Over the Christmas holidays I read Christian Smith’s new book, “The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture” (Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com or Kalahari.net). I have followed Christian’s work for many years – he is a well known and insightful sociologist who has spent many years researching the state of the church, youth ministry and Christian culture, especially in the USA.

But in this book, he has turned his attention to how evangelical Christians in America interpret the Bible. It’s an interesting book, as he states often that he is not a ‘professional’ theologian, and is approaching the topic more from a sociological perspective. Yet, his insights are excellent and striking. I think the first half of the book is much better than the second. He starts by defining the type of Biblical readers he has in mind: conservative evangelicals who claim (among other things) that the Bible should be interpreted literally, contains absolutely no errors of any sort (inerrant), was written by God (inspired), represents the full extent of God’s communication with humanity and is sufficient for all matters of life, for all Christians of all ages. He shows that their version of Biblical interpretation is impossible.

Note that he shows it to be impossible. Logically impossible, theologically impossible and practically impossible. The book is a bit long winded, but that’s mainly because I think Smith is hoping that many of the people he is critiquing might read the book. He is therefore meticulous in ensuring his argument is well understood and covers all possible bases.

I find his argument very compelling.

And then on Sunday, the preacher at our church preached from Matthew 28 – the section often referred to as The Great Commission. And right there, I realised was an almost perfect example of the issue Smith’s book focuses in on.

Matthew 28:19 is translated in almost all of our English Bibles as “Therefore, go and make disciples…”. But almost everyone knows that the original Greek construction of the sentence is: “As you go, make disciples…”. Our preacher took this so for granted that he didn’t even mention the discrepancy between what we were reading, and what he was quoting. He simply said, “As you go, you are to make disciples”. This is the correct emphasis of the passage. The “going” is implied, and is not a command. The command is to make disciples, wherever it is that you go. There can be very few people who don’t know this.

So why have even the most modern of translations not updated the text?

I honestly couldn’t tell you. But the point is this: our whole theology does not come tumbling down because we identify this error (for error it is!) and correct it. The community of Christians working together comes to an understanding about what the verses are supposed to mean, and we adjust our thinking accordingly. If needed, we’d adjust our practice too.

We’ve done this so often throughout history, changing our interpretations and understanding of Scripture, and our practices, that it almost doesn’t feel like the point needs to be made. But, sadly it does.

A literalist interpretation of Scripture is not a good reading of Scripture. It believes that there is only one possible interpretation of each Scriptural passage, and that by diligent study we will come to agree on this. And anyone who doesn’t agree is an enemy of God.

So those who read the Bible literally often accuse those who do not of being “liberal”. This is a catch all label which is almost always used dismissively – and pejoratively – and as if it concludes all debate. But it’s just not true. Those who work hard to understand the Bible by looking for dynamic equivalents in order to translate and interpret culturally conditioned passages, and those who try and look beyond factual errors, internal inconsistencies and cultural issues to find the meaning and intent of the passages (without diminishing their belief that they are God’s Words), are not being “seduced by the world” or taking the easy interpretative route. In fact, in most cases, they do this work precisely because they are taking the Bible MORE seriously than they ever have.

You might find it valuable to read one of our archive posts: Confessions of a Bible Deist. If you’d like to read a book about this issue of how to interpret the Bible, then the best one written recently is Scott McKnight’s “The Blue Parakeet” (Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com or Kalahari.net). The best textbook I can recommend is Fee and Stuart’s “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth” (Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com or Kalahari.net).

If we’re going to deal correctly with issues such as creation versus evolution, science versus faith, the role of women, and homosexuality successfully, we have to start where Christian Smith starts: and look to show literalist Biblicists the error – and impossibility – of their approach to Biblical interpretation. Without that, all other attempts at engagement are futile.

As you go, do your best to take God’s Word seriously. Now go!

No related posts.

One of the biggest ‘elephants in the room’ for evangelical Christians is why so many of their young people leave the church in their late twenties. There’s no denying this happens. There are too many “used to evangelical Christians” running around. Something must be wrong.

Some people blame the way youth ministry is run. For example, see this hour long documentary produced by a young churchgoer, “Divided“. They have a point, but I don’t buy into their analysis completely.

A new book by David Kinnaman, Barna Group president, provides some more detail. “You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Church” is an excellent read. The Christian Post reviewed it and provides a summary of the findings (read it here, or a summary below).

This is a problem I have been passionate about for nearly three decades. I continue to be dismayed at how few churches are trying new things in an attempt to reverse nearly a half century of losing young people. This book from Barna provides some clues. What is your church going to do about it?

