Pinnock, Pagans, and Pentecost:
                A Response to the Radical Reconstruction
                       of the Uniqueness of Christ
                                    
                                    
                            Peter J. Wallace


I.  Introduction:  Evangelicalism and the Uniqueness of Christ
     A professor at a Christian college recently asked his class
whether a Hindu priest who understood the gospel completely, and
rejected it, could go to heaven.  After a vigorous debate between
the students, the professor concluded that such a person could
indeed be saved.  The professor argued that people may be so
culturally conditioned that they may be unable to see the truth
of the gospel.  Since God is a God of love, he will offer a
second chance for them to accept Christ after they die, when all
their cultural conditioning has been eliminated.  Pointing to
such Christian thinkers as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and
others (including a number of neo-orthodox thinkers), the
professor claimed that his view was an acceptable option among
the evangelical community.  
     Is it acceptable to teach that a person may understand and
reject the gospel in this life (due to cultural conditioning),
and yet be offered salvation after death?  As we will see,
Sanders and Pinnock both repudiate this view.  Those who believe
in post-mortem evangelization only allow it for the
unevangelized, and most inclusivists agree with particularists
that one's destiny is sealed at death.  Yet is inclusivism a
tolerable position in the Christian church?  After outlining the
foundations of John Hick's religious pluralism and Clark Pinnock
and John Sanders' inclusivism, this paper will show some of the
variety in modern particularism before moving to my own response,
before closing with reflections on some missiological
implications.  I will argue that inclusivism has failed to
understand the significance of Pentecost for our understanding of
salvation, the Holy Spirit, and the Church, and has therefore
unwittingly undermined the uniqueness of the work of Christ.
II.  Pluralism, Inclusivism and Particularism
     A.  John Hick's Religious Pluralism
     In the face of the rising tide of cultural pluralism it is
not surprising that religious pluralism has followed.  John Hick
has spearheaded the drive to affirm that salvation may be found
through any religion.  Starting from the foundation that
religious experience is the critical factor, and denying the
inspiration and authority of Scripture, Hick attempts to
construct an understanding of the gospel that makes "sense to
ordinary twentieth-century men and women, both young and old,"
in the context of religious pluralism.  Through his own
interaction with various religions Hick became convinced that
"from a religious point of view basically the same thing is going
on in all [religions], namely, human beings coming together
within the framework of an ancient and highly developed tradition
to open their hearts and minds to God, whom they believe makes a
total claim on their lives..."  Affirming that all the
traditional religions affirm that there is ultimately only one
God (including in his list, Judaism, Islam, Sikh, Hinduism, and
Christianity), Hick destroys the uniqueness of all religions by
reducing them to their lowest common denominator.  Attempting to
maintain the supremacy of Christianity, Hick suggests that all
other religions have "partial or distorted glimpses of the real
God, who is fully known within Christianity."  His arguments
rest upon the common morality found among the devotees of various
world religions--a morality which he claims is no more noticeable
among Christians than among others--as well as the common desire
and concept of salvation in all human religions.  This approach,
he says, has the advantage that it is not tied to some
"theological theory but on the observable realities of human
life."
     Hick takes this foundation and applies it to the question of
the salvation of non-Christians.  Repudiating the idea that a God
of "limitless divine love" could send the majority of humans to
hell, Hick's religious pluralism asserts that salvation is
equally accessible to members of all world religions (as well as
those who hold to no religion), suggesting that universal
salvation is a great likelihood based on "the cosmic optimism of
the great traditions."  Nonetheless, Hick acknowledges that
orthodox Christology is the great stumbling block for religious
pluralism, because if Jesus Christ is truly God in the flesh,
then the uniqueness of Christ and his atoning work requires that
Christianity is the only true way of salvation.  Therefore he
goes to great lengths to undermine the incarnation, showing that
once we see Jesus as merely a great revealer of God, then we can
also acknowledge other revealers of God in other religions.
