On Being “Saved”

This Musing consists of three parts. Part 1, written by me (Harold Heie), reflects on my “conversion” experience at age 13, and my subsequent thoughts about whether that early experience comprises all of what it means to be “saved.” This first part is written from the perspective of a lay-person who is not a biblical scholar. As you will read, I raise a series of questions about my report regarding this personal experience that I call for a biblical scholar to answer.

Enter Paul Borgman, a long-time friend, who is a professor of English emeritus at Gordon College (MA), who is an astute biblical scholar. In Part 2 of this Musing, Paul reports on his personal experience of what it means to be “saved,” in addition to responding to the “Leading Questions” that I pose (but leave unanswered), in my Part 1 essay.

Part 3 of this joint Musing consists of the conclusions I draw from the Part 1 and Part 2 essays, which includes my recommendations for what Christian churches now need to do.

Using the popular phrase that was common in my pietistic Lutheran Home Church in Brooklyn, New York, I “accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior” at the age of 13 at the end of a Sunday evening service at my Church.

My most vivid memory of that experience is that as I listened to the words of traveling evangelist Knut Heggestad, I was overwhelmed with a sense that “God loved me just the way that I was” (including all my imperfections that were called “sins”), and that upon confessing my “sins” to God, I was granted the free gift of God’s grace, made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the quietness of my own heart, I made that confession (with no raising of hands or other outward manifestation); thereby “accepting Jesus as my Savior.” I believe that at that moment in time, I experienced “salvation.” In other words, I was “saved.”

And one of the truths that was made clear to me at that time was that I didn’t have to present to God a litany of “good works” to “earn” God’s “grace.” No! “God’s grace” was a “free gift, bestowed upon me by a loving God.

At that moment of decision. I didn’t have a clue as to how my decision would have a deep impact on how I would live the rest of my life; that was all yet to unfold. And one of the “truths” that I eventually learned to embrace was this: Granting that any “good works” that eventually emerged did not “earn” me “salvation”; such “good works” can be a deep expression of my “gratitude” for the free gift of “salvation.

But my eventual reading of Matthew 25 much later in my Christian pilgrimage has led me to wonder whether I had earlier embraced “too simple” a view of the meaning of “salvation,” as follows.

In Matthew 25:34, Jesus refers to those who will “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And his startling description of who will comprise this group is:

I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me (versus 35-36).

If the “salvation” of individuals is related to “inheriting the kingdom,” this meddlesome teaching of Jesus calls into question the simple view that “accepting Jesus as my Savior” can be equated with being “saved.” It appears from the teaching of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25 that an individual being “saved” also includes his/her adherence to the call of Jesus to care for the poor and marginalized in our world; those Jesus referred to as the “least of these” (vs. 40) – Again, not as a way to earn God’s free gift of grace; but as an expression of “gratitude” for God’s freely given grace. This raises some important questions that I pose for my biblical scholar friend Paul Borgman, with the hope that his response (in Part 2) will help me to better understand my experience of “being saved.”

Q1: How do you describe what you consider to be your experience of “Being Saved?”

Q2: What is the most adequate interpretation of Matthew 25?

Q3: How is the “salvation of individuals” related to the reference to “inheriting the kingdom” in Matthew 25?

Q4: Does the Bible limit “salvation” to what can be experienced by human beings? What of the life of animals and vegetables—all of creation, including our natural environment?  

The reader of Harold’s Part 1 essay will have noticed that he suggests the possibility of there being an integral connection between a “conversion experience” at a certain point in time and taking subsequent actions that reverse directions from an instinctive self-serving toward the Jesus way of others-serving. This “repentance” is an expression of gratitude for the “free gift of grace” bestowed upon conversion. This leads to a series of questions subsumed under my final “Leading Question” that beg for responses from Paul Borgman.

