Statistics. Has there have been a more manipulative and misunderstood tool than statistics? I am likely upsetting 79% of you math types and approximately 21% of your literature types are smiling. Likely 39% of you will not make it to the end of the post (and you should because it’s a decent point) (1% have decided to continue reading. Blessed are you).
Likely, you have heard that statistic that says, “67% of all statistics are made up.” I think I laugh at that 99% of the time.
Rachel Held Evans (a blog that many of you would love) opened with this on a post entitled, “John Piper wants a Masculine Christianity. What do you think?”:
On Tuesday, at the annual Desiring God pastors conference, popular evangelical pastor John Piper spoke on the importance of maintaining what he calls a “masculine Christianity,” arguing that “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.” … She directed us to see more of his comments here.
Although I joke a good bit about John Piper and have criticized some of his blog posts and tweets in the past (the obvious ones, like his explanation of why the bridge that tragically collapsed in Minneapolis and the “Farewell Rob Bell” tweet), he still holds a special place for me. In the mid 90’s, his books were helpfu, kinda like Dave Matthews Band. Sure, I don’t listen much to DMB anymore but he’s still part of my life soundtrack.
I’ve changed a bit over the years but Dr. Piper and I still have some similarities:
Though I’m not a hyper-Calvinist, I do believe in God’s sovereignty.
Though I’m not Baptist, I think baptism is an essential sacrament and I love John the Baptist.
Though I’m not a complementarian, I am happily married to a woman (and I think she is happily married to me ;)
Though I’m not from Minnesota, I think their accent is cool “Minnasoooda” – Beautiful.
So as you can see, we have a great deal in common.
Despite all our seemingly identical views, Piper’s complementarianism has always thrown me. One thing is to have a conviction about it but I’ve always been surprised by the enormous amount of effort that he and his friends have placed in trying to “put women in their place.” They may not be “saying” that but that’s what I’m “hearing.” That’s what struck me regarding Rachel’s post – why is he still talking about this? And what more must a woman do to be treated respectfully in the Church today?
The statements that Piper is making causes great concern for me because in my estimation, he is undermining three important aspects:
1. Clearly he is undermining women. You can spin it however you want (“This benefits women”, “This is divinely ordained”), complementarianism is undermining.
2. But he’s also undermining men. Many of them having been born from women, wed to them and countless others know a woman, maybe even two ;) Seriously it undermines men because the distance created in these battles only creates more lonely men. This is completely antithetical to Genesis 2:18 (“It’s not good for man to be alone …”)
3. It undermines the Scriptures in their original context. Allow me to repeat and clarify – the original Scriptures in their original context, not the English translations being read and understood in our modern day western contexts. But I will be the first to say that we all contextualize (whether we realize it or not).
Rachel asked for men to post about the female imagery of God in the Bible. I rarely respond to these types of posts but this conversation keeps coming up online and offline so here I am. So, the first that came to my mind is the imagery of a nursing mother describing the tenderness of God in Psalm131:2 – “But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.” If I were to contextualize it to a young father such as myself, I suppose I could alter it to, “But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child that I was able to quiet by playing the Thomas the Tank Engine dvd.” You think that’s odd? Picturing a masculine God nursing is quite disturbing, right?
The second is Isaiah 42:14, ” For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.” God going through laboring does not sound very masculine. Perhaps we could change it to “For a long time I have kept the safety switch on my power, I have determined to hold my ground, but now I will cry out like a dragon. I will breathe fire and roar!” Not only does my translation remove this female imagery but I’ve also made it a little more Hollywood friendly. Your welcome.
I imagine I was standing outside the Church, it’s very realistic that I would see this as a crusade against women. Had it none been for my evangelical background and a life-long history of dealing with literalists, I would be utterly confused. But what may also be confusing is that although we don’t fight crusades anymore with violent swords, today we use rhetoric, which can be seen as a different type of attack. Is it possible that so many men respond to Piper’s words in fear of being seen as less manly if they don’t? It reminds me of the bullying tactics we’ve all experienced in our childhood and adolescents.
A few years ago, I was in a context where I asked fellow ministry leader types (mostly men with a few women in attendance) if anyone actually made decisions in their marriage without consulting their spouse. I’ve been married for 12 years and I realize that’s not a long time but I have never uttered the words, “God has ordained me as the man of the house, I make the decisions, and I have decided …..” I asked if anyone else had.
