A Conversation With Dr. James McGrath: Interview Series, Pt. 7

Recently, I was privileged to have a fruitful conversation with Dr. James McGrath, associate professor of religion at Butler University (IN). Among other things, we talked about theology, hermeneutics, creation vs. evolution and some of his new books. Do take a few minutes to read the convo and then, head on over to James's sites and have a look around: Exploring Our Matrix, The Burial of Jesus (Companion Site for the Book). Thanks to Dr. McGrath for taking some time out of his busy schedule to chat! Enjoy the discussion.

* * * * *

Michael: James thanks for taking the time to stop by Pisteuomen and chat. If you would, tell the readers of Pisteuomen a little bit about yourself (e.g. your faith background, your vocation and some of your interests, etc.).

James: Thanks for inviting me to do this. I think if I answer this first question in full, I'll fill all the space you have set aside for this. But I'll try to keep it brief. I grew up in the Catholic Church, but drifted away somewhat as a teenager. But I was spiritually seeking, and thought I was a Christian (I believed in God more than most people I knew), but when I came across some contemporary Christian music on the radio it made an impression on me, because they sang about God and their faith as a reality in a way I couldn't. To make a long story short, a friend invited me and another friend to a concert at her church (a Pentecostal church), and it too made an impression on me. The next morning at the Sunday service, I simply called out to God in surrender, and felt a wave of peace sweep over me. And that's what got me on the track to doing what I'm doing now - the desire to explore my faith further, learn more about the Bible, understand more and explore more. In the process, I ended up attending Baptist churches, starting when I was a student in the U.K. and I'm now a member of an American Baptist Church here in Indianapolis. I'm skipping a lot of details here, but even though I presently teach at a school without a religious affiliation, I entered the study of religion (and still spend hours and hours pondering subjects in a way that my job description does not require) because it is an expression of my personal interest, having all begun with me exploring my personal faith and considering possible vocations in ministry. Eventually someone thought I might be good at teaching.

Michael: So, what "religious" subject would you say you spend the most time pondering and why?

James: Currently, it is really the historical figure of Jesus. If there is something I am personally as well as professionally interested in at the moment, it is this. I also have other interests (the Mandaeans, and religion and science fiction) that also have some of my attention. But as I've studied how historical investigation works, I've become persuaded that it provides the best tools we have for investigating the past. These tools also seem to be unable to provide the sort of certainty that, at one point in my religious thinking, I assumed religious believers were supposed to have. And so, the question of what it means to be a Christian when Christianity is so intertwined with history and historical study doesn't provide us with absolute certainty, is a key issue for me. In fact, it is one that comes up in my recent book, The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith, and which I will also have in mind but in a different way during my (first ever!) sabbatical in the Spring, when I plan to work on oral tradition and the Gospels.

Michael: Now, you’ve mentioned a few times on your blog—in addition to what you just said—that you have a couple of new books coming out. Care to say a little more about those here?

James: Sure. My first book (as is most common among academics) was a revised version of my PhD thesis. That was published as John's Apologetic Christology by Cambridge University Press. I realized as I was working on it that, in order to make the case convincing for how I understood the relationship between John's Christology and Jewish monotheism, I would have to make a case about Jewish monotheism and the development of early Christology more generally. That research has been a focus of interest over a number of years, and the result (I won't say "end" result, since one never knows) is my book The Only True God, forthcoming in 2009 from University of Illinois Press. It starts with Jewish monotheism in the Hellenistic era, then turns to the New Testament. In the mean time, I wrote a small book, my first, seeking to address issues in a manner more accessible to a general audience (and at a price mere mortals can afford, unlike some of these academic books). As my interest turned to the historical figure of Jesus, I became interested in the resurrection accounts (isn't everyone), and was particularly intrigued by the differences between Mark and the other Gospels when it came to the burial of Jesus. So, I wrote a short book, and sought to begin with a general introduction to a historical approach to the Gospels. I then treated the topic using those tools, and finally attempted to carry the subject through to theological reflection, and thus tried to go from start to finish, addressing in the process, how historical study, theology and faith might interrelate. And since I have other projects to work on between now and November (two conference papers for SBL), and then a sabbatical I want to devote to NEW projects, I decided to go ahead and publish the book The Burial of Jesus through BookSurge.

Michael: What major challenge, if any, would you say this short book poses for Bible readers?

James: Well, the very characteristics of a historical approach are themselves unfamiliar to many, thus, showing how historians approach certain sources can be disconcerting to some, to say the least. For example, if one even raises the possibility that two Gospels might have information that historians cannot simply harmonize, that can really trouble people who have been taught to expect that. This was, in fact, how I ended up studying the Gospel of John and focusing on the subject I did for my PhD. I was given the impression that the four Gospels really should all say the same thing. When I had to acknowledge that John's style and emphases really are different, making sense of that became important. But getting back to The Burial of Jesus, in addition to the historical approach itself, I do think that the fact that historical study cannot remove all doubt about the early Christians’ resurrection experiences will probably be a difficult issue for many to wrestle with. But I wrote on the subject because I know people wrestle with it anyway. And the book is an attempt to figure out what historical study, and what my own life-changing religious experience, can and cannot prove "beyond reasonable doubt". My own view of history in a nutshell is this: I do believe that the perspective of faith and theology can say more than history or science. Just because we cannot "prove", using scientific or historical tools, that people are valuable and have worth, that doesn't mean we shouldn't affirm it. On the other hand, what we say from the perspective of our faith and theology ought to take into account and do justice to the best understanding that historians and scientists and other specialists (like Biblical scholars, for instance!) have to offer.

