Monthly Archives: March 2011

March 29, 2011 · 4:08 pm

Jesus in the Desert: A Midrash?

Jesus in the Desert

My community has been spending some time with Jesus in the desert for Lent.

We have relied upon Matthew’s recounting of the story in Matthew 4:1-11.  It is a powerful story of Jesus’ desert experience – fasting, hunger, spiritual experience, temptation.  I have tended to look at this story as a straightforward historical account, that Satan actually encountered Jesus in the desert in bodily form.  The more I study and meditate on the text, however, its story elements seem to point more toward parable or midrash.

Note the language: ‘Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.’  Why not say Jerusalem?    Did Jesus and the devil hitchhike to Jerusalem from the desert?  I can imagine Satan getting to ride the camel while Jesus is forced to lead it along.

Notice the final temptation: ‘Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.’  The language sounds very much like tale – ‘a very high mountain from which you could see the whole world’.  Did Jesus and Satan go mountain climbing together?  Is there a mountain anywhere with such a sweeping view?

NT Wright notes that he likes to think of these temptations as voices Jesus encountered during a very real (historic) desert experience.  In other words, temptations very much like you and I experience.  I tend to resonate with that.  (see the first sentence in this post – you probably didn’t take it literally, but that doesn’t make it untrue).

I pulled the following from an article about gospel and midrash:

—-

The temptation story: a midrash used by Matthew and Luke

The temptations of Jesus rank among the most puzzling and inspiring stories of the Gospels. What do they mean? Did the devil literally appear to Jesus and talk to him? Did he physically lift Jesus up onto the outside wall of the Temple and transport him later to the top of a high mountain?

To understand the story, we have to know that it is a “narrative reflection” -a form of instruction the Jews called midrash. A midrash is constructed by weaving a story around a historical fact. It is such an unusual form of teaching that we had better stick to its Jewish name, in spite of it sounding so foreign.

The temptations of Abraham

One famous midrash used by Jewish teachers described the three temptations of Abraham. You will remember how God had commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. It is true that when Abraham lifted his knife to kill Isaac, God stopped him just in the nick of time. But Abraham did not know this in advance. He had travelled for three days to Mount Moriah believing that God expected him to sacrifice his son (read Genesis 22; 1-19).

The Jewish rabbis reflected on this. They asked themselves, “What went through Abraham’s mind during those three long terrible days while he was escorting his beloved son Isaac to the mountain of sacrifice?”

Would Abraham not be tempted to rebel against God’s command with thoughts such as, “Did not God himself forbid us to kill? How can he now expect me to kill my son? Did not God promise that I would have innumerable offspring through Isaac?” and so on.

To make the temptations even more dramatic, the story was turned into a midrash. That is: it was re-told as a threefold encounter between Abraham and Satan. “Satan” actually means “tempter” and each time Satan or Abraham spoke, their words were phrased as quotations from Scripture.

The midrash of Abraham’s temptations ran something like this:

While Abraham was on his way, Satan met him and said: “You’ve always been so faithful to God. Why has this unfair burden been laid upon you?” (Job 4:2-5).
Abraham answered, “I will walk in my integrity” (Psalm 26:11).

The second day Satan appeared again and said, “God told you, You shall not kill (Exodus 20:13). Tomorrow he will blame you for having shed Isaac’s blood.” Abraham replied, “All the same I have to obey” (Samuel 13:13).

On the third day Satan said, “Did not God promise ‘In Isaac shall your offspring be called’?” (Genesis 17:19). Abraham simply said, “I am like a dumb man who opens not his mouth” (Psalm 38:13).

Now no Jew who heard this story would ever think that Satan had actually appeared to Abraham and made those remarks. They knew that the meaning of the midrash lay in bringing out Abraham’s unwavering commitment to God, in spite of the natural turmoil he must have felt in his mind and heart.

The midrash of Abraham’s temptations became so well known and had so many forms that soon similar temptation stories arose about other saints and heroes of the past – the three temptations of Moses, David, Samson and others. The midrash always reflected on people who achieved great things despite natural objections.

The midrash of Jesus’ temptations

The story of Jesus’ temptations has the same origin. The temptation story had Jesus relive the experience of Moses and the Hebrew people in the wilderness.  Before Moses received the law, he fasted forty days and forty nights (Ex 34:28).  So Jesus, before delivering the new law (on the Mount), underwent a similar fast.  The story line follows the adventures of Moses in the wilderness.  The manna story (Ex 16) found expression in the temptation to turn stones into bread.  The story of Moses striking the rock in the wilderness at Massah/Meribah (Ex 17) was told as an act in which Moses put God to the test.  (You can hear the echoes in Jesus’ response: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God”).  The story of the Israelites building and worshiping the golden calf (Ex 32) in the desert is echoed in Jesus’ words “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only.”

In all three episodes, Jesus is portrayed as quoting Deuteronomy (8:3, 5:16, 6:13), and each quotation reflected the Exodus desert experience of Israel.  The midrashic ability of the scribe who authored the Gospel of Matthew is clearly revealed in this episode.

It is also quite possible that the earliest version of the story was an instruction Jesus gave to his disciples. Jesus was going to bring salvation through laying down his life. This was a decision he had taken during his retreat in the desert when he had started his mission. But the disciples would have preferred Jesus to further his cause by using human tools – money, influence and power.

by Duccio, ca. 1310

Jesus conceivably took his disciples aside and told them a midrash of three temptations he experienced:

“When I was preparing myself for my mission,” he may have said, “I was wondering how I could save the world. And the Tempter came and advised me to accumulate material goods (“turn stones into bread”), to grab publicity through miracles (“throw yourself down from the Temple”) and to acquire political power (“See these many nations? I will give you all this power”). But I decided against it”, Jesus said.

