I'm a bit of a Patristics nerd (patristics=studying the writings of the Church Fathers), and as I was reading a 2nd century letter written by St. Ignatius to the church in Ephesus, I found this bit....really vivid, wonderful trinitarian image!
"You are stones of the Father's temple, prepared for the building of God the Father. For you are being carried up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a cable the Holy Spirit; and your faith is your hoist, and love is the path that carries you up to God."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Seven Things
So, my friends Jess and Wes decided that it would be "fun" to tag me in one of those dumb internet schpiels that makes it way around the web. I will refrain from following the rules and subjecting anyone else to doing this, but for now...seven fun-n-exciting facts about yours truly.
1. Despite growing up in Texas, I have absolutely no trace of a Texas accent except, sometimes, when on the phone with either my dad or my grandmother. Apart from that, though, I sound either Midwestern or Northeastern, depending on the day, my mood, how much sleep I've had, etc.
2. I nerd out over Harry Potter these days, but...I didn't read a single book until 2009, and the only movie I'd seen prior to 2009 was Prisoner of Azkaban, mostly because going to see it at the theatre was an excuse to get out of the house with friends. I was Mr. Anti-Hype, "I'm the cool-beyond-cool because I read Dostoevsky" type when I was in high school. Serves me right.
3. I always used to joke when I was growing up about how my Italian heritage meant I had cousins in the mob ("I'll get Vinnie over here to break your kneecaps with a tire iron if you piss me off!" kinda stuff). Come to find out, my great-grandfather DID actually have mob ties. And was from Chicago, to boot.
4. I think everyone is entitled to three random, mildly embarrassing celebrity crushes. These are three famous people who don't usually make the list of "normal" celebrity crushes that everybody and their uncle has. Mine: Avril Lavigne (I may or may not have had a pet betta named "Avril" in my college dorm room...), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley in the Harry Potter movies...don't judge. She's of age, and also a redhead in the movies), and Evanna Lynch (no, I'm not a shameless HP nerd, not at all...and also, don't judge. She's of age, Irish, and her public persona is one of the most down-to-earth of any famous young celebrity).
5. For someone who is as klutzy as I am, I only have a few scars; all of them, except one, are on my hands. One is from a pencil stabbing my thumb when I fell off a couch, another is from a woodcarving mishap with a chisel, and the rest are reminders of various kitchen mishaps. The other one is on my right shin; it's a nice, round, discolored spot thanks to a horrific slip while getting on the #55 at Woodlawn/55th Street.
6. There are very few foods I won't eat - I mean, hey, I'll even eat lutefisk. I actually kinda like it. The main one that never crosses my lips - rutabaga. Anything that smells like a fart while it's cooking is NOT worth eating.
7. Everyone has a few characteristic physical quirks. I tend to make my ears pop a lot through jaw motions (thanks, malformed eustachian tubes for making me need to pop my ears so much!), wiggle my nose to adjust my glasses, and have been known to run my fingers through my hair with great frequency...
1. Despite growing up in Texas, I have absolutely no trace of a Texas accent except, sometimes, when on the phone with either my dad or my grandmother. Apart from that, though, I sound either Midwestern or Northeastern, depending on the day, my mood, how much sleep I've had, etc.
2. I nerd out over Harry Potter these days, but...I didn't read a single book until 2009, and the only movie I'd seen prior to 2009 was Prisoner of Azkaban, mostly because going to see it at the theatre was an excuse to get out of the house with friends. I was Mr. Anti-Hype, "I'm the cool-beyond-cool because I read Dostoevsky" type when I was in high school. Serves me right.
3. I always used to joke when I was growing up about how my Italian heritage meant I had cousins in the mob ("I'll get Vinnie over here to break your kneecaps with a tire iron if you piss me off!" kinda stuff). Come to find out, my great-grandfather DID actually have mob ties. And was from Chicago, to boot.
4. I think everyone is entitled to three random, mildly embarrassing celebrity crushes. These are three famous people who don't usually make the list of "normal" celebrity crushes that everybody and their uncle has. Mine: Avril Lavigne (I may or may not have had a pet betta named "Avril" in my college dorm room...), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley in the Harry Potter movies...don't judge. She's of age, and also a redhead in the movies), and Evanna Lynch (no, I'm not a shameless HP nerd, not at all...and also, don't judge. She's of age, Irish, and her public persona is one of the most down-to-earth of any famous young celebrity).
5. For someone who is as klutzy as I am, I only have a few scars; all of them, except one, are on my hands. One is from a pencil stabbing my thumb when I fell off a couch, another is from a woodcarving mishap with a chisel, and the rest are reminders of various kitchen mishaps. The other one is on my right shin; it's a nice, round, discolored spot thanks to a horrific slip while getting on the #55 at Woodlawn/55th Street.
6. There are very few foods I won't eat - I mean, hey, I'll even eat lutefisk. I actually kinda like it. The main one that never crosses my lips - rutabaga. Anything that smells like a fart while it's cooking is NOT worth eating.
7. Everyone has a few characteristic physical quirks. I tend to make my ears pop a lot through jaw motions (thanks, malformed eustachian tubes for making me need to pop my ears so much!), wiggle my nose to adjust my glasses, and have been known to run my fingers through my hair with great frequency...
Saturday, March 19, 2011
NOT about Rob Bell
Enough on that...at least until I get and read the book.