     B.  Clark Pinnock and John Sanders' Inclusivism
     Uncomfortable with Hick's "radical revisions" of orthodox
Christian doctrine, Clark Pinnock challenges his "trade in of the
God of Jesus for an unknown God" as a bad deal which sounds more
like an imperialistic blending of Eastern monism and Western
liberalism which ultimately rejects all traditional religions in
its quest for a pluralistic religion of toleration and moralism.
     In response, Pinnock articulates what he calls a cautious
Christian inclusivism which attempts to safeguard the uniqueness
of Christ, while allowing salvation to come to those in other
religions--through the work of Christ.  Since God is present in
all of creation, even other religions, according to Pinnock, may
prepare people for Christ, as means of grace.  Salvation comes
only through Jesus Christ--but God may use all sorts of religions
to bring people to the knowledge of him.  Other religions are not
vehicles of salvation itself, but rather function as spheres in
which grace may be found.  Distancing himself from Rahner's
insistence that other religions possess a "salvific status,"
Pinnock instead groups other religions together with the family,
government, and other social structures as all being capable of
the expression of God's mercy to all people.  The essence of
Pinnock's view is his caution:  he merely states that God may use
all sorts of religions--perhaps in proportion to how well they
approximate the truth--to bring people to himself.  As Pinnock
puts it, "grace operates outside the church and may be
encountered in the context of other religions.  My version of it
is oriented to the Spirit as graciously present in the world
among all peoples, even in non-Christian religious contexts." 
In sum, for Pinnock, "Everyone must eventually pass through Jesus
to reach the Father, but there is more than one path for arriving
at this place."  
     Blurring the boundaries between general and special
revelation, Sanders argues that "people can be saved or lost
depending upon their response to the general revelation." 
Denying a sort of "natural" knowledge of God, Sanders insists
that all knowledge of God comes through a genuine revelation, yet
a saving revelation may contain nothing more than the knowledge
that there is a God who is willing to save people from their
sins.  
     Pinnock offers four attractions of inclusivism:  1) it
allows us to believe that the majority of humans will be saved;
2) it relieves us from the uncomfortable doctrines of Calvinism;
3) it allows for genuine sanctity among non-Christians; and 4) it
offers a theologically orthodox middle ground between exclusivism
and pluralism.  Suggesting that the two key errors of
"traditional" (i.e., Calvinistic) theology have been "the denial
of God's universal salvific will and the understanding of
election as a selection of certain individuals to privilege,"
Pinnock attempts to articulate a consistently Arminian response. 
Working along similar lines, John Sanders has argued that
particularism "confuses the ontological necessity of Christ for
salvation with our human epistemological necessity of knowing
about it."  While wanting to affirm that salvation comes
through Christ alone, Sanders and Pinnock agree that Scripture
does not teach that a person must actually hear about Christ's
death in order to benefit from it.
     As Pinnock himself states, "the foundation of my theology of
religions is a belief in the unbounded generosity of God revealed
in Jesus Christ."  This doctrine expresses itself in his
understanding of the Holy Spirit's activity outside the bounds of
the church.  
     In the economy of God, the Spirit is under nobody's
     control but free to grace any person or any sphere,
     however remote from the church's present
     boundaries....A real weakness in the traditional
     theology of the Spirit, however, has been an almost
     exclusively ecclesial understanding of his
     work....There has been too little openness to the
     recognition of his role in bringing God to people
     everywhere in the world.  We have stressed so strongly
     the Spirit's role in bringing people to faith in Christ
     that we have neglected the salvific presence of the
     Spirit in humanity's search for meaning generally.
     
     Therefore missionaries may have the confidence that the Spirit
has gone before them in preparing the way for Christ.  
     Having prepared his theological edifice, Pinnock turns to
the Scriptures to see if it fits.  Referring to Melchizedek in
the OT and Cornelius in the NT as examples of "pagan saints," he
suggests that the content of the witness which God has left
himself in all nations (Acts 14:17) is the Holy Spirit.  Since
Jesus Christ is the savior of the whole world, and has died not
only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world (I John
2:2), we may expect the Spirit to be working in all times and
places--not merely in the church.  While admitting that other
religions do not have orthodox content to their doctrine (and are
often deficient in practice as well), he asserts that because all
religions may be locations for God's grace, and contain
preparatory elements for the gospel, therefore the relationship
between Christianity and other religions should be dialogical. 
