Limited Atonement for the Whole World: Calvinist Interpretations of 1 John 2:2

"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement states that Jesus did not die for the salvation of the whole world, but only for a chosen few, the elect. Thus, this verse presents a significant problem for them. I have asked several Calvinist friends of mine to send me their interpretations of this verse and how they reconcile it with their belief in limited atonement. These are their contributions:

Argument 1. The English-speaking reader may be tempted to use 1 John 2:2 as a proof-text against Reformed theology. The original Greek confutes this interpretation. In Greek, the word for "world" is κοσμος (kosmos); and its meaning is narrower in Greek than in English. My Greek dictionary notes that the word κοσμος is often used "[h]yperbolically," to mean "the multitude," or "metaphorically, that is openly." Let's consider another context in which the Apostle John uses this word. In John 7:4, Jesus' brothers tell him to go to the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem and "show thyself to the world [κοσμος]." Or consider John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, '. . . Look, the world [κοσμος] has gone after him [Jesus]" (John 12:19). So if we know a little bit of Greek, it will show that 1 John 2:2 can't be used as a proof text for either side of the predestination debate. When John says that Christ's blood is the propitiation for the sins of the κοσμος, he could mean "all mankind"; or he could mean "many others," or "even the Gentiles," or "even Christians outside our church," or "the multitudes for many generations to come."

There are two giant problems with his assessment of this verse. First, he is correct in saying that κοσμος does not necessarily have to refer to the universe or world as it does for the English word 'cosmos'. However, the word often does refer to the universe (Matt. 13:35).(1) Just because it doesn't have to refer to the universe does not mean that we shouldn't interpret it that way. The word must be defined by its context. In this case, there is another word that Eric completely ignores that helps define for us what κοσμος is supposed to mean here, which leads me to my second point:

He pays no attention to the Greek word ὅλου (holos), which means 'whole', 'all', or 'entire'. This serves to strengthen κοσμο, making it holos kosmos, the entire world, all of creation, the whole cosmos. Thus, we can't just say that this could be referring to "many others" or "even the Gentiles" (which John most certainly would have said if that is what he meant) or "even Christians outside the church" or "the multitudes for many generations to come." We have to take it to mean what it is clearly telling us: Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the whole world.

Argument 2. I see any attempt to interpret "the whole world" as "every human being that ever lived" as endorsing universalism; how could those whose sins are paid for (including the sin of unbelief) and have Christ praying for them still perish? And what of those biblical groups of people that certainly seem damned (the many "ites" God had Israel slaughter in the OT, the Pharaohs, etc.); has Christ propitiated God’s wrath towards them and does He now pray for them?

That aside, I will say the text does not explicitly refer to the elect, as many Calvinists say. However, it also does not explicitly refer to a conditional group of people who accept God’s free gift of salvation through faith either, which many Arminians would offer. The term must be more generic then, "referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general."(2)

I respect that he is honest about what this verse appears to be saying. However, his reason for interpreting it to be referring to "mankind in general" is quite weak. If it is referring to the whole world, he says, this implies universalism; thus, John is probably speaking generically. This is the problem with approaching the text with a preconceived theology: the text can no longer speak for itself, but has to fit in with the doctrinal framework through which it is being read.

That being said, he is mistaken in saying that the verse implies universalism. We just need to recognize the objective vs. subjective nature that characterizes salvation in the New Testament. That is, salvation is described as something that has already been accomplished objectively, but must be received subjectively in order for it to be manifested in one's life. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to make a comprehensive case for this. I have made a case for this in an article I am currently trying to get published, and in a research paper that I plan to post here. For a brief treatment of it, see my blog "Concerning the Nature of Faith and Works" (here). Suffice it to say, this verse does not have to imply universalism. Rather than dismiss this verse because it seems to, one has to re-work their doctrinal framework to include the claim of this verse. Limited atonement simply does not fit. There is nothing limited about an atonement that is for the holos kosmos.

