Below is the fourth segment of the interview I did with my dad on his new e-book Hell and Beyond. For background about the book and this interview, see my earlier post 'Introducing Hell and Beyond.' To read all the interview segments that have been published so far, click here. To download the entire interview as a pdf, click here. A Facebook plugin has been imported into the end of this and every other interview segment to facilitate a user-friendly discussion. We want to here from you, so please don't hesitate to leave your thoughts or further questions.
RP 14: You say in your
Preface that “we do not and cannot know what the afterlife holds.” You also say
that the goal of your “imaginative supposals” is to “guard against…imbalance
toward error”. But if we cannot know what the afterlife holds, how can we know
what constitutes imbalance or error?
MP 14: That was perhaps a poor way of
stating it. It was my way of highlighting what I emphasized in the previous
answer, that taking one or another firm and dogmatic stand on any
point
of doctrine upon which Scripture is ambiguous (the afterlife included) will
lead to imbalance and error. By “imagining” a variety of possibilities, keeping
open minds in many directions, we keep ourselves from such dogmatism. That was
the only point I was trying to make.
RP 15: Few people on
either side of the universalism/eternal torment debate would deny that there
are details about the afterlife on which Scripture is ambiguous. But
historically the church has also taught that some things about the afterlife
are very clear. Because of this, many readers may want to know whether your
statement that “taking one or another firm and dogmatic stand on any
point of doctrine upon which Scripture is ambiguous (the afterlife included)
will lead to imbalance and error”, includes your dogmatic insistence on
Scripture’s ambiguity concerning the afterlife. In other words, to be
consistent with your own criteria, are you willing to keep an open mind to the
fact that some things you consider to be ambiguous might not be so ambiguous?
MP 15: Absolutely…of course! There are
few things so thrilling to me as a new insight on some portion or verse or theme
or passage of Scripture that I had not considered before, new light cast from a
new direction. I am always open and eager for refreshing new and alternate
points of view—as long as they are consistent with the character of God and the
teaching of Jesus.
That is not a minor caveat. This
is THE determinative measure of truth. The character of God and the teaching of
Jesus are the undergirding rock (not two rocks, but a single Rock, Anchor, and
eternal Foundation) by which all truth (and thus all that I believe personally)
must be measured. Every idea that comes, every thought that is presented to my
senses, every doctrine, every possibility, every interpretation, I lay beside
the character of God and the teaching of Jesus. Then I ask, “Is there
consistency here? Is this idea, this possibility, this perspective, the interpretation
of this doctrine, consistent and in harmony with who God is and with what Jesus
said of him?”
When new light measured beside the character of God and the teaching of Jesus reveals that I have not seen something clearly, or perhaps even reveals that I have been blatantly in error, nothing is so easy for me as to admit that I am wrong. Most people have a hard time doing that. I don’t. I don’t mind admitting I am wrong. But I have to be shown evidence and sound scriptural reasoning (a very different thing than a list of proof-texts, which is often the methodology employed), not simply opinion.
When new light measured beside the character of God and the teaching of Jesus reveals that I have not seen something clearly, or perhaps even reveals that I have been blatantly in error, nothing is so easy for me as to admit that I am wrong. Most people have a hard time doing that. I don’t. I don’t mind admitting I am wrong. But I have to be shown evidence and sound scriptural reasoning (a very different thing than a list of proof-texts, which is often the methodology employed), not simply opinion.
The trouble is, most people
debate and discuss scriptural controversies on the basis of learned and
proof-textual opinion rather than true scriptural logic and evidence. Most
scriptural debate is not founded in
the character of God or the teaching of Jesus. Nor are most people adept at listening to scriptural logic and
evidence that does not conform to their predetermined conclusions. So what is
often presented as “non-ambiguity” and positive scriptural clarity and proof is
usually just one individual’s opinion on some matter they have not thought
through in much depth. They have been taught what they are supposed to believe, then they accept that teaching (which may
completely violate the character of God or the teaching of Jesus) as
unambiguous, unalterable, truth.
Your question thus contains a
hidden subtlety that strikes to the very heart of much scriptural debate, and
to the core of this issue we are discussing.
What is obvious, what is ambiguous,
what is true, what is false in Scripture is usually in the
opinionated eye of the beholder. More times than I can count, in trying to
discuss the afterlife in a reasoned and scriptural manner, those of a more
traditional perspective make statements such as, “The Bible clearly teaches…”
from which then follows a proof-textual regurgitation of the learned doctrine.
