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

Brian’s first whipping boy is what he terms the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative.” Many of us are familiar with it’s story:

In Brian’s words, “To be a Christian has required one to believe that the Bible presents one very specific story line, a story line by which we assess all of history, all of human experience, all of our own experience.” (33) His quest for a new kind of Christianity begins by questioning this story line. How does he do this? By claiming that “it’s the shape of the Greek philosophical narrative that Plato taught!” (37)

In two conversations with two separate friends, “a suspicion began to grow in [him]” and he began to “realize it was also the social and political narrative of the Roman Empire.” According to Brian, the historical understanding of God’s Story of Rescue in terms of Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation (or Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation as it’s also known; this is my own re-framing) is Platonic.

According to Brian, this narrative framing mirrors the story line of Platonism: we start with a “Platonic Ideal,” which is a perfect Platonic paradise; from there we fall into darkness, which mirrors Plato’s famous parable, the Cave of Illusion; now our being has been transformed and the Greek blood-god Theos is furious because his perfect world is “spoiled and now decaying;” salvation occurs when the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story finds a way to forgive this fallen, pathetic, detestable creation through justification, atonement, and redemption; those who are forgiven/saved are returned to an “eternal state in which they will be safe forever;” those who are not “are banished to hell-the Greek Hades” and the tainted universe is destroyed. (41-44)

On the one hand Brian’s explanation is barely coherent and fraught with inconsistencies (He also brings in Aristotle and links him to Plato to explain this Greco-Roman narrative. I’m pretty sure that Aristotle would take issue with being so tightly bound to Plato as an extension rather than a replacement!) On the other hand, from the start you are required to agree with this framing, a framing Brian supports with ZERO scholarship and ZERO supporting voices. In fact, another blogger more familiar with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle insists Brian’s reading of Plato is naive and just plain bad. “McLaren does nobody any favors (especially those of us who love teaching Plato) by inventing a syncretic thought-system that simply does not exist in classical texts.” His imposition of Plato onto the historic orthodox telling God’s Story of Rescue is at best inventive nonsense and worst a bald-face lie. Furthermore, not only is his foundational argument inventive and disingenuous, it is so innovative that he could find no one to support his conclusions! From an argumentative standpoint, it’s not looking too good for Brian. The foundational argument on which the rest of the book hinges (Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation is not the true shape of the biblical narrative [35]) is indefensible.

Brian ends his explanation of the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative” by claiming, “This is—more or less, and put baldly—the “good news” taught by much of the Western Christian religion…Its true defenders will quarrel with various details here or there, because their version, no doubt, tries to avoid being this starkly dismal.” (44) He claims “this version…keeps popping up in church history.” I’d really like to know where, Brian? I want everyone to see what he has done here: Brian has created a gross, unfair, patently false caricature of both the Story and the God behind the Story. Theos IS NOT REAL. It is a rhetorical device designed to get you to say, “Yeah, that’s a disgusting way to tell the Story. I don’t want to serve that God!” The Straw Man Brian constructs here finds no representation within evangelicalism by neither scholars nor practitioners. Romans Road, 4 Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, (models which I myself take great issue with) and the Kyperian narrative itself are not this gross caricature.

Instead, what we find is one consistent Story that God has been telling from the beginning:

First, Creation is never presented biblically or theologically as a “perfect state.” It was “good” and the way God intended it to be, which in no way discounts forward motion and progress. In fact, we understand that from the beginning God was taking Creation “somewhere” into the future, where he would ultimately make his dwelling on earth. Furthermore, Rick Warren is biblically and theologically WRONG to suggest that “life on earth is a temporary assignment” and simply “dress rehearsal before the end.”¹ The world really is our home; we are earthlings.

Second, “the Fall,” or as I like to frame it Rebellion, is NOT an ontological change in being as Brian and others wrongly suggest, but an ethical shift. We understand the Story to maintain that we are still Images of God (we do not share the sentiments of the 16th century Lutheran, Matthias Flacius, who argued our sin changes us into an Image of Satan!), but we are ethically morally rebellious. The shift is ethical, not ontological, but with ontological consequences: death and disease (and perhaps others at the DNA level); the change is in our will, not being, with massive “being” repercussions. In the words of Cornelius Plantinga, we and the whole of creation are “not the way it’s supposed it be.” How on earth could you argue otherwise?

But as the Story maintains, we are not without hope. Rescue came when the One True God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. The Father sent the Son to live as a human was intended to live when Adam did not through his sinless life, provide the final sacrifice by entering into the Most Holy place by his own blood as a substitute offering in death, and defeat the dark, evil powers through his triumphal bodily resurrection where he has ascended to the right hand of the Father.

Through Jesus Christ and the church (who is the continuing presence of Christ on earth), by the Holy Spirit, God is progressively re-creating the world to the way he originally intended it to be at the beginning. This Story is not Platonic. It is Scripture. Brian tells a very different story, however.

According to Brian, Scene 1 opens with God telling Adam and Eve that they are free with one exception: “If they eat one specific tree, on the day they eat they will die. Notice, the text does not say they will be condemned to hell, be ‘spiritually separated from God,’ be pronounced ‘fallen’ or ‘condemned,’ or be tainted with something called ‘original sin’ that will be passed to their children. There is only one consequence: they will die…not eventually die, but on the day they eat.” (49-50)

Notice what Brian does here: 1) he rejects the historic doctrine of original sin, which places him outside the historic Rule of Faith on this point; 2) he completely misrepresents and misinterprets the text in order to call into question the foundation of the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative,” which rests on the presupposition that human nature is ethically morally rebellious.

