Review: Hellbound? - A Documentary About Hell

I finally got around to watching Hellbound. Hellbound is a documentary, that looks at how the doctrine of Hell is viewed in Christianity.  In it, various clergy and theologians are interviewed for their take on God and Hell. As an ex-evangelical, I enjoyed it.

There is a good sampling of people and I think all of the views were honestly represented without much spin.  There were folks who were pro-Hell and others who leaned to a more universalistic end. Though it is obvious the director wants to point you to a universalistic end, he is fair to the other opinions.

Much of the theology is represented by various folks within evangelical circles. Greg Boyd and Mark Driscoll are interviewed, rather than Catholic priests and Lutherans.

As an atheist, what was clear to me was that each person's "god" was a reflection of their own personalities. It was no wonder that to the folks of Westboro Baptist, "God" pretty much hated everybody. On the other end, the universalists who wanted to love everyone, had a god who would save everyone.

Look in the mirror, and God looks just like you.

Chasing Francis: A Book Review

Chasing Francis is a story about a successful mega-church pastor who finds himself feeling empty after having accomplished all of his ministry goals. The book is written in a similar style to Brian Mclaren's "New Kind of Christian" series - i.e. using a narrative to make theological points.

The Pastor, Chase, says near the beginning of the book, "I have this sneaking suspicion that I've been reading from a theological script that someone else wrote. Is this my faith, or one that I bought into as a kid without really thinking about it?" This is a common perspective hitting many religious believers today. In the past, it was easier for one to have a "simple" faith; most people had only one theological input. However, due to the explosion of information in this age, contrary opinions are but a click away.

This is where Pastor Chase finds himself. As the questions began to nestle in his head, anyone giving pat answers became a source of annoyance. He comments at one point that Evangelical responses started to produce a "gag reflex" within him. This attitude begins to disturb his predominately evangelical congregation.

Chase finally comes to a Crisis of Faith moment... unfortunately, it happens during a Sunday morning sermon. His congregation, unwilling to deal with his broken soul, shows him the door. They put him on sabbatical and tell him to get it together or get another job.

In his despondency, Chase calls his eccentric uncle, who is a Franciscan Monk in Italy. His Uncle invites him to come to Italy to meet St. Francis of Assisi. Together, the two of them start a pilgrimage, following the path of St. Francis.

Chase's Uncle feels that Francis is a good model for this generation's spiritually homeless. Francis lived in a time when Christendom was leaving the ancient world for the modern world. The struggles he navigated in his time can serve as an example as Christianity now moves from a modern world to a post-modern world. While in Italy, Chase discovers that Christianity is much deeper than the teaspoon he had known. Francis demonstrates how to live in such a way that you tell a different story than the culture at large.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. It meanders at times, and occasionally reminded me of reading a Stephen King novel - the author would do a lot of weaving and winding before he got to his point. However, the point tends to be so satisfying that you quickly forgive the roundabout journey it took to get there. It was a little sentimental at times for my tastes, but it serves as a great introduction to St. Francis. I knew very little of Francis prior to reading this book; so if the author's hope was to encourage readers to pursue this saint further - in my case he succeeded.


A friend of mine who enjoyed this book also did a review and had a chance to meet the author. You can read Bob's thoughts here.

Brian McLaren Town Hall Forum

"If we, every Sunday, deploy people into the world who are being sent out to love their neighbors as themselves - that's really good news for Muslims, it's really good news for Buddhists, it's great news for atheists.  But if we send out people who are just out for themselves, or out for their religion, out for their political party.... well, we know where that leads.  That's what we have now.  

This for me is a great moment of great opportunity, a great opportunity for a new kind of faith."

~ Brian McLaren speaking at a Westminster Town Hall Forum in Minneapolis.  Listen here.

A topic Brian talked about in this audio, which resonated with me, is the issue of identity.  So often in Christianity, people partaking in other religions is seen as a threat to Christian identity.  They are "other" who must be assimilated or marginalized.  This attitude has caused many people of conscience to leave the Christian faith or radically reduce their own identity.  Brian suggests a third way (similar to Samir Selmanovic in It's Really All About God) in which Christians can be secure in their traditions yet not see others as a threat or target for conversion.

I know the typical response is "But that is our calling - convert people."  I used to believe this too, but over time it became apparent to me that maintaining this viewpoint made it completely impossible to truly love those around me - and loving those around me is my higher calling.  I think sometimes we have to pray like Meister Eckert, "God, save me from God."