Study: Why Young Christians Leave the Church

By Jeff Schapiro | Christian Post Reporter, Sep 2011

Nearly three out of every five young Christians disconnect from their churches after the age of 15, but why? A new research study released by the Barna Group points to six different reasons as to why young people aren’t staying in their pews.

The results of this study come from the interviews of teenagers, young adults, youth pastors, senior pastors and parents that were taken over the course of five years.

First, the study says, churches appear to be overprotective. Nearly one-fourth of the 18- to 29-year-olds interviewed said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church” most of the time. Twenty-two percent also said the church ignores real-world problems and 18 percent said that their church was too concerned about the negative impact of movies, music and video games.

Many young adults also feel that their experience of Christianity was shallow. One-third of survey participants felt that “church is boring.” Twenty percent of those who attended as a teenager said that God appeared to be missing from their experience of church.

The study also found many young adults do not like the way churches appear to be against science. Over one-third of young adults said that “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” and one-fourth of them said that “Christianity is anti-science.”

Some also feel that churches are too simple or too judgmental when it comes to issues of sexuality. Seventeen percent of young Christians say they’ve “made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” Two out of five young adult Catholics said that the church’s teachings on birth control and sex are “out of date.”

The fifth reason the study gives for such an exodus from churches is many young adults struggle with the exclusivity of Christianity. Twenty-nine percent of young Christians said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths” and feel they have to choose between their friends and their faith.

The last reason the study gives for young people leaving the church is they feel it is “unfriendly to those who doubt.” Over one-third of young adults said they feel like they can’t ask life’s most pressing questions in church and 23 percent said they had “significant intellectual doubts” about their faith.

David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book on these findings, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Church, said part of the problem may be that many churches are geared toward “traditional” young adults.

“But most young adults no longer follow the typical path of leaving home, getting and education, finding a job, getting married and having kids – all before the age of 30,” he said. “These life events are being delayed, reordered, and sometimes pushed completely off the radar among today’s young adults.”

The Barna Update that highlights this study also says that today’s young adults are heavily influenced by the major social, spiritual and technological changes that have occurred in the last quarter century.

Dan Smith, pastor of Momentum Christian Church in Cleveland, Ohio, told The Christian Post in an email that the six points “resonate” with him.

“I feel like part of God’s calling on my life is to reach those 85 percent (made-up stat) who want to connect with God … but don’t feel like the typical church is helping with that,” he said.

“Most of our church is made up of 20s, 30s, and 40s – younger people – because our leaders have the same mindset as some of the younger people do – we won’t tolerate inauthenicity ‘on stage,’ trite answers, anti-scientific discussion, etc. As Scripture says, we believe that if Jesus is lifted up, young people should also be drawn to him … so we try to lift him up in a way they can participate.”

Instead of overreacting to these statistics (by gearing churches specifically toward young people) or remaining indifferent to them, Kinnaman suggests that churches should cultivate “intergenerational relationships” within their congregations.

“In many churches, this means changing the metaphor from simply passing the baton to the next generation to a more functional, biblical picture of a body – that is, the entire community of faith, across the entire lifespan, working together to fulfill God’s purposes.”

Source: Christian Post

Related posts:

1. Generations @ Church
2. Welcome new readers – a quick intro to the conversation thus far
3. Church is not the end, it’s the means

Rob Bell is a preacher, pastor, author and leading thinker on theological issues. Earlier this year, he wrote a book called “Love Wins” which caused a huge controversy (buy it at Amazon or Amazon.co.uk). One of the upsetting things was the number of detractors who were prepared to “critique” his book without even reading it. Insane, but true. I was sent one which was even printed in the best selling Christian magazine in South Africa where the reviewer freely admitted he hadn’t read the book.

Apparently, people who attend Rob’s church in Grand Rapids were put upon by all and sundry and had a torrid time trying to defend their pastor. On 27 March 2011, Rob started the service with a statement which he labelled “The Agony of Explanation” in their official podcast. I think it is a remarkable few minutes.

He states his beliefs. And there is nothing in any of his books which would contradict this very traditional set of beliefs. He then talks a bit about what he was trying to convey in the book. If you’re not going to read the book, you might as well listen to what he says the message is. He also talks a lot about the attitude one should have. An attitude like Jesus’, I believe.

Anyway, for many reasons, it’s worth listening to Rob in his own words, as he interacts with one of the leadership team of the church:

You can find the full podcasts from the church in their free iTunes channel: Mars Hill Bible Church

Related posts:

1. What is an ‘easy Gospel’? Rob Bell, Love Wins, Galatians and Good News

Desmond Tutu, the irrepressible retired Anglican Bishop from South Africa, is one of my favourite people of all time. His speeches are some of the best in history, and always delivered with verve, humour and passion. He is a remarkable man, and I have had the privilege of meeting him a few times and listening to him speak live.

