Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

After setting down his alternative theological foundation, Brian launches into an exploration of “be-ology”—what it means to be as a Christian and human. (160) A natural first question after such a jarring experience with the first 5 questions is this: “What do we do about the Church?” Or more specifically: What is the Church?

Interestingly, up until this point Brian has not used the word church. I found this incredibly odd and disconcerting in a book that is supposedly exploring a new kind of Christianity. Odd that he would not use the very word Jesus Himself used to describe the group of people who are his followers, i.e. Christians; disturbing that his new theology and faith is not specifically for the Church. For someone who describes himself as “a lifelong churchgoer and a veteran pastor,” I wondered why in 160 pages (and beyond this chapter) he never utters the word. I think the reason becomes clear when we explore the answers Brian provides to his question.

He begins this section, and rightly so, describing the fear and antipathy modern culture has toward the church. The sentiments he describes reflect one which someone exclaimed in a conversation I describe in my book I had with a fellow Starbucks barista: “The church is fucked up!”¹ As Brian describes the current crisis, “When enough church leaders wake up and smell the Ben-Gay, when they realize that their faith communities are shrinking and wrinkling and stiffening, they start to ask the church questions very urgently: What are we going to do about the church?” (162)

He says that we should stop worrying about what forms the church takes (thanks you!) and start seeing “ourselves as servants of one grander mission, apostles of one greater message, seekers on one ultimate quest…What would that one mission, message, and quest be? Around what one grand endeavor can we rally? What one great danger do people need to be saved from and, more positively, what one great purpose do they need to be saved for?” (164)

In other words: Why does the church exist? According to Brian, “to form Christlike people, people of Christlike love…the formation of Christlike people of love naturally becomes the grand unifying preoccupation and mission of our churches.” (164, 165)

At one level this seems fine, but does the church in any way exist to save people as the earliest church themselves existed? Yes. According to Brian, the church exists to save people “from the great danger of wasting their lives, becoming something less than and other than they were intended to be, gaining the world but losing their soul.” (emphasis mine. 164)

In answering question 6, then, the Church must totally rethink the Her core mission and identify that mission along these terms. (165) That mission, then, is “forming people of Christlike love” (171) and “save them from…wasting their lives” (164)

That’s it folks.

It’s funny, because I thought the Church was a community of redeemed and rescued people sent on mission to reconcile the world to God through Christ.

Does not Paul explicitly explain the mission of the Church in 2 Cor. 5:11-21 when he explains the God gave “us” the community of believers the “mission of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them”? Are we not Christ’s ambassadors who have been committed the message of reconciliation: “Be reconciled to God”? Is not God making His appeal through the Church to be reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ? And is not the basis of that reconciliation that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”?

While I am with Brian at one level, that the mission of individual church communities is to form Christlike people. Christlike formation, however, is part of sanctification! In other words, forming Christlike people who follow the way of love happens only after that have been made new through individual “transformation moments.” What is that transformation moment? When a person choses to be “in Christ” (that incredibly key, distinctive theological rallying point for Paul throughout his letters) and the old person goes a ways and the new person begins.

For Paul humans are born “in Adam” and live out of the flesh, their sinful nature (Rom 5:12-20). They are alienated from God and His enemies and by nature people of His wrath (Col 1:21; Eph. 2:3). But “in Christ” Paul also makes clear that this condition is a past condition. “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.” (Col. 1:21) “Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”

These and other pieces of the Holy Scripture make plain that there was an old condition and a new condition; a moment when someone is not a believer/follower and when someone is. Even more important there is a time when someone is not reconciled to God and a moment when a person is through Christ. To put it in more exclusionary terms: a person is part of God’s community or they are not, part of the Church or not. Brian cannot voice this, however.

All of this is incredibly important to Brian’s definition and mission of the Church, which misses a vital, necessary piece: faith in Christ. The church is NOT simply a group of people who act like Christ and follow the way of love (though this is an important, vital part of having a real, genuine faith in Christ) and saved from wasting their lives. This is the Kiwanis, a great group of people who’s current motto is “serving the children of the world.” Service and love is not distinctive to the Church nor to Jesus. You could say the same thing for the PeaceCorp, though such Imperial comparisons might draw a lightning bolt or two from Brian.

No, the Church is the community of people who have been rescued from death through the forgiveness of their sins by faithing in the final sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, who by His own blood entered the Most Holy Place once and for all, thus obtaining eternal rescue and life for those who faith in Him. Consequently, those who are saved and believe in Jesus act as the continuing presence of Christ to spread His Kingdom Reign on earth.

That’s the Church, Brian McLaren.

As Paul writes in Ephesians 2: “Because of His great love for us, God, who is rich and mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions— it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”

The word “us” is used 4 times along side with/in Christ 4 times. Paul is speaking to the Church, the redeemed and the rescued and the reconciled in Christ. This is the message and banner of the Church: BE RECONCILED TO GOD IN CHRIST!

This is the very message of the earliest of the Church in Acts. They didn’t preach “live like Jesus” but “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16) In the face of Jewish persecution and Roman imprisonment they didn’t proclaim “don’t waste your life” but “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2) God raised Jesus from the dead, and the forgiveness of sins and freedom from sins in Christ was the consistent message of the Church, stemming from Her mission to go into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ. (Acts 13 and Matthew 28).

In reality, Brian’s church is not church at all, but a social club devoid of any power because it is disconnected from Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah.

This Holy Friday I am reminded how important it is for the Church to boldly, confidently shout from roof-top to roof-tops that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again! Through the Church God is dispensing His grace and forgiveness and reconciliation and rescue from sin and death, because it is through Jesus Christ and Him alone that all of this is accomplished. The power for forgiveness and reconciliation and life transformation and individual rescue from evil, sin and death is through death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, both of which are mysteriously missing from the mission and message of Brian’s church.

1. the (un)offensive gospel of Jesus, 37.

The Review

I have to admit straight away that when my wife told me that she was working on a Bible with Lee Strobel I was skeptical. While I have appreciated Lee’s contribution to the Church and greater community for a while, I wondered why we needed yet another Bible product, especially one centered around a Christian celebrity. I thought, “There are Bible’s for moms, teens, dads, grandmothers, environmentalists, NASCAR fans, patriots, and even for horse lovers, why on earth do we need yet another one?”

As husbands often are (so I’m learning 6 months into marriage!), I was wrong: this is a sweet, needed Bible, which is why I wanted to write this review for The Case for Christ Study Bible!

Lee has written a much needed companion for the spiritual journeyperson. This is a Bible for both Christians seeking to better understand and investigate their faith AND seekers/skeptics who are trying to better understand Christianity and searching for answers to their spiritual questions. In a manner only he can pull off, Lee consistently presents his case along side the biblical text for the reality of God, reliability of Scripture, rescue brought through Christ, and reasons for putting our hope and faith in Him alone. I can see this Bible being given by a Christian to a seeking friend as much as Christian parents to their maturing teenager; those wondering about Christianity will pick up this Bible at their local Barnes and Noble as will the longtime Christian who needs better apologetical equipping.

Here are some of the questions this Bible seeks to help answer: How can there be a God if there is so much suffering in the world? Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? Can we trust the New Testament? Does science point to a Creator? Why was Zerubbabel a significant ancestor of Jesus? When was Daniel written? Why did Jesus associate with the lowest people of society?Was Jesus sinless? Did Jesus intentionally fulfill the messianic prophecies? What’s the truth behind the debate regarding the number of differing Greek manuscripts? Who is the rider on the white horse in Revelation? Is Jesus the only way?

He also tackles such topics as: The Creator of Earth’s perfect location; Worshiping the Creator; Care for the needy; The accuracy of Ezekiel’s prophecies; Messianic prophecies and the integrity of the gospels; The plausibility of a virgin birth; Problems with the Jesus Seminar; Paul and Old Testament prophecies; The Bible and the truth about God.

These and other questions and topics are addressed and answered with the precision, accuracy, and care only a journalist like Lee Strobel could provide. Using new articles and material culled from his other works, Lee gets to the heart of the inquiries from the faithful and skeptics alike using 5 insightful features: The Case for the Bible; The Case for Christ; The Case for a Creator; The Case for Faith; The Verdict. As the information from the CFC Study Bible describes these features:

1. The Case for the Bible: The Bible is an extraordinary record of human history and these articles demonstrate the accuracy of this record. They explore the character of the Bible and the extrabiblical evidence that corroborates Scripture. They also tackle many tough questions and offer explanations for apparent contradictions within the Scriptural Text.
2. The Case for Christ: These articles provide an in-depth exploration of Jesus’ claims, deity, and resurrection. They also show how Christ can be found throughout the Old Testament. Included in these notes are Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as Messiah.
3. The Case for a Creator: If you look closely, it is easy to find evidence that the world was specifically designed. These articles highlight the many wonders of creation and provide specific examples from nature and science to illustrate how the scientific evidence points to one supreme Creator.
4. The Case for Faith: For most people faith is a complicated and personal subject. These articles attempt to address some of the most popular questions asked by skeptics and believers alike, such as “How can there be a God if there is so much suffering in the world?” and other critical questions about faith.
5. The Verdict: Through testimonies from well-known scholars and other Christians who have examined the evidence, discovered the reality of Jesus and put their faith in him, these articles provide the real and personal examples of true faith. They will challenge you to examine the evidence for yourself so that you can make your own verdict.