Argument 3. 1 John 2:2 is a beautiful and comforting passage dedicated to the assurance we have in Christ Jesus. While some have attempted to twist this passage in favor of an Arminian soteriology, it is crucial to note that John is not explaining the process of the atonement, but rather he is reaffirming basic Christian truths for the comfort of the doubting believer. Anticipating the slant of this blog post, however, it would seem less appropriate to expound upon the unwavering promises of God, and more fitting to address the heretical view that leads some to believe in unlimited atonement. The cold, hard truth is that the verse never says that every individual can or will be saved by their own will. Instead, we are told that Christ's death transcends the Israelites, God's former people. It also deserves to be said that a generally sound rule of hermaneutics is not to build a doctrine upon one verse. Sole use of 1 John 2:2 to establish unlimited atonement flies in the face of myriad other passages such as John 10:11, Mathew 25:31-46, Ephesians 5:25, and Acts 20:28 - all of which plainly depict Christ as dying for the elect or His church. My hope is that we will be able to reclaim this beautiful promise of our Lord for the assurance that it will have in our lives - that God's people are not restricted to one nationality, but are literally of the whole world.

There are a number of things to be said about this approach. 1) Whether John is "explaining the process of the atonement" or "reaffirming basic Christian truths," the message of the verse remains the same: salvation is not just for us, but the entire world. 2) I find it baffling that he calls it a "cold, hard truth" that the verse does not point to unlimited atonement, yet he can't justify this exegetically at all. This leads me to 3) his conclusion is a very weak interpretation of the verse. He reduces the all-inclusiveness of this verse to saying that "Christ's death transcends the Israelites." Israelite-Gentile inclusion in the gospel is not the issue here. Nor is John talking solely to jews. He is addressing a church. Furthermore, John is not thinking in limited terms at all. If there is a cold hard truth here, it is that Jesus died for the whole world. This overrules any notion of limited atonement.

[Side note: I am not, as he accuses, forming a doctrine off of this one verse. I have made a case for inclusivism here and universal reconciliation here and here. The point of focusing on this verse now is because I think it makes belief in limited atonement impossible. There are others, but this is the strongest one, the one I still think cannot be reconciled with the L in TULIP.]

Finally, 4) The verses he cites as supporting the doctrine of limited atonement/election don't even come close to doing so:

John 10:11: Talk about not explaining the process of the atonement, this verse doesn't deal with it at all! Jesus says that he lays down his life for his sheep. Does that mean he was the atoning sacrifice for only his sheep? No, it means he sacrifices himself for his sheep, whether that is on the cross, or in their daily lives (like he did for his disciples). Are his sheep a select group of people chosen before the foundations of the world to be saved? Nowhere is that implied, and it cannot be deduced from this verse.

Matt. 25:31-46: Separating the sheep from the goats does not even begin to imply that Christ only died for a few people that he chose from eternity. This simply implies that there will come a day when he will separate those that chose to follow him, and those who rejected him.

Ephesians 5:25: So Christ gave himself up for the church...and? The verse doesn't imply that it was solely for the church, nor does it imply that the church is made up of people that were elected for salvation before time began. And again, for someone who criticizes use of a verse that doesn't explain the atonement to form atonement doctrine, he doesn't seem too concerned about not doing so himself. This verse has very little to do with the atonement.

Acts 20:28: Again, why does Christ dying for the church imply that he only died for a select group of people and not for the whole world? This verse does not rule out unlimited atonement at all. If I save 10 people from a burning house, and 2 of them go back to their families and say "John Daniel saved us from the burning fire," it would be ridiculous to conclude from that that they were the only ones I saved. What makes this more ridiculous is that 1 John 2:2 explicitly says that it wasn't just for the church, but for the whole world!

Think you can do better than these guys? Send me your approach to this verse at johndanielwashere@gmail.com

Notes:
(1) See Hermann Sasse's contribution on kosmos to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, 867-898.
(2) John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 1952. 

Universal Reconciliation Q&A

"I have reason to believe we all will be received in Graceland."
Paul Simon

I recently wrote a blog (here) advocating the doctrine of universal reconciliation. I knew there would be plenty of challenging questions in response, so I wanted to take some of them and respond to them here.

(I want to add to this, so please send me a question if you've got one to add.)

Yes, God is love, but he is also just. Though he wants all people to be saved, he also desires justice.

I have a few things to say in response to this.