No one said they did and no offered or suggested that my question was loaded and offered an alternative. The possibility remains that everyone was intimidated by my bullying. It’s a reality that every 5’7″ pastor thinks of every time he hops out of his mini-van. But I remember in that moment thinking, “When it comes down to it, I don’t know any real complementarians personally.” They say they are and it may because they want to identify themselves with a position they believe is more Biblical or whatever. I see chauvinism, I see unhealthy dynamics and healthy dynamics but I just don’t see complementarians function the way they say they do.
Perhaps when Dr. Piper prays, he imagines a more masculine God, I’m ok with that – that’s his conviction, his prayer, his mind’s eye. If I am being honest, as much as I try to see God as Spirit, I probably do invoke a masculine presence as well. In meditating about this earlier, I probably do picture God to be more olive-skinned. Is it because Jesus is Jewish? Is it because I’m Egyptian? Why do I picture God speaking in English?
When the day comes to meet God, I will not be disappointed if God has Asian, Hispanic or Anglo features. The imagery that I/we use to describe God is only that – descriptive language. Descriptive language is limited and if you think about it, it can only aid the soul so much.
As has been said numerous times, the Scriptures use masculine language because it was a reflection of the ancient culture. It’s very similar to why God uses our languages to speak to us as opposed to forcing us to learn some theological language. Forget circumcision and baptism, you want an easy way to identify the chosen, make them learn the divine tongue. If you can get past my sarcasm, I think there’s a point worth considering.
While I too would like to see more men in our churches today, I don’t think complementarianism has much to offer in aiding that. Thus, I don’t get too excited when I hear people complain about the “feminization” of the church. Those statements tend to sound like campaign slogans to me. Seems to me you take the missing desire of the church and create the anthem of your choosing. Want more traditional music? Here you go – “The Church today has lost one of its true God-given treasures, its history, it’s rich tradition, it’s hymns!.” Now I think that sentence is true to some extent. But so is this one: Want more progressive music? – “The church today has lost its pioneering spirit. The Church used to champion the arts, now we offer cheap imitations while being stuck in the past.” I find there is truth to that statement as well.
Is it possible that part of the weakness of today’s church is that it’s being operated as a collection of single dads running things? Now I liked My Two Dads and “Uncle Jesse” in Full House as much as the next person, I just don’t think they are an adequate model for leading the church. Perhaps more on that topic another time but this is very much part of the conversation.
Among my favorite aspects of the Scriptures is that despite a male-dominated middle eastern culture, the role and value of women have always been ahead of their time culturally in the Bible. Why do some in evangelicalism want to oppose that? There are so many issues obviously linked to this (women in ministry, just how much leadership, “The head/the source debate”, Paul’s understanding, etc. I’m including a 5 minute NT Wright clip below. I’d also like to recommend Scot McKnight’s ebook Junia is Not Alone. For less than a latte, you can have a better understanding of the New Testament’s teaching on women. That’s incredible for $3.)
I close with this question. Bob Dylan asks in his classic song, “Blowin’ in the Wind”, “How many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man?” If I may apply that sentiment to my post here, “How many must a woman walk before we can celebrate her in the way God intended?” Let us examine our hearts and our theology, do our positions undermine women, men and the Scriptures?
“What if I told you” … that it’s crazy who you might end up agreeing with?
Remember this video that went viral called “Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus” by Jefferson Bethke? Of course you do, you haven’t got a chance to repress it yet. But in case you have closed your Facebook account as a New Year’s resolution, here it is:
Confession: When I first clicked on it, I was a bit excited, cool background, cool typography, cool dude, then after 30 seconds I thought “Uh oh, this is not cool. It’s not even accurate.”
Thought of blogging about it, but by the time I collected my thoughts, I had already seen this excellent one “Lame Poetry, False Dichotomies, and Bad Theology” by Jonathan Fitzgerald on the Patrol Mag site and there were a few others floating around Twitter.
Tony Jones had a few scattered comments about it on his FB and this post.
Kevin DeYoung had a lot to say here.
Then about a week later I saw on Twitter that Bethke responded to Kevin’s critique and his comments were included in a follow-up post by Kevin.