Here is what I like about The Case for Christ Study Bible:

• Uses the NIV text and includes the study notes from the main NIV Study Bible.
• Each book opens with a short information sheet, including: Major themes, Author, Audience, Date of writing, and setting.
• Lee tackles serious questions about serious issues of faith.
• The responses are well researched and reasoned, skipping the typical cheap platitudes and bobbing and weaving all too often associated with other so-called Christian apologetic resources.
• For a bible studies and theology student like me, Lee tackles subjects like inerrancy, OT prophecies, the Jesus Seminar/Historical Jesus studies, and even Q. Right on!
• With pastoral sensitivity, he even addresses hard-hitting subjects, like the personal pain of loosing his own child.
• The back includes really helpful charts I have not seen in other Study Bibles, such as: The Creeds and Hymns of the early church; Divine actions of Jesus; OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus; Jesus’ claims about Himself; and Resurrection appearances of Jesus.
• Finally, the interior layout is nice and crisp, unobtrusively inserting the articles in such away that they don’t get in the way of the biblical text, but rather supplement it, which to me is an important “user-interface” feature.

All in all, this is one of the only Study Bibles I would give to a spiritually seeking friend or fellow believer who is interested in strengthening their faith. While I have always appreciated Lee’s writings and perspective, I am pleased with his latest efforts to see people encounter our risen Savior Jesus Christ. This Bible is a great tool for Christians and non-Christians alike who want to better understand and investigate the claims of Scripture for themselves.

You can purchase this bible for $23.09 at amazon, here.

The Giveaway

Contest is closed.

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

After insisting that a new kind of Christianity demands a new reading of the biblical narrative, Brian McLaren argues for a new approach to the Bible, because as he argues, “we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible.” (68). We are in trouble in three main ways:

1. Scientific—”Fundamentalism again and again paints itself into a corner by requiring that the Bible be treated as a divinely dictated science textbook providing us true information in all areas of life, including when and how the earth was created, what the shape of the earth is, what revolves around what in space, and so on…This approach has set up Christians on the wrong side of truth again and again, from Galileo’s time, to Darwin’s, to our own.” (68)
2. Ethical—”The Bible, when taken as an ethical rule book, offer us no clear categories for many of our most significant and vexing socioethical quandaries. We find no explicit mention, for example, of abortion…human rights…sexual orientation…global climate change…genetic engineering (among others). If we must steer our ship by wrestling biblical passages to bear on these issues in a simple “though shalt not,” way we will find ourselves stuck precisely where we are stuck now, and largely paralyzed in solving major life-and-death-of-the-planet issues and largely obsesses with narrow hot-button feuds that feuds…” (69)
3. Peace—”Many of us are afraid that the Bible is becoming a box cutter or a suitcase bomb in the hands of too many preachers, pastors, priests, and others. When careless preachers use the Bible as a club or sword to dominate or wound, they discredit the Bible in a way that no skeptic can.” He uses the the examples of pastors pulling verses to justify the preemptive strike against Iraq, declares you could “probably turn on a Christian radio broadcast today and hear a preacher deny human rights to Palestinians on…’biblical grounds,’” and trots out the example of “how the Bible was used by the defenders of slavery in contrast with the promoters of abolition” in Western Europe in general and American in particular.” (69-70)

In light of this “triplet of troubles” “we must find new approaches to our sacred texts (Interestingly, he doesn’t particularly identify the Holy Scriptures here, but generalizes it to, perhaps, include other “sacred texts,” like the Koran?)…” (70) In the end, “this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery, anti-semetism, apartheid, chauvinism, environmental plundering, prejudice against gay people, and other injustices to be legitimized and defended for so long…we still use the Bible in the same way to defend any number of other things that have not yet been fully discredited, but soon may be.” (76)

And what exactly is “this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible”? Reading the Bible as a legal constitution. This constitutional approach, used “especially in conservative settings,” is defined as: “looking for precedents in past cases of interpretation, sometimes favoring older interpretations as precedents;” arguing “framers’ intent” (or author’s intent in biblical hermeneutics terminology); approaching the biblical text “as if it were an annotated code.” (78-79)

Instead, we need to see the Bible as it actually is: “a portable library of poems, prophets, histories, fables and parables, letters, sage sayings, quarrels, and so on…it’s the library of a culture and community—the culture and community of people who trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical library is a carefully selected group of documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” (emphasis mine. 79, 81)

At this point, I want to ask Brian these questions:

1. Is the Holy Scripture authoritative for defining how we are to relate to God and others?
2. Is the Holy Scripture God’s Textual act of Divine self-disclosure?
3. Are there other texts through which God reveals Himself?
4. Is the Holy Scripture Christocentric? Meaning: Does not the whole of the Holy Scripture center exclusively on Jesus Christ, rather than simply “the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.”

Let’s see how Brian answers these questions:

“The biblical library has a unique role in the life of the community of faith, resourcing, challenging, and guiding the community of faith in ways that no other texts can. It is uniquely valuable to teach, reprove, correct, train, and equip us for love and good works, as the apostle Paul says. It provides a kind of encouragement that is central and unique to the community of Christian faith.” (emphasis mine. 83)

He then goes on to acknowledge that Plato, Muhammed, and the Buddah “all say interesting and brilliant and inspiring things,” and he can “learn a lot from their words,” as much as from Clement, Luther, Calvin, Borg and Crossan. “But to say that God inspired the Bible is to say that, for the community of people who seek to be part of the tradition of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob, Moses, Ruth, David, Amos, John, Mary, and Jesus, the Bible has a unique and unparalleled role that none of these other voices can claim.” (83)

OK, Brian, but why does it simply have a unique role? And why does it have a central and unique role only for the Christian faith? Why isn’t the Holy Scripture the sole textual authority for the entire world?

Brian cannot (bring himself to) say that the Bible is inspired by God and is the sole textual point of God’s divine self-disclosure, only that it has “a unique and unparalleled role.” He also cannot say the Bible is for the entire world, but only for the “community of Christian faith.” Somehow, God “breaths life into the Bible, and through it into the ‘community of faith’ and its members, and into my soul,” without even explaining what this even means. While it sounds nice, it makes no sense. How does God do this? What is he “breathing?” Is He Himself even saying anything? This leads to a more important, fundamental question: Is God Himself revealed through the Bible itself?

Unfortunately, according to Brian, no. “This inspired library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God, a living and vital civil argument into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed.” (83) The Living God then is not reveal through the Holy Scripture, but simply the “ongoing vigorous conversation” and “vital civl argument.” He says this very thing when he argues against reading the Bible in away that says “God’s message is supposed to be found in the plain words of the biblical text:”

“revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God. It happens in conversations and arguments that take place within and among communities of people who share the same essential questions across generations. Revelation accumulates in the relationships, interactions, and interplay between statements.” (91-92)

Pay attention to what Brian has said here: McLaren believes revelation is about human conversation about God, rather than God Himself revealing Himself to humanity. He says that in the Hebrew Scriptures “we have so many voices, and voices of different kinds…in the Christian Scriptures we have several gospels…and we have many other voices as well.” In an effort to push this conversational framing of the Text, he uses the Book of Job as a rhetorical device, wondering aloud, “Could Job be a fractal of the whole Bible, then: many voices arguing, debating, stating, and counterstating, asking and answering?” He goes on to say, “Could it be that God’s Word intends not to give us easy answers and shortcuts to confidence and authority, but rather to reduce us, again and again, to a posture of wonder, humility, rebuke, and smallness in the face of the unknown?” (93)

While the Holy Scripture certainly does not give easy answers and does leave us in speechless wonder, Brian completely dismisses how the Church has views God’s revelation for centuries: God is not unknown and has deliberately disclosed Himself to humanity; God Himself is deliberately speaking to us through the Text. The Bible is not simply a conversation among many different voices, but one Voice speaking to us in a variety of ways. I do agree with Brian that the Bible is unlike any other book: it is a very diverse body of genres and voices through which God is speaking. Far from being simply a “record of a vibrant conversation, and a stimulus to ongoing conversation,” however, it contains the voice of God itself as He has chosen to speak to us about Himself.