First, universal reconciliation doesn't remove justice from the picture. Was justice not served when the prodigal son ended up fighting with pigs over food after demanding his inheritance and abandoning his father? In the same way, justice will be served when those who have chosen Hell on earth will get what they wanted. God's wrath is letting them have it (click here for a more thorough explanation of this view of God's wrath).

Secondly, what happened when the prodigal son returned?
In that day, it would have been the custom to make the son sit outside the home for days to prove that he was genuine in returning home. But when the son in the story returned, was the father so concerned with justice that he made him do this? Or did he run out to him (in that time, N. T. Wright provides, running was thought to be "undignified")(1) and embrace him? Did the father stop his son and ask him all kinds of questions to see if he was worthy of returning?

The son had a whole speech planned, and in it he was merely going to ask the father if he could become a slave in his house. The father wouldn't have it. He was just so happy that his son was returning.
Does this seem like a father that is super concerned about justice when it comes to his children?
Many say universal reconciliation is too human, but in this case, even the son himself was only expecting to be made a slave! In this case, the human version of justice wasn't good enough for God!

Finally, Jesus is a testament to the fact that [human perception of] justice is not God's main concern. He says something very interesting in John 12: "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" (v.47; also see Jn. 3:17). He then adds, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge" (v.48). He is implicating God the Father here (see vv.49-50). However, elsewhere Jesus tells us that "the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (Jn. 5:22). So, the Father is not the judge, but hands judgment over to the Son, and the Son does not come to judge the world but to save it! Yes, there is judgment. Yes, there is justice. But "mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas. 2;13). Ultimately, God's purpose is to save the world and not condemn it forever and ever, so Jesus will have mercy on those who reject him in this life. Timothy Jennings says beautifully, "biblical justice is delivering the oppressed, not punishing the oppressor!"(2)

(I elaborate more on this topic in another blog, here)


Can't "all people" simply refer to all races, cultures, and groups rather than literally every single person who ever lived?

In some cases, you can look at it that way, like when it says "all nations" or "all the ends of the earth." However, it is not more valid to interpret it this way. For other verses, I don't think you can avoid it by saying that it refers to all kinds of people. For example, when Psalm 65:2 says all people will come to God, the Hebrew words there don't mean, literally, "all flesh," same as 145:21.

In John 12:32 and 1 Cor. 15:22, the Greek text doesn't actually say "all people," but only says "all," and the Greek word for all literally means all, every kind of, each and every one, the whole.
 I don't see how you get past that.

If the Greek and Hebrew words for "forever" don't actually mean forever, wouldn't that also mean that God's love doesn't have to go on forever, since the same words are used to describe God?

I get this one a lot. It's a good point, but it stops short of disproving universal reconciliation because of two things:

1) I didn't say the Greek and Hebrew words for eternal can't mean forever. The reason these words don't have to mean forever is because they don't refer to an actual duration of time, because the biblical writers didn't think about forever and ever. They thought in generations and ages. Hell and God are similar in the sense that they are both beyond ages and generations, and their ends are not in sight to humans. When it says God's steadfast love goes on "forever and ever," it's really saying that it goes on and on and the end of God's love is not in sight.

I know what you're thinking. Wouldn't that mean that God's love can end?
No, and this leads to my second point:

2) These are not the only words used to describe God. Other words were used to describe God's everlasting characteristics. For example, God's love is said to never end. Nowhere does it say that Hell will never end.

Consider this illustration: the sun is huge.  Its circumference is 2.715 million miles long. We use words like enormous, gigantic, and humungous to describe how big the sun is, because it's so big we can't actually conceive of how big it is. The universe is also  enormous, gigantic, humungous. It goes on for billions upon billions of light years.

While the sun is enormous, it does have an end. The universe doesn't (well...maybe it does, but I'm not going to get into that; you get the point). Likewise, how long God lasts and how long Hell lasts can both be said to be olam or aion, it can also be that God can last forever while Hell ends at some point, because the words used to describe them doesn't actually specify a duration, just like the word humungous doesn't specify an actual size.

I should also add that this problem with these Greek and Hebrew words still comes up no matter what you believe about Hell. The Hebrew word olam (which is "supposed" to mean forever) is used by Jonah to describe how long he was in the belly of the fish (2:5-6). If it can be used to describe a period of 3 days, this word clearly doesn't have to mean forever.

If Hell is not forever, wouldn't that demean the atonement?

Maybe it would, if the only reason Christ died on the Cross was to save people from an everlasting Hell. But I don't believe this was the only reason, nor do I believe that this is the central reason.

Christ died on the Cross so that God could be in an intimate relationship with his creation. Throughout the Old Testament, God is trying everything he can to be in relationship with his people. All of human history is God in search of man. Jesus is a continuation of that story. The Cross is the greatest point in human history where we can see God in search of man, and I believe that story will continue even after death.

The atonement is many things. Let's not make it just about saving humanity from a never-ending Hell. It's so much more than just that.

I should also add that the doctrine of universal reconciliation doesn't take any of the horror out of Hell. One of the reasons for the atonement was still to save people from the horrible place in which they would experience all the consequences of their own sinful choices. It's not like Hell is any less terrible because it doesn't last forever and ever.

Consider this illustration: let's say all of humanity signed up to get addicted to cocaine at a certain point (it's a silly example, but sin is also silly). When God saw this, he sent Jesus to give them a way to avoid this doom. Some didn't accept his invitation, so they still headed to cocaine addiction. Sure, there's always rehab, but forcing oneself to submit to rehab while addicted to cocaine is incredibly hard, and the process of rehab isn't any easier. It doesn't take a Christian to tell someone to avoid cocaine. Why do most people avoid it? because they know that, though it promises euphoria, it leads to a terrible experience of which it takes what feels like a lifetime (here would be a good place for the word aionios) to break free.

Hell, like a cocaine addiction, is an awful fate no matter how long it is. Thank God he gave us a way out!

Isn't universal reconciliation an altered form of Calvinism's irresistible grace? Wouldn't the idea that God will eventually win all people over contradict free will?

I have a few things to say in response.

One, I am not saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to be turning up the heat, if you will, on his love so that he will become irresistible to people. I am saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to continue to do everything he can to save people from it. But as long as people have free will, they can reject him.

I will use an example to illustrate my point: let's say I find out that my friend Matt hates me. I can choose to ignore that fact and go on living my life forgetting that I love his friendship. But I do love his friendship, so instead I pursue him and am absolutely determined to find reconciliation. If I finally get to the point where Matt chooses to be my friend again, it wouldn't be because I overrode his free will, but because I pursued him long enough. In the same way, whenever God finally reconciles all people to himself, it will not be because he obliterated their free will with his love, but because he pursued them long enough.

Two, forever is a very long time. I don't think the day after judgment day God is going to win everybody over. Some will insist on Hell for a very, very long time. I just don't think God is ever going to stop pursuing those people.

Three, what I stress in universal reconciliation is not that everyone is going to be saved, but that God is never going to stop pursuing people. I stress this because I have no idea when everyone is going to be saved, and if it weren't for Scripture, I wouldn't believe it. It is because Scripture tells of a day when all people, all flesh, everyone will come alive and worship God that I believe that some day God will succeed in drawing all people to himself.


Have a question to add? Send it to me! 

Notes:
(1) N.T. Wright, After You Believe (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 12.
(2) Timothy Jennings, The God-Shaped Brain (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 188.

Is God a Universalist?

"I am not a universalist because there are some people that I don't want to see again. But God may be."
Jurgen Moltmann

Which Universe Do I Live in?

Before I get into a defense of Universalism, I should clarify which form of Universalism I am defending.

I don't believe that all roads lead to God, or that it doesn't matter how people live in this life because they will all be in Heaven when they die. Nor do I deny the existence of Hell.

I believe in Universal Reconciliation, which states that as long as there is a Hell, God will be trying to reconcile all of its inhabitants back to himself. In this, Jesus is the one way to salvation, but eventually everyone will choose to say Yes to him.

Is Universalism in Scripture?

Any Bible-believing Christian must at least recognize that Universalism is something God wants.

1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

We are told in 2 Peter 3:9 that God "is patient with [us], not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Similarly, in Ezekiel 33:11, God says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." So, at the very least, Unversalism sounds just as wonderful to God as it does (or should) to us.

But can we go further than that and say that all people will actually be saved?

The Psalmist of Psalm 65:2 says to God, "to you all people will come."

Psalm 86:9 says, "All nations whom you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and they shall glorify your name."