Michael: So, do your historical insights lead you to argue for more of a “theological hermeneutic” or do you simply contend for more of a “genre oriented” reading? Or do you take another approach

James: I am interested in "all of the above", I suppose is the answer. At the moment, I'm focused on historical matters. But I would very much like to return at some point, to the subject of hermeneutics and the gap that sometimes exists between Biblical studies and theology. It is perhaps for this reason that I rejected the suggestion that someone once made to me that I have separate blogs for my religion and science, religion and TV/sci-fi, biblical studies and other subjects. While they are legitimately separated, I like being able to look back and see what I blogged about my research, what I was watching on TV, and where I was at theologically!

Michael: In the same vein as your last two answers, it is clear that another hot-button issue you deal with, especially on your blog, is the topic of evolution verses both intelligent design and creationism. What piqued your interest in this subject?

James: As a teenager I got very enthusiastic about young-earth creationism, and bought into the notion that evolution was a key reason for people not believing in God and for the unraveling or the moral fabric of society, etc. My interest led me to a book entitled Science and Creationism in which some extremely patient biologists and other scientists explained why the evidence didn't support young-earth creationism, and how at times the evidence was being misconstrued by supporters of young-earth creationism. So, it is because my own views have shifted so much, and because I can easily imagine that, had I thought that the young-earth position was inseparable from my faith, such a discovery could have caused a serious crisis of faith, it is important to me to be as vocal as possible about the fact that there are multiple viewpoints and not merely two diametrically opposed ones. I'm also interested because many Christians who take the YEC position think the Bible requires them to do so, and so the Biblical studies data relevant to this is also something I try to bring into the discussion more than is often the case.

Michael: So, in your view, is there room in the Church for more than one view?

James: Yes, indeed, on many topics! I'm doing a series in my church Sunday School class about "When Christians Disagree". I remember, as a teenager with a lot of zeal about my newfound personal faith, being absolutely certain that I now had all the answers. But in fact, I now know I didn't have all the answers, and it seems odd looking back that I wasn't more aware that I had much to learn. Perhaps we're all like that in our teenage years. But it does seem that if we acknowledge that Christians grow and mature and change their minds over the course of their lives, and that this is normal, and if the church is to be a place that fosters such growth, then by definition there will be different viewpoints. And this is helpful to our growth, since I know that I, for one, learn a lot more from interacting with people who disagree with me than I do when surrounded by likeminded individuals!

Michael: I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of the Church being a place where we can grow and change and whatnot. I also agree that discussion with those of different viewpoints is incredibly enriching. I’m sure that as a professor of religion, you encounter this in other faculty, students, etc. But tell me, in your field, who have been or currently are, some of your major (intellectual) influences?

James: Well, there's James Dunn, who was my doctoral supervisor. And I really admire the work of the late Raymond Brown, who I think was a great model for the compatibility of personal faith, rigorous scholarly honesty, and humility. With all my diverse interests, there are many, but one person whose books I've found particularly helpful and inspiring lately is Keith Ward. And I'm reading Scot McKnight's forthcoming book The Blue Parakeet and think it has an important message for those trying to wrestle with the diversity in the Biblical canon when coming from a conservative Evangelical starting point. [I can't claim Scot as an influence, though - at least not yet!]

Michael: On a similar yet different note, who would you say are some of the leading voices in biblical studies / theology today?

James: Maybe I should have waited to mention Scot's book in THIS category. But there is a lot going on, in so many diverse areas, that it is really hard to keep up with more than a few that one is personally working in. I'm glad Kenneth Bailey is continuing to publish, and can say that I've really appreciated the work of scholars like Bruce Malina on cultural background and context. I lived in Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and Romania and the more time one spends in other countries, the more one realizes that all communication, including in the Bible, requires a context in order to be understood. So, basically everyone who is working on that sort of topic I appreciate!

Michael: Okay James, here’s my last question, one I ask of all my interviewees: If you could own only one book (besides the Bible) what would it be and why?

James: Oh no, the "one book beside the Bible" question! Is it OK if instead of a book I take a CD?

Michael: Sure. This is certainly a first!

James: I'd take a recording of Kurt Atterberg's Symphony No.2, because when one reads academic books it leaves one with a very good sense of the many questions we are still struggling with. When I listen to music, it reminds me that in addition to questioning and investigating, there is a place for simply standing in awe, wonder, and amazement. And since presumably in this scenario I am stranded on a desert island, I'd have a lot of time to simply stand in awe. Also, if I'm stranded on an island, I'd start looking around for a hidden hatch in the ground, but that's another subject...

