It was a cold December day at a United Methodist campground when the question came:
“Is there salvation outside the Church?”
There. There it was.
When one sits before the Board of Ordained Ministry for ordination in the United Methodist Church, there are certain questions you know you are going to get.
Especially when a clergy candidate goes to a non-Southern seminary, those “what type of lie-beral are you?” doctrinal questions come out. They want to know if you are a wishy-washy closet Universalist or Secret Muslim or hippie “God is love, man!” yahoo. And even if a candidate isn’t completely in the cookie-cutter mold, are they consistent and well-progressed in their Christian development under a Wesleyan hermeneutic?
I relaxed.
I knew exactly how I felt in my heart about who Christ is and what salvation means to me.
I answered.
And I passed the interview.
≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡
This past week, this question was at the forefront as I read Rob Bell’s Love Wins (kindle version here for instant access). Seemingly everyone was having their own personal ordained ministry interview with Rob Bell, trying to peg him as a Universalist or see if he was consistent, asking “Where does Rob Bell reside on the Primer on Soteriology scale?”
Indeed, how one felt about Rob Bell became a litmus test for clergy bloggers. With rough results.
A few weeks back, fellow Methodist blogger Chad Holtz was let go from his church that he was pastoring. Why? Mostly, because of how he wrote about the Rob Bell book (his post “What I lost losing Hell” is powerful in its raw honesty). Nevermind that the UMC doesn’t have an official doctrine on Universal Reconciliation, and even John Wesley’s writings on the matter are mixed…but that doesn’t matter to some people, apparently!
In the words of a facebook friend:
“Suddenly, confessing Jesus is not enough to be saved. One must confess Jesus AND Hell.”
Wow. Is it 1692 again?
Suddenly you are a wayward clergyperson if you start liking black horn-rimmed glasses and lady jeans? Or, more specifically, saying that Love does win? What does that even mean? Love and hell and Jesus are mutually incompatible? If you affirm God’s love, you also affirm Universalism and denigrate Doctrine? Really?
I wonder if there’s a chilling effect where clergy are now intimidated into discrediting Bell, as if his words are poison and must be excised from the Body of Christ rather than taken in, struggled with, torn up…but ultimately the Body heals and emerges stronger than before.
Because I doubt Bell’s intent is to destroy the Body.
≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡
I finished the book Love Wins yesterday.
I think it ended too early.
And by that, I mean the title.
I think the full title of the book should be “Love Wins Over Certainty.”
I think that the general message of Rob Bell’s book is not just about salvation or “who goes where?” but an examination of the human tendency to idolize certainty.
Let’s unpack that.
Bell asks questions a lot:
A commenter knows for sure that Gandhi is in hell?
Unsaved children go to heaven before 12 but to hell after 12? Are you sure?
Is a person saved by what they say (Luke 7) or what they do (Luke 19) or where they are born (Romans 11) or in childbirth (1 Timothy 2)?
Is Christ’s work on the cross a ransom, a substitution, a battle won, or sinful humanity redeemed (all biblical and Church Fatherly claims)?
Bell makes these claims into strawmen at times…but in reality, Christian people condemn each other for not following one of these mutually-conflicting claims in the bible itself. They condemn out of certainty even while wielding a bible that is…anything but certainly clear.
Now, all these questions are obviously typical ways to break down another’s argument so yours can be built up. But what argument is there that Bell embraces? That one of these conflicting claims is the true one? That none of them are true? No to both. Instead, Bell points to the reason behind the conflicting claims is that God, through Jesus Christ, loves us. And the Bible points to that love in all these ways meant to convey the truth but not reduce it down to narrow claims.
But that is exactly what we have done with it.
≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡
Without irony, the twitter hashtag that has emerged to counter #LoveWins is, no joke, #TruthWins.
It’s almost a Pavlovian response.
Any concept that challenges certainty must be responded to with more certainty.
With more certainty that affirming “Love Wins” leads to Universalism and denigrates doctrine.
With more digging-in-the-heels against fidelity with uncertainty (faithfulness without needing certainty in all areas of the faith).
Bell calls us to see beyond the trees we are comfortable with to the forest.
To move from certainty that particular trees are the Truth when there’s a whole dissonant forest out there.
Through the trees that you need one theological stance or another to be saved.
Through the trees that you need to do some action to be saved.
Through the trees that the people who die without even the opportunity to know Christ are damned.
These are all effective ways to spread the Gospel and turn people from sin, for sure. However, I don’t think that pre-scientific behavioral motivators masked as theology passes the test of time. But the love of God through Jesus Christ does endure, in many forms…some we haven’t even thought of yet.
Do we need doctrine? Beliefs? Certainty in the essentials of the Faith? Of course. Otherwise, we’re country club Methodists or Eddie Izzards’ rendition of the Anglican church. We need those for ourselves and for our groups. It’s our human story to create groups against other groups. It’s part of our human condition and I don’t think it is entirely wrong.
