Well,
As I’ve interacted with Jim, both publically and privately, I am confident about two things;
1. Jim does not align himself with the GES Gospel
2. Jim does not align himself with a traditional understanding of the content of saving faith
I’m hoping that Jim will someday share where he believes the GES view has gone awry…I think it would do much for him and for all involved in this discussion.
Jim’s view, as best as I can discern is a mediating position (see my thoughts on Hegel herein). Of course, when you are in the middle both sides see you as the enemy. As I’ve reflected on Jim’s position, I’ve concluded that it really doesn’t get us anywhere (sorry Jim). Essentially Jim is interested in trusting the Person of the Messiah beyond faith in content (propositions). While that is fine, it doesn’t really get past the issue of the need for propositions to be expressed and believed (‘and understood’ is assumed, though Jim would debate implicit / intuitive understanding over and against [at times] what we might call ‘actual’ understanding).
The curious thing in all of this is that our traditional view is still something Jim is comfortable with (insofar as how we share the gospel)…which is where we all get uncomfortable with the GES Gospel…because, in time, there is no reason for them to stick with a basic Bad News/Good News approach.
In truth, if everyone would repent of Zane Hodges’ mistaken island analogy…most of this would go away. Of course, it’s going to go away in any event since it is not compelling practically or academically.
God bless you all,
Fred Lybrand
Hi Fred,
Thanks for summing this up for us. I agree with your assesment of how the island senario affects conversation. I’ve often wondered why people think that a person on an island who gets a single verse washed up on the shore to them would have to have salvation available through that single verse… what would make this person more special than the rest of humanity who must receive the revelation they have demonstrated before them in order to get more?
Maybe Jim will write an open letter about his views or something. That could be interesting, and possibly even profitable for him.
His view seems to be somewhere in the middle of the traditional view of the Gospel and the GES position. I don’t think this automatically makes both sides see him as some sort of enemy. It is his holding back, and requiring people to endure long (unending?) subjective teachings on thinking and understanding. I could actually endure such if I knew there was unified end in view.
I would hope that most Christians would see the value in having their views challenged. So, I would also hope that most Christians would not count someone as an enemy just because of an opposing view is held.
May the Lord be glorified,
Kev
Kev,
I think your point is well taken. My ‘enemy’ comment is just an observation about a truism…and yet, I don’t think Jim’s error is on the level of the GES Gospel. I do think people could look at Jim and equate him with GES, but he isn’t there (yet, as far as I can discern). I think an open letter about his view would be great…or, even better, an open letter of him sharing the gospel with someone.
Grace,
FRL
I believe that Jim certainly has been treated as an enemy by certain people on both sides.
In the past few days I’ve been looking at one of the verses that fundamentalists like to use, 2 Thess. 3:14-15:
“If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. YET DO NOT REGARD HIM AS AN ENEMY, but warn him as a brother.”
The interpretation and application of these verses would make an interesting discussion someday. But the words “do not regard him as an enemy” seem pretty straightforward no matter how you interpret and apply the rest.
I believe any reasonable person who has objectively read some of the blogs in the past few months would consider many of the remarks against Jim from certain people on BOTH sides to be vitriolic attacks against an enemy. Some of it has come across as downright hateful. To his credit, I have never observed Jim to respond in kind.
If anyone were to argue that this scripture has not been violated and Jim as not been regarded as an enemy, then what in the world would regarding him as an enemy actually look like? Physical assault?
The FGA covenant says “In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant … to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.”
I respect the attempt both of you made recently in “The Dialog.” I know it was hard and frustrating for both of you (and frustrating for many of the rest of us as well). It ended in a way that probably nobody was satisfied with.
Well, except for me. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think a greater good came out of this than having understood exactly were Jim Reitman stands. I believe you showed the Grace community, by example, how to dialog in grace with a brother. You had a few honest things from your perspective that were hard to say and probably hard for Jim to take, but I felt you said them in the spirit of love–and certainly not as an enemy–and Jim seemed to take them graciously as well.
Would that the Free Grace community live up to its name and follow your example.
DBell
My hope too!
Thanks David,
FRL
Fred,
I don’t understand your appeal to Hegelianism; you’ve used it here, and in a response to me on another thread. Are you just noting the methodology of dialectic or some sort of conceptual touchpoint relating to geist. I don’t see Hegel in Jim at all, not even close.
Bobby,
Jim is clearly trying to mediate the problems he sees with both the Traditional and GES views of ‘what one must believe to be saved’…it is in that sense that I believe he is offering a synthesis of the two views. I don’t think he his officially using a method…it just has that kind of look and feel to it. I must confess that my conclusion adds in a number of private conversations Jim and I have had, so it might not be apparent in this blog (and I could, of course, simply be wrong).
To some degree this is all reactionary…building a view as a reaction to the perceived weaknesses in another view. I think that’s what Zane Hodges did with some of the things in his thinking…and I’m sure it is what GES did when they redesigned their doctrinal statement because of the FGA Covenant.
Grace,
FRL
Btw,
Jim is unfolding a series that I thought was going to be here; but instead it’s here:
http://justsoyouallknow.blogspot.com/
Check it out.
Bobby,
A little more clarity on my reference to Hegel.
Here is a comment of Jim’s from the article you reference here:
The problem I have with both sides of the so-called “Crossless Gospel” debate is that IMO they ignore the Biblical principle of “judgment according to light received,” which is thoroughly intrinsic to the Gospel of John.
………………….
This is what I’m referencing. Jim has a problem with both sides (he’s in the middle)…and, you’ll find, his view includes parts of both.
Thanks,
FRL
Hi Fred,
Like David I too am happy with greater awareness that there are a few who believe (and fewer yet who can actually present) a theological middle ground between GES and FGA. While I wait to hear it and consider it, I have to wonder if it is any comfort to the FGA gospel folks in the one concern of [i]universalism[/i]? Is the alleged attraction of universalism in the GES gospel nullified in Jim’s (& Tim’s) COSF?
Thanks so much for providing this thread for discussion. I hope your family enjoys your grandma’s birthday celebration, I am sure I would treasure meeting anyone of that age.
Michele
Michele,
While it may be a good thing, it also may not be a good thing. For example, we could have faith alone on one side of a discussion and works alone on the other…leaving faith + works as the middle ground. Of course, the truth is actually faith plus nothing.
We’ll try to have a good trip…going to be in the woods writing a bit too…no internet.
FRL
Thanks Fred,
So you’re talking about method then. Of course one can provide a middle way w/o being Hegelian. Think of the Devotio Moderna in the medieval period. I just don’t think Hegelianism is an accurate way of describing Jim’s approach (Hegel offered a distinctively and idealist conceptual approach).
I also don’t think Jim is trying to mediate, but offer a third option (albeit framed for FG’rs). I’ve identified what he’s doing as a supra-media (above the middle) ;-).
Bobby,
You may indeed be right…the reason I made the reference to Hegel is that I’m pretty sure what generated Jim’s view is the tension that was created between the traditional view and the rise of the GES / Hodges view. I could be wrong, but it does seem to match the pattern.
Thanks,
FRL