Some statements

After more than two months of blog silence, here are some statements I'd like to express publicly (to both of you).

I am young.
I am well educated.
I am intelligent.
I am a Christian.
I am not a pacifist.
I believe in helping the poor and disadvantaged.
I am unlikely to vote for President Obama in November.
I am not racist.
I can and do think logically.
I do not despise the notion of church or denominations.
I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.
I am not a bigot (nor am I Bigfoot).
I believe in absolute truth.
I believe all people are sinful.
I believe abortion should be illegal.
I believe Americans should be free to own guns.
I believe that the U.S. Constitution is important.
I believe in both heaven and hell, and I do not believe that everyone ends up in heaven.
I love Jesus Christ and seek to serve him in all I do.
I fear for the future of religious freedom in America.

I understand that many people don't believe all of these statements can be true... but they are.

"What in the name of me is going on in here?"

When I was in college someone pointed me to some short videos made by the website Vintage21.com. I guess they were originally put together for use in a church youth group. There are 4 different videos, and the creators have dubbed their own dialogue over footage from an old Jesus movie. They're hilarious.

This video contains all 4 of the Vintage21 originals back-to-back. Enjoy!

An amateur looks at Love Wins

At the end of February a pastor from Michigan named Rob Bell released a promo video for his soon-to-be-released book, Love Wins, and a firestorm of controversy erupted in the online evangelical world. The next month the book came out, and the controversy continued. From the end of February until about mid-April it seemed everything Christianity-related I read online had to do with Bell's book. In a nutshell, Bell's book is (as his subtitle suggests) A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person who Ever Lived. In this book Bell is seen by many as having taken a step toward (if not a canonball-sized plunge into) universalism - the idea that in the end, all people will be saved. Though the controversy is now "old news," I just recently had a chance to read the book, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I began reading, I started taking notes on just about every sentence on every page, but I soon realized that this was taking a ridiculous amount of time, and it was completely unnecessary. Many others have posted detailed reviews of this book and have done so much more eloquently and intelligently than I would ever be able to (I can provide links to enough blog posts, articles, and broadcasts to keep you busy for the rest of the calendar year, if you're so inclined). And so, I settled in and finished the book within a couple of days (the book will NOT take you that long if you just sit down and knock it out in one swipe - a couple of hours maybe). I thought I'd provide you with my overall reactions, which could very well be longer than you're willing to read from a nobody like myself.

THE GOOD
Bell's book has forced Christians to examine their theologies about heaven and hell more closely. This is good because often these ideas -- especially hell -- are more or less avoided. Also, Bell emphasizes in parts of his book that we should be careful when we describe heaven as a distant location of wonderfulness where all Baptists (or Calvinists, or Presbyterians, etc.) will someday go, as if it's some pie-in-the-sky place and we're all just waiting around here to die so we can get there. If this is what we believe, we don't have any real obligation to working on problems in our lives on this planet. Also, if we truly believe this, why don't we just all kill ourselves so we can get to heaven sooner?

And unfortunately, that's about it for the good.

THE BAD
Let's see... where to start.

There are many notes I jotted down while reading that won't make their way to this "review," but I'd like to start with the opening pages of Bell's second chapter in which he basically ridicules a painting that his grandmother had hanging in her house while little Rob was growing up. It's a painting that depicts the "cross as a bridge" image that you've probably seen a million times. There's a great chasm with hell at the bottom. On one side of the chasm is humankind, and on the other side is God (often depicted as popular ideas of heaven with shiny streets and angels and harps). The only way from one side to the other is to take the cross-shaped bridge. Bell rails against this image, saying it makes us think heaven is somewhere else that we need to get to, and it's dangerous for us to think in those terms. Ironically, this "artist" (or so he is described by most of his defenders, and perhaps even himself?) doesn't seem to understand that oftentimes paintings are metaphorical. I'm guessing that neither the painter of this image, nor Rob's grandmother, really believe that there is some physical place where we have to go and walk across a cross, and if we don't step carefully we'll fall to our eternal damnation in a fiery furnace. But the image, according to the Bible, is pretty accurate. There is a gap between people and God. A huge gap, called sin, that can never be crossed with anything man-made. The only way to bridge that gap is with the cross of Christ. What's wrong with metaphorical paintings that have assisted missionaries and evangelists for years, Rob?

