Hell on Christmas

What kind of person thinks about the troublesome doctrine of hell during the Christmas season? Hey, I can't control when the thoughts occur. After all, this is "preacher thoughts" and such thoughts are not inclined to follow the liturgical calendar. (For the record, I love Christmas and love to reflect on the birth of Immanuel during this time).

Actually, it was a conversation about Christmas that led to my thoughts on hell. I was watching a news commentator interview a president of some free thought organization that capitalized on the holiday season to spread their message of godlessness and the triumph of reason (we might ask them where does reason come from and how do we know it is indeed reasonable, but that's for another blog). What the woman found most objectionable about faith in the biblical god was--no surprise--the doctrine of hell. She viewed it as a terrifying means of indoctrinating children into staying in the faith.

Hey, I am sympathetic to her concern. I have sat across the table from Buddhists in Japan who could not consider becoming a Christian, because they thought it meant they accepted their deceased loved one was in eternal torment. At that point, it really doesn't matter if your doctrine of hell is eternal conscious torment or annihilation. Hell is the final and complete separation from God and all things good and holy. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

Postmoderns hate the doctrine of hell, because it represents the ultimate exclusion in a world of inclusion (that latter point may be debatable, but this is the way postmoderns see the world or at least how they think the world should be).

But let's be real honest for a moment. It is not possible to be a Christian who relies on the authority of Scripture for the understanding of his/her faith to reject the doctrine of hell. Many Christians claim not to believe in hell. Fair enough, but they have rejected biblical authority. There's simply no way around that.

Biblical Christians should remember that we cannot say with certainty who is consigned to hell, nor has that ever been our job. We can handle this topic of hell with much more humility and sensitivity than we have in the past.

Yet, I imagine if I asked the aforementioned free-thinking lady if she desired justice in this world, she would say yes. Now again there is a problem with reconciling the concept of justice with an atheistic worldview, but leaving that aside, most will agree that justice is desired and found severly lacking in our world.

So, you tell me; is it better for their to be a hell or for those responsible for enslaving 250,000 Haitan children to escape justice in this world and the next? There can be no justice, if injustice is not rectified in the world to come (because I don't see it happening in this world). So, if there is no hell, then there is no justice. But the Christian God is a just God. We may just need to do a better job of remembering and communicating that fundamental aspect of our theology.

Does God care what choice we make all the time?

I finally concluded a 5 and a 1/2 month job search this week. We are moving to Portales, NM where I will be the new pulpit minister at the 3rd and Kilgore Church of Christ (http://www.3kchurch.org/). Of course, we are both relieved and excited, but there were so many lessons learned through the thoroughly exhausting journey.

I applied to 23 churches over five months and, of course, in the end there was only one standing. Along the way I withdrew my candidacy from several, but many took care of that for me! I had two in-person interviews that did not result in an offer, and obviously one that did. I turned down three interviews at the end, because my search was concluded, but there was a touch of irony there. For over three months, I couldn't buy an interview and then in the last few weeks I had back-to-back to interviews and three invitations!

Because there were so many opportunities swirling around me at the end, I thought the decision would be rather complicated. My mother-in-law kept saying that the decision would become clear when it came time to decide. I love her, but I didn't believe her. I thought, how do you know God will make it clear? Is God under any obligation to make it clear? Could he present two (or more) totally acceptable, but not obviously clear choices and be pleased with either choice?

When the church in Portales made their offer it still was not very clear. But then an amazing thing happened ; less than 48 hours from the time of the offer, God made it crystal clear what we were to do. My mother-in-law was right!

Who can say that God always has to work one way or another? I don't know that he always has to get us to a specific location/situation. We are movable parts on a big playing field (the Kingdom), so God is not hamstrung, if someone chooses one place over another. However, in this case, God seemed to want us in Portales. I like the peace that comes with that kind of clarity!

Making Peace with Postmodernism

I can remember when the subject of postmodernism was a trendy topic at every Bible lectureship. In fact, in the mid-to-late nineties you didn't really have a legitimate lectureship without a class on postmodernism. I attended some of these classes until I got tired of hearing the same stuff over and over again.

Looking back on our (speaking from my experience in Churches of Christ) early tone and rhetoric, I would say it was skeptical at best and down-right combative at worst. Postmodernism was viewed as the great cultural threat to the Church or even to the very concept of objective truth in general. It seemed that no matter how many lectureships and articles we produced on postmodernism that we usually always focused on its emphases of pluralism and insistence on subjectivity. If anyone dared to raise a positive element of postmodernism, they were usually eyed with suspicion...maybe they don't believe in objective truth either.