But when it comes to other people, whom we love to throw the book at? Let certainty go.
Maybe their fate isn’t as certain as you think it is.
Maybe their story isn’t as easy to read as you think it is.
Maybe God is working through them and to trust in the slow work of God is more faithful than rushing through reciting the Sinner’s Prayer.
Perhaps Love wins over certainty.
Love wins over narrow theology that ignores the biblical record.
Love wins over…certainty of who goes where when here is there.
Love wins when we embrace the one certainty that we can hang our hat on:
That God loves us through Jesus Christ.
That’s it.
How we define that love,
describe it,
claim it and quality/quantify it,
live it out in our own lives,
tell the story of God’s love…
those are what our denominations and doctrines are for,
human particularity reflecting divine universality.
Nothing wrong with that.
Until they become a weapon against others, a tool to break relationships and elevate ourselves.
To make an idol out of certainty.
Certainty loses.
Because Love wins.
This is what I took from Rob Bell. Not Universalism, that it doesn’t matter what you do, you’ll go to heaven. Not anti-Doctrine screed, that beliefs are bad. Not an embrace of Emergent Church in all its newness. Not anti-Neo-Calvinist boilerplate…although it does kneecap them a bit! Not lady jeans.
Rather, I took it as an affirmation of fidelity with uncertainty, that in the areas of my life outside of the promise of Jesus Christ (the basis of faith) where my certainty affects how I view people and things…those areas bear reflection, introspection, and consecration. For Bell, it might be hell. For an evangelical, it might be how unhelpful an unjust atonement theory might be. For a progressive, it might be the “so what?” why to follow Christ seemingly without consequences. Even passionate advocates for social issues might have to reflect on how they convey their certain passion. These stories bear examination because there might be something new.
Because God may be trying to tell me a new story that hadn’t coalesced for me before.
A story where Love wins.
≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡
Oh, back to the interview. What did I say?
It was something like this:
“I believe there is salvation in the church.
I believe the promise of Jesus Christ of eternal life is true.
It’s promised that being a disciple of Jesus Christ leads to heaven.
That’s the promise of God through Jesus Christ.
I believe in that promise, and I want to share that promise with every person I meet.
So there is salvation within the church.
Outside the church, I honestly don’t know.
God is sovereign.
God can save who God wants to save.
And I don’t feel like arguing with God about it.”
Silence.
A few deep breaths around the table.
Next question came up quickly.
Did Love win?
I don’t know.
But at the test of Fidelity with Uncertainty, it passed.
≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡
Thoughts?
Note: Yes, the style of this post is based on Rob Bell’s annoying one-sentence or one-word paragraphs. You are welcome.
(Photo Credit: |spoon| on Flickr)
hehe. I was going to ask but your note answered my question.
I’m through chapter 2 (heaven), and I think he’s not going far enough. Then again, my interview took place in a conference so liberal you can’t even find it on a Methodist map anymore (okay, that’s not the reason, but anyway).
Well done on the response. I’m glad to be reading it in hard copy because I like to physically underline and stuff, but I’m bummed to be so far behind the e-readers. I can’t wait to jump in on the conversation!
Becca
Fabulous post! And you do the Rob Bell style way better than he does 🙂
None of us can know for certain who is in and who is out. The forgiveness of Christ is available to all, and mere mortals cannot decide who is saved. The United Methodist Church needs to be more inclusive and less structured on mere human frailties.
Great post
Jeremy.
🙂
Thanks for the shout-out. And congrats on passing your boards! I may need a job one day 😛
Thanks for all of this Jeremy! I’m enjoying following it all as I get my own thoughts together. I’m thankful for your blog 🙂
We need to stop speaking (yelling at and/or damning others) for all the things we cannot know.
Stay blessed…john
I love you said with the interview question:
God is sovereign.
God can save who God wants to save.
And I don’t feel like arguing with God about it.
I have always felt that way when people ask about what happens to those who have never heard about Christ. I point to Paul’s teaching about being judged by what they know. God can save who he want to save.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I have not read Love Wins yet. I have read the rest of Rob’s books, and it is a relief to me that there are some rational, theologically sound reactions to this latest book.
best blog post for at least a week winner. kudos. just. . . .wow.
Hi Jeremy,
I was not a part of your interview process and do not know who was on your interview team for your Board of Ordained Ministry interviews. And it may be that I am misreading your tone, but it comes across to me as creating an unfair caricature of the atmosphere of BOM interviews in the Oklahoma Conference. I also went to a “non-Southern seminary” (Wesley Theological Seminary) and I never felt like the interviews were a witch hunt or an attempt to smoke out my secretly held beliefs (in fact, I remember people on the BOM saying the exact opposite of that at different points throughout the interview process). While I certainly would not have complained if the process had been shorter and less complicated, I felt like I was treated fairly and with respect throughout the process.
