Mark Lauterbach:
I would not in any way want to give the impression that I have read Ron Bell's recent book or really dug into the current discussions about universalism. I would also not want to give the impression that doctrinal clarity and critique is anything but essential.
Yet, as I have seen a bit of this debate and remember previous debates on the same matter during the last thirty years, I come to a pastoral and practical question: Am I a functional universalist? Let me explain.
A friend of many years became part of a previous church where I served as a pastor. He was a man with a consistent evangelistic pattern of life. I knew him for many years and could not remember any time when he was not in some serious continuing Gospel conversation with people outside of Christ, with lost people.
After getting to know me and the church, listening into what we complained about and what we celebrated, he asked one day, Do we believe hell is real?
This was not a doctrinal question. It was a functional doctrine question. He was not doubting our orthodoxy on paper. He was questioning our orthodoxy in practice. What we believe, really believe, is seen in what functions in our lives. It is one thing to believe on paper that Jesus is the gracious gift of the Triune God to bring salvation from the wrath to come and everlasting joy in the fellowship of the Godhead. It is quite another to live that belief -- to have it function in our lives.
I am all for the historic orthodox understanding of eternal punishment. Richard Bauckham's essay shows that this position is eroding but needs to be upheld. It is the position of the historic orthodox church.
We must defend the Scriptures from distortion. I cannot reduce orthodoxy to my practice. It is true and objective and outside of whatever functional beliefs I have.
But if it does not function it my life, it is not enough to defend it and walk away commending myself for defendings its truth. You believe in eternal punishment -- the demons do too.
I return to the question, are we functionally universalists?
Read the rest.
3 comments:
Or maybe another possible question (whose answer could lead us to the same position) is do we truly believe hell is a place where there is constant weeping and gnashing of teeth and eternal separation from God as the Bible describes it? Further (and more importantly), do we truly, functionally, believe Christ is as awesome, sweet, satisfying, glorious, good, powerful, wrathful, graceful, etc., etc. as we doctrinally claim he is?
Depending on the answers to these two questions, we could be in the same position as, but not necessarily, "functional universalists". We believe in hell, but functionally don't believe it's bad enough for Christ to have died to save us from it. And (again, more importantly) we believe in Christ, but functionally don't act as if he's as amazing as we say He is on paper and therefore aren't proclaiming Him as the treasure of our lives. And ultimately, we don't live like these are true, or evangelize as if they are true.
I know for me, these are the questions of sin in my life; more so than functional universalism.
Good language to distinguish between the 2 things.
I know I've been wondering for a while if many Christians are actually Functional Jews- that in practice their good works contribute to their justification.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28).
Perhaps this is not a threat so much as a statement of fact. Nonetheless, Jesus' words are meant to disturb us, wake us from our spiritual indifference, yes, warn us that His Father is to be feared because of His power to send a soul to eternal Hell. God's love is wonderful to proclaim but equally important is the message of real, unimaginable consequences when God's love is rejected.
Post a Comment