Q5: How do various biblical authors view the meaning of “salvation” (Being “Saved”)? Is there tension, or even contradiction, between the answers offered by differing authors? Or, rather, are the responses that some of the biblical authors present multi-faceted (i.e., focusing on different “aspects” of what they believe it means to be “saved,” as recorded in different biblical passages they have authored – aspects that complement each other, rather than “standing in contradiction”). If so, what are the multi-faceted views presented by some biblical authors?

BEING SAVED: A SHORT VERSION OF A LONG JOURNEY by Paul Borgman

Thanks for this opportunity to join you, Harold, in reflecting our respective journeys of “being saved.”

My mother had my six-year old twin brother and me kneel down beside our bed to “accept Jesus into our hearts” to deal with our bad selves and to “be saved” and go to heaven when we died. A key part of this kneeling experience was the rehearsal of Jesus dying for our sins, and our expected thank-you for such love.

Years later, I encountered an unexpected curve-ball, that, according to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts (the “synoptics”—seeing similarly), which I had thoroughly explored and came to write books about, Jesus died not for our sins but for sealing and renewing the covenant begun with Abraham and formalized with Moses with its focus on the Law.

And another curve-ball, that our righteousness, consisting of the “good works” in the parable recounted by Harold, was what actually activated “being saved.” Furthermore, that this “righteousness” had to be more genuine—as illustrated in this parable—than the posturing of those viewed in society as very pious and religiously correct. “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,” warns Jesus, “you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” and be saved (Mt. 5.20).

Matthew circles back to this truth of being saved through one’s righteousness in the last of his teachings, the grand climax of the parable in chapter 25 of the saved as those attentive to the disenfranchised, as the Law updated by Jesus from the Old Testament. This is the meaning of this parable—signifying who it is who is saved, who isn’t—and how it all plays out.

In these three synoptic gospels, Jesus is shown teaching and demonstrating the covenantal Law—which must be heard and done in order to enter the kingdom of God and “be saved.” This salvation is not individualistic but focused on becoming a partner in the communal flourishing of the kingdom come to earth—the “good news” of the synoptics.

It is for this ancient covenant, not our sins, that Jesus pours out his blood” (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk. 22:20). Only in Luke is the covenant called “new,” echoing the prophecy from God in Jeremiah that “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah….  This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31.31-33). Indeed, with empowerment from a baptism in the Holy Spirit now offered through Jesus (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1.8; Lk. 3:16), the standard covenantal challenge and promise of God to God’s people has taken a turn toward a continuation that is also a culmination: the communal flourishing of God’s kingdom come to earth, to be fulfilled on earth.

This covenant, begun with Abraham, includes a global blessing “for all the families of earth” on earth (Gen 12.3)—and for the entire creation, as emphasized in Isaiah the prophet. The garden of perfect ecological harmony (no eating of animals by humans or other animals) will be restored, with the lion lying down with the lamb.

“Being saved” became many times richer by my life-changing encounter with this version of salvation in the gospels. I so resonated with this emphasis from Jesus himself on the need for daily repentance, of doing the Word he taught and demonstrated: the need for a daily about-face (repentance) from self-service to others-serving: the covenantal Law of love distilled and expanded by Jesus.

But how then did I respond to what St. Paul refers to as his gospel version (Galatians 1:6-9)?

How did I reconcile what I had discovered in the parable of sheep and goats, properly raised to eminence in the essay by Harold Heie, with what I had believed in the first two decades of my life, that “by grace you have been saved through faith”? That being saved “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)?

Late in my life’s journey of seeking the truly good, anchored by the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I have gone back to Paul and discovered what seems to me two distinct appeals, the second of which has contributed richly to my current sense of being saved.

(1) that through grace we are saved, through faith, not the result of works (“…we have now been justified by his blood,” Paul says in Romans; and so “we will be saved through him from the wrath of God,” Rom 5:9).