Pinnock argues that the dialogue will uncover areas where there
is substantial disagreement, which will require that Christians
stand for the truth and proclaim the gospel.  Eschewing the
relativistic approach of pluralism, he advocates an honest
dialogue which seeks to learn the truths which other religions
have discovered, as well as to teach them the fuller truth about
Jesus Christ.
     Inclusivists generally reject the idea of postmortem
evangelization, where those who have never heard the gospel are
offered a chance to believe on Jesus Christ after death.  
Advocates of this view like Donald Bloesch and Gabriel Fackre
insist that this is not a "second chance" theory--but is only
available to the unevangelized.  But what of the view of the
Christian college professor, outlined above, regarding the
salvation of those who hear the gospel and, for whatever reason,
reject it?  Fackre utterly rejects such a position, pointing to I
Peter 3:19-20; 4:6 and Eph. 4:8-9 as indications that God will
only offer salvation to those who never heard.  Pinnock denies
postmortem conversions altogether (preferring to affirm the
sufficiency of God's grace offered in Christ through all
religions), and John Sanders insists that "God has decided that
he wants to see a faith response in this life."  Certainly
those who have sought God in this life "will have a grace-filled
postmortem encounter with Christ," where they will be able "at
last to confess Jesus and put their trust in his
righteousness."  But for Fackre, as well as Sanders and
Pinnock, those who have understood the gospel and rejected it
outright are not deserving of a second chance--and there is no
reason to suppose that those who have been culturally conditioned
in this life will escape their cultural conditioning after
death.
     C.  Modern Particularism's Critique
     There are two sides to particularism--those who are
essentially pessimistic about whether God will save any except
through the church, and those who are essentially optimistic. 
Alistair McGrath is optimistic enough that Pinnock claims that
there is little ground separating the two, whereas Ronald Nash is
pessimistic enough to deny that the Christian can speak
meaningfully about any salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ
as he is offered to us in the gospel in this life.
     Alistair McGrath has pointed out that Pinnock's position is
firmly rooted in his Arminianism and his Logos-Christology--which
creates obstacles to an inclusivist position for those who are
unconvinced by these two doctrines.  While affirming Pinnock's
suggestion that grace may be offered in a preparatory way in
other religions, McGrath questions whether this grace need be
salvific, and more particularly, whether this salvation is truly
Christian.  Okholm and Phillips further question what they see as
"inclusivism's inability to distinguish between God's presence
and God's personal act in Jesus Christ."  Jesus may be final for
Pinnock, but is he truly sui generis?  "Does Jesus actually
constitute our salvation or just express it?"
     Particularists generally disagree with what they consider to
be the inclusivists' blurring of the distinction between general
and special revelation.  Insisting that general revelation is
insufficient for salvation, particularism allows only for a
preparatory function for revelation in nature, reserving
salvation for the work of special revelation through the
preaching of the gospel.  Nonetheless, such particularists as
Lorraine Boettner and Bruce Demarest allow that by a special act
of grace, God may save some from the unevangelized--although they
qualify this by saying that since Scripture does not say this, it
can only be advanced tentatively.
III.  Critique and Response
     An echoing refrain in Pinnock's work is succinctly put thus: 
"What kind of God would send large numbers of men, women, and
children to hell without the remotest chance of responding to his
truth?  This does not sound like the God whom Jesus called
Father."  One of his main arguments is that "sensitive persons"
cannot accept the "niggardly traditions" of Calvinism and so we
must find a way of structuring our theology that prevents them
from sliding over into universalism.  Both Pinnock and Sanders
have eliminated the notions of divine sovereignty, omniscience,
or predestination (or even foreknowledge) from the discussion,
leaving a kind but impotent "God of vulnerable love," pleading
with people to accept the tragic sacrifice of his Son so that
they may be saved from their sins.