Before I read the post I thought – wow, when Tony Jones and Kevin DeYoung agree, you know your theology really sucks. I pictured neo-reformers putting down their Calvin’s Institutes, complimentarians putting down their Real Marriage books and the husbands giving permission to allow their wives “extra time” to look online (sorry I couldn’t resist), progressives stopped tweeting about the GOP Debates (they’re really the only ones watching) and they all nodded in sad agreement – “The message of this video is terrible.”
No word yet on how Rob Bell and John Piper felt about the whole thing. I picture Rob in Hollywood creating characters for his new tv show. I bet you one is called “Joe Pipper” and he’s from Minnesota and he’s a cross between Robert Duvall’s character, “Sonny” in The Apostle and Simon Cowell. I’m also starting the rumor that John Piper has contacted Flannel to produce a series of DVD’s called, “Righteous O’rgh” (which is the Greek for “anger”, like in Mark 3:5. Could have gone a different tray with this joke, patting myself on the back for such restraint ;)
As you know, the respective sides have not agreed on much over the years. Guinness, iPhones and the continued desire to breath oxygen are some common denominators but I am aware there are tea-totaling Droid users in the respective parties.
But I digress.
The issue that everyone pointed out was that we all hate hypocrisy. “Religion” isn’t the problem. Heartless, cold, empty religion is what causes the damage. Bethke sorta admits to that in this CBS News video (although he plays the “semantics card” a little awkwardly IMO). You should click this to hear the priest use spoken word in response. (“Yo Jeff, let me give you a holler from the collar. I don’t think it’s religion you should be dissin’. I think it’s the nuance that you’re missing” – Not quite the battle from 8-Mile but what can you do).
So here’s where I find myself in light of this little episode. I was grateful for what Kevin DeYoung said. I was grateful that Tony Jones posted about it. I know some will see this as a common enemy thing and while bad theology is a good common enemy, this little scene demonstrated revealed that we could look at the same sky and say it was blue. Or look at a piece of art and say, “Hmmm, not sure the artist got it here.” I want to be careful and taper off the “There’s hope after all for the unity of the Church!” conversation but from my vantage point, this was good for me to see.
I am also grateful overall for Bethke’s response. For a 22 year old, I’m excited for him. I hope this ushers in a season of study and thoughtful engagement with a number of aspects conceding the nature of worship, faith, religion, theology and the church. I hope he leverages his influence to build the church. And I hope his next video is grounded theologically and brings a better conversation to the social media culture.
What if I told you we all do could this?
Last week I made a list of what I was thankful for. There were the obvious blessings like my faith, my family, our dear friends and our new transition here in MA to name a few. After that, everything seems trivia so I made sub-categories – what tangible physical things was I grateful for (hot water, being a 2 car family, the internet, which led to which technologies I was grateful for, cell phones, macbooks, Facebook (that’s the next post) to eventually what ideas/concepts/mantras I was thankful. The emerging church conversation was at the top of the list.
Now, many of us know that the “emerging church” is a bit of a fuzzy term and unfortunately I don’t have the time, space, ability or willingness to “define” it adequately so I’ll reference you to Scot McKnight’s “5 Streams of the Emerging Church” article that was posted on Christianity Today.
I am aware that others may have found these blessings below via another route. This is part of my experience.
1. The emerging church conversation was the first place that I felt that really appreciated and valued non-believers and the over-churched young people. As one in his twenties, new in ministry primarily serving the millennials, this was refreshing. It felt to me that until then, the answer was, “Well these kids are getting worse and worse, they need us to be even more forceful/adamant about Jesus!” I sensed a willingness to engage and contextualize with others that informed and shaped my soul and my ministry.
2. The emerging church conversation forced me to work on my theology. It was from Tony Jones that I first heard that we tend to see Christianity through the eyes of Paul rather than Jesus. That was a pretty arresting moment for me at the National Youth Workers Convention in 2003 in Charlotte. IN ALL HONESTY, this helped me discover and worship a “better Jesus” – a more Biblical one. There were a number of other moments that helped me to see the beauty and depth of Scripture and I know I am a better pastor, Christian, person for it. Still have a long way to go though. After i finished my MAR, I knew i wanted to go back to pursue my MDIV. It’s truthful to say that my experience at Biblical Seminary was truly enriched by all of this.
3. The emerging church conversation introduced me to the missional-church conversation. These years, I have resonated more with the MC but I would be in strong denial (and I believe others would too) if I didn’t acknowledge that this was emerging church conversation that introduced me to the concepts and virtues of the missional life. (Raise your hand if you owned a Brian McLaren book before an Alan Hirsch book – I see those hands :).
