It has been a sanctifying experience. Before I became a conditionalist, for years I have been passionate about three concepts relating to the life of the church.
The first is in Galatians 6:2
"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."The second is 1 Peter 4:8
"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."The third is Hebrews 13:17
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."I'm especially passionate about that part in bold.
I'm passionate about believers not just playing nice and putting on a church face but really digging into the mess of each other's lives and helping each other walk with Christ. The life of a Christian is NOT meant to be lived alone. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:21
"The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”"I've never understood how people are satisfied with surface level relationships in the body of Christ. I don't understand why people would keep others at arms lengths, keep their struggles to themselves. It seems that when people do that they go along until they crack and all the yuck spills out. We should be relying on one another in Christ, knowing that others are there for us and being there for others.
I am so very thankful for the relationships I have at our church both with the friends I am closest too and with the elders as I've gotten to know them. It would have been real easy for them when I told them about my change of mind to just write me off, to just box me in and shut me up. They could have kicked me out, they could have rebuked me publicly, they could have revoked our membership.
They haven't done that. They have asked that I not go around talking to everyone about this because that would cause a lot of trouble. It has been my intention since the beginning to NOT be a source of division. When I changed my mind on Hell I told almost no one before telling one of our pastors because I don't want to be or come of as being subversive. They have the responsibility of shepherding the flock of God that is among them and the last thing I want to do is make that more difficult.
This whole time I've been trying to not only feel my own feelings about hell but to see things from their perspective. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves and to treat others the way we would want to be treated. How can we do that if we don't try to imagine things from their perspective?
Here are some of the thoughts and concerns I imagine they might have:
-They might be concerned because for 1400 years this has been a minority position. It's real easy to believe (and I have done this myself) that if an understanding about a biblical topic has been shared by the vast majority of believes for most of church history, across denominational lines, through more than a dozen centuries then it's difficult to believe that it is wrong.
-They likely go to the text and read it themselves and they see the traditional view in the text (I'll be writing another blog on this topic) They really believe that the text is teaching ECT.
-They might have concerns about how conditionalism may effect other doctrines.
-They might be concerned that it has often been associated with cults and fringe groups within Christianity.
-They might worry that it might sap the zeal or urgency for sharing the gospel.
-They might worry that if they were to change their minds that they would have to step down from church leadership.
-They might worry about the impact that would have on those who look up to them if they were to change their minds.
-They might worry that if people believe that the "church" has been wrong on this issue that it might be wrong on more foundational issues like the trinity, the deity of Jesus, the exclusivity of the gospel etc... and that it may shipwreck the faith of some.
-They might worry that it may take away the urgency for unbelievers to accept Christ.
-They might worry that it could cause a church split.
-They might find it hard to believe that all the people who have taught them and poured into their lives have been wrong.
-They might worry about the personal cost if they were to consider this view. "Will I lose friendships? Will I lose my job? How can I provide for my family?
-They may worry about letting themselves be deceived.
-They might be concerned that it is only emotions that would be pulling them to believe in conditionalism. Traditionalism is a hard truth and it's too easy to give into wishful thinking.
-They may be worried about persecution if they were to adopt conditionalism.
-They may be worried about being ostracized by family and those whom they respect.
-They may worry that if they are just deceiving themselves that they could be used to deceive others.
I could go on and on, there are many more concerns that they could face and I would not be a disciple of Christ if I just shoved all that aside and yelled "don't you care about the truth?!" or something like that.
I believe that I have understood what the bible is saying correctly by accepting conditionalism. I want to stay humble enough to say that I might be wrong. None of us comes to the bible nakedly objective. We all have our presuppositions, our assumptions, life experiences that shape how we take in information and how we interpret the text.
Often, when faced with two similarly good but different explanations of a passage or a doctrine we accept the one that "feels" more correct. To admit that sounds like we're guided by our feelings, that is not what I mean. What I mean is that often when two people make equally good cases to us it is other factors, factors we are often unaware of that lead us to go with one over the other. I can't fault anyone else for doing this since I do it myself. If I'm going to love my neighbor as myself I must be willing to put up with things in them that I would hope others would put up with in me.
It has become clear to me, through these meetings and other conversations that at least for now, neither of us are going to convince the other. The question then is, how do we live out our Christianity together?
First, I'm thankful that at least in my situation the elders do not believe that my conviction is a salvation issue. They also do not think it is an issue that would warrant church discipline. With those two concerns out of the way, they do however believe that it is a serious error. Because of this they have taken me out of teaching positions at the church (I was teaching a home fellowship group and was in the rotation for Sunday morning prayer and scripture reading) They have asked that I
1. Not bring up the topic with people I haven't already talked to in the church.
2. Refrain from trying to convince others of my view that already know that I hold it (my 6 or 7 closest friends).
I am however able to talk with said friends about the situation proper. I can discuss how my meetings have gone, share my thoughts and feelings, pray with them etc...