Bell argues that when Jesus talks about "hell," he uses the word "gehenna," which refers, basically, to the town garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where there was an ongoing fire that consumed the city's trash. He also tells us that when Matthew writes about the sheep and the goats, and that the goats will "go away to eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46), the Greek words there would more accurately be translated "go away to an intense period of pruning." This allows Bell to argue that punishment in hell is only meant to bring people around to Jesus, and that it won't last forever. I'll leave it to other experts to explain to you why Bell must not have done very well in his exegesis classes in seminary, but if you'd like, just read a few good commentaries on these verses and you'll find out that Bell's version just doesn't work. None of the major English translations in existence supports his theory. Is there a Western-world conspiracy that wants everyone to believe Hell is forever, Rob? Or is it possible that your lone voice is the one that's mistaken?

Kevin DeYoung's review of Bell's book goes into much more detail about this point, but I did notice that sin, for Rob, seems to be almost exclusively about horizontal injustices. He regularly talks about rape and war and oppression and abuse and other things people to do other people. Flowing from this is Rob's insistence that "hell" is what we experience here on earth because of these sins. "Hell" is finding out your daughter has been repeatedly sexually abused over the years by a relative. "Hell" is the teenagers in Africa who have had their limbs cut off in the midst of civil unrest.  Missing from his theology seems to be any notion of the idea that sin is also against God. It's vertical. And it must be atoned for. That is what Jesus' death did. Bell's theologies of sin, hell, and especially his Christology are sorely lacking.

When the Love Wins promo video was released, the big controversial question was, "Is Rob Bell a universalist?" After reading this book, I would say that although Bell tends to be as slippery as an eel, and does his best to avoid any single label, "universalist" in any meaningful sense of the term seems fairly accurate. Bell does emphatically say that Jesus is THE ONLY way, but then he says that anywhere people find hope and forgiveness - that's Jesus. No matter your beliefs, Bell seems to think that if you have some bit of joy, hope, forgiveness (or any other touchy-feely abstract noun) in your life, that's Jesus, and so even though you didn't know that's what its name was, you've been saved by Jesus. Some might call this inclusivism instead of universalism. Perhaps that's more accurate, but it seems like a semantic battle now. For all practical purposes, Bell is quite a few paces down Universalist Road. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but calling my bike a rose won't make it so.

Sometimes I wonder if Bell understands syntax when it comes to sentences. He LOVES John 3:16. I guess I should say, he LOVES John 3:16a: "For God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son..." but that's where the love stops. Bell even describes that part as "beautiful." But, he argues, "millions have been taught that if they don't believe..." and then he launches into a rant about how God instantly becomes a vindictive monster to people who don't believe. I wonder if Bell has read the rest of the verse and chooses to ignore it, of if he just never got that far. To help him out, it goes like this: "...that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." The inverse of the argument isn't true, Rob? Maybe he thinks there's an omitted part that says, "...and whoever does NOT believe in Him will also not perish, but have eternal life -- because we here at Bible Writers, Incorporated are very open and loving and affirming, and it'd be unloving of us to deny anyone eternal life."

In Bell's paradigm, I honestly see very little need for evangelism and missions within the Christian faith. In fact, the one time I remember Bell mentioning missions, it's only say that he hears stories all the time about missionaries who tell the stories of Jesus, and the native peoples say, "That's Jesus? But we've been telling those stories for years" (again confirming my "pretty close to universalism" beliefs about Bell). Bell talks about the importance of following God in this life, but the reasons for it seem to be mostly, "because it's just better, and you'll feel more fulfilled." It feels like someone trying to convince me to cheer for the Steelers, because they win a lot of Super Bowls, and they're a well-run franchise that doesn't disappoint nearly as often as other teams, so I'll just enjoy football more if I convert. Unfortunately, I enjoy being a Cowboys fan, and since, in the end, it doesn't really matter what I choose (I'll always be able to change my mind after I die when I realize that the Steelers really were the better team), I'll stick with my 'Boys. I'm enjoying it just fine. It reads to me like Bell basically says, "Jesus is NOT the mean judgmental guy you hear about from the Westboro Baptist Church weirdos. Now that you are aware of that, I can't really give you a solid reason why you need to follow him right now. Just keep him in the back of your mind so that when you die and it comes time for you to change your mind, you won't have to be 'pruned' for very long before you realize Jesus is the right way."

