My gut-wrenching theological convictions were plunged into spiritual/intellectual battle while I read Sennett's "Worthy of a Better God". Sennett outlined four views of Salvation well: universal salvation, pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism. I have and continue to associate myself with the exclusivist model for salvation; however, points made by Lewis, Sennett and my previous pondering made me seriously consider the inclusivist model. Sennett posed that a person outside of formal Christian beliefs could be saved because they followed Christ their whole life without knowing it, despite their following another religion or none at all. I believe this rationale does not water down Christ's life and purpose and vindicates living for almighty God whereas universal salvation and pluralism, in my opinion, soften the gospel and make living a holy life obsolete. Also, some of my previous questions about other faiths and how they at time seem to act like better "Christians" than those of us who hold Christian beliefs. For example, Gandhi preached that we must not hate our enemy but love them and he executed his teaching to the max! While watching the movie
Gandhi exclusivist salvation view was throttled! I thought, "If there was anyone who lived out what Jesus taught, morality at its highest stage, it was Gandhi". Pondering this and what Shane Claiborne's story about his experience of being reconciled to Muslims from Iraq who had seen their loved ones killed by American soldiers made me think, "there is no way God is not at work through these people even though they are not Christians; but why? God isn't going to save them so why does he work through them?". My conclusion is that God is at work in people that are not explicitly "Christian". Still the question remains, why would God work through people he did not intend to save? Is that not sick? Could a being who has others follow his practices and represent the life he intended his flock to live and abandon those who did not call themselves Christians? Or even more disturbing, send those to an eternity away from his majesty that never had a chance to become a Christian?
Lewis and Sennett re-aroused those burning questions in my gut and forced me to back my belief in exclusivism or accept that view with an elementary proof that it is what my youth pastor taught. My final reasons for re-adopting the exclusivist view of salvation lie in the high risks of adopting another view and the power and grace thundering from God almighty's existence. The risk I see in adopting another view of salvation would cut the necessity to embark in the great commission, to spread the name of Jesus to every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Finally, even though God may be at work in other tribes, tongues, and nations that do not know Christ, I do not believe God will save them without accepting Jesus as Lord because this method multiplies the gift of God's precious, only son being murdered on a stick by his own creation. Making the gift all the more powerful to those who have received it.
Both inclusivism and exclusivism have adherents among evangelical Christians, so it's not too surprising that there are reasons to take each pretty seriously. The difficult business is to sort through these reasons and to make a decision. I hope we see still more dialogue on this here! I'll ask one question and hope others get into the act, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat role does moral goodness play here? If we have a difficult time seeing how morally good people can be sent to hell, does that suggest that we think moral goodness (or "works," we we sometimes put it) is what matters? At bottom, do we really think that the good get to go to heaven?