Either Brian is ignorant or patently lying when he says the text says ON THAT DAY THEY WOULD DIE. Mainstream commentators agree that the narrative “is concerned not with immediate execution but with ultimate death.”² Robert Alter—Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkley—in his masterful translation of The Five Books of Moses translates 2:17 thus: “But from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, you shall not eat , for on the day you eat from it, you are doomed to die.”³. Alter makes it clear that the verbal construction is consistent with other patterns in the Bible used for issuing of death sentences for the future. Brian’s explanation of Genesis 2 is just plain false.

In scene 2, Adam and Eve abuse their freedom and eat of the one forbidden tree in Genesis 3. According to Brian, this is not a Fall in the orthodox sense, it is a “classic coming-of-age story,” (51) in which “God pushes them out of the nest.” Rather than a fall, it is “the first stage of ascent as human beings progress from the life of hunter-gatherers to the life of agriculturalists and beyond.” Instead of punishing them, God “makes clothes for them, mercifully shielding them from their shame at being naked in one another’s presence.” (50)

Rather than being a Christian reading, Brian is actually making a purely Kantian reading of Genesis 3. Similarly to Brian who paints Gen. 3 in a good light, Kant praises Adam for his willingness to make his own moral judgements, rather than blindly follow the instructions of another, even from God⁴ In “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,” Kant makes clear the Gen. 3 account is, “transition from an uncultured, merely animal condition to the state of humanity, from bondage to instinct to rational control—in a word, from tutelage of nature to state of freedom.”⁵. Though Brian doesn’t celebrate their rebellion against God, it is clear it is not an episode of mourning. Instead he absolutely mirrors J. Baker’s declaration: “What happens there is not a ‘Fall,’ but an awakening.”⁶ In fact, Brian doesn’t even frame this and other acts of rebellion as “against God.”

What Brian does not explain here, is that both Adam and Eve aspired to be “as gods,” which was the temptation from the Serpent in the garden to begin with. The ability to “become as gods, knowing good and evil,” was “as lusts to the eyes.”⁷ The narrative is not about fruit, it’s about power; the story isn’t about a tree, it’s about autonomy, self rule. The promise of the Serpent was “unlimited privileges, unheard-of-acquisitions and gifts⁸ Ultimately, though, they lost “unsullied fellowship with God.”⁹ God is not a mother birdie sending Mama Eve and Papa Adam off to better adventures outside the “nest” of the Garden. No, this is expulsion! They aren’t gently “pushed” out of the Garden; they are thrown out! “Sin separates from God. Intimacy with God is replaced with alienation from God.” This is not the story told by Brian, however.

“Since Adam was the only human being who could have resisted temptation, his failure implies that humanity cannot keep covenant with God…humanity at its best rebels in the prefect environment.”¹⁰ And rather than celebrating this rebellion, the narrative makes it clear this is a bad thing. A very bad thing indeed. Shame, naked, afraid, expulsion are all terms given to heighten the sense of rupture. Something has ‘happened’ to humanity in Adam’s and Eve’s desire to “become as gods,” not least of which are physical death and separation from God. Romans 5 picks up this theme, a conversation I have already had here. 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).

As I wrote elsewhere, “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.”

Next, scenes 3-4 represent the struggles between two forms of life outside the garden: Abel’s simpler/nomadic herder life (which seems more acceptable to God because perhaps nomadic life is not as morally compromised as settled farm life [whatever that means...]) and Cain’s agriculturalist life as a settled farmer, which leads to murder. (51) According to Brian, this represents a descent from primal innocence as much as it represents an ascent.

In scenes 5-6, humanity is distanced from both garden and farm and now congregate in cities. Humanity has become “urbanized,” which fosters systemic injustices. God responds by destroying the earth, because He refuses to let evil go unpunished. He uses Noah in an act of surprising mercy and later repents for destroying the earth. Post-flood, humanity continues its paradoxical ascent-descent by building a massive tower and becoming “empire builders.” Apparently all of this human ingenuity and technological advancement is itself a bad thing, rather than the ethical manner in which said humans use that technology to try and do what Mama Eve and Papa Adam had tried at the beginning: “to become as gods.”

After 11 chapters “this repeated pattern of human stupidity and divine fidelity opens into something new: God calls Abraham and Sarah and imbues them with a new identity as the father and mother of a nation who will be blessed in order to bring blessing to all nations.” (53) First, I would argue that “human stupidity” and “divine fidelity” are misnomers: it isn’t human “stupidity” it’s about individual human sin and rebellion against God in an attempt to “become as gods;” Second, while the Genesis narrative and, more broadly, the Israelites story does revolved around chapter 12 with the calling of Abraham, it seems as though Brian is attempting to pivot God’s entire story around Abraham in order to reduce the Christian faith to be one among three options of reaching God. As I previously mentioned, Brian sits on the Board of Directors for a nonprofit called Abrahamic Alliance, an organization that “exists to unite faithful Jews, Christians, and Muslims who are deeply committed to loving the God of our father Abraham,” “where children of Abraham…enjoy peaceful coexistence and mutual appreciation of our faith is deepened by meaningful encounters with one another…” This association is incredibly key.

This is important for this entire blog post series because I maintain for Brian it really isn’t about Jesus Christ, it’s about God, which is very different than the biblical narrative and historic Rule of Faith. Amazingly, Brian’s retelling of the biblical narrative is Christless. Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah is missing. He exclaims, “you cannot serve two masters, Theos and Elohim, the god of the Greco-Roman philosophers and Caesars and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…” (65) On the one hand, his Theos rhetorical device is patently false and intentionally misleading. On the other hand, the god of Muslims is not the same as the One True God incarnated in Jesus Christ. I would even suggest that unless Jews serve Yahshua Mashiach (Jesus Christ) as Lord and Messiah they aren’t really worshiping the same God, because the Holy Scriptures equate Jesus Christ with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I will assert Karl Barth, yet again: “God is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is God…We cannot be sufficiently eager to insist, nor can it be sufficiently emphasized in the Church and through the Church in the world, that we know God in Jesus Christ alone, and that in Jesus Christ we know the one God.”