Where does the authority come from?

This was a question that was repeated many times throughout the Emergent conference in Albuquerque a few weekends ago. It was the central question of a talk given by Phyllis Tickle as she shared ideas from her book The Great Emergence. Her basic premise was that every 500 years or so, the church (universal) goes through a rummage sale of sorts because the institutions of Christianity become overly bogged down with themselves. Then "reformations" happen, when everything goes on the table, and the church must look again at where its authority comes from.

Everyone had thoughts on this throughout the weekend and it was interesting to hear the different perspectives. Most agreed that Luther's assertion of Sola Scriptura had the unintended consequence of forming a myriad of schisms... as different groups took away different priorities and interpretations from said scripture.

The central problem with schisms, according to Brian McLaren, were not the schisms themselves; but rather that each schism tried de-legitimatize every group above it (or below it).

The question of authority still remains, but here is my take on it. Any authority other than yourself is always going to be problematic. The minute you start relying on statements like "What my church teaches is...." then you have outsourced your discernment to someone else. You have removed yourself from accountability (or at least tried to). That is why, I believe, Peter set a standard of a priesthood of ALL believers. Hebrews concurs "in the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets... but in these last days, He has spoken to us by his Son."

In the end, I will stand before God to give an account (Hebrews 4:13). I think the awareness of personal accountability is what is causing house churches and spiritual communities to catch on more. For many Christians, the days of being dependent on a Pastor are growing old. I think there will always be a need for an administrative authority in churches, but the assumption of spiritual authority has developed a generation who's discernment has atrophied. They didn't need it.... the pastor/bishop/priest told them what to think. That era, I believe, is coming to a close. I may harness my carriage to a teacher like McLaren or Claiborne at times, but I will always hold the reigns.

I think the upcoming generation will differ in that, rather than trying to de-legitimatize the paths of others, we will be looking to garner something from their view of life, scripture, and God. We will not feel the need to abandon the traditions we grew up in (though we will have the freedom to do so), rather we can view them as a sanctuary, but no longer the destination.

Emerging Church Conference

YAY! An event that is within Utah range!!!

The Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, will be hosting the first-ever Catholic-Emergent conference, March 20-22, 2009.

According to the CAC, “The conversation about the emerging church has been attracting a broad array of Christians — progressive Evangelicals and mainline Protestants along with some Roman Catholics — but this will be the first gathering to be planned and hosted by a team of Catholic and Protestant leaders working together for the good of the church at large. There will also be a post-conference for those who want to develop vehicles for deepening and sustaining the emerging energy for Gospel-centered justice, contemplation, and community.”

The conference will feature:

• Richard Rohr, OFM (founding director of CAC)


• Brian McLaren


• Alexie Torres-Fleming


• Shane Claiborne


• Phyllis Tickle

The conference is being called “The Emerging Church: Conversations, Convergence and Action,” and the post-conference will take place March 22-23.

Register online now

Hope Explored by Brian McLaren

In this video, Brian talks about his reaction to 9/11.



HT Emergent Village

McLaren Endorses Obama

There has been a fair amount of critique of Brian McLaren for appearing in this video endorsing Obama. Though I actually agree with some of the concerns, I don't recall hearing too much resistance to that behavior when Christianity spent the past three or four decades stitching itself to the Republican party.

I was in my late teens to early twenties before I realized that there were Christians who were Democrats. It took a while to sink in. As my political views became more moderate, I was wary at first of voicing my opinions in the decidedly Christian circles in which I traveled. Anything but the Republican/Conservative mantra would get you mocked or shunned. In many (most?) Christian circles today there is not a lot of grace given to those with differing political views. You simply aren't allowed to think any differently.

So I think the message of this video is actually, in many ways, about more than Obama. This is a message to the world that not every Christian is a right-wing Republican. It is a message to many Christians that they can give voice to things they have been thinking about (but had felt bullied into silence). It is a challenge to all Christians to listen to the many voices that are speaking on the landscape, and not just coast to the voting booth to do as they have always done.

One article I read felt that this video was a low-blow aimed at McCain concerning his colorful marriage history. Fair enough. However, I think the bigger jab is to the Religious Right which has used "family values" as a club against opponents .... yet seems to quickly dismiss the importance of it when it does not suit their political positoning. I think the video shows that stark contrast.

