Final Post on Signal group with Rob and Brian
Steve Chiara
MA in Christian Apologetics, Biola University
Summary
In this post, I will address the role of desire in theology. Second, I’ll discuss how fear shapes which ideas about God we’re even willing to entertain—and how it often leads us to just dismiss them wholesale, without any real examination. Next, based on what I've observed in this thread with regards to desire and fear, I'll explain why I agree with Rob that our conversation here has reached the point of diminishing returns with little more to offer any of us. I'll conclude by highlighting a different problematic doctrine that is very common in evangelical churches today. Penal substitutionary atonement theory (PSA) is considered by many to be the very heart of the gospel, but in fact it is a gross distortion that is seriously damaging to our understanding of God's heart and our relationship with Him.
Rob, I know you expressed your intention to leave the conversation and I, 100%, respect your wishes and agree that this thread has run its course. In relation to that, I want to share a little conversation I had with my oldest, Phynley, several days ago.
She was talking about how she's done with hamsters and has no desire to have another one for the rest of her life. I said it's because you listened to that YouTuber-hamster-advocate guy that said if you don't give your hamster a giant space, like a 30 gallon tote and fill it nearly full of bedding then you are a bad, terrible, cruel pet owner! After all, he argued, that more closely approximates the hamster's natural environment. I told her, "You could never even see your hamster because it was always lost in the bedding, and the hamster ended up not even knowing you and in fact was scared of you because you never even touched it. You sprinkled the food in with the bedding so it could 'forage' for it and the tote always stunk because you didn't have enough money to keep changing out all that bedding. You never enjoyed it in that situation and the hamster never enjoyed you. It would have been much better for both of you if you would have just left it in a smaller cage with much less bedding so you could see it playing on its wheel and running around the tubes and it would get to know you because it would be easy for you to find and handle it." She responded by giving me all these hamster facts and said I was "scientifically wrong."
Now, I don't give a flip about what the supposed science from that YouTuber said about "ethical" hamster care, I just know that a smaller cage with open air bars and much less bedding would be a lot more enjoyable for both her and the animal. Did I really want to get into it with her, do all the research, check her facts and find opposing science to counter the YouTuber's claims? Not at all... I am comfortable with my current beliefs about hamster care (even though, technically there is a small chance I could be wrong). I just got other stuff going on that is of much higher priority to me.
Rob, if what you got going on in your life is of higher priority, fulfilling to you, satisfies your soul, and gives you meaning and purpose, then pursue that and leave this topic, even though technically there's a "small chance you could be wrong," as unpragmatic and me as an annoying gadfly (hopefully with regards only to this topic, that is). But in the future, if I may, I'd like to exhort you to be direct with those you’re in dialogue with, and honest with yourself. There's no need for borderline ad hominems nor to pathologize your opponents' position... one might get the idea that you are at a complete loss for how to answer the argument. Either engage with the material presented or kindly bow out as a friend, which I still very much consider you to be (you've been enormously impactful in my life over the past 4 years).
My point is that, as is the case for many other things, there must be something you desire to be true before lending an ear to hear if it is in fact true. I very much did not want the 30 gallon hamster tote situation to be true and if I ever did research it, I would try my best to find facts that contradict the 'hamster advocate.'
We are led by our hearts. The facts will follow. As I see it, there are perhaps two possibilities here. One, you don't desire it to be true that God, in the end, will wind up saving everyone. There may be something about it you find very distasteful. I'm only guessing here, I'm not accusing, but perhaps you mistakenly view it as rendering all your evangelistic efforts—the entire purpose of your life?—as completely meaningless since your efforts ultimately have no effect on the bottom line (for God really is the sole hero). Maybe you're 'keeping score' at winning souls?
Fear
The second possiblity is that fear is involved (of course in reality it's more than likely a combination of both fear and desire). And this fear plays out in two ways.
First, Rob, as you've already stated, you may be 'afraid' that if people are truly freed from the fear of Hell they will "choose to live a lifestyle of sin because they think that they will be forgiven in the end and they will not be, [so] millions of people will choose that path and go to hell for eternity." Let's put aside for a moment that this idea assumes that living in the squalor of sin can legitimately be more attractive than the glory of God when both options are seen for what they really are (the options have to be understood accurately or the choice wouldn't really be free, right?). In any case, the fact remains that it is a really scary idea.
And Brian... you wrote, "Once you have been judged and enter into Hell, then [salvation] is no longer available... [that is] the TRUTH of judgment with an offer of redemption" (emphasis mine). You know what else it is? Absolutely terrifying! So, whether Pascal's concern is true or not... whether, Rob, you emphasize it in your evangelism or not... you cannot deny that to consider it as motivation for anything, IS motivation by fear.
