"Heaven is real. Prayers are answered. Miracles happen. The Holy Spirit fills and empowers you. The moral arch of the universe bends toward justice. Love lasts forever. Death, our last enemy, has been defeated. We do not grieve as those who have no hope."
Glory hallelujah.
Excellent series. Passing it along to several folks
Yes a post progressive Christian is about where I’m at Id say ! Or perhaps just a contemplative Christian as exemplified by Richard rohr, James Finlay, Cynthia bourgeault and their ilk
Excellent post, really helpful. Personally I think that if at any point I or anyone else find ourselves pushing back, it’s probably prudent to ask ourselves why that might be. It could be fruitful to reflect on that discomfort.
I'm not particularly familiar with your depth of work, you make reference to two larger books I plan to dig into sometime soon, as I have been loving this series.
One topic I'd love to hear a bit about is what ontological truths you hold onto and not from the more traditional evangelical circles. You mention God's existence and Jesus' resurrection. Is it intentional to mention the existence of Heaven but not the existence of Hell? Do you believe in some ontological truth about Divine authority or authorship of scripture?
It's quite fascinating to hear about someone who's trying to deal with a culture of deconstruction which often has lept too far, being someone who's barely even dipped my toes in the water yet.
Maybe the root of my question is to someone in my boat, who's starting to question dogmatic beliefs, what cautions would you offer? What's the baby and what's the bathwater?
Genuinely loving this series. However, I just want to note something that I've recognised in your writing - you often argue in quite a consequentialist way that such-and-such a belief is bad or wrong because of it's harmful effects. This seems to me to be contra an ontological approach. If something is true/right, then its effects are surely a minor concern
I'm curious if you've read any of Jason Staples work in which he locates moral transformation (not just good works) at the heart of the atonement. It's pretty mind blowing.
Well, I think otherwise. Consequences flow from our relationship to the Real. You can go, for example, with or against the grain of the universe and that'll have effects. An example would be the declaration of Wisdom from Proverbs 8: "But those who fail to find me harm themselves." That is, failing to conform to our ontological ground has consequences. Flourishing flows from ontology.
By contrast, if ontology were devoid of consequences ontological claims would be evacuated of all meaning. I could claim that our ontological ground is a tuna sandwich. And since such a claim would have "no consequences," who would bother or care to claim otherwise? One could make any ontological claim they wanted, even absurd or evil claims, knowing that these claims have absolutely no impact upon our lives.
My belief, however, is that ontology matters. Which is why I care about it. The Real has consequences precisely because it's real and how we relate to Reality affects us.
I appreciate the careful unpacking of the “mystical to moral shift,” but I have some reservations about how this divide is framed. You argue that being a good, Christlike person isn’t enough for salvation without the ontological commitments like resurrection and heaven—but for whom exactly isn’t it enough? Is it insufficient before God, or only insufficient for a particular theological system?
Moreover, I question the idea that moral life can be truly severed from the ontological layer. In lived experience, morality and belief about ultimate reality are deeply intertwined. To sustain a genuine moral life—especially one modeled on Christ’s love—requires some kind of grounding in a reality beyond oneself, whether explicitly doctrinal or more implicit and existential.
The way I see it, morality and ontology aren’t separate layers but mutually sustaining. One’s Christlike love flows from and reinforces one’s trust in the divine, and vice versa. Suggesting a clean break between these layers risks oversimplifying the complex, lived reality of faith and virtue.
I’m curious how you see this relationship—can moral transformation truly persist without some lived, even if nontraditional, ontological grounding?
This is my personal problem, I realize, but I still don't see how one is to know which things are really true in the ontological layer. Different religions, different groups within Christianity, have different claims about what ultimate truth really is. How can one get past the notion that, if all these different groups are convinced very different things are true, that no one really knows and we're all just groping for truths that might, in the end, be beyond us to know? Surely faith doesn't mean simply grabbing on to one set of claims, the one that seems most reasonable to you, and then stop doubting it from then on.
I would add another point: certain ontologies, while claiming to be biblical or Christian, lead to toxic moral and political framings. I don’t think we and the Holy Spirit are completely at sea when it comes to ontology guidance.