A collection of his speeches and writings – especially his most controversial ones – has just been published (with two different sub titles, confusingly): “and other provocations” or “speaking truths in times of crisis” (Buy it at Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com or Kalahari.net).

The Huffington Post provided an extended extract. You can read it here, or below. I have highlighted my favourite bit. It’s from the speech that book is named for: God is not a Christian. What a profound thought.

God Is Not a Christian

This talk comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, “I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?” The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, “That side, of course!” The drunk said, “Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide.” Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don’t know what significant fact can be drawn from this — perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine — however named, however apprehended or conceived — is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone — not just Christians, but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.

Source: Huffington Post

Related posts:

1. The marks of a genuine Christian – reflections on a sermon
2. I am a social justice Christian
3. Welcome new readers – a quick intro to the conversation thus far

The New York Times op-ed column this past weekend included an excellent analysis of two recent books and what they tell us about Christians in the USA. Well worth a read, especially at this time of year.

You can read the piece at the NY Times website here, or an extract below.

A Tough Season for Believers

By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: NY Times op-ed column, December 19, 2010

Christmas is hard for everyone. But it’s particularly hard for people who actually believe in it.

In a sense, of course, there’s no better time to be a Christian than the first 25 days of December. But this is also the season when American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by materialist ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism. And the once-a-year churchgoers crowding the pews beside them are a reminder of how many Americans regard religion as just another form of midwinter entertainment, wedged in between “The Nutcracker” and “Miracle on 34th Street.”

These anxieties can be overdrawn, and they’re frequently turned to cynical purposes. (Think of the annual “war on Christmas” drumbeat, or last week’s complaints from Republican senators about the supposed “sacrilege” of keeping Congress in session through the holiday.) But they also reflect the peculiar and complicated status of Christian faith in American life. Depending on the angle you take, Christianity is either dominant or under siege, ubiquitous or marginal, the strongest religion in the country or a waning and increasingly archaic faith.

Happily, for those who need a last-minute gift for the anxious Christian in their life, the year just past featured two thick, impressive books that wrestle with exactly these complexities.

The first is “American Grace,” co-written by Harvard’s Robert Putnam (of “Bowling Alone” fame) and Notre Dame’s David Campbell, which examines the role that religion plays in binding up the nation’s social fabric. Over all, they argue, our society reaps enormous benefits from religious engagement, while suffering from few of the potential downsides. Widespread churchgoing seems to make Americans more altruistic and more engaged with their communities, more likely to volunteer and more inclined to give to secular and religious charities. Yet at the same time, thanks to Americans’ ever-increasing tolerance, we’ve been spared the kind of sectarian conflict that often accompanies religious zeal.

But for Christians, this sunny story has a dark side. Religious faith looks more socially beneficial to America than ever, but the institutional Christianity that’s historically generated most of those benefits seems to be gradually losing its appeal.

In the last 50 years, the Christian churches have undergone what “American Grace” describes as a shock and two aftershocks. The initial earthquake was the cultural revolution of the 1960s, which undercut religious authority as it did all authority, while dealing a particular blow to Christian sexual ethics. The first aftershock was the rise of religious conservatism, and particularly evangelical faith, as a backlash against the cultural revolution’s excesses. But now we’re living through the second aftershock, a backlash to that backlash — a revolt against the association between Christian faith and conservative politics, Putnam and Campbell argue, in which millions of Americans (younger Americans, especially) may be abandoning organized Christianity altogether.

Their argument is complemented by the University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter’s “To Change the World,” an often withering account of recent Christian attempts to influence American politics and society. Having popularized the term “culture war” two decades ago, Hunter now argues that the “war” footing has led American Christians into a cul-de-sac. It has encouraged both conservative and liberal believers to frame their mission primarily in terms of conflict, and to express themselves almost exclusively in the “language of loss, disappointment, anger, antipathy, resentment and desire for conquest.”

Thanks in part to this bunker mentality, American Christianity has become what Hunter calls a “weak culture” — one that mobilizes but doesn’t convert, alienates rather than seduces, and looks backward toward a lost past instead of forward to a vibrant future. In spite of their numerical strength and reserves of social capital, he argues, the Christian churches are mainly influential only in the “peripheral areas” of our common life. In the commanding heights of culture, Christianity punches way below its weight.