Michael: James, I want to thank you for taking the time to have a conversation; I’m sure the readers of Pisteuomen will enjoy it very much. We wish you much success in your forthcoming books and future endeavors. Blessings to you and yours.

* * * * *

Here are links to other interviews that have taken place on Pisteuomen:

* A Conversation with Eric Sowell: Interview Series, Pt. 6
* A Conversation with Alan Knox: Interview Series, Pt. 5
* A Conversation with Chris Tilling: Interview Series, Pt. 4
* A Conversation with Scott Bailey: Interview Series, Pt. 3
* A Conversation with John the Methodist: Interview Series, Pt. 2
* A Conversation with Josh McManaway: Interview Series, Pt. 1

Michael Halcomb Clarified

I am quite enjoying the diablogue with James McGrath, Ken Brown and Drew Tatusko. It has been fun so far. I feel that at this point, I need to clarify some of my statements and perhaps, in the process of this crystallization, make a few more arguments concerning the topic at hand.

Firstly, I never accused James of being a Universalist. Instead, I was arguing that given what he's said in the diablogue up to this point, he appears to be on the "fringes" of Universalism.

Secondly, I have never argued against Abraham's salvation. In fact, I've noted a few times that he probably was saved. This becomes even more clear when I note that in God's mind, it is quite possible (theologically speaking) that the cross was as good as done before the foundations of the world. This is, of course, a debatable theological tenet that I'm proposing. More will be said about this in point 11.

Thirdly, I disagree with both Ken and Drew that one can worship Christ or be a Christ-follower and thus, be saved, without knowing it. What Paul says in Acts 17 is surely not along the lines that those I'm conversing with have suggested. Read the last verse of that story!!! In the end, people believe in Jesus and begin following Him. Paul is being evangelistic. I'll say more about this in another post.

Fourthly, I do not believe, like James, that the "righteousness" or "righteous acts of a person" in God's eyes is the same thing as saying they are saved or in complete right standing with Him. It seems to me that the only person in the world whose righteousness can set them totally right before God is Christ, the sinless one. To take the view of those mentioned above is to, in my eyes, demote the righteousness of Christ. I will allow that, logically, if one were perfect, their righteousness might render them saved or in right standing with God but this cannot be said for Abraham, Melchizedek or anyone else. More on "righteousness" in piont 11.

Fifthly, I have maintained from the beginning and I continue to maintain that Christianity is at once, inclusive and exclusive.

Sixthly, it is my contention that where Christ offers salvation, the second step is that one must accept it. It is not applied, unknowingly to persons. Faith in Jesus--post resurrection--is a MUST. This faith is to be believed, confessed and lived out. I do not see how, in any way, this is going beyond the claims of the NT.

Seventhly, if my interpretations end up seeming like the "typical evangelical" readings, I am fine with that. I do not read with some modern-day evangelical proposition in mind that is all-determining. It quite works the other way around for me.

Eighthly, I find it odd that James can accuse me of modern-day, typical evangelical readings (in a pejorative sense) but then, he goes with the "scholarly consensus" on things (e.g. the authorship of Hebrews; by the way, there are a number of modern scholars who hold that Paul is the author, see Witherington's new commentary). I guess I could use that in the same sense, against him. We all know how much scholarly consensus wanes and to rely on that as an argument has always been and still is rather shaky and weak to me.

Ninthly, I do not think the lines were/are already as blurry as James is leading on. I think that they can be discerned in a rather straightforward way.

Tenthly, I never said that Christ's coming makes it harder to attain God's grace. In fact, I said it just causes some people problems and for certain individuals, it may, in the end, be harder. Lest you think I am alone in this, it is Paul's idea. He is quick to say that salvation in Christ is a stumbling block, that it is foolishness, etc. Paul's argument is that if persons could get their theologies out of the way, or their philosophies, they might wind up seeing the simplicity of salvation in Christ.

Eleventhly, it should be made clear that the recurring appeal by James and Drew to Abraham, I think, is a bit off. When Paul cites Abraham, he does it as a means to an end. He tells the story of God's promise to Abraham so that he can finally say, "It has come to fruition in Christ, whom has been among us." So, placing the focus on Abe's righteousness is to not only miss the point but to not focus on what Paul was focusing on. To be even clearer, I shall state again that, at this point, I do not think Paul thought righteousness and salvation were the same exact thing (though, there is a relationship between them). Look at 1 Cor. 1.30, for example. There, Paul says that Jesus has become our "wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption." σωτηρια is not the same exact thing as δικαιοσυνη. From a theological perspective, it seems to me that the latter can be a result of the former or even a preface to the former. That is, God can begin to work righteousness in someone (e.g. prevenient grace) before they are saved but that righteousness may grow cold and thus, salvation not attained. However, the righteousness can also lead to salvation. Or we can even say that the same righteousness that worked in a person before their salvation can still be accounted to them once salvation occurs. Acts 13.26 may be a good example where Paul refers to persons as "children of Abraham" and "God-fearing Gentiles" who he does not necesarrily view as "fully saved". Clearly, in this passage, Paul wants them to go the extra step and trust in God. He doesn't doubt that they've had experiences of God but for him, that's not enough. Christ must be in the equation.