I also am able to discuss this issue itself with the elders and 2 of my closest friends. This has been a great relief since I don't have to keep all my thoughts bottled up in my head.
------
Now I know that many will perhaps read this and they will have all manner of different reactions. Some may read about my current situation and think "They don't have the right to silence you like this" others may read it and think "They should be silencing you more!" and everywhere in between.
I get those thoughts.
For those of you who think "They are not being fair with you" I want to share my perspective.
While I would love to be able to freely discuss my view with everyone or anyone in our church I realize that to do so could cause tremendous chaos. I know there are people in our church who upon hearing about my change of mind would say "that's interesting. What led you to adopt that view?" or "this is not something we should divide over." I also remember having a conversation with a man (several years before I became a conditionalist) who was concerned that our church was working together with another church because THAT church was renting their building from the 7th day Adventists and the 7th day Adventists are Annihilationists. I imagine he would have quite strong feelings if he knew what I've come to believe.
I love my pastors. I love them as my pastor, and as a brother, and as friends. I know how hard being a pastor is. I know they have many early mornings, many full days, many late nights, many nights lost in concern or in prayer. I know that being a pastor is hard on their families, that often times when crises arise that it is their wives and children who sacrifice time with them. I know they carry the weight of the well-being of hundreds of people. As the apostle says when listing all the difficulties he has faced:
"In toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night... And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?"My heart truly goes out to these men and the burdens they endure. How could I demand they give me my freedom when they have given themselves as slaves for Christ? Are we not all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus?
If I were to go around making the case to everyone in the church, it would be like an arsonist going around starting fires. I believe that conditionalism is true, but the elders to do not. Am I going to win them over by causing conflict and schism?
Even if I am right, the way I go about sharing what I believe to be truth matters.
If you are a conditionalist reading this I want to appeal to you to consider carefully how you carry yourself. We can wield the truth as a weapon and destroy what we should rather be building up. I want to consider Romans 14 in it's entirety since it speaks to exactly how we should handle ourselves in this situation.
1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
What we believe about final punishment is not a salvation issue. In Paul's audience there were some who, by how they've understood the word, believed that they should not eat meat. Others, by how they have understood the word, believe they are able to eat meat. The key is that we are told not to quarrel over opinions.
In the issue of hell, let the traditionalist not despise the conditionalist and let not the conditionalist pass judgement on the traditionalist for since this is not a salvation issue it is evident that God has welcomed him. Who are we to pass judgment over God's servant? He and you are both accountable to God and because of what Jesus did on the cross, because of the righteousness of Christ we will both be upheld for Jesus is able to hold us up.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Here Paul brings up another issue. Some people disagree on what is acceptable to eat, others disagree on whether some days are better than others. Paul's statement at the end of verse 5 is fascinating. Rather than say "each one should admit they might be wrong" rather he says that "each one should be FULLY CONVINCED in his own mind."
Here is John pipers thoughts:
Therefore I conclude from what Paul says that the way for disagreeing Christians to get along with each other in a truth-honoring, Christ-exalting way is not to breed indecisiveness on minor issues. The answer to judgmentalism and despising others and not accepting others is not vacillation, wavering, indecisiveness, and uncertainty about what to do. That might create a kind of peace. People without opinions tend to be able to get along pretty well. But evidently Paul does not believe the solution to Christian disagreement is for all of us to become wishy-washy—even on the minor issues! When Paul weighs the risks of the mindset that can’t come to a conviction and stand for it, versus the risks of the mindset that has convictions on all minor matters, he chooses the second set of risks. In fact, he advocates for the second set of risks: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."The key to in what WAY we should be convinced is in the next verse:
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
It doesn't seem that Paul is saying that we must be convinced that we are right but rather we should be convinced that what we believe honors the Lord.
The traditionalist believes he is honoring the Lord to believe in eternal torment, the conditionalist believes he is honoring the Lord to believe in eternal destruction. We should recognize in each other the desire to honor the Lord in what we believe.
If you are struggling with loving traditionalists, with being patient with them, with thinking the best of them, please read that last sentence again.
If we are really Christians, then the deepest desire of our heart is to love God with all our heart and mind and strength. I recognize in my brothers that they are not believing in traditionalism because it is just tradition or because they hate unbelievers, they believe it because they think it is what the word says. They desire to conform their beliefs to Jesus. I want to honor that in them. If we are seeking to believe things simply because they feel good or are pragmatic or they are appealing we should repent.
7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.I can't tell you how much these 3 verses make my heart soar and how there is a deep longing in my heart for my life and the life of those who are in Christ to exemplify this attitude.
1 cor 6:19-20:
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."When we really get the gospel, what God has done for us, how can we insist on our own way?