My last point: None of this would be that big of a deal if Rob Bell were truly just seeking answers and trying to provoke thought, but he's teaching this stuff to millions of followers. He preaches at a megachurch, he writes very popular books, and he speaks at conferences and gives interviews around the world. His influence is huge, and that's why this is important to combat. Bell loves to play the "I'm just a pastor" card, but when we're talking about millions who look to you as a spiritual advisor in their lives, false teaching carries some dire consequences.

I understand that this post reads largely as some rant against a guy I don't like, and I'm sorry for that. But, honestly, I've never had a real problem with Bell before I read this book (I thought he might be slightly "out there" regarding a few things he's said and written, but I didn't have a problem for the most part with what he and his church has been teaching to tons of people). Now that's changed.

Read Kevin DeYoung's lengthy review for the most thorough exposition of the flaws in Bell's book.

Sin is DOOMED

"Look at [Romans] chapter eight, verses one through four. Paul says, 'Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do, in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemns sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.' What the law couldn't do God did. Through Christ, sin is doomed. God sent Christ to this earth not just as a revolutionary, he did not send Christ to this earth just as some sort of a religious leader, God did not send Christ to this earth as a great man or as an example for us or to answer the question WWJD - What Would Jesus Do - no, that's not why Christ came to this earth. Christ came to this earth as a sacrifice for sin and when my savior died - when my savior died - when he was crushed, when he was cursed, when he was beaten, when he was bleeding, in that darkest hour at Calvary, sin was doomed, sin was condemned, and at that very moment when it seemed like Satan had his foot on Christ's neck and was in control, it was at that very moment that the back of sin was broken."

Pastor Dan Schoepf

For listening and watching

I lived in Des Moines for about five months with a college friend of mine while I was engaged. While I was there my friend and I attended Lutheran Church of Hope off and on. I came across two videos they posted on facebook from their Easter service last weekend, and I wanted to share them with you (can't embed them, so I have to make you click on the links).

The first is probably my new favorite video/song, and you can check it out HERE.

The second is of Simon Estes, a world-renowned singer, performing one of my long-time favorites, "Were You There?"

McLaren and me (not quite as catchy as McGee & Me)

I'm nearing the end of reading A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. I've never really written a book review before, and you're kidding yourself if that's what you think this is... but I thought I'd share some first impressions and thoughts about what I've read so far.

I chose to read this particular book on the emergent church because a) I already own it & it's just been sitting on my shelf for more than a year now, and 2) from what I've heard and read it's been touted as the definitive manifesto for today's emergent church (can "definitive" and "emergent church" be together in one sentence and not be an oxymoron?), and so I figured that if I'm going to graduate from an evangelical seminary there might be some people I come across in whatever ministry God points me to who assume I know something about the emergent church and I'd like not to disappoint them. So here we go.

First of all let me say that McLaren is an engaging writer, and it's not at all hard for me to see how he's published a dozen+ books, most of which sell quite well. He has a clear passion to move Christianity beyond liberal vs. conservative bickering, and his viewpoint largely seems to have grown out of a reaction to ultra-right wing conservative fundamentalist Christians who you're likely to see on television a lot (not often being painted in a positive light at all).

As is made clear in McLaren's subtitle (visible in the above picture), his desire is to essentially take the best from all of the pockets of Christianity and mold them into a kind of open-minded, tolerant community of believers who follow the teachings of Jesus. In multiple places throughout the book McLaren tells his audience that it's important to stick to the fundamentals of the faith, which he clearly defines as loving God, and loving your neighbor (with everyone on the planet falling to the "neighbor" category). One of the big problems he has with many Christians today is that they've expanded the fundamentals to include things like the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, and penal substitutionary atonement. McLaren, however, seems to believe that if we simply love God and love other people then Christianity is much more likely to connect to our postmodern culture, and we will be able to take the world for Christ.