In the end, for Brian “if we were looking for some kind of short hand for this narrative…we would refer to the peaceable kingdom of God, the marriage of God and creation, the family of God, or the embodiment of God…the story of the peace-making kingdom ignites our faith with a sacred vision of the future, a vision of hope, a vision of love.” (64-65) While I agree with Brian that God is establishing His Kingdom here on earth now, He will also do so with the future. In pushing his new approach, the peacable-kingdom, this narrative “becomes the desired future toward which the people of God orient themselves, the constellation they set course and sail by, the dream or goal or vision or imagination they pursue.” (63) Unfortunately for Brian’s story, Jesus Christ is not the catalyst for this Kingdom, Jesus Christ is not it’s center, and the “people of God” are not distinguished as the Church of Jesus Christ. (in fact, the word “church” appears only in one chapter…which I find odd and disturbing.) Because for Brian, it’s really all about god, not Jesus Christ.

Now that we’ve explored how Brian tells God’s Story of Rescue, Wednesday we will explore how Brian views the Holy Scriptures. Stay tuned.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Life, 36, 47. [↩]
2. Oswalt, Genesis 1-17, 172. [↩]
3. Alter, Five Books of Moses, 21. [↩]
4. Oswald, Genesis, 211. [↩]
5. Kant, Kant on History, 60 [↩]
6. J. Baker, “The Myth of Man’s ‘Fall’—A Reappraisal,” ExpTime 92 (1980/1981) 235-37, p. 236. [↩]
7. Alter, Five Books of Moses, 24. [↩]
8. Oswald, Genesis, 208. [↩]
9. Oswald, Genesis, 208. [↩]
10. Waltke, Genesis, 100. [↩]

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

This is my second attempt at writing the intro to my introduction to the series on Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity. My first was heavy on the snicker and snark with little sensitivity to the man behind the curtain. I’ve struggled with how to introduce this series because of how much I’ve struggled with the book. Yes, I’ve struggled with the ideas and theology and writing itself. For me it’s more than that:

I don’t get it.

I don’t understand what happened. How did Brian get from THERE <——-to——-> HERE? The Brian of ANKofXianity doesn’t seem like the same guy who launched this whole Emergent journey nearly a decade ago. The man behind this book just doesn’t seem like the guy I encountered in his first-ever book, The Church on the Other Side, the man who was as generous in his orthodoxy as he was genuinely appreciative toward orthodoxy itself, and the wandering, yet tethered, theo-explorer I found in his mythic characters Neo or Pastor Dan.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t know Brian McLaren. I’ve had a few encounters and conversations with him, like at some sessions at the National Pastors Conference a year ago. But I also attended his church for half a year and was involved in a social justice project he helped coordinate while in Washington D.C. Here’s the thing: I leapt into his church and into this social activism because I trusted Brian and his voice. While wading through my own spiritual deconstruction process five years ago, I gravitated to the only person I knew who was asking the questions I was asking, but seemed tethered to the “pieces” that still mattered to the Christian faith. I respected him for his prophetic voice and when people bleated and bellowed on and on about his so-called “heresy,” I defended. I went to the mat with my boss in ministry, skeptical friends, and mortified parents.

So when I ask, “what happened?” I ask the question as one who was, to some extent, personally invested. Sure I man-crushed on the guy a bit to hard, but I sought his wisdom and insight and church community to help me navigate the terra nova at the intersection of postmodernity and Christian spirituality. I saw in Brian a desire to peal away the crap the USAmerican Church attached to Jesus and the Cross, while not cashing in the farm completely.

That, however, has changed.

While I know I have shifted in my own spiritual/theological journey, it is clear Brian has progressively shifted, too. I highly doubt Brian would have guessed 28 years ago at the beginning of his pastoral Christian ministry that he would push a new kind of Christianity that scantily reflects the Holy Scriptures and subverts the historical Rule of Faith that believes Jesus Christ is exclusively Lord and Messiah. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.

Though Brian wonders aloud “How did a mild-manner guy like me get into so much trouble” (2) and insists he “never planned to become a ‘controversial religious leader,’” (3) he is the one to blame. He is the one who has shifted and engaged in this current theological endeavor. This theological enterprise is not accidentally garnering unwarranted criticism because there is nothing accidental about Brian’s theological endeavor: Brian’s book is a bold, intentional rhetorical tour de force that strikes at the very heart of the historic Christian faith, parodying the faith that both the Communion of Saints and the Spirit of God has given the 21st Century Church;  his work pushes a version of Christianity that falls far outside the witness of the Holy Scriptures to Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Savior.

I realize these are bold, strong claims, ones I will exegetically and theologically unpack over the course of the next month in 10 posts that address the 10 questions Brian himself believes “have a special power to stimulate the conversations we (Christians? People of faith?) need to have.” (18) Many of us are tired of people being hoodwinked by the “different” theology being pushed and the hoodwinkers getting a pass. That’s why I want to seriously engage McLaren’s theological offering.