Now keep in mind that this is mainly my subjective recollection. I am sure we produced some fine scholarly work on the relationship between postmodernism and the gospel, but I was either to simplistic to recognize it, or I just never went on a hunt to find it.

Still I bet my recollection isn't too far off. It seems to me that our analysis of postmodern culture is much more sophisticated today. We recognize that both subjectivity and pluralism present challenges for those of the Christian faith. However, I think we eventually began to realize we were critiquing postmodernism from a modern vantage point (which is full of anti-Christian bias as well, but that is the subject of another blog) instead of a biblical/Christian worldview critique.

Now we seem to appreciate that postmoderns place a great emphasis on authentic relationships and spirituality. Postmodernism also keeps us honest in forcing us to own up to the reality that we all have biases. Truth itself may not be subjective, but we cannot evaluate truth claims in a detached and objective manner. Objective truth is still disseminated through the subjective individual. Christians are finally beginning to see the rationale in putting down our combative rhetoric against postmodernism and instead learning to contextualize the gospel for a postmodern audience.

In some ways, we are making peace with postmodernism; not because we think it is thoroughly biblical (and we must know and show where it is not), but because we realize that is no less biblical than the modernism that preceded it. Or maybe its because we finally realized that instead of focusing all of our energy on condemning the prevailing culture, we had better start finding a way to redeem it.

A good read on this subject (especially for preachers, but for all church leaders too) is Chris Altrock's Preaching to Pluralists: How to Proclaim to Christ in a Postmodern age.

Lack of Wisdom in Obama's War on Fox

This is my first non-theological post (though ultimately everything is theological!). We will call this a political post; I guess. I have been quite appalled at the Obama administration's efforts to marginalize Fox News. I think it is very unwise and actually petty.

First a couple of qualifiers. I am not anti-Obama. I never have been. I almost voted for him, but couldn't pull the trigger because of his pro-choice record. Still, when I voted for McCain, it was one of those 51/49 kind of decisions. In the end, I had to vote with my heart (instinct). Regardless, I have never bashed Obama and never cheered for him to fail. I hoped his policies would succeed in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been directly impacted by this woeful economy. How could I not pray for the success of his economic stimulus?

I am also not all that upset about his health care reform. I despise health insurance companies and it is absurd that there are nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance. The Bush administration had eight years to do address this crippling issue, but apparently found it not politically expedient to lift a finger for reform. I believed that Obama's election victory granted him a mandate to try it his way.

Yet, all of the above demonstrates the foolishness of what Obama is doing in relation to Fox News. If you haven't followed the story, Obama's aides have been lambasting the Fox network to other media outlets, refusing to acknowledge it as new agency, admonishing other media outlets to ignore stories that break on Fox, and refusing interviews to the network while making the rounds with all the rest.

See, I watch Fox News. I don't like all of their commentary programs (Beck andHannity), but I enjoy O'Reilley and the news coverage in general. When the President marginalizes Fox News, they marginalize me (and other folks like me). Guess what Obama administration? I am not a rank and file Republican or right-wing nut-job who likes to get his ideology massaged by watching Fox News. I am an independent swing voter and there are millions out there similar to me.

Furthermore, the paranoia necessary to fuel a war on America's #1 watched cable news channel is downright disconcerting and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Are they so thin-skinned in the White House that they can't tolerate any dissenting voices? Are their egos stroked so frequently by MSNBC and other such media outlets that they are shocked beyond belief when they encounter criticism? Is it really in America's best interest to try to silence your opposition?

Here's hoping President Obama and staff get wise, because their current path concerns me. If they don't, then the swing voters they are alienating will having something to say in the ballot boxes soon enough.

The Lie of Simplicity

I recently shared with an e-mail list that I have been on for over ten years that I had finished my Master's Degree in Theology and Ethics. As I expected most were happy for me and just took the opportunity to express congratulatory sentiments and then went right back to arguing the hot topic of the day. Yet one member in particular used the occasion to proclaim her tired old talking point of simplicity. She did this by questioning whether or not I had or would allow my education with its fancy degrees and titles to corrupt my understanding of the simplicity of the gospel and scriptures.