(2) that being saved is a mystical experience of transformation, perhaps like the out-of-body experience Paul had on the road to Damascus. Whether this is the case, Paul certainly appreciates a profound and liberating truth: his old self discovered a radically “new self”—from all about himself in scrambling to make impressions on others, to living in Christ with love toward others. “We were buried with [Christ] by baptism into death,” says Paul to Roman converts, “so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life….So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:4, 11).

Paul’s exquisite words about love have been a bridge, for me, between what otherwise remains a contrast between Paul’s version of the gospel and that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke:

if I have all faith so as to remove mountains 

but do not have love I am nothing. 

If I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my body…

but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; 

love is kind; 

love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. 

It does not insist on its own way; 

it is not irritable; 

it keeps no record of wrongs;

it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth.

And put simply, in his prayer addressed to friends in Philippi, “that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you to determine what really matters…” (Phil. 1:9).

Love that overflows with knowledge and insightfulness as to what is best, what is good, what truly matters: surely nothing of the world’s wisdom rivals such revolutionary love as this, as Jesus is portrayed as teaching daily—this Law of love that includes but truly would go beyond while including the Mosaic formulation into ten guideposts.

This second aspect of Paul’s vision of being saved, deeply transformational and mystical, has come to resonate with the depths and breadth of what I had come in my middle years to discover and attempt living by, the Word of God regarding love and its challenges taught and demonstrated by Jesus. How better to face the world each day than, as Paul puts it, to be “clothed…with the new self” of pure an intelligent love (Col. 3:10).

John’s version of the gospel is as mystical as the second aspect of Paul’s gospel, but without Paul’s emphasis on love flowing outward to all, in all its dimensions.  The entire gospel of John focuses on belief in the union of God the Father and God the Son—Jesus as “the Word” who “was with God” and in fact “was God” (John 1.1). Believe this, and be saved: you are, at the point of belief, divine sons and divine daughters in the divine family above: Son- in-the-Father, the Father-in-the-Son. To all who receive this truth into their deepest hearts, God “gave power to become offspring of God” (Jn 1:12). The seven miracles that make up the first half of John are called “signs” pointing to this truth to be believed, that Jesus abides in the Father who abides in the Son. The second half of John shows Jesus explaining and showing this truth to the disciples.

“Abide in me as I abide in you,” Jesus tells his disciples. “Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me….Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (Jn. 15:4-6).

I have not yet been able in my journey to inwardly appropriate John’s offer of a mystical union with Jesus and, through Jesus, a union with God. The story that I am left with appears full and overflowing, the grand drama beginning with God’s decision to right the wrong and utter chaos of Eden through Babel through the right responses of Abraham to God’s challenges such that God can say through an angel, in the climactic of seven challenges to Abraham, “now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Gen. 22.12). Furthermore, God goes on, “because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore…and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (22:16-18).

This is the story I cherish, the story that sustains me daily. It culminates with Jesus echoing in his teaching and demonstration of God’s challenges and promise—of a kingdom flourishing on earth—the final word about what it means to obey the voice of love as expressed by Jesus.  in his life, his dying, and his rising again. Even as my capacity to believe it all wanes, my will and eagerness to meet the challenge of this love increases, revealing daily how far it is I still can travel in this journey begun so long ago.

The voice of God is recorded as saying one thing and one thing only in each of the three synoptic gospels—to followers, to us: Listen to him!

“This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!”

                               (Mt 17.5; Mk 9.7; Lk 9:35).

Follow-up Questions, from Harold:

What is the most adequate interpretation of Matthew 25?

Everything in any great literary text must be understood in context of the whole text. The whole text of Matthew has three sections: I, Introduction (chs 1-4); II, Five Teaching “Discourses” (chs. 5-25); III, Conclusion: Death and Resurrection (chs. 26-28). The main body, the fat middle of the story, is carefully structured around five distinct teaching “discourses.” The parable cited by Harold concludes the entire middle section; it is the conclusion of the last teaching grouping, Discourse 5.