To such individuals there is no ambiguity about hell at all. The King James and
most Bibles say that sinners will go away into “everlasting punishment” and
that is enough for them.
When I bring up scriptural
“ambiguity” on the matter by referencing the Greek text of Matthew 25:46, for
example, trying to point out that the verse has been mistranslated, insisting
that we have to get at what Jesus really
said in order to understand his teaching and the character of the Father as he
came to reveal him, they think I am adding to Scripture and trying to read my
own opinion into the text. Even my attempts to understand Jesus’ teaching
accurately, and to know the character of God truly, are met with argumentation
and objection.
It is a very frustrating divide.
Objective conversation and dialog become almost impossible. If William Barclay
or an equally open-minded and objective Greek scholar were to tell me, “You are
not understanding this passage correctly. Where you are reading ambiguity there
really is none. This is what the verse implies in its Greek original,” I would
take that very seriously and then would rethink my previous perspectives. I
would happily abandon an inaccurate
interpretation in which I had been wrongly taught or which I had been reading
without sufficient light and knowledge.
But I don’t often encounter that. What I encounter more often are those
who are so closed-mindedly convinced that they are right as to have removed all
ambiguity from the scriptural landscape. My speaking of scriptural
“ambiguities” only proves to them how little I know the Bible. In most cases,
however, they haven’t studied these matters in much depth at all.
I don’t know…you tell me—how does
one engage in objective dialog in such a situation?
All I ask is for open-mindedness.
Then there can be a fruitful discussion. When I say to those of more
traditional perspective, “Lay aside your proof-texts and what you have been taught
and look at what the Bible has to say with objectivity,” I am willing and eager
to take that same medicine too. I expect the same standard for myself. I do not
depend on what I have been taught by others. I have searched the Scriptures for
myself, and continue to do so. I look at both sides. I will listen to any
logical, scriptural, non-proof-textual line of reasoning. If I insist on the
open-mindedness necessary to look at both sides of some particular scriptural
conundrum, it is because I am open-minded enough to look at both sides myself.
I am the most open-minded person I have ever met! That’s why, as I have often
said, I remain neutral about the ultimate outcome of God’s purposes in the
afterlife. I am open enough, and realistic enough to say, “I don’t know.”
Perhaps this eternal I don’t know represents the ultimate and
final ambiguity.
RP 16: I’m curious about your
statement that the character of God and the teaching of Jesus is “THE
determinative measure of truth” and that “by which all truth (and thus all that
I believe personally) must be measured.” Is it possible that you could be wrong
in your understanding of the character of God? If, as you argue, “what is obvious,
what is ambiguous, what is true, what is false in
Scripture is usually in the opinionated eye of the beholder”, then how are you
exempt from this limitation when dogmatizing on the character of God?
MP 16: I would hesitate making use of such a
black and white word as wrong. That
casts the whole discussion into the realm of debate—there is one right, one
wrong. I consider this to be an inaccurate and unproductive means of discussing
spiritual truth and a singularly ineffective
way to probe the depths of Scripture to get at more truth.
Turning every spiritual conundrum into a “debate” in
which one individual makes a point, another individual counters that point,
then comes yet another argument in favor of the first point—each more intent on
proving the other individual wrong than gaining fresh light—resembles an
intellectual tennis match. As the points of argument are fired back and forth,
the exercise becomes an intellectual contest, not a search for truth at all.
This methodology represents, in my “opinion,” one of the great blindnesses of
Christendom to the detriment of the gospel.
Spiritual growth is a process of learning, absorbing new information, exploring ideas,
and open-minded discussion. As this process continues, personal maturity, life
experience, steadily increasing insight and wisdom, and divine revelation are
all woven into a deepening understanding of who God is. We recognize that some
of what we once believed may not be as true as we once thought. We grow into
expanded new realms of insight. It’s not a tennis match of opposing ideas...it
is a journey.
That journey is ongoing.
It is never completed in this life. The growth, the weighing of ideas, the
exploration of new ideas and deeper insights, probing for fresh scriptural
revelations all continue.
Therefore, I would prefer not to speak of my being wrong about the character of God, nor
would I say that you are, or that anyone is. But neither would I say that I am
capable of seeing the character of God with 100% accurate truth. It is a
process of growing insight and expanding truth. I think I see the
character of God more accurately now than I did thirty years ago. I hope to see
it more clearly twenty years from now than I do today. I would not say that
that means I am wrong about many
things today, but that my insight and vision will remain hazy and obscure as
long as I am in this life. Hopefully they are coming into increasing focus with
every passing year.
