GospelDrivenLife

The Christian Parallel Universe

I like certain forms of science fiction.  OK, I admit it, I am a Trekkie.  One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek explored the possibility of parallel universes.  Quite to my pleasure, the new TV series Fringe does the same.  They imagine that there could be various quantum realities and we breached the wall between them.

Well, I have news for them.  I think there are parallel universes.  At least, it seems that way to my eyes.

What I mean is that Christians in the USA seem to have created a universe parallel to the secular one.

There are more obvious versions of this -- the Christian Yellow Pages being foremost in my mind -- but there are subtle versions too.  Think of all the ways we have devised to "Christianize" every conceivable form of human relationship in education, commerce, diet, and exercise.  There are Christian food co-ops!  Christian exercise videos.  The list is long.

While I certainly do not deny the right to free association, I do have one question: is this what Jesus called us to?  I believe he prayed explicitly in John 17 that we would NOT be taken out of the world.  I believe Paul wrote these words:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. (1 Corinthians 5:9-10 ESV)

Well, I think Paul would be quite shocked that we have managed to do exactly that -- we have "gone out of this world" -- at least in practice, if not in body. We have created a parallel Christian universe. 

But the problem is more subtle than that.  As I listen to friends speak of their work or their neighborhoods or their schools or their kids sports -- it is almost always in the context where they note who the Christians are in those places ("My son is in little league, and his coach is a Christian").  They do so with a sense of relief or with greater confidence in the safety of their kids or with some sense of the magic of influence the coach will have over others.  It is even better if the coach is a former professional athlete who is a Christian.   

I would also observe that for some it seems desirable for Christians to work and play alongside of people who are not in Christ and somehow manage to avoid too much intersecting of their lives with them.  In other words, some would avoid any breaches between these parallel worlds.  It would never occur to them to engage their colleagues world and life.

Granted I am stereotyping, and there are many many exceptions.  There are traditions in the evangelical world that are not so world-detached. But this stereotype is based on years of data collection. Generally, I think mainstream evangelical USA Christians are uncomfortable with associations with unbelievers that are too close, too personal. Generally, we are afraid that simply being with them will have some corrupting influence.  So we create a parallel universe. We have effectively done what Paul thought impossible -- we have gone out of the world.

I sometimes think that we live in fear and call it wisdom.  But we live in fear -- fear of the negative influences of the world.  We live as though we have far more to fear from the "world" than they have to fear from us.  We carry with us the Good News of Jesus the crucified and risen.  The explanation of that news changes people; it removes them from the kindgom of darkness and brings them into Jesus kingdom. It is far more a threat to their way of life than they are to us.  

We live in unbelief and call it moral separation.  We live in unbelief, and actually deceive ourselves into thinking that we can create a parallel universe and thereby escape the corruptions that are in the world.  We are not confident in this message and its power in us and its power toward others.  

Now, of course I am aware of our vulnerability, and of course I am aware of the care of my children, and of course I am aware of all the arguments that can be marshalled for caution and safety and the rest -- but I am pressing for the other side.  I am doing so because the Gospel calls us.

We follow the One who was a friend of sinners, who took on flesh and blood as he entered a world in which there was nothing but defilement.  He came down into this world, in association with people ruined by sin and living in sin in all its various forms, he lived in the same universe, not a parallel one.  He was a friend of sinners and lived in purity at the same time. And he has sent us into this present age with the same mission -- to be the people of God in the midst of this world, not to isolate ourselves from the people of this world.

God wants believers to have confidence in the Gospel and to pass this on to our children to as well.  I am simply asking -- are we confident?  are we imparting confidence to our children or teach them to live quarantined lives?  Are we living in invisible hazmat suits?  in a parallel universe?

 

 

Rob Bell, and Functional Universalism updated

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.

Many of us function like universalism is true.  Really.  Yes, there are many reasons why we can manage to live in a parallel universe to the lost all around us.  Selfishness, fear, a wrong understanding of holiness -- yes, all these play a part.  But when I get to the core of it, my friend's question was correct.I live as though there are no consequences -- I live as though we will all be happy in the end.

And Jesus did not.  Why did the Son of God speak so often of the realities of Gehenna?  Because he looked at the people he saw as living forever, in a state of joy or misery. As Lewis says it, they would someday either be so glorious that we would be tempted to worship them, or a horror such as we see not even in a nightmare. And they will be so as a consequence of their choices.  

Hell, for Jesus, was real, but he never used it as a threat. Rather, he held it up as a sober statement of the significance of our lives and actions.  He seemed to think that a doctrine of hell was the ultimate reason to treat people with the deepest respect. We are image bearers.

We are so much to be treated with respect that God will give us the fruit of the choices we make in life.  Jesus inserts the doctrine of hell into situations that deal with consequences.  Better to enter the kingdom with no hands than enter hell with both.  He is saying, "Your life and choices matter.  There will be everlasting results and consequences.  Do not go traipsing through life like it is a party." And we know that our actions have vast significance.  We know that those who do the things we do are worthy of death (Romans 1:32) -- yet we still do them.

Universalism is an insult to the image of God.  When someone pities me and says, "There, there stupid one, you make bad choices but do not worry, I will keep you from the consequences," they are condescending and insulting. Granted mercy may alleviate consequences at times -- but to be a perpetual object of pity and to be treated as irresponsible and protected from all the consequences of my actions is a lowly position, a demeaned status.

Universalism turns the love of God into weak-kneed sentimentalism.  It turns God into a parent figure who simply cannot bear to let his children suffer the consequences of their choices. I recall a conversation on this matter where the person could not imagine a God who would judge people into an eternal misery.  Then we turned to look at their idea -- a God who lets people off the hook and protects them from their own choices forever.  They agreed that was not a God they would want to call God. I was able to note that God did not give everyone a pass.  He could not. He brought consequences upon God the Son for us.

My point in all this, before I diverted, is that Jesus was not a functional universalist.  The reality of eternal blessedness or punishment is woven into his words and his actions. His message was not, "This is really serious.  I came to die for sin.  But, in the longrun, it doesn't matter.  It will all be like the last episode on LOST.  We all end up in a place of light." 

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?  Is our personal lack of evangelistic engagement anything but functional universalism?  Are we more concerned with orthodoxy than with orthopraxy?  Are we grieved with a lack of engagement with people outside of Christ with the Good News of Christ?

Isn't it remarkable that followers of the One who came to seek and to save those who are lost, could think they are following him, and simultaneously live with no serious and thoughtful evangelistic purpose?

He came to make fishers of men, not keepers of the acquairium.

He became flesh, entered a world of us -- remained holy but was a friend of sinners. He wept over Jerusalem for her stubbornness of heart. 

He obeyed unto death, even though the death he would know was dreaded unto sweating blood. It was a death for us and for our sins, to rescue us from judgment.

Are you and I functional universalists?  Jesus certainly was not. I can rest in his perfect obedience for me, that his life is my life and my death becake his death. But I can also begin today to look around me at people whose choices will matter before God forever and seek ways to call them to the only One who protects them from the wrath to come.