Salvation as a Human Right? (pt 3 of 3)

(Continued from Part 2)       (Or you can start with Part 1)

If looking at salvation as a human right can be seen as valid, then the question is whether it is useful. What, if anything, can be gained from this perspective. Here are a few VERY TENTATIVE suggestions.

  1. It firmly places salvation within a community. It has been common for Christians, especially Evangelical Protestant Christians to focus on the individualistic aspect of salvation. That is quite valid, but the Bible expresses salvation in both individualistic and communitarian terms. In this sense it is more like the public health perspective. Lostness in an individual is a social ill, a failure for the individual members to flourish to their potentials.

  2. Lostness would be seen as a problem. If condemnation is getting what one deserves, then one might argue that condemnation is not really a problem. If salvation is a human right, then lostness is a problem that must be addressed.

  3. It does condemn community complicity in lostness. The public health perspective, or the disease model, is often seen avoiding judgment. This is especially true in the United States, but also true in places like here in the Philippines. When we label a social ill as a disease, many people decry that saying that pulls it out of ethical scrutiny. There is nothing inherent to that, of course. To call addiction a disease does not remove moral issues or judgment from it. Still, the public health perspective does tend to downplay the ethical. Identifying hunger as a public health problem certainly does get people thinking about what can be done to solve the problem. However, if one says that it is a human right for each person to have enough food daily to live, then there is a more clear condemnation of any society that accepts the condition where some people in the society do not have enough food to eat, while there is overall enough food to go around. Likewise, if salvation is a “public health” problem, then it is a problem that must be rooted out and addressed. On the other hand, if salvation is a basic human right, then the community that makes salvation unavailable, through inaction or through making salvation appear undesirable, is held accountable for this. It other words, embracing an ancient metaphor, if the church holds the “keys to the kingdom,” then if people find the door locked, then the church is culpable.

  4. Seeing salvation as a human rights issue balances the focus between God and Mankind. In the criminal justice perspective, God is the standard, the judge, the mediator, and the provider of salvation. This is not wrong. With the public health perspective, salvation is seen as a more human activity. It is a disease that must be rooted out, from causes, the hindrances, to opportunities, and then to holistic transformation and flourishing. God is there, but the human aspect is given greater attention. This is not inappropriate. However, the human rights perspective draws from both. It takes seriously our humanity and communal responsibility for making salvation available, and living out our salvation. However, salvation as a human right only has real meaning if understood as instituted by God.

So is one perspective right and the others wrong? There is great benefit to intersubjectivity or multi-perspectival understanding. Each overcomes the weakness of the other, giving a fuller understanding of what is real– God’s activity for us.

Advertisements

Salvation as a Human Right? (pt 2 of 3)

(Continuation from Part One)

In Evangelical circles, at least, salvation has been classically framed in a CRIMINAL JUSTICE model. We are all sinners, guilty before God, the judge. Salvation is only available through the payment of the judgment against us… that price was paid by Jesus. This is a perfectly fine way of looking at salvation, but of course, it is just a way of looking at it. It is a perspective that does not actually change salvation, just how it is acted upon. This view comes off more individualistic. Also, from a community perspective, the responsibility appears a bit muted since it is seen as primarily a contract between the person and God. Ultimately, however, if someone dies unsaved, it can be interpreted as “getting what he deserved.”

Another perspective a consideration of salvation is through the lens of PUBLIC HEALTH. This main seem odd at first, and yet not only is this perspective with us, it is quite strong. An early adopter of this view in the 20th century was Medical Ambassadors with the development of CHE or Community Health Evangelism. The view is that evangelism needs to have a perspective that is broader than simply a “get out of jail free card.” In fact, a more holistic approach is needed, with the understanding that salvation is meant to be transformative. The concept of Shalom as a condition of spiritual, physical, mental, and social well-being is emphasized.

But what about salvation as a HUMAN RIGHT? From the criminal justice perspective, or metaphor, such a statement appears to be ridiculous. After all, would it not be accurate to say that all humans are deserving of condemnation rather than salvation. This is the basic message of the first two verses of the Romans Road (Romans 3:23; 6:23). However, a perspective is merely that— a way of viewing something. This does not affect the thing itself. As such, all that is really needed is to establish that the perspective has validity, and that it is useful.

Could it be valid to say that salvation is a human right? Since salvation is from God, the concept of a “human right” in this case must clearly come from God. So what might God have revealed that would support the idea that salvation is a human right?

