Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

UPDATE: Please not in point #3 I accidentally suggested that Doug’s leader is Pelagius by typing LEADER instead of LEAD. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better…

ON DISCIPLESHIP AND JUDGMENT

As we saw in the last post on salvation, while Pelagius and Pagitt agree that the example and pattern of Christ is primary for our “salvation” and “integration with the life of God,” they go about it in different ways. Pagitt denies the penal essence of the event of the cross by dismissing the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Christ as reflective of ancient Greek blood god myths. Pelagius on the other hand, acknowledges that Christ’s suffering, shed blood, and death actually does something for us. While a more exhaustive study of Pelagius’ soteriology is necessary, it appears likely that he believes the cross is penal in essence, recognizing Jesus’ suffering and bloodshed provides justification for, salvation from, and forgiveness of sins, while needing the example of Christ to carry us to the end. Pagitt’s theology of salvation reduces the cross to mere example. In fact, in so doing he is left only with the example, pattern, way, and teachings of Christ. This is likely why Pagitt and the broader Emerging Church focus on following the teachings and example of Jesus: without the penalty of the cross that is all that is left.

Here is where Pagitt agrees with Pelagius: in order to live a life of righteousness, a new example and pattern must replace the old ones found in Adam and others. The cross does not save, but the example of Jesus does. While Pelagius believes the cross provides for the forgiveness of past sins through faith and “the holy lather” of baptism, Pelagius does not stop with faith alone, but rather requires disciplined following after the example of Christ to provide for future salvation. Both Pagitt and Pelagius, then, rely upon the example of Christ for ultimate, eschatological salvation, in addition to the inner goodness of humanity to obey and choose integration with God.

This theology of “salvation by example” influences how Pagitt views discipleship and eschatology (end things). Those who decide to follow this new pattern are invited into God’s work now, for “the kingdom-of-God gospel calls us to partner with God, to be full participants in the life God is creating, to follow in the way of Jesus as we seek to live as people who are fully integrated with our Creator.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 226.)) Instead of choosing to live lives of disintegration, we are called to be fully integrated with God now. This is possible because 1) we are “inherently godly,” having the “light of God” within us; and 2) “we can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 137, 141, 167.)) Discipleship, then, is about choosing to live well with God in this life.

The problem comes when the question, “Why?” is asked. Why must we live lives of integration? Pagitt does not address judgment or what happens when one does not choose to live a life of integration with God, or better put, when a person intentionally chooses not to “partner with God” or seek to live as a person who is fully integrated with their Creator. Instead, Pagitt assures the world that “God will dwell among us, that God will be with us, that the whole of creation will be healed and restored and fully integrated with God. Earthly life will be made new as it is transformed into the Kingdom of God.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231.)) While Pagitt reflects Pelagius in calling people to find salvation and life in the example of Jesus and calls all people to follow Jesus’ pattern of integration with God, he does not go as far as Pelagius does.

Pelagius places a premium on discipleship and takes judgment very seriously. In To Demetrias he says, “The bride of Christ must be more splendidly adorned than anything else, since the greater one whom one is seeking to please the greater the effort which is required to please him.” ((Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123.)) The bride is called to live a life that is “blameless” and “guiltless” in order to reign with Christ in the end, “for nothing is worthier of God, nothing can be more dear to him, than the blamelessness should be maintained with all possible circumspect.” ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 118.)) Why? What is the promise for those who fail to live such a life post-baptism? Judgment and hell. Pelagius makes plain in On Divine Law that those who believe in Christ and receive him through baptism and renounce the devil and the world are called to pay attention to the things which are forbidden and to diligently fulfill the things commanded, because “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.” ((Pelagius, “On Divine Law” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 99.))

Not only does Pelagius believe in hell for those who do not believe, he also believes hell is reserved for those who fail to choose righteousness, to (in the words of Pagitt) “live in sync with God” after they first have faith in Christ through baptism. Pagitt does not go this far, however. Instead he merely suggests that “the afterlife isn’t a place. It’s a state of being.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 222.)) That state of being is vaguely defined as the state in which God’s hope and dreams for the world are fulfilled and come to fruition in the Kingdom right now, with no mention of judgment or a “state of being” for those who do not “faith” in Christ or even partner with God and His dreams. ((Pagitt, Christianity, 222.)) While Pagitt agrees with Pelagius in that humans are called to “[align] their lives with the things of God, with the work of God,” he does not go as far as Pelagius to suggest what happens to those who don’t, or even those who were aligned and then fall out of alignment.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) While both Pagitt and Pelagius respectably believe followers of Jesus are called to live “lives of integration with God”—this presumably means to follow His commands—both believe we can do so on our own. The grace of God and power and power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we because we are still “inherently godly” we can on our own live “in sync with God.”

2) Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”

3) Unfortunately, Pagitt doesn’t follow his leader Pelagius’ lead (WOAH this was a major typing mistake! I mean to write LEAD, not LEADER.) ((I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better…)) in this regard, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment. For Pagitt, the afterlife—whatever that even means; it is so vague and vanilla but seems to point to a “heaven-type” state—is a “state of being.” The only time this idea of a post-death, post-Jesus coming event is even mentioned is this one time on page 222. Even then that “state” is where “all of God’s hopes for the earth, all of God’s desires for this partnership with humanity, come to fruition.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 222.)) This cashes out as the present “kingdom” which is “in all of us, through us, and for us right here, right now.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 223.)) While I appreciate the “here-ness” of Pagitt’s perspective on the Kingdom, he forgets the “not-yet-ness” which is explicit in the teachings (particularly the parables) of Jesus. Which leads to my first question…

4) Question for Doug: It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables.

