I sat in on a pastoral walk-in counseling session today. A semi-regular counselee had come to the church, seeking $10 worth of food stamps. The pastor asked the man questions about his living arrangements and employment. After discussing the necessary topics, the pastor began to ask “spiritual” questions. A part of their exchange went something like this:

“This may be out of the blue, but if you died today, and went to heaven, and God asked you why he should let you in, what would you say?”

“I’d say because you’ve always been with me, and I’ve been with you. I would say what he said: ‘Remain in me, and I will remain in you.’”

“Would you say something like ‘Because Jesus Christ died for me to atone for my sins, and none can come to the father but through him, and his death is my righteousness’?”

“Mmm-hmm.”

The pastor leaned back, satisfied. But I wasn’t. What was good enough about the second answer that wasn’t good enough about the first? I know it’s not a particularly (read: at all) novel observation to note that we often equate salvation with simple regurgitation of our theological formulations. But to see it in a pastoral setting, like today, was especially jarring.

What, exactly, was this pastor trying to accomplish? Did he imagine he’d just had some measure of success in saving this counselee from damnation? Did it cross his mind that assent can have little correlation with comprehension?

On another level, would he have refused to give the counselee stamps if the counselee had refused to agree with the pastor’s salvation-statement?

-tim