So.... I am a Christian of 25 years and I support Obama. However, you will not find me mocking McCain on these pages. I am embarrassed by the Christian bloggers who use their blogs to mock Obama. You can do better.

Rethinking Mclaren...

Someone finally made some good points critiquing this revolutionary and his near cult like following.... Read this post!

HT:Iggy

Everything Must Change tour

I am getting older. When I was young, my friends and I were always piling into cars to go see whatever band was in town. Now I do the same thing but with seminars. There aren't too many concerts I would go out of my way to see nowadays, but if Brueggemann ever comes within a state or two of Utah... give me a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, sunglasses - and I am there.

So I was ENORMOUSLY pleased to find out that Brian McLaren was bringing his Everything Must Change tour to nearby Boise, ID. My bros in the faith, Chad and Mark, were with me on this jaunt. Having a chance to spend a few days with these guys, wrestling theology over cloves and beer, was as cool as the event we went to.

I will get into the details over the months to come. At the end of the conference, Brian asked us to write down a word which sums up the weekend. Mine was distill. It takes me a while to sift through information like that so that I can discuss it in any meaningful way. So I am going to take this month to pour over the book again. I will say that, if this tour comes anywhere near your area, I guarantee that this event will challenge you. Brian's message, particularly to the church, is one that needs to be heard.

Book Meme

I have been tagged for a Meme on books (my favorite topic) by my fellow Utahn Kay. The hardest part will be trying to keep this brief. How does one keep succinct a discourse on one of life's greatest pleasures?

1 - One book that changed your life

Impossible. This cannot be limited to one. Do not all books stir us and move us? Still, let us give it a try. Here are a few:

ROMANS- A few months after converting to Christianity at 15 I started to memorize the book of Romans through Bible Quizzing. This was, and in many ways still is, the foundation of my theology. Particularly chapters 2 and 14 (the mind your own business chapters).

The Great Divorce by CS Lewis - This book helped me humanize a lot of doctrine. I have read this book no less than 15 times. His view of Hell and who goes there helped loosen me from the Hell, Fire, and Brimstone doctrines I grew up on.

Teachings on Love by Thich Nhat Hahn - There is NO greater book on the simple teaching of Love. This was the first book that showed me that I could learn deeply from Masters who were not of my faith (I know some of you are thinking "well duh!", but for me that was a big step).

A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren - In this book, Brian articulated much of what I had been thinking for years. There were only a few souls I shared these thoughts with... I was pretty sure I was a heretic. Now I am comfortable with my heresy. :)

2 - One book that you’ve read more than once

I read LOTS of books more than once. Books, like movies, need to be gone back to over and over. Most Lewis books I have read many, many times. Recently, I have re-read If Grace is True... by Phillip Gulley.

3 - One book you’d want on a desert island

For music, that would be easy (Violet Burning-Strength). How do I limit books to ONE? It may seem cliche' but I may have to go with the Bible on this one. That way I get many voices.

4 - Two books that made you laugh

Any Star Trek novel written by Peter David. He is one of the few authors who will make me laugh out loud while reading.

Bloom County by Berkely Breathed makes me laugh no matter how often I read them.

5 - One book that made you cry

I don't know that I actually cried when Fred Weasley died, but I was moved. There were a few times during the last HP book that I had to just set it down and have a quiet moment.

6 - One book that you wish had been written

A follow up to the book of Job... I have real problems with that book; it doesn't seem to fit. I hate how it portrays God.

7 - One book that you wish had never been written

Anything written by a televangelist (I was surprised to find out they were literate).

8 - Two books you’re currently reading

The Amber Spyglass by Phillip Pullman - It has been a while since I have enjoyed a fiction series this much. Wonderful!

The Wit and Wisdom of Gandhi - This is just a book of quotes I have been working through. I finally stopped highlighting, because the entire book was glowing.

9 - One book you’ve been meaning to read

I have a never ending list. Here is what is probably up and coming in the next few months (my reading will really pick up during summer vacation).

God and Empire - Dominic Crossan
Adam, Eve, and the Serpent - Elaine Pagels
The Prophets - Abraham J. Heschel
How to Expand Love - Dalai Lama
& a small stack of Walter Brueggemann

I tag two friends who share my love of hanging out in a bookstore with a good book and a hot cup of coffee. Brook and Carrie.

The "wink" discussion continues....

