Pagitt's views on Scripture are not the only potentially controversial expressions in this book. His views on the nature and essence of man are, to put it lightly, not Reformed by any means. In fact, he so adamantly opposes the concept of total depravity with a beautifully tragic story about the local target of criticism on everyone favorite social microcosm: the school bus. The story of the one unfortunate girl picked to be continually ridiculed and permanently marked as "sucking." When thinking back on this story, Pagitt compares the traditional doctrine of total depravity to this mindset, fearing that far too often the church has held this same bully perspective. In an attempt to maintain an absolute need for God's grace, we have deemed the nature of man as utterly inferior or corrupted in some way that claims man is, in Reformed traditions, incapable of good.
Pagitt makes it clear that man is obviously in need of some sort of redemption, but the essence of the message is that God still calls men and women to participate in God's Good Dreams for the world. When Adam and Eve fell in the biblical narrative, they faced consequences, but they were still expected to maintain their roles of stewardship and co-regency over the created order. God is not "up and away," but "down and in," interested in humanity. God is passionately concerned for people to restore them to their original intent and relationship.
The truth is, in Pagitt's perspective, that God does not view people as if they suddenly went from "good" to total suckage. As the fruit fell off the branches of the forbidden tree, mankind's entire nature and worth did not fall with it. Perhaps it put us in a unique position in need of forgiveness, but it did not ruin the Image that God ingrained into us.
What do you think? What affects did the fall of Adam and Eve have on the essence of human nature? What are the lasting affects of Original Sin? Are its affects or its very rebellious tendency necessarily transmitted through procreation or as some sort of inheritance? What condition are we in, and what are the implications for our doctrines of evangelism or missiology, soteriology and orthodoxy?
3 comments:
(I haven't read this book or anything so I can only evaluate it based upon what you typed, Matt. So if I misunderstand what was "actually" said, then I get to blame you. Wow. this is a quite freeing position. No wonder people don't use primary sources.)
I think Pagitt would fail here to adequately respond to the doctrine of total depravity. He sets up a strawman of what he "feels" like the doctrine says and responds with much applause. It is, ironically, a bullying rhetorical move to pick on an extreme take on a common issue, rather than the majority of those who hold to this.
Total depravity does not mean that man is utterly bad, to the point it can't get any worse. The "total" here is better understood as universal. Certainly the depravity of Hitler and of Ghandi are not the same. It's outreaching effects are not to make us incapable of ever doing anything good ever. Rather, it keeps us from being able to restore that relationship with God we were created for on our own initiative.
The effects of Romans 1-3 is clearly against any "bullying" by the church. In fact, Romans 3:23 is not just about making you feel guilty for your sin. It is about us realizing that we all sin, we are all in the same boat. (Jew/Gentile issues specifically there.) So in essence, total depravity is often meant in scripture to promote humility in the same breadth as it drives home our need of salvation.
I view the "image of God" not as some innate nature but as a role. The role of representing God on earth. Total depravity does nothing to damage that role. That is still God's grand design for us, hence why we wait a new creation where this will be set right again. But whereas the role hasn't changed, our capability to fulfill that role is no longer the same. We cannot represent a God we forsake, a God we abandon, or a God we simply ignore.
I think other evangelical scholars have written on this subject and would affirm the basic gist of what I say. I think here is a case where Pagitt may be protesting something far different than he imagines. But it's a good challenge for those who do theology to be clear on both their definitions of concepts (Total depravity is a misleading term, certainly) and their teaching on the implications of these concepts (especially as regards popular preaching and teaching in the local church, where much of what Doug reacts to probably exists).
I think you make some good, basic evangelical points. But I'd like to respond to first the subtlety of such remarks before I address the "meat" of it, per se.
First and foremost, I'm not entirely convinced that Pagitt would hope to be conveyed as an evangelical. He doesn't tend to fall into either camps of mainline or evangelical, to be totally honest. In fact, he enjoys being "contrarian" and floating around in the space between.