Putnam and Campbell are quantitative, liberal, and upbeat; Hunter is qualitative, conservative and conflicted. But both books come around to a similar argument: this month’s ubiquitous carols and crèches notwithstanding, believing Christians are no longer what they once were — an overwhelming majority in a self-consciously Christian nation. The question is whether they can become a creative and attractive minority in a different sort of culture, where they’re competing not only with rival faiths but with a host of pseudo-Christian spiritualities, and where the idea of a single religious truth seems increasingly passé.

Or to put it another way, Christians need to find a way to thrive in a society that looks less and less like any sort of Christendom — and more and more like the diverse and complicated Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning, 2,000 years ago this week.

Source: NY Times

Related posts:

1. Liberal politics, freedom and the role of Christianity in Britain
2. The marks of a genuine Christian – reflections on a sermon
3. Christianity as Country Club – by Scot McKinight

Every now and again I’ll do a quick overview of my favourite posts – and that can act as a nice introduction for new readers and a navigation tool for those who want to “catch up” with some of the thinking and conversations on this blog.

The purpose of this blog is to help Christians and those seeking faith to find new ways to think about what it means to be a Christ follower. I have been writing and blogging on this topic since 1995, and this blog includes a selection of new and old stuff I have been working on. Some of it I’d die for, but some of it is purely experimental (I try and let you know which is which). The point is not to present a fully worked through systematic theology, but rather to allow you to enter into an ongoing conversation with me. If you like, this is just my journal – and you get to look in…

So, with that said, here is a brief intro to some of the posts on this blog:

• The Transformation Gospel vs the Gospel of Evacuation – I first heard this analogy at a conference in Uganda a few years ago. It is remarkable, and has shaped my thinking since.
  
• The Present Future – a book review and summary of a remarkable book on what the church should be doing
  
• The marks of a genuine Christian – reflections on a sermon
  
• Living in an age of transition
  

You will find this blog coming back over and over again to our responsibility to social issues, and especially to poverty, development and social justice. Here is a sample:

• The poor you will always have with you
  
• Jesus and the “Social Gospel” – by Dr Reg Codrington (my father)
  

This obviously impacts on what the church is meant to be doing:

• Church is not the end, it’s the means
  
• Five Things Every Adult Christian Should Know About Youth Ministry
  
• Gary Hamel speaks to church leaders on Shifting Tides
  
• The Challenge of an Ageing Population
  
• Generations @ Church – understanding different generations is a passion and area of expertise of mine
  

And on theological issues:

• Salvation for all?
  
• Some Thoughts on Hell
  

I have a passion for helping people to read the Bible properly, and develop helpful hermeneutics:

• Confessions of a Bible Deist
  
• Taking the Bible Literally
  
• A fun example of the human side of Biblical inspiration
  
• How can we change ingrained mistakes in our Bible reading?

That’s a brief intro. There’s lot to read and discuss – join the conversation.

And stick around. We’ll head into fun waters soon. I plan to start looking at the issue of homosexuality over the next few months.

Related posts:

1. What the Incarnation Means for the Church
2. Cheap Grace
3. Study: Why Young Christians Leave the Church

Originall posted on 1 June 2005

I am busy reading “Blue Like Jazz”, by Donald Miller (Nelson, 2003, ISBN: 0785263 705) (buy it at Kalahari.net or Amazon.com). The subtitle, “nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality” hints at the style – its collection of stories and reflections on experience of a person trying to understand what it really means to be a question on the 21st century.

He explains the title as follows: “I never liked jazz music because jazz music doesn’t resolve. But sometimes you have to watch somebody loves something before you can love it yourself. But I was outside the Baghdad Theatre in Portland one night when I saw the men playing the saxophone. I stood there for 15 minutes, and he never opened his eyes. After that I liked jazz music. Sometimes you have to watch somebody loves something before you can love it yourself. It is as if they are showing you the way. I used to not like God because God didn’t resolve. But that was before in the of this happened.”

The book is about the author’s experiences as he attempts to discover meaning and God. In chapter 4, “Shifts”, he recounts a conversation with a woman, named Penny, who was talking about how she became a Christian. Here is an edited extract, interlaced with some of my own thoughts.

No related posts.

Originally posted on 15 August, 2008

Some time ago I skim-read Brian McLaren’s The Last Word and the Word After That (get it at Amazon.com or Kalahari.net). This past week, I have gone back to it, and am devouring it in depth. It is a story-based reflection on the issue of salvation, with specific reference to hell. It really has got me thinking, and has helped to clarify some questions (see previous post at this blog), if not entirely provide adequate answers.

