Solving Your Eternal Problem
In my last post I referenced a discussion between D.A. Carson, John Piper and Tim Keller about the priority of the gospel message. John Piper says this:
I think—this is the way my old-fashioned fundamentalist, evangelistic Dad affected me—It’s very hard to give up on the gospel if you believe there is hell, that after this life, there is an endless suffering for those who did not believe in the gospel. And therefore, my take on the prioritization of these things is, as I say at Bethlehem, “We exist to relieve all suffering, especially eternal suffering.” And the “especially” there is a prioritization of time and intensity. If I succeed totally in relieving poverty in this age, and didn’t solve the eternal problem, I would prove in the end to be absolutely unloving and un-Christ-like. (emphasis mine)
What do you think about this?
Do you think it is up to you to solve someone’s “eternal problem”? Or do you believe God, in Christ, has already done that? Is God’s fundamental posture towards a person one of wrath until you or I convince them of our message or is God’s posture towards a person already something different (see 2 Cor. 5:18-19)?
Who is ultimately responsible for solving your “eternal problem”?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
What is funny is that Jesus would likely fail Piper’s test. Jesus spent most of his time healing the suffering in the present. And one could make the argument that under Piper’s guise, Jesus completely failed in all regard until he was 30.
I think humanity is captivated by a lie that it is fundamentally evil because we produce destructive actions. The question is God’s response. We assume for God based upon our own response, which projects as wrath. The cross re-established our value but it has to be received in order to be experienced. So its true in a cosmic sense, but no yet in a local sense.
Jonathan,
I agree.
I can’t find a single NT example of someone showing compassion to others as a means to an end (i.e. as a way to get the the really important matter of converting them). Nor can I find examples of preachers in the NT warning of an eternity in hell if they do not believe their message. One would think, given the significant priority Piper et. al. give to “solving the eternal problem” that we would find similar priority for the same in the Bible. I just don’t see it.
What’s fundamentally wrong in Piper’s statement is his understanding of salvation as being about where we spend eternity but not our horizontal relationships. I appreciated David Fitch’s comments in this regard. He said:
“… salvation – to paraphrase N T Wright – is the working of God in the world to make all things right. In Jesus Christ, God is fulfilling his promise to the world – in the covenant of Israel – to make all things right. This is the work God has begun in Jesus Christ, of reconciling the whole world to Himself (2 Cor 5:17-22). This salvation is inextricable from the sacrificial atonement in Christ to bring us into a justified relationship with God thru Jesus Christ. But this new relationship with God is inextrricable from the horizontal reconciliation God is working every where in the world. The personal and social are so inseparable that to even talk as if they are two (like I just did) is to do violence to God’s work. We move therefore from asking people “have you made a decision to accept Christ as your personal Lord and savior?” to inviting others to join us in entering the salvation begun in Jesus Christ that God is working for the sake of the whole world. This to me is what it looks like to be saved within the Mission of God. This includes, and cannot be brought to fruition, apart from a conversion to the dying with Christ and resurrection with Him into the new life with Christ.”
http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/missional-soteriology-does-the-missional-vision-change-how-people-get-saved/
Reading Piper’s comment, it seems he almost has a kind of nostalgia for the PST of Atonement. While this too is a part of our Scriptural heritage, you’re right that if you look at the whole depiction of Jesus in the Gospels, Piper is at best distorting the proportion and balance necessary in our views of atonement, compassion, healing and salvation.
That being said, what I think he is grasping for however clumsily, is how to honor the urgency and consequential nature of the Gospel itself. Those of us who try to strike a more balanced or comprehensive understanding of the Gospel and Salvation cannot avoid that urgent tone present in Scripture regardless if we feel it to be enigmatic, problematic or something else altogether. How we make sense of it will in large part determine what evangelism means to us and how we live it out in our communities.
Very well said, Joe!
I am so glad I have been freed from the burden of responsibility to solve others’ eternal problem. It was horrible living that way.
Josh,
I like what Wright says about the scope of salvation as well, even though I don’t think he goes far enough
A definition of evangelism I love is by Stanley Hauerwas which is, “An invitation to switch stories.”
JMorrow,
Well said.
Makeesha,
Ditto.
“An invitation to switch stories.”
Great definition! Reminds me of a message Don Miller gave at a Willow Creek conference in Kelowna a couple years ago (“Let Story Guide You”). One of the best I ever heard.
That sounds like the same sermon he gave at Mars Hill titled “Story.” I agree it was great. His last book builds on that theme and is worth the read.
I have an audio file of that same message he gave at Willow Creek Church itself. Here is a link for all who who would like to download and listen to it (it’s funny, insightful, moving, and well worth the time!):
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bxlud-WJse8fZmJmMmI3YmMtYzY0ZC00ODIwLTg3ZjctYTczMzcxNzg2MmQ4&hl=en
Chad,
Good quote, I also like this one from Stanley’s old partner in crime, Willimon:
“Evangelism is a gracious, unmanageable, messy by-product of the intrusions of God.”
There’s just enough words in that sentence to make essentially everyone uncomfortable.
But at the same time, offer us the freedom to take risks that comes with knowing the process of salvation for the creation is not all on us.
Josh, I’ll definitely check out that link.
I love Willimon. On this blog I have some break downs of a book he wrote that I think everyone should read: Who Will Be Saved?
If you haven’t read it, drop everything and get it.
I think the greatest witness we can have is when, as an act or signpost of new creation, we undo the effects of evil in our world. As Jonathan pointed out, that is more consistant with the approach of Jesus. Now, I do believe that there is a huge emphasis that should also be made on proclamation of the gospel… but this should be as a result of people being captivated by the movement of the kingdom.
Also, I do not believe in eternal torment, so I guess that may affect me a bit. I do however believe that it is impossible to become the fully human image bearer that we were created to be without embracing the faithful action of God in Christ. So, my motivation is different than the reformed line, but I still think that people need to enter into relationship with Jesus and experience the presence of the Holy Spirit.
It should however not be Focus ‘here’ and do all that other stuff when it is convenient. In other words, the gospel of the kingdom does not consist of a greater (saving souls) and a lesser (justice, ecology, etc). It is a both and that inter-mingle and blend in fascinating and mysterious ways. I say we embrace the paradox!
Kurt,
Amen on all counts. For those of us who do not believe in eternal torment, the question of solving one’s eternal problem becomes an exercise in missing the point, I think. How much time and energy do we spend trying to fix something God already fixed?