Before then, however, here are 10 observations I have over 200 pages into the book:

1. His portrayal of conservative evangelicalism is a gross caricature and unworthy of any serious thinker. He deliberately exaggerates and distorts the theology and exegesis of those with whom he disagrees in order to create an easy rhetorical jab called a Straw Man. As you probably know, a Straw Man is a logical fallacy that intentionally misrepresents an opponents position in order to easily strike it down in order to give the illusion that said opponent is defeated. Such rhetorical devices litter this book, making it an unworthy conversational partner.
2. Brian makes grand, sweeping claims with skimpy-to-no scholarly support. Perhaps this is why he insists over and over and over again that he had no formal seminary training? This is one of the most frustrating aspects of a book that asks us to take it seriously. For instance, his Greco-Roman narrative claims came to him not through research and scholarly reading, but through two conversations with two separate friends. (37)
3. Brian’s interaction with the Holy Scriptures has no exegetical methodology. Instead he simply asks the reader to take his word for it. For example, his exegesis of John 14:6 is so innovative that he could find no commentary support for it. His presupposition re: the audience of The Book of Romans is just flat out wrong; the consensus among commentators is that Paul wrote the letter to converted Gentile Christians, not Jews.
4. While Brian claims otherwise, the new version of Christianity he pushes bears little to no resemblance to historic Christian orthodoxy, especially Nicene Christianity. In fact, he claims the creeds were mandated by the emperor to promote unity in the church and bring about imperial control. (12) Furthermore, by shoving Christian orthodoxy into his “Christian religion” rhetorical device, he is able to transcend the Christian faith entirely with a generalized “Kingdom of God” motif.
5. His portrayal of the Biblical narrative is Christless, centering squarely on Abraham and the Kingdom of God (which fits nicely with his view of the Abrahamic faiths as encapsulated in the nonprofit http://www.abrahamicalliance.org/ on which he sits as Board member).
6. His view of Jesus Christ in no way affirms that He is God. Instead Brian reduces Him to a revelation of the “character of God.” Jesus is no more than a model citizen.
7. His view of the Holy Scripture is not divine revelation, but purely human conversations in which people simple talk about their understanding of God and progressively, courageously “trade-up’ (his words not mine) their understanding of God for even better images. Brian follows Pete Rollins’ suggestion that our understanding of God is not actually the knowledge of God, but simply our understanding of God, begging several questions: Does God present Himself to us in the Text? Is He even saying anything to us in it? Can we really possess the knowledge of God? These questions seem to have a negative answer, though it isn’t clear.
8. He rarely uses Jesus’ messianic designation (Christ), which reflects his refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah. (So far he uses “Jesus” 204 times, “Jesus Christ” 3 time, and “Christ” 11 times.)
9. He consistently preemptively belittles those who will push against his innovative, new Christianity through gross ad hominems by reducing us to “gatekeepers” (103) anxious and paranoid (212-213), “religious thought police” (85), brainwashers (48), and people who are vulnerable to repeating yesterday’s atrocities in the future (including anti-Semitism, genocide, and witch burning) (85), among many others charges.
10. While Brian feigns theological innocence by merely offering a “new way of believing,” rather than a new set of beliefs (18), make no mistake about it: Brian is absolutely, unambiguously offering new beliefs. Though he may insist he is merely offering questions to inspire new conversations in the interest of a new quest, (18) he knows exactly what he is doing. He is disingenuous when he insists he is merely offering responses to his questions, rather than answers.

In the end, Brian’s McLarenism faith isn’t really about Jesus Christ, but about a vanilla, generalized World-Spirit god that has visited all other religions outside the Christian faith. Like his good buddy, Samir Selmanovic, Brian believes that Jesus and the reconciliation God offers to the world is not found only in the Christian faith (or “religion” as he puts it). In Selmonvic’s book (a book Brian endorsed), Samir says, “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.” (It’s Really All About God, 129) Brian agrees.

In fact, it is clear his entire theological endeavor is a concerted effort to “pluralize” reconciliation to God and His Kingdom by divorcing it from Jesus Christ entirely, rather than insisting that reconciliation to both comes through Jesus Christ alone. While Brian uses the “Christian religion” as a rhetorical device to argue against “theo-containment,” the One True God described in the Holy Scriptures is exclusively revealed in the very human, very divine Jesus Christ. It’s really NOT all about God. It’s really all about Jesus Christ.

As Karl Barth reminds us, “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) There is little evidence Brian believes that the fulness of God’s presence is exclusively in Jesus Christ, that salvation and rescue and reconciliation is found in no other name under heaven besides His.

After Jesus, there is nothing left. And after Brian’s new kind of Christianity, neither is Jesus Christ.

Popularity: 1% [?]

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)

Three weeks and 8 posts later, we’ve reached the end of the “Pagitt and Pelagius” series, an indepth look at Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believingand the writings of Pelagius. As I said in my preface: “I’ve heard it said around the ’sphere that my goal is to unfairly ‘attach a thorough Pelagianism to Pagitt and others.’ I have done nothing of the sort. I walked into this examination wondering if Pagitt’s and Pelagius‘ writings mirrored each other. For years people have labeled him a Pelagian, so I wanted to see if it was true. This series will report and analyze what I found.”

I still stand by that.

My goal was to put the theological teachings of Doug Pagitt and Pelagius of Britania side-by-side in order to see if this modern theologian mirrors the ancient one. People have accused Doug of being a Pelagian and I wanted to see if that was true. So I wanted to bring an academic lens using an academic method to Pagitt’s writings in order to shed light on these accusations. Using my methdology we’ve looked at their views on human nature, sin, salvation, discipleship, and judgment. We’ve seen how they are similar and different.

The area in which they differ the most is the severity of sin and judgment. Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.” Pagitt doesn’t follow Pelagius in this regard, however, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment.