5) Question for Doug: In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

In the case of the Parable of the Nets, it is the final bracket that, along with the Wheat/Weeds, emphasized severe judgment for neglecting the ethical implications of the Kingdom. Both parables emphasize a gathing and separating process at which the wicked are rejected and thrown into a fire. Whether this is a literal fire is not important. Paralleling the Wheat/Weeds, the Nets envisions the Son of Man, who is Jesus Christ himself, sending angels to do the separating and punishing.

From a Jewish perspective, this “net” imagery would have made sense: fishing imagery has a long OT history of representing hardship, captivity, and judgment from God (Hab 1:14-17; Ezek 32:3). A net, then, could be expected to evoke thoughts of judgment for the Jewish hearers. “The primary concern of this parable is tht separation will occur, that at the end the evil will be excluded from God’s kingdom.” ((Snodgrass, Parables with Intent, 491.)) Because people themselves are wicked—they aren’t simply broken or live after bad patterns—because they are ethically morally rebellious. The basis of this separating and judgment is ethical, and those who are worthless/evil will receive eternal punishment, which the Sheep and Goats emphasizes.

In the case of the Wedding Banquet, I’ve included parts of the section from my own book that deals with the subject:

Here we face a story of a king who sends out his servants with an appeal to those already invited to his royal wedding banquet. In the Jewish and ancient Near Eastern cultures, social gatherings and parties had a double-invite: The first one told of the event and sought initial acceptance; the second was a reminder and told the guests that all was ready and they should come. In the story the slaves are not sending out an invitation; they are calling on those who have already been invited and accepted to remind them to come.

These people have already accepted the first invitation, but now they make excuses to reject the second invite. This was a huge act of betrayal because huge social significance was attached to rejecting the second invitation. Apparently, they had better things to do and they put their selfish concerns over their obligations to the king. They cared more about their “farms” and “business” than their social obligation to attend the royal banquet of the king. They even go so far as to subject the king’s messengers to violence and death!

In this parable, Jesus is speaking to two religious groups: the Chief Priests and Pharisees. Jesus reminds these leaders of the nation of Israel of their original invitation and subsequent rejection, directly tying into the next part of the story.

Because these originally invited people failed to respond to the second invitation, the king opens the door to everyone in the city. People from all corners of the city are invited to come to the royal banquet and enjoy a feast and festival. All people, both good and bad are invited, irrespective of person. The invitation did not depend on who the person was, but on whom the king chose to invite; he chose to invite everyone in his Kingdom and it didn’t matter who they were.

We have two groups contrasted: those who think they have the right to their position as invitees, the right to a place at the banquet table and who think they are “in.” Then there are those who are unexpectedly promoted and surprisingly invited to the feast.

Originally, the Jewish people were invited to covenant with God to be His people. They received the first invitation. But throughout their history they did not live up to their obligations to that invitation. In Jesus’ story, they are replaced by an unexpected collection of street people. The first invited group who rejected the second invitation are replaced with a second group. As Jesus says, “The first will be last, the last will be first.” To be a member of the new group and new nation is no more guarantee of salvation than to be born into old Israel; it still depends on a persons reaction to the invitation, here symbolized by the wedding clothes.

In this story, we come to a man who is wandering around the king’s royal wedding banquet in completely inappropriate attire. He is the guy in Rustler jeans and a Hanes t-shirt at your wedding reception. A sight to behold for sure! The king notices him, calls him friend and asks how in the heck he got into the party without the proper wedding clothes.

The event to which this man was invited required him to make a change, to change his clothes into something that was appropriate to the event for which he was invited. The parable assumes the man had time to change and come in appropriate attire anyone might have. While the cultural context of the parable didn’t require a specific type of clothing, any invited person was to come clothed in a way fitting this specific event, nonetheless. Instead, the man made no preparations to wear clothes fitting to the feast he himself chose to attend!

So here’s the question: How are we coming to the banquet at judgment? What clothes are we wearing? How are we coming to this grand banquet at the Day of the Lord?

The first invitation goes out indiscriminately to every person. The second invite begs a response. This second invitation is the other side of the paradox between divine grace and human responsibility. The first invitation was the announcement proclaimed by the Heavenly Hosts in chapter 8: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth shalom to all humans, on whom His favor rests!” This announcement heralded the coming Lamb of God, the coming Rescuer, an invitation to take part in this new act of rescue by the Creator. The second invitation was by Jesus himself, which we will consider in the next chapter. In this invitation, Jesus announces to the entire world that the good news for which all humans have been waiting (the Kingdom of Heaven) has arrived. We are invited to respond in repentance, belief, and following.

I get the feeling from this parable, though, that there are a whole lot of people who have accepted God’s invitation to salvation and shalom. Of course everyone wants everlasting life and re-creation at some level. Many people, though, will respond by coming dressed to the banquet as a lumberjack or in their frat house sweatshirt.

This lavish banquet with Jesus as host is for us, and the question is: how are we coming? Are we following the social customs of this Kingdom, or going inappropriately dressed to meet our Creator? Are we clothing ourselves with the righteousness that God requires or are we simply coming, not as we are, but as we insist on being?

These are the questions we need to ask as we think about “That Other Place” and who will or will not go there in judgment. Often, people make hell and judgment out to be God problems, as if the idea of eternal judgment somehow makes Him out to be less than the hyper-relational Lover that He is. Hell and judgment are not God problems, they are human problems. Just as rebellion and the consequences of rebellion are human problems, how we are judged for our willful vandalism of shalom and willful rebellion against the Creator and His Rhythm of Life are also our problems.