Though it will become far more apparent in the next question—at which point Brian blatantly says that “the Bible is an ongoing conversation about the character of God“—let’s be clear: from the looks of it, according to Brian the Bible neither contains the real voice of God, but rather the voices of individuals speaking about God, nor is it a real, single authority for understanding God properly, since it is merely an evolving conversation about Him in which varying people give varying perspectives.

The greatest travesty of Brian’s perspective is this line on page 81:

It’s the library of a culture and community—the culture and community of people who trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical library is a carefully selected group of documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.

Here Brian reduces the Christian faith to one among three who, “trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Furthermore, somehow Brian reduces the Church simply to a pluralistic “community of people who seek God, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” The problem with his logic is that for Brian the Bible is really all about God, not Jesus Christ.

Like the biblical narrative itself, which he fails to exclusively root in Jesus Christ, Brian refuses to root the Bible’s self-disclosure of God in Him, too. According to Brian, the “community of people who seek God” in the Bible apparently are not seeking it in Jesus Christ alone, but rather simply the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This allows Brian to include Jews and Muslims in his “community of people” tent of those seeking God.

Unfortunately for Brian, the Christian faith has insisted for generations that the God found in the biblical text is not simply “the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” The God found in the Bible is Jesus; Jesus Christ is the God of the Holy Scripture around whom the Text itself pivots. And unless someone acknowledges this, they really are not seeking after the one true God.

The one true God has supremely revealed Himself in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, neither the knowledge nor revelation of God can be divorced from the knowledge and revelation of Jesus Christ. Indeed knowledge of Jesus Christ is the ultimate, only access to the knowledge and revelation of God. Why doesn’t Brian acknowledge this? Why does he divorce the authority of the Text and revelation of God found in it from Jesus Christ Himself? Why does he not simply say, “The Bible reveals God, in the person of Jesus Christ”?

So far, it is apparent that for Brian the Story and Revelation of God is not really about Jesus Christ, but about a generic, vanilla World-Spirit god. This will become far more apparent when Brian discusses God Himself in question 3, The God Question. Using the question, “Is God violent?” McLaren reveals his belief that the Bible progressively reveals an evolved understanding of God, rather than God Himself. This view ultimately cashes out in the person of Jesus, who is simply an evolved likeness and revelation of the character of God, rather than God Himself.

Nearly 2 years ago I re-posted this article on the use of ‘faith’ in politics. I re-posted it nearly a year after the original just as things were heating up in the home stretch of the primary elections on the use of ‘faith’ in the political square, wondering if the term has become utterly meaningless. I re-post it in light of my series on Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity and others—like Samir Selmanovic’s book It’s Really All About God—who write on Faith, capital ‘F.’ There is popular trend developing within Christianity thanks to these and other Emergent-type authors and thinkers to emphasize generalize and vanilla-ize ‘faith’ through such terms/phrases as: people of faith, having faith, faith community, being in faith, etc…

The emphasis falls on the effort of Faithing, rather on the “object” to which that faith is placed. In fact, in an effort to pluralize God and universalize faith itself, God—the overly generalized World-Spirit god of Schleiermacher—is the object to which that faith is directed, as if it’s really all about God. Cooinciding with their refusal to acknowledge and exalt Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah, the likes of Brian and Samir reduce Jesus to merely a revelation of the character of God who provides us a better moral example as a model citizen, rather than being God himself, and permit the other “Abrahamic faiths” to act as vehicles of God and modes of salvation. As I have contended elsewhere, it’s not really all about God, it’s about Jesus Christ. It’s not about “faith,” it’s about faith in Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith who alone provides rescue and re-creation for all who “faith” in Him.

I was reading todays New York Times this morning during my routine of a cup of coffee, a bagel slathered with cream cheese, yogurt and the Times, when I stumbled across an articled entitled, “Faith Intertwines With Political Life for Clinton.” It was an interesting article on the faith roots of Hillary Clinton and shed some light on her Methodism, beliefs and faith-politics integration.

Here were some things I thought were interesting about her own faith journey, beliefs, and spiritual practices: she was actively involved in the church growing up; she regularly reads the Bible and commentaries on Scripture, is actively involved in a weekly prayer gatherings in the Senate, and has experienced “the presence of the Holy Spirit on Many occasions;” Mrs. Clinton believes in the resurrection of Jesus, thought she is less sure of the doctrine of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ (or Christianity as the article puts it) for salvation; and she believes the Bible communicates God’s desire to have a personal relationship with people. In fact, as the article goes on to say, “Mrs. Clinton and others who have known her well as a church youth-group member or a Sunday school teacher or as a participant in weekly Senate prayer breakfasts, say [F]aith has helped define her, shaping everything from her commitments to public service to the most intimate of decisions.”

These admissions were really striking and encouraging, and while I admire her for her involvement in church activities, efforts in the lives of the marginalized and personal devotion to Faith, one question begs to be asked: In What Do You Place Your Faith, Mrs. Clinton?

The reason I chose this story and to ask the question isn’t because I am some rabid anti-Clintonite. I liked the story and learned some things about Mrs. Clinton’s own faith journey that struck and touched, me. Rather, I think this story on the personal faith-life of one of Election 2008′s front runners is an interesting social commentary on the religious life of postmodern America. Going strictly off her language and personal observations of the culture at large, it seems as thought the act of faith has been transformed into a larger, metaphysical object unto itself; Faith (with a big “f”) is now an entity on it’s own to be pursued and embraced.

Without getting all “in vs. out”, making a judgment on whether such talk is genuine or for political expediency, and especially without judging Mrs. Clinton’s salvation or eternal destination, here are two quotations to illustrate:

[Faith] has certainly been a huge part of who I am, and how I have seen the world and what I believe in, and what I have tried to do in my life.

I am very grateful that I had a grounding in [F]aith that gave me the courage and strength to do what I thought was right regardless of what the world thought.

Here’s the kicker: Faith is really not the key. Having Faith or being grounded in Faith does nothing for a person. What is important is the object to which that faith is placed.

When we fly we may “have faith” in the pilot of the plane, the mechanics, the plane itself, or even the science of flight, but that act of faith-ing does nothing for the actual operation of the plane and it’s ability to stay afloat; whether anyone “faiths” while flying is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on whether or not the plane flies or crashes.

The same is true for our spiritual lives. Read what Paul says in Romans 3:

Now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

As Paul says, our right standing before God, the forgiveness from sin we receive to gain that standing, and the restoration of the entire person to the way he or she was created pre-Rebellion comes through faith in Jesus, not faith in Faith. Faith is not the Savior or Healer or Restorer or Forgiver, Jesus is. Not Religion, not Methodism, not Buddha, not Mohammed, not your Priest. Jesus Christ is the Savior and Healer and Restorer and Forgiver of the world.

Having Faith or being in Faith or engaging in a Faith Tradition has become quite in vogue the past few years. My guess is because such talk is incredibly noncommittal. Anyone can “have Faith” and “be in Faith” without it interfering in there lives or the lives of those around them. That’s not the case with Jesus Christ, though. Jesus destabilizes, confronts, and makes exclusive claims that prevent a person from going on with life as is.

Furthermore, Faith itself is nothing without Jesus. I say it again: faith is nothing unless it is placed in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. As Paul insists, the righteousness from God comes not through Faith, but faith in Jesus. Finding rescue from our rebellious nature and being re-created to the way we were intended to be at creation happens only for those who believe through faith in Jesus Christ. As Luke writes in Acts 4, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.”

As I said before, this post really isn’t meant to be about the former First Lady and her faith or where (or in whom) she places it. I was merely using her to illustrate this point: the act of “faithing” is not the point, Jesus is; Faith does not save or transform us, Jesus does. I hope that she and others do place there faith in Jesus Christ for healing, forgiveness. restoration, peace, transformation, and salvation, because outside of Him there is no hope.

—————————————–

In an address exploring the finality of Christ in a pluralist world on Tuesday, Dr Rowan Williams said people who believed in absolute truth were liable to be branded bigots or intolerant by those who felt that what was right for some was not necessarily right for others.

“Belief in the uniqueness or finality of Christ is something that sits very badly indeed, not just with a plural society but with a society that regards itself as liberal or democratic,” he said.

“This is a world where the ideal is simply to be presented with the choice that makes you comfortable and the question of truth or finality isn’t really allowed to arise.”

The Archbishop admitted that accepting the uniqueness of Christ was “problematic” for many people and that Christians faced the challenge of communicating what they believe.

He added, however, that giving up on the uniqueness of Christ was not “sensible”.

“Christians have claimed and will still claim that when you realise God calls you simply as a human being into that relationship of intimacy with Jesus, then you understand something about God which cannot be replaced or supplemented,” he said.

“The finality lies in the recognition that now there is something you cannot forget about God and humanity and which you cannot correct as if it were simply an interesting theory about God and humanity.”

The Archbishop said that affirming the uniqueness and finality of Christ, rather than being unfair to those who had not heard of Him, made possible the universal reconcilability and fellowship of human beings.

He warned that there was a danger of “treating others as if they know nothing, and we have nothing to learn” if Christians simply believed there was no hope for people outside of the Christian faith.

A belief in the uniqueness and finality of Christ, he said, gave Christians a “generous desire to share” and a “humble desire to learn”.

Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

In between the posts on Sin and Salvation I thought I would post something short in answer to a question that has popped up in the comments. The question relates to the Jewish perspectives on original sin. While there is not a Jewish Scriptural tradition of “the fall” per se, there is certainly a concept of universal sinfulness and a solid case for a “fall” and “original sin” perspective within post-biblical (intertestamental) Jewish literature around the time of Paul. In other words, while the ancient Jewish tradition did not have a “fall” tradition per se, 1st century Judaism did, which Paul would almost certainly have heard of and influenced him.

First, though, within the Jewish Scriptural tradition itself, there are a few passages that speak to the sinful condition of humanity: The Psalmists writes in 51:4, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me;” Qohelet of Ecclesiastes 7:20 writes, “Indeed there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins;” Jeremiah in 17:9 exclaims, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” While the Psalmist comes closest to explaining the extent to which we have ruptured—from birth we have sinned; sinful even from the time of conception—the Hebrew Scriptures certainly affirm the reality that ethically we are morally polluted and rebellious, that we are sinful.

Also remember the obvious: Jesus and Paul themselves were Jewish! I know that’s sort of a basic, knucklehead assertion, but the idea that some how both of their perspectives on sin would have been innovative and divorced from the Judaism of their day is nonsense. Especially when we come to Paul—who was for all practical purposes himself a Jewish theologian—we cannot simply assume he is constructing a new theology of human nature and sin in a vacuum. In Romans particularly, he is reunderstanding the Jewish story in light of the Story’s climax in Christ, while also sitting in Jewish understanding of his time. As Jewett makes clear in regarding Romans 5:12, for instance:

Sin and Death appear to function as cosmic forces under which all humans are in bondage. The language of “personification” does not do justice to the apocalyptic worldview within which Paul is operating. To speak of sin as “entering” the world and death “reaching” all persons clearly implies that neither was present prior to Adam’s act. However on explains the background of this thoughts, it remains clear that Paul depicts Adam’s act as decisively determining the behavior of his descendants. A social theory of sin appears to be implied here in which the actions of forebears determine those of their descendants.¹

Paul, then, is operating within a worldview of the time, a worldview that could be culled from his own material, but which is also clarified when one looks at the the Jewish writing of the postbiblical period.

Of great importance within the intertestamental Jewish literary tradition is the Wisdom of Solomon, of which Paul certainly knew and even echos in his writings. Of relevance is Wis. 2:23-24:

For God created humankind for incorruption, and made him/her this image of his own eternity;
But through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who are of his party experience it.

By the time of Paul, Adam’s disobedience had become a major factor in explaining the human condition.

The most striking examples, however, come to us from two classic Jewish apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, that emerged during the period following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. 4 Ezra makes clear that Adam’s sin is attributed to his “evil heart:”

The first adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descendents from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the law was in the hearts of the people along with evil root; but what was good departed, and evil remained…The inhabitants of the city [Jerusalem] transgressed, in everything doing just as Adam and all his descendants had done, for they also had the evil heart.

Furthermore in 4 Ezra 3:7, after Adam rebelled against God and his commandment, “immediately you [God] appointed death for him and his descendent.”

2 Baruch extends these notions of Adam’s fault for Humanity’s death and fallenness, specifically for the disaster of AD 70: Adam was guilty of deliberate transgression (4.3); “The darkness of Adam” (18.2) brough brevity of life and death for those who were born from him (17.3); “Death was decreed against those who trespassed” from the first day (19.8), “against those who were to be born” (23.4); “When he [Adam] transgressed, untimely death came into being” (56.6); and regarding the question of responsibility Baruch is explicit: “O Adam, what did you do to all who were born after you? What will be said of the first Eve who obeyed the serpent, so that this whole multitude is going to corruption? (48:42-43).

Even more significant is the view that individuals are repaid their own transgressions in 54;14, 19:

For, although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not of his own time, yet each of them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torement…Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.”

Interestingly, the phrase from Romans 5 that is of interest “through one man” is the first time it appears in biblical literature. In classical literature, this idea that someone suffers something because of another (for instance, “I have suffered injustices by a single wicked person…”)((Dinarchus In Demosthenem, 49:4; see also Hippocrates Epistulae)) does appear, but Paul now uses it in accordance with Adam.² Like much of these intertestamental examples, Paul believes that death came as a result of Adam’s sin and now our nature is affected in the way Adam was.

Clearly during the time of Paul, there are signs influential Jewish literature and the 1st century Jewish tradition viewed Adam as a “head” of humanity and that humanity participates in the sin of Adam, enduring the same consequences: death. Paul’s notions in Romans 5:18 that Adam’s trespass results in the condemnation for all people and in v. 19 that all are made sinners through his disobedience are not entirely unique and mirror the same Jewish perspective of his day.

Regardless, though, our Christian understanding of human nature and sin flows from Jesus Christ’s and Paul’s teachings. The historical background must only enhance our understanding of the two without dictating it. Romans 5:18, 19 in particular make clear that “in Adam” we are condemned (vs. “in Christ” we receive justification and life); “in Adam” we are made sinners (vs. “in Christ” we are made righteous). Particularly, in direct contrast to Pagitt and Pelagius, we are sinners not for violating particular codes or following bad examples, but because we are descendants of Adam.

Ethically we are morally rebellious because of the ethical violation of Adam: disobeying God; ontologically we receive the consequences for Adam’s disobedience and our sinful nature: condemnation and death. Theologically this cashes out as “original sin,” though the “total depravity” variation is not completely necessary. You can hold a lighter view of depravity (i.e. semi-Augustinian or even semi-Pelagian) and still hold to the orthodox view of original sin. You cannot deny original sin, however, and still be orthodox. That doesn’t make sense with Paul and that’s simply not Christian.

1. Jewett, Romans, 374-375
2. Jewett, Romans, 373

Update: In my haste I forgot the Holy Spirit! Oops I’ve made the revision below to the answer to my first question

Two questions have arisen a few times this week as I’ve waded waist deep in emerging church theological critique: 1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”; 2) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace? Am I simply replacing once camp with another?

1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”

First, in regards to The Rule of Faith, and I’m tipping my hand here, for me that is shorthand for historic Christian orthodoxy. I feel that’s become a loaded set of words, which is why I’ve swapped them for RoF. I realize I am opening myself up to the question, “Well WHOSE orthodoxy do we choose? The East, West? Catholicism or Protestantism? Calvinism or Arminianism? Who or what decides as orthodox?” I get the question, but find it to be an easy out for a conversation on basic Christian beliefs.

While I am well aware of the differences between West and East, between Catholic and Protestant, there are still some things at the base upon which the apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (EO, RC, P) is built. The Rule of Faith at its broadest point is the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. You could call it Nicene Christianity.

Everyone at minimum must agree with Nicene Christianity in order to be a Christian. That’s what I’m saying.

Look at the Apostles Creed for reference:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Look at the Nicene Creed for reference:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Both Creeds explicitly affirm:

1. Trinitarian theology.
2. God as Creator who is distinct from creation.
3. the Lordship of Jesus as exclusive Lord
4. the deity of Christ; Jesus was/is very God
5. physical incarnation of Jesus as a man in virgin birth; Jesus was/is very human
6. the literal suffering, death of Jesus (more on this below)
7. the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
8. ascension and exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord
9. individual culpability, forgiveness and judgment of sin
10. Jesus Christ will come as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who believe in Him.
11. The Holy Spirit is an active member of the Trinity, who is co-worshiped with the Father and Son, the giver of life, and author of Textual Revelation.

While not explicitly spelled out, there is also an assumption of are four implicit ideas we could draw from these Creeds to inform the Rule:

1. Holy Scriptures, as given and applied by the Holy Spirit, are the revelational authority for understanding these components of the Christian faith.
2. Original Sin: while this cashes out differently in the West (a strong view) and east (a weak/different view) it is still assumed by both. Both Creeds assume something is wrong with us (Sin), which necessitated Christ’s death and resurrection, and need for forgiveness of those sins in the first place. This later translated into the belief in Original Sin, a belief affirmed by the apostolic Church which submitted to those Creeds. It seems as though this later affirmation can be said to be implicit in these Creeds, though admittedly this is taking theological interpretive license. It is a belief, however, that is necessary for confessing Christians.
3. Substitution (not necessarily penal) has been a vital part of understanding the Event of the Cross. The Creeds explicitly draw attention to Christ’s suffering and death and to their significance for rescue. Implicit in Jesus’ sufferings and death is His “shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay (for sins) and reconciling them to God by his sacrificial death.” Implicit in the Creeds is a substitution on behalf of humanity. (i.e. How can you be a Christian and not believe that Christ died in your place?).
4. Eternal Life(heaven on new earth) and Eternal Death (hell), the results of judgment. The Creeds affirm Jesus’ descent into Hell and that Jesus will stand as Judge, logical results of which is judgment. While the positive consequences for judgment are explicitly stated as “resurrection of the dead” and “the life of the world to come”/”everlasting life,” it is logical that the implicit negative consequences of judgment are “hell” (explicitly stated in Jesus need to descend there in his salvific death) and death.

