Why I'm a Critically Real Christian Part II: the Salvation of the Individual

Speaking about my own experience with my tradition in conflict with Scripture means looking both at how I have been formed and the world in which the Bible, (especially for Christians the New Testament), was written.

My Tradition: Salvation by Faith and the Individual

The Protestant tradition looks to the reformation, Luther etc. as a climactic moment in returning the the truth of Scripture as obscured by the Catholic tradition. The debate with the Catholic church over authority and certain practices (such as selling indulgences) formed Luther and Calvin's thought in a certain way. Salvation by faith was a key element of their teaching over and against the earning of salvation by purchasing indulgences and doing penance. This was a positive development, but what happened was that certain insights were hardened into dogmas that when removed from the original debate over specific practices and teachings lead to the opposite exremes. Salvation by faith becomes a rule or law which is hardened in the tradition and it obscures other important elements of what Jesus taught. I'll come back to that after another element of my own tradition.

For westerners (generally people living in Europe and U.S. and Canada) the individual has a heightened importance. The individual person is more important (in the way we think and act) than the family or community. There are lots of reasons for this from philosophy to industrialization, the point is, because of this, when we read the Bible we are naturally disposed to favor individualistic readings over ones concerning the community.

The New Testament

The New Testament, when read within my tradition, is often interpreted primarily with regards to the salvation (by faith) of the individual. The strength of the tradition, and the power that it has over interpretation ensures that other readings seem strange and are usually discarded without being given a chance. Readings that answer the question "how is the individual saved?" are given priority. The definition of "being saved" is usually, the guarantee that the spirit of the individual (as opposed to the body) will join God in heaven after death.

Although the subject matter of the New Testament does deal with the salvation of individuals, this happens within the context of the salvation and restoration of Israel. Often times, we ask questions of Scripture that the texts are not answering. Reading texts in light of salvation by faith make it difficult to understand New Testament texts calling for God's people to obediently work out their salvation. The book of James, for instance, with its demand that the people of God be obedient to the "perfect law that gives freedom", was useless to Luther in his polemic against Catholic practices, and has not been as important in my tradition as texts that speak of salvation as the free gift of God. When taken out of the context of polemical debate, the book of James as well as the letters of Paul can be seen as complementary, although different expressions of Christian faith seeking to answer different questions. That is why when interpreting we need to be disciplined about seeking which questions a text is asking.

Another example of our tradition harming interpretation is when texts are read only in light of the salvation of the individual. The prophetic tradition (Isaiah, Ezekiel and so forth) looked forward not just to a day when the individuals of the world would be saved. Rather, they thought in terms of the promises of the covenant God to Israel. They thought in terms of the fate of the nation, and God's purpose for Israel. Jesus and the New Testament stand firmly within that tradition, although through them the tradition is radically transformed. The point is that highly individual readings obscure the communal element of what the New Testament teaches.

An example of this is that texts such as Romans 9 which deals with the questions concerning Israel's fate in light of what happened in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Paul claims that God's promises to Israel have not failed and that his purpose in electing Israel will continue through the redefined people of God in Christ. It is those very passages that are often used to discuss the election of specific individuals, some for heaven, others for hell. The problem, to me, is that the tradition obscures the meaning of the text by asking the question, "how is the individual saved?"

How do we, in response, improve interpretation? First of all we need to acknowledge that our tradition has had much to do in forming the way we read the Bible. There is nothing wrong with this fact, unless we allow premade theological answers to replace interpretation. If we do that, then we take away the ability of Scripture itself, hardening our hearts to ways that the Spirit may be seeking to transform us through it.

Secondly, we need to let the New Testament determine the questions it is answering. To do this we need to understand something of the historical context within which it was written, compare it to other writings of the time period, pay attention to matters of genre and be aware of how our own tradition might obscure the intention of the authors in question.