I have been reading a lot of comments about Driscoll's use of the word heretic and other adjectives. I commented a little here and there, but the discussion below was long enough that I wanted to give it some more air time. I don't know the person I was trading words with but, overall, I felt it was a civil discussion (compared to some of the other stuff going on out there, whew!)

ryan said:

Maybe you all should start “winking” at Pagitt since he is doing the very thing you all are so up in arms about. How is it that no one has a problem with him calling Jonny Mac’s gospel “harmful” and “dangerous” but when Driscoll does it he is mean and a bully? Oh wait maybe I can answer my own question, because Pagitt right!

Andrew said:

C’mon Ryan, don’t be so partisan. If Driscoll had said, “I believe their views are harmful and dangerous”, then so be it. I may disagree, but fine, we can do that. Driscoll went into personal digs. If you go to any site on “bullying”, one of the suggestions is to turn the bully’s comment into a joke. Perhaps the better response would have been to ignore Driscoll. He may be a Christian bully, but the man is still a bully. A bully needs someone to pick on. Half his audience would be lost if he quit picking on people. It’s like watching a wreck. Various emergent folks could go on just fine without the likes of a Driscoll. Could he say the same? Does he need someone to be against in order to have a platform?

ryan said:

Andrew I think your comment is the one that is partisan. Truth is if you listen to the message Driscoll actually gave he did his best to muster up humility and grace. Was he perfect no. Did he use humor that could be interpreted as “personal digs” possibly. The point is Driscoll gave it an earnest attempt to address serious matters that he felt were important. Just because he is not as likable as McLaren does not mean he deserves to just be caricatured and turned into a joke. Funny thing is when Pagitt does something like this and you are content to make excuses for it, and not hold him to the same standard; it just shows that many in the EV have an attitude of we can dish it out but not take it. Conversation is fine but it involves more than a wink.

Andrew said:

Ryan,
Would any response other than “Gee, Driscoll is right and fair. How did we miss it this whole time?” be acceptable? Also, the dish it out but can’t take it doesn’t work. You are not dishing it out if you are responding. Without the initiator, there would be no response. The “truth” is that all of the anti-emergent people are running around the blogs complaining that they don’t like the way some emergents are responding to attacks. This sounds like some of my elementary students who smack someone and if that person has the audacity to smack them back, they run up and tell on them (conveniently leaving out the part of their instigation).

Driscoll’s likability has nothing to do with it. I know plenty of unlikable people who are civil.

Also, please address my point about Driscoll needing someone to attack. Again, I state that in these scenarios, anti-emergents are complaining about responses to attacks. How about finding a new target to kick and then responses will be immaterial.

Lewis says that evil cannot succeed in being evil the way good can being good. Evil is not original, it can only exist as a corruption of good. Evil needs good, but good does not need evil. In the Harry Potter series, Harry could go on fine in life without Crabbe and Goyle (Malfoy’s two thugs), but they could not go on without Harry (or someone like him). Their nature requires an enemy, someone to be against, or better yet - someone to beat down. Without someone to shove below them, Crabbe and Goyle would not know what to do with themselves.

I think emergent folks could go on fine without anti-emergents, but without emergents the antis would not know what to do with themselves.

ryan said:

Andrew

Wow you just don’t get it. This is not about changing your mind or making you agree with everything that Driscoll says. I honestly do not care at the end of the day, and that is not meant to be snotty. My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.” Like Driscoll or not his talk was civil, and addressed concerns that he sincerely held about the theological errors of some prominent Christian leaders. And yes the dish it out but can’t take it does work, when Pagitt calls another prominent Christian leader out on his understanding of the gospel, it is strangely silent from the emergent crowd, and double standardish, that he is not being labeled a bully for doing so. And the conservative blogs I have read have chosen not to wink at Pagitt’s comments but instead engage them. Sooner or later Emergents will have to decide if conversation means more than agree with us or we will just mock you and say you are being mean.

As to your point about Driscoll only being an antagonist, I suggest you do a little more research. What the guy is about is clear, Jesus. The guy preaches Jesus every week at this church and points people toward Jesus. Thousands of people have been pointed to Jesus by him in Seattle and seem to be able to figure out what he is for. Or how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded. I think they know what he stands for; planting churches and seeing people’s lives changed by Jesus. Maybe it is really easy for you to cynically dismiss this, but the guy stands for a lot. You just have to read something else than Adam’s blog.