By narrating the midrash story about himself, Jesus may well have told his disciples,

“I have a very difficult task! Do not put obstacles to the purity of my mission by trying to make me use worldly means, such as money, publicity and political power. Like Abraham I received a difficult mission from my Father and like Abraham I must be faithful to it.”

The disciples would have understood the meaning of the midrash. They did not take the Tempter’s words or deeds literally. They knew the story brought out Jesus’ reliance on his Father’s word and Jesus’ total commitment to the Father’s work (me:  isn’t this really the point?). It is only later when the story was translated into Greek for the Greek speaking readers of the Gospels that it began to be misunderstood. For the Greeks, like ourselves, had never heard of a midrash.

sources:  Handbook to the Gospels: A Guide to the Gospel Writings and the Life and Times of Jesus; Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes
—-

My sense is that it is a powerful and true story either way, just as the parables Jesus himself told.  The point is that Jesus never compromised in the face of very real temptations that he experienced in his life, even if some of those are reflected back to us in apocryphal form.  In either case, Jesus succeeds where we fail, he gets it right where we get it wrong, and he invites us to begin experiencing the freedom to choose the path of the kingdom rather than our proclivity to seek power, pride and possessions.

What do you think? Was this a literal, historical experience?  A midrash?  A mix of the two?  Does it matter?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Readings, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2011 · 5:10 pm

A Word to the ‘Elect’

Anne Brontë

A timely and hopeful poem, from Anne Brontë:

A Word to the ‘Elect’

You may rejoice to think yourselves secure,
You may be grateful for the gift divine –
That grace unsought, which made your black hearts pure,
And fits your earth-born souls in Heaven to shine.

But is it sweet to look around and view
Thousands excluded from that happiness,
Which they deserve at least as much as you,
Their faults not greater nor their virtues less?

And wherefore should you love your God the more
Because to you alone his smiles are given,
Because He chose to pass the many o’er,
And only bring the favoured few to Heaven?

And, wherefore should your hearts more grateful prove,
Because for ALL the Saviour did not die?
Is yours the God of justice and of love
And are your bosoms warm with charity?

Say, does your heart expand to all mankind?
And, would you ever to your neighbour do –
The weak, the strong, the enlightened, and the blind -
As you would have your neighbour do to you?

And, when you, looking on your fellow-men,
Behold them doomed to endless misery,
How can you talk of joy and rapture then? –
May God withhold such cruel joy from me!

That none deserve eternal bliss I know;
Unmerited the grace in mercy given:
But, none shall sink to everlasting woe,
That have not well deserved the wrath of Heaven.

And, Oh! there lives within my heart
A hope, long nursed by me;
(And, should its cheering ray depart,
How dark my soul would be!)

That as in Adam all have died,
In Christ shall all men live;
And ever round his throne abide,
Eternal praise to give.

That even the wicked shall at last
Be fitted for the skies;
And, when their dreadful doom is past,
To life and light arise.

I ask not, how remote the day,
Nor what the sinner’s woe,
Before their dross is purged away;
Enough for me, to know

That when the cup of wrath is drained,
The metal purified,
They’ll cling to what they once disdained,
And live by Him that died.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Readings, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 25, 2011 · 1:10 pm

Pub Theology Recap March 24

Nothing beats a good porter

A low-key evening at the pub, and some very enjoyable conversation.  The Black and Blue Porter was a nice addition on the whiteboard – a roasty porter with some blueberry mixed in (better than it sounds).  Speaking of sounds, did I mention Gish was mixed in the soundtrack last night?  ”And she knows and she knows and she knows…”  Excellent.

Topics for the evening:

Does love win?

forgiveness

heroic gestures

free gifts

the future

Topics in detail:

1.    Does love win?

2.    Is God’s forgiveness unconditional?  Is it for everyone?

3.    “The ultimate heroic gesture that awaits Christianity is this:  in order to save its treasure, it has to sacrifice itself – like Christ, who had to die so that Christianity could emerge.”  What might this look like?

4.    Is there such a thing as a ‘free’ gift?

5.    “Does the future of evangelicalism lie with progressives who can adapt and change or with conservatives who remain faithful to the old paths?”

6.    “What is the biggest problem in the church: people can’t stand us or we can’t stand the gospel?”

7.    “Conversation works in the foyer, but behind the pulpit clarity is king.”
–
So discussion began with number one.  Does love win? What does that mean?  Well, after reading the book my understanding was this:  if the vast majority of people who have ever lived – billions and billions of human beings, created in God’s image – end up suffering eternal conscious torment and horrible suffering in hell, then love does not win.  In other words, God cannot be rightly called good, loving, and all-powerful if this is how things ultimately turn out.  He admits that if this is how things go, we can say God is all-powerful, but don’t call him good and loving, or call him good and loving, but clearly not all-powerful.  Something like that.  He does a much better job, so read the book if you want the straight scoop.  Yet it appears that there are many many people who are not Christians, who don’t appear to ‘choose Christ’ or worship the God of the Bible.  Will they all be in hell?  And what is hell?  Is it separation from God?  Is it being in God’s presence but not being able to stand it or enjoy it?  Is it death and annihilation?  Will there be a chance for people to choose God after they die?  Is there a statute of limitations on repentance that’s limited to this life?  Here’s an excerpt from the book:

From Love Wins, by Rob Bell:

“Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell.  God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever.  A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.

If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities.

If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services immediately.”

Wait – did he get this off my blog post – An Angry God? :)  (which I wrote a week before Love Wins came out).

What do you think?  Is this a picture of God you adhere to?  Is it accurate?

a powerful symbol

On to topic no.2 - Is God’s forgiveness unconditional?  Is it for everyone?

The first response:
“No, it is not unconditional.  I grew up in the church hearing that if God forgives you, you’ve got to start living differently, otherwise it obviously didn’t make any difference, and in that case – you’re not really forgiven.  There are conditions.”

Next response:
“What about God removing our sins as far as the east is from the west?  And what about Jesus saying that we need to forgive people seventy times seven?  Doesn’t that imply that forgiveness is unlimited, and therefore unconditional?”

Other examples came up:  the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son (all Luke 15, btw) – which all seem to note that forgiveness happens before repentance.  That forgiveness happens regardless of our response or of our deserving it.  So in that case, forgiveness appears to be unconditional.

So does God forgive everyone? If we are called to ‘love our enemies’ and forgive ‘seventy times seven’, and if while we were enemies, Christ died for us – doesn’t that imply that forgiveness is not based on response?  Or at the least it seems unconditional.  But does this apply to *all* of God’s enemies?  Which would include everyone, right?  It seems that there is a case to be made for this.  That God forgives everyone, but not everyone chooses to accept that forgiveness, or live in the reality of that forgiveness.  (There’s a nice chapter on this issue in Love Wins, by the way).  Also, if we are called to forgive seventy-times seven (i.e. infinitely) and to love our enemies – doesn’t that also apply to God?  Or does that not apply once you die?  And someone asked, “How are we going to love our enemies when we’re in heaven and they’re in hell?  That puts us in an awfully difficult spot.  Or aren’t we supposed to love them anymore – which would make us held to a higher standard here on earth than in heaven, which is supposedly perfect.”

Other tangents that came out of this:  was Jesus’ death necessary for God to forgive us?  If so, then it wasn’t unconditional.  It was dependent on a certain condition happening, i.e. someone dying in our place.  *Or* was it the case that God unconditionally forgives – that is his nature – and the cross was the outworking of that reality – the expression of the love and forgiveness that God already extends (because clearly we see God forgiving in the OT, or was that just ‘provisional forgiveness’ but not the real thing?  Or somehow backwards dependent on a future event?)

Another tangent:  if Jesus ‘became sin for us’ and took on ‘the sin of the world’ – why would anyone be punished anymore?  The theological way around this is that actually Jesus didn’t die for everyone, which again, isn’t really that good of news.  Not to mention that it seems to deny the cross the fullness which it is due.  But we have to explain why not everyone gets in, and also that God is all-powerful, so then we say that actually Jesus only died for those who actually respond to him.  But then the offer of salvation to all people isn’t actually a genuine offer, and the whole thing unravels (or is given a fancy theological name).

Or could it be the case, that Jesus *did* die for everyone, and God *does* forgive everyone, but not everyone chooses to live in the reality of that forgiveness (see the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).  He’s standing right there at the celebration (heaven), but doesn’t join in the party (hell), despite the reality that the father says, ‘all that I have is yours’.  (again, great chapter on this in Love Wins).

a free gift?

We skipped no.3, and went on to no.4 – is there such a thing as a free gift?

First response:  ’I was trying to buy something the other day, but there was a minimal debit card purchase amount, and I didn’t have any cash.  The clerk decided to buy it for me.  I was amazed.  A free gift!’

Second response: ‘Was it actually free?  He still had to pay for it.’

Here’s where the question came from:

Excerpt from The Puppet and the Dwarf, by Slavoj Zizek:

“Is there such a thing as a ‘free’ gift?

Or does such an offer aim at putting you in a position of
permanent debt?  When the message is: “I don’t want
anything from you!,” we can be sure that this statement
conceals a qualification:
“…except your very soul.”

On a more anecdotal level, is it
not clear that when, in a lovers’ quarrel, the woman
answers the man’s desperate “But what do you want
from me?” with “Nothing!,” this means its exact
opposite?”

What do you think?

And a bonus post from the backside, from a blogger who has issues with some of the theology in Love Wins, as it seems many do, most especially over theories of atonement (relates to above discussion):

Posted on a blog:

“Any Christian worth listening to loves the cross and is
loath to see it robbed of its glory. To ridicule what the
cross accomplished is to make war with the heart of the
gospel and the comfort of God’s people.

J. Gresham Machen understood this well:
They [liberal preachers] speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that
the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an
alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner.’
It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the
Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling upon human hearts.

No doubt, some Christians get worked up over the
smallest controversies, making a forest fire out of a
Yankee Candle. But there is an opposite danger–and that
is to be so calm, so middle-of-the-road, so above-the-fray
that you no longer feel the danger of false doctrine. You
always sound analytical, never alarmed. Always crying for
much-neglected conversation, never crying over a much-
maligned cross. There is something worse than hurting
feelings, and that is trampling upon human hearts.”

We didn’t actually get very far discussing this post, but it isn’t exactly clear what is meant by ‘trampling upon human hearts.’  It seems it’s just a fancy way to sound theologically adept and serious, while making people afraid.  It attempts to create fear when alternative ways of reading the story are presented, more than actually living in the delight of the story, which at its heart is a bit of mystery, after all.