4. The emerging church conversation celebrated my appreciations for postmodernity and plurality. I’ve always felt that that I wasn’t conservative enough for the fundamentalists, progressive enough for the liberals and moderate enough for the moderates. Words like “conversation” and “friendship” have gone a long way with me. Not only have I felt welcomed to conversations where I previously didn’t, I welcomed others that I previously didn’t.
5. The emerging church conversation helped spiritual formation by emphasizing the importance of the ancient church. I’ll admit prior to the year 2001, my church calendar skipped from the second century to the start of the Protestant Reformation in 1517. I gained so much by celebrating and learning more about the history and practices of the Church.
So much more I could say, but this is enough. But if you would like to learn more about the emerging church movement through the lens of one of its biggest contributors, check out Tony Jones’ The Church Is Flat: The Relational Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement. Kindle edition is only $2.99.
How about you? What have you gained from the emerging church conversation or if more relevant, what concepts and ideas have shaped your journey?
This past week, our church held two screenings for the film 58: as part of our Global Awareness Week. According to their website, it’s “the inspiring true story of the global Church in action. Witness bravery and determined faith in a journey from the slums of Kenya to the streets of New York. Confront the brutality of extreme poverty and meet those who live out the true fast of Isaiah 58 and create stunning new possibilities for the future.” Read more here.
First, let me say that missions films have come a long way. If A Thief In the Night scared the pit of death out of me (which was its intended purpose right?), most missions films bored me to death. Now when I hear there’s a Missions “something”, I’m pretty interested. (Please don’t pull out those slideshows, my trust is fragile). Based on Isaiah 58, it tells a powerful story.
Here’s what I appreciated:
… that it was rated PG-13. They showed extreme poverty and there are parts that are uncomfortable to watch. No violence, no blood, nothing gratuitous but tough to watch.
(Side Note: There were more children in our screening than I expected, many under 10. I sat in the back and tried to gauge some of the children’s reactions which is hard to do with the back of their heads in the dark. I would say many of the little ones were bored, which was a relief to me in some sense but I imagine parents had some tough and hopefully powerful conversations with their children afterwards. Still, consider the rating.)
… the issues were discussed: In addition to extreme poverty, trafficking and bondage labor were addressed.
I loved the interview with International Justice Missions worker who found his anti-trafficking job so fulfilling. One of my favorite parts of the film.
Enjoyed the storylines of what some people in Western contexts are doing to help. Fashion designer, coffee-shop owner, youth pastor – these people are showing us how we can be involved.
My heart broke for:
… Workitu (7months pregnant) said that her husband abandoned her and children because he didn’t want to die like this.
… one child born into forced labor said that he had dreams but wished he didn’t … because they can’t come true.
… the Images for the girls rescued from trafficking.
Is solving global poverty possible in our generation? It is possible to solve it ever?
This is a tough question. Indeed so much energy, time and money has been wasted (or resources ending up in the wrong hands). Indeed handouts are not sustainable or nor life-giving on a long-term basis. However, I did appreciate what Dr. Scott Todd from Compassion International said. Among the stats mentioned were the work has cut in half the number of children who are dying per day (was 40,000/day, now 21,000. Among the reasons is more access for more people to clean drinking water). If we can think through the gravity of that statistic, there is work to be done here.
So much more to say but check it for yourself – watch the trailer and here’s the link. from Wing Clips who have posted the full download, along with a study guide for free.
58: THE FILM Trailer from LIVE58NOW on Vimeo.
Uh oh. I just took three sacred things, college football, politics in a coming election year and our faith and mashed them together. Well, it’s probably a good thing.
A few “cut to the chase” thoughts here.It doesn’t matter to me if you like Tim Tebow or not.I am not trying to persuade you of who to vote for (or not vote for). And in all honesty, I am quite a while from making up my mind.This post is concerned with the inconsistencies I see within the evangelical culture in whom we choose to pour our love over, whom we reject and our motivations.
I happen to like Tim Tebow, though I couldn’t care less about the Gators and have a hard time keeping up with college football (but I love the highlights). Even more importantly, my father-in-law is a huge Gators fan, so Tebow gives us something to talk about. What I do find surprising is that so many people have been talking about Tebow for years – he’s quite the figure.