Last, to compare Driscoll and “anti-emergents” to evil is just absurd. First because I do not know what an “anti-emergent” is, and second because comparing people to evil is to miss that our enemies are not flesh and blood. I get that you are trying to say that Driscoll, just like Malfoy needs an antagonist to exist, but as I pointed out above that hardly seems to be the case. Because while many emergents continue to wink at one and other Driscoll just keeps planting churches, giving money to start churches in India, and point people toward Jesus. Andrew I truly hope that you would understand my intent here is not to say Driscoll has it all figured out, there is a lot you can critique him for. But to just dismiss and mock him is below any group who claim to be progressive and open minded. I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.

Andrew said:

Ryan,
I can appreciate that, and I appreciate your attitude. My one contention would be “how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded.” I really, really wish we could stop using that as a barometer either of success, or lack of it. If Driscoll is in the will of God… he is simply a servant in the will of God. No more or no less than the guy or gal who is stumbling through a church plant that can hardly get off the ground. Or better yet, let us remove the pastor as celebrity altogether. If numbers are the indicator, we should all be heading to the next Benny Hinn crusade.

“I suggest you do a little more research.” The thing is, I have heard him… and every time he has a rip for somebody. Even many of his supporters say he runs off at the mouth, but they balance it off with everything good he does. He has a reputation in this regard, and it is not a good one.

The thing teaching for 16 years has shown me is that the only difference between 10-12 year olds and adults is their height and weight. I have a bully in my class right now. There is this kid the bully does not like, and yet the bully cannot stay away from this kid. He sidles up next to him to pester him every chance he gets. I tell my students that they do not all have to be best friends, but that every student has a right to feel safe in our room.

Driscoll doesn’t have to like Mclaren and his crowd. No one is asking them to be buds. I think though that it is bullyish behavior to behave how Driscoll behaves. He reminds me of the bully in my class who cannot stay away from the kid he claims not to like.

I don’t care for Driscoll, but I am not registering a Driscollisapoopyhead.edu domain. I simply don’t buy his books or listen to his preaching. If he doesn’t like Emergent… QUIT LISTENING. By saying the things he says, he just prejudices people against Rob Bell who have never even heard of him. I think we should let people hear and make their own judgments. If you read a Bell book and you don’t care for it… great! Move on to something else that helps your walk with Jesus. But you are nothing more than a bully if you then choose to follow Bell around and through rocks at his head. And if an emergent pulls the same stunt, I would be calling him on it too. And if I do it, let me have it.

“I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.” I don’t argue that point at all. I do not doubt that God works through clay vessels. I just believe that when he quit talking about Jesus and started attacking his brothers in Christ with heretic and deep shi*, it was time for him get off the podium and have a time out. And if he cannot get into a podium without using it as a bully pulpit, he needs to stay out until he can.

Andrew said:

One last one, cause this was your main point but I got lost in my pontification. “My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.”

Agreed, but I think that was just the catalyst. This response page alone has generated tons of discussion. In total, the written discussion on this topic the past few days over the net has created volumes. Probably though, most folks have the same opinion they started with, but perhaps there was some movement. I am not nearly as attitudinal toward Mark as I was yesterday. ;)

ryan said:

Andrew,
Good remarks and thanks for taking the time to engage, plus after your driscollisapoopeyhead.edu line how could I not enjoy your response. Truth is I think we just have a different view on the nature of what it is to confront teaching that we view to be harmful. It seems your approach is one of live and let live, while mine might be more proactive. Now I do not know for sure which is right, maybe neither is. But I do believe and I think you do to, that these are serious matters that deserve serious consideration.

And another way to look at Driscoll that I think is worth consideration is not as bully but as untactful spouse. Truth is as a married fellow, I often do dumb stuff that frustrates and exasperates my wife. When she comes to confront me, I can either find one little thing in her approach or tone as a justification to dismiss her valid complaints. Now even if a spouse lacks tact and does not say things as well as they would always like, we still are obliged to listen carefully to their comments. All I was saying is that this whole winking thing reminded me of the times I dismiss what someone has to say just because of their delivery, even though I knew they were trying hard and they had some points worth considering.

Just one last point. It was not my intent to equate Driscoll’s success with God’s blessing or signs of his rightness. I could not agree more with you that numbers are not the only or primary indicator of the working of God. I simply listed the profound impact his church planting organization was having because it is a clear indictment of what the guy is about. It shows fruit that is not related to simply being an antagonist, but actually being for something.