Philippians 2:2-5
"complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus"Jesus emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. He didn't seek his own good but sought ours. He was willing to suffer himself for our good. We should follow his example.
If I was seeking to please my flesh my pride would be hurt. It hurts to be removed from a teaching position. If people were to ask me why I'm no longer teaching, I don't have an answer that makes me look good.
It hurts to be asked to not discuss with others what I've come to believe to be true about hell. It hurts to know that people I respect and care about think that I am wrong in a serious way. All of those thoughts and feelings need to be crucified. If giving up all those things, the respect of being a teacher, the status of approval as appearing sound in doctrine in the eyes of people who's opinions I value, is required in order to preserve the unity of the body then I will lay them at the foot of the cross. My deepest desire is that Jesus would be honored in my life. I stumble in many ways but I am determined to do all that I can to love Him and to love others through this.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
If some of you are facing situations that are similar to mine, take courage from these verses. It is not our place to pass Judgment. I cannot judge my brother. I'm not in authority over him. How can I let him be small in my sight? (the word translated in the ESV as despise can mean to think of as nothing) Remember that they will stand before God and give an account of himself to God, if he was wrong about hell, God will address it. But also remember that YOU will stand before God. If you have been despising your brothers for their view of hell God will also address that with YOU.
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
There are ways to discuss our disagreements that work toward building one another up. There are also ways to discuss our disagreements that tear each other down. Paul says that he personally is persuaded that nothing is unclean in itself but he understands that if another person see's it differently then in their own conscience it IS unclean. If Paul thinks that it's fine for him to eat bacon and a brother thinks that bacon should not be eaten, for that brother to eat it would be to violate his conscience.
If I think something is sinful then to allow my self to do it would be to allow myself to sin. To push someone into that kind of moral dilemma is unloving and dangerous. If I push a brother into violating his conscience he may learn to do that in other areas as well. I may end up pushing him along a path that even ends up walking away from the faith all together.
If I promote what I believe to be "good" in such a way that it damages others faith, others will regard what I believe to be good as if it were "evil". If I promote conditionalism, a thing which I regard as good, in such a way that it causes chaos, disorder, crisis of faith in others in the church, everyone who disagrees with me will look on conditionalism as a problem. The same could be said about how we hold Calvinism, Continuationism, Baptism, our view of the Eschatology, etc... Paul tells us to hold our opinions on secondary matters in love.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.Sometimes as conditionalists we can feel so sure that we are right that we just want to MAKE everyone else see what we see. But if the way we go about talking about our understanding harms another brother Paul says it would be better if we just shut our mouths. Paul says "the faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" this means that it IS appropriate at times NOT to argue for your cause. Since this is not a salvation issue, we can be wrong on it and still be approved by God. One of them was right, either the day was better or it wasn't but both are holding their beliefs so as to honor God. Either it is okay to eat meat or it's not, but both believe they are doing what is right toward God. If you never convince others of the truth of your view, if they are in Christ, they will still be accepted by God.
------
I want to say a final word to my traditionalist and conditionalist friends.
To the conditionalists reading this please remember that many of you were likely traditionalist yourselves, perhaps for decades. You read the scriptures and you thought they taught ECT. You discounted conditionalist arguments and were not persuaded by them. The Lord had to bring you through all the life experience necessary to the point that you could receive a change of mind. Therefore have mercy on others knowing that they are not where you are at.
It's not due on their part to moral deficiency, they believe they are believing what the bible says. Many traditionalists have stated that they don't like the doctrine but they believe it is what the bible teaches. Love and treat them the way you would want to be treated. I don't believe that Paul's instructions in Romans 14 rules out conversation to try to mutually discover the truth but it does preclude causing another to stumble in the way we interact over disagreements.
To my traditionalist brothers, please also remember our view is not due to moral deficiency. We are not conditionalists merely because we "can't stomach the truth about hell" or because we put our feelings ahead of the text.
Please be humbled by the fact that in the first five centuries of the church there was GREAT diversity of views. Conditionalists (Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athanasius) Universalists (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps Clement of Alexandria) and Traditionalists (Athenagorus, Tertullian, Augustine) all worked together for the gospel, they didn't anathematize each other over their view of hell. None of the first ecumenical counsels decided dogmatically on the nature of hell which means, despite a diversity of views, no one thought a particular view was essential for salvation or that it disqualified one from ministry.
I would encourage you in two ways, first be careful to make more of this doctrine than the early church did, if they could tolerate diversity on this issue so can we. Second, put yourselves in our shoes, if you came to be persuaded FROM THE SCRIPTURES that the end of the wicked is death, how would you hope to be treated.
I love you all. For the glory of Christ and the furtherance of the gospel, peace be with you in Christ.
Well written. Thanks for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteThank you :)
Delete