Secular Salvation

Did you watch the video?  Please take 3 minutes and do so now.  You won't regret it.

Done?

Doesn't this video disturb you?

I mean after you get done being moved to tears because of the beauty of what is going on here.  You might be wondering what I am talking about.  When I see this man, I so clearly see Jesus in him, the way he cares for those outcasted by society, those who no one cares about.  In addition, he is going against the orthodox tradition of his family in associating with these "forgotten ones", so he is committing social suicide to do this.  Among Christians I hardly see the gospel so clearly, so beautifully displayed as in this man.  The only problem is, as far as I can tell, he is not a Christian.


Now why is this a huge problem for me?  If this man were to die tomorrow, never having been baptized, never having sang a worship song, never having praised the name of Jesus Christ and accepted Jesus into his heart, by all conventional means, he's going not going to heaven.  We say it is by faith and faith alone that a man can be saved, not by his works.  Can we honestly say that this man has faith in Christ?  More than likely he does not.  Salvation through Christ alone, no one can come to the father except through him.  But how do we explain Narayanan Krishnan's (the man in the video) Christ-like behavior?  Is not man depraved?  How is it that he captures the essence of the law and the prophets worlds away from the context and teaching?

But what if God has revealed himself apart from Scriptures and missionaries and churches?  What if God, seeing that old man eating his own human waste out of hunger, was so moved to compassion, he enacted his will on the nearest, most effective person who would be able to help his children suffering, a chef at a classy Hotel?  Perhaps God has written His law on his heart and has completely bypassed human action that he might be saved first before he could feed the hungry.  Is such a thing unheard of with God?

If God were limited to only using Christians to enact His will in the world, nothing would ever get done.  We do share a special recognition and partnership with the Lord, however God has never been dependent on us and He never will be.  It is for the best as otherwise every unsaved soul and every person left unreached by the gospel would be completely and utterly our fault.  It would introduce too much liability for such a  life and death matter.  It is not like we could use the additional guilt of breaking yet another covenant with God.  Besides, it is apparent that some areas of the world have more access to Jesus than others.  Someone born right in the middle of the Bible belt has more of a shot of being saved than someone born in the middle of Iran.   Is there then bias inherent in the current model of conversion, with some groups disproportionately represented in heaven than others?  Is heaven 55% white, 15% Hispanic, 15% African, 10% Asian, and 5% Arabic? Or do all peoples have equal access to God's grace?

There is no doubt in my mind this man in the video is filled with God's love and compassion for the poor, the hungry, and the destitute.  Could God have given him his Holy Spirit before he even knew who Jesus was?  Could God have acted without us in the partnership we share in the spread of the Gospel?

I think certainly so it is within God's power to do such a thing and at times completely necessary for God to intervene in areas which we find hard to penetrate, such as India (2.4% are Christian, though that is 24 million) especially when there is suffering.  Suffering occurs everywhere and so will be Christ's compassion regardless if there are Christians in the area or not.  It is conceivable God might fill someone with Christ's compassion to alleviate the pain of his people in his infinite mercy and common grace. But are they saved, or is the compassion but temporary?

Perhaps we must rethink entirely what it might mean to be saved (and for that matter who can be saved/is saved), if in fact God has the power to save without our first sowing the seeds.  In a sense we have a checklist that we like to run down:

1) Is he/she baptized?
2) Does he/she proclaim faith in Christ Jesus as his/her Lord and savior?
3) Does he/she act in accordance with that faith?
4) Has he/she confessed his/her sins?
etc.

But is not only one thing here that is truly important:  the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of what's to come?  I don't know about you, but just because someone asks to receive Christ and prays that the Holy Spirit would indwell them doesn't necessarily mean the Holy Spirit would actually do it.  Prayers aren't magic, as if by some supernatural incantation you can invoke the power of the Holy Spirit to be infused into someone.  The Holy Spirit does what it wills in accordance with the Father and the Son.  I've met many a professing Christian who, Lord help them, show little evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives.  but the thing is, you cannot always tell someone's heart by being around them.  Only the Father knows those he has called and whom the Holy Spirit has indwelled.  Up until now, I wasn't sure it was possible for those who did not know Christ to be indwelled with the Holy Spirit, but now I am not so sure.

This man from India, as I said before, blew me away by how clearly he displayed the gospel in his life.  When I look at him I cannot help but see Jesus working in India through him although he does not know who it is who works through him.  I wish more Christians, myself included, were such beacons of light for the faith.  But there is one last crazy idea I would like to submit: although no one is guaranteed to know of Jesus in this lifetime on Earth, for whatever reason (political tensions, unreached, abortion, etc.) each and every single one of the will meet Jesus in the life hereafter, if only for a brief while.  If we can accept that

a) The Holy Spirit has free and active reign to work in whomever it wills apart from human intervention and
b) It matters not if you know who Jesus is (for even Satan and his devils know) but rather if Jesus knows you

then it is entirely plausible that Jesus will recognize those whom the Spirit has rested in and in turn those who secretly possess the Holy Spirit will immediately know and recognize the familiar essence of Jesus Christ despite not knowing him in their earthly lives.  Moreover, both will rejoice at the sight of the other.  Though someone may not display those marks typical of salvation (baptism, confession of faith, etc.), there may not be a reason to jump the gun in condemning such as unsaved.  Everything belongs to God, both sacred and secular, and he can do with it whatever He wills.  That is his choice, not ours for if it were our choice it would not be grace and therefore not salvation.

