bad theology

See Y’all Tomorrow!

Frank

That is, I assume if you’re reading this you’re a Christian. In which case I’ll wave to you as we’re passing through the clouds. And if you’re not, well it sucks to be you.

In case you haven’t heard, the world is ending tomorrow. I couldn’t quite figure out why tomorrow, but Matt at The Church of No People ran the math and it now makes perfect sense. Comforting to me, is seeing who’s behind this. No, tomorrow’s series finale isn’t news to me, but this article was the first I’ve seen that connected tomorrow’s big event to the same prediction back in 1994. I vividly remember that day. Some friends and I were in our school’s library at the prescribed hour watching the news for something, anything, to indicate there might be a hint of truth to that prediction. There wasn’t any. Of course, like most predictions of this kind, when the end of the world does not come the reason is usually some kind of math error: “I forgot to carry the one.” (Or “I forgot to check Jesus’ words that I wouldn’t know the day or the hour. That’s what I get for only reading Revelation and Tim LeHaye.”)

There is legitimate reason for concern, of course. This article from Slate sums up all the disasters around the world that could give us pause, or at least remind us of our own mortality and fragility. These are called “Black Swan” events, where the consequence is so high it would be catastrophic, yet the probability is so low that it shouldn’t keep us from getting out of bed in the morning.

At least that article is based on good science. I got home yesterday with a flier in my door warning me of the end of the world. Not tomorrow, necessarily, but sometime in the near future. Their reasoning isn’t global warming which was dismissed as being a political distraction from the real issue- Solar Flares. Yep. All the earthquakes, flooding, and tornados recently are because of solar flares. And the solar panels being installed all around town, especially at our local schools, are to protect those facilities from the oncoming devastation. I didn’t know that’s what solar panels were. I thought they were for, like, producing electricity or something. I also didn’t know that there were shadows on the moon that cause explosions that could destroy the Earth and that they just started happening, like last week!

If you look at my Twitter profile, I describe myself as a “space geek”. That’s not in an amateur astronomer kind of way, but in a I-do-this-for-a-living kind of way. I couldn’t believe the bad-science this church was promoting. Of course the motivation of it all was to get right with Jesus. I guess if solar flares motivate your relationship with Christ, more solar power to you.

When faced with the end of the world, or our impending death, many consider what they’d do if they only had a couple hours, days, weeks to live. A “bucket list” so to speak. Recently when putting together notes for my Crazy Love small group, I turned the question around into a personal gut-punch. The question isn’t what you’d do if you only had one day to live (spend more time with family, tell my boss what I really think, etc) but rather what would you do if you knew that in one day you would be face to face with the Creator of the Universe. Different question entirely. And the reality is, good or bad science, end-times theology or not, we all have to face that question because that moment could come at any

time. (Made you think I raptured, didn’t I)

(One final note. In the NYT article above, a few say they’ll be waiting for Jesus’ return by being “glued to our TV sets, waiting for the Resurrection and earthquake from nation to nation.” Yep, nothing looks more like following Jesus than watching TV. If I really believed the world was going to end tomorrow, I’d be out sharing the Gospel until the moment Jesus comes back. I wouldn’t be watching the news for reasons to gloat. I’m sorry, but that attitude ticks me off.)

Your Heaven

Frank

I woke up the other morning with this song in my head for some reason. It’s Five Finger Death Punch’s “Far From Home”. The video below, with over three million hits, is a tribute to America’s Armed Forces. The video is moving, but I wonder about the lyrics.

The chorus goes: “It’s almost like, your heaven’s trying everything to keep me out” Keep me out alternates with “break me down.”

Doesn’t sound like any heaven I know. What is misunderstood in the Gospel message is that heaven is exclusionary- keeping certain people with certain beliefs or certain lifestyles out. Yet the truth of the Gospel is that heaven has come down to earth for every one of us. Jesus, the Son of God present at the creation of the world, walked on this earth in the flesh experiencing all the same struggles as you or I only to be gruesomely killed to atone for our sins. Heaven isn’t keeping anyone out because heaven came down to us.

It’s almost like, my heaven’s trying everything to get me in.