These are my positions in the diablogue thus far. I just thought I should clarify my views before we go any further.

On The Fringe Of Universalism?: McGrath Blurring The Lines

If you want to follow the conversation/debate, Ken Brown has compiled an in-order list. Click the following link to get there: Inclusivism Bloggersation.

I want to start off by saying that my attempt to “label” James here is not pejorative. Instead, I am simply trying to use labels to clarify—not create division or anger. I trust James’ confession that he is a born-again, Jesus-loving, Christian. However, I do question some of his views and as you know, that’s why we are having this discussion in the first place (he also questions some of mine!). If anything, I hope that our diablogue exemplifies Christian civility while also showing that we can vehemently disagree with one another, even to the point of not accepting one another’s views. However, lest we get to the point where anything goes in Christianity, I am quite willing to say that there are things that do not go; I am quite willing to say that there are things that make Christianity distinct and that those things must be held on to. That is what the heart of this post is about!

Out of every post so far, in his latest entry, James McGrath most clearly spells out what lies at the foundation of his view of salvation. It is this “spelling out” that leads me to suggest that if he hasn’t already stepped fully into it, he’s surely on the fringe(s) of universalism. Like many Universalists, he attempts to blur the lines between those who have placed their faith in Christ (and will thus be saved) and those who have not placed their faith in Christ but who will also be saved. So, it is clear that a full-throttled inclusivism stops at no boundary and eventually spirals downward into Universalism. However, Universalism was not the Gospel that Paul (nor any of the other NT writers preached). So, what I will do in this post is answer each of James’ questions about the passages he was inquiring over, that is, passages concerning Melchizedek, Acts 17 and finally, Abraham.

Of course, Acts 17 is where the infamous Mars Hill episode is recounted. I need not retell that story here. Instead, I would like to point out that from this episode, we learn that Paul was not a Universalist but rather a Christian evangelist. Paul did not talk to the men at Athens and say, “Well, I think it is okay that you believe in this mysterious god, so, we’ll leave it at that.” Nor did he say, “This god you believe in is the same God I worship.” Instead, Paul was saying, “The experience(s) you’ve had of this so-called ‘god’ you’ve been worshipping are only part-and-parcel of the truth.” What Paul was attempting to say was that those who’d had these experiences are in a better position than most to understand the God Paul was speaking of. Why? Because a number of the practices and truths that Paul embodied were seen in these men. Paul was contextualizing the Gospel, meeting these people where they were and building off of that. This is why, in the end, Luke feels it necessary to say “some believed and followed”. In other words, they changed their beliefs and trusted in Jesus. This is not a passage validating Universalism. It is, instead, a passage revealing that Paul did contextual evangelism.

Before getting to Melchizedek, I will deal once more with Abraham. James keeps wanting to argue that Paul says Abraham was “saved” by his own righteous faith. This is never what Paul says—especially in Galatians! Paul does say that Abraham’s faith made him righteous in God’s eyes. This isn’t even close, though, to asserting that Abraham was saved. Again, Abraham may have been saved but Paul never argues about that here. This is making the text argue something that it never intended to. Paul only says that Abraham’s faith made him righteous. As we all know “righteous” does not equal “saved”. I think that by trying to blur the lines here, James is making a great error. I also think the attempt to use this passage in a Universalistic sense is to misuse it.

As for Melchizedek, James wonders if he was saved—outside of Christ (kind of like Abraham). Of course, this gets back to the issue of “Will people before Christ be ‘saved’; will they be in ‘Christian eternity’ for a lack of better terms? Will righteous people like Abraham and Melchizedek be saved, even though they never specifically confessed Christ as Savior? Well, Melchizedek was, in my mind, comparable to those on Mars Hill. He had a partial understanding of the truth (probably more fully, though, than those on Mars Hill). Melchizedek, though, was not a Universalist or Polytheist. Instead, he rejected the idols of Canaan and confessed only one God. The logic of Hebrews 7 makes it clear that while Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, Jesus was greater than Melchizedek. In other words, Jesus was the fulfillment of the priesthood; He is the Great High Priest. So, for those in the audience who revered Melchizedek and knew a lot about him, well, this was a point the author of Hebrews (probably Paul) could build on. Again, we see contextualized evangelism; the people are being met where they are and then the rest of the truth is being relayed. Will Melchizedek be saved? Perhaps. Probably. How? We might take the view that the cross, since it was established before the foundations of the world, covers those prior to it (at least in God’s mind) who were faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, after the cross event, this cannot be the case as “belief” and “confession” in Christ are a MUST.

Therefore, when it comes to modern-day Muslims and Jews, while they might have some things to teach us about being faithful people or whatever, they do not posses the full truth about Jesus—it has been distorted—or the Triune God. Our job is to share that with them and help them to enter into a relationship/union with God.