In true Kuyperian form: Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation. This is how I believe God tells His Story of Rescue, as I outline in my first book. (Yes, shameless plug!) From my estimation, this is the Story to which both the Communion of Saints and the Spirit of God testify. Yes, I realize this is parsed-out and nuanced across the East/West and Catholic/Protestant lines of division. As far as historic orthodoxy—aka The Rule of Faith—goes, though, this seems as basic as you get.

So the working definition for The Rule of Faith (as rooted in Tradition and Scripture):

1. The Holy Scriptures are authoritative revelation for understanding Church/Christian life, practice and belief.
2. God is Creator, who is both above/outside/separate from creation and intimately involved with it.
3. Humanity is rebelliously fallen and individually sinful, in need of rescue. Theologically this is translated into Original Sin.
4. Jesus Christ is both very God and very Human.
5. Jesus Christ rescued us through substitution (not necessarily strictly penal) on the Cross; He took our place by suffering and dying.
6. Jesus Christ physically arose from the dead and ascended to the exalted right hand of God.
7. Jesus Christ will return as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who confess Him as Lord and Messiah; eternal death are given for those who don’t.
8. The Holy Spirit is active in the world, revealing, provoking, nourishing and sustaining a person in everlasting New Life in Christ.

So what do you think? Do you think this is fair? Do you think this is, at minimum, what it means to be a confessing Christian? Am I missing something? If so, what? Do I include too much? If so what?

1) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace?

As to the second question, I’ll let you read below if you have time. My answer is basically my blog’s “faith” section, which outlines my credo, what I believe. I think you’ll find it will be difficult to pin me to any theological tradition (sorry, no “young, restless, Reformer” here), though I am broadly protestant and perhaps more particularly evangelical.

I realize it is very long, overly detailed, and thoroughly systematic, so I am not expecting or insisting you engage or even read all of it. Perhaps there are pieces (like the Sin section) that would give more context to where I am confessionally, especially for the discussion at hand.

Enjoy!

On Revelation

Prolegomena

I believe the Nature of Revelation should be understood as divine self-disclosure. God, through his own will, decides to purposefully unveil Himself to Humanity. These God-revealed things belong to Humans, allowing them to understand what is real about God and His Works. (Deut. 29:29)

I believe we understand what is real about God and His Works through two sources: General Revelation and Special Revelation.

Creation—General Revelation

I believe General Revelation is God’s self-disclosure to all of Humanity through the Created Order in three purposeful acts of unveiling: Nature; an internal, created awareness of the Divine; and the participation of God in History. (Rom. 1:19)

I believe that God unveils Himself through all He Created in the Natural World, and it is a means by which Man can both know of and about Him. (Rom. 1:20)

I believe all of Humanity has access to the knowledge of and about God through an internal awareness of an “Other” that is beyond and above themselves. (Rom. 1:21)

I believe God’s purposeful participation in History reveals a Creator who is intimately involved in the affairs of His Creation through deliberate acts of disclosure, human involvement, and redemption. (Ps. 140)

Sin—Effect on Understanding of General Revelation

I believe, that despite God’s purposeful act of self-disclosure, Humans struggle with properly understanding God and His Works. Though Humans are crafted after the Image of God and poses a limited understanding of Him, that Created Image is broken because of Sin; because Humans have consciously chosen the Way of Self over against the Way of God, Humans misread God’s self-disclosure through nature, human conscience, and history. (John 12:40)

Redemption—Special Revelation

I believe, while God’s transcendence is disclosed through General Revelation and reveals a Creator who is over and above His Creation, Special Revelation helps us understand God as a Creator who is intimately involved with His Creation, a God of immanence.

Function of Special Revelation

I believe this second instance of Divine Unveiling corrects the distorted and misunderstood views of God broken Humans experience as the result of Sin; because Humans are holistically broken, they need a more complete unveiling to understand God and His Works. Furthermore, this second act of disclosure more fully unveils God in light of his partial disclosure through Creation. God is more fully unveiled through the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ, and continued acts of divine self-disclosure. (II Cor. 4:4)

Types of Special Revelation

I believe, while the ultimate standard for understanding God and His Works is found in Jesus and testified to by the Holy Scriptures, God, through the Holy Spirit, continues to aid Human understanding through continued acts of divine self-disclosure. Through lesser forms of unveiling—including visions and dreams, miracles, redemptive acts in History (such as the Exodus), prophecy, and personal encounters with the Redeemer—God continues to reveal what is real about Himself and His Works. This understanding never conflicts with the Person of Jesus Christ nor does it stand over and against the Holy Scriptures.

I believe, through the climax of Special Revelation, God and His Reality is fully unveiled through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Ultimately, the fullest expression of what is real about God’s nature, character, intentions, desires, and Works are entirely revealed through the Person of Jesus, and only properly understood by observing, understanding, and listening to Him. Though we textually understand God and His Works through the Holy Scriptures, even this piece of revelation must be interpreted through the Teachings, Way and Person of Jesus Christ. (John 14:9; Heb. 1:3)

I believe one of God’s primary acts of immanent unveiling is through the sacred writings of the children of Israel and apostles of Jesus. These collections of writings in their respective testaments are compiled in a Sacred Text we call the Bible. While it is not God’s ultimate act of self-disclosure, the Holy Scriptures are the standard by which we measure our understanding of God and His Works. (II Tim. 3:16)

I believe the textual unveiling found in the Holy Scriptures is well preserved, proves and authenticates itself, and truthfully contains everything God desired to communicate to humans about Himself and His Works. Through this textual self-disclosure God beckons Humans to relationship and worship, calls them live according to a Way of Life, and restores them to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation. (II Pet. 1:23-25)

I believe the Sacred Text God gave to Humanity is composed of the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures. This Sacred Text includes the 27 historically recognized New Testament texts and 39 Hebrew texts of the Jewish Testament. God primarily authored these books through the full participation of human authors under the guidance of their Jewish Spiritual Traditions, Culture, and specific contexts.

Marks of the Holy Scriptures

I believe God’s textual self-disclosure, as found in the Holy Scriptures, are marked by six distinctions: Authority, Power, Unity, Sufficiency, Perspicuity, and Contemporaniaty.

I believe the marks of the Holy Scriptures are understood by the following: it is authoritative on how to restore Humanity and Creation to God, and what it means to live restored in these relationships (Matt. 4:1-4, 7, and 10); it unveils the power of God to restore the God-Man relationship and Creation to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation (Rom. 1:16; Is. 55:11); it is an ancient document of great unity that reveals God’s one continuous Story from beginning to end, and to properly understand God a reader and listener of this particular divine self-disclosure must sit in this grand, unified Redemptive Narrative, which includes four Acts: Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Consummation (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1, Rev. 21:1); it sufficiently testifies to everything we need in order to understand how the God-Man relationship and Creation is restored, and how to properly relate to God and others (II Pet. 1:3); it is perspicuous, meaning the Message of Restoration it carries is clear and can be plainly and simply understood by all Humans (Deut. 29:29, Ps. 119:105); finally it applies to contemporary problems and provides contemporary solutions, because while God was speaking to specific people at particular times, He was still speaking through the prophets and apostles to those people with us in mind, too (I Pet. 1:23-25).

On God

Prolegomena

I believe God is properly understood as balanced Transcendence and Immanence, both over and above creation and intimately involved with it.

Creator-God Over And Above Creation

I believe in one God, the Almighty and Creator of all that existed and still exists on Earth and in Heaven, both material and spiritual. As Creator, God stands over and above the creation; the creation has its origin in God and is dependent on and separate from Him.

I believe God is properly understood as existing in three Persons with one Essence; God is the Father, the Son (Word), and the Spirit, and unified through a mutual indwelling, interpenetrating dance that centers on one character. As such, God is a community of self-giving lovers who know, will, and act together and in each other in accordance with this Divine Character.
I believe, as the Creator of creation, God is entirely independent, is from Himself, and depends on no one or thing for His existence. Also, because God is entirely independent He needs nothing, including creatures; because God exits in an eternal interpenetrating dance, God needs no one and nothing.