Yes, we can know them by their fruits. And that some guidance from the Holy Spirit is available. I am probably just spiritually dense, but I find the HS to be *very* hidden almost all of the time.
The final point I was going to make is that salvation for me is more direction/journey than a landing with no further doubt or growth. “My” ontology has been constantly refined over 50 years through a patient synthesis of Word and Spirit. Where I have landed (so far) is briefly laid out in a comment to an earlier post in this series.
This is a good question, but I think Dr Beck has offered one answer to how to “choose” your ontology: certain ontologies demonstrate more sustaining power for certain moralities, such as sacrificial love.
You write "certain ontologies", plural. Does that suggest that more than one ontology will do, just accept one of the good ones, hopefully one that produces good fruits, and you will be well grounded and thrive spiritually? That still worries me in that it makes me feel either than true truth is not possible to come by (true, singular truth exists but we are not in a position to determine what it is; maybe we will find out later, perhaps in an afterlife), or that truth is not singular but rather plural, with multiple things, even though they contradict each other in some ways, all being true.
Oh my... can you really think your way back, Richard? Can one decide that this isn't working so I better believe these things? After deconstruction, it is building the kingdom on earth that easily remains. We see it in Jesus...it makes sense...it is the way of love. It falls right into the good side of right and wrong... we know it intuitively. For me personally, it also is easy to believe in something greater...in more than just what I see and experience. But the way back to believing in heaven and hell is especially difficult. We know how fragile we are, how a person can be created just by their experiences to be a badly behaved, to live in a survival mode that makes it hard to do more than just that......or born to have a personality that lacks empathy and seemingly with no moral compass... And now they spend eternity in hell? There is much to say, but I think this one point is sufficient enough to say that the road back seems like we are "going back." And yet, when I sit in the middle of the forest, when i experience even the doves in my tree... the flowers, the vast oceans and wildlife, I feel the sense of that which is greater. I believe in God. Isn't that enough?
"Heaven is real. Prayers are answered. Miracles happen. The Holy Spirit fills and empowers you. The moral arch of the universe bends toward justice. Love lasts forever. Death, our last enemy, has been defeated. We do not grieve as those who have no hope."
Glory hallelujah.
Excellent series. Passing it along to several folks
Yes a post progressive Christian is about where I’m at Id say ! Or perhaps just a contemplative Christian as exemplified by Richard rohr, James Finlay, Cynthia bourgeault and their ilk
This will preach.
Excellent post, really helpful. Personally I think that if at any point I or anyone else find ourselves pushing back, it’s probably prudent to ask ourselves why that might be. It could be fruitful to reflect on that discomfort.
I'm not particularly familiar with your depth of work, you make reference to two larger books I plan to dig into sometime soon, as I have been loving this series.
One topic I'd love to hear a bit about is what ontological truths you hold onto and not from the more traditional evangelical circles. You mention God's existence and Jesus' resurrection. Is it intentional to mention the existence of Heaven but not the existence of Hell? Do you believe in some ontological truth about Divine authority or authorship of scripture?
It's quite fascinating to hear about someone who's trying to deal with a culture of deconstruction which often has lept too far, being someone who's barely even dipped my toes in the water yet.
Maybe the root of my question is to someone in my boat, who's starting to question dogmatic beliefs, what cautions would you offer? What's the baby and what's the bathwater?
Genuinely loving this series. However, I just want to note something that I've recognised in your writing - you often argue in quite a consequentialist way that such-and-such a belief is bad or wrong because of it's harmful effects. This seems to me to be contra an ontological approach. If something is true/right, then its effects are surely a minor concern
I'm curious if you've read any of Jason Staples work in which he locates moral transformation (not just good works) at the heart of the atonement. It's pretty mind blowing.
Well, I think otherwise. Consequences flow from our relationship to the Real. You can go, for example, with or against the grain of the universe and that'll have effects. An example would be the declaration of Wisdom from Proverbs 8: "But those who fail to find me harm themselves." That is, failing to conform to our ontological ground has consequences. Flourishing flows from ontology.
By contrast, if ontology were devoid of consequences ontological claims would be evacuated of all meaning. I could claim that our ontological ground is a tuna sandwich. And since such a claim would have "no consequences," who would bother or care to claim otherwise? One could make any ontological claim they wanted, even absurd or evil claims, knowing that these claims have absolutely no impact upon our lives.
My belief, however, is that ontology matters. Which is why I care about it. The Real has consequences precisely because it's real and how we relate to Reality affects us.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonstaples/p/a-recent-lecture-on-pauls-gospel?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=48z32
⸻
I appreciate the careful unpacking of the “mystical to moral shift,” but I have some reservations about how this divide is framed. You argue that being a good, Christlike person isn’t enough for salvation without the ontological commitments like resurrection and heaven—but for whom exactly isn’t it enough? Is it insufficient before God, or only insufficient for a particular theological system?
Moreover, I question the idea that moral life can be truly severed from the ontological layer. In lived experience, morality and belief about ultimate reality are deeply intertwined. To sustain a genuine moral life—especially one modeled on Christ’s love—requires some kind of grounding in a reality beyond oneself, whether explicitly doctrinal or more implicit and existential.
The way I see it, morality and ontology aren’t separate layers but mutually sustaining. One’s Christlike love flows from and reinforces one’s trust in the divine, and vice versa. Suggesting a clean break between these layers risks oversimplifying the complex, lived reality of faith and virtue.
I’m curious how you see this relationship—can moral transformation truly persist without some lived, even if nontraditional, ontological grounding?
Really well put, and sensible, even inspiring.
This is my personal problem, I realize, but I still don't see how one is to know which things are really true in the ontological layer. Different religions, different groups within Christianity, have different claims about what ultimate truth really is. How can one get past the notion that, if all these different groups are convinced very different things are true, that no one really knows and we're all just groping for truths that might, in the end, be beyond us to know? Surely faith doesn't mean simply grabbing on to one set of claims, the one that seems most reasonable to you, and then stop doubting it from then on.
I would add another point: certain ontologies, while claiming to be biblical or Christian, lead to toxic moral and political framings. I don’t think we and the Holy Spirit are completely at sea when it comes to ontology guidance.
Yes, we can know them by their fruits. And that some guidance from the Holy Spirit is available. I am probably just spiritually dense, but I find the HS to be *very* hidden almost all of the time.
The final point I was going to make is that salvation for me is more direction/journey than a landing with no further doubt or growth. “My” ontology has been constantly refined over 50 years through a patient synthesis of Word and Spirit. Where I have landed (so far) is briefly laid out in a comment to an earlier post in this series.
This is a good question, but I think Dr Beck has offered one answer to how to “choose” your ontology: certain ontologies demonstrate more sustaining power for certain moralities, such as sacrificial love.
You write "certain ontologies", plural. Does that suggest that more than one ontology will do, just accept one of the good ones, hopefully one that produces good fruits, and you will be well grounded and thrive spiritually? That still worries me in that it makes me feel either than true truth is not possible to come by (true, singular truth exists but we are not in a position to determine what it is; maybe we will find out later, perhaps in an afterlife), or that truth is not singular but rather plural, with multiple things, even though they contradict each other in some ways, all being true.
Oh my... can you really think your way back, Richard? Can one decide that this isn't working so I better believe these things? After deconstruction, it is building the kingdom on earth that easily remains. We see it in Jesus...it makes sense...it is the way of love. It falls right into the good side of right and wrong... we know it intuitively. For me personally, it also is easy to believe in something greater...in more than just what I see and experience. But the way back to believing in heaven and hell is especially difficult. We know how fragile we are, how a person can be created just by their experiences to be a badly behaved, to live in a survival mode that makes it hard to do more than just that......or born to have a personality that lacks empathy and seemingly with no moral compass... And now they spend eternity in hell? There is much to say, but I think this one point is sufficient enough to say that the road back seems like we are "going back." And yet, when I sit in the middle of the forest, when i experience even the doves in my tree... the flowers, the vast oceans and wildlife, I feel the sense of that which is greater. I believe in God. Isn't that enough?
I don’t think Dr. Beck means endless torment (but rather the hellish experience of purgation) by his reference to hell.
That is a good question - what is heaven and hell...