Do you have a thought on any of the above? Post your comments below!


1 Comment

Filed under Pub Theology, Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 22, 2011 · 9:48 pm

The Book

So…  it’s official!  I’ve been offered a book contract.  The publisher is Cascade Books, a division of Wipf and Stock. They are out of Eugene, Oregon.

About Cascade Books:
Established in 2004, Cascade Books is the most selective of the four imprints of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Under this imprint we publish new books that combine academic rigor with broad appeal and readability. Encompassing all the major areas of theology and religion, Cascade Books has published such major authors as Stanley Hauerwas, Jürgen Moltmann, John Milbank, John Howard Yoder, Margaret Miles, and Walter Brueggemann.

What’s the book about?
Well, it is a book about doing theology at the pub (>shock<).   It will be comprised of stories, musings, and theology viewed through the prism of our regular Thursday evening gatherings.

Working Title:
Pub Theology: Beer, Conversation, and God (what else?)

From the proposal:

From London to New York to Ann Arbor, people are gathering in pubs and bars to communicate, connect, and learn from one another over the topic of religion, of all things.  In Pub Theology, pastor, writer, and pub theologian Bryan Berghoef draws from his own experience in one such setting in Northern Michigan.  Speaking to fellow Christians, Berghoef explains how they must turn their evangelism mentality on its head:  from being those who need to evangelize others to those who need to be evangelized by others.  Through anecdotes, stories, and theological musings, readers will discover how to move from a place of preaching to a place of listening, from a place of teaching to a place of learning.

Tension:

  • Reality:  We live in a culture driven by fear of ‘the other’.  Other religious views, other sexual orientations, other political views, other ways of being in the world: these are no longer perspectives we read about in books or hear about on television.  They are held by our neighbors, our co-workers, perhaps even our friends, but also by those we may never meet.  We react to these perspectives too often from a perspective of fear.  And we respond to this fear by getting louder with our message, by withdrawing ourselves from the culture to our own safe little enclaves, from which we toss grenades of ‘truth’ over the wall, often hoping to cause more damage than true positive change.
  • Hope:  If the church wants to have an impact on an increasingly post-Christian and pluralistic culture, it must shift its emphasis from preaching to listening.  It must move from the prideful position of teacher to the humble position of student.  It is no longer our turn to stand and lecture.  It is time for us to take our seat and listen. This is no easy shift.  But it is critical.  It is time for the church to move beyond its fear, to come out from behind the safe walls it has constructed and learn to actually inhabit this world we all share.

From the author:

bryan
“More than ever it seems that we as a culture are afraid of people who are different than us. This is especially true in the arena of faith.  I have been involved in conversations about God at the university level, in Europe, in the States, in a Muslim culture, in the pews, on the streets, and in pubs. I am convinced that if we are willing to sit at the same table and listen, we will be changed from evangelists who see others as targets to convert, to fellow human beings – potential friends to love and understand.”

— Bryan Berghoef —

–
If you have a story or thought from a night you’ve attended a Pub Theology gathering, post it here – you never know – maybe it’ll be in print!

3 Comments

Filed under Pub Theology, Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , ,

March 21, 2011 · 12:30 pm

Pub Theology Recap – St. Patty’s

Slåinte!

We began the night with a toast to Saint Patrick, that giver of good tidings and slayer of snakes:

A Toast to the Saint!

Saint Patrick was a gentleman,
who through strategy and stealth
Drove all the snakes from Ireland,
here’s a drink to his health!
But not too many drinks,
lest we lose ourselves and then
Forget the good Saint Patrick,
and see them snakes again!

So clearly the early discussion was over snakes, and St. Patrick’s real name.  Was it Maewyn Succat?

Topics for the night:

St. Patrick

Snakes

God

Straw

Dreaming

Seagulls

In detail:

1.    St Patrick: a toast.  See above

2.    “I am Patrick, yes a sinner and indeed untaught; yet I am established here in Ireland where I profess myself bishop. I am certain in my heart that ‘all that I am,’ I have received from God. So I live among barbarous tribes, a stranger and exile for the love of God.”

3.    “We need God’s wrath in order to understand what mercy means.” Do we?  What do you think?

4.    “It’s all about God.”  What do you think?

5.    St. Augustine: “Even the straw under my knees shout to distract me from prayer.”  Is prayer difficult?

6.    Are you dreaming?

It was a lighthearted evening – everyone was happy to be out for Saint Patty’s.  We expected to be fighting the crowds, but it wasn’t as busy as we expected.  Perhaps the lack of a stout at Right Brain didn’t help; that and everyone was singing Irish tunes and watching MSU at Kilkenny’s.  Regardless, we enjoyed talking about old Saint Patrick, favorite Irish tunes, and whether or not wrath is a good (or proper) motivator.  Most came out opposed to wrath as a good motivator, and felt that it was setting up a non-logical argument.  For example, you don’t have to say, “I really know how much I enjoy reading a book at the library, because I know other people are being tortured.”  It seems one would feel motivated to go to the library and read by something positive, such as a goal to be gained, but probably not so much by a threat (though I suppose that could work in a pinch).  There were other examples, but someone else will have to recall them.

Is it all about God?  Someone responded, “Maybe for God.”  We noted that a classic approach in some theological traditions is voiced by the likes of Jonathan Edwards: “the end for which God created the world was his glory.”  In other words, it is all about God, not human happiness or purposes or anything else.

Someone wondered whether it’s “all about connection, or interconnection, and God is the ground and center of that.”  I think that’s a decent way to put it.