I believe God’s character is stable and unchanging, but God’s actions are not; while the essence of God does not change, God does change His mind and responds to Humans dynamically.

I believe God is everlasting, meaning while God stands above and beyond time, He still experiences it along with His creation; though God never had a beginning nor will He have an end, He does move through the Sequence of Time with Humans.

I believe God knows all of the possible outcomes of yet-unexperienced Time, while not entirely knowing how the exact Sequence of Time will unfold. Because He created Humans as free creatures who can freely choose from a range of possible actions, God does not know exactly what those Free Creatures will choose. But though Humans can choose different options, thus shaping the Sequence of Time, God still knows how that Sequence could unfold and is endlessly resourceful to accomplish His will in the face of those choices.

I believe, while God is above and beyond Time, while still experiencing the Sequence of Time, the same is true for God’s presence in created space: while God as Creator stands above and beyond created space, He still is intimately involved with that created space. Through Yahweh, we see God both experiencing Time with His people and standing above and beyond It.

I believe God the all powerful and fully capable of carrying through to completion the plans He established before the foundation of the world. While God fully participates in His Story and is affected by the choices of Humans, He also stands above and beyond It and actively accomplished His holy will.

Fall-God’s Relationship To Evil In Creation

I believe, since God created Humans on purpose to be in relationship with Himself for eternity, He created them with the freedom to choose Him or not. This potential for relational rejection left allowed for sin and the presence of absolute evil. So while God did not create evil or sin, He allowed for the possibility, and still does. I do not believe God decrees nor does He desire evil and sin.

Redeemer-God Intimately Involved With Creation

I believe the fullest expression of the nature, character, and desires of God is found in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-with-us God. In Him, we see a hyper-relational, hyper-present God who fully participates in the Sequence of Time; God is intimately involvement with His creation through Jesus Christ as Redeemer.

I believe one of God’s primary postures before Humanity is Love. As the God-with-us God Jesus Christ, He relates to Humanity as a Lover. The Cross

I believe God also relates to Humanity in holiness. While He is hyper-relational and relates to Humanity in love, God’s essential characteristic is Holiness. Because God is holy, He demands that we be holy as He is holy; God designed us to choose Him and His holy Way

I believe God’s Holiness includes wrath and judgement. God both has and will stand as judge over Humanity for their sinful choices. At the Cross God did judge the sins of the world through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and poured out His wrath upon him; at the End of the Age God will judge the sinful choices of each Human and render due punishment.

On Creation & Humanity

Creation

I believe the Creation event was a purposeful act of God to bring into existence a Reality for His glory, reflection, and interaction, a Reality that was formed from nothing; the universe and all that exists therein was created on purpose with purpose by the Creator. This act of creation was a real time-space event that set the universe and all its processes in motion through the Will and Word of God. (Gen. 1 & 2; Col, 1:15-17)

Humanity

I believe Humans should be understood by the term Eikon, a Greek word that means “image bearer.” Man is the culmination of God’s purposeful act of creation and is crafted after the image of God. This “reflection of the Creator” was originally created to enjoy, worship, and love Him forever in an eternal relationship with Him defined by mutual love. As Eikons made in the image of God, we are set apart from the rest of Creation not simply because we have a soul, but rather because we are fashioned after God Himself. (Gen. 1:27, 2:7, 9:6; Ps. 139:13-16; Jm. 3:9-10)

I believe as Eikons, our reflection of God is understood through our capacities and relationships. As Image Bearers, we have been given higher capacities, like free will, intelligence, and emotion. Additionally, we reflect God through our relationships with Creation, Others, and God; as God is a relational Being who exists in a community of self-giving lovers, so also we are relational and properly express our human nature in community. (Gen. 1:27-28; Ps. 8:3-8)

I believe Humans truly are earthlings, meaning earth is our home: We were created from the earth and created to exist on earth, and our eventual eternal destination will be on a fully restored earth. (Gen. 1:27-30; Rev. 21:1-4)

I believe Humans have two parts, Body and Soul, that were meant to function as an integrated whole. While Death causes those two parts to become separated, we were never supposed to realize that we have a soul separate from our body. Only Sin has opened our eyes to the distinction between Body and Soul. (Gen 2:15-17; 3:7)

I believe, because we are physical beings, the hope of the Believer is the resurrection of the Body and reunification of Body and Soul into a whole, functional unit. (1 Cor. 15)

Rebellion

I believe Sin is human rebellion against God and His Way. This intentional, personal rebellion results in a vandalism of shalom and death for individual humans. (Ps. 14:2-3; Rm. 3:23)

I believe the First Humans, by rebelling against God and His Way, disrupted the shalom of Creation, plunging all of it into disruption. (Gen. 3)

Adam’s Rebellion

I believe through Adam’s initial rebellion, Humans are born polluted by sin, receiving a distorted nature, and continue to rebel against God and His Way, resulting in Death. That pollution influences the free choices of all humans to choose relationship with God and follow in His Way. We are guilty of sin after we choose to disobey God and vandalize shalom. (Rm. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 1 Jn. 1:8-10)

I believe Sin ultimately is autonomy; Humans want to be independent agents who are free from the constrains of an Other outside his/herself. This autonomy was expressed by Adam and Eve when they wanted to be like God, knowing both Good and Evil. To this day, Humans continue to sin out of a selfish, autonomous heart. (Gen. 3; Matt. 15:18-20)

The Consequences of Rebellion

I believe the consequences of Human Rebellion are exhaustive and holistic, infecting every crevice of Creation; Human Rebellion caused a rippled effect beyond humans to all of Creation, which groans for ultimate restoration under its weight. (Rm. 8:20-22)

I believe, while still fundamentally Eikons of God, Humans are thoroughly broken, rebellious, and shaped by Sin. Through Adam’s initial rebellion we continue to rebel against God and His Way. As cracked Eikons, we are desperate for holistic restoration, a restoration we are incapable of providing on our own. (Is. 53:6a; Rm. 1:18-32)

I believe Human Culture is fallen and polluted by Sin. While human society is capable of producing much good through common grace, such as art and science, it is still broken and incapable of restoring itself to the way God intended it to be.

I believe the earth itself and the animal kingdom are also affected by the pollution of Sin and Human rebellion. Through this pollution natural evils occur, like tsunamis and hurricanes, and animals are affected so that they eat each other, resulting in death that should not be. (Rm. 8:20-22)

Common Grace Despite Rebellion

I believe, despite a full-scale, worldwide brokenness, God blankets His Creation with common grace, which protects His valued Creation and preserves it for the sake of Redemption.

I believe the common grace which God gives Creation provides natural blessings (e.g. rain and sun), restrains Sin (e.g. enables people to do moral good), and contributes to civic good (e.g. environmental clean-up projects or volunteers feeding the homeless), and cultural good (e.g. education, art, and science). So even while all of Creation groans in its brokenness, goodness still exists and flows from the gracious hand of God through the Holy Spirit. (Gen. 20:6; 1 Sam. 25:26; Matt. 5:45; Rm. 13:1-5; Heb. 1:2-3)

I believe the existence of common grace reflects a God who did not abandon His Creation and whose posture toward it is love and restoration. It is out of His love for all of Creation that He continues to preserve it and desires to restore it entirely, a restoration that is rooted in and accomplished through Jesus Christ. (Rm. 5:6-8)

On The Son

Prolegomena

I believe God’s intention toward His good Creation is Rescue and Restoration, despite Human Rebellion; even when Humans were Rebels, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die in order to rescue and restore. (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8)

God and Redemption

I believe God enacted His Redemptive Plan by invading the world as a human, by becoming like us; the Father willingly gave His one and only unique Son Jesus Christ to live the sinless life we could not, pay the penalty for sin, and defeat Death. (Jn. 1:10-14; 3:16-21)

Person of Jesus

I believe Jesus is one Person with two full Natures; Jesus is a single Person who is fully Divine and fully Human. As a Divine Being, Jesus possess all the attributes of God; as a Human Being, Jesus possesses all the attributes of Humanity, including Body and Soul. (Jn. 1:1, 14)

I believe you cannot give a positive statement regarding Jesus’ one person and two natures without underemphasizing either His oneness or two natures. Therefore, it is best to say that Jesus’ two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the natures of Jesus cannot be confused or changed, neither can they be divided or separated. (Council of Chalcedon)

I believe Jesus could sin, but would not because He had a strong moral will. Jesus chose to consciously operate as a full Human, which allowed for the possibility of sin, without using His Deity to cheat. Therefore, since He was really a Human and resisted the temptation to Sin all the way to the end, He could trace the steps of Human Rebellion and set things to rights for Humans and the World. (Heb. 2:14-18)

