Re-thinking Mission - Part 4

I want to conclude this series of posts on the missional movement with what I see as one of its major theological weaknesses, namely the tendency toward Universalism or Inclusivism.  However much I appreciate Karl Barth, Lesslie Newbigin and the "Gospel and Our Culture Network" which they have influenced, I cannot follow them when it comes to their Christological re-working of election.

For Calvin, Luther and the magisterial Reformers, the decree of predestination stands separate from the decree to elect Christ for the task of redemption.  Although the second person of the Trinity was intimately involved with the Father and the Spirit in the decree of election and predestination, the revelation of this decree lies hidden and shrouded in mystery in the decretum absolutum.   This line of thinking was openly rejected by Karl Barth and many of the neo-orthodox theologians who followed in his footsteps.  Barth felt that any notion of election apart from Christ could only lead to fear, uncertainty and loss of assurance.  Both Calvin and the Puritans were well aware of this, which is why the latter group spent so much effort their sermons giving various biblical proofs by which men and women could "make their calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1).  In contrast to the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth asserted that Jesus Christ  is the electing God as well as the elect man.  Because in Jesus Christ we see the divine Son, fully God and fully human, suffering on the cross for sinful humanity, all doubts as to God's "Yes" to his human creation necessarily disappear.  In the election of Christ, and through His self-identification with His human creation, Barth concludes on the basis of Ephesians 1:4 that all of humanity is elect in Christ.   Not only is Jesus the "elect" man, He is for Barth the only "reprobate" man - (this is Barth's Christological version of "double predestination").  No longer must humanity fear Calvin's decretum horribile (the terrible decree), says Barth, for there is only one reprobate man – Jesus of Nazareth who faced the rejection on the cross and suffered vicariously for sinners.   There's only one little problem with this line of reasoning... if all of humanity is elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, it logically follows that all of humanity will ultimately be saved whether or not they trust in Christ - a view which cannot possibly be squared with the clear testimony of Scripture.

So was Karl Barth a universalist??  The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no".  If you follow Barth's doctrine of election to its logical conclusion you will end up with universalism.  But the surprising fact is that Barth himself explicitly denied that he was a universalist!  This is one of the frustrating things about Barth's theology- as a dialectical theologian he is willing to live with unresolved tensions and to affirm what certainly appear to be contradictions.  The same is true of Lesslie Newbigin.  For example, in The Open Secret Newbigin writes the following:  "The choosing is "in Christ" and not otherwise. There is no election apart from Christ, as some theologies have seemed to suggest."  In true Barthian style, Newbigin leaves his audience with unresolved tension: "The exposition given so far of the doctrine of election may seem to lead straight to universalism, that is, to the doctrine that there can be no possibility of final exclusion from God's salvation… I believe it is essential to hold firmly together both the universalist perspective of the Bible and the clear teaching about judgment and the possibility of rejection." 

 

I am personally of the opinion that Barth's doctrine of election has negative consequences for evangelism and mission.  If you accept the teaching that humanity (and therefore every human being) is elect in Christ, evangelism simply becomes the announcement of a fait accompli.  According to Emil Brunner, Barth has presented a picture of election which can be compared to a group of sailors who find themselves shipwrecked at sea.  Although they greatly fear that they will drown in the sea, they don't realize that the water is too shallow for that to ever happen!  Of course Barth wanted people to repent of sin and follow Jesus as Lord, but if you follow the logic of his theology, it doesn't really matter whether people respond or not because the grace of God has ultimately triumphed over unbelief.