Now, I’ll admit, initially I was a bit suspicious of Tebow’s outspoken Christian faith. My suspicion was further fueled by the media’s love for him – “He must be their type of Christian.” As time went on, I was quite amazed by Tebow’s public persona. He seems to me very genuine and I find myself not only respecting him, but concerned for him and every so often, I include him in my prayers. It’s clear that many cannot wait for him to fail and by fail I mean morally and that’s regrettable.
I often wonder if Tebow wasn’t an outspoken Christian, would he be as popular? Would he be as popular to Christians? It’s safe to say that he wouldn’t be, right? Would he more appealing to those that currently disdain him if he had a few DUI’s and was as womanizing as others in professional sports? Popularity brings many things, fans, endorsements, cameos, beautiful girlfriends/boyfriends, book contracts and many critics/detractors/enemies Celebrity is a strange thing you know.
The interesting thing to me is that Tebow is becoming part of the culture war and this is not a fair thing to him. Christians are upset that people hate him because of his faith and they’re responding by being even more zealously in love with him and propping him higher on the cultural stage. With that will come a world of expectation on him and these things usually don’t turn out well for the person in Tebow’s position. Undoubtedly, there will be a Tim Tebow controversy playing all over Sportscenter and cable news and it will have nothing to do with his on the field performance.
Enter Mitt Romney. He’s the GOP frontrunner. If he was smart, he’d let Tim Tebow baptize him in the Mississippi and make him his running mate. (John McCain is thinking, “Now you tell me.”) The funny thing is that some Christians don’t like Romney because he’s Mormon. There was a pastor in a big church inTexas who said that was quite outspoken against Romney’s convictions. Now from one pastor responding to another, I’d say that there are better ways of promoting your candidate of choice and it came across as an attack. It’s generally not good rhetoric that we dismiss candidates based soley on their religious beliefs. And for the sake of this post, most of us find it unfair that many do so with people like, in this case, Tim Tebow.
Back to Romney, while all of us of have every right to prefer another candidate that better represents him/her, I’d like to encourage fellow believers to be responsible in their thinking and dialoguing. I am personally not sure who the best candidate is for our country and currently unsure of who best represents me. I do think it’s irresponsible to reject the Romney-types based solely on their faith. It implies that one who would have voted for him had he checked the right box, had he been “their type of Christian”. One issue voting is a dangerous thing.
Make no mistake, I believe faith plays a central role in someone’s life and if they claim to be “nominal” of a particular type of faith, I tend to see that as a humanistic type of faith (like faith in us humans which is a terrible “religion” in my opinion). But I’m not sure I can reject Romney based on his faith until I see how if affects him. This reminds me of Bill Clinton’s Bible and his knowledge of Scripture. He could probably walk into a pulpit with his Christian vocabulary and speaking talent and impress many congregations. And while I’d like to think he has grown for the better over the years, the point remains, checking the “Christian box” is a tricky thing.
As the Tim Tebows and the Mitt Romneys pass through our cultural landscape, let us be careful that we not objectify them on the basis of their faith and be careful to not assign their worth to us by because they are not our type of believer.
You are more than welcome to push back, offer clarity and insight – thanks for reading!
A couple weeks ago, the pastor from our satellite campus preached on Exodus in a sermon entitled “Free at Last!” You can listen to it here. Pastor Tom offered, “Imagine waking up and remembering the promises of God in the midst of 400 years of slavery”. The short answer (and I don’t be sound smug) would be – that would be extremely tough.
I tend to see things in lifetimes and 400 years seems too long for God to “fulfill a promise.” This seems quite natural for many of us to agree with given our instinctive reactions. On a larger spiritual scale, 400 years takes on a different look. On my best days, I imagine waking up to that promise would stretch my faith. I may even one day dare to leave my oppressor along with the rest of my 2 million people. That sounds crazy doesn’t it? As Tom continued to remind us, “Every one loves a good liberation story.”
I know I am prone to exaggeration and dramatization, but if I’m being honest, I cannot intelligently identify myself with the type of slavery that the Israelites faced in Egypt, the slavery of Africa or today’s modern day slavery (in the forms of injustices like human trafficking, forced prostitution, forced manual labor, etc.). Most of us can’t and I think we need to be sensitive here.
At the same time, there are other forms of slavery like in in the forms of bondage, drugs, alcohol, various sex-addictions to name a few. We probably know too many terrible stories and may the Lord give mercy for the stories that are near us (and of course to all who struggle).
