Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Home
About
My Book
Archives
More
- Theology
- Culture
- Politics
- Sermons
- Bible
- Devotions
- Daily Office
- Podcast

Home
Progressive Christian
Is David French or Mayor Pete Right About Christian Salvation?

Is David French or Mayor Pete Right About Christian Salvation?

Last updated on: December 21, 2019 at 2:53 pm by Morgan Guyton

Is David French or Mayor Pete Right About Christian Salvation? 2019-12-21T14:53:44-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Bible with Cross Shadow,” David Campbell, Flickr C.C.

My buddy Jason Micheli recently wrote about the gap between the Christianities of conservative evangelical journalist David French and Episcopalian presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. He was quoting an article in which French was trying to explain the difference between his evangelical faith and Buttigieg’s mainline faith. The main point of distinction French saw was in their understanding of salvation.

French quotes Buttigieg in a Rolling Stones interview saying, “My faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society.”

French explains his understanding of how evangelicals view salvation differently:

In the Mainline formulation, Christ is less an instrument of salvation and more a vehicle for inspiration. The Mainline vision of salvation is alien to the Evangelical mind. Most Evangelical Protestants understand salvation not through works of compassion but rather through faith alone, by the grace of God alone, working through the atoning sacrifice of Christ alone.

Those of us who have studied church history might recognize here the basic distinction between two prominent medieval understandings of atonement: Peter Abelard who taught that Jesus’ cross saves primarily through the love that it models and inspires in Christians and St. Anselm who believed that Jesus’ cross saves primarily by making satisfaction for the dishonor shown to God by humanity’s sin. So who’s right? What is Christian salvation?

In the Wesleyan theological tradition to which I belong, we describe Christian salvation as having two components: justification and sanctification. Justification refers to the way that Jesus conquers and atones for our sin through his cross, thus setting us free from trying to prove that we’re right. As long as we’re trapped in self-justification, we are going to resist God’s transformative love and we’re going to turn every good thing we do into a reason that we’re right, which makes us into bitter, self-righteous, unteachable people. Christianity teaches that the best way for people to become loving, humble, generous, and grateful is to know that they’re often wrong but that Jesus has paid the price for their sin so there’s nothing to be defensive about. We forgive, repent, grow, repeat.

Sanctification refers to the second part of salvation. Having been justified by Christ so that we stop being defensive, God can then work in our hearts to grow the fruit of the spirit which is “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23). The goal of sanctification is to grow towards the asymptotic, seemingly impossible state of being perfected in love. So responding to everyone and everything with nothing but love because we have been so radically rescued from our egotism and pettiness.

In my understanding, Wesleyan theology considers perfection in love to be the purpose of Christian salvation. This is indeed completely foreign to the evangelical gospel as I understood it in my teenage years, in which salvation was about going to the great Disneyland in the sky after you die if you believe hard enough that Jesus died for your sins. I don’t believe any longer that salvation is primarily focused on God letting me into heaven after I die, but that it’s the means by which God brings heaven to earth through the body of people who have been rescued by and united with Christ. Salvation is the process by which God wins us over with his mercy shown through Christ so that we will carry his mercy into the lives of others.

So who’s right? Buttigieg or French? I agree with Buttigieg that God’s ultimate goal in saving Christians is to bring justice and reconciliation to all of humanity, especially the marginalized. Paul says that we are ministers of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18); that is our vocation as disciples. It’s not a side thing we do to give our churches good PR so more people will get baptized and become tithers so we can buy a bigger sound system. God shows us his mercy and makes us his mercy for the sake of healing the nations.

But… there’s a major problem with what Buttigieg said that exposes a critical deficiency I have found throughout mainline Christianity. He said salvation is “how I make myself useful.” It’s not nitpicking for me to point out that this is a completely secular understanding of character formation. In Christianity, we don’t make ourselves anything. If we think that’s what we’re doing, then we have entirely missed the divine justification that is a critical part of our foundation and there’s really no reason for us to be Christians at all. To be self-made belongs to the religion of capitalism, not Christianity.

I have tended to find that in mainline contexts, justification is de-emphasized because there’s not enough of a coherent articulation of why it matters. I recoil as mainliners do at the crude caricature of salvation as afterlife insurance necessitated by a God who hates imperfection so badly that he has no choice but to torture people forever for falling short if they haven’t adequately performed a “faith” that is earnest enough to change their eternal status.

I do not however disbelieve in hell as many mainliners do. I believe that hell is self-justification, in this life and eternally. I believe in this hell because I still live there too much of the time. Every time my self-justification sabotages God’s love from manifesting itself in my relationships and I harm people in order to protect my ego, I make hell for myself and others. I am someone who requires a lot of saving, and thankfully God has infinite grace to apply to my salvation.

What about David French? He says, “Most Evangelical Protestants understand salvation not through works of compassion but rather through faith alone, by the grace of God alone, working through the atoning sacrifice of Christ alone.” I consider this statement on point in what it affirms, but wrong in what it brushes aside. It’s true that we are not justified before God by works of compassion but through God’s grace alone. But justification is not the entirety of salvation (as many evangelicals seem to believe). French is saying essentially justification, not sanctification, when what he should be saying is yes sanctification, but not without justification first.

Ephesians 2:8-10 captures the relationship between justification and sanctification as one package of salvation:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We are not saved by our good works, but we are absolutely saved in order to do good works. When evangelicals operate with a justification-only version of salvation, it caves in on itself. If sanctification is not the purpose of justification, but only a sort of confirmation of justification, then sanctification gets warped into a sort of correct behavior that establishes one’s distinction from the unsaved (no cussing, no dancing, no card games, no gay sex, etc) rather than a pursuit of perfection in love (generosity, patience, humility, etc) for the sake of participating in God’s reconciliation with humanity. Insofar as evangelicals are fixated on proving their distinction from non-Christians and “fake” Christians at every point, their justification is under threat.

Part of the problem is that many evangelicals don’t understand Christ’s atonement as God persuading us to stop proving ourselves to him but as Jesus giving us a way to prove ourselves to God by demonstrating enough “faith” for him to accept us (a form of faith which creates Christians who anxiously justify themselves by showing that they are sufficiently distinct from the unsaved). Unless we are saved from proving ourselves, we have not been justified. When salvation reinforces our self-justification instead of delivering us from it, then we are doubly lost. Until we are justified, we cannot be perfected in love because love that is trying to prove itself saved cannot avoid being tainted with bitterness and anxiety.

So I think Mayor Pete and David French each need a little bit of what the other one has to offer in order to have a complete vision of Christian salvation. And even though United Methodism is about to split up, I continue to believe that the best summary of Christian discipleship is John Wesley’s still controversial claim that it’s all about seeking perfection in love. Christian salvation is both God winning us through his mercy and us becoming God’s mercy for the world.

Previous Post

December 5, 2019

The Conservative Insight I Cannot Reject

Next Post

January 4, 2020 Ten Spiritual Lessons From A Decade of Failures

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is a "cubit's" approximate length according to the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

12 inches 18 inches 24 inches 36 inches