  • Much of Biblical Anthropology is established in the first three chapters of Genesis. According to this section, mankind (male and female) were created by God in His image. There has been a lot of ink used to argue what to make of mankind being created in God’s image, some of which is non-sensical. However, less controversial would be that mankind was a good and intentioal creation of God, that mankind was intended to have a unique yet harmonious position in the created realm, and mankind was meant to have a unique and harmonius relationship with God. In other words, mankind was created to live in a state of salvation— or in a sense to never need saving because the relationship was not broken in the first place.

  • The rest of the Bible maintains the intertwined threads of righteousness (right relationship with God) and salvation (the process to have that right relationship). One can go to one of the most oft memorized verses in the Bible, John 3:16, to see the follow-on to Genesis (and foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15). God’s love of the cosmos (mankind) compels Him to act so that salvation, restoration of harmony, between God, mankind, and the rest of creation can be available to all.

Now if you bring these together, the result is that God created mankind (each person) to live in a “saved state” and with mankind’s failure/fall, has acted for all, to make that state possible.

I think that it would make it valid to say that salvation (or living in a state of “savedness”) is a human right. For one not to be saved is genuine failure to possess whatever is actually their right. This doesn’t cancel out the criminal justice or public health perspectives, but provides another complementary view.

(I am well aware that there are those of the Limited Atonement camp that would argue against both of my above points. In the end for them, God has created some for salvation and some for condemnation. As such, one could neither view salvation as a human right, nor Christ’s sacrifice as their gift of love from God. However, the Biblical and Theological challenges with that perspective appear to me to outweight the interpretive ease it provides for a relatively few verses. For me I have to view it as a sub-biblical perspective.)

(Continued in Part 3)

Salvation as a Human Right? (pt 1 of 3)

I have been reading the essay, “Women Confronting State-Instigated Violence” by Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana. This is not normally the type of writing I would be reading, but it was part of a book that was gifted to me by Father Terry from Aglipay Central Theological Seminary. The book is a collection of essays and poems of female theologians in the Philippines. So far it is an interesting read. The writer of this particular essay noted three fairly rapid transitions that have occurred in looking at an addressing Violence Against Women (VAW).

One phase goes back a few decades, particularly the 1970s, where VAW was seen in terms of CRIMINAL JUSTICE. To address concerns regarding violence against women, laws had to be changed, and the way existing laws are interpreted or applied also had to change. In the early 1990s there was a transition towards seeing things as a PUBLIC HEALTH issue. Violence is a symptom of an overall sociological sickness that needs to be addressed much like many other illnesses. One can’t simply punish or quarantine those who act violently, one must root what causes violence and creates the environment where such violence flourishes. In other words, one must discover and cause of the contagion, and eradicate the supporting environment and carriers.

By the mid-1990s, things had changed further and there was a growth of seeing violence in terms of HUMAN RIGHTS. The way women are to be treated is not simply a matter of legal violation, culturo-social malady, but is a supracultural violation of what should be expected based on, well, being human.

I have known some Christians who balk at this term “human rights,” noting that such rights are generally agreed upon by mutual consent, rather than based on anything indubitable. In a sense this is obvious, but such a statement is not particularly useful. Of course— we are born without warning labels, warrantees, or operating manuals. As such, we have three choices. One choice is to say that since we come with no contractual obligations, we can act however we want. People can be bought and sold as chattel, tortured or blessed at the whim of those who who have the power to have their wills acted out. If that choice is undesirable (and I certainly think it is) another option would be as a people to agree that there are certain inalienable rights. Perhaps these can be seen as derived from natural law, or perhaps they can be seen as drawn from cultural values. Either way, it is a human-based agreement. A third option is to see human rights coming from God. With this view, human rights exist because God seesthem existing supraculturally, and has then made them known to us through divine or special revelation.

For Christians, such revelation would be seen, primarily, as the Bible. The Bible says that certain behaviors are right and certain are wrong. They can be seen in terms of Law— matter of keeping the law or breaking it. Another way would be to look at them as sociologically healthy (“It is not just the law, it is a good idea,” societally.) But it can also be seen a a statement of basic rights. We have a basic right to not be murdered, to not be stolen from, to be trained up in a nurturing family and community. Anything less than this is a violation of the rights that we have as revealed by God.

These three perspectives do not change reality. Rather they change perception. VAW exists and that existence is unaffected by how it is viewed. However, a different view can lead to a different response.

So I was thinking about these three views as it relates to Salvation— a strange thing to think about, I grant you. I wondered how salvation may be seen in terms of Criminal Jusitice, Public Health, and Human Rights.