Those of us who hang out in Restoration Movement circles hear this sort of "reasoning" often. It is understandable, really. Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone believed that the unity of Christian church had been compromised by church councils and their creeds. What was needed--no what was required--was a return to the simplicity of the Scriptures. To whatever degree they were correct about councils and creeds muddying up the waters, so to speak, can you see the problem in their approach? They went to the scriptures assuming simplicity. You usually find what you are looking for. This had a lot to do with the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism, but that's a blog for another day. I just say it now, so you know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air.

A lot of the focus on simplicity was to blur or even erase the line between clergy and laity. You didn't need a degree in theology to understand the scriptures. Anyone could open the Bible, read it, and grasp its clear presentation of simple facts (the Bible as a collection of facts was distinctively a Campbell emphasis). In many ways they were right, of course. You didn't need a degree to understand the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you read it apart from any sophistication, nuance, or discipline. Yet, as with most well-meaning movements, out went the baby with the bathwater.

So, my list friend who used my recent academic achievement as her latest soap box to proclaim the gospel of simplicity got me to thinking. Is the word even in the Bible? Because if not, there is great irony in the simplicity advocates calling for a return to the simple reading of scripture, if simplicity itself is conspicuously absent from the Bible! I did a quick search on www.biblegateway.com with several versions and could not find even one form of the word simple (there might be synonyms or similar ideas, and I am not saying that the word doesn't exist in any modern English translation or that I know the Greek/Hebrew equivalents. I am just using this search for illustrative purposes).

Your level of education has little to do with your ability to read and comprehend scripture. However, the notion that the Bible is inherently simple is a myth not worthy of the God who inspired it. Discipline, training, practice, and reading in community with other believers are all aspects of successful Bible reading/study. One of the errors of Restoration Movement fathers was that in advocating the correct position that all could read scripture, they also unwittingly proliferated the rampant American individualism that survives today. We don't learn scripture best alone.

I suspect instead fear is part of what upholds this unbiblical notion of the simplicity of scriptures. We are afraid of what we don't understand. God doesn't fit into our box as well, if we can't simplify his revelation. We don't want the tensions produced by the doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, atonement, predestination/free will, etc. The very subject nature of the Bible precludes the very notion of simplicity. Yet, where mystery abounds, it should humble us and leave us in awe of God (cf. Rom. 11:33-36).

A pledge and update

I confess I've been a terrible blogger in terms of consistent posting. The result? No regular readers and a long uphill battle to build up any. But if you do stumble across this blog and find it interesting, then my pledge is to write more often and perhaps be less one dimensional in the variety of topics I cover. Still, expect most of my posts to be theological in nature.

As it turns out, I am currently unemployed and have more time to write. I need to keep myself sharp and this blog will hopefully be therapeutic, even if no one reads.

So, a preacher can get laid off too. No real surprise there, but this is a time where I am having to practice what I preach. I've told the congregation that God is always with them no matter what they go through. Now, do I really believe it for myself? Intellectually, the answer is, of course, yes. Yet, it is a whole other matter to live that intellectual belief out in our everyday lives.

So, perhaps (for my imaginary readership), I will try to keep you posted as we try to discern God's will for our future.

Eschatological Church?

A professor recently remarked in class that true growing churches (i.e. those making conversions) are eschatological churches. If you don't know what that word means, it is a theological word that means end times or study of last things.

He did not mean that growing churches spend all their time reading the "Left Behind" series or obsessing about the antichrist. He meant that churches on the move are churches who really believe they are going somewhere. They are not just churches who offer the latest financial management or marriage enrichment seminar. They are not just sending a message that says,"Hey, we know life is miserable, so come and be a little less miserable with us!" He meant these churches have a sense of purpose and resolve which betrays an authentic belief that the people of God are moving towards a "new heaven and a new earth."

For the record, I am not premillenial, and nor do I believe that a specific antichrist (don't we have a lot of those in the world already?) has to come before the end of time. Jesus could bring time to an end before I finish writing this blog or before you finish reading it! But I do believe in the final consummation of the kingdom of God and the ushering in of the new heave an new earth. I believe every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. Phil. 2:5ff).

Yet, I was convicted by the professor's words. I am a preacher and I couldn't conclude that my preaching reflected this eschatological urgency he was addressing. Shouldn't every sermon and every lesson at least hint of this final conclusion of history and express confidence in the victory of the Lamb and the people of God?

What a powerful message in a world torn apart by war, poverty, disease, sin, and death! Are we just inviting people along on a journey to nowhere? Or are we offering something utterly transcendent to this world of sin and death? "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain..." (Rev. 21:1-4).