For today: it's kinda-sorta like spring around here. We won't see a high below 50 until late next week, and the past several days have uniformly been crisp (but not cold), or outright warm and sunny on a few occasions. The snow's gone, and the ground isn't frozen anymore...in many cases, it's turned to smud, that lovely Midwestern springy soil condition which is a delightful blend of slushy snowmelt and mud. Fortunately, it's been so nice that in even more cases, the smud has turned into normal mud, or even plain old dirt again.
It's funny, though, for it to be this nice when we're not even two full weeks into Lent. Somehow, this season of spiritual searching and barrenness almost begs to be marked by miserable weather. Shouldn't we be pelted with snow and ice on our journey to the cross?
Then again, this is a journey that ends with new life. Maybe a little early spring serves as a needed reminder of our new life in baptism, and that Christ wasn't always on that cross...
For today: it's kinda-sorta like spring around here. We won't see a high below 50 until late next week, and the past several days have uniformly been crisp (but not cold), or outright warm and sunny on a few occasions. The snow's gone, and the ground isn't frozen anymore...in many cases, it's turned to smud, that lovely Midwestern springy soil condition which is a delightful blend of slushy snowmelt and mud. Fortunately, it's been so nice that in even more cases, the smud has turned into normal mud, or even plain old dirt again.
It's funny, though, for it to be this nice when we're not even two full weeks into Lent. Somehow, this season of spiritual searching and barrenness almost begs to be marked by miserable weather. Shouldn't we be pelted with snow and ice on our journey to the cross?
Then again, this is a journey that ends with new life. Maybe a little early spring serves as a needed reminder of our new life in baptism, and that Christ wasn't always on that cross...
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Some more insight into Bell's thoughts
After running at the mouth for two days about a controversy in which I probably don't agree with either side, involving a book I have yet to read, I found this: http://www.theology21.com/2011/03/15/hearing-from-bell/
Read it for yourself; it just confirms my sinking suspicion that, upon reading Love Wins, I'll probably have to go back and edit three insanely long entries to more accurately reflect what Bell has to say for himself, rather than what cheesed-off "evangelicals" say that Bell is saying.
Read it for yourself; it just confirms my sinking suspicion that, upon reading Love Wins, I'll probably have to go back and edit three insanely long entries to more accurately reflect what Bell has to say for himself, rather than what cheesed-off "evangelicals" say that Bell is saying.
And now, the stunning conclusion...Part 3 of Rob Bell, "evangelicals," and bears - oh, my!
So, this entry will wrap up the series of overly long entries on the Rob Bell controversy, and the debate about the nature of salvation and hell that seems to have developed. Today, to close us out - why I think both positions described in previous entries fall short, and my attempt at a concise, constructive position somewhere in between.
First off, it is probably obvious by now that I do not consider myself an "evangelical" in the sense in which that term is (mis)used in this day and age. There will probably be a whole entry on why that is in the near future, so stay tuned...but for now, suffice it to say I have serious theological differences of opinion with some of the basic presuppositions of the "evangelical" perspective. Conservative "evangelicals" both fail, in my opinion, in one extremely important point in their attempts to construct a soteriological framework (fancy talk for a theology of how we're saved)...the language of choice and decision. YOU choose whether you're saved or not - you have to make a "decision for Christ."
There are some key problems with this assertion, the most notable of which is the (rather ironic) lack of scriptural support for free will in salvation in the New Testament. Perhaps the most stock phase used in "evangelical" circles is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." Problem 1 - the word "accept" is not once - ONCE - used in scripture to describe how we are saved. It is abundantly clear in Paul's letters that, at least from a Pauline perspective, God is the one who does the choosing and accepting. In other words - predestination. Yes, the P-word that upsets so many people and has been misused and abused by far, far too many Christians over time. What I'm not talking about is hyper-Calvinism (or even flawed Calvinistic double-predestination), but single predestination...God elects people for salvation, and this is meant as a comfort - not as a "who's in and who's out!" guessing game, or an excuse not to proclaim the Gospel. We are in such total bondage to sin that we cannot free ourselves, and so God (through the work of Christ) liberates us, and that liberation is brought to life through faith, which is the product of the Holy Spirit working it about in us according to God's Will. We don't say "yes" to God; God says "yes" to us, and simply trust and follow. But all of that is another blog entry, or an invitation for you to read Luther's On the Bondage of the Will. For those who want to trot out verses with imperatives exhorting us to believe, I remind that: 1. Many of them are already addressed to the "beloved" or "elect" (i.e. they exhort to growth in faith more than personal, free will conversion/decision leading to salvation), and 2. As Luther puts it, "the imperative does not imply the indicative" - just because it says "do this" does not mean we are capable in and of ourselves of doing it...it starts with God working in us.
So, conservative "evangelicals" fail when it comes to understanding how we're saved, even though I totally believe that their not quite getting it isn't actually going to affect their salvation. It's like Communion; just because you don't recognize Christ's literal presence in it doesn't mean that Christ somehow isn't present. God's promises are bigger than our doctrinal quibbling. But what about Rob Bell?
Again, with my caveat that this is more a critique of the school of thought to which I think he belongs rather than a specific critique of Bell, I do have to begin with the commendation that, if he roots his thoughts in divine election, Bell is at least closer to orthodoxy in that regard than the more conservative "evangelicals" are. BUT...Bell (in my opinion) errs in that: 1. I suspect he still uses "evangelical" language of choice in framing his argument, just with a different spin, and 2. Universalism is ultimately rooted in speculation.