Legalism versus Obedience

Frank

As my small group concludes Crazy Love, I’m struck by the opposition this book gets. The most common theme I’ve seen is that it swings too far from the “Prosperity Gospel” towards a “Poverty Gospel” (watch the interview of Francis Chan by Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris to see this debate in action) and for some this translates into a “salvation by works” doctrine.

Of course that ruffles the feathers of many. “Saved by grace through faith alone” I believe is a security blanket held on to so tightly than anything approaching a “hedge” such as raising standards or expectations is avoided out of fear of legalism. But what is legalism anyway? Is it works? Why does Hebrews say we should encourage one another? (Good deeds) What are we saved for? (The works God has prepared for us) What is faith if absent of works? (dead as a doornail) So the fruits of the Spirit, evidenced by works isn’t legalism, it isn’t a poverty gospel, it isn’t preaching sanctification through personal sacrifice. At the same time, we’re reminded that such acts if unaccompanied by love are worthless.

In this book, and in his life to be perfectly honest (and I think this is why his views upset the status quo), Francis Chan simply puts his money where his faith is. And he’s not alone. Nor is he alone receiving such criticism.

David Platt just released the anticipated sequel to his bestseller, Radical, called Radical Together. I like the approach- the first book challenges what you are doing on faith personally, and he follows up with mobilizing churches to do the same. But he has to devote an entire chapter (short as it is) to deflect the criticism he received in the first installment.

And the criticism is coming from surprising corners of evangelical celebrity. Jared Wilson, author of Your Jesus is Too Safe (doesn’t that sound legalistic?), raises the above issues and cites similar concerns from Skye Jethani, author of The Divine Commodity and Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk. Now I’m not familiar with all of their writings, and I don’t know them personally, but just based on their public persona and the titles of their books/blogs, you’d think they’d be lockstep behind Chan and Platt. Like I said before comparing Crazy Love to Mere Churchianity, we all see the same problem and are moved to do something about it.

This debate exposes the tension between Justification as taught by Paul, and the Kingdom as taught by Jesus. For more on this, check out this article in Christianity Today. The conclusion is not to start with either Justification or Kingdom, but rather the Gospel of Jesus himself. I couldn’t agree more. After all, Paul instructed us to “follow [his] example as [he] follows the example of Christ” and that our “attitudes should be the same as Christ Jesus”, that Christ is the “chief cornerstone” on which we build our own personal convictions, and to “live as Christ and to die is gain”. (1 Corinthians 1:11, Philippians 2:5, Ephesians 2:19-22, Philippians 1:21)

So now the question becomes, is expecting a Christian (recall the definition has nothing to do with belief, but rather imitation) to live a Christ-like life legalistic? Through the lens of “saved by grace” it would appear so:

  • In the parable of the four soils, three seeds sprout yet only one is saved. How can we tell the difference? By the one baring fruit.
  • In the parable of the talents (or bags of gold in the new NIV, blech) the only servant condemned is the one who does nothing. Even the one who does a little is rewarded. Also the reward is proportional to the service.
  • At the same time, in the parable of the workers in the vineyard, all are rewarded the same regardless of how much work is done. Yet there is still a connection between work and reward.
  • In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus couldn’t make it clearer when he delineates “that which you do for the least of these…” (In fact one of the Crazy Love study guides I found online tried to explain away this passage as only applying to service towards believers at the tribulation)
  • And I want to remind us of the rich young ruler. He was holding on to something that would keep him from entering into the Kingdom. We all have something we’re holding on to. It doesn’t necessarily have to be money or possessions. Yet just like the wealthy, it is impossible to give it up. “But with God, all things are possible”

Going back to the definition of love from 1 Corinthians 13, legalism versus justification or works versus grace can be resolved simply by establishing the motivation. Obeying Jesus out of fear, guilt, obligation, pressure or people-pleasing is legalism. But obeying Jesus out of love is not.

Love. I think that shows up in Chan’s book somewhere.

