In the last posting in this series (vii), I was working on Section III of the Draft, "Essentials of the Reformed Tradition," which is in the chapter on essential tenets. Where the draft states that "since the fall our natural tendency" is toward evil, apparently total and complete, I argued that it should drop "natural" and state merely that we have a tendency toward evil. Our God-given natural inclination, I argued, is toward goodness. Admittedly, our evil tendencies frequently (one might even say "habitually") and tragically overshadow our good inclinations. I particularly, however, objected to the sweeping claim in that section that humanity "prefers" evil. That is by no means uniformly and universally the case.
Reading on in the draft in that same section, we are told that the consequences of our rebellion against God are "everlasting death." Sin touches every part of human life (this is true, obviously), and what we take to be "natural" no longer "corresponds to God's will (true, but not entirely so). Our rebellion so stains us as to render us helpless. We depend on God's undeserved grace. The Draft marches on with such sentiments to the conclusion that, "In union with Christ through the power of the Spirit we are brought into right relation with the Father, who receives us as his adopted children." The crucial factor here is the identity of the "us". "We" are those who are united to Christ's humanity by the Holy Spirit in baptism in such away that Christ's victory over death is also "ours". In other words, baptized Christians are freed from the sentence of eternal death that hangs over the rest of humanity. Only "we" can become the adopted children of God, and Christ is the "only Way to this adoption."
This is one of the points on which evangelicals and progressives simply do not agree. Evangelicals tend to privilege a narrower reading of some parts of scripture and thus insist on an exclusive view of salvation. Only those who profess a a true faith in Christ and are baptized may be saved. Different evangelicals will draw the boundaries of salvation in somewhat different ways, but by-and-large those who call themselves evangelicals will agree that only Christians can be saved from eternal damnation. There are many of us outside of the fold, however, who read the same passages and stories that the evangelicals read, but we come to very different conclusions. As best as I can tell this is not really a matter that can be decided "reasonably." Each "side" finds the reasoning of the other flawed. We begin at different points in our thinking and inevitably arrive at different conclusions, and all too frequently we simply cannot honor the thinking of the other "side."
The thing that I find difficult as a progressive is that once I have stated that I do not believe that salvation is limited to Christians, the run-of-the-mill evangelical places me in the category of those who are beyond the pale of salvation. There seems to be no room for discussion let alone dialogue, which is not surprising because exclusivist thinking assumes a dualistic, black and white world view. One is either right or wrong. One is either on God's side or not. There are no gray areas. That is why still more evangelicals are planning to depart the PC(USA). The decision to no longer tie ordination to sexual orientation has for them placed the whole denomination beyond the pale. We are wrong on homosexuality, so dualist thinking runs, and therefore we are wrong. Period. We are faithless. Period. We dishonor God. Period. We "play games" with scripture. Period.
When I read the teachings of Christ, however, the God that I meet there is the one who takes our burdens on himself, who celebrates the return of the prodigal (without any hint of damning the prodigal if he doesn't "return"), and who has a heart for lepers, prostitutes, women, tax collectors, and other marginalized peoples. Jesus built bridges to others, witness the Samaritan woman at the well, rather than walls between people. The judgment Christ proclaimed in Matthew 25 doesn't divide us by religious persuasion but rather by our compassion for those in need. I understand that there are other passages that can be read in other ways, but as best as I can understand these things a non-dualistic, inclusive, universal reading of the New Testament is the one most faithful to Christ. As best I understand these things.
This is discouraging. I do not understand the mentality of those who hold to absolutism, exclusivism, and dualism. And it is clear that "they" don't understand the mentality of those of us who hold to non-dualism, pluralism, and relativism. Indeed, for each side the words that describe the other side are almost anathema. Understanding that I have been and still am part of the problem, I really do wish we could find a way to build bridges across these walls, but it is so rare that we do that I have little hope that it could actually happen—at least in PC(USA) in the next couple of years.
What is really sad is that instead of being an answer to the deep distrust rife in our nation today because of the culture wars we in the church are serious players in those wars. The whole church is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, which surely puts all of us—progressives as well as evangelicals—at odds with the superintending work of the Spirit, which works for reconciliation, healing, and renewal. Perhaps, however, we should take heart in Gabriel's statement to Mary when she objected that she couldn't birth a son because she was a virgin. Gabe reminded Mary that with God all things are possible—and maybe that even includes reconciliation, healing, and renewal among Christians of differing persuasions. Someday. One only wonders if we will wait until we have become a small, irrelevant remnant of a religion before that day, someday.