What do I mean by that? This: when we start making specific claims about who will, and won't, be saved (and I mean more specific than "those who believe" or "those who are in Christ" - basically, if I step outside of the margins of who scripture names), we start speculating. Speculation, while a beautiful thing sometimes, is not particularly helpful in constructing solid theology rooted in the Gospel. It requires stepping beyond the scriptures and making assumptions rooted as much in experience or sentiment as in anything else. The Bible does not clearly say is everyone will or will not be saved; it says that those who trust in Christ will be. Expanding the bubble to include everyone in that is, at the end of the day, speculative. It would be just as much speculation to say that Charles Manson is going to hell, because it requires making assumptions that aren't necessarily possible to back up from scripture.
So, in summary - conservative "evangelicals" (in my Lutheran opinion) botch the doctrine salvation in that they turn into a decision to be made rather than a gift freely given and received, and Bell goofs in that he steps off the end of the soteriological pier without necessarily knowing how deep the water is. Is there an alternative?
I think so. I think it comes in claiming what is both scripturally verifiable, resonant with personal faith experience, and then accepting our own limitations. What is scripturally verifiable: that salvation comes through Christ, that we don't contribute to our own salvation, that salvation is a gift freely given by God on account of Christ, that salvation is inclusive both of eternal life (in the conservative "evangelical" sense of it, albeit perhaps not quite how they, or maybe any of us, imagine it) and abundant life (salvific realization in the here-and-now through doing the work of the Kingdom by serving the neighbor and working for peace and justice), that we are to proclaim this Gospel. These are scriptural affirmations that we can all, hopefully, agree upon.
From there, what is resonant with personal faith: a deep, abiding, faith-filled trust in Christ as Savior, which enables me to grow in love for God and neighbor (in action as well as sentiment). We can trust, from our own sense of faith, that we are saved, and we can share that personal sense in a public manner - in the words of Miguel de la Torre, let's have PUBLIC relationships with Christ, not just personal ones. We're called to community, not self-satisfying isolation.
Our limitations: we're human. We don't know everything. Our ability to interpret the scriptures and know God's Will is undermined by our human nature, which leaves us unable to properly discern just what's being said and what's going on much of the time. If you doubt these, please check out the Church's track record of violence, sexism, anti-semitism, and support of slavery. I'd say that's evidence of our humanity on display. Since what we know is limited to what is loud and clear in the scriptural witness (as interpreted through the lens of Gospel), and what we know from deep personal experience, that is what we can proclaim. We can proclaim that we have been saved by grace through faith for Christ's sake apart from works, and share that with a hungry world...and, at the end of the day, acknowledge that God is the one who saves - NOT us - and that in proclaiming the Gospel both in our words and in our doing the Kingdom-work of promoting peace and justice, we live out that which we are asked to live out....and we leave the saving of people, and the question of what hell is, to God.
First off, it is probably obvious by now that I do not consider myself an "evangelical" in the sense in which that term is (mis)used in this day and age. There will probably be a whole entry on why that is in the near future, so stay tuned...but for now, suffice it to say I have serious theological differences of opinion with some of the basic presuppositions of the "evangelical" perspective. Conservative "evangelicals" both fail, in my opinion, in one extremely important point in their attempts to construct a soteriological framework (fancy talk for a theology of how we're saved)...the language of choice and decision. YOU choose whether you're saved or not - you have to make a "decision for Christ."
There are some key problems with this assertion, the most notable of which is the (rather ironic) lack of scriptural support for free will in salvation in the New Testament. Perhaps the most stock phase used in "evangelical" circles is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." Problem 1 - the word "accept" is not once - ONCE - used in scripture to describe how we are saved. It is abundantly clear in Paul's letters that, at least from a Pauline perspective, God is the one who does the choosing and accepting. In other words - predestination. Yes, the P-word that upsets so many people and has been misused and abused by far, far too many Christians over time. What I'm not talking about is hyper-Calvinism (or even flawed Calvinistic double-predestination), but single predestination...God elects people for salvation, and this is meant as a comfort - not as a "who's in and who's out!" guessing game, or an excuse not to proclaim the Gospel. We are in such total bondage to sin that we cannot free ourselves, and so God (through the work of Christ) liberates us, and that liberation is brought to life through faith, which is the product of the Holy Spirit working it about in us according to God's Will. We don't say "yes" to God; God says "yes" to us, and simply trust and follow. But all of that is another blog entry, or an invitation for you to read Luther's On the Bondage of the Will. For those who want to trot out verses with imperatives exhorting us to believe, I remind that: 1. Many of them are already addressed to the "beloved" or "elect" (i.e. they exhort to growth in faith more than personal, free will conversion/decision leading to salvation), and 2. As Luther puts it, "the imperative does not imply the indicative" - just because it says "do this" does not mean we are capable in and of ourselves of doing it...it starts with God working in us.
So, conservative "evangelicals" fail when it comes to understanding how we're saved, even though I totally believe that their not quite getting it isn't actually going to affect their salvation. It's like Communion; just because you don't recognize Christ's literal presence in it doesn't mean that Christ somehow isn't present. God's promises are bigger than our doctrinal quibbling. But what about Rob Bell?