If I were to summarize McLaren's position as I understand it (I'm about 80% of the way through the book) I would say that he believes that following the teachings of Jesus is what's most important (and primarily the love God & others command), and therefore we need to love everyone, be in community with everyone, let the Holy Spirit guide our direction through experience, and be pacifists (or at least pacifist sympathizers with the hope and goal of bringing the world to a place where everyone is a pacifist). On the flip side he would argue that we need to grow out of our in/out theology where there are some who are "in" or "born again" who are going to heaven and everyone else is "out" and therefore going to hell. McLaren relates a story in which his college-age son admits that he's struggling spiritually. He goes on, "Dad, if Christianity is true then nearly everyone I love is going to be tortured in the fires of hell forever. And if it's not true, then life has no meaning. I just wish there were a better option." McLaren tells us that when he heard his son say those things his heart broke as he realized that that is the picture of Christianity his son, and probably most Christians, have. It seems that the goal of this book is largely to correct such thinking.

From what I've learned about the emergent church before and outside of reading this book, McLaren's theology and teachings in A Generous Orthodoxy are very much represtentative of them.

And it's too bad.

Completely lacking from McLaren's theology is anything about the harder parts of the Bible. The only time I have come across the word "atonement" in the whole book is when, as I mentioned above, he is pointing out how conservative evangelicals have broadened the definition of "fundamentals" to include it. I do think McLaren's right about a lot of things: The Christianity that most people see on television which says you must vote republican, fight against gun control laws, homosexuality, and abortion, support wars, and tell all your non-Christian friends that they're going to hell is probably not what Jesus meant when he sent his disciples out as witnesses, but McLaren's theology, I believe, could accurately be described as dangerous, bordering on devastating. The Gospel message is NOT, as McLaren would apparently have you believe, that we can all get along in a God-loving community if we stick to the teachings of Jesus. It's that Jesus was crucified in your place on the cross as a sacrifice for sin and that he rose again the third day, conquering death forever. Why doesn't the emergent church ever want to get into the hard stuff? I'm guessing that in all his books, you'll never hear McLaren talk about the reality of sin and its impact on the human race (unless it's the "sin" of intolerance, which creates an unappealing "in vs. out" mentality).

In fact, it seems to me that if Jesus never was crucified or resurrected or if he never ascended to heaven... McLaren's theology would not be threatened at all. Without the atonement Jesus was still a good teacher who gave us good standards to live by, so let's all focus on those and try to get along.

(When I bring my book to work with me, my coworker will ask, "Is McLaren annoying you yet?" For the first almost half of the book my answer was, "Not really." As it's become clearer and clearer that his bottom line is essentially, "Let's all be nice to each other," my answer has changed. There is real truth, Mr. McLaren.)

Easter: Praise God

Happy Easter, everyone. Today we celebrate one of the two most spectacular events in all of human history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The other of the two events, as you may have guessed, was his crucifixion. I hope that both of these events are preached regularly in your church. I write about the resurrection today not because I think it to be more important than the crucifixion, but because

1. I just spent a couple of weeks immersed in a passage of the Bible that deals primarily with the resurrection, so I've studied it and have become especially jazzed about it,

2. In my experience it seems that the church talks about the crucifixion year-round, because it's easily connected to just about every other topic. We often remember, in different ways, that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." and I guess I think we tend to leave resurrection talk for one very special Sunday per year: Easter. And

3. When we do talk about it on Easter we often relegate "the resurrection" to the single historical event of Jesus being brought back to life, which is cool because it means that his death really did accomplish what it was supposed to, and our sins really have been forgiven. And we also spend an awful lot of time explaining why the event is historically defensible (a topic, by the way, which I LOVE). There's obviously nothing wrong with that, except that I think there's more to "resurrection" than that.

Take a gander at 1 Corinthians 15. Especially verses 12-28. There are some in the church at Corinth who "say that there is no resurrection from the dead" (v. 12). Now, to clarify, it doesn't appear that they denied Christ's resurrection, only the future bodily resurrection of believers. But Paul doesn't think that logic holds any weight. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is inseparably linked to that of those who belong to him. Paul basically tells the Corinthians, "If there's no bodily resurrection of people, then Jesus wasn't bodily resurrected either. And if Jesus wasn't resurrected everything is very crappy indeed" (v. 13-18, New Revised Jake Version).

Seriously, read it. If there's no resurrection then the preaching of the apostles is worthless (v. 14). Faith is worthless (v. 14). The apostles are liars (v. 15) because they've proclaimed that God raised Christ from the dead, so they're not only lying but blaspheming. We are all still condemned in our sins (v. 17). Those who have believed in Jesus Christ as their savior who have already died are utterly lost (v. 18). Because of all of this, because of our devotion to an empty, worthless faith that has no power over death or sin, we as Christians are to be pitied more than all others (v. 19).