The second way fear is involved is social rejection. As we've seen with me, to reject everlasting Hell, is to have your faith community reject you. In my own experience, I've been cast out of the 'Mighty Men of God' group, called a heretic by Jay, physically separated from my wife by a Christian counselor at Freedom, and been called "selfish" by one of the lead pastors at Freedom all because I wouldn't conform. Why mess around with this stuff, why entertain it for even a second when the penalty for doing so is so severe?
Diminished returns
My point is that whether you don't want it to be true or you're too afraid to believe it because of what the consequences are, it is pointless to continue our discussion until you are able to do two things.
First, see the beauty in apokatastasis and actually want it to be true... as God does; see 1 Timothy 2:4, "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Second, take a leap of faith and let go of the fear... the fear of what happens if you're wrong and the fear of being rejected by your faith community.
Conversely, for me to lend an ear to hear if everlasting torture in Hell is true—to be rooting for Hell as it were—I would first have to be persuaded that it is a good and beautiful thing. Something that I would want to believe. But, as it is, I find it to be the most revolting idea ever concocted by the human imagination.
In any case that's all I have to say about it. I am convinced that you both either don't want it to be true and so have no motive to investigate it or are entangled in fear of one kind or another and so are not objective in your considerations.
Not that I myself am pretending to be objective, for I certainly am not. That's the whole point of this current post. I very much want apokatastasis to be true, as both of you should, and again, as God does. That is why when presented with evidence you should have the attitude of, 'Okay let's try to make this work.' Give it every benefit of the doubt and after all your trying, investiging, historical digging, and fact checking, if it can't work, well then it can't work.
That is all I have to say about everlasting conscience torture in Hell for the time being. There is one other problematic issue I do want to bring to your awareness if you haven't already considered it.
Penal substitutionary atonement theory (PSA)
This doctrine, albeit a far cry from the horridness of ECT, is nonetheless a picture of God that I think the church needs to do away with for good and I'll just bet that both you and in fact everyone at Legacy believes it except for... 'a certain unnamed person.' This person told me directly that she does not hold to it. Maybe it's because she's formally trained and recognizes how damaging it is for relationships?
Here's what Jason Clark, host of the podcast, 'Rethinking God with Tacos' has to say about it:
"Take everything you believe about your relationship with God in a transcendent sense and apply it to your human relationships. Does it still fit? Does it still make sense? Let's try it using penal substitutionary atonement for an example.
Picture yourself as a child. You're the black sheep of the family. No matter how hard you try, you can't seem to get it right. Your siblings? They seem to follow your lead. They do all their own things. Dad is perpetually disappointed in you. He's never satisfied with anything you do and to make matters worse, he's got a serious anger problem... an unquenchable thirst for punitive justice. But there's one sibling, the golden child, the favorite... the one who can do no wrong, the apple of dad's eye.
One day, dad snaps. His rage can no longer be contained. Justice must be served. His wrath must be appeased. He looks at all the bad children. They owe him, they're guilty and they deserve punishment and just as dad prepares to unleash his fury, the golden child steps in and says, "I'll take it." The beloved sibling. And so dad turns to his favorite, his pride and joy and unloads his wrath. All of it. The rest of the children stand by in silence... stunned.
The dinner table that night was eerily quiet. Each child sits in heavy silence wrestling with guilt... now not just guilt over their own poor behavior but a deeper more harrowing guilt. They're now complicit in the punishment of the beloved. The weight of it presses down in their hearts. Can you imagine approaching this father with love and confidence now? Did this the solve the relationship problem in your family?
If you're honest there isn't a single person reading this story that wouldn't call the authorities to have these children removed from their tyrannical bloodthirsty father and yet this is precisely the story the western "gospel" often asks us to accept. Penal substitutionary atonement paints a picture of God as an angry wrathful father whose justice demands punishment. A punishment so severe that only the death of His son will suffice."
The guest host concludes by remarking, "Its outrageous that anyone could be comfortable peddling that across the pulpit every Sunday, yet you'd call the cops on any human being that acted in the same manner. It [just] doesn't work."
I would be beyond surprised if Jay Moeller didn't hold to PSA theory just as jealously as he does to ECT. So it's a wonder to me why he tolerates 'the unnamed person's' leadership, let alone her continued presence in the community. Perhaps he isn't aware of her position. Maybe one of you should make him aware of it, so he can handle that problem person too?
In any case, I just wanted to broach the subject of PSA. I am not open to defending the critique above. If you are interested in the topic, there are plenty of resources online. I’d say my understanding of the atonement aligns most closely with the Recapitulation Theory, the Moral Influence Theory, and the Christus Victor view (all far older than PSA). For more on how I see it, click below:
I will also say that PSA has always been flatly rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church since the view was first proposed in the 1500's by the reformers.
Okay, well it's been fun. God bless us all on our continued journeys. You're welcome to ask any clarifying questions or give any final remarks but, for me, this is pretty much it.
Comments
Post a Comment