Again, with my caveat that this is more a critique of the school of thought to which I think he belongs rather than a specific critique of Bell, I do have to begin with the commendation that, if he roots his thoughts in divine election, Bell is at least closer to orthodoxy in that regard than the more conservative "evangelicals" are. BUT...Bell (in my opinion) errs in that: 1. I suspect he still uses "evangelical" language of choice in framing his argument, just with a different spin, and 2. Universalism is ultimately rooted in speculation.
What do I mean by that? This: when we start making specific claims about who will, and won't, be saved (and I mean more specific than "those who believe" or "those who are in Christ" - basically, if I step outside of the margins of who scripture names), we start speculating. Speculation, while a beautiful thing sometimes, is not particularly helpful in constructing solid theology rooted in the Gospel. It requires stepping beyond the scriptures and making assumptions rooted as much in experience or sentiment as in anything else. The Bible does not clearly say is everyone will or will not be saved; it says that those who trust in Christ will be. Expanding the bubble to include everyone in that is, at the end of the day, speculative. It would be just as much speculation to say that Charles Manson is going to hell, because it requires making assumptions that aren't necessarily possible to back up from scripture.
So, in summary - conservative "evangelicals" (in my Lutheran opinion) botch the doctrine salvation in that they turn into a decision to be made rather than a gift freely given and received, and Bell goofs in that he steps off the end of the soteriological pier without necessarily knowing how deep the water is. Is there an alternative?
I think so. I think it comes in claiming what is both scripturally verifiable, resonant with personal faith experience, and then accepting our own limitations. What is scripturally verifiable: that salvation comes through Christ, that we don't contribute to our own salvation, that salvation is a gift freely given by God on account of Christ, that salvation is inclusive both of eternal life (in the conservative "evangelical" sense of it, albeit perhaps not quite how they, or maybe any of us, imagine it) and abundant life (salvific realization in the here-and-now through doing the work of the Kingdom by serving the neighbor and working for peace and justice), that we are to proclaim this Gospel. These are scriptural affirmations that we can all, hopefully, agree upon.
From there, what is resonant with personal faith: a deep, abiding, faith-filled trust in Christ as Savior, which enables me to grow in love for God and neighbor (in action as well as sentiment). We can trust, from our own sense of faith, that we are saved, and we can share that personal sense in a public manner - in the words of Miguel de la Torre, let's have PUBLIC relationships with Christ, not just personal ones. We're called to community, not self-satisfying isolation.
Our limitations: we're human. We don't know everything. Our ability to interpret the scriptures and know God's Will is undermined by our human nature, which leaves us unable to properly discern just what's being said and what's going on much of the time. If you doubt these, please check out the Church's track record of violence, sexism, anti-semitism, and support of slavery. I'd say that's evidence of our humanity on display. Since what we know is limited to what is loud and clear in the scriptural witness (as interpreted through the lens of Gospel), and what we know from deep personal experience, that is what we can proclaim. We can proclaim that we have been saved by grace through faith for Christ's sake apart from works, and share that with a hungry world...and, at the end of the day, acknowledge that God is the one who saves - NOT us - and that in proclaiming the Gospel both in our words and in our doing the Kingdom-work of promoting peace and justice, we live out that which we are asked to live out....and we leave the saving of people, and the question of what hell is, to God.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
There's a Wideness in God's Mercy? The "evangelical" movement versus Rob Bell, Part 2
Quick on the heels on my last entry, here's Part 2. Let's get right down to it.
In the previous entry, I introduced the controversy around Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, (which, again, I have yet to read - I'm merely working off of others' feedback at this point) and the response to the book by voices in the "evangelical" movement (see parenthetical asides in the last entry as to why I put "evangelicals" in quotation marks unless I'm talking about Lutherans). In a nutshell: Bell pushes the envelope and flirts with universalism, which entails some revisioning of more conservative doctrines about hell and salvation. Some "evangelicals" object. I gave my thoughts, as a former "evangelical," on why I think that is, and lifted up some strong points in the "evangelical" argument against Bell, albeit with my rather orthodoxly Lutheran criticisms in hot pursuit. So now, let's take a look at what it seems as if Bell is saying, at least as it is filtered through the mostly "evangelical" sources that I have heard discussing things.
Bell, in his book (again, keep in mind I'm getting this through other sources), questions the notion that a loving God would condemn anyone to an eternal torment. It's antithetical to the stated purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection (see John 3:16-17). If God's desire is that all should be saved, then God's pretty much a failure if that doesn't happen. Christ's sacrifice, and the grace opened up for humanity in that act, is sufficient to cover all of humanity's sins. Salvation, then, (I'm extrapolating) has to do more with the here-and-now than with pie-in-the-sky. Choosing to follow Christ impels believers to do the work of the Kingdom in this world, working to create peace and justice in the hope of God's eventual restoration of all creation.
With that comes a re-keying of the idea of hell. If salvation has to do more with restoration to God's original creation, then hell is all that which defies that vision - it manifests itself in the abundant evil we see in this world. Hell is what I personally saw in West Africa, when I looked into the empty eyes of starving children, begging me for "un cadeau" so they could eat that day...for example. Since God's ultimate plan is salvation and restoration, it follows that hell will crushed by God, and since it wasn't a place/destination to begin with, nobody's going to be spending eternity there.
