Rest and Restlessness has moved to a new home.
Go to mattwiebe.com.
If you are a feed subscriber, please update to the new feed.
(The old feed will contine to be updated from the new site for a while)
Comments are closed, but clicking on post titles should bring you to the appropriate post on my new blog.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Change
Here at SSU, we've started out the year with a theme of various members of the community sharing their stories/testimonies in chapel. I was asked to share, and I did so this past Thursday.
For starters, I had mostly forgotten that I was going to do so. It's not like I had to prepare what I was going to say: it's my life and I know where I've come from. I've also had the opportunity to share this story many times because God has given me a good story that should be told. And no, I won't be telling it now.
When I tell my story, it's raw. It's also quite dramatic, because that's the way God did things with me. For all you people who feel inferior because you've had a comparably "boring" life story: be thankful. Dramatic is not fun to live. But I digress.
What's the point of me saying all of this? Well, for starters, the story of my coming to faith has a definite moment of coming to faith. It makes for a natural ending to the story, but that's deceptive because it's also just a beginning. This is especially more true as more and more time-over six years now-passes from the moment I started to follow Jesus.
The next day, a friend thanked me for sharing my story and asked if I still tell my story the same way that I used to. I said no, definitely not. As I thought about why, I thought about how much has changed in my understanding of faith, salvation and what it means to be a Christian.
Before, I would have told my story in a way that made my "moment of salvation" the entire focus and climax of the story, reflecting a gospel of sin management that ignores the rest of life. This salvationism is what is preached by many good and sincere evangelical Christians who fail to see that this gospel has nothing to say about the rest of life. It's what I was indoctrinated into.
Now, however, I definitely tell my story differently. I no longer divide my life in pre-saved and post-saved. I'm still working out my salvation and will be until the day that I die. I still ended my story with the moment that I decided to follow Christ, but I did so in a way that said that this was a dramatic event that served as a transition from one chapter of my life to the next.
Salvation is about the past, present and future. I need saving for today and tomorrow just as much as I did for yesterday. I am presented with the choice of whether or not to follow Jesus on this journey on a daily basis. I will say yes, with his help.
For starters, I had mostly forgotten that I was going to do so. It's not like I had to prepare what I was going to say: it's my life and I know where I've come from. I've also had the opportunity to share this story many times because God has given me a good story that should be told. And no, I won't be telling it now.
When I tell my story, it's raw. It's also quite dramatic, because that's the way God did things with me. For all you people who feel inferior because you've had a comparably "boring" life story: be thankful. Dramatic is not fun to live. But I digress.
What's the point of me saying all of this? Well, for starters, the story of my coming to faith has a definite moment of coming to faith. It makes for a natural ending to the story, but that's deceptive because it's also just a beginning. This is especially more true as more and more time-over six years now-passes from the moment I started to follow Jesus.
The next day, a friend thanked me for sharing my story and asked if I still tell my story the same way that I used to. I said no, definitely not. As I thought about why, I thought about how much has changed in my understanding of faith, salvation and what it means to be a Christian.
Before, I would have told my story in a way that made my "moment of salvation" the entire focus and climax of the story, reflecting a gospel of sin management that ignores the rest of life. This salvationism is what is preached by many good and sincere evangelical Christians who fail to see that this gospel has nothing to say about the rest of life. It's what I was indoctrinated into.
Now, however, I definitely tell my story differently. I no longer divide my life in pre-saved and post-saved. I'm still working out my salvation and will be until the day that I die. I still ended my story with the moment that I decided to follow Christ, but I did so in a way that said that this was a dramatic event that served as a transition from one chapter of my life to the next.
Salvation is about the past, present and future. I need saving for today and tomorrow just as much as I did for yesterday. I am presented with the choice of whether or not to follow Jesus on this journey on a daily basis. I will say yes, with his help.