     It is tempting to tackle the inadequacy of their theological
position, and show how their conception of God distorts their
understanding of soteriology, but I am convinced that another
approach would be more fruitful.  Challenging some of their
exegetical blindspots, I would like to suggest that Pinnock and
Sanders have not considered sufficiently what Scripture itself
states about the radical nature of the work of Jesus Christ, and
the implications of what it means to be in the Age of the Spirit.
     A.  Pagan Saints and the Problem of History
     There are two basic problems with Pinnock and Sanders'
inclusivism which are rooted in their misconception of history. 
First, the idea that the Bible allows for pagan saints, and
second, the blurring of pre- and post-pentecostal history.
     First, Pinnock argues that there are such people as pagan
saints, listing Abel, Noah, Enoch, Job, Jethro, the queen of
Sheba, and Cornelius as those who "knew neither Israelite nor
Christian revelation."  Yet the biblical text itself presents
each of these people (with the exception of Job) in contact with
God's people (and Abel, Noah and Enoch are in the godly line). 
Put simply, it is clear that each of these people had heard of
God's dealings with his people, and like Rahab and Ruth aligned
themselves with the truth.  Sanders attempts to highlight
Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab, and Naaman as pagans who believed--
but again, all of these people came in contact with the
revelation of God, and put their faith in him.
     Melchizedek and Jethro demonstrate that not all God-fearers
were descendants of Abraham, because both of these figures seem
to have faith in the true God before they have contact with the
people of God.  But it would be fair to ask whether Sanders and
Pinnock are asking too much of the text.  We know virtually
nothing about these people and their histories, religious beliefs
and practices--except that they worshipped the true God and found
true fellowship with the people of God.  It is entirely possible
that Melchizedek and Jethro were converted to Yahwehism through
their contact with Abraham and Moses respectively on the analogy
with Rahab, Ruth and Naaman, but since these stories were written
much later, they are introduced as God-fearers.  On the other
hand, prior to the calling of Abraham we have very little
information about the way in which God worked.  Even as late as
the Exodus God is still appearing to pagan prophets (Balaam), so
it would not be problematic to affirm that the families of
Melchizedek and Jethro could have maintained the authentic
worship of God from the days of Noah (or later contacts with
Yahwehists).  If we believe in the progress of redemption, we
should have no difficulty affirming that God may have done things
in very different ways at various times and in various places.  
     The only significant question mark, therefore, remains
around the character of Job.  Yet if Job fits into the time of
the patriarchs, the same solution as those of Melchizedek and
Jethro remain available.  Either he had contact with the
"righteous line" or else his was a righteous line--which faded
out as God brought his redemptive purposes to bear on Israel. 
The other alternative (which is not necessarily impossible) is
that the story of Job is not historical, but is a work of
fiction.  In that case, the whole question becomes a moot point
because all of the names are fictitious and therefore we should
expect the absence of references to historical connections.
     Cornelius is Sanders and Pinnock's favorite example, since
he is a New Testament character.  The basic problem with
Pinnock's detailed analysis is that he completely ignores Acts
10:1-2, the description of Cornelius, which call him a God-
fearer, and 10:22, where he is described as "a righteous and God-
fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews..." 
And yet Pinnock calls him a pagan saint?  Here is a man well-
acquainted with the Jewish Law (cf. 10:28, where Peter asserts as
much), and familiar with all that had happened to Jesus (10:37-
38).  Cornelius was intimately acquainted with biblical
revelation and the recent events of redemptive history.  He was
NOT a pagan saint.  What has happened?  Pinnock and Sanders have
eliminated the old covenant community as being a valid "church"
which could have been the true (and to that point only) means of
grace.  As far as the book of Acts is concerned, Cornelius had no
religion except that of the Old Testament.  Therefore, Cornelius
is in this respect no different from godly Jews who heard the
message of the cross and believed in their Messiah.