These five discourses—all focused on the “good news” of God’s coming kingdom—are arranged in circles. (This is called a chiasm, as common in the ancient practice of arranging textual material as is the iambic pentameter rhythm of poems written in English.) The outer most circle begins with the first discourse (chs 5-7) and is echoed (paralleled) by the last (chs 23-25); next, an inner of the second discourse (ch 10) echoed by the fourth (ch 18); this leaves a center-point, a bull’s eye that points to the essential truth of it all—discourse 3 (ch 13). So the parable in question regarding who enters the kingdom, sheep versus goats, is the crowning touch of meaning and summary: those are being saved who hear the word of God taught by Jesus, about serving others who are disadvantaged and disenfranchised—by circumstance including disease—rather than parading about one’s pious self.

This fifth of five discourses begins with who-is-cursed, echoing in reverse the beginning of discourse one, which began with who-is-blessed. And in the grand conclusion to this circling of beginning and end is the parable of precisely this question: who is ultimately blessed versus who is ultimately cursed.

How is the “salvation of individuals” related to the reference to “inheriting the kingdom” in Matthew 25?

Throughout Matthew and the other two synoptics Mark and Luke-Acts, individuals are called to repent, for the sake of participation in the communal flourishing of God’s kingdon. Such repentance is a turn-around from life-orientations of service to one’s self toward the care of others, a love based in part on what one has learned about proper care for one’s self. So “others” are essential in any being saved as a discreet individual.

There is no such thing in these gospels or in the parable of sheep and goats that suggests that an individual can be saved as a transaction between the self alone and God. In this that concludes the teaching of Jesus, the sheep are saved by recognizing their role and responsibility in living communally—life-together—in the kingdom of God.

Does the Bible limit “salvation” to what can be experienced by “saved” humans living in flourishing human communities? What of the world that outside of and including human communities—the life of animals and vegetables, including all of our natural environment?  

For the many Jewish readers of these gospel texts, and for the original audience listening to Jesus, the expectation for a Messiah was strong, and included centrally the vision of prophets like Isaiah who foresaw, through the deliverance offered by the promised Messiah, a recovery of creation harmonies portrayed in the garden of Eden wherein no human or animal fed on animal flesh at all, but rather on fruits, vegetables, and nuts; wherein—as Isaiah puts it imaginatively,

The wolf shall live with the lamb;

the leopard shall lie down with the kid;

the calf and the lion will feed together,

and a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze;

their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (Is. 11:6-7)

Those listening to Jesus would have assumed the large and long story of God’s redemptive purposes for a world fallen from perfected harmonies. St. Paul, good Jew that he was, certainly imagined so, hoping for the time when “the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” Paul concludes this hope with certainty: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning together as it suffers together the pains of labor” (Rom. 8:19-22). There will be a new creation even as he himself has experienced a new self.

How do various biblical authors view the meaning of “salvation” (Being “Saved”)? Is there tension, or even contradiction, between the answers offered by differing authors? Or, rather, are the responses that some of the biblical authors present multi-faceted (i.e., focusing on different “aspects” of what they believe it means to be “saved,” as recorded in different biblical passages they have authored – aspects that complement each other, rather than “standing in contradiction”). If so, what are the multi-faceted views presented by some biblical authors?

To rehearse here what I’ve tried to express in my essay above: I see a contrast between, on the one hand, the synoptic gospels’ view insisting on being saved depending on one’s working out a righteousness superior to that of most religious people (Mt 5:20); and, on the other hand, the conventional and universally accepted view of Paul’s gospel version that salvation comes for those who believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again from death to provide life everlasting, free of death, in heaven.

But I also see a complementary view of love and its power shared by both St. Paul and the Jesus of the gospels. For me, this “bridge” of love, spanning the chasm of contrast just cited, comes on Paul’s part from a second aspect of his gospel, that of mystical transformation from old creature to new, from serving one’s self to a love that is overwhelmingly others-directed—an attentiveness to others characterized by patience and kindness, with always a lack of envy or boast or arrogance (1Cor 13.4).