I think a key part of the problem with our understanding of what it means to be saved, and the issue of hell, the life hereafter and “eternal life”, is that the historical church has created such strong camps/entrenched positions. I don’t find any of them convincing or coherent. And none of the traditional positions gives a “unifying theory of everything” – a consistent and coherent explanation of the whole of the Biblical witness. I find that I have sympathy (and concerns) with every position, from exclusivism (that everyone not personally, consciously, individually “born again” will be excluded from heaven), or inclusivism (that some will be saved through Jesus without ever knowing the name of Jesus), to conditionalism (that hell does not last forever – after a period of conscious punishment, the damned in hell are annihilated) or universalism (that everyone will ultimately be reconciled to God through Jesus, with hell ultimately being empty).

The key to understanding the importance of the issue of hell, is not actually the concept of hell itself, but rather the God to which that concept points. “God loves you – like the greatest father’s unconditional love – and has a wonderful plan for your life, and if you don’t love God back and cooperate with God’s plans in exactly the way He wants you to, God will torture you with unimaginable abuse, forever!” Yes?

Lesslie Newbiggin summed up my current position quite well in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Eerdmans, 1989, p182f) (buy it at Kalahari.net or Amazon.com) (as quoted by McLaren, italics are my comments):

I do not think that it is good enough to just fall back on our traditional answers in this case. The stakes are too high. I am going to do more work on this issue in the next few months, but for now, I do not think it is possible to come to a coherent view on hell (and salvation) without addressing at least the following issues:

 

• Why does the Old Testament make no reference at all to eternal, conscious torment? The Jewish tradition was consistently that of annihiliation at death, with the Pharisaic tradition of a resurrection (which most likely meant a temporary physical resurrection of the worthy, to enjoy the victory they hoped for at the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel) only emerging in the inter-Testamental period.

 

• What will it feel like to “have a party in the living room, while there’s torture in the basement” (McLaren’s concept)? How could we not be aware of hell (as we know it) when we’re in heaven? And if we are, then surely that won’t be heaven (as we conceive it)?

 

• Would the God I worship really impose infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing?

 

• If God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, then why do some people end up there? If its because God is somehow constrained by some higher authority – some “rule” or “legislative issue” of justice – then God is not really God, is He?

 

• What will happen to all those people who lived before Christ came to earth? And what will happen to the majority of people in history who have never heard about Him?

 

• If Jesus is going to return to earth from the clouds with a loud fanfare, and everyone will see him, what will happen to those who bow the knee then and recognise Him as God – will they be saved, or is it too late already? If they will be saved, is it not a really unfair advantage for them compared to people who have died without seeing that miraculous event? If they won’t be saved, why not – they have bowed the knee to Jesus?

 

• If only those who have heard about and rejected Christ are guaranteed to go to hell, how many times and at what level of quality/intensity must one “hear” the Gospel in order to qualify? (And in that case, wouldn’t it be better to just not tell people? And if so, why is it “good news”?)

 

• Was hell (as we traditionally conceive it) part of God’s original design, or is it part of a “Plan B”? If its “Plan B”, its a fairly horrible thought that the devil was able to so seriously mess up God’s intentions, and that there is no way for God to defeat him on this one. Its even scarier to think that it was part of the original design…

 

• But I know there are many (mainly reformed) people who do at least believe that there are some people that God “created for destruction” – people who have no chance of responding to even the clearest presentation of the Gospel, and are destined to hell forever, simply so that Christians can know how lucky they are that God called them to Himself. Do we really believe that God has created some people for destruction – do we truly understand the verses of the Bible that seem to say this? How does this square with everything else we know about God?

 

• The Bible is clear that God does choose some, but it is equally clear that He does this not for exclusion of others, but for the benefit of others: “blessed to be a blessing”. How does this impact our thinking about hell?

 

• How do we reconcile God’s justice and His mercy – both such strong themes in the Bible?

 

• Is judgement at the end of days an individual thing? Is God simply trying to save (individual) “souls”, or is He trying to save His whole creation? If so, what does that mean, and what part must I play? What part does my personal salvation play in the salvation of the whole creation?

 

• Have we confused salvation and judgement? Are they the same thing? Is it possible that all could be judged, and some be saved? Salvation by grace; judgement by works – these are two of the clearest themes in the Bible – how have they been reconciled?

 

• Who is more likely to go to hell: homosexuals, or those guys who carry “God hates fags” signs? (Thanks, Brian for that one)

 

• Why is it, in the Old Testament especially, that the oppressed cry out for the day of God’s wrath, but the oppressors fear it? Is our doctrine of hell linked to our status as “western”, “modern”, “enlightened”, “empowered” Christians?

