Is There a “World without End”?

Since watching several of Michael Dowd’s videos last month (and writing a bit about Dowd on Jan. 25) I have been thinking much about the end of the world as we know it—and about the traditional Christian belief in a “world without end.” Is it possible to affirm both?

The Traditional Christian Belief

There is little doubt that from New Testament times until the present Christianity has asserted a firm belief in a “world without end,” that is, the reality of an eternal world that in every way surpasses the present physical world in which we now live.

The New Testament says, “Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Ephesians 3:21, KJV). Based on these words, the Catholic and some liturgical Protestant churches regularly sing the Gloria Patri doxology: 

As the “world without end” is understood as the abode of those who have received the gift of eternal life, the Apostles’ Creed ends with words affirming belief in “the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”

And the Nicene Creed, which is also regularly repeated in public worship services of many churches, ends with these words: “We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Even those of us who grew up in non-liturgical churches, belief in “eternal life” and Heaven was central to our understanding of the Christian faith. But that basic belief seems to have been weakened, neglected, or even denied (in practice if not in words) by “progressive” or “liberal” forms of the faith.

For example, in spite of his dire prognostication about the coming ecological crisis that will most likely result in the end of the world as we know it, Dowd, an ordained Christian minister, says nothing (at least that I have heard) about even the possibility of life beyond death.

The Problem of “Evangelical” Over-emphasis

Those who grew up in conservative evangelical circles, as I did, know how strong the emphasis was on “soul-winning,” that is, getting people “saved” so they would go to Heaven when they died.

During my boyhood years, pastors and especially traveling evangelists would regularly emphasize the Second Coming of Jesus and the concomitant end of this present world, focusing on the reality of “the world without end.”

These same emphases became even more pronounced in conservative evangelical churches after the publishing of Hal Lindsey’s bestselling book The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970.

And then from 1995 to 2007, the Left Behind series of sixteen books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins was highly popular and influential in evangelical circles.

But all of this emphasis on the “end times” was usually accompanied by a marked lack of interest in the plight of people living in the world now. Hardly any emphasis was placed on social issues such as war, systemic racism, poverty, destruction of the environment, etc.

The Problem of “Liberal” Under-emphasis

Although the roots go back much farther into the past, from the 1960s on “progressive” or “liberal” Christians placed more and more emphasis on the social issues of the present world and less and less emphasis on the idea/hope of a coming world without end.

The apocalyptic ideas/beliefs of the conservative evangelicals were mostly ignored, or even scoffed at by many liberals. Of primary interest and importance was the formation of a “beloved community” here and now and being on the right side of the arc of the universe which bends toward justice.

The coming of an ideal society, the Kingdom (or Kindom) of God, was a strong hope for the future of humankind on this earth.

How utterly sad it is if, as Dowd and many liberal Christians (as well as most people without any religious faith) acknowledge, all we can do now is to serenely accept the coming demise of the world with no hope for the future either on this earth or in a world without end.

Is there not some radiant center position between the two extremes?

Widely Divergent Christianity: Remembering John Shelby Spong and David Yonggi Cho

Last week, two renowned Christian clergymen died: John Shelby Spong on Sept. 12 at the age of 90 and David Yonggi Cho on Sept. 14 at age 85. These two men represented two widely divergent forms of Christianity—so different it is almost as if they were adherents of two different religions.

Spong’s Liberal Christianity

John Shelby Spong was born in North Carolina in June 1931. After graduating from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955, he served as the rector of four Episcopal churches in North Carolina and Virginia from then until 1976.

He was consecrated the Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, in 1979 and held that prominent post until his retirement in 2000.

[Spong in 2006; photo by Scott Griesse]

Bishop Spong became a leader of liberal Christianity by authoring more than 30 books. Perhaps his most influential work was Why Christianity Must Change or Die (1998). His Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (1991) was also highly popular. 

Spong grew up in a fundamentalist milieu, but he became “fed up with fundamentalism” many years before I published my book by that title in 2007—and his anti-fundamentalist position propelled him to what I have termed the opposite extreme, which is also unsatisfactory to my way of thinking.

In my The Limits of Liberalism (2010, 2020), Spong is one of the Christian thinkers I criticize most for what I consider his too-far-to-the-left positions on numerous Christian doctrines.

I wasn’t as harsh in my criticism, though, as Russell Moore was last week. On 9/16 I received an email that contained the “Moore to the Point” newsletter from Christianity Today, Moore’s current employer. The subject line read, “Death of a heretic.” (Here is the link to that article.)

Whether you agree with Moore’s label for Spong or not, he is quite correct in saying that Spong dismissed “key doctrines of the historic Christian faith as outdated and retrograde.”