Lastly, James wonders if the children of Abraham are really the children of Abraham? I would say: Of course. But I do not mean by that what he does. I do not mean that by being an ancestor of Abraham or any other patriarch I am saved. What I mean is that the promise that God gave to Abraham extends to me (the promise to unite all persons in Christ who would accept Him) and thus, I am a child of Abraham. My righteousness, your righteousness, any Jew or Muslim’s righteousness does not include them in God’s people. Jesus includes us in God’s people. So, while the Sufi Mystic and his prayer are quite fascinating, in the end, they fall short of what includes one in the true people of God.

To be sure, the notion of sexism, slavery, etc. that James is worried about does not have to be caused or carried out by believers who make exclusive confessions like I have done. While I am exclusivist, I am at the same time an inclusivist because there is always an open invitation to accept Christ. Just because I make my confession in Jesus, in no way means that I have to mistreat, belittle, demean, dehumanize or hurt others. Where persons reject Christ, I am still willing to love them and live at peace with them. Even then, it is not my righteousness that saves me it is God’s grace in Jesus.

A Humorous Reply To James

I'll reply in the next day or two with a more serious post but for now (to add some fun to our diablogue) here something a bit more lightweight:

(Pic HT: Locusts&Honey)

The conversation thus far:

Where This Diablogue Started: Michael (When Politicians Say They're Christian)
Initial Reply: James (Flaming Meteorite Challenge)
Second Reply: Michael (A Response to James)
Third Response: James (Community of the Saved or Salvation of the Community)
Fourth Reply: Michael (A Rejoinder To James)

Fifth Response: James (Continuing Diablogue About Salvation)

Sixth Reply: Michael (The Ensuing Riposte with James)

Seventh Response: James (A Brief Reply)

Eighth Reply: Michael (the current post)

Some others who have joined in the convo: Ken Brown (1) (2) (3) and Drew Tatusko (1) (2).

The Ensuing Riposte With James McGrath

The conversation thus far:

Where This Diablogue Started: Michael (When Politicians Say They're Christian)
Initial Reply: James (Flaming Meteorite Challenge)
Second Reply: Michael (A Response to James)
Third Response: James (Community of the Saved or Salvation of the Community)
Fourth Reply: Michael (A Rejoinder To James)

Fifth Response: James (Continuing Diablogue About Salvation)

Sixth Reply: Michael (current post below)

Some others who have joined in the convo: Ken Brown (1) (2) (3) and Drew Tatusko (1) (2).

So, I should note at the start that I was not intending to make you out, James, to be one who holds the view that this was “only” a social matter. I was just suggesting that you were letting the “social” define what Paul says. I do not. I think the issue, in the main, is theological and that the social implications are a result. Thus, the theology is central while issues such as identity, boundaries, etc., are social and resultant. I hope I’m stating this in a clear enough manner. (I feel it important to note, at the fore, as I have said in the previous posts, all that is said here is said in a spirit of love, humility and spirit of inquiry. What seems like a challenge is not agression or anger at any point. Kudos to James--and others--for being such good sports. I hope I'm doing the same.)

Next, it is now clear that we have a text to focus on: Galatians. Let’s stay there for a while. It is also clear that James and I have different ideas of what’s going on in Galatians. He thinks Paul is combating legalism (works). I do not. Paul is for “works”. In fact, in the end, he tells the Galatians to obey the “Law of Christ” and in doing so, they will fulfill the “Law of Moses”. Thus, I assert that what James sees as “clear” is in fact, not really all that sound. Along the lines of the New Perspective people, I would say that Galatians makes the most sense when we understand Paul forbidding Gentiles (that is, the Galatians) to submit to the notion that they must become part of Israel to acquire salvation; for instance, through circumcision, keeping calendar days, etc. (or even confession of the Mosaic Law). Paul himself was circumcised, still kept Hebrew holidays, etc., and while that maintained his Jewish identity, he did not force it on anyone for salvation and in fact, would not let Gentiles who thought it could “earn” them right standing with God, do it.

Thus, it’s not about good deeds, self-righteousness or legalism. The central issue is how one becomes and stays part of the people of God, what Paul redefines in Gal. 6 as God’s Israel—that is, a body of Jews and Gentiles united in/through/by Christ. (A uniting that came about through belief, confession, baptism, repentance and the indwelling of the Spirit, which are not works, but simply responses to grace.)

The Abraham issue is an important one here. For James, Paul’s use of Abraham as an example of one who is “saved” by faith is an example of someone who is “saved” but not by Jesus. The idea is: Abraham was saved by faith before Jesus; therefore, evidently, people can be saved without Jesus. But this is not what the text says. Gal. 3 only says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him—by God—as righteousness. This is a far cry from saying that Paul said Abraham was saved. Indeed, Abraham might be saved, but this is not what Gal. 3 is saying.