Again, keeping in mind that I'm probably putting words in Bell's mouth, that's my approximation of what he has to say. Maybe. Let's pretend it is, for the sake of argument. So...what do we have here worth lifting up?
First off, Bell expresses a (maybe admirable, maybe not) willingness to strip away preconceived notions about hell and salvation, most of which have their origins in scriptural interpretations offered up principally by the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptist traditions and the theological traditions which follow that train of thought. Keeping the New Testament off the table for a second, Bell's notion of salvation and heaven/hell frankly sounds a lot more like the Jewish understanding of these things. There is no hell in the Old Testament; what we have is sheol, which simply means "the grave." It's where we all go, because we all die. Salvation is typically presented in images of a messianic future in which God directly rules all of humanity from Zion, in a glorious age in which nobody wants for anything, everyone lives in peace with their swords beaten into plowshares, and all nations give homage to God and go up to Zion for instruction. Sounds a lot like (my read on) Bell's argument to me.
The sticky wicket, biblically speaking, is in the New Testament, which is MUCH more inclined toward exclusive salvation for those who believe in Christ. Leaving aside Jesus' parables (which are perennial sources of debate as to what they're ultimately trying to say), there's still plenty of material to run with to shore up exclusivism. 2 Thessalonians has no shortage, and the General Epistles don't shy away from the language of condemnation, either. John's Gospel is both sweepingly universalistic AND sweepingly exclusivist...and we won't even touch Revelation (do NOT put an S on the end of that, please!), mostly because "how 'evangelicals' misread Revelation based off of faulty theological and exegetical premises" is a subject for another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's pretty exclusivist in its tone. Of course, Revelation's image of what "heaven" will be like is quite consistent with the Old Testament; the notion of good people hanging out in the clouds with God (possibly while playing harps) is pretty off-base.
So...what's all of this mean? Well, from where I'm sitting, it means that Rob Bell and the "evangelical" movement have both succeeded, and failed, at modeling their beliefs on the biblical witness. They've both succeeded in that they both find in scripture a core group of texts that, even without being pulled out of context or manipulated, support their views. They've both failed in that their views are inconsistent with other scriptures. I say that tentatively with Bell because, like I've said, I haven't read his book and so I can't speak to how he specifically addresses certain heavy duty exclusivist texts.
Now, don't read this as more of a condemnation of either Bell or more mainstream "evangelicals" than it really is. I mean, hey, I'm about as Lutheran as they come, and I will be the first to admit that not even my beloved Lutheran theological perspective is without its flaws or shortcomings...when it comes to human theological expressions, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If anything, this conundrum merely points to the fact that scripture says an awful lot, and some of it does not always easily jive with other parts. Welcome to mature Christianity, in which we have to drop our pretense of easy answers to absolutely every question, and of always being right on the money when it comes to understanding God.
Where do we go from here, though? Is there any sort of position in between the lake of fire and the peaceable kingdom? Stay tuned for Part 3!
In the previous entry, I introduced the controversy around Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, (which, again, I have yet to read - I'm merely working off of others' feedback at this point) and the response to the book by voices in the "evangelical" movement (see parenthetical asides in the last entry as to why I put "evangelicals" in quotation marks unless I'm talking about Lutherans). In a nutshell: Bell pushes the envelope and flirts with universalism, which entails some revisioning of more conservative doctrines about hell and salvation. Some "evangelicals" object. I gave my thoughts, as a former "evangelical," on why I think that is, and lifted up some strong points in the "evangelical" argument against Bell, albeit with my rather orthodoxly Lutheran criticisms in hot pursuit. So now, let's take a look at what it seems as if Bell is saying, at least as it is filtered through the mostly "evangelical" sources that I have heard discussing things.
Bell, in his book (again, keep in mind I'm getting this through other sources), questions the notion that a loving God would condemn anyone to an eternal torment. It's antithetical to the stated purpose of Christ's life, death, and resurrection (see John 3:16-17). If God's desire is that all should be saved, then God's pretty much a failure if that doesn't happen. Christ's sacrifice, and the grace opened up for humanity in that act, is sufficient to cover all of humanity's sins. Salvation, then, (I'm extrapolating) has to do more with the here-and-now than with pie-in-the-sky. Choosing to follow Christ impels believers to do the work of the Kingdom in this world, working to create peace and justice in the hope of God's eventual restoration of all creation.
With that comes a re-keying of the idea of hell. If salvation has to do more with restoration to God's original creation, then hell is all that which defies that vision - it manifests itself in the abundant evil we see in this world. Hell is what I personally saw in West Africa, when I looked into the empty eyes of starving children, begging me for "un cadeau" so they could eat that day...for example. Since God's ultimate plan is salvation and restoration, it follows that hell will crushed by God, and since it wasn't a place/destination to begin with, nobody's going to be spending eternity there.
Again, keeping in mind that I'm probably putting words in Bell's mouth, that's my approximation of what he has to say. Maybe. Let's pretend it is, for the sake of argument. So...what do we have here worth lifting up?