 

• Would we lose anything, or do any injustice to the intention of the Biblical verses that talk about hell, if we read them with the following hermeneutic: that hell is simply a literary device, meant to warn us about the reality of God’s judgement, and to incite us to live appropriately?

 

• If all the passages about hell are literally true, then explain how we can have fire and darkness, why the worms will not die in the fire and brimstone, or why the concepts of sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna and the abyss – all very distinct Jewish, Zoroastrian, Greek, Roman or Mesapotamium concepts of the afterlife (or not, as the case may be) – are all interchangeably translated “hell” in our English Bibles?

 

• If universalism is “one of the most dangerous of concepts” and a “threat to the core of Christianity” (both are phrases I have heard recently), then how do you explain the following verses: Matt 20:1-16, Jn 10:16 and 12:32, Acts 3:19-21, Rom. 5:12-21; Romans 11:26, 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 2 Cor. 5:19, Phil. 2:9-11, Eph. 1:10, Col. 1:16-23, 1 Tim. 2:4 and 4:10, Titus 2:11, Heb 2:9, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Jn 2:2 (Oh, and that’s virtually every book of the New Testament).

 

• God is God: why does he need a ‘Plan B’?

For now, these are just musings. But they are important ones – this issue of salvation is at the heart of the Gospel, and of who God is. We must get it right. And if we have been wrong, we must correct ourselves as a matter of urgency.

If you plan to respond to this post, please may I ask of you just two courtesies:

(1) If you plan to quote a Scripture, please do not do so from memory. Please do the work of going back to your Bible and reading at least the 10 verses before and 10 verses after the verse/sentence you wish to quote. Please check the context, and ask yourself at least the following questions: (a) is there anything in the passage that might indicate that the passage is not entirely literal (e.g. when Jesus talks of a place where they will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, it is in the context of “separating the sheep and goats”, and a list of actions on which such separation is done is clearly not prescriptive, but rather illustrative)? (b) Does the passage *specifically* indicate eternal, conscious, painful judgment?

(2) Please do not question my commitment to Scripture. It is *because* I am fully committed to understanding the Bible as the infallible word of God that I am asking these questions, and it is on the basis of a renewed investigation of God’s Word that I’m beginning to doubt the traditional positions on the issues I address at this blogsite.

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on the Tyranny of Freedom

A sermon outline originally posted on 13 March 2005

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his 1937 book, The Cost of Discipleship (buy it at Amazon.co.uk or Kalahari.net), wrote: “Costly grace is the hidden treasure in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has…. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because if calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: ‘ye were bought with a price’, and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.”

In the lead up to Easter this year, let us remember that “salvation” is about “justification” AND “sanctification”. To emphasize one over the other is unbiblical. To my mind, this is the single biggest failing of the church at the moment – to be so heavenly minded that it is no earthly good. To emphasize what Jesus came to die for, and to neglect all he came to LIVE for – the establishment of His Kingdom ON EARTH as it is in Heaven!

If we lived more like Christ’s intent, we wouldn’t have many of the issues I talk about elsewhere on this blogsite.

Here is a sermon I preached just before Easter a few years ago:

On February 4, in 1906, a baby boy was born in Breslau, in eastern Germany. His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. At about the age of fourteen, he began to study theology, graduating with a doctorate by the age of 21. He then was the pastor of churches in Barcelona, Spain, and London, England.

After Adolf Hitler took charge as chancellor of Germany in January of 1933, Bonhoeffer watched as many of his friends began to support Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Very few, if any, churches stood against Hitler and his policies. The oppression of the Jews increased, and Bonhoeffer wished to help them. In the spring of 1933, he helped to found a Confessing Church which had already begun to aid the Jews. Many other German parishes in England joined with Bonhoeffer’s new church. But this church closed in 1935, due to pressure from the Gestapo and other Germans.

So Dietrich Bonhoeffer returned to Germany. He started up a seminary course that was a direct attack against the Nazi ideology, but his teaching and ministry was declared illegal in August 1937, and his seminary was shut down and many of his former students arrested. In January 1938, he was officially banned from Berlin. In 1939 Bonhoeffer joined a secret group of high-ranking military officers based in the Abwehr, or Military Intelligence Office, who wanted to overthrow the government by killing Hitler. In September 1940, the Gestapo forbade Bonhoeffer from public speaking and publishing. In 1943, Bonhoeffer was arrested and remained in several different prisons for nearly two years. In February, 1945, he was moved to a concentration camp in Buchenwald. He was hanged at Flossenburg on April 9, 1945, just days before Allied forces liberated the camp. He was 39 years old.