Regent and St. Stephens seem like they are on the same page to me. Good stuff. =)
You say "this gospel has nothing to say about the rest of life.": However, I feel you are misrepresenting Evangelicalism. You fail to recognize that Evangelicals DO focus on the rest of the life by recognizing the importantce of Sanctification and Discipleship both done while one is Saved or has received Salvation. What do you think? I think this explaination takes away the extremism of both sides and place the importance on both the Salvation moment AND living for Him therafter as equal and mutually exclusive importance. DH
While I may be guilty of hyperbole, I do believe that a gospel that is about a moment of salvation that guarantees you your spot in heaven does not leave much motivation for anything like sanctification and discipleship.
Sure, the Bible and the social pressures of churches will still impell one in those directions, but I do not believe that a gospel that is merely about a moment of salvation contains much of anything within itself to do so.
The problem here is probably one of terminology. While evangelicals like to separate salvation and sanctification, perhaps we could learn from the Catholics who combine both of those evangelical terms as two sides of the same salvation.
If one isn't motivated to sanctification and discipleship from their "so-called" salvation experience than I would question if the person was really saved in the first place. If a person truly accepted Christ with all their heart soul and mind they will want to do the works asked of them by God. "If you love Me you will keep My commandments." Why combine3 the two and thus reject the Faith that happens when one "confess with your mouth the LJ and Believe in your heart that god has risen from the dead you shall be saved." It doesn't say if you do a bunch of works,etc. but "you shall". I still don't understand the combination when the combination denys Faith that is actually there and that that is also a "work", Faith.
Again, I do have some troubles with your line of thought, but some agreement too. Firstly, I had a tremendous experience of God that I would still call a salvation moment, even if I'd be hesitant to call it that around people who didn't understand what I am and am not saying by that. It did precisely what you said it should: it propelled me on towards a desire for discipleship and sanctification like you wouldn't believe. I can still hardly believe it, but I was there!
My problems are twofold. The first is this: what about people who can never point to a salvation experience, but have steadily grown in faith. Lacking a singular experience, where is the motivation for these people?
My second problem comes from my own experience. Sure, I had a blast of zeal after my own dramatic salvific moment, but it sure did sputter after about two years. I needed something beyond just my experience to propel me forward, and a mentor of mine pointed me in this direction when she shocked me by saying that "I don't think we should even talk about getting saved anymore."
And to come back to your use of Romans 10 about confessing and you shall be saved. Paul talks about salvation in a number of ways within different contexts. Here is certainly a case for some kind of salvation moment, but that still leaves us with the first problem I mentioned about people who are obviously Christians who cannot point to such a moment.
Also, what about other times where Paul says to "work out your salvation" (Phil 2:2) and Peter says that we can "grow into Salvation." (1Pet 2:2) There seems to be some ongoing aspect of salvation here that would be easier to explain away for the sake of tidy theological systems.
Anyways, that's a snippet of my journey of understanding. Thanks for thought-provoking dialogue DH.
On thesecond one. I think some of what Paul was talking about on salvation is actually Sanctification and other is with regard to Salvation. This seems like a contradiction but it isn't for it is equivilent to salvation and Salvation, if you get my drift. I believethe "work out your salvation" isreferring to Sanctification working out the salvation with the Salvation you already have. So I agree that there is more to Salvation that Salvation and that that particular thing that you are referring to IMO is actually Sanctification.
Also, on a side note, I too agree that it can "fizzle" that is why we need the power of the Holy Spirit not thatwe don't have all of God becausewe do but that we need and outpoaring from what we received at the time of our Salvation. For me I got Saved when I was five accepting Christ as my Savior and at 18 received the out-poaring of the HS I received at five.
So "grow into salvation" is actually that "grow into salvation" not "grow into Salvation". A more equivilent term to salvation, as opposed to your Salvation, would be "grow into Sanctification". For all who Believe by Faith the motivation is Sanctification. I think those who can't point to a moment have a moment and that the motivation thereafter is Sanctification. What do you think? dh
Anyways, as to you first part about confessing with your mouth somewhere along the way, I agree that it's essential somewhere along the way to declare that Jesus is Lord. To me it would seem that this finds agreement with my journey metaphor.