Cho's Evangelical Christianity

In February 1936 David Yonggi Cho (Chō Yong-gi, 趙 鏞基) was born into a Buddhist family who lived on the southeastern corner of the Korean peninsula. He became a Christian as a teenager while hospitalized for tuberculosis.

In 1958 Cho joined with his future mother-in-law to start a new Christian church in Seoul. There were only four or five who attended their first service, but by 1979 they had 100,000 members! The church was re-named Yoido Full Gospel Church (YFGC) in 1984, and it had 400,000 members by then. 

[Cho in 2013]

(The church’s membership seems to have peaked around 2007 with more than 800,000 members.) 

In July 1983, I was asked to accompany Seinan Gakuin University’s Glee Club’s concert tour to Korea. During our time there, we visited YFGC and a few of us were able to meet Pastor Cho. He was an impressive leader of a most impressive church, which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God.  

However, I have serious questions about some of Cho’s beliefs and emphases. He preached something quite close to the problematic “prosperity gospel,” and his statement that the terrible March 2011 earthquake/tsunami in Japan was “God’s warning” was not helpful.

To say the least, Cho’s strongly evangelical understanding of Christianity was decidedly different from Spong’s. In fact, there was such difference between the two, one might wonder if they were really preachers of the same religion.

Still Seeking the Radiant Center

In spite of the wide divergence in the theology of Bishop Spong and Pastor Cho, I still want to champion a Christianity that has a broad, inclusive radiant center.

While I can’t accept all of Spong’s or Cho’s ideas, they both have made important affirmations worthy of thoughtful consideration.

For example, Spong’s last book was titled simply Unbelievable (2018). He writes nearly 280 pages about what he thinks is unbelievable about traditional Christianity.

He ends, though, with a short, five-page Epilogue titled “My Mantra: This I Do Believe.” There he refers to God as the Source of Life, the Source of Love, and the Ground of Being (pp. 285-6).

Pastor Cho wouldn’t have used those words, but perhaps he was in basic agreement—and I certainly am.

_____

** My Jan. 15, 2019, blog post was titled “Two Christianities,” and it is closely related to this post without the references to Bishop Spong or Pastor Cho.

Transcending Fundamentalism

This is the eleventh and last blog posting this year related to my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism. I am working to get the updated and (slightly) revised edition published before the end of the year—and am hoping many of you will obtain a copy for yourself or give as a present to someone you care about (or both!).

The Necessity of Transcending Fundamentalism

Some Christians who have grown increasingly dissatisfied with fundamentalism have given up on Christianity altogether. I find that quite sad—and also unnecessary.

There are many other Christians, though, who are quite unhappy with fundamentalism, much like I am, but who have sought and found an expression of the Christian faith that seems decidedly superior to that manifested by fundamentalism and is worthy of wholehearted allegiance.

The latter is what I have been advocating in this book, and this final chapter emphasizes the necessity of transcending fundamentalism and finding a form of faith that fully honors God, is loyal to the Lord Jesus, and is invigorated by the Holy Spirit.

Rising above fundamentalism is important for Christian believers: much of the current rejection of Christianity by those raised as Christians is because of their negative reaction toward fundamentalism.  

Transcending fundamentalism is also important for Christians in their relationship with people who are not Christians. Earlier this month (see here) Pope Francis declared, “We must beware of fundamentalist groups . . . . Fundamentalism is a plague.”

Partly for creating a more peaceful society, it is necessary for Christians, as well as people in other religions, to go beyond fundamentalism.  

Help for Transcending Fundamentalism

There are numerous books, and organizations, seeking to help people who are or have been in fundamentalist churches to leave the clutches of such detrimental ways of thinking.

Through the years there have even been several different Fundamentalist(s) Anonymous groups, treating fundamentalism as a kind of addiction that people need to be freed from.

Unfortunately, many of those books and organizations were largely encouraging people to leave Christianity altogether—and certainly many have done that.

But there are also many books, such as Fed Up . . ., and new church organizations that have shown ways to reject fundamentalism and still remain in the Christian faith. Indeed, the 18^th chapter of my newest book, Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT), is “One Doesn’t Have To Be A Fundamentalist To Be A Good Christian.”

That, I firmly believe, is manifestly true. And in fact, it might even be true that Christians need to transcend fundamentalism in order to be a good Christian.

The Limits of Liberalism

Speaking of (TTT), the 19^th chapter of that book is “One Doesn’t Have To Be A Liberal To Reject Fundamentalism.” I reiterate that important point here.  

While many conservative evangelicals, as present-day fundamentalists are generally called now, tend to label my theological position as liberal, many true liberals likely would see me as fairly conservative from their point of view.

Indeed, soon after completing the first edition of Fed Up . . . I started working on the companion volume: The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism (2010). Beginning in January, I am planning to begin updating and slightly revising that book also to re-publish by the end of 2020.