I believe, in His humanity, Jesus was finite, but not fallen; while Jesus was physically susceptible to the things in a fallen world that could hurt any human (e.g. sickness and disease, bruising from a fall, mistakes from the learning process, and death), Jesus could not suffer internally from guilt, corruption, or sin, nor from confusion or mental illness. (Jn. 1:14; Heb. 2:14-18)
Work of Jesus

I believe Jesus is the Victorious Obedient Substitute, and His Redemptive Act rescues and restores Creation in this way: Through His Life, Jesus obeyed God perfectly after the First Adam did not, while demonstrating how we are to live as Humans; through His Death, Jesus paid the final penalty to God for Rebellion on behalf of all Humans through a final sacrifice, thus restoring Humans to relationship with God; through His Resurrection, Jesus defeated the Dark Powers to liberate all Humanity from Satan’s control and free us from the bondage of Evil and Sin. (Heb. 4:14-15; 10:1-18; Rom. 6)

I believe through Jesus’ Life: His baptism commissioned Him for ministry and empowered Him by the Holy Spirit to retrace Adam’s steps, defeat the Dark Powers, and restore the God-Man relationship through His sacrifice; He perfectly obeyed God’s moral law throughout His life, resisting the temptation to sin when Adam gave in and disobeyed God’s Way; and His words and deeds taught Humanity how to obey the will of God, while actually defeating Evil. (Rom. 5:12-21)

I believe through Jesus’ Death, He bore the punishment and guilt for all Human Rebellion, making peace between God and Humans and leading to the adoption of people by God the Father as Sons and Daughters. (Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 4:4-8)

I believe through Jesus’ Resurrection, He triumphed over the Dark Powers, making a mockery of them, and revealed that the Father accepted His sacrifice on behalf of Humans. Furthermore, we are raised to New Life through His defeat of Death, and we are declared and made righteous before God. (Rom. 4:25; Col. 2:13-15; 1 Cor. 15)

I believe through Jesus’ Ascension, we have an enthroned Lord who is now ruling over the entire world and working on our behalf by empowering us to live the Way of God that Adam did not. (Heb. 2:1-18; 7:23-25)

I believe God intends to rescue and restore all of Humanity. Thus, in coming to Earth, Jesus intended to redeem all of Humanity through His Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. His Redemptive Act is sufficient for all Humans and effective for everyone who will eventually embrace Jesus as Lord. (1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:9-10)

On The Holy Spirit

Person of the Holy Spirit

I believe the Holy Spirit should be thought of as a personal entity, because he refers to himself in personal language (i.e. I and me). (Acts 13:2)
I believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, coequal with the Father and Son. (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2)

I believe the Holy Spirit possesses personal characteristics, such as intelligence, will and emotions. As an intelligent Being, He teaches humans all things; as a willful Being He gives gifts (spiritual and personal) as He wills; as an emotional Being, He can be grieved, lied to and blasphemed, and ministers to and convicts humans. (Jn. 14:26; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph 4:30; Acts 5:3-4; Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Rom. 8:26; Jn. 16:8)

I believe the Holy Spirit is identified as God, possesses the perfections of God, and does the works of God. The Holy Spirit is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. (1 Cor. 2:10-11; Jn. 16:13; Luke 1:35; Rom. 15:19; Heb. 9:14)

Work of the Holy Spirit

I believe the Holy Spirit’s role is as Agent; by the Holy Spirit, the Godhead accomplishes their works in cooperation with the Father and the Son (e.g. Salvation is from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit).

I believe the Holy Spirit’s presence is found in the Old Testament through several movements: He acted with the Father and Son in the Creation Event; He has acted on behalf of God’s people through acts of divine care; He empowered Old Testament civil leaders (e.g. the Kings and Judges), directed craftsmanship (e.g. The building of the Tabernacle), and anointed prophets (e.g. Isaiah and Ezekiel); and He helped accomplish certain salvific events (such as The Exodus). (Gen. 1:2; Ps, 104:29-30; 1 Sam. 16:13; Ex. 31:3-5; Ez. 2:2, 8:3, 11:1, 24)

I believe the Holy Spirit participated in the Redemptive Event of Jesus Christ. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived, empowered at baptism, directed into the wilderness to be tempted, taught, performed miracles, offered Himself as a sacrifice, and resurrected. (Lk. 2:52; Matt. 3:16; 4:1; Lk. 4:14, 18-21; Matt. 12:25-32; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18)

I believe at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit created a new people of God under a new covenant–specifically the Church–and imbues that community with new life, while commissioning them with a new mission. (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:1-4; Jn. 14:16-18, 26; Matt. 28:19-20)

I believe the Holy Spirit indwells individuals after salvation to bring spiritual rebirth, empower them to live the Church’s mission, illuminate the Holy Scriptures, intercede for them, sanctify their life, seal them in relationship with God, and impart particular spiritual and sign gifts.
(Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:18; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 2:10-16; Eph. 6:18; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 4:11, Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Pet. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28)

I believe the Holy Spirit is working to bring ultimate, cosmic restoration to the entire world as an agent applying Jesus Christ’s work.

Doxology

Thanks be to God forever, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Series Posts
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
3—Conclusion

CONCLUSION

Thanks to these emerging leaders, there is now growing confusion within the Church over both the extent to which we may know God and the manner in which He has revealed Himself. It is clear that Rollins understands God as hyper-transcendent and Wholly Other, believing He is far more hidden and concealed than Christianity acknowledges. For Rollins we can neither truly name God nor actually describe Him, because He is not really, genuinely revealed. Practically, this cashes out as what Rollins calls an “a/theistic Christianity.”

An a/theistic Christian can be said to operate with a discourse that makes claims about God while simultaneously acknowledging that these claims are provisional, uncertain, and insufficient; our questioning of God isn’t really questioning of God Himself but only a means of questioning our understanding of God. (98) By implication this would mean the revelation we have of God is not complete or real enough to understand, question, and know Him. This is why Rollins ultimately insists that speaking of God is really only speaking about our understanding of God, not God himself. (32)

Selmanovic, while acknowledging a real revelation of God that can be experienced by humans, believes that revelation is neither exclusively tied to Jesus Christ nor contained within Christianity. For Him, it’s really all about “God.” God is a vapid, generalized World-Spirit (This is the same language Fredrick Schleiermacher uses in his book, On Religion.) that is encased in all religions, rather than exclusively revealed through Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the Church, on the other. He is unsatisfied with the assertion that Christianity testifies to God’s Story of Rescue and that rescue is exclusively found in Jesus Christ. In fact, the grace of God to which the Holy Scriptures and Church has testified to for generations isn’t even unique to the Christ Event or Christianity. Instead, it is independent from both and common in the world’s histories, stories, and religions. God is present everywhere and in every person and the Christian faith cannot insist on an exclusive revelation in Jesus Christ or the Church. In the end, it is the kingdom of God that reveals God to the world, a thing that is trans-religious and separate from even Jesus Christ Himself. It is a revelation in-and-of-itself which is the gospel, a thing uncontrolled by Christianity and Jesus.

Upon surveying the writings of both Rollins and Selmanovic, one wonders why they are self-described Christians and committed to Christianity at all. If God doesn’t really speak, why posture one’s self as a listener? If God is not wholly and exclusively revealed in Jesus Christ, why commit one’s self to Him and His Story? In response to both religious thinkers, Barth asserts God does speak and He is revealed in Jesus Christ. For Barth, there is real, genuine knowledge of God because God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. This divine self-disclosure is in such away that humans can really, genuinely know Him. Barth declares that there is a readiness of God to be known, a knowledge that is “clear and certain.” While the knowledge that humans have is not through their own ingenuity and gumption, but through grace, God is so made up that He can be known by us.

Though apprehending revelation does not happen through our own power and command, it does happen and has happened. Barth makes clear that ultimately Jesus Christ is the point at which the world truly knows God. While others may suggest God is best defined by Jesus Christ, Barth insists He is only defined by Jesus. God is utterly and wholly revealed in Jesus Christ; to know Jesus is to know God. In fact, the only way to know God in intimate relationship is through the grace found in and through Jesus Christ. Barth maintains that God’s grace is only and intimately connected to Christ, rather than other sources and other religious faiths. Finally, Barth warns of the danger of selecting competing centers of revelation apart from Jesus Christ, like the kingdom of God.

In His Church Dogmatics volume on The Doctrine of God, Barth makes clear, “Theology guides the language of the Church, so far as it concretely reminds her that in all circumstances it is fallible human work, which in the matter of relevance or irrelevance lies in the balance, and must obedience to grace, if it is to be well done.” (CD I,1:2) Here Barth acknowledges the difficult task of “theologizing,” of speaking of God and His acts. While that speech is fallible and vacillates between relevance or irrelevance, requiring a healthy dose of grace along the way, it needs to happen nonetheless. Every generation needs to cherish, protect, and contend for the Rule of Faith given by our Lord once to the Church. If not, there is a real danger of precipitating into darkness and confusion. It is clear from the writings of these two theologians and thinkers that a shift is occurring within the Church regarding an important piece of that Rule, revelation.