As I was listening to the message, my mind was curious about what we as a Church have been in bondage to for the last say 400 years. What do we need collectively need to seek deliverance from? My friends and I talk a lot about the “consumer church”, suburban materialism, entitlement issues and so on but I’m afraid that while those are deep issues, the central problem is deeper still.
It seems we hold our souls in bondage to ourselves instead of truly giving our lives to God. And we do it collectively. We as Christians do that as a Church.
I’ll admit that sounds intense – what we’re holding ourselves prisoners?
Yes I think so.
The mental picture is even more disturbing. We’ve locked ourselves in some type of a cell. But instead of it being dark, and gloomy with terrible sanitation, we’ve personalized and accessorized and customized it. We have our favorite pictures on the wall, our favorite show on the LCD, our favorite music playing. – we’ve done everything to make sure it doesn’t look like a prison cell but that doesn’t stop us from looking out the window wishing for something better – something that better defined “freedom”.
Another angle to see this is we usually identify with Moses or the enslaved Israelite but I think it would be wise of us to envision us as the Pharaoh. He is the one who has hardened his heart, he is the one that cannot let go. Even as God is revealing His glory to him, he is fighting for control.
When I started to see Christianity as something that was life-giving rather than a philosophy of life, my idea of freedom matured. Among the needs and answers for the Church today, I’d like to submit that if we can free ourselves from our own slavery, release ourselves to the open promised land that God has invited us to and live in obedience to that vision – the Church would be different, the world would be different, we would be different and it would be good different.
There were approximately 2 million Israelites that escaped Egypt in the Exodus. There are approximately 2 billion people globally that identify themselves as Christians – we should really make a break for it.
I know what some of you are thinking, the church must be pretty desperate these days to be taking lessons off of radio hits. Yes and no.
Like most people, I go through swings in my music listening. It ranges from “only new music” to “no new music”, to “only my iPod” to “only lectures and audiobooks”. These days, I’m all over the place and when I’m commuting, I’ve been listening to the radio lately. I usually hit 1 of 5 songs: Adele, a bunch of dance songs (what I call the “Move This” of the day), and Maroon 5’s “Moves Like Jagger”.
I only like one Maroon 5 song, “Sunday Morning” and while I can admit that their latest single is catchy, I doubt I’m going to care a short while from now, even with the fantastic singing of Christina Aguilera. But for now, who cares, it’s fun and it means it’s 5 more minutes that we don’t have to listen to Adele (yep, I’m even tired of her new song).
Initially I was bothered that they would use Mick Jagger like this. Then I was relieved that they didn’t use Bono. Then I thought the song was the typical objectifying and short-term gratification message of the day. Then during my 30th listen (which if I produced the math, that’s a week’s worth of station surfing while commuting to work), I thought the Church could take a cue from the creation of the song.
First, forget all the lyrics. All of them. In fact, it already seems that some churches and scandalous pastors have already lived out some of these lines – lol (a sad lol). Second, it’s good every to every so often to point back to an important figure in “music tradition”. And just like the Adam Levine and his producers hoped, old people and young people will like it. In the church, we need more of these types of connection points.
I heard someone complain that there is no originality left in pop-culture, everything is being ripped off. Exhibit A were all the movies that are out now that are either from the 1980’s or sequels. And “Moves Like Jagger” was exhibit B. My friend said, “They got to appeal back to a rock icon to get people’s attention again because there aren’t any icons today …” If I understood him right, I’d have to disagree, we are not short of Rock/Pop/HipPop/Country “Icons” but that can be debated another day.
Here’s what I am saying – this song highlights the moment when inter-generational reference points work well. And we should look for more of these opportunities within the Church. When pop culture connects the generations better than the Church, I think most would agree that’s regrettable.
It’s good to look back. It’s good to look ahead. It’s good to mix the two and create.
I received a review copy of Francis Chan’s new book Erasing Hell: What God Really Says About Eternity and the Things We Made Up from David Cook Publishing and agreed to post my thoughts this week. I am not required to post a positive review, all of these thoughts are my honest reactions.
Who is Francis Chan? Just about one of the better evangelical speakers around. He has a fantastic presence, possess excellent communication skills, and is “likable”. He has a casual, “say it as it is” style, yet uses a lot of passion, and is Biblically informed. From the back of his book: “Francis is a pastor, international speaker, and church planter, is the New York Times bestselling author of Crazy Love and Forgotten God. Chan is also on the board of World Impact and Children’s Hunger Fund.”