Secondly, I think, as a "contrarian," Pagitt is presenting a corrective here. I have not written about his view of sin, which he takes very seriously. His rebuttal against the traditional and "orthodox" view of a Reformed terminology is simply meant to say that the church has (admittedly from his perspective) sent the wrong message about this doctrine. And I think he may have a decent point. I, myself have experienced a spiritual self-esteem issue based on the idea of my utter "not goodness" (note: I do not argue the reality of my sin, but instead what the cold and over-bearing reminder of my sin from a pulpit does to my own self-image). I do not intend to be guilty of promoting a "liberal, wishy-washy" kind of gospel based on protecting the feelings of individuals before meeting their spiritual needs. But I also believe that running them into the ground with guilt does more than just convince them of a need for a Savior, particularly when that message is promoted far more often and with much more gusto than a gospel of a loving, accepting and forgiving God who looks down with compassion and concern.
I agree that the presentation of sin in comparison with the gospel is given to make our weaknesses known to us for a purpose; the purpose of change. I also wholeheartedly agree (as does Pagitt) that the image is more a role than an aspect of our humanity that was lost, which leads me to believe that maybe we aren't so "bad" as some people who promote depravity seem to believe.
Finally, as to the matters of a "strawman" and the perspective on the church that you don't believe exists, I would say: we are all prisoners of our own perspective. We view the world in the way it was presented to us, forced upon us and taught to us. We have no choice. So, to say that Pagitt sets up a strawman is to imply that there is no way in reality that he could have experienced the church like this. For one, I think that is entirely too quick of an assessment, not knowing Pagitt or his context. He has spent most of his life in Minneapolis, MN, where he still lives and serves at Solomon's Porch. That position has brought him into relationship with several people who prominent and Reformed, such as Piper and Driscoll and others. I'm not entirely clear on Piper's perspective on depravity, but I feel that with this chapter, Pagitt is implicitly speaking to Mark Driscoll (who will probably never read it since he seems to be so opposed to anything coming from Pagitt's mouth). Not only this, but this story is mixed with biographical details and the journaling of Pagitt's own spiritual journey: what he was taught by specific people, from a church and in his formal education at seminary. All that to say, I think it is unfair to assume that this is all a strawman that simply doesn't truly exist. I would ask if your perspective on the church had not influenced your own view of what the "church at large" is teaching.
So, do I believe that Pagitt is denying the reality of sin and the need for redemption specifically through the person and revelation of Jesus Christ? No! In fact, having read more of the book (which I admit puts me at an unfair advantage), that is exactly what Pagitt is proclaiming. This chapter specifically sets out to say that in a country where 85% of people claim to know the gospel, and in the Midwest where 90-some% of people have spent a decent amount of time plugged into church, and in a world where we all screw-up regularly, ruining relationships and making mistakes (most of which are admittedly sinful), it may be time for us to tell people the other side of the story a little more clearly. It might be time for us to get off the high horse of "sin management" and start preaching the beauty of a God who really does care.
no, i certainly wouldn't label Pagitt as an evangelical. But the positions he is taking on seemed aimed primarily at that segment of Christendom that calls itself "evangelical." (although I'm also guessing that the Catholic church deserves some blame in this particular discussion.)
By strawman, I wasn't meaning that Pagitt invents an entirely new idea of total depravity to take on, but rather that he picks a version that most who actually study and attempt to teach such things would not fully agree with.
Now to be fair, as a corrective, his words are insightful, but we must always be careful in our challenging of the excesses of many doctrines that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As I said, having not read Pagitt in his entirety, I don't know what balancing correctives he has taken in dealing with the overall doctrine of sin while challenging this particular take on total depravity. I think he and one like Piper might actually have a friendly conversation on this issue. (I can't say the same for Driscoll. I don't much about him other than that he doesn't believe in James 3 (in a variety of ways) and that he is rather giddy about booze and that he also is Calvinistic.)
But you're right. It is not helpful to constantly point out the "bad news" of sin without getting onto the whole Good News thing.
Post a Comment