And this is where I think James makes a fatal turn in his interpretation of Paul: Abraham was to draw in Jews while “what Jesus accomplished was to draw in Gentiles.” Yes, Jesus was to draw in Gentiles but He was also to draw in Jews. Paul would have never written Rom. 9-11 had he not believed this!!! He is not merely haggling over the influx of Gentiles (though that was an issue, especially in Galatians). Many of the Judaizers were ready to welcome the Gentiles, so long as they adopted the badge of common Judaism: the Law of Moses. Paul is completely against this. And again, this is where I think James is quite mistaken because for Paul, it was salvation through Jesus Christ alone! There was no other way to be set in right standing. You could not be set right through another deity, you could not be set right through religious heritage, you could not be set right through ethnic cleansing (purifying the land of Israel), no, the only way was through Christ. So, he may not say it in these exact words but Paul certainly does say that salvation comes through Christ alone.

To claim that either Abraham "the" example for leading Jewish persons to right standing with God or that Jesus’ work was to draw in Gentiles is to, I think, miss the mark by a wide margin. To repeat myself, many Jewish persons were willing to let Gentiles “in” if they would adopt the Judaistic badge. But Paul knew it could not happen this way or any other. So, when he writes passages like Rom. 9-11, he has to spell out the alternative. He’s even willing to give up his own right standing if only such Jews would assent to this one point. However, he doesn’t foresee this and so, he can only hope that they will become jealous as they see God indwelling and empowering Gentiles who come to Christ. And here is the point: He wants them to get jealous so that, as Jews, they too will come to Christ. Thus, Christ is drawing in both Jew and Gentile—as Paul so eloquently states in Gal. 3.

Therefore, my statement that trusting in Christ for salvation alone (especially after Christ has already stepped on the scene), is not out of place. Neither is it anachronistic or biblically or theologically illiterate (not that you made those statements of me, James). But you are right, James, that this is the whole heart of the issue. It is the whole inclusive/exclusive issue again. The way you pose the question or frame the topic is interesting. You say, “The question is not whether, from a Christian standpoint, God is understood to have reached out to humanity through the life of Jesus, but whether in doing so God has restricted access to grace so as to exclude people who were otherwise acceptable.”

You make many, many assertions in this statement (most of which I will not dissect here). The main bone of contention here, for me (and to all reading, I think this is precisely the point where mine and James’ view of soteriology is most spelled out) is that you’re kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Did the coming of Jesus hinder (or restrict) some people from experiencing God’s grace? No, it didn’t. Was it a stumbling block to people? Paul says, “Yes.” Was it foolishness to some people? Paul says, “Yes.” Was it the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (e.g. that all nations would be united to Him)? Paul says, “Yes, all nations have the opportunity to unite in Christ.” No, it didn’t restrict but it was hard for people to accept. But the invitation (inclusivism) was and is always there to accept. At the same time, accepting it results in a form of exclusivism (not a nasty, hateful one but a peaceful one). Therefore, Paul’s argument is that even though it might be a hard pill for some to swallow, the fact is, right standing comes only through a relationship (e.g. acceptance of, belief in, allegiance to, etc.) with Jesus.

That is, I think, the best way to interpret what Paul has to say on the issue. Now, before I close out this post, I do want to make a couple more remarks. To clarify, I was not attempting to use spiritual gifts, especially tongue-speaking as definitive of experience but just as a simple example that persons experiences of God are quite often, not what unites them as a congregation. This was just one example of many that I gave. I may not have been clear on this but nevertheless, how it was interpreted was not what I was attempting to say.

Lastly, I do think it is appropriate, as I’ve already stated, to allow that the spiritual experiences of people outside of Christianity are partially legitimate. I say partially because they are not experiences of the One True, Triune God. You noted, James, as I have, the Mars Hill episode. The difference between you and I is that you’re willing to let the Athenians continue on with their religious experiences thinking that this is enough. I do not. Paul, as it seems, was not either. That is why he tries to lead them to the fullness of Christ. In short, he wanted to say to them, “What you’ve experienced in part can be experienced more fully, indeed, the most fully and legitimately in Jesus Christ. What you’ve had and what you’ve got is part and parcel, what I’m telling you about is the fullness of God—total right standing with Him through Christ.”

As for the diversity of opinions in Scripture, I am not frightened by this, nor do I find it offensive when appropriate. I think there are differing eschatological views; I am cool with that. However, when it comes to right standing through Christ, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, James, that the NT writers offer up ways other than through Christ. You may be correct that at various junctures they validate other (partial) experiences but in no way do the take that as the stopping point. Instead, it is a starting point. A starting point to lead persons to faith in Jesus and Him alone. When it comes to right standing with God, the NT writers are univocal: Christ alone!

A Rejoinder To James McGrath

So, here's the order of the conversation thus far:

Initial Post: James (Flaming Meteorite Challenge)
First Reply: Michael (A Response to James)
Second Response: James (Community of the Saved or Salvation of the Community)
Third Reply: The current post (contents below)

Some others who have joined in the convo: Ken Brown (1) (2) *[update] (3) and Drew Tatusko (1) *[update] (2).

In his latest addition to our “blogalogue” or as McGrath calls it, a “blogversation”, James posits the idea that, “…it is not that Christianity is a group that one enters because only therein one can find salvation, but one enters it (either?) because it offers a community of those who have had a particular experience of God and are united by it, and invite others to have it.” Fundamentally, I disagree with this. Let me explain why.