We noted that it is indeed hard to pray, and focus, and be silent….  But that for many of us, it is a necessary discipline and one we need to pursue more often.  Others felt that we needed to focus more on the present moment, on mindfulness, ala Thich Nhat Hahn or Eckhart Tolle.  That we can find God or the sacred in every moment, such as washing the dishes or shoveling the driveway.  Someone else noted that such moments could be improved by listening to an audio book or lecture, and that there wasn’t necessarily any virtue in the act or moment itself.  Also asked, “Is it possible to not be present?”

We all pinched ourselves and concluded that we weren’t dreaming.

Backside bonus:

From Tortilla Flat, by John Steinbeck:

“These birds are flying across the forehead of the Father.  Dear birds, dear sea gulls, how I love you all.  Your slow wings stroke my heart as the hand of a gentle master strokes the full stomach of a sleeping dog, as the hand of Christ stroked the heads of little children.  Dear birds,” he thought, “fly to our Lady of Sweet Sorrows with my open heart.”  And then he said the loveliest words he knew, “Ave Maria, gratia plena –”

There was, nor is, nor ever has been a purer soul than Pilon’s at that moment… A soul washed and saved is a soul doubly in danger, for everything in the world conspires against such a soul.  “Even the straws under my knees,” says Saint Augustine, “shout to distract me from prayer.”

Pilon’s soul was not even proof against his own memories; for, as he watched the birds, he remembered that Mrs. Pastano used sea gulls sometimes in her tamales, and that memory made him hungry, and hunger tumbled his soul out of the sky.  Pilon moved on, once more a cunning mixture of good and evil.”

Discuss the change in Pilon. Can you relate?

We all noted how we are all mixtures of ‘good and evil’, and how mundane, physical realities can break our highest spiritual moments, yet somehow those moments must happen in the mundane world, because that is where we live.

Also discussed was Pete Rollin’s parable: To Hell With Jesus

You sit in silence contemplating what has just taken place. Only moments ago you were alive and well, relaxing at home with friends. Then there was a deep, crushing pain in your chest that brought you crashing to the floor. The pain has now gone, but you are no longer in your home. Instead, you find yourself standing on the other side of death waiting to stand before the judgment seat and discover where you will spend eternity. As you reflect upon your life your name is called, and you are led down a long corridor into a majestic sanctuary with a throne located in its center. Sitting on this throne is a huge, breathtaking being who looks up at you and begins to speak.

“My name is Lucifer, and I am the angel of light.”

You are immediately filled with fear and trembling as you realize that you are face to face with the enemy of all that is true and good. Then the angel continues: “I have cast God down from his throne and banished Christ to the realm of eternal death. It is I who hold the keys to the kingdom. It is I who am the gatekeeper of paradise, and it is for me alone to decide who shall enter eternal joy and who shall be forsaken.”

After saying these words, he sits up and stretches out his vast arms. “In my right hand I hold eternal life and in my left hand eternal death. Those who would bow down and acknowledge me as their god shall pass through the gates of paradise and experience an eternity of bliss, but all those who refuse will be vanquished to the second death with their Christ.”

After a long pause he bends toward you and speaks, “Which will you choose?”

—
So, would you choose paradise with Satan or hell with Jesus?

There were differing opinions, and E. and B. disagreed and nearly came to blows over it:

“I would go to hell with Jesus.”
“No you wouldn’t.”
“I would.”
“What?  Of course you wouldn’t!  NO ONE would!  You’d choose heaven.”

It brought up some great discussion.  Why do we follow Jesus?  Because of the payoff?  If I think I would choose hell in this scenario, do I choose to find Jesus in the hells of this world?

The night ended with a rendition of “Oh Danny Boy” and it nearly got us run out of the place!

Have a thought on the above? Post your comment below.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture, Pub Theology, Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2011 · 2:36 pm

C’mon already

ouch! all too true

All this brouhaha over books and theology and who believes what and how they believe it is starting to rub thin…  I mean, who cares if Rob Bell doesn’t believe in hell, or believes in a different version of hell, or if this church has 9 official points of doctrine, but the other one has 49, and so on…

As my friend Chad noted on my previous post:

  • Oh how I wonder if all of the posting I see about Rob Bell’s books are just opportunities for people on all sides of the issues to virtually pleasure themselves with blog posts and facebook updates.  And, here I myself am indulging in the opportunity. Damn it! They will know we are Christians by our: a) certitude! b) love!, c) prolific internet postings!, d) choice of beverage!

OK, OK.  I’m guilty as charged.

But enough theological wrangling already (and many of you know I live for such wrangling, in appropriate ways and settings).

Isn’t it time we all start doing something?

I have to admit, I’m looking forward to reading Bell’s book, and from what I can tell, he has some very good and important things to say in it, and some friends say, “It’s his best book yet.”   I think Bell would want us to read his book, and be so moved by the love of God to tell someone else about it, and make a difference in a real way.  But as David Fitch notes in his post, The Rob Bell Fiasco,  if we keep going as is (in our endless attempts to criticize his or anyone else’s theology), “the aftermath… is going to devolve into defensiveness and fail to produce a missional movement.”

It’s time to remember what we’re all in this Christianity thing for:  to follow Jesus. To extend the kingdom of God.  To be those who help the poor, the broken, the displaced.  To bring good news.