As I say at the end of the last paragraph of Fed Up . . .,

There is a valid form of the Christian faith that steers between the dangers of fundamentalism on the right and the dangers of liberalism on the left. It is that expression of the faith that I urge my Christian readers to join me in seeking, finding, and following as we try to be true to Christ.

Two Christianities?

Can differences of degree become so great that they become differences of kind? I recall that issue being discussed long ago when I was in graduate school. But what about it? For example, can different expressions of Christianity become so great that they actually become different in kind, producing two Christianities?

The Christianity of Fundamentalism/Conservative Evangelicalism

In 1923 the eminent conservative Presbyterian scholar J. Graham Machen published a book titled Christianity and Liberalism. Among other things, Machen (1881~1937) asserts in that book that it is “perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity” (p. 160)—and it was theological liberalism he was writing about.

(For a succinct summary of Machen and his position, see the first chapter in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, pp. 25~27.)

Machen’s rejection of liberalism was nearly 100 years ago, but that same mentality is still around. In the 1920s, the attack on liberalism was regarding Christian doctrines. Now, however, progressive Christians are more likely to be castigated because of their position on social issues such as abortion and/or gay rights.

Within the last week or ten days, I have seen on Facebook scathing attacks by conservative evangelicals on one of my most esteemed Thinking Friends and also on President Carter. Both were attacked because of their position on abortion and LGBT rights.

This is the Christianity that is being espoused by many of DJT’s supporters, and their tendency to think “we are right, they are wrong” often morphs into the position of “we are (true) Christians and they are not.”

The Christianity of Progressives/Liberals

There are other Christians, however, who are as critical of fundamentalists/conservative evangelicals as the latter are of progressives/liberals.

One good example of the progressive rejection of conservatism is that of Chris Kratzer as seen in his book about which I wrote (here) on December 10.

Even though he was once a part of it, Kratzer’s stringent criticism of conservative evangelicalism is so strong, it is hard to see how the expression of Christianity he now embraces is a form of the same Christianity.

Much of the “liberal” criticism/rejection of conservative evangelicalism is because of the latter’s support of DJT. This is seen, for example, in the writings of blogger John Pavlovitz; click here to see his Dec. 5 article “Is Christianity Helpful Anymore?”

Even more explicit is William Saletan in his Nov. 25 article in Slate: “Trump’s Christian Apologists are Unchristian.” (According to Merriam-Webster, unchristian can mean “not of the Christian faith” or “contrary to the Christian spirit or character.” I am not sure which Saletan, who is Jewish, meant; maybe both.)

In reading some of the diatribes against the very large percentage of white evangelical Protestants who support DJT, and seeing some of the demeaning memes and derogatory statements about such people, it is hard not to conclude that there are, indeed, two quite different Christianities now.

Can There Be a Radiant Christian Center?

The last subsection of my book The Limits of Liberalism is titled “Recommending the Radiant Center.” There I call for a radiant center “composed of both progressive evangelicals and conservative liberals”—and I still think such a center is highly desirable and deserves the best efforts of all serious Christians, regardless of their theological beliefs or stance on social issues.

But since that book was published in 2010, I have become much less hopeful that such a center will become reality—at least in my lifetime. Rather than any noticeable movement toward a radiant center, the apparent movement has been mostly toward greater polarization.

Thus, it seems that differences in degree have become a difference in kind with the result that now, sadly, it is only too accurate to speak of two Christianities.

The Need for More Intrafaith Dialogue

Moderate and liberal Christians have increasingly emphasized the importance of interfaith dialogue. Locally, the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council was formed in 1989 by Vern Barnet (who, I am happy to say, is a Thinking Friend and regular reader of this blog).

“To develop deeper understanding within the community of each other’s faiths and traditions, and to foster appropriate bilateral and multilateral interfaith dialogue and interaction” is the first goal the GKCIC presents on their website.

Here is the second of their five goals: “To model spiritual and religious values, especially mutual respect and cooperation, in a society often intolerant of cultural and religious diversity.”

These are good goals, ones that would be shared by most groups and individuals who work for interfaith dialogue anywhere.

EthicsDaily.com is a division of the Baptist Center for Ethics, an organization founded in 1991 by Robert Parham. BCE launched EthicsDaily.com in 2002 and posts news, columns, editorials and other content each weekday.

(I am also happy to say that from time to time EthicsDaily.com posts my slightly revised blog articles, the last one being on March 29 as you can see here.)

On January 5, BCE Executive Director Parham posted “Prioritize Interfaith Engagement in 2016—The Baptist Way” on EthicsDaily.com. It is a good article, and anyone interested in interfaith dialogue would find it helpful, whether Baptist or not.

I am completely in favor of interfaith dialogue, especially in ways articulated by Parham in the article just cited. But I have come to think that there also needs to be m ore emphasis upon and concerted attempts at having intrafaith dialogue.