I encourage my readers to explore more accurately the biblical record on such matters, while simultaneously meditating deeply within on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable” (Phil. 4:8). Such meditation, accompanied by silence, can provide the final and best revelation of what being saved means.

LEARNING TO DISAGREE LOVINGLY by Harold Heie

I believe that a careful reading of my Part 1 essay and Paul’s Part 2 essay will reveal that our reported experiences that we call “being saved” fit best with the views of the authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Like/Acts) that “being saved” is a process characterized by a transformation “from serving one’s self to a love that is overwhelmingly others-directed” (to quote Paul).

My purpose in writing this concluding Part 3 of our joint Musing is not to rehash the substance of our arguments for this shared conclusion. Rather, I will focus on the “behind the scenes” engagements between Paul and me as we worked toward reaching agreement on this conclusion. Hopefully, my dwelling on this dynamic focus will reveal to readers the basis for observations and recommendations I will be presenting that I believe will help Christians, and those committed to other religious or secular worldviews, to learn to disagree lovingly. With this goal in mind, I present my reflections under a number of sub-topics.

AN INDISPUTABLE CHRISTIAN TRUTH

Christians have had disagreements about many issues for over 2000 years. But it is indisputable that ALL Christians have been exhorted by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount to “love others,” even including those who consider themselves to be their enemies.

Of course, this universal call to Christians to love others does not answer the question of “how” to express such love, and strong disagreements persist in answers given to this thorny question.

But a foundational underlying assumption that has informed this joint Musing written by Paul and me is that “one way” to express love toward those who disagree with you is to provide them with a “safe and welcoming space” to express that disagreement; to be followed by “respectful conversation” about these disagreements that is characterized by “disagreeing lovingly”; with the goal being that after we adequately understand each other’s position and the reasons we have for holding to differing positions, we will uncover some “truth” about the issue being discussed.

TRIBALISM AS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO DISAGREEING LOVINGLY

The goal I have just articulated sounds like unrealizable wishful thinking in our contemporary polarized culture, which is characterized by a rampant tribalism. By “tribalism” I mean an us-versus-them mentality wherein I believe that “me and my people” (e.g., my church or other place of worship, my fraternal organization, my political party, my circle of friends) possess the “whole truth” about any contentious issue being discussed, and “those other folks” (e.g., that other church, etc.) possess none of that truth; they are “completely wrong.” In fact, it often gets worse; not only are they all wrong; they are “evil” persons who are to be feared and demonized.

CHRISTIANS SUCCUMBING TO TRIBALISM

I am deeply saddened by the significant extent to which individual Christians, their churches, and their denominations have succumbed to Tribalism. This is especially true of that rapidly growing cohort of “Christian Nationalists” who believe, erroneously, that the Founding Fathers of America intended for the USA to be a “Christian Nation,” to be governed by “Christian values.” The truth of the matter is that, as enshrined in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, the founders of our nation decided that our new country should reflect religious diversity, with adherents to every religious and secular group to be given a voice (on an “even playing field”) on matters pertaining to the well-being of all USA residents.

WHAT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR HAROLD AND PAUL TO “DISAGREE LOVINGLY?”

Our readers are now prepared for a report on the “behind the scenes dynamic” of the interactions between Harold and Paul, sub-divided into three sub-topics:

THE RARE COMBINATION OF COMMITMENT AND OPENNESS

My experience suggests that the greatest obstacle to the goal of “disagreeing lovingly” is the difficulty in identifying persons who hold to their beliefs with deep conviction, even passion, at the same time that they acknowledge that they may be “wrong” about some of their beliefs; thereby opening up the possibility of them “learning” from those who disagree with them. Ian Barbour labels the exemplification of this rare combination among religious people as a sign of “religious maturity.” Richard Mouw calls it “convicted civility.”