Brian Mclaren -Everything Must Change Part 2

Sorry for the spread between comments on the book. My school year has started, so for the past couple of weeks the only reading I have done involved curriculum.

I was peeking at another blogger's review and he captured the tone of this book for me so far. Brian's previous books, in many ways, dealt with ideas and I would sit back and say, "That is what I have been thinking (but he articulates it so much better)". This book has many ideas as well, but there is also a strong sense of, "Now what are you going to do about it?!"

In the section I am reading right now, Brian is laying out a comparison between the conventional and emergent views of various aspects of Jesus and Christianity. I appreciate that he does not try to shred conventional views, rather he points out that they tend to deliver unintended consequences. I like this approach because it allows someone with a conventional view to ask, "What does my belief say about God?"

I wrote a lot of thoughts and highlighted a fair amount in this section, but for brevity's sake I will just comment on one quote.

"...the emerging view sees Jesus as a medicinal cure to a lethal infection that plagues humanity (diagnosing and treating individual and societal sickness called sin), the conventional view sees Jesus primarily as the legal solution to a capital infraction against God (legally resolving the capital offense of imperfection and the eternal punishment it demands). By framing Jesus in this way, the conventional view relegates Jesus to practical irrelevance in relation to human social problems in history; his message is about the soul, its guilt before God, and its afterlife, not about our world and its crises."

I have to confess that I have a certain level of ambivalence toward the poor. I work in an inner city school and I have compassion, but it is very easy for me to relegate everything to theory and do little practicum. The conventional view Brian describes would make it easy for me to distance myself from this active part of Christ's mission. By framing everything about Christ in legal terms, the burden on me is simply to fine tune my theory and be on the correct side of the law. This reminds me of my students who ask me "what they HAVE to do" in order to "be DONE". They miss the point of the learning.

The emerging view forces one to join the work team. God calls for an active cure - so I can no longer remain on the sidelines content to hold the right beliefs.

Another point Brian brings up that hits home for me is his reminder that God blessed certain people groups so that they could be a blessing to others. However, it usually played out that those who were blessed lorded it over others. People have a tendency to grab a blessing and use it as a dividing line for "us" and "them".

I live in Utah, where the dividing line between "us" and "them" can be more easily distinguished than in other areas. "Gentile" is a word Mormons can use to describe anyone who isn't Mormon. I don't think it is used as much as in the past, but still, I hear it occasionally and it is not a compliment. Bad behavior is "gentile" behavior.

On the other end, the word "cult" gets thrown at Mormons. I never realized how demeaning that word is until I moved here. I promised myself that I would not let that word cross my lips again.

I think the emergent view wants to shine the light on all the times in Scripture that Jesus broke down the walls of "us" and "them". He repeatedly talked to people he shouldn't have, encouraged and accepted those that others condemned, touched those who should not be touched. In the Kingdom Jesus is building, there is no "them"; he accepts all of us. If we are to be Christ followers, there can be no dividing lines.

More to come....

Brian McLaren - Everything Must Change Part 1

Over the next few weeks, I am going to be commentating on Brian McLaren's new book Everything Must Change. I was sent an advance copy under the premise that I would do a book review. That would be hard for me. I rarely read a theological book straight through. I read some, leave it for a week or two while I dig through another book, come back to it, etc. (However, I did read the latest Harry Potter straight through in less than 36 hours).

In addition, I don't think I could read a full theological book through in a few weeks time, and then write a review on the totality. I think I would need to read it through multiple times to write a review like that.

So instead, I will write in spurts as I work through the book.

In the first few chapters, Brian focuses on a trip he took to Burundi to meet with some of the local pastors. Burundi is a country like Rwanda in terms of the violence and ethnic unrest that is there.

One of the pastors who got up at the meeting said that he had grown up hearing basically only one message from his pastor father. It was the message that had been given to his father by foreign missionaries which was, "You are a sinner and you are going to hell. You need to repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus might come back today, and if he does and you are not ready, you will burn forever in hell." Brian states that almost everyone in the room laughed when they heard that. Not because they thought it was funny, but because it was what they had heard all their lives too. I laughed when I read it. When I read it out loud to my wife, she laughed too. All around the world, that cliche' message has been delivered.

What interests me, when I consider that message in the context of someone from Burundi, is that they would have lived that message as different warlords and rebel groups came to power. When a new faction took over, the message was "Submit to this regime or face terrible punishment". In their context, how would the gospel presented in the way stated above be good news? Jesus is just another warlord.