Why the Book? As you probably know, there has been a lot of interest surrounding heaven, hell, and the afterlife since Rob Bell released Love Wins. A plethora of books are being released on the subject and among all of them, I was interested in reading Chan’s thoughts. As you can see from the previous paragraph, I appreciate him and as a result, know that this post is not objective (as if one actually could be completely objective). I’m sure most of these books are not being written mainly out of a motive for profit but I’ve been wrong before. If you know Chan’s story, you’ll know that money is not a motivating factor for him which draws me more to the book and given the attention surrounding these types of books, I feel this should be said.
What I Liked
– He and his friend Preston Sprinkle (who has a Phd in New Testament studies and is a professor at Eternity Bible College) spent as much attention has possible focusing on the Biblical texts that talk about the afterlife.
– As alluded to earlier, because of who Chan is, I was excited to read how he would respond to Bell. Though I didn’t always appreciate what Chan was saying, I did like how he was saying it. And I find that to be very important if we really are interested in conversation.
– The tone of the book is very pastoral. I’m a sucker for this and I know I keep saying it but there are good number of pastors who know how to address an audience. I think Chan does as excellent of a job as anyone.
– This is an excellent book for small group study and expect that it will sell numerous copies for this reason alone and I’m sure there will be a group study questionnaire guide released by the time I finish this post.
– Really liked Chapter 2 “Has Hell Changed? Or Have We?” (not really the title but the content was solid) and loved Chapter 5 entitled, “What Does This Have to Do with Me?” Seriously, the best chapter in the book and reminds of why I appreciate Chan. I’d even say that chapter saved the book for me.
– Liked his treatment of “gehenna”. I did always believe that Jesus is referring to a garbage dump and I’m yet not convinced that he’s not. However, between Chan and Scot McKnight’s post on the subject, I do need to give it’s due attention.
– I expected Chan to lay off certain difficult thoughts (like in Chapter 6 but he took everything head on). Not sure if he gave it the space needed but it’s an excellent summary that points to God’s sovereignty and man’s need for humility.
– Chan’s wrestling with certain difficulties (but I quietly wished he would have shared more).
– the bibliography (though I wished he would have used NT Wright’s Surprised By Hope a bit more)
What I Wasn’t Crazy About
– As much as I like Chan, I really didn’t like the title or subtitle (didn’t really care for the video either). I know many times the author doesn’t decide on that and I get what they’re trying to say but I feel it’s poorly titled. I also find the subtitle to be pretentious. Does anyone really know what God says about eternity? Let he who is without sin lift up his perfect hermeneutics.
– Not sure of the first chapter on universalism was the place to begin though it was well-written. After my second reading, I thought chapters 1 and 2 should have been flipped. That said, I think Bell would agree with what Chan is saying and respond with, “Right that’s why I’m not a universalist either.”
– I felt that Chan wasn’t really responding to Bell but instead merely recentering the classic evangelical teaching of eternity. He just happens to say it better than most because of his exceptional communication skills but I think discerning readers will be a disappointed that they already know much of this content (though it’s well organized). Consequently, if you are coming to this conversation late, I suggest you read Erasing Hell first, then read Love Wins. Because even though Chan references passages in LW, Bell is responding what Chan is articulating. Anyone else see this?
– While I didn’t want Chan to go blow for blow with Bell (like the way DeYoung did in his .pdf), I was expecting a little more engagement since it was marketed as a response. I would be very interested in seeing what was edited out :) Perhaps, I should say, it’s a good book, but not an excellent response.
– I feel there is room to speculate on the afterlife when you offer the disclaimer that you are speculating. Thus, I wished that Chan would have shared his imagination a bit more. That is what’s so powerful of the first third of Bell’s LW.
Conclusion
With all sincerity, I did enjoy reading Erasing Hell and I expect it to be the better among the “Response to Bell” books that are being released.
And though the content is much thicker than LW, it’s still reader-friendly. My advice is wherever you start read Surprised By Hope by NT Wright , Love Wins and Erasing Hell if you really are interested in the subject.