The areas in which they are the most similar are in their views on human nature and sin, the areas that caused the most heartburn in the 5th century. Like Pelagius, Pagitt believes that we exist in the state as we were intended at the beginning of creation. Both believe that our wills are still intact and that we are capable, through our own gumption and ingenuity, to be in sync with God, to live as we were intended to live. Ethically we are not morally rebellious. We do not have a sin nature passed to us from by our natural head, Adam. Instead, we are “inherently godly” and “filled with the spark of God.” For both, we are inherently good.

Then why do we sin? We sin because of bad examples, systems, patterns, and habits. Because we are inherently godly, on our own we are capable of living in sync with God. The problem comes when the bad systems and patterns of this world impinge upon our will, causing us to “create disharmony with God and one another.” We are not the problem. Everything and everyone around us is. Our salvation, then, comes not from a sacrifice who does something with the evil, sin, and rebellion around us and in us, but instead from a better example. Both Pelagius and Pagitt need Jesus only as a moral example, because their view of human nature and sin require simply this. We do not need a new nature, because our original one is still intact. We do not need to be re-created, because we are still as we were intended at creation. All that is needed is the best example possible, the best “map and guide to what true partnership with God looks like.” Salvation comes, then, when people “follow Jesus as Joshua into the promised land of freedom and release,” because he is the new pattern of harmony for humanity by showing us what full integration with God looks like and fulfilling what people are meant to do and be.

In short, Pagitt mirrors Pelagius’ theology in regards to human nature, sin, and salvation.

Pagitt believes otherwise, however. In several comments, he has insisted: “I am not a Pelagian.” While he also insists that he has “spent no time with the teachings and thinking of Pelagius,” (and I don’t disregard these words) he has in no way explained why this is not the case, why he is not Pelagian. Put a different way, Doug has not articulated how his theology is different from Pelagius and why he does not mirror his views on human nature, sin, and salvation.

In fact, he has not tried to answer the questions I’ve posed in response to his views. While some have suggested I have used “a bunch of ‘gotcha’ Bible verse at the end that show why all the labels (of Pelagianism, Universalism, and Liberalism) are evil,” I have merely tried to bring this discussion back to the Text. I have disagreements with Doug’s theology on theological grounds, but more so on Scriptural grounds, which is why I’ve asked Him to explain why the Holy Scripture seems to conflict with his theology. These are legitimate questions that Doug has yet to answer:

Regarding Human Nature
•What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12?
•What do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has been created.”

Regarding Sin
•If something outside of us causes us to sin, why then are we in need of a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:24-27?
•If Jesus Christ thought that what defiled a person comes “out of the heart” why don’t you? (See Matthew 15:1-20 for a refresher course.)

Regarding Salvation
•Why is Jesus even necessary to begin with? Furthermore, why was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross?
•What do you do with the entire Book of Hebrews—let alone the animal sacrificial system of Leviticus—which explicitly argues that Jesus Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf, by His own blood, in order to offer for all time one sacrifice for sins?

Regarding Judgment
•It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables?
•In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

These are not “gottcha” questions, but serious questions that deserve serious answers. While Doug did say, “Jeremy, I would be glad to show how 2 Corinthians and all of Romans makes the points I am making” he has yet to do so. I don’t understand why he cannot provide more context to his own theology by dialoguing through these questions, questions which have sat at the heart of historic Christian orthodoxy for centuries.

At this point, I don’t see how Doug’s theology is different or distinguishable from Pelagius. Although, Doug, if you would still like to explain why you are not a Pelagian and how you differ from his views on human nature, sin, and salvation or how I’ve mischaracterized you if this is the case, I am all ears.

Popularity: 1% [?]

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

CONCLUSION

According to Pagitt’s own published work, it is clear he reflects much, if not most, of Pelagius’ theology. Pagitt is a Pelagian. From human nature to sin, human will to grace, and salvation to judgment, much of Pagitt’s theology mirrors Pelagius’. While Pagitt may want to believe differently, he simply believes otherly. Historically, this “other theology” was previously addressed by another theologian: Augustine. Though the theological controversy between the two was rancorous and dramatic, Augustine and others already dealt with the “other theology” of Pelagius (and Pagitt) through numerous writings and councils in the 5th century. Back then, what was the response of Augustine to Pelagius and how might Augustine respond to Pagitt if he were alive today? This series will conclude with some final personal comments, this post is meant to present Augustine’s response to Pelagius’ theology of human nature, sin, grace, and salvation as means by which we may also critique Pagitt.

First, regarding human nature, Augustine acknowledges that at first it was uncorrupt and without sin; at Creation, Adam was faultless. He argues, “But that nature of man in which every one is born from Adam, now wants the Physician, because it is not sound.”¹ While Pelagius says all people are born sound, Augustine responds by saying that now, post-Fall, the nature of all people is corrupted. “Let us not suppose, then, that human nature cannot be corrupted by sin, but rather, believing, from the inspired Scriptures, that it is corrupted by sin.”² Foundational to Pelagius’ theology was the notion that we are good and untainted, and out of that untainted nature we on our own are capable of not sinning. Pelagius “maintained that our human nature actually posseses an inseparable capacity of not at all sinning.”³

In arguing against this inner capacity, Augustine offers a line from the Lord’s Prayer: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”⁴ Augustine wonders, “If they already have capacity, why do they pray? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from?”⁵ In other words, why should a person pray to be delivered from evil if he, through his own capacity, can deliver himself and not sin? He goes on to say, “Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! [The nature] is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defense of its capacity, that it stands in need of. It requires the grace of God.”⁶ In response to Pelagius’ belief that human nature is not corrupt and is capable on its own not to sin, Augustine replies that human nature must be delivered from evil because it must be healed. That healing comes not from self-will, but from the grace of God.