Continued in the next post

Loving Thy Neighbor in a Different Culture

Read two things recently regarding Christian ministry in Buddhist countries. One was an interview one of my students had with a devout Buddhist from his own country. This person was fairly familiar with basic Christian doctrines and many of the differences between Christianity and Buddhism. When my student asked her about what she thought about Christianity, she said that she thought TWO things.

She said the first thing was positive. She noted that Christians she knew tended to be kind. They helped people, and (working in the hospital as she does) she is impressed with how they demonstrate loving concern to fellow Christians, as well as to non-Christians. (I wish all Christians had such an outsider’s testimony.)

She said the second thing was negative. She noted that Christians acted like foreigners where she lives. They dress in foreign clothes. They listen to foreign music. They celebrate foreign holidays, and show little interest in local festivities or cultural values. They tend to look and act like the foreign missionaries who were or are among them, and like the colonizers who have now left.

 

Foreign and Friendly

In looking at the chart above, they would be in the Yellow Zone. The Christians in that region are F-F (Foreign but Friendly). That is not the worst place to be. Still, to this woman, to become a Christian, one needs to reject a lot of one’s cherished culture.

Figure 3.jpg

This is not a trivial thing. Going back to the “Human Trinity,” (as shown in the figure above) one aspect of our own personhood is our cultural identity. Becoming a Christian is supposed to be transformative, but it is not meant to “gut” our cultural identity— and certainly not by replacing one local identity with a different, foreign, cultural identity.

If one considers the Divine mandate that one should love one’s neighbor as oneself, certainly two aspects of such love are Kindness, and Cultural Respect. Jesus explained the love of one’s neighbor with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It showed such love as being expressed through human kindness that transcended cultural differences. Paul expressed love in terms of tearing down of cultural barriers as well, but the idea wasn’t via one culture subsuming another, but that cultures would be respected an honored. Paul would be a Greek to the Greeks and a Jew to the Jews. The church was wide open to all peoples regardless of their culture, and respecting of their cultures.

So to love one’s neighbor in a different culture, demonstration of kindness is needed but so is contextualization/cultural respect and localization. Sadly, sometimes we can’t even get the first half right. I was reading an article about barriers to evangelism in a different Buddhist country. One of the barriers was aggressive evangelism. One might wonder on this point. We usually assume that evangelism is a good thing and so a barrier is a lack of evangelism. However, often the methods of so-call evangelism are very much “in-your-face” aggressive and argumentative. In many countries arguing is disrespectful— especially so if done with someone older. I recall listening to American short-term missionaries visiting my city here in the Philippines and hearing a very aggressive and noisy presentation of the gospel. One I recall especially well– a young woman screaming (not trying to be sexist here… “screaming” is the correct term) at a man perhaps 20 years older than herself, “YOU MUST BE SAVED!!!!    YOU MUST BE SAVED!!!!!” Of course, he doesn’t HAVE to be saved— and I suspect that “he did not feel the love” from the experience. Reading FB posts from Christians (often Christian friends of mine, frankly) I find it strange how angry, argumentative, and just plain unnice so many of the posts are. FB is hardly a private chatroom with people who agree with everything one says. It is a public forum. Why in the world make people happy that they have nothing to do with your God?

Anyway, if one wishes to share Christ effectively in a different culture… it should be L-F (local and friendly), rather than foreign and unfriendly (F-U). Other options are in-between but still failing on some level to express true love of neighbor.

Dreaming Small in a “post-Christendom” World

I am reading through the dissertation of one of my students when I was struck by a quote. She quoted Ed Stetzer who was in turn quoting Douglas John Hall.

“Our Lord’s metaphors for his community of witness were all of them modest ones: a little salt, a little yeast, a little light. Christendom tried to be great, large, magnificent. It thought itself the object of God’s expansive grace; it forgot the meaning of its election to worldly responsibility.”

(Ed Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 15)

This quote reminds me of one of my favorite posts, “Dream SMALL!!!” Feel free to read it HERE.

The context of the above quote is that of three eras of church history, as suggested by Alan Kreider (also referenced by my student):

  • pre-Christendom EraImage result for small
  • Christendom Era
  • post-Christendom Era

The pre-Christendom era began to end with Emperor Constantine (circa 311AD). The Christendom era began to disolve between the two World Wars. In Christendom, the Church and State are strongly linked.

I am a citizen of the United States and I minister in the Philippines. The Philippines is a product of Christendom. The archipelago was made up of many different peoples who did not have common identity until Spain came with a cross in one hand and a sword in the other. The first 300 years of its collective identity found Church and State strongly linked together. Since then the Philippine identity has been more complicated.