Firstly, while there is a communal aspect to the Church/Christianity, I think it a travesty to say that this is why one enters. The Body of Christ is more than a social club and/or community of persons who have a shared experience of God. Secondly, the goal isn’t to join the Church. The goal is to join oneself to Christ. The Church does not offer salvation, or right-standing with the Triune God, Jesus does. So, we join ourselves to Him and as a result, we are joined to the Body of Christ. This is a fundamental difference between how James and I understand salvation through Jesus alone and also being part of the Body of Christ.

Thirdly, I think one is incredibly hard-pressed (James doesn’t seem to think so, though) to make the argument that the Church is the community whereby persons come together because they have a shared experience of God. One only needs to look at the letters of Paul to see that they congregations are widely different and that this is the case, at least in part, because they’ve had different experiences of God. Sure, the message Paul preached to them was the same but the way the Corinthians responded versus the way the Thessalonians or the Galatians reacted are quite dissimilar. If you were to compare a few of the people from congregations I know of or have been part of, you would also see that their experiences of God are way different. In many cases, it is the rural lifestyle, the familial aspect of the congregation, the small-town identity that is the uniting shared experience, not the “experience” of God. Some have spoken in tongues and others haven’t. Those who haven’t have even tried to invalidate the speaking in tongues experience saying that the people are just crazy or were even being used by satan. That said, the people still congregate together, love one another and serve. However, it is not their experience(s) of God that keeps them united as much as it is other factors. For sure, this element was present in the Early Church as well.

Fourthly (let me build on the previous point here), the non-tongue speakers want nothing to do with speaking in tongues, so, the tongue-speakers will not “invite others to have it”. That experience of God is not a shared or evangelistic one. What is shared, however, is the belief, confession and lifestyle built on the premise that Jesus has given them right-standing with God. Do people have to believe this? Yes! Do they have to confess it? Yes. Do they have to live life based on it? Yes! All of these have to be in place. Thus, I wholeheartedly disagree with James when he says, “It is hard to imagine any way that Paul could have made clearer that what he means by "faith" is not believing Christian doctrines to be true, or even necessarily having explicit knowledge about Jesus.” This means I also disagree with Ken Brown when he comments, “Therefore, it is possible to follow Jesus without knowing it, and thus it is possible to be saved without hearing his name.” It is abundantly clear to me that the Early Church expected and would not compromise belief in Christ in tandem with confession and lifestyle (e.g. ethics, character, praxis, etc.). To counter both of these statements, then, I would say there is no place in the NT that supports either of these statements. Even more, from a theological standpoint I also think this is the case. (Note: I’m not being aggressive or angry here, I’m just attempting to state my position. So, please do not read this as me being offensive or nasty. Tone is often lost in blog posts, so, this is one point where I feel like I should state my tone.)

While I appreciate to a large degree James’ knowledge and implementation of the social sciences in his interpretation of the passages/issues at hand, I also think he misapplies some of those insights. For example, he is right to point out that Paul is redrawing boundary lines and redefining community. But I think he overstates the case, to a very large degree, when he seeks to apply these insights to how Jesus sets people in right standing with God. For example, he states that Paul “makes” a redefining characteristic of the community “trust in God”. (On a side note, I fail to see how this is something innovate among believers or the believing community!) Paul doesn’t “make” this or even “define” this. Instead, it has always been this way. What Paul “does” is proclaim that to trust in Jesus is to truly and fully trust in God. This “trust” concerns the issue of how one attains right standing with God (again, through/by/in—each preposition having a similar meaning here—Jesus!). So, I would say to James that, if he wants to argue that Paul is reorienting things, he must argue that ultimately, Paul is arguing that to trust in God is to trust in Jesus and Jesus only. It is not simply a social marker or some identity issue at hand—though these aspects are certainly a result of what’s going on.

Finally, I also disagree that it all boils down to different interpretations. The fact is, some interpretations are solid and grounded and some are not. Hermeneutics is not just an anything goes type of game. I would assert, then, that what James has offered here is problematic because he’s attempting to use the social sciences to make the theological issue of salvation/right-standing about something other than what it is. The social sciences only help explain the results of the belief, confession and lifestyle that persons employ. The social sciences do not create these things but rather hey only help explain them. It is fact that one must trust in Jesus alone for salvation, a trust that is actualized by a held belief, which is realized/stated in a confession before the community and lived out/applied before the entire world (first in baptism, then in spiritual praxis, along with personal/social ethics and then evangelism). This goes for everyone, including Cornelius!

(I want to note once more, that I am not at all attempting to be vicious or aggressive at any point. Where it may seem like that or where I may be stating disagreements, I am doing it with a spirit of peace and even humility. Please, do not attempt to read the above words in another way.)

A Response To James McGrath (1)

In his initial post, James asked readers to take the “Flaming Meteorite Challenge”. He posited the following theory (in sum): If, just before Peter had reached Cornelius (a non-Jew; see Acts 10) a flaming meteor had struck him dead, would Cornelius, having already been “righteous enough to be noticed by God”, be included among or excluded from the saved?