But again, this only really tells us what we already know

1) God is sovereign
2) God is mighty to save
3) Only God can judge a man's heart, for if we were judged by our actions there would be no hope.
4) A man's salvation is worked out between him and God alone with fear and trembling.  Others may lead him but he must walk.

Much in the same way the Jews were surprised grace could be extended to the Gentiles, perhaps God can extend this grace to non-Christians as well (in the sense that they do not know Christ/never got a chance to know him).  Now, I am also no arguing for universalism.  I believe there is a real hell that really burns when you go there and God has every right to send people there for their sins.  What I am questioning is our own definition of Christian.  There are Christians who more than likely Jesus will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you", so it's not so hard for me to believe they may be "secular" folk who do the work of God and so show that the law has been written in their hearts by God.  Of course, outright denial of God and the reality of his Son and the power of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.  Although baptism is very much a part of Christian life, it is not what defines us.  It is the life that we experience through Christ that we live unto the world as a testimony to God's grace and righteousness and to his gospel of peace which defines us.  This Indian man has embodied the gospel like so few I've met, it's harder for me to believe that the Holy Spirit does NOT have something to do with this.

After all, the Bible contains many stories of people outside of the chosen people of God demonstrating great saving faith.  Jesus encountered many of them in his ministry and their stories have been written for us to read. They have been made examples for us to imitate.  We know that faith is a gift from God as well so we can infer that God has given these gentiles saving faith before the even met Jesus.  The Roman centurion, for example, didn't know Jesus at all yet still came to Him for help.  So too with the bleeding woman who touched his cloak.  But the key thing is that it wasn't until they met Jesus that their faith became realized.  As I mentioned before, everyone gets a chance to meet Jesus.  Who's to say it has to be during your lifetime?  I am not saying that this lifetime counts for nothing.  Not at all!  But for those not able to be exposed to Jesus, that is to meet Jesus in their lifetime, they will have their chance.

What I am also not saying is that we should quit evangelism.  By no means!  Just because God can work wonders of salvation apart from us does not means that he does so very frequently.  Actually, we might never know how frequently God might do such a thing, but who can know the full extent of what God is doing in the world?  We still have our role to play in finding our lost brothers and sisters that God has already started the process of drawing them closer to him.  We still get to delight in the joys of the harvest with him.  I'm just saying we might be harvesting way less than we think when compared to what God is bringing in.  With God, anything is possible, even the salvation of "non-Christians".

In our Defenses

Back in college, I wrote a research paper proposing that there were two types of Self-Esteem, implicit and explicit. This isn't a new idea, but I wanted to expound on it. There have been arguments that having a lot of self esteem is a good thing, but also arguments that it is a bad thing as well. My paper was a resolution to this debate. It had 4 archetypes of people in it, varying my their intersections of implicit and explicit self esteem. I proposed we had Low Implicit Self Esteem (LISE) and High Implicit Self Esteem people (HISE) as well as Low Explicit Self Esteem (LESE) and High Explicit Self Esteem (HESE) people. Here are my descriptions of what each type might look like:

• LISE/LESE: These people would be your "downers". They don't have very much value in themselves and more often than not let themselves get pushed around. They tend to be people pleasers as well, in hopes of gaining recognition and feelings of worth through service. Easily abused, they seem to just take insults like a sponge.
• LISE/HESE: Because of their low implicit self worth, they try to mask it with a High Explicit Self Esteem. These are very dangerous folks, as they are like eggs filled with nitroglycerin. They constantly pick fights with other people stronger than they, are very jealous in relationships, and cannot let the tiniest of insults go without making a ruckus over it. Anything that challenges their explicit self esteem generates a huge amount of "Ego threat". To are so stalwart in defending because if anything gets through their shell, their soft insecurity ridden center will be exposed. They have a lot to lose if their self-esteem is compromised. The classic "Tough guy" act.
• HISE/HESE: They generally always feel very good about themselves, but do come off as smug, cocky, and arrogant, but they don't care what you think of them. Probably very used to being treated like royalty because of who they are, they let their accomplishments get to their head. They are able to control their tempers a lot more than the previous type, as really they already know they are all that and a bag of chips. Will fight if you need to be put in your place, but it's no big deal if they lose as they will usually have a smug comeback. The high amount of pride allows them to shrug off most insults.
• HISE/LESE: This is a very interesting type of person. They really aren't provoked to anger about anything concerning their own integrity and anything negative said to them they would probably agree with and laugh along. However they will defend another person's dignity. They have an air of calmness and humility around them. They really don't have anything to prove to anyone. Think Ghandi or Jesus here.