     Second, Pinnock makes the mistake of lumping all
"premessianic" people together--whether the Jews of B.C. or the
unevangelized of A.D.  This move denigrates the character of
Old Testament revelation and ultimately denies the uniqueness of
Israel as the sole (or even chief) repository of divine
revelation.  Suggesting that other religions play a similar
preparatory role to Christianity as Judaism did, Sanders and
Pinnock affirm that even devoted members of other religions may
be "believers" without being Christians.  Yet, as we have seen,
none of the Old Testament examples brought forth by Sanders or
Pinnock are said to have received their knowledge of God through
a different religion; neither did Cornelius learn of the true God
from any revelation besides the Old Testament.  Denying Pinnock
and Sanders' claim that the early church held to such a view,
James Sigountos has pointed out that even the most optimistic of
the early fathers insisted that in order for pagans to be saved
apart from the proclamation of the gospel (whether before or
after Christ), they had to reject the idolatry of the religions
around them.  Sigountos shows that Justin Martyr and other
fathers affirmed Socrates and a very few others as "Christians"
only because they made "a clean break with their pagan past," and
stood against the idolatry of their day in the conviction that
there was but one God.  Historically the church has considered
it extremely dangerous to place "pagan" religions on a par with
the revealed religion of the Old Testament.       Sanders and
Pinnock do not deal with the traditional doctrine that Old
Testament saints were saved through their faith in Christ (the
Messiah, the "seed of the woman," etc.).  Instead they try to say
that such believers were saved by faith in God more generally,
and then extrapolate to other religions.  This ignores the New
Testament's own interpretation of the Old Testament, which
assumes that the law and the prophets were designed to show forth
Christ, and mediate his benefits in anticipation of his work (cf.
Luke 24:44-49, Hebrews 3:1-4:16, 9:15, 10:3-14, and Paul's
explicit statement that the wilderness community were fed by
Christ--I Cor. 10:1-5).  Redemptive history consists of the
progressive unfolding of God's plan of salvation, as interpreted
by inspired revelation.  Word and deed are inseparably bound
together.  It is not merely through the ontological fact of
Christ that Old Testament saints were saved, it was also through
their faith in the Messiah which God would provide on their
behalf--that provision which God had promised from the moment of
the curse itself in his revelatory Word and redemptive deeds. 
     B.  Pentecost and the Uniqueness and Sufficiency of Christ
     The root issue, however is uncovered by Pinnock's inability
to deal satisfactorily with the uniqueness of what happened in
the Christ-event.  He cannot imagine why Job could not live
today--calling such people "informationally
premessianic....Obviously the unevangelized can be saved by faith
just like anyone else."  As we have seen, Pinnock views all
"premessianic" people (whether Old Testament Jews or A.D. Hindus)
as in fundamentally the same relationship to Christ.  Sanders has
also asserted that "there is no salvation outside of Jesus
Christ, but there is salvation outside the church."  Such views
suggest that neither theologian has adequately dealt with the
radical reorientation of our theology caused by the stupendous
event-complex of Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and
Pentecost.
     Jesus Christ is the center of human history--the decisive
juncture of the two ages.  In him the age to come has dawned, and
the new creation has been inaugurated (II Cor. 5:17; cf. Rom.
16:25-26; Col. 1:26-27; Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4).  His death and
resurrection are intimately bound together in the apostolic
preaching with his ascension and the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit upon his people (Acts 2:16-36).  For Jesus, his death was
the baptism which preceded the outpouring of fire which he was to
bring (Luke 12:49-50).  That outpouring of fire was described by
John the Baptist in his famous statement that Jesus would baptize
with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luke 3:16), which was
fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.  But what use is Pentecost for
those who live today?  Peter's sermon in Acts 2 begins to
articulate the answer:  those who repent and are baptized will
receive the same Holy Spirit that was  poured out on Pentecost
(Acts 2:38).  This baptism is the symbol as well as the means of
our participation in Christ.  Paul's whole argument in Romans 5-6
is that there are only two men:  Adam and Christ, and these two
men are definitive for all of humanity.  You are either in Adam,
or else you are in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; cf. I Cor. 15:42-49). 