Thankfully, amid the frenzy,  many are doing exactly that:

  • My sister and mom are heading to Haiti tomorrow – check out the trip on their blog: Hearts 4 Mission.
  • Others are responding in many ways to the disaster in Japan: CRWRC and The Red Cross.
  • My friends Bradley and Kirsten are forming an organization that seeks to springboard people who’ve experienced a short-term trip to move  into missional lifestyles.
  • Others are making a difference in ways, large and small, in their local community and abroad, to bring healing, help, and the hope of Jesus.

As fun as some conversations are, may they not just be to see ‘who’s right’, but to push us forward into a deeper love for Jesus, and to embody the kingdom in ways that actually make a difference.

4 Comments

Filed under Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 14, 2011 · 11:40 am

A Blurb on Bell

Consistency and Logic?

Love Wins by Rob Bell

One critic who has read Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, noted that: “It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic.”

I wonder if perhaps the same could be said of Jesus, whose chief values were not consistency and logic, but of challenging people where they were with provocative parables and stories that often left them scratching their heads, confused them, and did not always conform to consistency and logic!

Yet somehow we presumptuously assume to know exactly what Jesus meant (even when his immediate audience often did not), and then we draw all kinds of concrete literal realities from *parables* (acc. to our conceptions of consistency and logic) and then get up in arms when someone does something sorta like Jesus did.

Awesome.

–
Kevin DeYoung has proposed eight points as to why we need a doctrine of divine wrath and eternal punishment, in his pre-emptive attempt to throw Rob Bell off the orthodoxy train: (you’d think he read my post: An Angry God?)

They are as follows:

“First, we need God’s wrath to keep us honest about evangelism.”

“Second, we need God’s wrath in order to forgive our enemies.”

“Third, we need God’s wrath in order to risk our lives for Jesus’ sake.”

“Fourth, we need God’s wrath in order to live holy lives.”

“Fifth, we need God’s wrath in order to understand what mercy means.”

“Sixth, we need God’s wrath in order to grasp how wonderful heaven will be.”

“Seventh, we need the wrath of God in order to be motivated to care for our impoverished brothers and sisters.”

“Eighth, we need God’s wrath in order to be ready for the Lord’s return.”

Fairly convincing, right?

If I had time, I’d respond to each of those points, but thankfully someone has already done it.  Here is a great post by Andrew Perriman deconstructing Kevin DeYoung’s points biblically and common-sensically (is that a word?):
Kevin DeYoung, Rob Bell, and the argument about hell

Any thoughts you have are welcome, as always, below.

6 Comments

Filed under Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 11, 2011 · 5:39 pm

Pub Theology Recap March 10

Well it was a fun night last night at Right Brain Brewery.

N. showed up with the usual goodies – this time pretzels (some even peanut butter-filled).

Delicious!

Then A. shows up with a heavy pan of Guinness brownies – complete with decorations.  A delightful treat, and it was enjoyed by all.  It said: “Cheers to our ‘soon to be’ PUBlished Theologian!”

I’ve been working on a few writing projects as some of you know, and I had written up a book proposal about Pub Theology, comprised of stories, thoughts and theology through the prism of our regular Thursday gatherings.  I had sent it around a bit to get some feedback, and the consensus I received from Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle and others was that unless you already have a ‘market in hand’ – i.e., tons of readers of your blog (thank you, loyal few), hundreds or thousands of Twitter followers, and a large regular speaking audience, most publishers aren’t willing to take on a relatively unknown.  So with that encouraging start, I sent out my manuscript to a publisher, and a few weeks later got a message back that my proposal had been accepted and they are willing to offer me a book contract!  Very exciting.  No contract has been signed yet, and I’ll wait until then before giving any more details.

In any case, it was a celebratory evening, and the rich Guinness brownies were just right with a cask-poured Black IPA.

The topics:

1.    How can deprivation connect us to God?

2.    Ignatius:  “We must never seek to establish a rule so rigid as to leave no room for exception.” Never?

3.    Does God force people to believe in him?  Or does he let them choose?  Discuss the differences.

4.    “Trust in God could impose an additional burden…”  Could it?  How so?

5.    “If there were no evil, there would be no good, for good is the counterpart of evil.”  Your thoughts?

6.    Who killed Jesus?

7.    If you could ask God one thing, what would it be?

8.  Is the church above the law?

So, we quickly skipped no.1, as it was not a night for deprivation.  On to no.2  After Steve aptly pointed out that Ignatius was breaking his own rule (clever), we reflected on ways in which rules can sometimes get in the way of the thing they set out to address.  We had some good examples, but I’m not sure I’m able to recall them here.

No.3 – Nearly everyone agreed (everyone who holds to a belief in God, at any rate), that God allows us some level of choice in choosing to follow him or choosing to ignore him.  To say that we have no choice, and it is all predetermined, would sort of make a mockery of the whole thing, and remove any kind of responsibility, not to mention any chance of genuine relationship.  That is not to say that God might not already know how things are going to go, but that is different than God making the decision for us.

No.4 – see the following quote:
“… trust in God could impose an additional burden on good people slammed to their knees by some senseless tragedy. An atheist might be no less staggered by such an event, but non-believers often experienced a kind of calm acceptance: shit happens, and this particular shit had happened to them. It could be more difficult for a person of faith to get to his feet precisely, because he had to reconcile God’s love and care with the stupid, brutal fact that something irreversibly terrible had happened.”