Probably, most of us have heard this question in one form or another. Usually, it tends to come up in debates between those who have high and low views of baptism. The one with the low view will ask the one with the high view, “So, if John Doe made a confession to Christ but didn’t have the chance to be baptized, you’re saying he wouldn’t be saved?” Personally, I don’t think the Scriptures answer this specific question. Probably, it would have been closer to the context to ask: If Cornelius’ chariot wheels came off and he wrecked and died, would he still be saved? (joking) Anyway…

For Paul, salvation was a process (present, past and future tenses): you have been saved, are being saved and will be saved. It is also clear to me that in the Early Church, initiation for Gentiles was also a process. Recalling the fact that converts had to go through a lengthy process (sometimes even three years; see the Didache among other documents) before gaining membership in the Body, it is safe to say that they were in no rush. In other words, they were not too concerned with a question like James asks and that’s why I contend that they don’t attempt to answer it. So, the question is not one that Scripture itself speaks to. This means that we can only speculate how the first Christians “might” have answered such a question. Still, had they answered it, I don’t think it would have necessarily placed them in the categories that James sets up.

To try to say, for example, that Paul was “either” an inclusivist or exclusivist is misleading. Paul was both at the same time. As I’ve already stated in previous conversations with James, Paul’s view was that while there is always an open invitation to Christ (inclusivism), the reception of that invitation calls and forces one to place their allegiance in Christ alone (exclusivism). Furthermore, Paul believed that Jews/Judeans could maintain their Jewish practices and be Christ-followers as long as they did not mandate those practices (for inclusion into the Body/salvation) upon Gentiles. So, while Paul allows for a type of religious pluralism (e.g. you can maintain the Law of Moses if you are Jewish and you don’t have to if you are Gentile), it is not a type of soteriological pluralism. If anything, Paul argues vehemently against this in his letters and at times, even uses himself as an example.

This is precisely where James’ analogy fails in the highest because, as I’ve shown, Paul is an exclusivist, inclusivist and religious pluralist all at the same time. What Paul is not is a universalist.

James started the conversation off as he did in hopes of drawing some lines of demarcation. However, while labeling can be helpful (from philosophical and theological perspectives), I think the way he has framed his approach does not work. Again, I can’t answer his question from Scripture because that isn’t a question they deal with. I can, however, answer the question based on other theological tenets that I hold, which I believe are derived from Scripture. In fact, I would say that I adopt Paul’s approach and view as my own. That is, I am at once an inclusivist, exclusivist and religious pluralist. I am not a universalist by any means (of the modern term). I believe that while there is always an open invitation to accept Christ (even through a process), that invitation results in a type of exclusivism. I should be clear, the exclusivism does not have to be rigid, mean, arrogant, etc. It can be a type of exclusivism that seeks to live at peace with those who share a different view—even if one, through conversation, seeks to persuade persons to change their views.

I am a religious pluralist in the sense that Paul was too. It is clear that Paul believed that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could work through other faith systems. But it is also clear that Paul believed those faith systems were ultimately inadequate. That is why he offered Christ. Paul did not write off all that had happened to him in Judaism before the Damascus Rd. experience. Looking back, he saw God working in him to bring him to a point of understanding the person and work of Christ. The Mars Hill episode is another good example of where Paul says that God could work through other religions to help persons understand Christ. Now, I don’t think God puts persons in those religions. No, I take the view that He meets them where they are and works with them and attempts to reveal His full truth to them. So, to reiterate, I transcend the barriers of James’ analogy because I am at once an inclusivist, exclusivist and pluralist (as qualified above).

Apart from the whole “Scripture not dealing with this question” issue, part of my reason for responding this way was to also get away from the “quick-to-label” actions of religious persons today. A more detailed explanation was needed, that is, a more defined answer than just taking James’ test and concluding that I am of this or that persuasion. Now, if I could humor James and answer his question about Cornelius, I would say this: Given my theology, firstly, I would say that Cornelius will be judged by God alone and ultimately nobody else can make that call, but secondly, given what we know about salvation in Christ and membership (for Gentiles) in the Early Church, Cornelius had not been through the catechetical process, so, it would appear that, had a meteor hit him, they would not have considered him part of the Body of Christ, which means they would not have pegged him as one in a saving relationship with Christ.

On a closing note, because this always comes up in an exclusivistic conversation, I would just say that at present, my view is that for those who have never heard of/about Christ, these persons may be judged by God in accordance with their behavior/knowledge about the divine. That said, God does not owe them salvation or anything else, the fact that they get to come before Him is grace enough in and of itself. God is not culpable or fit to blame because they didn’t hear and thus, He cannot be blamed if He renders them lost. It was their faith/actions that led to that result, not God’s.

I’ll graciously await James’ reply realizing in the meantime that if I’ve been arrogant in any way, I’m sorry and did not intend to be. Also, for others who want to be part of this ongoing conversation, feel free to jump right in—so long as you’re civil. Otherwise we might wish a flaming meteorite upon you and God knows we don’t want to have to debate your salvation.

Link to James' first post: Flaming Meteorite Challenge