Openness to the beliefs of others without commitment to your own beliefs too easily leads to sheer relativism (I have my beliefs, you have yours, end of conversation). Commitment to your own beliefs without openness to listening to and carefully considering the contrary beliefs of others too easily leads to fanaticism, even terrorism. As C. S. Lewis has observed, and what past and current world events tragically testify, “Those who are readiest to die for a cause may easily become those who are readiest to kill for it.”

Once again, if those of you who are reading this Musing had the opportunity to read the back-and-forth emails that Paul and Harold exchanged and the opportunity to listen in on our many Zoom conversations as we talked about multiple successive drafts of Parts 1 & 2 of this Musing, you would discern that both of us exemplified in an extraordinary manner this rare combination of commitment and openness. One of the things you would discover is that we both enjoy a good laugh, as when we likened the latest novel idea from the other to the droppings of a bull. I will now seek to generalize this phenomenon

GETTING TO KNOW THE PERSON WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU AS A FRIEND

The underlying foundation for Paul and I to be able to “disagree lovingly” was that over the years since we have engaged one another (starting in 1987) we have gotten to know each other very well during a deep friendship.

This “getting to know one another” includes, but goes beyond, just knowing our respective beliefs about a given issue. It also includes discerning the “reasons” each of us has for our differing beliefs; reasons that reflect our differing “life-stories.” In brief, my unique life-experiences may help me to see things about the issue at hand that Paul misses, and, similarly, because of his unique life-experiences, he may see something that I have missed.

Therefore, by “getting to know one another as friends,” we, as finite and fallible human beings, may have successfully forged a more complete view of the “truth” than any one of us had previously discerned.

The above reflections may explain the wisdom offered by Richard Mouw when he suggested the following starting point for a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. Rather than “jumping right onto the fray” by blurting out your strong convictions regarding the contentious issue being considered, first seek to better understand the other person by making the following request: “Please help me to understand your position on this issue and the reasons you have for holding to your position” Richard has found that starting the conversation in this way often led to reciprocity – “Wow, maybe I should extend the same request to Richard” When such reciprocity occurs, it opens up the possibility that comparing responses to these initial requests may help both conversation partners to uncover some common ground about the “truth” of the matter.

THE UNDERLYING CHRISTIAN VALUES

The primary truth I draw from the Parable of the Good Samaritan recorded in Luke 10: 29-37 is the centrality of one’s attitudes (enduring dispositions). Both the priest and the Levite who saw a wounded man lying by the side of the road “passed by on the other side,” deciding not to help. In sharp contrast, a Samaritan was “moved with pity” when he saw the wounded man and took significant steps to help. How does one explain these radically differing responses? The priest and Levite had attitudes of indifference. The Samaritan was motivated by an attitude of “love.”

Christians will be motivated to “disagree lovingly” only if they first embrace the following foundational Christian values, all of which deal with our enduring attitudes.

THE “FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT” – “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5: 22).

The “fruit of the Spirit” that is most emphasized in the biblical record is LOVE – “The whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).

HUMILITY – A major obstacle to “disagreeing lovingly” is lack of humility; a failure to recognize that “I am not God.” Rather, I am a finite, fallible human being, who, at best, has only a “partial glimpse” of the “full truth” regarding the issue at hand that reflects my “life-story.” Therefore, I can learn much from listening to and talking lovingly with other followers of Jesus whose differing life-stories help them to see things that I have missed.

If those of you who are reading this Musing had the opportunity to read the back-and-forth emails that Paul and Harold exchanged and the opportunity to listen in on our many Zoom conversations as we talked about multiple successive drafts of Parts 1 & 2 of this Musing, you would discern that both of us aspired to exemplify these enduring Christian values.

A PROPOSAL FOR WHAT CHRISTIAN CHURCHES NOW NEED TO DO

If those who read this Musing resonate with the above reflections on what made it possible for Harold and Paul to “disagree lovingly,” the implications for contemporary Christian churches are immense, and much needed in light of the acrimony that many churches experience when their members disagree strongly about some contemporary contentious issues. I close this Part 3 of our joint Musing with three recommendations for all Christian churches to consider.