I apologize in advance if I am misreading your tone, but the beginning of your post comes across to me as sniping at the BOM now that you have made it through the process. I think your description bothers me because it is so one-sided and I doubt most people on your interview team who disagree with your description of the experience would think it was appropriate to directly respond to you in this post.
I am not sure what productive work these comments are doing, but I can see how they would raise someone’s anxiety about pursuing ordination in the denomination in which you have been ordained.
Kevin M. Watson
Kevin, thanks for taking the time to respond out of concern for my treatment of the Oklahoma BOM, of which your experience was a marked contrast.
I would agree it is an uncharitable caricature, but not unfair. Here’s why:
– My comment of “non-Southern” seminaries is in reference to me being asked questions directly related to “what they teach at BU.” A board member said that if I didn’t go to that school, I wouldn’t have been asked those questions. For example, they asked me about my beliefs as they are impacted by Boston Personalism, which I guess was all the rage back in the 60s-70s…but I honestly have very little exposure or knowledge of such a philosophy. Other candidates who attended non-Southern schools have similar stories, so I know I am not alone. I’d love to know if other candidates were asked seminary-based questions by persons who did not attend there (ie. Perkins alums on the board asking about what Abraham’s impact was on a candidate, etc, would be appropriate).
– I did not make a reference to “smoking out” hidden beliefs. Indeed, I didn’t indicate anywhere that I hid beliefs from the board. As well, the witchhunt reference was to what happened to Chad Holtz, who is in the news today…not to the BOM interviews. I wonder which would cause more “anxiety”: my post with an example of an exchange, or his story of being removed from ministry position because of a stated belief. I think the latter is more a damper on ministry ambitions than my cautionary tale that ends well. Wouldn’t you agree?
– Finally, I also have spoken publicly about my BOM experience, both at annual conference with clergy (strangers, not friends), within my walled garden of my facebook profile, AND here on this blog. This isn’t an example of biting that hand that fed me once I moved on, I’ve been critically hopeful the entire time. I haven’t spoken publicly about it since I passed them last Spring. Took some time to reflect on how I felt and what instances I would write publicly about. This is the first one since that time.
All that said, you are correct, however, that it is unfair that I can blog about my experience, and it is unlikely the people on the other side of the table would feel able to respond publicly. That’s unfortunate, but there are other candidates who are theologically at-odds with the BOM of their conference that have contacted me and I’ve told my story and offered advice for their journeys. I wouldn’t have been able to talk to them if I had been silent. And you can ask any person who I have counseled, I never tell them to hide beliefs or to lose their integrity.
I would posit that we had very different experiences, either because you are more theologically articulate than myself (highly possible), or because your theology matched your interviewing team better (less possible), or because you didn’t go to one of the stereotypically liberal schools (BU, Iliff, and Claremont get all the caucus-group whippings and the pastors who read and distribute those writings get colored glasses IMO). Whatever the case, I celebrate that we can both offer our stories and hopefully then we can dialog with people across the spectrum.
Thoughts?
Jeremy,
Thank you for your response to my comment.
I am not sure I see how comments that are admittedly an uncharitable caricature can be fair. I worry that such accounts reinforce the echo chamber effect of social media that I think I remember your blog has long been focused on trying to subvert.
It does seem that we have different perceptions of what the BOM was focused on in our interviews.
Blessings on your ministry.
@ Kevin, I have also been confronted by my DCOM because of going to BU. I was outed as an Ally and voted down for reasons of this stand and my BU education. This treatment of me was much less ethical and much less charitable than the BOM member’s treatment of Jeremy in this story. There are many people who bear wounds from the ordination process, and that’s not right. It’s not right that those who have been harmed are essentially gagged for fear of retribution. I am still in the process and cannot speak about what happened to me. The only hope I have for completion of this process is people like Jeremy, who can finally say something. Silence is what allows this behavior to continue, and the silence must be broken. Thank you, Jeremy, for speaking up in constructive ways.
Sigh….so 17th century. Consider entering the 21st Century by trying Secular Humanism on for size for a more sensible salvation here on Earth.
Namaste.
Jeremy,
Interesting post. I find Bell’s style much less annoying on you than on him.
I’m not sure the “Wesley was a universalist” claims from Wikipedia hold much water. If you read some of the sermons dated near the end of his life, there is not much indication of that. Quite the opposite. Not that this point is important in the overall post. Just being a Wesley nerd.
Not to nitpick, John, but the conversation about Wesley and Universalism is not a questionable claim from Wikipedia. The second post on that link pulls quotes from Wesley’s Explanatory Notes. While I also doubt he was, given his lack of a systematic theology and we are forced to use often-contradictory notes and journals to decipher his theology, I feel the claim of “John Wesley’s writings on the matter are mixed” is an appropriate one.
I’d have to go read the full context of the notes from the Notes on the NT before I’d be willing to move toward mixed. I’ve never read a word from his sermons, pamphlets, letters, or journals that makes me suspect he believed in anything other than old-fashioned eternal damnation.
I could be wrong. This is just my reading.