What disturbed Augustine and others most was Pelagius’ view of grace. They objected most that Pelagius did not maintain that it is purely by the grace of God that a man is able to be without sin.⁷ Pelagius and his followers argued that the grace of God is the nature in which we were created, which enables us to act righteously.⁸ According to them, the grace of God is not dispensed through Christ, but through Creation; we are able to sin not because of Christ, but because of our human nature, which is in fact the grace of God. Augustine counters, “This, however, is not the grace which the apostle commends to us through the faith of Jesus Christ. For it is certain that we possess this nature in common with ungodly men and unbelievers; whereas the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to them to whom the faith itself appertains.”⁹ While Pelagius equated grace with the God’s creation of a good inner nature, Augustine said the grace of God to which the Scriptures attest comes through faith in Christ. Grace is not from Creation, but from Christ alone.

Augustine was also concerned that Pelagius maintained no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merit. In response, Augustine declares, “God’s grace is not given according to our merit…it is given not only where there are no good, but even where there are many evil merits preceding.”¹⁰ While Pelagius maintains that humans can choose to do good deeds out of an inner, naturally good capacity—and thus are rewarded by God because of those good deeds—Augustine insists that no man ought to attribute those good deeds to himself, but to God.((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449.)) Furthermore, while Pelagius believes that a man is justified from and forgiven of sins by Christ only at the event of baptism, Augustine believes that the grace of God is with him even into the future to cover sins not yet committed. “It is necessary for a man that he should be not only justified when unrighteous by the grace of God…but that, even after he has become justified by faith, grace should accompany him on his way, and he should lean upon it, lest he fall.”¹¹ Augustine’s view sharply contrasts with Pelagius who insists that the example of Christ is what “empowers” people to choose the righteous life after baptism. Instead of the grace of God empowering people to choose to live in Christ, people’s good inner nature allows them to choose integration with God. Augustine counters, “Man, even when most fully justified, is unable to lead a holy life, if he be not divinely assisted by the eternal light of righteousness.”¹²

Finally, Augustine addressed the ultimate results of Pelagius’ theology: salvation. Augustine responded by saying Pelagius’ view of human nature “causes the grace of Christ to be ‘made of none effect,’ since it is pretended that human nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification.”¹³ In reality, neither the cross of Christ nor the grace of God is necessary if humans, through their own inner nature, can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Augustine counters Pelagius’ faith in human nature by saying, “if the righteousness came from nature, then Christ is dead in vain.”((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 454.)) If the grace of God came through nature and out of our own inner capacity we can attain to right living, rather than through faith in Christ, then Christ’s death was in vain. Augustine maintained that the same faith which restored the saints of old now restores us: “that is to say, faith ‘in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,’—faith in His blood, faith in His cross, faith in His death and resurrection.”¹⁴ While Pelagius believes a person is justified, saved, and forgiven when a person comes in faith to Christ through baptism, he does not believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Instead, faith and deeds ultimately bring and secure eternal life into the future. Augustine wishes Pelagius would meditate on Acts 4:12, which says, “There is no other name under heaven given by which we must be saved,” “and that [Pelagius] would not so uphold the possibility of human nature, as to believe that man can be saved by free will without the Name!”¹⁵

In many ways, the same conclusions arrived at by Augustine of Pelagius could be applied to Pagitt. Because Pagitt clearly mirrors a substantial amount of Pelagius’ theology on humanity, sin, and salvation, one could imagine similar criticism from Augustine of Pagitt. Augustine might tell Pagitt that we do not have the light of God within us still, but rather are broken and tainted because of sin. In response to Pagitt’s newborn analogy, Augustine would maintain that we are born sinners and are in need of healing from birth. Furthermore, Augustine might insist that the systems, hurts, and patterns of this world are not to blame for living lives of disintegration, rather we sin because we are naturally sinful; examples, habits, and ignorance do not lead us into sin, our nature does. Salvifically, Augustine would probably declare that the event of the cross, with all of its suffering, bloodshed, and death, is of the utmost importance because of the real, tangible expression and dispensation of grace it bore for the world. We need Christ, not simply for His example and pattern, but for the grace and salvation He brings us through the event of the cross. Christ is not simply our map, guide, and new example, He is our Savior and Redeemer. Augustine would maintain that we can live integrated lives with God by obeying Him only because of the grace He gives us through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not because Jesus’ example is better than the rest.

As quoted from Olson in the beginning, the story of Christian theology is about the historical reflection on the nature of salvation. Likewise, an examination of Pagitt, Pelagius, and Augustine is not simply an exercise in parsing theological positions on the nature of humanity and original sin, it’s about the gospel of Jesus Christ. According to this examination, Pagitt’s Christianity is not a different, more hopeful faith, it is an other form of faith that both the Communion of Saints and Spirit of God have deemed foreign to the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ.

One question remains, however: How will the contemporary Grand Rapids Communion deem this other faith?

