Emerging Africa

This is indeed one of the burning questions of emerging theology and relates to everything from how we read the bible, to the notion of the afterlife (and cosmology in general), to evangelism and relations with other faiths, and ultimately to grace and the very nature of God.

But I would prefer to rephrase your question. It is, for me, not so much whether there is a judgement or not (or for that matter a hell) but rather what kind of judgement and what kind of judge? Penal substitution has generally assumed retributive justice and therefore a wrathful judge. But considering the whole witness of Scripture that just doesn't sound right to me.

Jesus is the true revelation of God, and what he reveals is a merciful and compassionate judge who administers restorative justice. Grace is freely given - not cheap or easy, but free. And repentance and conversion are not the condition of God's mercy but rather the fruit.

The 'old school evangelical' approach (generally) reduces the whole gospel to a simple and free choice we have regarding personal salvation. I believe it is a whole lot more than that (the reconciliation and restoration of all things) and that repentance (changing direction, a new way of thinking) is a response to Christ's life, death and resurrection, not a personal choice that suddenly makes it operative in my life and flips a switch from death to life. Especially if death and life refer to an alternate, spiritual reality that entail either eternal punishment in a fiery pit or eternal bliss in the clouds when biological life has ceased.

Therefore I would say that old school evangelism is not so much completely wrong, as a simplified half-truth. And when you make a half-truth the whole truth you sometimes end up with no truth (Johan Heyns said that about apartheid theology). Added to the reductionism is a whole lot of Hellenistic thinking that has given us a seriously wonky idea about the nature of reality (dualistic, idealistic and static) and therefore the afterlife.

So don't stop proclaiming judgement, but let it be the good news that through Christ's work creation has been and is continually being restored (being made just) - and that we have the privilege of becoming part of that movement and taking our rightful place as co-creators with God.

Stray
Good discussion ... are you feeling that Judgement is becoming clouded by others emergent trends such as Inclusion?

For me, judgement is foundational, a la Hebrews 1 : "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of ... eternal judgment." In all we do we need to be mindful that every deed is known, and every deed will come to light: consciousness is imperishable.

However where christian orthodoxy tends to err is being unable to tell apart God as just, and God as punative. It creates a punative God in its own image.

Futher, there are mulitple translation problems with words such as "eternal", "hell", and "damnation", that need to be thoroughly addressed if we are going to come to any clarity.

This debate revolves around the attributes of God, especially Gods justice and Gods mercy. A punative mindset leads to one reading and a merciful mindset, another.

For me, Thomas Talbott is the guy who gets the deepest into this mystery when he says in his book "The Inescapable Love of God", (see my review)

“his mercy demands everything his justice demands, and his justice permits everything his mercy permits. According to the alternative picture, in other words, ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’ are but two different names for God’s one and only moral attribute, namely his love”.

"Mercy triumphs over judgment!" [James 2]

Stray,

I believe that God's grace is central, but our preaching may vary in terms of emphasis. Good old Edward's and the Revival to follow is often thought of only in terms of the hellfire side but he preached both - and people responded to their sin and God's grace. I have no doubt he preached the gospel - and one accompanied by God's renewing work in the lives of many. Personally I focus on God's reign and seek God's accompanying works whenever I preach (for a true gospel includes both).

Now, I'm neither a revivalist nor a Puritan and don't subscribe to the preaching of the gospel as being centrally about sin, eternal conscious torture, and a free pass through right doctrine. For me this is a mixed message, confusing the one for the other.

This does not mean, however, that I ignore the fact that Jesus did warn the religious leaders about God's judgement or the apostles recognition that He, Jesus, is the Judge who will come again at the appointed time. This same Jesus will raise everyone from the dead, judge us according to our works, and then cast those whose names are not found in the lambs book of life into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. We can't get around that statement nor should we try to - and for me that's a meshed message where one comes along with the other despite where our emphasis should lie.

These are some excellent thoughts, thanks guys!

Restorative justice? Now there's a very interesting way of putting it.

But Marius doesn't it start becoming a little cloudy when we want to tell people whether they are "in" or "out" - I'm referring specifically to this statement:

that repentance (changing direction, a new way of thinking) is a response to Christ's life, death and resurrection, not a personal choice that suddenly makes it operative in my life and flips a switch from death to life. Especially if death and life refer to an alternate, spiritual reality that entail either eternal punishment in a fiery pit or eternal bliss in the clouds when biological life has ceased.

Now, I know if I talk of who's in and who's out I'm making this into a form of exclusivity I don't like either (us vs. them) but the point is that when people commit their lives to coming on board, what happens when they get sidetracked and get involved with other things? What I'm getting at is how anyone has any 'assurance of salvation'. The idea that making the choice to believe in Christ flips the switch into a new life gives assurance that you are now adopted - and adoption won't be reversed (it can't). I'm now in and no one can snatch me from His hand.

Also, how do we talk about the afterlife which , although made the big deal in past times (like Steve's post suggests), is nevertheless important - especially when it comes to having hope.

Taking restorative justice into account, would you be saying that God sends people to hell as a means of restoring all things? Or that he intends for hell to restore those people? (The latter is what I expect Nic will agree with).

In line of that, we have to properly define words like "damnation" and "eternal" and "hell" etc. as Nic says. The meaning of those words will largely depend on how we see God's justice and judgement, perhaps - although I must admit making the point of what kind of God is judging is a very important point.

My post is sparked off largely from debates with atheists. I admit atheists are a particularly hard kind, but if I was going to answer for them I may say a few things with regards to this discussion.

So God gives me an opportunity to work with Him in restoring all things? Well, why should I care? So what? I can do that without believing in Jesus.

What does God want from me? Do good things to people? Well, I do that every day, so that means I'm okay! What is he really going to punish for? For not believing in Him? Why? What do I need to believe in Him FOR? What do I need to put faith in Him FOR?

Of course, I don't think we should change the message because of a couple of hard-ass atheists. BUT, at the same time, they often have good points that always get me thinking. What is it that makes Jesus so important that we need to believe and place our trust in Him for?

www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus