the test

Sunday night Jimmy Kimmel hosted the Lost review show and provided an explanation about religion that I used to share, but that I now disagree with and believe is horribly dangerous. He said that most religions, and certainly Christianity, involve living your life like it is a test then finding out at death whether or not you passed the test. Kimmel's history is with Catholicism, but I am relatively certain that even the majority of Catholic theologians would agree with my take on this over Kimmel's.

Why is this wrong?

Christianity's foundational claim is that humans are flawed and that Jesus came from Heaven to atone for our flawed nature and provide a means of salvation. If our salvation relies on our passing a test, then God arbitrarily denies people salvation, or Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary, or the sacrifice alone was not enough to provide salvation.

What could be interpreted as a test?

Since I am not Calvinist I believe that all people can reject God. If I am correct, then rejecting God could be seen as a test. This is especially the case as people go through hardships that are meant refine them. If they reject God because of the hardships, then they could be said to have failed the test.

Even in this scenario, though, this implies too much that our salvation relies on us. We are not earning our salvation. We are just enduring life's occurrences. In life stuff happens. Some stuff happens to strengthen us. Some stuff happens just because that is the way things work out. I do not think it is wise to think of the stuff that happens as questions or sections on a test, though. When God allows or causes things to happen to us He is changing us rather than testing us.

Why is it dangerous?

First, I have already mentioned that the test metaphor makes it appear that we are the source of our salvation. It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that a lot of people have that salvation is possible by just being a good person. In his most famous sermon in Matthew 5, Jesus explained to his audience that no one is perfect, but that we need to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. The book of Romans is even more explicit about this. This teaching directly contradicts the idea that we can "pass the test" in ourselves.

Second, it is not merely our actions that need saving. It is our nature. Though no one has done it, even if a person had been able to follow all of the rules of the Law and keep every command in Scripture, he or she would still have a sin nature needing to be undone. The fix to our sin nature simply does not fit the test metaphor. In a test if you do the right things you pass. In real life you have to become a reflection of Christ, and that does not come from ourselves.

Third, the test metaphor detracts from the fact that we are supposed to have a relationship with God. He is not our proctor waiting to find out who makes the cut once the curve is accounted for. He is a Father who desires to draw us to Him. Even if the test metaphor was accurate, who would want to serve a God who claims to want a personal relationship with me, but expects that I score at least an eighty percent on the multiple choice?

So, what is the right metaphor?

There probably is not a perfect metaphor, but there are a lot of good ones in Scripture. The Prodigal Son, while probably more about the "obedient" son, is a good example of one I think is useful. The prodigal's salvation occurs when he reaches rock bottom, humbles himself, and throws himself on his father's mercy. The father in the parable offers the forgiveness and salvation. The "obedient" son sees this and demands justice rather than mercy, probably foreshadowing his own undoing. When compared to the illustration of a test, this is a superb metaphor.