Psalm 145:21 says, "all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever."

Isaiah 2:2 says that "all nations will stream" to "the mountain of the LORD's temple."

Then, in 52:10, we are told that "all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of God."

Jesus says in John 12:32 that "when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (15:22).

He tells us in Philippians that, "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" (2:10-11).

The writer of Hebrews quotes what God revealed to the prophet Jeremiah, that "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (8:11).

So it appears there are actually several places throughout Scripture that support Universalism. How then do we reconcile these verses with verses that talk about Hell?

Is Hell Forever?

The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated 'forever' or 'eternal' or 'everlasting' do not actually fit the description of these English words. The Hebrew word olam and the Greek words aion and aionios do not have specific durations. They do not mean "absolutely unending."

They denote time-independence, describing an age that is not bound by time and cannot be measured. It cannot be measured because the end is not known or in sight. These words mean "until the vanishing point" or "beyond the horizon."

The punishment one experiences in Hell is described in Scripture as something that is perpetual, ongoing. However, its actual duration is unknown. Thus, it does not have to be taken to mean forever.

And why should we limit God to that one thing? Why limit God to "All unrepentant sinners will go to Hell when they die and will be there forever and ever"? Does this not make us like Jonah, who, after he prophesied to the Ninevites, sat and waited for God to destroy them? He limited God to that one option. But God, when he "saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" (Jon. 3:10).

Forever is a long time. Why decide for God that billions of years from now he is still going to be in Heaven thinking, "Yah, they still deserve it. I'll let them continue to suffer"? Why not let God decide how long Hell is going to last? This is what the biblical writers did. The words they used implied that people would be punished but they left the end of that punishment up to God.

Is God a Universalist?

The parable of the Lost Sheep is one of the most powerful explanations of the Father's heart that we have in Scripture. Every time I read it, I see something new and experience a little piece of the Father's love in the most magnificent way.

As an aspiring theologian, I often think about the theological implications of this parable. What does it tell us about God? Recently I have asked, what does it tell us about God and the doctrine of Hell?

But before we go there, let's look at some other parts of Scripture that tell us about the character of God.

Psalm 30:5 tells us that God's "anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime."

It is revealed in 1 John 4:16 that "God is love" and in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that "Love never fails."

Similarly, in Lamentations 3:22 we are told that "the steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end."

A few verses later, we are told that "no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love" (vv.31-32).

This is similar to what James says, that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (2:13).

God tells us in Malachi 3:6, "I, the LORD, do not change."

Simarly, James tells us that "there is no variation or shifting shadow" in the Father of Lights (1:17).

So, now let us return to the parable.

God is the kind of God that leaves the 99 sheep to rescue the 1 that ran away (Lk. 15:4-7). He searches for it "until he finds it" (v.4). And "when he finds it" (v.5), he rejoices and throws a party. This is God's attitude toward sinners who run away from him.

Let us put these pieces together.

God is love. God's love never fails. (The Greek words that are used to describe punishment after death do not have to mean forever, but the Greek and Hebrew words for never are quite clear.) Though his anger comes, though he brings grief, mercy triumphs over judgment. He will show compassion because his love is unfailing. 

This is the way God is. He does not change. Though we are inconsistent, God remains the same.

What about after people die? Does God stop being the God who leaves the 99 to rescue the 1? Does his love cease? Does he stop trying?

In the Old Testament, God struggles with his people. He often threatens destruction and brings punishment, but he always ends up bringing restoration and promising ultimate reconciliation and victory. This is because, as Abraham Joshua Heschel says, "God does not delight in unleashing anger"(1) but, rather, his anger is used "to bring about repentance; its purpose and consummation is its own disappearance."(2) Ultimately, he pours out his love on his people; "It is a love that transcends the most intense anger, a love that abides in full recognition of human weakness."(3)

In the New Testament, this is beautifully revealed through Jesus, who tells us that God is not indifferent to sinners, but searches for them until he finds them. He runs to them when he sees them and embraces them as much as he can, knowing that when they sin and run away "they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

Will this change once they die? Or will God keep seeking sinners even after they have chosen Hell?

Heschel said that, "All of human history as described in the Bible may be summarized in one phrase: God is in search of man."(4) I don't think this is a search that will ever end until God finds all of his creations and can embrace all of them.

So how do we reconcile the Universalist parts of Scripture with the Hell parts? We can affirm both. Yes, people will go to Hell if they choose it with their lives now (click here to see my blog about the nature of Hell for more explanation).

But, eventually, it will be that all people will come to God, all people will worship and glorify and bless his name, all nations will stream to his temple and experience salvation, all people will be drawn to Christ, all will be made alive in Christ, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, and everyone will know him.

Yes, I think God is a Universalist.


Notes:
(1) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 369.
(2) Ibid., 367.
(3) Ibid., 380.
(4) Heschel, God in Search of Man (New York: Farrar, Starus and Giroux, 1983), 136.

Book Review: If the Church were Christian

Throughout this book, it becomes obvious that Philip Gulley lives in the love and grace in which Christ lived and of which he taught. Though the whole book is a critique of the church, none of it is done in a harsh, in-your-face way. The entire approach is incredibly graceful. In almost every chapter, he includes an extremely vulnerable account of his own shortfalls in the subject the chapter discusses. He sincerely confesses his own experience with what he talks about. Because of his experiences, he understands the mindsets he is critiquing and is able to provide good solutions in a very Christ-like way.

The whole book is made up of stories he uses to convey his points--examples of Christians or churches who have failed to live the Gospel (including himself), and examples of Christians who live the Gospel in an undeniably Christ-like manner.
That all being said, you should know that Gulley is a liberal theologian. In fact, Gulley is as liberal as one can be within Christianity (can he be considered an actual Christian?). This Quaker Pastor does not believe in the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, or in Christ's sinlessness. He doesn't believe in the inspiration of Scripture. His belief about the Bible (or at least the Gospels--he doesn't talk about his views on the other books) is a combination of the theories of Schleiermacher and Bultmann. Actually, he's like Schleiermacher in a lot of ways. There's reason to believe that he doesn't believe in miracles. He doesn't believe in anything that doesn't make sense to modern beliefs. He is also a universalist and doesn't believe in hell or Satan. He doesn't think homosexuality is a sin, I'm sure he's a theistic evolutionist, and he doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, on average, he only says something once a chapter that would rattle the orthodox Christian cage. So don't think the entire book is one giant liberal theology rant. But at times, his beliefs are somewhat confusing. For instance, he says that "ancient people, moved by their encounters with Jesus, sought to convey their appreciation for him in the only language they knew--miracle stories, parables, and wisdom sayings." Does this mean he believes Jesus didn't actually say what the Gospels said he did? Yet, a couple pages later, he quotes Jesus--and continues to quote him throughout the book. He sometimes says things that contradict other things that he claims. For example, he believes God is going to save every person, yet he says a couple of times that Heaven is a place no one knows even exists, suggesting that maybe he doesn't believe in Heaven--so what does he mean when he says God saves them? It seems to me that he should have either not voiced his liberal theology in order to make his opinion valid to more Christians, or he should have provided an introduction to his belief system that would make reading his book less confusing.

All of that being said, I don't want to put him in a bad light or suggest that you shouldn't read the book. We can all learn a lot from Gulley. In fact, I would say anyone in ministry--especially in church ministry--should read this book. He has a lot of great things to say from which we can learn a lot. We just have to read the book with a grain of salt. I definitely recommend it. It is very thought-provoking, challenging, convicting, and inspiring.

Below are the book's chapter titles which finish the statement "If the Church were Christian..."
I agree with all of them, except I would say, "Jesus would be a model for living, not JUST an object of worship" (but he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ so it makes sense that he would word it the way he did).

“If the church were Christian, Jesus would be a model for living, not an object of worship.

If the church were Christian, affirming our potential would be more important than condemning our brokenness.

If the church were Christian, reconciliation would be valued over judgment.

If the church were Christian, gracious behavior would be more important than right belief.

If the church were Christian, inviting questions would be more important than supplying answers.

If the church were Christian, encouraging personal exploration would be more important than communal uniformity.

If the church were Christian, meeting needs would be more important than maintaining institutions.

If the church were Christian, peace would be more important than power.

If the church were Christian, it would care more about love and less about sex.

If the church were Christian, this life would be more important than the afterlife.”