Don't stop reading.

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). As Mark Prior points out, "This But must rank with the great 'buts' of the Bible." Firstfruits is an agricultural term identifying the first installment of an entire harvest of the same kind which is to come. That means that Jesus is just the beginning. Just as he was raised from his death, so will all of those who call on him and trust him as their Lord.

See, Corinthians? A bodily resurrection! For you and me! Don't forget, the word "asleep" (v. 18, 20) holds the promise of an awakening.

Paul's argument started with a refutatio, or a refutation of the Corinthians' stance. He explains to them why denial of the resurrection leads to unacceptable consequences. Verse 20 begins the second half of his argument; the confirmatio, or a reaffirmation of the logical alternative. Just as we were all affected by the sin of one human being (Adam), we will be affected by the resurrection and defeat of death itself of one human being (Jesus). So, without the resurrection our solidarity would still be with Adam. Bummer.

So you see? The resurrection has eschatological (end times) implications. Jesus' resurrection inaugurated the ultimate defeat of the "last enemy" (v. 26), which is death. But the fullness of salvation is not yet realized. We still experience death. Some of you know that all too well. There's still the pain and the sorrow and the suffering. If the resurrection is not true then death is never a conquered enemy. Even when all is said and done it would still have power. But since it is true, God wins. Someday death will be thwarted permanently.

Today we have "prosperity" churches all over the place (if you're not familiar with them, turn on your television on Sunday morning). They pretty much teach what the Corinthians apparently thought. "All we can expect is what we've got now, so live it up!" If some of these preachers and churches really understood the implications of the resurrection would that message change?

Other Christians of the more "liberal" sort deny the resurrection because it's too far-fetched. Christianity needs to be more palatable, so we'll do away with ridiculous notions like some dude came back to life. But they don't consider what that denial means. Without a resurrection you can't be a "Christian," because the entire faith is futile. Paul says so.

"The joy that characterizes the basic orientation of the Christian life is based on the confidence that Christ will return, the dead will be raised, and all wrongs will be made right. If that is not true, then joy is replaced by despair." -- David Garland

But it is true. So celebrate Easter, and keep trying, as I do, to fully understand what it means for us.

A few links that are cool

Check out Jesus Christ's facebook page. It's very funny. Also, if you read through the whole thing (and it's worth it) you'll get a humorous look at a little passion scene (very timely, don't you think?).

Check out Satan's facebook page. I haven't read this one, but I'm sure it's funny too.

If you click here you can read about the deaths of the Apostles (most of whom were martyred for their unrelenting faith in Christ), and also read about how important their deaths are in pointing toward the reality of the resurrection.

And, I still plan to write about Easter before Easter gets here.

The point of the Gospel

If you ever want to subscribe to the podcast of a fantastic preacher, check out Matt Chandler.

Aside from that, though, this video clip is just penetrating. Watch it.

Grace

(for the record, my wife agrees with my "busy bees" post below)

I'm reading a book by Philip Yancey called What's So Amazing About Grace? because I tend to get very irritated with people very easily. I get mad when I'm driving because most people are terrible at driving -- and it's not that difficult of an activity. I get mad at work because most people lack either common sense or a sense of decency (and the problem is exacerbated by the fact that I have a higher standard for the students, faculty and staff who most frequently visit the bookstore, and who are surprisingly inconsiderate), or both. I get mad at the store because I tend to a) know exactly what I need and where to find it, eliminating the need to lolly-gag in the aisles, and b) be considerate enough to make every reasonable effort to stand off to the side out of the way when I need to take time for decision-making or consulting my wife.

Having said all of that, I'm working really hard this semester on seeing people through the eyes of Jesus; as creatures molded by God who he loves very much. I'm not that great at it yet. People still tick me off.

Peter

A friend of mine shared a "devotional thought" today that I found quite interesting.  Peter probably lived his whole life hearing the rooster crow in the morning.  After he denied knowing Christ for the third time, he heard it again, in a completely different way.  It wasn't just a random sound for Peter, but it's the first sound of the day.  For the rest of his life he probably asked himself each morning after he heard the rooster, "Will I serve him today, or will I say again, 'I never knew him'?"