With a story like that, his life really qualifies Dietrich Bonhoeffer to have something to say on ‘The Cost of Discipleship’. In fact, that is the title of his most famous book, written in 1937. The theme of the book is about the difference between cheap and costly grace.

He wrote this (pg 43ff): “Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before…. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

“Costly grace is the hidden treasure in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has…. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: ‘ye were bought with a price’, and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us, Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”

It’s Easter in just two weeks time, and as we focus on what Jesus did on the cross it’s a good time again to remind ourselves of what it is exactly he achieved. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus became the Saviour of the world. Because he died, we don’t have to. He died in our place, and his death satisfies God’s anger against sinners.

This evening, I want to focus on our salvation. We know it is a free gift. But just because it’s free doesn’t mean it costs nothing. Let me explain what I mean, and I hope you don’t mind a quick theology lesson.

When we talk of salvation, there are many small steps that we actually are referring to. To go back to the beginning, we believe that everyone has sinned and falls short of the glory of God. We believe that God is so holy, that he cannot even look at sin. We believe that the penalty for even one sin is death. Jesus’ death was the propitiation for our sins. (Note: Propitiation is the turning aside of wrath.)

We refer to this fact that God can now accept us, as our being “justified”. (Just as if I’d never sinned). For many people, that is all they think of when they think of salvation. But the Bible is very clear that this is only the starting point. Salvation also includes “sanctification”.

John 12:23-26
Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

The Christian life is a costly one. It often requires us to step out of our comfort zones. It requires discipline, self control, and expects more than you can give. It is in stretching ourselves beyond ourselves that we truly find ourselves, in Christ.

There’s a guy named John Wimber, who founded the Vineyard Churches. John lived a rather wild life: he had been a rock musician, dabbled in drugs, and gone down a rotten path. One day, he picked up a Gideons Bible, and started to read it. He couldn’t put it down. The message so moved him, that he began a search for Jesus. Very soon after that he had a dramatic conversion to Christ. The next Sunday he went to a local church for a service, and in his leathers and wild look, sat right in the front of the church – really freaked the pastor out. He took everything in, but was more and more concerned. As a professional rock musician, he really didn’t like the music, and the preacher’s words left him cold.

On the way out after the service, John asked the preacher: “So, when do you do the stuff?” And the preacher replied somewhat bemused: “what stuff?”
And John replied, “You know, the healings and the exorcisms and feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked. You know – the stuff? “
He had been reading about these things in the Bible and was eager to see them done for himself.
And the pastor replied, “Oh we believe in those things, but we don’t do them here.”
To which John replied: “Oh man, I gave up drugs for THIS?!”

The church has often offered cheap grace. By making it too easy to become a Christian, we have made it very difficult to live like a Christian.

To be honest, the way that the offer of salvation is often made to people, you’d have to be an idiot not to accept it. If you study the offer as it is often made, you will realise it is a no lose proposition. You get eternal security, with nothing in return, no future payments, just a simple verbal assent. It is a no cost fire insurance policy. This is cheap grace. It is only half the story.

Like a marathon or endurance race, the impressive statistic is not how many people start the race, but how many people finish it. Its interesting that the Gospels refer to Jesus as Saviour only 16 times. This is the get out of hell free part of salvation – justification. But, they refer to Jesus as Lord 420 times. The life of discipleship part of salvation – sanctification. We cannot accept Christ as Saviour without embracing him as Lord.

Let me be really very clear about what I’m saying. Salvation is by grace alone, and a free gift of God. But there is simply no biblical reason for saying that the glorious truth of justification by faith alone is more important than the astonishing reality that the risen Lord now lives in his disciples, transforming them day by day into his very likeness. Justification and sanctification are both central parts of the biblical teaching on the Gospel and salvation. To overstate the importance of the one is to run the danger of neglecting the other. I think churches today are in danger of doing this. (Refer Ron Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience – but it at Amazon.co.uk).

If being a Christian does not make a difference in our lives, then maybe we’re not really Christians. Salvation is not something you did, and now it’s over, and you’ve got your ticket to heaven. No, salvation is something that must be worked out on a daily basis, and through the power of the Holy Spirit is something we become.

The Bible is very clear about this:

Hebrews 12:2
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. EMPHASIZE PERFECTOR

Philippians 1:6
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed– not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence– continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling

Colossians 2:6
So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him

and so on…

Every year, I buy one of those desk calendars with a tear off for each day. Unlike some more spiritual people, who buy the ones with daily Bible readings, I tend to buy the ones with cartoons, jokes or last year’s one: World’s Dumbest People. The entry for June 6 told this story: On this day in 1981, Doug Whitt and his bride, Sylvia, were escorted to their hotel’s fancy bridal suite in the wee hours of the morning. In the suite they saw a sofa, chairs, and table, but where was the bed? Then they discovered the sofa was a hide-a-bed, with a lumpy mattress and sagging springs. They spent a fitful night and woke up in the morning with sore backs. The new husband went to the hotel desk and gave the management a tongue-lashing. “Did you open the door in the room?” asked the clerk. Doug went back to the room. He opened the door they had thought was a closet. There, complete with fruit baskets and chocolates, was a beautiful bedroom!