Though historic Christian orthodoxy has consistently held to the real, genuine knowability of God and that knowledge being fully and exclusively revealed (outside of creation) in Jesus Christ, there are some who insist otherwise. There is a growing number who shove God so far into the clouds that nothing can be concretely said of Him. Others still, and perhaps more dangerously so, find God outside Jesus Christ, insisting God is in every person, every community, every religion. God and His grace is no longer exclusively revealed in Jesus Christ, but possessed by other faiths, too. It is worth ending with Barth’s warning as a reminder for these and other theologians: “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.” (CD II,1:319) May this not be the end of these or others who claim Jesus Christ as Lord.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, vol I, 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Translated by G.T. Thomson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1955.

________. Church Dogmatics, vol II, 1: The Doctrine of God. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by T.H.L Parker, W.B. Johnson, Harold Knight, and J.L.M. Haire. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957.

Erdman, Chris. “Digging Up the Past: Karl Barth (the Reformed Giant) as Friend to the Emerging Church,” Pages 236-243 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Jones, Tony. “Introduction: Friendship, Faith, and Going Somewhere Together.” Pages 11-15 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Rollins, Pete. How (Not) To Speak of God. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2006.

Selmanovic, Samir. “The Sweet Problem of Inclusivism.” Pages 11-15 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

________. It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

Series Posts
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
3—Conclusion

“GOD’S REVELATION IS JESUS CHRIST”

Not only do leaders within the emerging church question our ability to know God and wonder about the extent to which God has truly spoken, the center of that knowledge and speaking is questions, too. The historic Christian faith has taken seriously Jesus’ own claim in John 14:9 that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” In the past, it was believed that God the Father is revealed in God the Son, the One True God is only found in Jesus Christ. Now, however, even this central idea to the Rule of Faith is questioned.

In an essay in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Samir Selmanovic participates in this questioning when he claims, “We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign.”(emphasis mine) (129) In fact, he writes elsewhere that the revelation of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, which is so central to the Rule of Faith of historic Christianity, is not exclusively limited to that faith or person, either. “We Christians have insisted that our revelation is the only container and only dispenser of grace. The rest of the world, graced from within, has been steadily proving us wrong. Grace is independent.” (52) The revelation that has come through the Holy Scriptures and Jesus Christ himself are not the only containers of God’s grace; grace is found outside the Christian Story. According to Selmanovic, neither the revelation of God Himself nor of His grace is contained or confined to Jesus Christ.

In his newly released book, It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian, Selmanovic continues his initial thoughts on God’s Christian containment by arguing, “to say God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.”(9) In order to protect his argument in favor of religious pluralism, he claims that none of us are in charge of God, God refuses to be owned and to comply with our religious constructs. (16, 18) In fact, “As long as those of us who are Christians insist on staying enclosed in our own world of meanings, we have nothing more to say to the world. Without recognizing God, grace, and goodness outside of the boundaries we have made and without the possibility of expanding our understanding of God, grace, and goodness, we have come to a place where Christianity as we know it must either end or experience another Exodus.” (60-61)

In experiencing another Exodus, Christians must acknowledge that God is everywhere—in every person, every community, and all creation—otherwise we will loose the basis for seeing God anywhere. (61, 64) Ultimately, Selmanovic insists that “the Christianity that claims exclusive possession of God’s revelation in the person of Jesus has hijacked that same God from the world.”(68) After reducing Christianity to one of three monotheistic “religions,” Selmanovic shows his real hand: “People want God, but not one who is the captive of a religion. They want an unmanaged God. Free God. That’s where hope comes from.” (90, 92) Apparently, Selmanovic also desires a God free from religion, Christianity, Jesus Christ.

Barth paints a very different picture in his Dogmatics, however. He boldly asserts that God’s revelation is only, exclusively in Jesus Christ. While Selmanovic believes that God is simply best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, Barth insists God is only defined by Jesus Christ. To suggest that God is not limited to “the historical revelation in Jesus Christ” is foreign to the Holy Scriptures and historic Rule of Faith. Barth argues this very point when he writes, “[God] is wholly and utterly in His revelation in Jesus Christ.”(CD II,1:75) He also makes plain that we must know Jesus in order to know God, because “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). (CD II,1:252) Furthermore, Barth makes clear that what he describes in his Dogmatics is the knowledge of God as found in the knowledge of Jesus; unless Jesus Christ is the reference point for the revelation of God, “we have not described it in faith, or as the knowledge of faith, and therefore not in any sense as the true knowledge of God.” (CD II,1:252)

While Selmanovic may believe that “Grace did not start with Christianity and will not end with Christianity. It is a common thing in this world,” (51) Barth argues, “When we appeal to God’s grace, we appeal to the grace of the incarnation and to [Jesus Christ] as the One in whom, because He is the eternal Son of God, knowledge of God was, is and will be present originally and properly.” (CD II,1:252) For Barth, the revelation of God through grace is intimately and only connected to Jesus Christ because His own act of divine self-disclosure is bound up with Him, too. Jesus Christ is given to the whole being of God, not simply a part of Him, and God is not known at all unless He is known in His entirety as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer. (CD II,1:51-52) It is in His grace through Jesus Christ that God is known as Reconciler and Redeemer. Rather than experiencing the knowledge of God and His grace apart from Jesus Christ, both are intimately connected to Him. It is only in Jesus Christ that we know and understand God and His grace, which is revealed in the gospel that defines life.

Selmanovic goes on to rhetorically wonder, “Is our religion the only one that understands the true meaning of life? Or does God place his truth in others too? Well, God decides, and not us. The gospel is not our gospel, but the gospel of the kingdom of God, and what belongs to the kingdom of God cannot be hijacked by Christianity.” (“The Sweet Problem of Inclusivism,” 194) In this argument Selmanovic does two things: 1) the Kingdom of God is not connect simply to Jesus; and 2) the Kingdom of God itself is a vehicle of what Barth call’s “divine immanence.”

Barth, however, makes it clear that God’s Kingdom is not known at all apart from Jesus Christ, and doing otherwise establishes a Christian heresy. As he warns, “Christian heresies spring from the fact that man does not take seriously the known ground of divine immanence in Jesus Christ, so that from its revelation, instead of apprehending Jesus Christ and the totality in Him, he arbitrarily selects this or that feature and sets it up as a subordinate centre: perhaps the idea of creation…or even the kingdom of God.” (CD II,1:319)

First, Selmanovic clearly describes the kingdom of God in terms that are utterly disconnected from Jesus Christ alone. Secondly, he has selected the feature of the kingdom of God and believes it as a revelatory ground of “divine immanence,” instead of Jesus Christ alone. Barth counters that such people are “oblivious of the fact that [divine] immanence both as a whole and in its parts has Christian truth and reality only in so far as it is founded in Jesus Christ and summed up in Him, so that if, as a whole and in its parts, it is affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ, the Church will inevitably be led back into heathendom and its worship of the elements.” (CD II,1:319) Selmanovic affirms this devastating indictment by claiming the Kingdom is not exclusively limited to Jesus Christ:

Many Christians believe that the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is inseparable from knowing the person of Jesus. If so, the question begs to be asked: Is the Kingdom of God present in all of life, among all people, throughout history, or is the Kingdom of God limited to the historical person of Jesus and thus absent from most of life, most people, and most history? The answer to this question depends greatly on whether Christians are willing to make their religion take a backseat to something larger than itself. (76-77)

Selmanovic completely disconnects God’s revelation from the person of Jesus Christ and makes it no longer exclusively connected to him, too. In light of these observations it seems clear enough from Selmanovic’s arguments that the kingdom of God, as part of divine immanence, has been wrested from its moorings in Jesus Christ and is “affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ.” God is now revealed in the kingdom of God and alongside from Jesus Christ, not through Him alone.

Not only does Selmanovic believe that the kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ reveals God, he denies that God is revealed fully and exclusively in Him. Selmanovic both favors another revelation of God apart from Jesus Christ (the kingdom of God) and denies that the fulness of God’s revelation is in Him alone. As Barth reminds us, though, “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.”(CD II,1:319) According to Barth, then, Selmanovic’s belief that God is revealed in a separate act of divine immanence (the kingdom of God) apart from Jesus Christ “will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.” Likewise, his assertion that God is not revealed wholly, simply, exclusively in Jesus Christ will have the same result. At this point it is clear Selmanovic’s belief in the revelation and knowledge of God largely departs from the historic Rule of Faith of the Church. In response Barth would adamantly declare it is really not all about God. It is really all about Jesus Christ.