I mentioned "Ego Threat" before. Let me expound: Ego threat is the amount of perceived harm from incoming negative actions. Ego in general applies more to the Explicit self esteem system. A LISE/LESE would experience little to no ego threat because they simple have no "ego" to lose. the LISE/HESE in converse would experience very high amounts of Ego Threat, because the difference between their two esteems is rather large, thus they have a lot more to lose (i.e. it is all they have going for them). HISE/HESE would be more like the LISE/LESE, but slightly more because they can be provoked given a sufficient challenge to their authority. They do show more resiliency towards insults. The HISE/LESE would experience no ego threat as well, but have more positive regard afterwards than the LISE/LESE who is more prone to sulking and brooding in their dejectedness.

The Explicit Self esteem system mainly is fueled by competition. By being better at something than someone, they gain explicit self-esteem. Examples include academics, fighting, business, beauty, faith (the "Who's a better Christian" contests are quite ironic), etc. If you can compete in it, you can gain explicit self esteem.

Implicit self esteem is fueled by something different, innate knowledge and acceptance of who one is. It's who one identifies to be and a full embrace of who that is. Both negative and positive are taken together to form the whole of a person. Needless to say, Implicit self esteem is harder to gain, but even harder to lose. Some notable sources of Implicit Self Esteem have been noted as Virtue (being a good or moral person) and interestingly enough, God's love.

I'm beginning to see that perhaps there is a bigger expansion of this theory into all areas in which one can feel esteem. The most pertinent to me is Faith. This is taken from Donald Miller's Blog (http://donmilleris.com/2010/01/13/1513/):

I’ve also found that the more I trust in Christ’s redemption to be sufficient, the less overtly religious I am. And, quite honestly, the more suspect overtly religious people become to me. When I’m with somebody who talks zealously about faith, about Jesus, about the Bible, after a while, I find myself wondering whether or not their faith is strong at all. For instance, if I were with somebody who kept talking about how much they loved their wife, going on loudly and profusely, intuitively I would wonder whether or not they were struggling in their marriage. I would wonder whether they were trying to convince me they loved their wife, or if they were trying to convince themselves. (Now that I think of it, though, some of my favorite people talk about how much they love their wives, but these are less public proclamations and more sighs of appreciation.) Faith in Christ, for me, is similar. It’s intimate. I’m more comfortable giving quiet prayers, intimate prayers. Often alone, in fact. I speak of faith the way I speak of personal matters. Of course there is a time for proclamations, but that’s the key, isn’t it? There’s a time. Anyway, I love that the New Testament is mostly intimate letters written to small groups of people who met in homes. I like the quiet authenticity of our faith.

Do you see what process he is describing? It's the difference between a LISE/HESE Christian and a HISE/LESE Christian. What I mean to say is this: one of the clearest signs that someone is not firm in their faith is their defensiveness. Those who aren't firm in their faith will often erupt in backlash to anyone who criticizes it. There is no "Quiet Authenticity" which Donald speaks about, rather zealous defense of a religion that if true, should need no defense. There is a process of maturity that happens as the beliefs are made more solid. There is no longer a need to constantly justify why you believe what you believe at every joke or criticism, not because of a loss in faith but because of a loss in religious pride.

There I said it, religion and it's practice can make you prideful. Being able to hold the position of "salvation" can carry with it an attitude of "I have better beliefs than you". It makes one seem privileged and can easily be lorded over people. You've heard it before from Christians, I'm sure. They brag about how good God is at every chance they get, inserting Him into everything in some sort of twisted evangelism. They brag about how good it feels to be saved, and express pity on those who are not like they. They are doing the Lord's work in their own eyes, and are above reproach because of it. Scripture affirms them and their actions, and not the other way around. They are better Christians, period. How do I know so much to be making these strong accusations? Well, I was one of them.

I was a foolish child who let his mouth run ahead of him. My brother's and sisters will attest this is usually what I've always done. I was given Scripture not knowing how powerful it was, and I used it irresponsibly. Children should not wield swords. I nearly cut off all my good friends mishandling God's word or at least left them mutilated. I still regret every word I said and every wound I inflicted. Even if God forgives me, I have a hard time forgiving myself. I would beg new Christians not to speak about Scripture until they are ready to do so responsibly and be accountable to every word they say. Let Scripture speak for itself, invite others to partake in reading it with you. Tell others what you have been getting out of it, and that's it. Be honest, not overbearing. Be loving, not obnoxious.

I've since settled in my beliefs. I know who I am and who I am is in transition to who I was made to be. I still say dumb things and I still am prideful, but at least now I can recognize them where I was once blind. I've been humbled, not by my own effort, but by being made known of my pride. This is your psychology tidbit for the evening: One of the clearest signs that someone is not firm in their faith is their defensiveness.