Navigation: This page 'abxn.org/nv/qns.html' ---> New View Overview ---> New View Main Page ---> abxn Main Page. About This Page. Contact.

Questions that Motivate the New View

The shape of New View has been motivated by a number of rhetorical questions designed to make us think, especially to question things we have long taken for granted. Here are some main ones. Most of them are not meant to be answered directly; their purpose is make us think, and especially to see that we might have got ourselves into a way of seeing things that might need to be reexamined today. The questions below are an initial collection, being added to, and in need of sorting out.

Q: Is the gospel good news or bad news?

The message that unless you accept Christ you are doomed and lost is bad news, not good news. Though this warning might be useful in some specific situations (where someone is complacently resisting Christ) have we tended, in effect, to propagate the impression that the gospel is bad news?

What Paul found so amazing in Romans 8 (see his paeon of praise) is that salvation comes to the entire Creation through the agency of the Holy Spirit working via human beings. See page on Romans 8, and also below about 'world'.

The Dignity Question. What is God's wish and plan vis a vis the creation?

Is it to bring dignity to himself, as his creatures obey, love and worship him? Or is it to bring dignity to his creatures, because of his self-giving love?

Have we been assuming that the first is more important than the second? Have we overlooked the second? Think.

Maybe it's like this?

Q: What does "God is love" [I John] mean?

If you love someone, would you rather they receive blessing and honour, or that you receive blessing and honour? Would you rather they suffer or you suffer?

We believe "God is love" as a doctrinal statement. But do we realise its implications? Have we tended to forget it when emphasising what God wishes or wants from us? When we try to defend God's honour, have we been a bit like Elijah before God corrected him?

Q: Selfish God? Is it likely that a God who has revealed himself as Love would be self-centred?

Have we tended to see God as somehow selfish, and to give that impression to others? e.g. when emphasising what God demands or wants from us? Think.

See how we address this.

Q: Surely God would get rid of the rubbish, not the good stuff?

Chris Gousmett told me this story:

A man left his children at home for a time. In their pride and spite, the children trashed the house and all inside it, including the pets. When he came back, he was understandably angry. So he rescued his children from the mess, burned the house and its contents down, and built a new, lovely house for his children to live in.

Is this not the kind of view we have when we assume the creation will be completely destroyed by fire? Think.

Maybe the earth we have messed up is not destined to be completely burned up?

Q: If something's important in God's eyes (e.g. environmental responsibility), then surely every person of the trinity will be involved?

If the creation is indeed important in God's eyes, it is traditionally obvious how God the Father is involved: as creator and perhaps owner. It is becoming clear how God the Son is involved, as redeemer and heir. But how is the Holy Spirit necessarily involved? Think.

Maybe like this?

Q: Is Salvation for the World or only for Humans?

John 3:16 tells us that God brings salvation to "the world" through Christ. The New View interprets this as all Creation, not just human beings. "All Creation" includes the natural (no-human) world, and also the social structures that have been made possible by the laws God wove into the fabric of Creation such as the economy or technology.

This theme reverberates throughout Scripture, from the trees clapping their hands, the lion lying with the lamb, to the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke often about.

The role of humans is to represent God to the whole of Creation, and its salvation only comes when, and because, human beings allow the Holy Spirit to indwell them fully. This is the thrust of Three Dimensions of Salvation.

Q: What would have happened had we not fallen?

Some say that our falling make things better than they would have been - and thus was essential for God's purpose. Others say that it makes things less than they would have been - and therefore God was thwarted eternally. Both these stances are problematic. How can it be that what will be and what would have been are of equal value? Answer: if the creation was to be developed and become the inheritance of Christ. Therefore, the New View has the inheritance for Christ and completion in Christ as central rather than peripheral.

Q: God's people - Or God's pampered favourites?

Do we really understand what it means to be God's people? Have we tended to see ourselves as God's favourites, whom he pampers? Does not the idea of pampered favourites cheapen the idea of God's love? So must we reject the idea of God's special people altogether? Think.

Are we not, rather, God's representatives? If we are his representatives, then what he says and does to them can apply to the rest. If we are his favourites, then some things can never apply.

Q: Are sheep there for the sake of shepherds, or are shepherds there for the sake of the sheep?

This is the question that opened the door to New View for me. See my account.

Q: Would not angels have made better 'stewards' of creation?

If all God wanted was stewards of creation, who would look after it on his behalf, then why did he not give this job to angels? They are more obedient, more powerful, more intelligent that we are. Think.