First off, Bell expresses a (maybe admirable, maybe not) willingness to strip away preconceived notions about hell and salvation, most of which have their origins in scriptural interpretations offered up principally by the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptist traditions and the theological traditions which follow that train of thought. Keeping the New Testament off the table for a second, Bell's notion of salvation and heaven/hell frankly sounds a lot more like the Jewish understanding of these things. There is no hell in the Old Testament; what we have is sheol, which simply means "the grave." It's where we all go, because we all die. Salvation is typically presented in images of a messianic future in which God directly rules all of humanity from Zion, in a glorious age in which nobody wants for anything, everyone lives in peace with their swords beaten into plowshares, and all nations give homage to God and go up to Zion for instruction. Sounds a lot like (my read on) Bell's argument to me.
The sticky wicket, biblically speaking, is in the New Testament, which is MUCH more inclined toward exclusive salvation for those who believe in Christ. Leaving aside Jesus' parables (which are perennial sources of debate as to what they're ultimately trying to say), there's still plenty of material to run with to shore up exclusivism. 2 Thessalonians has no shortage, and the General Epistles don't shy away from the language of condemnation, either. John's Gospel is both sweepingly universalistic AND sweepingly exclusivist...and we won't even touch Revelation (do NOT put an S on the end of that, please!), mostly because "how 'evangelicals' misread Revelation based off of faulty theological and exegetical premises" is a subject for another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's pretty exclusivist in its tone. Of course, Revelation's image of what "heaven" will be like is quite consistent with the Old Testament; the notion of good people hanging out in the clouds with God (possibly while playing harps) is pretty off-base.
So...what's all of this mean? Well, from where I'm sitting, it means that Rob Bell and the "evangelical" movement have both succeeded, and failed, at modeling their beliefs on the biblical witness. They've both succeeded in that they both find in scripture a core group of texts that, even without being pulled out of context or manipulated, support their views. They've both failed in that their views are inconsistent with other scriptures. I say that tentatively with Bell because, like I've said, I haven't read his book and so I can't speak to how he specifically addresses certain heavy duty exclusivist texts.
Now, don't read this as more of a condemnation of either Bell or more mainstream "evangelicals" than it really is. I mean, hey, I'm about as Lutheran as they come, and I will be the first to admit that not even my beloved Lutheran theological perspective is without its flaws or shortcomings...when it comes to human theological expressions, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If anything, this conundrum merely points to the fact that scripture says an awful lot, and some of it does not always easily jive with other parts. Welcome to mature Christianity, in which we have to drop our pretense of easy answers to absolutely every question, and of always being right on the money when it comes to understanding God.
Where do we go from here, though? Is there any sort of position in between the lake of fire and the peaceable kingdom? Stay tuned for Part 3!
Salvation belongs to our God and to Christ the Lamb forever and ever...Part 1
These are the words we sing at least twice a month here at Emanuel; they come from the ELW's setting for a Service of the Word. Putting aside my personal conviction that we can't commune often enough, I will say that if nothing else, having SotW twice a month has been nice if for no other reason than discovering this lovely Canticle of Thanksgiving.
More than the music, though, its affirmation of the central truth of Christianity - that salvation is the work of God, for the sake of Christ's work on our behalf - is a much needed clarion call, inviting us both to proclaim that which we believe and affirm, and to reflect upon it both in public worship and private devotion. Into all of this, enter the recent controversy sparked by Rob Bell's latest book (which, fair warning, I have not had a chance to read yet) and his thoughts on hell and salvation in it. While some have been upset about these doctrines being questioned or re-packaged, I appreciate his willingness to "go there" and not assume that the presentation of salvation and hell most upheld by "evangelicals" (as a Lutheran, I resent the co-opting of "evangelical" by a branch of the Church which, in my opinion, flirts entirely too much with confusing Law and Gospel...but that's another blog entry) must absolutely, positively be the only acceptable or biblical way of framing the matter. That's not to say I agree, or disagree, with Bell; I'll reserve that judgment for when I read his words for myself. I just appreciate his having the chutzpah to start a conversation on the subject. If there is one thing I have come to genuinely dislike about the branch of the Church in which I was raised, it was the aversion to questions and active debate. We're richer as a Body when we actually discuss and debate what it means to be that Body; we cheapen the faith we share when we take it for granted. But again, that's another blog entry.
So, then...what's all the fuss over? The main accusation directed toward Bell, at this point, seems to be that he's a universalist - basically, this means he's of the conviction that everyone will be saved regardless of whether they have had the sort of faith-conversion experience that "evangelicals" point to as being necessary for salvation. With that, Bell re-packages the idea of hell as being a state of being/the reality of evil present here and now in human existence rather than a future destination for those who die outside of Christ. Heaven, too, gets re-packaged as the in-breaking, eventually to be fully realized, renewal of the created world back to God's original vision of it. Keep in mind that this is my read on Bell's words based entirely off of other people's (most "evangelicals") reading of Bell's book...so don't sue me if this isn't 100% accurate.
It's pretty obvious why this has sparked controversy. "Evangelical" readings of scripture, in which humans are faced with a decision that must be made by each individual at some point in life (whether to accept Christ as savior, or not to do so), absolutely relies on a literal heaven and hell. If there is no hell, then there is no reason why anybody should bother following Christ - it's a lot of sacrifice for relatively little payoff. God's love here is unconditional open to all people, but ultimately bound by God's sense of justice - if you don't get right through the administrations of Jesus, then God (despite God's love for you) has no option but to condemn you to hell because God cannot stand unrighteousness because of God's holiness. Thus, no hell=no impetus for conversion, and beyond that, no hell=God potentially being tainted by unrighteousness that God can't stand.