All those who are seeking to know God aright should be
able to say the same thing. We all have insight to contribute to that journey.
I will be able to learn from others who see various aspects of God’s character
and plan more clearly than I do. That’s why I do not see such discussions as
these as intellectual sparring matches where each “side” is trying to score
debating “points” in a game where there is a clear winner and loser. I see them
as opportunities for me to learn and grow myself, as well as to share where my
growth thus far has brought me. Of course other men and women will be able to
contribute and add to my understanding where the clarity of my vision is
incomplete. I welcome such influences in my life and in the discussion of God’s
character! I anticipate them eagerly!
Does this mean that I am “wrong” in those areas where
my vision is incomplete and where others can add to my understanding? I suppose
I will leave that for your readers to decide. I question the accuracy of the
terminology, but I won’t argue the point. I would agree that my vision is
incomplete, that I continue to grow and study these matters, and that the
journey is an ongoing one.
To answer your question, I am not exempt from the same limitation you seem to feel I have placed
on others in the quest for truth. Certainly I am also a “beholder.” My own
opinions and perspectives on the truths of Scripture are in the eye of the
beholder too. That beholder is me! We are all on the quest for truth together.
I have a question for you. Where do you find me
“dogmatizing” on the character of God? Is it dogmatizing to insist that we come
to the Scriptures with an open mind? Is it dogmatizing to insist that all our
perspectives on the character of God must be rooted in his goodness, his love,
and his Fatherhood as Jesus explained his character to us, and revealed that
character through his own life? In Hell
and Beyond I am not trying to set up an alternate “dogma” but simply to
open hearts and minds to larger possible perspectives—my own heart and mind
(with my own limitations of understanding) included! Somehow the word dogma seems inappropriate to apply to
the general perspective of Hell and Beyond,
or to the emphasis on open-mindedness that I have been attempting to articulate
in this interview.
RP 17: I was referring to what you said in MP15, where you seemed to be setting up certain rigid absolutes as "THE determinative
measure of truth…by which all truth (and thus all that I believe personally)
must be measured.” Many may feel that this approach to hermeneutics simply
short-circuits the type of discussion you say you value, since all exegesis
becomes subsumed into what you have already determined in advance to be “the
undergirding rock” of “the character of God and the teaching of Jesus.” My own
personal concern is that this method might be akin to cutting off the branch of
the tree you are sitting on, for if we can’t say “there is one right, one
wrong”, then how can you assert (as you did in MP 15) that it was wrong to
“debate and discuss scriptural controversies on the basis of learned and
proof-textual opinion rather than… the character of God or the teaching of
Jesus”?
MP
17: Sometimes we
use words and phrases without fully considering their precise definitions and
implications. It may be that I should not have phrased it as “THE determinative
measure of truth by which ALL truth MUST be measured.” Those are
black-and-white, absolute terms that perhaps indeed conflict with my stated
perspective of a more fluid, growing, continually expanding approach to truth.
Your point is well taken. I accept the gentle rebuke of inconsistency.
And yet…does inconsistency exist here?
Perhaps I ought to clarify it
like this. I DO consider the character of God and the teaching of Jesus to be
THE determinative measure of truth by which ALL truth must be measured. I stand
by that. However, I do not believe I have ever claimed to grasp the
completeness of that truth myself in
its fullness. If I have, then I was wrong to do so and apologize. In other
words, I believe that those are the
measures of truth, but at the same time I believe that no one is fully capable
of apprehending the character of God nor the full truth of the teachings of
Jesus with 100% accuracy. Certainly I don’t. As I said, we are growing toward such understanding.
Your question seems to contain
the subtle implication that I think I
possess that truth to a greater extent than someone else. I’m not sure where
you find that in anything I’ve said. I am trying to point to a standard that is
higher than myself. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis’s famous
progression is based on the existence of a “higher standard” which no one fully
lives by. Lewis is the first to admit that he doesn’t live by the higher
standard either. I am using his logic and approach to examine the question of
what is our ultimate reference point for truth. I am simply trying to convey
what I feel is a straightforward principle: “I do not myself perceive truth
completely. You don’t. No one does. We are studying and thinking and discussing
and learning and growing toward an increase of truth all our lives. In that
quest, this must be our ultimate
reference point. This is the higher standard.”
I fail to see the inconsistency
in that approach and perspective. I admit that I do not see all, that I do not
understand all, and that I am eager to learn from the perspectives of others.
I’m not sure what dogmatism exists in that. It is a variation on exactly the
point Lewis made. There is a higher standard. We don’t live up to it. But we
mustn’t lose sight of it.