Then see 'Stewards'.

Q: Is God's law a curse or a blessing?

Liberal Western society, a well as some Roman Catholic societies, find The Law of God to be an arbitrary constraint on their freedom, in other words, a curse. But surely if God is truly love, this would not be the case? Think.

Indeed it is not the case! God's law is a blessing.

Q: Does God's law apply to the whole world, or only God's people?

For example, the law of Sabbath. In Genesis 1, it seems to apply to all people. But in Exodus it seems to apply only to the Jews. And the early Christians had great contentions on this very question. How may it be resolved, satisfactorily? Think.

Perhaps like this?

Q: Is the Holy Spirit 'touchy'?

Some areas of Christianity are scared to do the slightest thing that might be risky or out of the ordinary, lest they "grieve the Holy Spirit". It is as though the Holy Spirit is touchy, liable to go off in a huff. Result: Christians are seen as timid people. Not only do they never allow their full abundant humanity to develop, but professional Christians seldom that the lead in, for example, developing major new approaches in their disciplines. But surely the Holy Spirit is not touchy! Think.

God's people in earlier cultures (e.g. mediaeval) experienced living with God in certain ways; what is the relevance of those experiences for us?

Does New View replace other views? Many movements within Christianity have either denied previous views or so focused on some insight that their followers see their view as the total view. Is not this rather arrogant? If so, how can we give each view its due? Think.

New View tries to acknowledge other movements of God and enrich other views.

See talk on prophets 23rd February 2020 at Main Street Community Church Frodsham on "Relevance of the Prophets of Israel". Youtube (30 mins). Page with transcript on MSCC.

How can we read the Bible in such a way that no part of it is discarded as meaningless or irrelevant today?

For example, most evangelical Christians pay very little attention to great swathes of the Old Testament, and treat the Mosaic Law as mere 'types of Christ' or else we choose certain ones as ready-made laws for today's society while ignoring others. If the Bible is truly God's revelation ('Word') to humanity, then surely the whole Bible would be of direct relevance to us today? And what about the human authorship of the Bible? And how (whether) should we make use of recent approaches in linguistics and communication theory? Think.

This has three sub-questions. How should we interpret the Bible? [take the Bible to be human writing and of an pre-theoretical rather than theoretical attitude] At what level should we interpret the Bible? [bhg] With what worldview-lens should we undertake our interpretation? [nv]

How can judgement begin first with the household of God, if we are saved by faith through grace, and not by works?

It has been emphasised that we are justified by faith not works, saved by grace (unmerited favour of God). We are the Father's precious children whom He loves as He did Jesus [John 16-17]. But Hebrews tells us "judgement begins first with the household of God". How can those who are already saved and justified to be judged? A traditional answer has been that though our 'souls' are safe for eternity, we are given status in 'heaven' according to the quality of our lives after being saved. An edifice of theology has been built up on this idea.

But that has never satisfied me. It sounds too legalistic and out of kilter with the love of God. The traditional view is constrained by Dimension-1 thinking, and even some Dimension-2, which sees our salvation only in terms of a one-to-one relationship with God. It has ignored Dimension 3, which emphasises that we represent God to the rest of creation and humanity with responsibility, joy, persecution, power and protection. This is what it means to be the "household of God".

Q: Why isn't there anything about China in the Bible, if the Bible is meant for all peoples?

China has an ancient civilization, stretching back 4800 years of recorded history. So why isn't there anything about it in the Bible? And were any prophets sent from God to the Chinese peoples during that period, or did God leave them completely in darkness? If God sent prophets, how does their message relate to that of the Bible?

Don Richardson believes there was some knowledge of the One True God in the Shang Dynasty, but it was obliterated, and God seems to take no action. Under the theology that focuses on Dimension 1 ('souls for heaven') this implies a God who is unconcerned about millions of people. If Jesus is the Only Way to God, why did God wait so many centuries before opening this Way? The New View suggests that more might be saved by Christ's sacrifice than know of him, and that there is more in God's Plan than merely souls for heaven, and that "at the right time God sent his Son", right not just for Europeans but also for Chinese. China today is ripe for the Gospel - because of its history. God works with rather than against human history.

However, maybe there is at least one indirect reference to China in the Bible: The wise men from the east, who came seeking for the infant Jesus, the one whom the stars proclaimed to be king of the Jews. Apparently, that 'star' was recorded in China.