For the sake of those who might think I'm showing my biases a little too much with my quotations around "evangelical" (which has a lot more to do with my being cheesed off at their robbing the ACTUAL Evangelical Church, those of us who were branded by the Roman Catholics as "Lutheran" in an attempt to connect us to our supposedly "heretical" forefather)...there are certainly strengths in the "evangelical" argument. First off, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to deny that their presentation of the issues is consistent with some major trends in Christian dogmatic tradition. The notion that "evangelicals" represent the entire history of orthodox Christian doctrine is absolutely ridiculous (ten minutes with a Church history textbook will dispel that notion), but they certainly do represent some major elements of Anabaptist thought, as well as traditionally orthodox beliefs.
Secondly, the "evangelical" position does use scripture to shore up every point in its doctrinal stance, even if they (in my opinion) fail at interpreting scripture in many instances in that the Gospel is occluded as a hermeneutical key by an often overly rigid insistence upon "literal interpretation." But again...that's another blog entry.
Thirdly, "evangelicals" do a very solid job of NOT cheapening God's grace into divine license to do whatever you want without fear of consequence. As critical of "evangelical" Christianity as I tend to be, this element of it is praiseworthy. That said, the tendency among "evangelicals" to turn this into "don't drink and keep your clothes on until you're married" while ignoring the fact that scripture has a lot more to say about economic injustice than abstaining from vices (though it's far from silent on that point, too) is disturbing and reflective of a reading of scripture through the lens of the "American Dream" rather than through the Gospel, but...Lutherans do the same thing, to our discredit, so we'll call it even.
Since this entry is becoming....1. Insanely long, and 2. Borderline scream therapy for this recovering "evangelical," we'll call it a day. Stay tuned for Part 2, in which I take a look at Bell's assertions (as I understand them) and plug them into the Gospel-o-meter!
More than the music, though, its affirmation of the central truth of Christianity - that salvation is the work of God, for the sake of Christ's work on our behalf - is a much needed clarion call, inviting us both to proclaim that which we believe and affirm, and to reflect upon it both in public worship and private devotion. Into all of this, enter the recent controversy sparked by Rob Bell's latest book (which, fair warning, I have not had a chance to read yet) and his thoughts on hell and salvation in it. While some have been upset about these doctrines being questioned or re-packaged, I appreciate his willingness to "go there" and not assume that the presentation of salvation and hell most upheld by "evangelicals" (as a Lutheran, I resent the co-opting of "evangelical" by a branch of the Church which, in my opinion, flirts entirely too much with confusing Law and Gospel...but that's another blog entry) must absolutely, positively be the only acceptable or biblical way of framing the matter. That's not to say I agree, or disagree, with Bell; I'll reserve that judgment for when I read his words for myself. I just appreciate his having the chutzpah to start a conversation on the subject. If there is one thing I have come to genuinely dislike about the branch of the Church in which I was raised, it was the aversion to questions and active debate. We're richer as a Body when we actually discuss and debate what it means to be that Body; we cheapen the faith we share when we take it for granted. But again, that's another blog entry.
So, then...what's all the fuss over? The main accusation directed toward Bell, at this point, seems to be that he's a universalist - basically, this means he's of the conviction that everyone will be saved regardless of whether they have had the sort of faith-conversion experience that "evangelicals" point to as being necessary for salvation. With that, Bell re-packages the idea of hell as being a state of being/the reality of evil present here and now in human existence rather than a future destination for those who die outside of Christ. Heaven, too, gets re-packaged as the in-breaking, eventually to be fully realized, renewal of the created world back to God's original vision of it. Keep in mind that this is my read on Bell's words based entirely off of other people's (most "evangelicals") reading of Bell's book...so don't sue me if this isn't 100% accurate.
It's pretty obvious why this has sparked controversy. "Evangelical" readings of scripture, in which humans are faced with a decision that must be made by each individual at some point in life (whether to accept Christ as savior, or not to do so), absolutely relies on a literal heaven and hell. If there is no hell, then there is no reason why anybody should bother following Christ - it's a lot of sacrifice for relatively little payoff. God's love here is unconditional open to all people, but ultimately bound by God's sense of justice - if you don't get right through the administrations of Jesus, then God (despite God's love for you) has no option but to condemn you to hell because God cannot stand unrighteousness because of God's holiness. Thus, no hell=no impetus for conversion, and beyond that, no hell=God potentially being tainted by unrighteousness that God can't stand.
For the sake of those who might think I'm showing my biases a little too much with my quotations around "evangelical" (which has a lot more to do with my being cheesed off at their robbing the ACTUAL Evangelical Church, those of us who were branded by the Roman Catholics as "Lutheran" in an attempt to connect us to our supposedly "heretical" forefather)...there are certainly strengths in the "evangelical" argument. First off, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to deny that their presentation of the issues is consistent with some major trends in Christian dogmatic tradition. The notion that "evangelicals" represent the entire history of orthodox Christian doctrine is absolutely ridiculous (ten minutes with a Church history textbook will dispel that notion), but they certainly do represent some major elements of Anabaptist thought, as well as traditionally orthodox beliefs.