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Augustine. “On Nature and Grace” from A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 5. Edited by Phillip Schaff. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 122. [↩]
2. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 128 [↩]
3. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 141 [↩]
4. Matt. 6:13 [↩]
5. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142 [↩]
6. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142 [↩]
7. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139. [↩]
8. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” from A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 5. Edited by Phillip Schaff. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 454. [↩]
9. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 454. [↩]
10. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449. [↩]
11. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449. [↩]
12. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 129. [↩]
13. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace, 141. [↩]
14. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139. [↩]
15. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 137. [↩]

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)

UPDATE: Please not in point #3 I accidentally suggested that Doug’s leader is Pelagius by typing LEADER instead of LEAD. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better…

ON DISCIPLESHIP AND JUDGMENT

As we saw in the last post on salvation, while Pelagius and Pagitt agree that the example and pattern of Christ is primary for our “salvation” and “integration with the life of God,” they go about it in different ways. Pagitt denies the penal essence of the event of the cross by dismissing the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Christ as reflective of ancient Greek blood god myths. Pelagius on the other hand, acknowledges that Christ’s suffering, shed blood, and death actually does something for us. While a more exhaustive study of Pelagius’ soteriology is necessary, it appears likely that he believes the cross is penal in essence, recognizing Jesus’ suffering and bloodshed provides justification for, salvation from, and forgiveness of sins, while needing the example of Christ to carry us to the end. Pagitt’s theology of salvation reduces the cross to mere example. In fact, in so doing he is left only with the example, pattern, way, and teachings of Christ. This is likely why Pagitt and the broader Emerging Church focus on following the teachings and example of Jesus: without the penalty of the cross that is all that is left.

Here is where Pagitt agrees with Pelagius: in order to live a life of righteousness, a new example and pattern must replace the old ones found in Adam and others. The cross does not save, but the example of Jesus does. While Pelagius believes the cross provides for the forgiveness of past sins through faith and “the holy lather” of baptism, Pelagius does not stop with faith alone, but rather requires disciplined following after the example of Christ to provide for future salvation. Both Pagitt and Pelagius, then, rely upon the example of Christ for ultimate, eschatological salvation, in addition to the inner goodness of humanity to obey and choose integration with God.

This theology of “salvation by example” influences how Pagitt views discipleship and eschatology (end things). Those who decide to follow this new pattern are invited into God’s work now, for “the kingdom-of-God gospel calls us to partner with God, to be full participants in the life God is creating, to follow in the way of Jesus as we seek to live as people who are fully integrated with our Creator.”¹ Instead of choosing to live lives of disintegration, we are called to be fully integrated with God now. This is possible because 1) we are “inherently godly,” having the “light of God” within us; and 2) “we can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being.”² Discipleship, then, is about choosing to live well with God in this life.

The problem comes when the question, “Why?” is asked. Why must we live lives of integration? Pagitt does not address judgment or what happens when one does not choose to live a life of integration with God, or better put, when a person intentionally chooses not to “partner with God” or seek to live as a person who is fully integrated with their Creator. Instead, Pagitt assures the world that “God will dwell among us, that God will be with us, that the whole of creation will be healed and restored and fully integrated with God. Earthly life will be made new as it is transformed into the Kingdom of God.”³ While Pagitt reflects Pelagius in calling people to find salvation and life in the example of Jesus and calls all people to follow Jesus’ pattern of integration with God, he does not go as far as Pelagius does.

Pelagius places a premium on discipleship and takes judgment very seriously. In To Demetrias he says, “The bride of Christ must be more splendidly adorned than anything else, since the greater one whom one is seeking to please the greater the effort which is required to please him.”⁴ The bride is called to live a life that is “blameless” and “guiltless” in order to reign with Christ in the end, “for nothing is worthier of God, nothing can be more dear to him, than the blamelessness should be maintained with all possible circumspect.”⁵ Why? What is the promise for those who fail to live such a life post-baptism? Judgment and hell. Pelagius makes plain in On Divine Law that those who believe in Christ and receive him through baptism and renounce the devil and the world are called to pay attention to the things which are forbidden and to diligently fulfill the things commanded, because “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”⁶

Not only does Pelagius believe in hell for those who do not believe, he also believes hell is reserved for those who fail to choose righteousness, to (in the words of Pagitt) “live in sync with God” after they first have faith in Christ through baptism. Pagitt does not go this far, however. Instead he merely suggests that “the afterlife isn’t a place. It’s a state of being.”⁷ That state of being is vaguely defined as the state in which God’s hope and dreams for the world are fulfilled and come to fruition in the Kingdom right now, with no mention of judgment or a “state of being” for those who do not “faith” in Christ or even partner with God and His dreams.⁸ While Pagitt agrees with Pelagius in that humans are called to “[align] their lives with the things of God, with the work of God,” he does not go as far as Pelagius to suggest what happens to those who don’t, or even those who were aligned and then fall out of alignment.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) While both Pagitt and Pelagius respectably believe followers of Jesus are called to live “lives of integration with God”—this presumably means to follow His commands—both believe we can do so on our own. The grace of God and power and power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we because we are still “inherently godly” we can on our own live “in sync with God.”

2) Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”

3) Unfortunately, Pagitt doesn’t follow his leader Pelagius’ lead (WOAH this was a major typing mistake! I mean to write LEAD, not LEADER.)⁹ in this regard, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment. For Pagitt, the afterlife—whatever that even means; it is so vague and vanilla but seems to point to a “heaven-type” state—is a “state of being.” The only time this idea of a post-death, post-Jesus coming event is even mentioned is this one time on page 222. Even then that “state” is where “all of God’s hopes for the earth, all of God’s desires for this partnership with humanity, come to fruition.”¹⁰ This cashes out as the present “kingdom” which is “in all of us, through us, and for us right here, right now.”¹¹ While I appreciate the “here-ness” of Pagitt’s perspective on the Kingdom, he forgets the “not-yet-ness” which is explicit in the teachings (particularly the parables) of Jesus. Which leads to my first question…

4) Question for Doug: It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables.