The pastor finished his talk by asking, "How many of you from Burundi and Rwanda have ever heard even one sermon telling Tutsi people to love and reconcile with Hutu people, or Hutu people to love and reconcile with Tutsi - or telling both Tutsi and Hutu to love the Twa as their neighbors and brothers and sisters?" Hardly anyone raised their hand.

So far, the book seems to be pointing out how lopsided our presentation of the Gospel has become. In a talk, McLaren said "What you focus on determines what you miss." We have perhaps become so heaven and afterlife focused, that we are missing that God wants his will carried out on earth too.

I will try to give an objective commentary on this book, but I have to say straight up that I am a fan of McLaren. I felt a little isolated by how unorthodox my theology was becoming years ago until I read A Generous Orthodoxy. Whew! It was a breath of fresh air.

Brian McLaren - Everything Must Change Part 2

Hope and Obstacles by Brian Mclaren

I have listened to this talk by Brian Mclaren about 10 times in the past month or so. In it, he outlines some of the challenges that have faced the Church in the recent past, as well as the hope and path for the Church in the future. He addresses the relationship of the independent evangelical churches to the mainline churches. Through the strengthening of these ties, he speaks of hope for a post-christian world.

"The Protestant history has been the history of downward expansion... The interesting thing that tends to happen is that each level of the Church denies the legitimacy of the levels above it... or below it. But what I would like to suggest [is that] a Deep Ecclesiology is [an] acknowledging [of] the Church and honoring the Church in all of its forms. And instead of arguing about which narrow band is legitimate; just assume that God has lower standards than we do and is willing to bless people that we would never bless... if we were God." ~ Brian Mclaren

Click Here

I think I am a Universalist...

Coming out of the closet seems to be very chic'. Gays started it, but now everyone is doing it. It seems more and more people are taking a look inside, poking around the dark places, trying to find out who is really in there.

For me, when I poke around, I find a very unorthodox theologian. It makes me nervous to see that staring back at me, but it sure explains a lot.

I suppose this unorthodoxy started only a few years after my conversion. I was 18 and working/schooling at a ministry down in Texas. Some friends and I went to hear a preacher who was known for his hard/no compromise message. He was a talanted speaker, and he had the audience mesmerized. He just didn't seem happy. In fact, I was quite sure he was angry. He went on and on about luke-warm christians and counterfiet conversions.

Then suddenly, he got happy. He started to talk about judgement day. He described in detail the suffering that would be waiting in Hell for those who mocked God and his children. I am not sure, but I think he started salivating at this point. He couldn't wait for sinners to get their portion of this.

I left that night perplexed. I believed in eternal damnation, but I never hoped it on anyone. Is God angry? Does he get as excited as this preacher did about sending people to Hell?

After this, I started to notice how much time my brothers in Christ spent on who was going to Hell. They often said they were burdened over the souls "pouring into the Pit". They would say, "It breaks my heart that my neighbor is going to Hell", but then through conversation I would realize that they did not even like that neighbor. Was it really breaking their heart?

It seemed Hell was just one more item to show others that, "My God is better than your God, my faith is better than your faith".

I started to question Hell. In a previous post, I pasted a letter that I had written years ago to a number of my friends in which I shared my wrestlings.

In addition to the items I put in that letter, becoming a Father has really made me question Hell. What could Kathryn or Jacob do? What could they possibly do that would make me inflict such violence on them?

Brian McLaren's son said, "Dad... either Christianity is true and almost everyone I love is going to burn in Hell forever, or it's not true and life is meaningless."

This is the set of options Christianity presents the world with, but is that the God of Hope?

McLaren says that he struggles with being a pacifist. He says that, more accurately, he is a pacifist sympathiser.

I think that is how I feel about Universalism. I cannot, theologically, completely commit to it - but I sure want to. This quote from Bart Campolo summarizes how I feel lately..

"If indeed faith is being sure of what we hope for, then truly I am a man of faith, for I absolutely know what I hope to be true: That God is completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving, that God is doing all that He can to overcome evil (which is evidently a long and difficult task), and that God will utterly triumph in the end, despite any and all indications to the contrary.

This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.

This first article of faith was the starting point of my journey back to Jesus, and it remains the foundation of my faith. I came to trust the Bible again, of course, but only because it so clearly bears witness to the God of love I had already chosen to believe in. I especially follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings—and his life, death, and resurrection—seem to me the best expression of the ultimate truth of God, which we Christians call grace. Indeed, these days I trust Jesus even when I don’t understand him, because I have become so convinced that He knows what He is talking about, that He is who he is talking about, and that He alone fully grasps that which I can only hope is true.