SEEK SHALOM RATHER THAN A WEAK NEGATIVE VIEW OF PEACE

I have first-hand experience with a church in Northwest Iowa that has embraced a weak, negative view of “peace” as the absence of conflict among its members. As a result, conversations after a worship service may focus on the Twins or the Cubs (and even my Cardinals) and the weather. You seldom, or never, hear talk about issues that I know members of my Church congregation disagree on (e.g., The legitimacy, or not, in the eyes of God, of same-sex marriage).

Why is that? I believe it is because pastors and other church leaders fear that if strong disagreements among its members are “out on the table,” a significant number of members will leave the church for nearby churches that embrace their beliefs about the issue at hand, thereby decreasing the financial support needed to keep the church doors open. I detect a troublesome asymmetry here. Why not embrace the possibility that a church that is open about disagreements will attract new members who value such openness?

The solution is to reject a weak, negative view of “peace,” opting, rather, for “Shalom,” where the members have learned to flourish together, loving each other in the midst of known disagreements.

PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISAGEEING LOVINGLY WITHIN A CHURCH

It is with regret that, to date, procedural recommendations that I have made to the pastors and other leaders of my home church have largely been ignored. But, as my good friends will testify, I am persistent.

As elaborated upon in chapter 9 of my Let’s Talk book, I believe that the following procedures will enhance the possibility of churches experiencing Shalom.

#1: AVOID INVITING ALL CHURCH MEMBERS TO A CHURCH-WIDE MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.

The problem with extending an invitation to all members of a relatively large church is that it may lead to an unbalanced cohort of those who accept the invitation that does not reflect the diversity in belief about the issue at hand that may exist within the church membership.

An associated problem is that because the issue has not been previously talked about openly within the congregation, members are only guessing (correctly or not) as to what the majority and minority views may be within the membership. In my church this problem led to an unwillingness to begin talking openly about the issue (In this case, same-sex marriage) because of fear that one was holding to a minority position, and would be judged to be narrow-minded when expressing that minority perspective.

#2: RECRUIT A SMALL, BALANCED COHORT OF CONVERSATION PARTNERS TO MODEL FOR THE CONGREGATION THE POSSIBILITY OF “DISAGREEING LOVINGLY.”

A better strategy for inviting conversation partners (CPs) is to identify a small group of church members (possibly 8 in number) that has an equal number of CPs on each side of the issue. Steps should be taken to ensure that the cohort of CPs includes members of the church whose lives are most affected by the issue being discussed (e.g., a conversation about same-sex marriage should include gay Christians).  A second requirement for recruiting CPs is that the cohort should include persons who have proven expertise relative to the issue to be discussed. If the church has no such members, one or two persons outside of the church membership who have such expertise should be invited to join the CPs.

This group should then be led in a conversation moderated by a member of the Church known for being a good listener who has proven skills for being able to create safe and welcoming spaces for those who have strong disagreements to “disagree lovingly.”

All members of the church should be invited to “listen in” on this conversation, until a Q & A session that allows for all attendees to pose questions for the CPs.

#3: START THIS SMALL-GROUP CONVERSATION BY CLEARLY STATING THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION AND STIPULATING “GUIDELINES FOR RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION” THAT ALL CONVERSATION PARTNERS WILL BE EXPECTED TO EXEMPLIFY.

It should be clearly stated at the beginning of the first small-group session that the purpose of the conversation is NOT to win an argument. Rather, the purpose is for all the CPs to gain an adequate understanding of the views expressed by those CPs who disagree with them, with a special focus on understanding the reasons each CP has for his/her point of view; the ultimate goal being that the ensuing conversation about agreements and disagreements will help to uncover some common ground as to the “truth” regarding the issue being discussed.

After the purpose of the conversation has been established, the moderator should stipulate that each CP must agree to abide by the following “Guidelines for Respectful Conversation.”