Secondly, the "evangelical" position does use scripture to shore up every point in its doctrinal stance, even if they (in my opinion) fail at interpreting scripture in many instances in that the Gospel is occluded as a hermeneutical key by an often overly rigid insistence upon "literal interpretation." But again...that's another blog entry.
Thirdly, "evangelicals" do a very solid job of NOT cheapening God's grace into divine license to do whatever you want without fear of consequence. As critical of "evangelical" Christianity as I tend to be, this element of it is praiseworthy. That said, the tendency among "evangelicals" to turn this into "don't drink and keep your clothes on until you're married" while ignoring the fact that scripture has a lot more to say about economic injustice than abstaining from vices (though it's far from silent on that point, too) is disturbing and reflective of a reading of scripture through the lens of the "American Dream" rather than through the Gospel, but...Lutherans do the same thing, to our discredit, so we'll call it even.
Since this entry is becoming....1. Insanely long, and 2. Borderline scream therapy for this recovering "evangelical," we'll call it a day. Stay tuned for Part 2, in which I take a look at Bell's assertions (as I understand them) and plug them into the Gospel-o-meter!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sermon from 3.13.11
Preached at Emanuel Lutheran of Dayton, Iowa. Text: Matthew 4:1-11, with reference to Genesis 3:1-17
Saturday, March 12, 2011
This is Ashland. Doors open on the left at Ashland.
Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, and so I've had cause to think a little bit about life, Lent, and all of the sorts of things we tend to reflect on when the Mardi Gras beads all lie broken on the sidewalk and it's time to face the music.
A big theme for me this year (as is reflected in my Ash Wednesday sermon, which I'll link to at the end of this entry) has been finding constructive alternatives to the usual Lenten temptation of wallowing in grief and self-pity about how bad we are. Nothing against feeling some conviction from time to time, but I don't think it amounts to very much if it doesn't lead to some constructive action.
The image that has been coming to me, over and over again, in consideration of the Lenten journey is that of spring cleaning...something which, at least physically, desperately needs to be done around here. As I think about it, some spiritual spring cleaning isn't such a bad move, either. Take stock of some of the junk. Open up the windows and begin airing things out. Come up with some concrete plans to turn this house back into a home, and then put them into action. These big cleaning projects always result in some surprises, not always pleasant - "oh, crap, I thought I had washed all the plates...that explains why one was missing, and why this room smelled so godawful." On the other hand, sometimes those surprises turn out to be nice, like the time I found my guitar capo after it had been AWOL for six months, stuffed in a random bag instead of in my guitar case (where it should have been).
And so it goes in Lent. We look into the cobwebbed corners and dark closets that we generally try to ignore. Sometimes, we find horrible messes in desperate need of attention, but sometimes...we find Christ, waiting there in the places we ignore, looking to give us the forgiveness and healing we need. Time to get ashed up and see where Christ is present in the midst of mess.
A big theme for me this year (as is reflected in my Ash Wednesday sermon, which I'll link to at the end of this entry) has been finding constructive alternatives to the usual Lenten temptation of wallowing in grief and self-pity about how bad we are. Nothing against feeling some conviction from time to time, but I don't think it amounts to very much if it doesn't lead to some constructive action.
The image that has been coming to me, over and over again, in consideration of the Lenten journey is that of spring cleaning...something which, at least physically, desperately needs to be done around here. As I think about it, some spiritual spring cleaning isn't such a bad move, either. Take stock of some of the junk. Open up the windows and begin airing things out. Come up with some concrete plans to turn this house back into a home, and then put them into action. These big cleaning projects always result in some surprises, not always pleasant - "oh, crap, I thought I had washed all the plates...that explains why one was missing, and why this room smelled so godawful." On the other hand, sometimes those surprises turn out to be nice, like the time I found my guitar capo after it had been AWOL for six months, stuffed in a random bag instead of in my guitar case (where it should have been).
And so it goes in Lent. We look into the cobwebbed corners and dark closets that we generally try to ignore. Sometimes, we find horrible messes in desperate need of attention, but sometimes...we find Christ, waiting there in the places we ignore, looking to give us the forgiveness and healing we need. Time to get ashed up and see where Christ is present in the midst of mess.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Multiple Sermons!
I've been remiss. Both preached at Emanuel Lutheran of Dayton, Iowa.
Feb. 27th:
Transfiguration Sunday:
Feb. 27th:
Transfiguration Sunday:
Fresh back from vacation, and coughing up a lung...the best way to start Lent with a bang
Things worth knowing from the past few weeks:
-I survived, and thrived, during my week in Chicago
-The Congress on Urban Ministry was insanely awesome
-I got to hang out with Walter Brueggemann
-I hope that, someday, I will kick as much homiletical butt as Dr. James Forbes
-I'm looking into being part of a Christian Peacemaking delegation
-I met all kinds of neat new LSTC people
-I have some actual energy for ministry again
-There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is NOT a train
-I wish my body had an "off" button for phlegm production
-I can't believe it's almost Lent
-I survived, and thrived, during my week in Chicago
-The Congress on Urban Ministry was insanely awesome
-I got to hang out with Walter Brueggemann
-I hope that, someday, I will kick as much homiletical butt as Dr. James Forbes
-I'm looking into being part of a Christian Peacemaking delegation
-I met all kinds of neat new LSTC people
-I have some actual energy for ministry again
-There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is NOT a train
-I wish my body had an "off" button for phlegm production
-I can't believe it's almost Lent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)