Conservative/fundamentalist Christians are not inclined toward having much dialogue of either type, for reasons I won’t go into here. Neither do moderate/liberal Christians seem to have much interest in having dialogue with the former. Some on both camps, sadly, often make denigrating and condescending remarks about those in the other camp.

Some liberal Christians, it seems, would much rather have dialogue with Buddhists and Muslims than with conservative/fundamentalist Christians. That is partly because dialogue with the former is mostly with well-educated, mild-mannered, tolerant people.

On the other hand, there is a stereotype that most conservatives/fundamentalists are ignorant, boisterous, and intolerant. Make no mistake about it: some of them are just that. But there are people exactly like that in other religions also.

All Buddhists and Muslims are not like the fine people in those religious camps who participate in the interfaith councils. But neither are all conservative Christians and evangelicals as ignorant and as intolerant as some we see in the public media.

There are, unquestionably, some conservative/evangelical Christians who are well-educated and good thinkers. Why shouldn’t moderate/liberal Christians be as willing to engage with them in dialogue as they are with those in non-Christian religions?

There are, of course, some examples of good intrafaith dialogue. I think, for example, of Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (1989) by David L. Edwards and John Stott as well as Clark Pinnock’s Crossfire: An Evangelical-Liberal Dialogue (1991).

Pinnock begins his book by writing, “The major division in modern theology is not between Catholics and Protestants anymore but between liberals and evangelicals.” And he goes on to say that “the polarization is often so extreme that it is rare for evangelicals and liberals to talk with each other, much less try to understand one another in a sympathetic way.”

That was 25 years ago, and the situation is probably worse now. So, isn’t there a crying need for more intrafaith dialogue? I, for one, certainly think so.

Where's the Middle?

The cover story of the November 5 issue of The Economist is about “America’s missing middle.” The cover picture shows Uncle Sam looking at a large hamburger bun with nothing in the middle between the top and bottom of the bun.

Currently, in the country as a whole, and particularly in the U.S. Congress, it seems as though the political position of the population is far more like a “well-shaped curve” than the traditional bell-shaped curve. In the latter, the peak includes far more people than those on the far right or the far left. But in the former, those in middle are far fewer than the number on the far right and the far left.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what is developing in the Christian/theological world as well. Even though in the last chapter of my book The Limits of Liberalism I call for support of and identification with the “radiant center,” I sense that that is not descriptive of where most Christians are now.

Back in 1923, J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism was published. Machen (1881-1937) was a New Testament professor at Princeton Seminary between 1915 and 1929, but then led a conservative revolt against the modernist theology at Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary as a more orthodox alternative.

In his book, Machen refers to liberalism as a religion “entirely different” (p. 6) or “totally different” (p. 79) from Christianity. He makes that assertion by comparing liberalism’s views of God, human beings (sin), the Bible, Christ, salvation, etc. with that of traditional Christianity (as he understood it).

From the time I first read Machen’s book years ago (although I didn’t read it when it first came out!), I thought he was overstating the case. Now I am not so sure.

Recently I have been reading Marcus Borg’s new book Speaking Christian (2011). In the Introduction, Borg (b. 1942) says that “Christians in this country (and elsewhere) are deeply divided by different understandings of a shared language” (p. 1). In fact, he goes on to assert, “The differences are so sharp that they virtually produce two different religions, both using the same Bible and the same language: (p. 2).

I am beginning to think that Machen and Borg may be right and that the hope for a strong “radiant center” may be just a pipe dream.

Earlier this month June and I went with our daughter Kathy and her family to their strongly evangelical church. Even though the sermon was based on 2 Chronicles, it stressed the atoning death of Jesus on the cross, consistent with their statement of faith confessing that Jesus “died for the redemption of man’s sin.”

It dawned on me that it had been a long time since I had heard that kind of emphasis in a sermon. Moreover, that emphasis is completely different from Borg’s ideas set forth in “The Death of Jesus,” his eighth chapter. Borg clearly rejects the idea of Jesus’ death being “substitutionary atonement” for sinful human beings.

It seems that most Christians now tend to agree either with the evangelical viewpoint (similar to that of Machen’s in 1923) or with the viewpoint of Borg and expressed by many contemporary liberal theologians/churches. Still, I would like to find, to enlarge, and to enjoy being a part of the radiant center, maybe wide enough to include the middle third, emphasizing both/and rather than either/or.

The Limits of Liberalism

Currently I am in the final stage of writing my second book, The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism. This is the sequel to my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism, published in December 2007.

I started writing the second book on October 1, 2005, and my goal is to have it ready for publication by September 30, 2009. I am almost through with the writing now, but there is a lot of editing that still needs to be done.

I am looking forward to finishing the book and seeing it in print before too many months have passed.