallen state is related to our having eaten from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil, so we have a tendency deeply rooted in us to make judgments concerning good and evil as if we have the power in ourselves to do so competently.

Please explain that, especially the part about how we don’t have the competence to make any “judgments concerning good and evil.” Thanks.

By: gem

gem — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:18:08 +0000

“I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.”

I am so thankful that Jesus holds the keys. I shudder at the thought that other human beings think they can tell him what to do with these keys. He paid for those keys with his life; we can only thank him for using them to set us free.

By: ken

ken — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:53:22 +0000

for what it’s worth: matters of ultimate destiny are matters that we are wise to have a great deal of humility concerning; especially humility concerning our ability to have a fully resolved understanding that covers all the bases. I think this applies to confident assertions of universalism as well as confident assertions regarding the meaning of the doctrine of hell in terms of how it is played out in the end. WE must remember that the heart of our fallen state is not the fact that we are immoral vs. moral; it’s related to our having eaten from the forbidden knowledge: the knowledge of good and evil–so we have a tendency deeply rooted in us, to which we are mostly blind, to make judgements concerning good and evil as if we have the power in ourselves to do so competently.

By: Mark 1

Mark 1 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:26:06 +0000

Ebony, I’ve read Bishop Carlton Pearson’s book, “The Gospel of Inclusion,” and I recommend it to anyone who may be interested in that topic.

From Bishop Carlton Pearson’s forthcoming book, a work in progress entitled, “God Is Not a Christian”:

“It has been my happy experience to learn that the idea of the ultimate salvation of all was the prevailing theological posture of the first 400 to 500 years of Christian Church history. It was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom. According to Dr. J. W. Hanson in his book, ‘Universalism the Prevailing Doctrine,’ the first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and universal salvation was one of the tenets.

“Clement declared that all punishment, however severe, is purificatory; that even the ‘torments of the damned’ are curative…

“To quote Clement of Alexandria, ‘He saves ALL universally, but some are converted by punishment, others by voluntary submission… We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer: to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, in his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life… All men are his….for either the Lord does not care for all men…or he does care for all. For he is savior; not of some and for others not…and how is He savior and Lord, if not the savior and Lord of all? For all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the universe by the Lord of the universe both generally and particularly.’

“It appears to me that the early church fathers were not only advocates of the doctrine of universal reconciliation but, also of ‘Ultimate Reconciliation’ as well. Gregory of Nyssa said, ‘All punishments are means of purification, ordained by Divine Love to purge rational beings from moral evil and to restore them back to communion with God… God would not have permitted the experience of hell unless He had foreseen through redemption, that all rational beings would, in the end, attain to the same blessed fellowship with Himself.’”

http://www.newdimensions.us/content.cfm?id=2010