Flashback Friday: It’s the End of the World as We Know It

Frank

***Originally posted September 10, 2009 when the Large Hadron Collider became operational. Reposted because of news this week that the “God Particle” aka the Higgs boson may have been found. To save you from digging out your old physics textbook (surely you still have it) the Higgs boson is the subatomic particle that is theorized to give objects their mass. In layman’s terms: it’s what all the fuss in Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons was about. But maybe we shouldn’t get our hopes up quite yet. I wonder if this discovery will be confirmed before the actual end of the world which we all know is going to be May 21. (And I need to remind everyone of this scripture: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. -Matthew 24:36)***

It’s the end of the world as we know it… and I feel fine.

I’m behind my posting, but I had to get something up because today is the end of the world. What, you didn’t hear? No I didn’t get this information from someone locked away in a commune in Idaho or from a guy on a street corner holding a sign and asking for change. In fact, I don’t have any religious reason for saying this at all, rather purely scientific. You see, today scientists turned on the Large Hadron Collider, a super-collider in Europe that is intended to create subatomic particles and replicate the big bang.

So what does that have to do with the end of the world? Well some are so afraid of the science behind it that they believe small black holes will be created that could eventually swallow the Earth. They’re so afraid in fact, that they’ve tried to sue to keep it from operating. Not exactly how my Bible describes the end of the world. On the other hand, if they can create a singularity, and wormhole theories hold true, then maybe after the Earth is swallowed up our promised “new Earth” will emerge on the other side. Of course, that would require Jesus to have already come back and depending on which-millennialist doctrine you subscribe, another 1000 years or so to pass. So maybe today’s not the day. But I’ll be keeping oil in my lamp.

Flashback Friday: Where To Now?

Frank

This Flashback Friday is a little different. I’m pulling an excerpt from a previous post but expanding on it.

Before I started reading Crazy Love by Francis Chan, I was reading Mere Churchianity by Michael Spencer. Both are similar in theme: there’s something wrong with the Church. For Michael, it is a lack of being “Jesus Shaped”. For Francis, it is being lukewarm. I think both are right, but they have different solutions. Michael encourages to pursue Jesus whole-heartedly, even if that takes you away from you present church. Francis encourages us to fall madly in love with God and do something where we’re at.

I’m not going to say one is wrong and one is right. I’ve come to learn that each of us has our own circumstances that require a response unique to our own walk with Christ. But I do have an observation. I think Revelation 3:20 is one of the most misused verses in the entire Bible. It is the foundation for salvation doctrine for many, though it is written to believers. Michael Spencer somehow uses it to justify leaving your church to pursue Jesus. My excerpt:

It is worth noting that Jesus’ condemnations of the Seven Churches in Asia found in Revelation came only a generation after Jesus’ death. In other words, it didn’t take long for these early churches to become “church-shaped” instead of Jesus-shaped. Michael reminds us of Revelation 3:20, “I stand at the door and knock…” The implication is that for our churches to return to being Jesus-shaped, we need to invite Jesus back in as the focus of our church. Ironically, Michael follows up with the admonition to “pursue Jesus-shaped spirituality [that] won’t take you to a building with a sign out front.” (pg 210) In other words, “go and do” to seek Jesus-shaped spirituality. However, I think the lesson we can draw from Revelation is instead to “stay and invite” Jesus in to where we are. That may be too passive, and I see Michael’s point, but I think Jesus-shaped spirituality is not a matter of going to find Jesus, but of inviting Jesus in. You could argue that the former is divisive and rebellious in the context of organized religion while the latter is individualized and subjective.

Francis Chan, focusing as he does on the lukewarm passage in verse 16, makes the appropriate (by my reading) interpretation by connecting the problem (lukewarmness) with the solution (inviting Jesus in). The important thing to remember, according to Francis in Chapter 6, is that we cannot overcome our lukewarmness through effort. We can’t try harder, or we will burn out. Instead, we need to remember our first love (Rev 2:4-5).

I’ll have more on this Monday before my Crazy Love group discusses Chapter 6. Stay tuned…

Jesus Saves… Everyone?

