There's No Salvation Here (or is there)

The Church of the Nazarene is not really evangelical.  Stay with me.  Maybe this is why we get to article #9 before we talk about the crisis moment that so many people understand as conversion.  But read carefully, because the language in this article is not the language we use in everyday encounters.  There's something so much more.  There are some things I would like to expand, but even as it is written; justification, regeneration, and adoption are not about "getting saved".  In fact, salvation is not even mentioned in this article.

IX. Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption

9. We believe that justification is the gracious and judicial act of God by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

9.1. We believe that regeneration, or the new birth, is that gracious work of God whereby the moral nature of the repentant believer is spiritually quickened and given a distinctively spiritual life, capable of faith, love, and obedience.

9.2. We believe that adoption is that gracious act of God by which the justified and regenerated believer is constituted a son of God.

9.3. We believe that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in the experience of seekers after God and are obtained upon the condition of faith, preceded by repentance; and that to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness.

(Luke 18:14; John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 5:24; Acts 13:39; Romans 1:17; 3:21-26, 28; 4:5-9, 17-25; 5:1, 16-19; 6:4; 7:6; 8:1, 15-17; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 2:16-21; 3:1-14, 26; 4:4-7; Ephesians 1:6- 7; 2:1, 4-5; Philippians 3:3-9; Colossians 2:13; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 1:9; 3:1-2, 9; 4:7; 5:1, 9-13, 18)

In an earlier post about atonement, I considered skipping ahead and combining these two articles but thought better of it because of the sometimes ignored material in-between.  And yet, here we are, now discussing not what atonement is but what it does.

Justification - What a funny word to use.  I can remember hearing this described, in a clever play on syllables, as "just... as... if... I'd" never sinned.  What does that really mean?  Because we're human, and I think our understanding is, perhaps, a bit limited, we return to this concept of guilt and punishment.  If we are justified, we escape the consequences of our sin.  Don't misunderstand, please.  If "the wages of sin is death" (see Romans 6:23), and I think it is since that's Scripture, then we clearly need atonement.  No one wants to pay those wages.  No one can afford to pay those wages.  But, in light of all of my recent work on confession, penance, and repentance; I'm not sure that atonement really makes things as though the sin had never happened.  If I stop to think about our definition of original sin, it seems to follow that there is no moment at which we had never sinned.  This would essentially mean that justification is actually "just... as... if... I" never was, and I'm not sure we really want to go there.   

Of course, if we want to take another step and consider the common, non-theological definition of justification, it is "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable."  Why did we choose this word in connection with sin?  In many ways, I think that using this terminology actually makes sin much more palatable.  Who wants that?  I completely understand the desire to make sin and all of its consequences magically disappear.  Believe me, I get it.  I understand it from the perspective of one who has sinned... grievously.  I understand it from the perspective of one who has been sinned against... also grievously.  I understand it from the perspective of one who desperately longs for corporate confession and systemic change, and I understand that I am a part of the problem.  Justification, for me, is just too easy.  Making things right with God, through Jesus, is essential, but we are way too comfortable with this, "just... as... if..." the only thing that matters after that is what happens to us.  Perhaps, even more than justification, what we need is the ability to both give and receive forgiveness, because sin has happened, sin does happen, and calling it what it is and dealing with it is much more redemptive than pretending it doesn't exist or ignoring its effects. 

Regeneration -  I like this word, because it fits so nicely with renewal, restoration, and redemption.  After doing some very quick research, I found that in the world of science, regeneration also carries with it the property of resilience, and I love that for more reasons than I currently have time to get into.  But what we say here, in the article, sounds a little at odds with itself.  I continue to struggle with the idea that we are completely incapable of faith, love, or obedience, in any way, pre-regeneration.  The prefix, "re," means again, or even again and again, or sometimes to go back or to return to something that once was.  To be regenerated, then, is not so much to be made new but to be restored or made right.  I think we get wrapped up in original sin and we forget that there was a time when God looked at us, created Imago Dei, and called us good.  Regeneration, then, is to be returned to what we were created to be.  How can we accept this, however, without some capacity for faith or love?  My inclination would be to tie this, tightly, to prevenient grace.  The grace that goes before and draws us close is, then, the beginning of the salvific process.  But we have such a difficult time framing salvation in anything more or less than a crisis moment.  This is problematic in many ways, but perhaps especially so regarding regeneration which both requires and imparts faith.   

Adoption - I'm pushing back against this definition, because I have quite a few friends who became parents, through adoption, and I can't think of a single one who required something like justification or regeneration before their children were fully accepted and declared a part of their families.  Of course, I also have difficulty dealing with images of a loving parent God who would readily accept eternal separation from children, sending them into a state of eternal, conscious torment.  I'm a mom.  I'm a loving mom.  I can't think of anything in all the world that one of my children could do that would cause me to inflict that kind of punishment, and I know I'm not a more loving parent than God.  Just think that through for a moment.  Is our adoption as children definitively contingent on justification and regeneration?  Maybe, but if we want to accept this language, then I think we absolutely must acknowledge prevenient grace as the beginning of justification and regeneration.  This is much more about what God does than what we do.  After all, what child chooses his or her parents?  It's just not the way family is created.

"Justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous."  That's a little bit hard to swallow, given the strong preceding language that seems to make justification and regeneration prerequisites to adoption.  But what if we began to look at these concepts through a slightly different lens and accepted them as simultaneous but not instantaneous.  Perhaps this is not as linear as we have imagined.  Perhaps this is a process that goes on and on, without end, as we continue to be those who seek God.

L.

Atonement

Before I even get started on this, I have to admit that I want to combine atonement (article 6) with justification, regeneration and adoption (article 9), but I'm going to resist.  Because of that, this post will feel at least somewhat unfinished to me, and it might feel that way to you, as well.  I am trying to think of it in the same way I think of the time and care we should put into the Lenten season, and particularly Holy Week.  If atonement draws us in to the story of Good Friday, then justification, regeneration, and adoption point us to Easter.  So often, we want to rush ahead.  But it is worthwhile to sit with the consequences of atonement and to take some time for quiet reflection rather than moving ahead too quickly.  In the Church of the Nazarene, Article 6 reads as follows:    

VI. Atonement

6. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the shedding of His own blood, and by His death on the Cross, made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is graciously efficacious for the salvation of those incapable of moral responsibility and for the children in innocency but is efficacious for the salvation of those who reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and believe.

(Isaiah 53:5-6, 11; Mark 10:45; Luke 24:46-48; John 1:29; 3:14-17; Acts 4:10-12; Romans 3:21-26; 4:17-25; 5:6-21; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:14-21; Galatians 1:3-4; 3:13-14; Colossians 1:19-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9; 9:11-14; 13:12; 1 Peter 1:18- 21; 2:19-25; 1 John 2:1-2)

At its heart, atonement is about what Jesus did to reconcile God and humanity.  There are numerous atonement theories that focus on different possible explanations for Jesus' crucifixion.  Was it a payment?  An act of vindication on behalf of God's honor or justice?  A show of victory?  An example of ultimate obedience?  A substitution? 

Arminians lean toward an atonement theory that suggests Christ did not pay the penalty for our sin but, instead, suffered for us as a substitution for our suffering.  The implication here is that to pay the penalty would have atoned for all sin, making redemption unnecessary.  By acting as a substitution, instead, the understanding is that we may choose this reconciliation but that we should then turn from sin, because we recognize the gravity of it.

Interestingly, this has me thinking about the different ways in which we exhibit the cross in various faith traditions.  Of particular relevance might be the tension between a crucifix and an empty cross.  The importance of an empty tomb, I can understand.  It's a deal breaker.  But I'm fairly certain the cross is never empty.  We don't have any evidence, in Scripture, of what happened to the cross after Jesus' crucifixion, but in all likelihood it was not left at Golgotha as a symbol of Jesus' death.  In fact, it may have been used for other crucifixions, before and after that of Jesus.  What makes the cross what it is to us, in the Christian tradition, is that Jesus hung on it.  And yet, we so often worship before an empty cross.  Perhaps there is something to the crucifix, where Jesus' blood never stops spilling to cover our sins.

But I have digressed just a little bit.

Article 6 is significant, because the way we define atonement says a lot about the way we understand grace... and God.

Regardless of why or how, we recognize that Jesus did make atonement for sin, reconciling us to God.  I'm not sure why we feel the need to emphasize that this atonement is for human sin, sufficient for Adam's race.  While I would agree that it certainly is, I am left feeling a little bit dissatisfied, because I think atonement covers more than just people.  In I John 2:2, we read, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (NIV).  Have we limited the atonement?  Since I believe that God will redeem everyone and everything that can be redeemed, I would venture to say that we have.  I don't think I want to do that, and I also don't think this was necessarily an intentional limitation.  We must, however, be careful with our words.

It's the second sentence that really gets me, though.  There are two issues that jump out immediately.  First, we recognize atonement as efficacious (effective, successful) for three groups of people; those incapable of moral responsibility, children in innocency, and those who repent and believe.  I am in complete agreement that atonement is efficacious for all of those groups.  What I struggle with is the earlier article in which we defined people as continually bent toward sin from birth, but now we seem to make exceptions.  I think we need to make our language read in such a way that this does not become confusing to people.  Also, perhaps ironically, we do not define this age of responsibility.  I presume this is because we can't.  As long as we recognize that it is not up to us to determine who can't and who won't accept the atonement, I think this part of our statement is acceptable.  Do we recognize that?  I don't know.

The second issue I have here is that we describe the atonement as graciously efficacious for those who are incapable of moral responsibility and for children in innocency, but we only describe it as efficacious for those who repent and believe.  Perhaps this is merely an oversight, but it lends itself to a way of thinking that indicates that those who accept and believe might be more worthy of atonement.  I would hate to think that we believe that Jesus owes it to us to bring reconciliation between God and humanity if we accept it.  Speaking for myself, I am definitely a part of the group who has reached the age of responsibility, and I would like to admit that atonement is graciously efficacious for me, as well.  I do not deserve it.

L.