Unfortunately for me, God may be very different than I hope, in which case I may be in big trouble come Judgment Day. Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to His will. Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. Perhaps, as many believe, everyone who dies without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior goes to Hell to suffer forever. Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that although He could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, He is no less just or merciful when He doesn’t, and both those children and we who love them should uncritically give Him our thanks and praise in any case.

My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.

Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff, remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, God can give my place in Heaven to someone else, and go ahead and send me to Hell. For better or worse, I am simply not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking Him, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility, because, quite frankly, anything less is not enough to give me hope, to keep me alive, to be worth the trouble of believing."

Amen.....

Hell No!

I have really been committing to get back into reading. I just got done with Brian Mclaren's "The Last Word". I am presently reading "Blue Like Jazz" and upon recommendation, shall be taking up "the Sparrow" next.

I highly recommend "The Last Word". If nothing else, it give you a peek into some alternative thoughtlines that exist in the Christian world.

Brian McLaren really challenges the typical evangelical thoughts on and purposes in preaching Hell. I found a letter that I sent out to a bunch of friends about 6 years ago when I first started wrestling with Hell. Here is that letter, and my thoughts at the time:

Hello all,
I have been hit by a new theological trauma that has been giving me the runabout for the past few days, so I thought I would toss it out to you and see what you think.

It all came about the other day when I was listening to talk radio. There was an atheist on there begrudging the whole "see you at the pole" event. He was a usual ranter and party-liner, but one of the callers said something that really threw me.

“It is not so much that I don’t believe in God,” he said. “But I have a hard time believing that a being such as has been described would use violence of the ultimate sort as punishment for non-compliance."

How had I missed that question all these years? We all know the arguments for why “a loving God sends people to Hell,” but in the moment following that question, all of those arguments fell apart for me.

Many of you have read C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain. Though the issue of pain is a stumbling block for some, and though it is a struggle to deal with at the time, it can always be brought to near triviality in the scope of eternity. As Paul said in countless different ways in the epistles “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us”. I wish Lewis had written a book called the Problem of Hell.

Here are the questions that have been rolling in my head the past couple days, which I am having difficulty finding solutions for.

First, there is the finality of it all. If suffering can be used as a tool to develop empathy, correct us, refocus us, cause us to go deeper, then there is an ultimate good to it. In my present paradigm, God can do nothing else. What man (or Satan for that matter) intends for evil, he can always turn it to a good. God can wrench glory from even the direst circumstances.

What then, does Hell provide? There is no ultimate good that can come out of it, because there is no opportunity for redemption. I realize the usual argument would be to say that they had an opportunity to accept salvation, but rejected it. This doesn’t seem to wash with me anymore for three reasons:

Can it truly be said the people who have rejected Christ have a clear understanding of what they are rejecting and what they are accepting in his place? I don’t think so. I don’t think that most Christians have even begun to get a handle on this, let alone someone who has no familiarity with the ways and teachings of God.

IF such a person existed, could they be truly sane?

IF they were sane, is hell a reasonable result?

I think the reasonableness of hell is really hard for me to grasp. However rebellious or hideous a man may be; is hell a good solution? Eternal torture beyond measure?…forever?…. for the choices of eighty mortal years? When I sit down and consider that eternal destiny, I start to wonder.

Also, what would the reason be for such an extreme punishment? (And this is the ultimate extreme). I have trouble reconciling it with the character of God, as I understand it. Is this vindictiveness? Getting even? What possible motive could God have? Holiness alone does not seem to be enough. Holiness says sin cannot be in God’s presence. Hell is an eternity beyond a mere removal from God’s proximity.

Another curious point- what would motivate God to think up such a place in any case? He teaches me the proper way to think in Philippians. Hell could not come into that thought line. How does one, in line with goodness, contemplate the torture of his creatures?

I have started a casual study of scripture at this point, and have gotten few answers. The Bible has a lot to say about sending people there, but little reason why… other than they are sinners. This always leads me back to my list of questions.

Anyway, these have been my thoughts the past couple of days. Romans 11 says to ‘consider therefore, the kindness and sternness of God.” I am troubled considering that sternness.
Feel free to respond, or not, at your leisure.