That’s kind of like many Christians. They’ve got into the entrance room of Christianity, but haven’t investigated any further.

In Revelation 3:20, Jesus says: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” We often use this as an evangelistic verse, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But, it’s actually directed at the church. It’s said to Christians. Jesus is in the entrance hall, and all he sees around him are locked doors. The door to your wallet is locked tight. The door to your thought life locked tight. The door to your attitudes towards others, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, gender bias – all locked up tight.

So, let me ask you very simply: What difference does being a Christian make in your life?

As I prepared this sermon, I had a list of things you should do to respond to this. As I looked at it, though I realised it was just MY list. I then tried to put myself in other people’s shoes, trying to think what the most common issues were.
Tithing, racism, materialism, greed, gossiping, giving to the poor, lack of self control, lust, sexual issues, and my list just went on and on. But then I realised that this list wasn’t for me to create, that I could trust the Holy Spirit to do that work in each person here tonight. He has done that work in me already as I prepared this sermon.

So, what is the issue in your life that God has been putting his finger on tonight, and maybe over the past few weeks?
You need to respond.
He will not keep asking you forever.
It is his invitation to you, to go to the next level with him.

Unless you take it, you will never be truly happy.

Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn’t really matter.

Crucified with Christ
By Phillips, Craig and Dean

When I look back at what I thought was living

I’m amazing at the price I chose to pay
And to think I ignored what really mattered
‘Cause I thought the sacrifice would be too great
But when I finally reached the point of giving in
I found the cross was calling even then
And even though it took dying to survive
I’ve never felt so much alive

For I am crucified with Christ and yet I live

Not I but Christ that lives within me
His cross will never ask for more than I can give
For it’s not my strength but His
There’s no greater sacrifice
For I am crucified with Christ and yet I live

As I hear the Savior call for daily dying
I will bow beneath the weight of Calvary
Let my hands surrender to His piercing purpose

That holds me to the cross yet sets me free
I will glory in the power of the cross
The things I thought were gain I count as loss

And with His suffering I identify
And by His resurrection power I am alive
And I will offer all I have
So that His cross is not in vain
For I’ve found to live is Christ

And to die is truly gain

1992 Dawn Treader Music/SESAC

Related posts:

1. More on “cheap grace”
2. What the Incarnation Means for the Church
3. Welcome new readers – a quick intro to the conversation thus far

Originally posted on 19 September 2005

In a lecture presented to the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa a few months ago, Eddy Gibbs, a long-term voice for change in the church, talked about his view of “emerging church”. What found really interesting in the report I received, was his list of emerging church characteristics. He since wrote a book on the topic. While it is now slightly outdated, I do think that the picture he presents of the “ideal” emerging church should be aspirational for all church leaders.

“For the past three years I have been working with a younger colleague at Fuller Seminary, interviewing around 100 emerging church leaders in the UK, the US, and other areas of the English-speaking world in an attempt to answer those questions. Here is our tentative list:

• Their churches are worship-inspired with everyone playing an active role in creating the worship experience.
• They are mission focused, committed to responding to the needs of their community and especially in serving the poor.
• They are shaped by context, i.e. seeking an indigenous expression of church that is culturally appropriate.
• They seek to contextualize discerningly, ensuring the integrity of the message and refusing to soften its radical impact.
• They disciple intentionally, which means that they are more concerned to challenge people to live as Christ-followers rather than gathering a crowd.
• Their churches are structured relationally rather than hierarchically. This means that everyone has their place to belong and ministry to which they can contribute.
• Their churches grow organically, which means that they are reproducible, much like a strawberry plant sending out runners that set down new roots and produce more strawberries.
• They network extensively, usually by means of regular contact with the internet, with chatrooms and blogs.
• They gather together periodically the smaller cell churches for times of celebration and re-tooling for mission.
• Lastly, they serve compassionately, in that they are committed to holistic spirituality, rejecting any separation of the spiritual from the secular, which occurred under modernity.

I like it a lot.

Related posts:

1. Four “lanes” of the emerging church
2. Church is not the end, it’s the means
3. What the Incarnation Means for the Church