In other words, it is hard to understand sometimes why bad stuff happens when you believe that God is good and he has your best interests at heart.  If you don’t think God is there, you assume bad stuff will happen at some point, but you don’t take it personally.  We noted several instances of where we try to make sense of and draw meaning from tragedies and difficulties, also noting that for many people (even many of us), our faith gives us the strength to get through such situations, even when we don’t understand what God is up to.

no. 5 – we skipped

no.6 – who killed Jesus?  My blog post on this got some conversation going earlier in the week.  I tended to lean toward the creation being responsible for killing Jesus, not the Creator.  Some versions of atonement theory lean toward the latter, but those paint a rather gruesome picture of God, in my opinion.  Someone at the table noted: the Romans killed Jesus, what else is there to talk about?

no.7 – skipped

no.8 – Is the church above the law? We noted that there are instances where the church seems to get special treatment (see Catholic church and pedophilia abuses), and that that is bad stuff and should stop.

We enjoyed a visit from some newcomers – C, P and their son, A, on break from MSU.   K and B made it out, as did S & R, and G & J.  And of course, N., A., and me.  A good night, all around!

Next week: Pub Theology St. Patty’s-style!

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 8, 2011 · 4:04 pm

An Angry God?

Is God angry with us?  Is he mad at us?  Are we truly ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God’?

If you’re a parent – when your child does something wrong, how does it make you feel?  Upset.  Let down.  Maybe angry.  But are you angry at the child, or, angry that they’ve made an unwise decision?  Maybe sometimes it’s a mix of both…

It is often said that Jesus died to save us from God’s anger, God’s wrath.  In other words, if it weren’t for Jesus, God would be ready to pounce, angrily and happily casting us all into hell.

So did God need to save us from himself?  Parents like that usually have their kids taken away and a restraining order put on them.

Perhaps, rather, God needs to save us from ourselves…

As a parent, I may tell my kids to behave a certain way, or avoid certain things, but it would be to save them from themselves, not to save them from me.  They have my unconditional love from the start, even if they perpetrate acts of rebellion or whatever against me.  I certainly would not be angry enough to kill them (or if I were, it would be because of my own sinfulness and brokenness – not a picture of my ‘perfection’).  Further, I don’t need to torture and kill one of my sons so that the other ones can be forgiven.  Yet if I were to choose to undergo suffering – even death – to demonstrate my love for them – that might be different.  I don’t need someone to pay so that *I* can be appeased – what kind of a father would that make me?  I forgive because of my love.  But rebellious actions still have consequences, and they can still choose to reject my efforts of love and live apart from it.  But that is their choice, not mine.

The idea of a bloodthirsty god who must be placated with a human sacrifice seems to represent an ancient pagan understanding of the gods more than the God of love we find in Jesus.  Is God portrayed that way from time to time in the text?  Perhaps, but that may represent the culture of the time more than God himself.  Maybe the point of Jesus’ death was not because otherwise God would destroy us all, but to show us the extent of God’s love and to show us another way to live, and absorb the anger and sin and hate and injustice of the world.  In other words, not to save us from God, but from ourselves.

–

Brian McLaren notes that some questions are helpful to ask on the issue of propitiation: (below is his quote)

1. Who was the primary audience for the suffering and death of Jesus? Was it intended to bring about a change in God, or in us?

McLaren: Since I don’t think God needs to change, but rather we do, I’d vote for the latter.

2. Where do we centrally locate God the Father on good Friday – in and with the political and religious leaders, condemning and torturing Jesus? Or in Jesus, suffering injustice *with* and *for* us?

McLaren:  Again, I’d vote the latter.

3. Does Jesus, in some mysterious way, absorb/redirect the hostility of God towards us, or the hostility of us towards God?

McLaren:  Again, I’d vote for the latter. (I think this is what C. S. Lewis was after in his idea of “the perfect penitent.”)

His summary:  In each case, perhaps a case could be made for the former; there are ways we could say there is truth in the former. But I think the weight of meaning is found in the latter option. Many people see everything from within the conventional narrative and so they can’t even imagine Jesus being important apart from it, and that’s a major reason why, I think, they are so adamant in defending it.

–

Me again:

Some of you are asking, what about texts that talk about God’s wrath against us?  The question is – what is the nature of that wrath?  I wonder if perhaps God, as any parent, hates to see his children acting in ways that disregard him and hurt themselves.  And I wonder if God created such a world in which when we act in such ways, there are consequences for those actions, and those consequences reflect his anger or hatred (for those actions).  In other words, God’s wrath is what happens indirectly when I sin – the consequences are built in.  This is a passive anger rather than an active anger.  In other words, an anger not just for the sake of being angry, or not a self-righteous anger – “How dare you sin, don’t you know who I am?” (which I hope God is above), but rather, an anger rooted in sorrow over how we have separated ourselves from him and are only hurting ourselves.

Could it be then, that Jesus dies on the cross absorbing the full extent of that wrath?  In other words, the full extent of the results of human sin – rejection, mistreatment, and ultimately, an undeserved death.  And by taking all of that wrath upon himself (wrath = negative consequences), Jesus broke the cycle of human rebellion against God by showing us the extent of God’s love for us – that he would suffer with us and even for us – not to save us from God, but to save us from ourselves.

Again, I could be wrong, and I am trying to honestly wrestle through this as many others are.  But to simply say, God’s wrath = God’s direct, active hatred or anger against us seems to violate God’s nature as loving, even as just.

I would prefer to think of God’s justice in terms of a parental/relational model rather than a judge/legal model.  The former implies relationship, involvement, love.  The latter implies something else – like “I’m so angry that if someone doesn’t pay, someone’s going to die!”  The former says, “Because my love for you is so great, and my sorrow over sin so wide, I’m going to come and live with you, and among you, and as one of you, bearing the full consequences of that sin even though I don’t deserve to.  I love you that much.