But how do you participate in Christ?  Through baptism into
Christ's death.  "Or don't you know that all of us who were
baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were
therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order
that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory
of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:3-4).  This
baptism was understood by the apostles as a participation in the
death and resurrection of Christ because it was the sign of
Pentecost, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ
our Savior" (Titus 3:5-6--note the "Pentecostal" imagery), and
the "baptism that now saves you...by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ" (I Peter 3:21).  Now as the latter passage clearly
states, baptism is not merely "the washing with water, but the
testimony of a clear conscience before God."  Nonetheless it
would not be too strong to say that for the New Testament,
salvation apart from participation in Pentecost (i.e., baptism
into Christ's death and resurrection) is unthinkable.  New life
comes from participation in Christ, which is everywhere connected
to believing, repenting, and being baptized (Matt. 28:20; Acts
2:38, 8:12, 18:8).  
     One of the key elements of this "Pentecostal" understanding
of the two ages is that there is something radically new in
Christ.  The Old Testament is the true Word of God and the saints
of old were saved only through participating in Christ, but it
must be viewed in the light of the dawning of the new age: 
"These things happened to them as examples and were written down
as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come"
(1 Cor. 10:11).  And for those of us who live on this side of
Pentecost, the warning is even stronger (Heb. 2:1-4).  There is
no turning back to Old Testament ways of doing things.  This is
where Pinnock and Sanders' arguments from Old Testament examples
of pagan saints are exposed as impossibilities.  The final
revelation of God has come (Heb. 1:1-4), and "there is no other
name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts
4:12).  Certainly Pinnock and Sanders assert this ontologically,
but they deny it epistemologically, claiming that people can be
saved by the name of Christ without knowing the name of Christ. 
Sanders argues that Scripture never addresses directly the fate
of the unevangelized, claiming that Romans 10:9-10 expounds one
way of being saved, but does not preclude others.  But if
Scripture is our final authority on matters of faith and practice
(as Sanders affirms) and there is another way of salvation, then
Scripture ought to teach it.  But Scripture never teaches any
other way--and all of Sanders and Pinnock's examples of "pagan
saints" fall to the ground in the light of Christ.
     C.  The Spirit and the Church
     Sanders and Pinnock have properly told us that the Spirit
works in many ways outside the church, but they do not show from
Scripture that such work is salvific.  Our doctrine of providence
asserts that God is at work in every culture and every nation to
bring about his purposes--especially the salvation of humanity in
Christ Jesus--but our affirmations about this work must be
guarded by Scripture.  There is no problem with asserting that
"redemptive analogies" exist, or that God has worked in certain
cultures to prepare them for the coming of the gospel.  In such
cases, the Spirit may prepare the way for the Word, but salvation
itself comes with the preaching of the Word (Rom. 10:14-21). 
We may joyfully assert that when we go out to preach the gospel
we know that God has gone before us--but that does not allow us
to expect that we will find believers who have no need of
salvation among the unevangelized, rather it permits us to
believe with full confidence that "all who were appointed for
eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).  
     Perhaps the best model propounded for understanding this
activity of the Spirit is J. H. Bavinck's "possessio" approach
which takes possession of the good elements of a culture, "and
thereby makes them new....Within the framework of the non-
Christian life, customs and practices serve idolatrous
tendencies...The Christian life takes them in hand and turns them
in an entirely different direction; they acquire an entirely
different content."  Warning against syncretism and the bare
"accommodation" of the gospel to a culture, or "adaptation to
customs and practices essentially foreign to the gospel,"
Bavinck challenges missionaries to find ways of transforming the
rituals of other cultures in ways which conform to the gospel and
are filled with Christian content.  Bavinck argues that
everyone is playing games with God, and "is always secretly busy
escaping from him," because God's general revelation actually
reaches everyone.  Similarities or moments of truth in other
religions do not indicate that these people are on the right road
and merely need a little push, rather they are indications of the
idolatrous distortions which have come when man tries to escape
from the God who cannot be eluded.  Therefore the work of the
Holy Spirit is there ahead of us, convicting the nations of sin
and of judgment, planting seeds which only bursts into flower in
the preaching of the Word.  So while Bavinck will not deny that
perhaps through God's grace there have been some who have had "a
humble approach to God," it is in spite of superstition and
idolatry, for "one ought not to expect that the heathen will of
themselves seek after Christ."  The heathen conception of God
and the desire for an "unknown God" are "not to be understood as
in any way pointing to the real Christ," but are confronted by
the real Christ as "a condemnation of all such human fancy and
speculation."