• I will try to listen well, providing each person with a welcoming space to express her perspective on the issue at hand.
• I will seek to empathetically understand the reasons another person has for her perspective.
• I will express my perspective and my reasons for holding that perspective with clarity and conviction, but with a non-coercive style that invites conversation with a person who disagrees with me.
• In my conversation with a person who disagrees with me, I will explore whether we can find some common ground by critically examining my own view in light of her contrary view and the reasons she has for her view.
• Guided by the underlying values of humility, courage, patience, and love, when we cannot find common ground, I will always engage the person who disagrees with me in a way that demonstrates respect and concern for her well-being and does not foreclose the possibility of future conversations.

#4: REPEAT THIS SMALL GROUP CONVERSATION AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED TO INVOLVE A LARGE NUMBER OF CHURCH MEMBERS

It is important that a significant number of church members take part in this conversation, either as CPs in subsequent other small groups or as attendees at these small-group conversations.

Therefore, the initial small-group conversation should be followed by repetition involving other small groups of church members, allowing for refinement in the procedure recommended above based on what was found to “work well, or not” in the earlier conversations.

#5: FOSTER DEEP FRIENDSHIPS AMONG CHURCH MEMBERS WHO APPEAR TO HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS

I am convinced that that the most important factor that enabled Paul and me to “disagree lovingly” was the deep friendship we had developed. This leads to my most obvious recommendation, which will probably be the most difficult to implement, because there are no easy formulas for fostering friendships.  But if this recommendation is implemented, the likelihood of experiencing success when trying my other four recommendations will greatly increase.

So, how does one foster deep friendships among members of a given church? Since there are no easy formulas for doing so, I will offer none. But I will recommend a place to start.

Gather together for an initial “brainstorming” session a small group (possibly 6 to 8) of church members who are known for their ability to form and sustain deep friendships, who are familiar with the issues about which church members strongly disagree, and who are familiar with the differing life-stories of those who harbor such disagreements.

The purpose of this brainstorming session should be to formulate strategies for possible ways to foster deep friendships among those known to have such strong disagreements. I will leave it to the creative imaginations of those attending this initial meeting to formulate such strategies and follow-up procedures for implementing them.

AN ENORMOUS NEED FOR EDUCATING CHURCH MEMBERS REGARDING BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

The need I will now address is hinted at in the following quotation from Paul in his Part 2 essay: “Late in my life’s journey of seeking the truly good, I have gone back to [St.] Paul and discovered what seems to me two distinct appeals, the second of which has contributed richly to my current sense of being saved.” He goes on to say that “Paul’s exquisite words about love have been a bridge, for me, between what otherwise remains a contrast between Paul’s version of the gospel and that of Matthew, Mark and Luke” (quoting the following words from 1 Corinthians 13 – “If I have all faith as to move mountains but do not love I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my body … but do not have love, I gain nothing”).

These words from Paul Borgman point me toward a complexity in biblical interpretation. In differing portions of scripture authored by St. Paul, he emphasizes two different aspects thar should not be read as contradictions, but rather as complimentary.

Too many lay persons prefer greater simplicity in biblical interpretation, latching quickly onto the apparent meaning of a biblical passage, without considering other passages by the same author that appear to contradict the first passage. This problematic tendency toward “proof-texting” reflects the error of not adequately considering the context for a given biblical passage and the intention of the author.

This points me toward the plain truth that the typical person in the pew of most Christian churches is woefully educated with regard to interpreting the Bible (biblical hermeneutics). Therefore, the leadership in every Christian church (the pastors and governing board) must provide for educational opportunities for its congregation to become knowledgeable regarding the complexities of biblical interpretation. This may require bringing in visiting biblical scholars and theologians to provide such instruction if it cannot be provided by church members.

I conclude this joint Musing from Paul and me with our prayer for every reader, as recorded in Philippians 1: 10:

This is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best.