5) Question for Doug: In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

In the case of the Parable of the Nets, it is the final bracket that, along with the Wheat/Weeds, emphasized severe judgment for neglecting the ethical implications of the Kingdom. Both parables emphasize a gathing and separating process at which the wicked are rejected and thrown into a fire. Whether this is a literal fire is not important. Paralleling the Wheat/Weeds, the Nets envisions the Son of Man, who is Jesus Christ himself, sending angels to do the separating and punishing.

From a Jewish perspective, this “net” imagery would have made sense: fishing imagery has a long OT history of representing hardship, captivity, and judgment from God (Hab 1:14-17; Ezek 32:3). A net, then, could be expected to evoke thoughts of judgment for the Jewish hearers. “The primary concern of this parable is tht separation will occur, that at the end the evil will be excluded from God’s kingdom.”¹² Because people themselves are wicked—they aren’t simply broken or live after bad patterns—because they are ethically morally rebellious. The basis of this separating and judgment is ethical, and those who are worthless/evil will receive eternal punishment, which the Sheep and Goats emphasizes.

In the case of the Wedding Banquet, I’ve included parts of the section from my own book that deals with the subject:

Here we face a story of a king who sends out his servants with an appeal to those already invited to his royal wedding banquet. In the Jewish and ancient Near Eastern cultures, social gatherings and parties had a double-invite: The first one told of the event and sought initial acceptance; the second was a reminder and told the guests that all was ready and they should come. In the story the slaves are not sending out an invitation; they are calling on those who have already been invited and accepted to remind them to come.

These people have already accepted the first invitation, but now they make excuses to reject the second invite. This was a huge act of betrayal because huge social significance was attached to rejecting the second invitation. Apparently, they had better things to do and they put their selfish concerns over their obligations to the king. They cared more about their “farms” and “business” than their social obligation to attend the royal banquet of the king. They even go so far as to subject the king’s messengers to violence and death!

In this parable, Jesus is speaking to two religious groups: the Chief Priests and Pharisees. Jesus reminds these leaders of the nation of Israel of their original invitation and subsequent rejection, directly tying into the next part of the story.

Because these originally invited people failed to respond to the second invitation, the king opens the door to everyone in the city. People from all corners of the city are invited to come to the royal banquet and enjoy a feast and festival. All people, both good and bad are invited, irrespective of person. The invitation did not depend on who the person was, but on whom the king chose to invite; he chose to invite everyone in his Kingdom and it didn’t matter who they were.

We have two groups contrasted: those who think they have the right to their position as invitees, the right to a place at the banquet table and who think they are “in.” Then there are those who are unexpectedly promoted and surprisingly invited to the feast.

Originally, the Jewish people were invited to covenant with God to be His people. They received the first invitation. But throughout their history they did not live up to their obligations to that invitation. In Jesus’ story, they are replaced by an unexpected collection of street people. The first invited group who rejected the second invitation are replaced with a second group. As Jesus says, “The first will be last, the last will be first.” To be a member of the new group and new nation is no more guarantee of salvation than to be born into old Israel; it still depends on a persons reaction to the invitation, here symbolized by the wedding clothes.

In this story, we come to a man who is wandering around the king’s royal wedding banquet in completely inappropriate attire. He is the guy in Rustler jeans and a Hanes t-shirt at your wedding reception. A sight to behold for sure! The king notices him, calls him friend and asks how in the heck he got into the party without the proper wedding clothes.

The event to which this man was invited required him to make a change, to change his clothes into something that was appropriate to the event for which he was invited. The parable assumes the man had time to change and come in appropriate attire anyone might have. While the cultural context of the parable didn’t require a specific type of clothing, any invited person was to come clothed in a way fitting this specific event, nonetheless. Instead, the man made no preparations to wear clothes fitting to the feast he himself chose to attend!

So here’s the question: How are we coming to the banquet at judgment? What clothes are we wearing? How are we coming to this grand banquet at the Day of the Lord?

The first invitation goes out indiscriminately to every person. The second invite begs a response. This second invitation is the other side of the paradox between divine grace and human responsibility. The first invitation was the announcement proclaimed by the Heavenly Hosts in chapter 8: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth shalom to all humans, on whom His favor rests!” This announcement heralded the coming Lamb of God, the coming Rescuer, an invitation to take part in this new act of rescue by the Creator. The second invitation was by Jesus himself, which we will consider in the next chapter. In this invitation, Jesus announces to the entire world that the good news for which all humans have been waiting (the Kingdom of Heaven) has arrived. We are invited to respond in repentance, belief, and following.

I get the feeling from this parable, though, that there are a whole lot of people who have accepted God’s invitation to salvation and shalom. Of course everyone wants everlasting life and re-creation at some level. Many people, though, will respond by coming dressed to the banquet as a lumberjack or in their frat house sweatshirt.

This lavish banquet with Jesus as host is for us, and the question is: how are we coming? Are we following the social customs of this Kingdom, or going inappropriately dressed to meet our Creator? Are we clothing ourselves with the righteousness that God requires or are we simply coming, not as we are, but as we insist on being?

These are the questions we need to ask as we think about “That Other Place” and who will or will not go there in judgment. Often, people make hell and judgment out to be God problems, as if the idea of eternal judgment somehow makes Him out to be less than the hyper-relational Lover that He is. Hell and judgment are not God problems, they are human problems. Just as rebellion and the consequences of rebellion are human problems, how we are judged for our willful vandalism of shalom and willful rebellion against the Creator and His Rhythm of Life are also our problems.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 226. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 137, 141, 167. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231. [↩]
4. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123. [↩]
5. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 118. [↩]
6. Pelagius, “On Divine Law” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 99. [↩]
7. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
8. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
9. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better… [↩]
10. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
11. Pagitt, Christianity, 223. [↩]
12. Snodgrass, Parables with Intent, 491. [↩]