     Therefore, understood correctly we may assert that there is
no salvation outside the church.  The church may not be conceived
strictly as the institutional church (because their are several
distinct institutions).  Rather the church may be identified by
its marks:  wherever the preaching of the gospel is found
together with baptism into the name of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, the celebration of the Lord's Supper, prayer and the
communion of saints--there is the church (Acts 2:42).  From
this perspective we may affirm with Calvin that unless we call
the church our mother, we may not call God our Father, for "there
is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us
in her womb, give us birth, [and] nourish us at her
breast....[A]way from her bosom one cannot hope for any
forgiveness of sins or any salvation."  I do not deny that it
is possible for God to save people apart from the church, rather
I assert that God has revealed that he will save his people
through the instrumentality of his holy bride, as they have
multitudes of children throughout the ages (Isaiah 66:7-8;
Revelation 12:17).  
V.  Conclusion:  The Uniqueness of Christ and the Missiological
Task
     I am profoundly disappointed with the flimsy arguments for
missions that arise out of the inclusivist tradition.  Sanders
offers four motivations for missions:  1) Jesus commands us to
go; 2) we who have experienced the love of God in Christ should
want to share the blessings of the Christian life with those who
are ignorant of it; 3) there are those who are not believers, and
need to hear of Christ; 4) God wants to give people "the fulness
of life that came at Pentecost.  A relationship with the risen
Lord affords a much richer spiritual life than can be had through
only a knowledge of the Creator."  The first, of course, is
unobjectionable, but the other three all presuppose inclusivism,
and leave me wondering whether the unevangelized would be better
off without Western missionaries.  After all, if there is no such
thing as divine election, then why should we suppose that fallen
humans could do a better job of convincing people to love God
than God himself?  But particularists like Ronald Nash do not
leave me any more convinced when they utilize the whip of the
damnation of the unevangelized.  The New Testament never seems
to use such a motivation for missions, and I suspect we shouldn't
either.
     What then is the biblical motivation for missions?  Based
upon our "Pentecostal" understanding of the uniqueness of Christ,
we proclaim the gospel because: 1) (with Sanders) Jesus commands
us to go (Matt 28:18-20; Acts 1:8, etc.).  2) Perhaps more to the
point, the command carries within itself the dynamic power,
because the Spirit has been poured out upon the church for the
purpose that the church should spread to the ends of the earth. 
There is an inherent drive and purpose within the church that
compels us to preach the gospel (I Cor. 9:16-17; the whole of
Acts).  In other words, it is part of our identity and calling in
Christ.  
     The problem with most American Christians today--especially
those of us in the evangelical traditions--is that we do not
really see ourselves as defined by Jesus Christ.  We find our
identity more in our culture and ourselves than in him. 
Therefore we keep seeking extrinsic motivations for evangelism
and missions because we have lost the intrinsic one.  Those,
however, who have been radically realigned by the gospel of Jesus
Christ find the question of motivation absurd:  how can I not
proclaim the gospel?  The gospel is the heart and soul of my
identity in Christ.  It is so much a part of me that if you talk
with me for more than five minutes, Jesus should shine forth.  He
is my life.  I am defined by his Spirit and by the age to come--
and not by the flesh which is the residue of this age.  Christ
calls us to go, he has given us the power to go in the Spirit who
radically realigns our hearts to his Kingdom, therefore we go. 
It is precisely this focus on the centrality of the uniqueness of
Christ for defining the believer's life that I do not find in
Sanders or Pinnock; without such an identity I do not believe the
church can regain vitality in the modern world.  


Copyright   1996, All rights reserved.