Back when I was in Jr. High, the world was scheduled to end. It was 1988 and there was a popular book out called 88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988. It was written by Ima Krazeman but he went by the name Edgar C. Whisenant. For whatever reason, my dad drove me to school that unfateful day and I asked him if it was true that the world would end. He gave me that look like, “Are you an idiot?”, but because my father is loving, he changed his face and tone and said, “Don’t worry, I’ll see you at dinner.” Which turned out to be true so I regard my father as more qualified at predictions than Whisenant and Harold Camping.
There’s always an “End of the World” prediction lurking somewhere in pop-culture. Whether it be a Nostradamus prediction at the checkout line or a summer blockbuster movie or a guy on a New York street corner preaching that it’s time to “turn or burn”. There are also more sophisticated ways of communicating humanity’s demise – like the Discovery Channel’s many features or Y2K or Al Gore’s televangelism ministry. I mean speaking of Gore, besides not literally standing on a street corner and having nicer hair, I’m not really sure what the difference is between him and the “bullhorn guy”. His “scriptures” are the scientific research that he puts his faith in. In any case, it seems every 10 years or so, we have an end of the world prediction from a rich white guy.
For many of us, this is all non-sense and even after a few moments of letting our imagination run away, its relatively easy to dismiss. But I have found for young people like Sr. High students, that there is a good bit of fear created. If you ask some, they are inclined to tell you that a scenario like Jake Gyllenhaal’s “The Day After Tomorrow” is possible because of what we are doing to our planet. What I also found is that many of our Christian students (and Christian adults!) are afraid of the return of Jesus.
A quick pause here because I know some of you – I’m all for stewardship of our planet (in fact, I was just voted “Greenest Youth Pastor” at a recent local youth pastor gathering. The prize was a used napkin). But the scenarios in these doomsday movies don’t hold much merit for me. In a world where anything is possible, it seems the wiser thing is to trust in a God that cares for humanity and creation than to fear cosmic destruction from arbitrary means. But I digress.
It’s been my observation that the people who talk most about the end of the world and the rapture are generally older people. From my thirty-something perspective, it seems that they want to avoid the process of dying. It’s been my experience and continued observation that those who most resist the idea of the end of the world and the rapture are younger people. Among the reasons, they too would like to experience the joys of physical intimacy or to be blunt – sex. Mention this to a bunch of young Christian married couples who were raised in church and they will all tell you some version of the nightmare they had about Jesus ripping the roof off their sanctuary after the pastor declares them husband and wife. “Noooo, we read I Kissed Dating Goodbye and now were going to Punta Cana for our honeymoon, please Jesus, come back next week!”
Things like the “Left Behind” series that create this idea of being “rapture-ready”, sermons and youth group lessons that only focus on the “Christ coming to judge the world” and listening to someone say, “If you are paying attention to what’s going on in the Middle East then you know these are the end times. It’s predicted in Scripture as plain as day …” has created a theme of fear that has been picked up by our young people. In the hope of creating urgency to live faithful in anticipation of the return of Jesus and our fascination with the more sensational elements of Scripture has blinded us to the more beautiful aspects of Scripture.
As a youth pastor, I try to find the balance of these things. Frankly, I am enjoying this season of life and am grateful to God for many things. I understand that not all people feel this way. Theologically I also understand that being in the presence of God will be the greatest experience beyond our imagination. When asked ‘What will heaven be like?’ I try to explain that if you have never wanted a moment to end, that’s a foretaste of something even more beautiful than that. In a good season or a tough one, this seems to be a helpful way of understanding the hope of the afterlife in the presence of God.
And then we turn to how the New Testament describes the return of Jesus. Often, it is described as a wedding and the church is described as the bride, and Jesus is the groom. I find that very fitting and mildly surprising. A lot of different types of imagery could have been used but Paul, John and the author of Hebrews use the metaphor of a wedding. Feel free to check out passages like Ephesians 5:23-40, Hebrews 12:22-23, John 3:28-3 and Revelation 19:6-8, 21:1-2, 9-11.
Every bride anticipates her wedding day and this is how the Church should anticipate the return of Jesus and our students responded well to that. Now this whole post is contextualized to the believer of Jesus. I have no answer for those outside the Christian faith. I think it’s extremely important that Christians not use the return of Jesus as an “evacuation route” and evangelize with tactics of fear and hype but rather to see Jesus’ return as a loving, hopeful, beautiful thing – describing it like the greatest of all weddings.
Hey there, welcome and thanks for taking the time to read my blog. Really, I appreciate it. - Tim Ghali
[Read More …]
Recent Comments