The United States has been complicated from the very beginning. I have many friends back home that will loudly declare that the United States “is a Christian nation.” They argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and has some unique link between the Christian faith and the governance and identity of the US. I also have friends that make a nearly opposite claim— that the United States is the first “secular state.” The US governance radically separated ecclesiastical power from civil power, and absolutely rejected the notion of a “state religion.” Both views have strong support (as well as weak aspects). Probably a more accurate statement than either is that “The United States was the first post-Christendom nation.” The governance of the US was not founded on rejection of Christianity. On the other hand, it was seeking to break free from the strong link between church and state found in Europe. It was post-Christendom.

That is not to say that everyone was comfortable with that back then, or now. I am a Baptist missionary. I find it interesting that the Protestant Reformation was a challenge to (Catholic) Christendom in Western Europe. The Baptists, Anabaptists, and other Dissenter groups challenged the Westphalian Christendom accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. Despite this double-strength rejection of Christendom, Baptists are likely as any other group to struggle with understanding the Christian faith in post-Christendom terms.

We like “Big Dream” metaphors:. War (“Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War), Victory, and “Civilization.”

But the metaphors of pre-Christendom are small— As noted by Hall above, Jesus utilized yeast, salt, and light to describe Kingdom of God. That is interesting since the term “Kingdom” sounds big and much in tune with the thoughts of Christendom. Yet, Jesus makes it clear that the Kingdom is small— it is here and not here— it is inside of us… it is a bit of yeast worked into dough, a tiny seed hidden in the soil. It is a small grapevine in a big vineyard. Paul’s metaphors are not any bigger. The church is as a human body, or as a family.

In post-Christendom we can disengage our faith from our culture. We are not stressed out whether our government is passing laws that make our faith practice more comfortable or less comfortable. We are not concerned whether geopolitics appears to be working in our (however we define “our”) favor vice anothers’. We can be that bit of salt, light, and yeast used by God to transform bit by bit where we are.

Our language is not “Winning the world for Christ,” but being a witness of God’s grace to my neighbor and being an agent of transformation in my community. As I noted in the other post, “Dream SMALL!!!,” the Great Commission is actually pretty small— share your faith with someone, bring them into the church body, disciple them to be faithful followers of Christ, and repeat. It’s success is in its smallness— a perfect process for the post-Christendom world.

Seven Things Evangelicals Say to Atheists and Why They Shouldn’t Say Them

This is a redirect to a great post by Bruce Gerenscer. He was an Evangelical Pastor for decades, but left the church and faith in God some time back. He now writes from an Atheistic/Humanistic perspective that has been informed by his Evangelical Christian background.  The article can be found by clicking here.  SEVEN THINGS EVANGELICALS SAY TO ATHEISTS AND WHY THEY SHOULDN’T SAY THEM.

I would definitely recommend people reading his posts. They are well-written and well-thought out. You may ask why, as a Christian, I would recommend reading one who has “left the fold,” so to speak. But his perspective is priceless. He has that etic (outsider) and emic (insider) perspective of Evangelical Christianity that Christians need. We need to look hard at ourselves sometimes.  (American Evangelical obsession with rather creepy politics of late certainly deserves some informed critique.)

Many Christians seem to have a lot ofImage result for atheism trouble with Atheists. I am not entirely sure why. As a committed Christian, one should be far more concerned by people who call themselves Christians but who live in a manner that mocks what we claim to believe. Here in the Philippines, I have heard atheists/freethinkers say that people here think they are Satanists. While some Satanists are Atheists (rejecting an actual Satan or God, but embracing a Satanic “philosophy of living”) the labeling has no value but to insult and drive (further) away.

I had an uncle much like Mr. Genescer above. He was a devout Christian who went to Bible School, but later became an Atheist. At a funeral of my grandmother, the pastor who was speaking started giving all sorts of “scientific” reasons for believing in God. While I do believe that there is a good reasoned basis for supporting Intelligent Design, this pastor knew none of that. Rather, his mini-sermon showed how little he knew about Science. I was rather embarrassed by it. My uncle never mentioned how stupid the arguments were (perhaps he expected nothing better than that anyway). However, believing that the message was targeting him, he felt that it was highly inappropriate for a funeral. I have say he was correct on both counts— I am sure he was being targeted, and it was highly inappropriate.

Sometimes we need to see an outside perspective to see what we should really be able to see.

Another good article of his is on the similarity between Multi-level Marketing (MLM) and many Evangelistic Programs.  It is HERE.