As for your turning salvation into sanctification in the two passages I mentioned, I both agree and disagree. While it is convenient theologically to think of salvation and sanctification as two separate things, I think that it is also eisegesis. If Paul meant to say sanctification, why didn't he? He was an intelligent man; surely he could have said what he meant. If he actually said what he meant, then it's quite possible that things we think of under the heading of sanctification more rightly belong as part of salvation.
I'm not sure what else to say. I'm somewhat confused about your last paragraph, so I won't respond to what will be probably a misunderstanding. So, I'll leave it there for now.
One other thing. Probably one of the most helpful things I've read on this topic is Dallas Willard's "Divine Conspiracy," especially the chapter called "Gospels of Sin Management." I highly recommend it, since it says things much better than I have a hope to.
I think that is the problem people don't understand the concept of multiple definitions and just stick to the 1st definition rather than looking at the second and tertiary definitions of the word.
I would be interested inwhat the misunderstanding is on thelast paragraph. I think we can discuss this. I see a greater coming together not 100% and more like 75% but a cmoing together none the less. In my understanding John MacArthur in many of his sermons and books has some wonderful things to say about Salvation vs salvation or how I would state Salvation vs Sanctification. (Howpefully this will help you onthe last paragraph.) :) DH
For me, it's fine for the sake of a systematic theology to split things up like this to make them understandable, but my concern is that, when we try to apply this stuff to life, it gets really confusing. When I have to distinguish between Salvation (as a doctrine) and salvation in its myriad forms in the Scriptures, I get all kinds of confused and upset.
I would propose that we stop calling "Salvation" (the entrance to the faith) that at all, since it just confuses people when put next to all of the senses in which salvation is biblically used. Rather, let salvation--in all of its diversity and richness--speak for itself, while we use other terms to explain the fullness and richness of the great salvation that God has granted us in Christ.
Does that make sense? dh
So, allow me to take a step back here. If I'm telling somebody about following Jesus, I don't want them to just "get saved." I want them to understand that Jesus calls them to a life of following him, not merely to a salvation that is too easily understood as a moment in time.
I'm not as concerned with people who have a more nuanced understanding of salvation such as yours. I'm more concerned with people who understand salvation as a moment in time and tell others that Jesus just "wants them to get saved" as a singular moment where their sins are taken care of. This kind of thing just doesn't have much to say about salvation for all of life.
It does not seem like you have this understanding that I'm opposed to. But still, I believe that your terminology is too easily taken in that direction and that is why I'm advocating a restating of these things.
Make sense?
Thanks again for keeping this dialogue going. I appreciate it.
I could find a thing or two to keep arguing about here, but I don't think that I'll bother because I'm convinced that we're after the same thing and we agree with what the spirit of the other is saying, even if we disagree on some details.
And you are of course spot-on when you say that any theology formulated as a reaction to something runs the risk of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. The last thing I want to do is forget grace, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, thanks for the reminder.
I'd still recommend giving Willard's "Divine Conspiracy" a read if you're interested in thinking about these issues more.
To me this is just as much a problem as what you are addressing but theEC type church never acknowledges this that I mentioned in the previous responsee already know they need to do good things but the explaination of Faith is just not presented in many non-Evangelical churches and projects a works based Salvation that is dangerous." What are your thoughts on this? I'm not trying to argue but see if even greater agreement than the wonderful one we have already can be obtained. dh
Fabulous discussion. I really appreciate this "iron sharpening iron". :) dh
And I agree that we can't become so obsessed with either faith or works that we lose sight of the other. Total agreement there.
One of the problems in the EC is certainly that, in trying to restate and reformulate Christian thinking and expression, the baby can easily be thrown out with the bathwater. In moving towards people actually starting to take the teachings of Jesus seriously as statements about how life should be lived, we can lose how necessary faith is in that. I'd like to think of faith and works as two sides of the same coin. And I'd also like to move away from thinking about going to heaven as what is gained in salvation, but rather to think that we have entered into the eternal life of the kingdom of God that begins right here, right now. Life in the kingdom includes a life that continues past death, but it starts now, and is embodied in a life filled with faith and works. Faith is for living, not for dying.
And yeah, I agree that this is a great discussion. :)
Post a Comment