What I object to is setting up a different standard as THE determinative
measure of truth. Christians set up many alternate standards. Some set up
“church tradition” and the teachings of the church through history as the final
authority of truth. Some set up “what my pastor teaches” as their highest and
final authority. Many set up the “Scripture’s proof-textual interpretations” they
have been taught about the doctrines of Christianity as their final authority.
Others base their perspective of truth on “personal experience and revelation.”
Christians make these, and many others, their “higher standard.”
All these, however, in my opinion (yes, I will use that word of my
perspective in this case) are false gauges of ultimate truth and will
inevitably lead to error and mistaken interpretations both of the Bible and of
truth in general. They may be “standards” by which to gauge truth. Again to
borrow Lewis’s nomenclature, none of them can be the higher standard.
It is important that you hear me
clearly. I would never say that these are false guides in and of themselves.
They are only false criterions when they are relied on to reveal ultimate truth. I believe that much
truth has been revealed through church tradition. I value and honor the Quaker
tradition of my ancestors, and the evangelical tradition of my upbringing and
all the teaching I received through it. But I cannot rely on this, nor can any tradition be relied on as the ultimate and final word on truth.
Likewise, I believe that much
truth is revealed by the teachings of pastors and teachers and authors whom we
respect. But I cannot rely on the teaching I have received, not even from the
men whom I revere most highly, as the ultimate
and final word on truth.
I believe that much truth is
revealed in the interpretive doctrines of Christianity. In most respects I am
in complete agreement with the traditionally-held doctrines of our faith. But I
cannot rely on a series of doctrines, no matter how right they may seem to the
intellect of man, as the ultimate and
final word on truth.
And I believe that much truth is
revealed by personal experience and revelation. God has used all these means to
deepen and develop truth in my own walk with him, and continues to do so every
day. Yet personal experience will always be a limited and incomplete
revelation.
I do not look to any of these as
ultimate and final guides into the loftiest eternal truths of God. They must
all be interpreted through the higher
light shed upon them by the character of God. They are lesser lights. The
character of God and the teachings of Jesus are the greater Lights.
In my opinion, only the character of God and the teachings of Jesus represent that
highest authority by which we can study, investigate, grow in, and come to know
ultimate spiritual truth. I realize that others use different standards. I
happen to think that these are the final standards. I also recognize that I am
a flawed human being and that my perspective is still growing. Is it possible
in the light of eternity, when I am shown more, that I will see that my present
perspective is incomplete? Of course I recognize that.
In other words, my personal
inability to ascertain truth completely is built into the equation. In the same
way, Lewis’s flawed inability to live by the “higher standard” was intrinsic to
his argument. My growth as a flawed receptacle for truth is similarly built
into my argument. Nowhere have I said, nor would I dare say, “I know truth
completely.” But I do say, This is the
standard of truth which I am seeking every day to understand more completely.
If you perceive a rigid
absolutism in this statement, or feel that I am short-circuiting discussion by
such a perspective, I’m sorry but I fail to see it. I have emphasized with as
much force as I know how to give it, both here and in my other writings, my
urgent conviction that intellectual analysis and doctrinal dogmatism will not
and cannot lead to the highest truths of God nor provide an adequate foundation
for an obedient walk with God. After all I have said, however, what it seems
your question reduces to is that you find me open to the charge of being
dogmatic about not being dogmatic. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’s bewildered cry
(“Rejoinder to Dr. Pittinger”) when he said, “How many times does a man need to
say something before he is safe from the accusation of having said exactly the
opposite?” If there are those who truly find me being dogmatic about not being
dogmatic, I suppose in the final analysis nothing is left me but to say,
“Guilty as charged.”
I don’t think many readers will
find a “rigid absolutism” in Hell and
Beyond. Even late in the book where the fictionalized George MacDonald is
explaining many things to the book’s narrator, he is quick to admit that he
still does not know what will be the
final outcome of eternity. One of the features of rigid dogmatism, it seems to
me, is the conviction that one possesses all the answers about some given
question under consideration. This is the very opposite of my outlook. I know
that I do not possess all the
answers. This is actually one of the themes in the book that Paul Young and
others have pointed to as very important, underscoring the fact that I have NOT
tried to lay out a rigid absolutism about the future. Even having written a
fantasy such as I have about the other side, I have left room—both for myself
as the book’s author, and for readers—to say, “We don’t know.”
____________
Read my columns at the Charles Colson Center
Read my writings at Alfred the Great Society
To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.
Click Here to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment