Church as Ark of Salvation

Exchange with Kent Ellett on

"The Church as Ark of Salvation"

[The Reverend Kent Ellett is pastor of a Church of Christ congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a former student of mine. Posted here 3/24/04]

An Evangelical Response to Jones' The Church as Ark of Salvation

Joe:

Your paper on The Church as Ark of Salvation reminded me of the many happy hours I spent in your classroom agreeing with you far more than I was willing to let on. And it again reminded me that you have influenced my doctrine of God and helped me to the understanding that the task of theological reflection necessarily precedes exegesis as much as it follows it. Not a slight admission from a Campbellite!

I got tickled at the following sentence: "Either the rough outlines of the narrative are bedrock for Christians and the church or they are not." I see the possibility of a real discussion of potential heresy as a grievous, though hopeful development. I found your critique of theological liberalism not only devastating, but also accessible for most church members. Yet, I can hear some of the groans such language may provoke.

In my own context, where we have a slightly different view of inspiration, you might have gotten in trouble for limiting your claim to the "rough outlines." And of course, that has been part of our problem. We, in Churches of Christ, have been so busy asserting the totality of the text to be reliable, that we have failed to see that all language is historically contingent, and we have failed to prioritize our theological claims. It has seemed to me that the result of the Stone-Campbell tradition's refusal to theologically unpack the meaning of the good confession has led to nothing being heretical among some Disciples while almost anything being deemed heretical among some in the conservative two streams. Anything and nothing may become heresy when the discipline to which you have devoted your life is neglected.

I want to give a hearty amen to the "rough outlines" of your paper. Your distinction between salvation as ultimate redemption and historical redemption along with a lot of study of New Testament kingdom language led me several years ago to the conviction that the church and the kingdom were intersecting but not identical entities. Salvation in terms of ultimate redemption may come to many people through Jesus who might not ever know Jesus. Romans 2 seems to indicate that many people sincerely may conscientiously respond in faith to the light available to them apart from any knowledge of Jewish/Christian revelation. And while these persons may not experience union with and in Jesus or be shaped by the distinctive character of the Christian hope or vocation, they may yet be participating in the greater rule of God. In this regard the conservative streams of the Stone Campbell Movement need to hear your paper. Certainly any sacramental or institutional model of the church that makes ecclesiology rather than Christ the dispenser of salvation is heretical in a different sense, and it undermines the ethics of grace you so correctly recommend. Unfortunately, you need not have gone so far as Roman Catholicism to illustrate the traditional model of church as ark.

I'm gratified that your warning against dual destiny now seems to be merely that it "comes dangerously close (italics mine) to saying that we earn ultimate redemption by…holy living." I remember (perhaps incorrectly) your having even a greater degree of epistemological surety on that issue. I cannot understand why your charge of works-righteousness could not be equally leveled against your own model of salvation in the sense of historic redemption. Do we earn salvation in the historic sense by holy living? Why does requiring receptivity amount to Pelagianism with regard to justification and ultimate redemption while not touching your doctrine of historic redemption? On this matter I continue to suggest that the grammar of "faith" is completely "other regarding"-it trusts in the saving other-not in itself, and it applies equally to salvation in all three senses.

Finally, I just acknowledge that we have the typical evangelical/post-liberal difference in methodology. If it be permissible to critique the scripture containing the witness to dual destiny, we then have no methodological reason to offer liberals for why they should not in due course feel free to play fast and lose with what you call the "rough outline" or what we together consider to be the deep grammar of the faith.

With abiding affection,
Kent
3/6/04

Response by Joe R. Jones

Kent:

Your lovely response to my essay on “The Church as Ark of Salvation” is a reassuring signal that you still possess a discerning and passionate theological mind that has always both delighted and challenged me.

While I am a lifetime participant in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and therefore a beneficiary of the Stone-Campbell tradition, I often stand in dismay at some of the misguiding tendencies and practices that have stalked that tradition from the very beginning. I am pleased that you too are uneasy with some aspects of our common tradition from your perspective as an ardent and faithful member of the Church of Christ. I am especially heartened by your astute observation that, whereas I am critical of the Disciples of Christ for having no rich common confession with bite and substance and therefore unable to deal seriously with issues of heresy, so too your own tradition is so prone to see heresy everywhere—given a virtually inerrant Bible—that it is also incapacitated to confess a common core of essential beliefs that bind the church together. Among Disciples it seems that almost nothing is considered heretical, while among Churches of Christ, almost anything that appears to disagree with an iota of Scripture is deemed heretical.

I invite you again to consider the various things I say in the Grammar concerning orthodoxy/orthopraxis and heresy in word and deed. Yet my basic move is not to try to identify the full lineaments of orthodoxy and heresy but to focus on encouraging folk to clarify what they think constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am then ready to ask folk to understand that Gospel as the Presiding Model of how they interpret Scripture. There are no safe infallibilities here, but I do think this approach might empower the church to get clearer about a common confession that intends to state or point to the ‘essentials of the faith’—to that without which the faith is imperiled and distorted.

It seems fair that you chide me for playing down those passages in Scripture that seem to point to a dual destiny in all senses of ‘salvation.’ How do I have anything to stand on, you ask, in the face of ‘liberals’ who want to discount much of Scripture and construct their own nonbiblical understanding of Christian faith? But, Kent, your question is still rooted in that deep epistemological conviction that there must be some infallible or inerrant ‘foundation’ that is unshakeable or else the faith will be mere fallible human opinion. That very contrast is what keeps so-called ‘fundamentalism’ and some aspects of the Roman tradition alive. But I think it is a false and misleading contrast. If we are truly a tradition of conversation about the faith, then I do think it is possible to start identifying those doctrinal themes that are essential to the faith, those aberrant themes that are heretical and those themes that are still subject to disagreement ‘within the faith.’ But, as I have repeatedly said, even those doctrines that we deem essential to the faith are still, in their locutionary form, ‘reformable.’

I turn now to your concern that perhaps my understanding of ‘historic redemption’ is susceptible to the interpretation that is a subtle form of ‘works righteousness.’ But note: I say historic redemption is rooted in saying ‘yes’ to God’s reconciling work in Israel and in Jesus Christ. The ‘yes’ itself, however much it is a human act and activity, is to be interpreted as being empowered and made possible by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit. There is no claim herein by Christians that they have ‘earned their salvation’ by saying yes. Rather, they are ‘appropriating’ a salvation already given in Christ, and therein enacting the Christian life of sanctification and emancipation. Historic redemption is the enjoyment of the benefits of Christ’s reconciling work. I try laboriously to state these issues carefully in my discussion in my Grammar of human freedom on pages 528-36 and in the discussion of faith on pages 519-528. If one asks in particular why one person lives in faith and another does not, there is no precise and easy answer. We invoke the mystery of God’s presence and activity in the world and in the church through the Spirit. ‘Some people freely respond and some do not’ is one answer, as is ‘the Holy Spirit moves some and not others.’ I refuse to fall either into a Pelagian answer—'it is my own free will that puts me into salvation'—or a Predestinarian answer—'in God’s ultimate freedom, God ordains some to salvation and others to damnation.' But I feel in wiser company with those who simply attribute human faithfulness to the freely given grace of God. Holy living is indeed the name of historic redemption but the living is neither possible nor actual without the empowering grace of God.

This is why, when we come to ultimate redemption, we must again emphasize the Christian trusts in the graciousness of God and not in his or her own righteousness or holiness. Therefore, the Christian also trusts in that graciousness even for those who have not known Christ or have not engaged in ‘holy living.’ In this way I do agree with your insightful statement “that the grammar of ‘faith’ is completely ‘other regarding’—it trusts in the saving other—not in itself, and it applies equally to salvation in all three senses.” As we both agree, that Sovereign Other in whom we trust and hope is the free and loving triune God we know in Jesus Christ through the Spirit.

Again, Kent, thanks for your thoughtful response to my essay. I do miss that energetic exchange of the classroom. Maybe the Internet and this website are virtual substitutes, even if they are not quite moments of face-to-face conversation.

Peace,
Joe
3/24/04

A Grammar of Christian Faith Systematic Explorations in Christian Life and Doctrine Joe R. Jones
About Jones Book Contents Bibliography Essays Postings Readings Responses Contact	Exchange with Kent Ellett on "The Church as Ark of Salvation" [The Reverend Kent Ellett is pastor of a Church of Christ congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a former student of mine. Posted here 3/24/04] An Evangelical Response to Jones' The Church as Ark of Salvation Joe: Your paper on The Church as Ark of Salvation reminded me of the many happy hours I spent in your classroom agreeing with you far more than I was willing to let on. And it again reminded me that you have influenced my doctrine of God and helped me to the understanding that the task of theological reflection necessarily precedes exegesis as much as it follows it. Not a slight admission from a Campbellite! I got tickled at the following sentence: "Either the rough outlines of the narrative are bedrock for Christians and the church or they are not." I see the possibility of a real discussion of potential heresy as a grievous, though hopeful development. I found your critique of theological liberalism not only devastating, but also accessible for most church members. Yet, I can hear some of the groans such language may provoke. In my own context, where we have a slightly different view of inspiration, you might have gotten in trouble for limiting your claim to the "rough outlines." And of course, that has been part of our problem. We, in Churches of Christ, have been so busy asserting the totality of the text to be reliable, that we have failed to see that all language is historically contingent, and we have failed to prioritize our theological claims. It has seemed to me that the result of the Stone-Campbell tradition's refusal to theologically unpack the meaning of the good confession has led to nothing being heretical among some Disciples while almost anything being deemed heretical among some in the conservative two streams. Anything and nothing may become heresy when the discipline to which you have devoted your life is neglected. I want to give a hearty amen to the "rough outlines" of your paper. Your distinction between salvation as ultimate redemption and historical redemption along with a lot of study of New Testament kingdom language led me several years ago to the conviction that the church and the kingdom were intersecting but not identical entities. Salvation in terms of ultimate redemption may come to many people through Jesus who might not ever know Jesus. Romans 2 seems to indicate that many people sincerely may conscientiously respond in faith to the light available to them apart from any knowledge of Jewish/Christian revelation. And while these persons may not experience union with and in Jesus or be shaped by the distinctive character of the Christian hope or vocation, they may yet be participating in the greater rule of God. In this regard the conservative streams of the Stone Campbell Movement need to hear your paper. Certainly any sacramental or institutional model of the church that makes ecclesiology rather than Christ the dispenser of salvation is heretical in a different sense, and it undermines the ethics of grace you so correctly recommend. Unfortunately, you need not have gone so far as Roman Catholicism to illustrate the traditional model of church as ark. I'm gratified that your warning against dual destiny now seems to be merely that it "comes dangerously close (italics mine) to saying that we earn ultimate redemption by…holy living." I remember (perhaps incorrectly) your having even a greater degree of epistemological surety on that issue. I cannot understand why your charge of works-righteousness could not be equally leveled against your own model of salvation in the sense of historic redemption. Do we earn salvation in the historic sense by holy living? Why does requiring receptivity amount to Pelagianism with regard to justification and ultimate redemption while not touching your doctrine of historic redemption? On this matter I continue to suggest that the grammar of "faith" is completely "other regarding"-it trusts in the saving other-not in itself, and it applies equally to salvation in all three senses. Finally, I just acknowledge that we have the typical evangelical/post-liberal difference in methodology. If it be permissible to critique the scripture containing the witness to dual destiny, we then have no methodological reason to offer liberals for why they should not in due course feel free to play fast and lose with what you call the "rough outline" or what we together consider to be the deep grammar of the faith. With abiding affection, Kent 3/6/04 Response by Joe R. Jones Kent: Your lovely response to my essay on “The Church as Ark of Salvation” is a reassuring signal that you still possess a discerning and passionate theological mind that has always both delighted and challenged me. While I am a lifetime participant in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and therefore a beneficiary of the Stone-Campbell tradition, I often stand in dismay at some of the misguiding tendencies and practices that have stalked that tradition from the very beginning. I am pleased that you too are uneasy with some aspects of our common tradition from your perspective as an ardent and faithful member of the Church of Christ. I am especially heartened by your astute observation that, whereas I am critical of the Disciples of Christ for having no rich common confession with bite and substance and therefore unable to deal seriously with issues of heresy, so too your own tradition is so prone to see heresy everywhere—given a virtually inerrant Bible—that it is also incapacitated to confess a common core of essential beliefs that bind the church together. Among Disciples it seems that almost nothing is considered heretical, while among Churches of Christ, almost anything that appears to disagree with an iota of Scripture is deemed heretical. I invite you again to consider the various things I say in the Grammar concerning orthodoxy/orthopraxis and heresy in word and deed. Yet my basic move is not to try to identify the full lineaments of orthodoxy and heresy but to focus on encouraging folk to clarify what they think constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am then ready to ask folk to understand that Gospel as the Presiding Model of how they interpret Scripture. There are no safe infallibilities here, but I do think this approach might empower the church to get clearer about a common confession that intends to state or point to the ‘essentials of the faith’—to that without which the faith is imperiled and distorted. It seems fair that you chide me for playing down those passages in Scripture that seem to point to a dual destiny in all senses of ‘salvation.’ How do I have anything to stand on, you ask, in the face of ‘liberals’ who want to discount much of Scripture and construct their own nonbiblical understanding of Christian faith? But, Kent, your question is still rooted in that deep epistemological conviction that there must be some infallible or inerrant ‘foundation’ that is unshakeable or else the faith will be mere fallible human opinion. That very contrast is what keeps so-called ‘fundamentalism’ and some aspects of the Roman tradition alive. But I think it is a false and misleading contrast. If we are truly a tradition of conversation about the faith, then I do think it is possible to start identifying those doctrinal themes that are essential to the faith, those aberrant themes that are heretical and those themes that are still subject to disagreement ‘within the faith.’ But, as I have repeatedly said, even those doctrines that we deem essential to the faith are still, in their locutionary form, ‘reformable.’ I turn now to your concern that perhaps my understanding of ‘historic redemption’ is susceptible to the interpretation that is a subtle form of ‘works righteousness.’ But note: I say historic redemption is rooted in saying ‘yes’ to God’s reconciling work in Israel and in Jesus Christ. The ‘yes’ itself, however much it is a human act and activity, is to be interpreted as being empowered and made possible by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit. There is no claim herein by Christians that they have ‘earned their salvation’ by saying yes. Rather, they are ‘appropriating’ a salvation already given in Christ, and therein enacting the Christian life of sanctification and emancipation. Historic redemption is the enjoyment of the benefits of Christ’s reconciling work. I try laboriously to state these issues carefully in my discussion in my Grammar of human freedom on pages 528-36 and in the discussion of faith on pages 519-528. If one asks in particular why one person lives in faith and another does not, there is no precise and easy answer. We invoke the mystery of God’s presence and activity in the world and in the church through the Spirit. ‘Some people freely respond and some do not’ is one answer, as is ‘the Holy Spirit moves some and not others.’ I refuse to fall either into a Pelagian answer—'it is my own free will that puts me into salvation'—or a Predestinarian answer—'in God’s ultimate freedom, God ordains some to salvation and others to damnation.' But I feel in wiser company with those who simply attribute human faithfulness to the freely given grace of God. Holy living is indeed the name of historic redemption but the living is neither possible nor actual without the empowering grace of God. This is why, when we come to ultimate redemption, we must again emphasize the Christian trusts in the graciousness of God and not in his or her own righteousness or holiness. Therefore, the Christian also trusts in that graciousness even for those who have not known Christ or have not engaged in ‘holy living.’ In this way I do agree with your insightful statement “that the grammar of ‘faith’ is completely ‘other regarding’—it trusts in the saving other—not in itself, and it applies equally to salvation in all three senses.” As we both agree, that Sovereign Other in whom we trust and hope is the free and loving triune God we know in Jesus Christ through the Spirit. Again, Kent, thanks for your thoughtful response to my essay. I do miss that energetic exchange of the classroom. Maybe the Internet and this website are virtual substitutes, even if they are not quite moments of face-to-face conversation. Peace, Joe 3/24/04 Copyright © 2004

	About Jones	Home	Contact