When Paul says in Romans 1 that God’s wrath is being revealed, I think he’s talking about the present consequences of sin now…

I don’t have it figured out, but I am encouraged by many who want to have a constructive dialogue about it all, and most of all, who want to continue to live into the love of God as expressed in Jesus, and want to share that love in and with our world.

–
(this was a follow-up to Christy’s post: To Hell With It)

15 Comments

Filed under Readings, Relationships, The Text, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 7, 2011 · 3:27 pm

Pub Theology Recap March 3

A glass of beer

The Northern Hawk Owl amber ale in the cask set the tone for a nice, low-key evening of discussion, with some potentially hot topics.  Great to have the wisdom of a philosopher again in our midst (C), not to mention the always insightful Presbyterian contingent (D and N), the resident a-theists (S & R), some new voices of wisdom (S, K and M!), and some of us who just like beer (J & A, and B).  Not to be forgotten was the late arrival of our local fashion and health consultants (B and E).  I am sure I have forgotten some others, but then I arrived at Right Brain at 2pm to reserve our usual seat -maybe I should rethink that strategy.

Topics:

Empathy

theories

freedom

where is Jesus?

hell

violence

evil

–
In detail:

1.    Studies show that empathy is tied to our awareness of our own and others’ mortality.  Will heaven be without empathy?

2.    Was Jesus able to come down from the cross? Could he have blown it to a ‘million smithereens’ if he wished?

3.    A physicist: “One must always allow for alternative theories.”
A theologian: “Using God as an explanation is not an explanation.”
What do you think?

4.    ‘Freedom in Christ.’   What does(n’t) it mean?

5.    What does it mean to say: ‘Jesus is here’?

6.  “The traditional understanding of hell perpetuates the cycle of violence for eternity, and it is divine violence that does it.”  Are we stuck with violence and evil forever?

7a. “Instead of bringing God to ‘unreached’ places and ‘unreached’ peoples, I find countless missionaries who say that, while this was how they once thought, time and again they find that these unreached places are the very sites where they must go to find God and to be reached.  How many of us have learned too late that our initial idea, that by serving the world we will help bring God to others, has eclipsed the wisdom that in serving the world we find God there.”  Is it presumptuous to ‘bring God’ somewhere?

7b. “There is no empathy in heaven, because there is no mortality. There is no empathy in utopia, because there is
no suffering.”  In other words, those entering heaven will have to leave their empathetic sensibilities at the Pearly
Gates, because there cannot be empathy for those left behind. If there were, there would be regret and sadness,
and these are not permitted. What is interesting to note about the incarnation is that Jesus had to leave
‘heaven’ in order to properly empathize with us.   Is heaven sterile?

8.  “A story told often enough, and confirmed often enough in daily life, ceases to be a tale and is accepted as reality itself.”  Discuss.

This clears things up.

Through me the way into the suffering city,
through me the way to the eternal pain,
through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificer;
My maker was divine authority,
The highest wisdom, and the primal love.
Before me nothing but eternal things
Were made, and I endure eternally.
Abandon every hope, who enter here.

- Sign on the gate into hell, in Dante, Inferno, Canto 3

—-
It’s been a couple days since, so I’ll focus the recap to heaven and hell.

Heaven was an interesting topic, as a couple of people felt that a utopian heaven of perfection would be theoretically impossible because different people would have different ideas of what perfection is, and therefore it would be impossible for everyone to be the same amount of happy all the time, forever.  In other words, one person’s junk is another person’s treasure – but how do you account for everyone without making someone upset?  Some also noted that anything that was repeated over and over forever would eventually become hell, even if it started out as your favorite thing (I do love Tetris though).  Others of us felt that God would be able to pull off something that gave each person meaning and satisfaction that would not result in stupefying boredom, and that the presence of God himself would preclude that (though isn’t he present now?).  We also noted that heaven (or the new creation), may well be outside of time as we know it, and so it is hard for us to think about what that is presently like, this side of things.

If you’re going to talk about heaven, hell, you naturally think about those who ‘don’t get in’.  Will people in heaven be aware of them?  Will this go over well?  (We noted that Jonathan Edwards and others said that the chief delight of people in heaven will be awareness of the suffering of the unrighteous in hell.  ”Hey Joe – watch this guy – he’s going to really burn in a minute”  Can you honestly imagine?)  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will some people remain in suffering forever?  Discussion on hell was interesting, particularly the fact that no one seemed interested in defending the traditional view of eternal, conscious torment, even as I attempted to articulate it.  Ideas of separation from God, of loneliness, of constantly needing more of your own space (a la The Great Divide), as well as – ‘maybe we’ve just made a lot of this stuff up by misreading texts and importing assumptions’.

There’s been a lot of talk about hell and universalism of late with Rob Bell’s new book impending.  A couple of good blog posts on hell have shown up this week, so I encourage you to read them over:

To Hell With It on Gathered Introspections, by the incredibly wise and wonderful Christy Berghoef.  (no relation)  Wait – she’s in the other room!   OK OK > she paid me to link to her post.  With dinner.

and

Can Anyone Explain to Me Why People Should BURN in Hell FOREVER? – by Kester Brewin

Check ‘em out, and post your own thoughts on the above topics below, or join us next Thursday at 8pm at Right Brain Brewery!

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Relationships, Theology

Tagged as , , , ,