All Things

Christ redeems all creation. He makes all things new. He reconciles all things to God. That language seems like it includes the very inanimate matter of creation.

Let's unpack that. Christ died at a particular place and time, and rose at another place and time. Relative to those events, at what point does, say, the Andromeda Galaxy become reconciled to God? That galaxy is so far away that it takes 2.5 million years for any information at all to travel there. How does God's reconciliation propagate throughout creation?

Does reconciliation propagate through organized information? I tend to think not, because that would mean we are the limiting factor on the work of God. God invites us to participate in his work, but he does not need us. The Andromeda Galaxy isn't unreconciled to God until some human gets there to fix it. Similarly, we would have to assume that the redemption doesn't propagate through matter at all, because I seriously doubt any matter from here ever makes it to Andromeda.

Does the redemption then propagate outward from first-century Judea at the speed of light? Well, no, because as the expansion of the universe accelerates, a (possibly infinite) portion of creation will have no contact with it. That's not really acceptable, unless we understand "all things" to mean "all observable things." Could the redemption propagate faster than light? God can do what God wants, but the problem then is that FTL travel is also time travel depending on your frame of reference. That would mean that from some frames of reference, the redemption arrived before the crucifixion!

Or perhaps God's reconciliation does not propagate at all, but instead affects all creation simultaneously, at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ? But we have a problem here, since the universe has no master clock; due to relativity, the way the universe actually is built and behaves, it's not even meaningful for an event to be simultaneous in all frames of reference.

When the reasoning process is this absurd, I am clearly asking the wrong question.

Reconciliation of creation to God isn't the causal result of any single event; instead, the crucifixion is a necessary aspect of the redemption of creation. If creation was not redeemed, the crucifixion could not and would not have been part of it; all possible reconciled creations include the crucifixion.

We have been reconciled. We are being reconciled. We hope to be reconciled. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Amen.

FAQ: Unforgivable Sinfulness

So there are quite a few Christian subreddits, and I try to follow as many of them as possible, and interact with them in whatever way seems beneficial. (Exceptions: I generally avoid /r/catholicism because it overwhelms my feed and I have little I can contribute due to their unique and complex teachings, and I got banned from /r/TrueChristian without explanation.) I maintain a custom feed of as many as seem practical. It's interesting how often certain questions come up.

One of those is the unforgivable sin. Obviously real theologians have spent quite some time exploring this idea, but I have some thoughts of my own. Perhaps they're of value. (Story of my blog.)

As we've seen previously, sinfulness is not in what you do, but in who you are; as Jesus said, a person who wants to commit adultery has a sin problem, even if they happen to not commit adultery today. Christ comes to cure our hardness of heart, not just to make our actions right.

With this model of sin, God isn't going to condemn you because you uttered the magic anti-spell; there's no combination of words that suddenly makes you beyond redemption. Instead, someone beyond redemption must be so because of what they would do given the particular circumstances, because of who they are inside. So what kind of person cannot be forgiven?

It's worth noting that this isn't the only time we see talk of something unforgivable. In Matthew 6 Jesus says that God will not forgive those who do not forgive others. But how might being an unforgiving person lead one to blaspheme the Spirit?

First, let's talk about what it is to forgive. When someone hurts me, they owe me a debt, and I can take revenge. Forgiveness is to choose to not take revenge, to cancel that debt. I can do this regardless of any remorse or repentance on their part.

This is distinct from reconciliation. Reconciliation is to restore relationship. This requires both parties to participate. Reconciliation is generally good, but may not be possible, for a lot of reasons, and in some cases may be dangerous or otherwise undesirable. One can forgive and still not pursue or desire reconciliation with the person who hurt you.

Now what does forgiveness in particular have to do with the work of the Spirit? We see that Jesus declares Peter and the other disciples to have revelation from God, to correctly discern and proclaim what things have been bound or released by God, which can perhaps be understood to mean forgiven or not forgiven. We see similar language after the resurrection: Jesus breathes on the eleven, tells them to receive the Holy Spirit, and that their proclamations of forgiveness or lack of forgiveness will be correct. This also seems related to Jesus's statement that the Spirit proves the world wrong concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. One can conclude that part of the work of the Spirit, and thus our work as Christians, is to declare what is and is not forgiven.

So back to Matthew 6. We can break this passage down into a series of logical statements.

A: God forgives me.

B: I forgive others.

Not-B implies Not-A; if I do not forgive, I will not be forgiven. 

B implies A; if I forgive others, I will be forgiven.

Therefore two possible false statements can exist:

1) B and not A; God will not forgive those who forgive; forgiveness of others is, in fact, evil.

2) A and not B; there is some means of forgiveness from God that does not involve me forgiving those who sin against me.

Any such claims would necessarily also claim that the forgiveness proclamations of the Holy Spirit are incorrect, which also necessarily claims that the Holy Spirit is not from God. Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

So getting back to virtue ethics, what kind of person would make a claim like this? What kind of person wants to claim God's forgiveness without being forgiving? 

Well, Jesus addresses this too. Immediately after Jesus tells the disciples they have the power to accurately proclaim what God does or does not forgive, Peter asks "how many times must I forgive my brother?" Jesus tells a parable, the servant whose GDP-sized debt is forgiven, but then shakes down others for the pocket change he is owed. This man is thrown into prison, never to be released.

An unforgivable person is the kind of person who is fully aware of everything that's been done for them, and it changes nothing for how they treat others. This person lacks most of the virtues we've identified: humility before God, drive for restorative justice in the world, love of neighbor, joy and gratitude, forgiveness and desire for reconciliation, patience, kindness and mercy and generosity. It's not what they do that isn't forgivable, it's who they are; the kind of person who won't become even a little more Christlike, no matter what God does for them.