Frank

Careful, Rob Bell knows you’re reading this post! Last week I blogged my obligatory Rob Bell Love Wins post bringing up the ongoing debate over whether he espouses universalism and adding a wrinkle to the discussion. Moments later, my email account spammed all of my contacts. Then later someone tried to break into my house. Seriously. Coincidence? I think not! That’s some serious marketing strategy right there. Actually, I’m not sure whether to blame Bell or Kevin DeYoung, because my link to his magnum opus review of the book redirected to an ads.doubleclick site. Hmmm maybe it’s the Gospel Coalition covering their tracks to make me think it was Bell? Diabolical!

So I removed the post, changed my passwords, and updated my privacy settings. I’m also not hyperlinking anything on this one, in case all the bugs aren’t worked out yet. And no, I don’t really think the events of last Friday had anything to do with Bell, his book, or my post. The spam I blame on the hotel computer I used before I caught my flight home. The attempted break-in was simply because someone noticed that I hadn’t been home in a week. Not too hard to figure that one out.

Anyway, I took the post down but I still want the discussion. I don’t count myself in the universalist camp, yet I can see some of the arguments. The discussion I wanted to raise draws our attention to Jesus’ completion of the Old Covenant through his crucifixion. To quote from my deleted post:

If we contend that the God of the Old Testament and New Testament are the same (some argue He is not) and Christ is the completion of the Old Covenant, then we need to go back to that Covenant to put Christ’s sacrifice into its proper perspective. My argument is this: if Christ is the sacrificial lamb, the ultimate sacrifice, and that he died for one and all, then aren’t all of our sins forgiven given the Old Covenant? (see Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, and 2 Corinthians 5:14) Isn’t that, after all, the point of Jesus’ sacrifice? Under the Old Covenant there were no prerequisites for faith in the lamb in order for that lamb to be offered up for one’s sin. So if Jesus died for all of our sins, shouldn’t everyone’s sins be forgiven?

If our sins are forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice, then does not the shedding of his blood save everyone? And if this is the case, then what is the point of the resurrection as it relates to our salvation?

I have my own thoughts on this, but I’m interested in what you think.

Under the conditions of the Old Covenant, Jesus’ sacrifice should atone for all of our sins, therefore all of our sins are already forgiven independent of faith in Christ. If so, what then, does the resurrection mean?

Flashback Friday: Leap of Faith

Frank

I was originally going to repost this entry from October 2009, but only because I wanted to use the YouTube clip. But the video has since been taken down and the overall theme of the post wasn’t what I wanted to share.

Since you can’t see the video, I’ll describe it to you. If you’ve seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you know this scene. It is towards the end when he is trying to get to the Holy Grail. He has to pass three tests, one of which is a “step of faith” over a wide chasm with no bridge or rope. Indy takes a deep breath, closes his eyes, and steps forward into the abyss, only to step onto solid footing. The “bridge” was an optical illusion that blended in with the background so could it could not be seen.

I’ve used that clip several times to describe how sometimes we just need to take a leap of faith. We have to close our eyes and step forward, trusting that God is in control.

Last week I talked about stress and worry being a symptom of a lack of faith in a God bigger than us. I then talked about how the things we stress out about are usually blessings. Yesterday, I gave a personal anecdote to show that God will provide, even if his promise makes us laugh. I hope you notice the theme. That post was supposed to have followed the other two last week, but my week was derailed. This post was intended for last Friday when I was literally taking a leap of faith.

Enough background though. Why is it so hard to make the big decisions in life? Why are we so reluctant to pull the trigger? Lack of faith? Stress and worry? We don’t see the blessings? I think all the above, mixed with some bad theology concerning the will of God. Leading into last week’s leap of faith, I’ve been reading Kevin DeYoung’s Just Do Something. A good book and great reminder, covering ground I had read before in Decision Making and the Will of God by Friesen and Maxson. If you’re familiar with the latter, I recommend the former; it’s much, much shorter!

But the gist is that we convince ourselves that there is a specific plan God has for each of us. A “will of direction” that there is a specific job, a specific spouse-to-be, a specific home, and so on. Yes, God is in control and he wants the best for us. Those are his “will of decree” and “will of desire”. In other words, God’s sovereign and moral will. Who we marry is only aligned with God’s will when it does not violate either his sovereignty (which it by nature cannot) and his morality. The same is true of jobs and other big decisions.

The advice is to pray for wisdom, study the Word of God for moral guidance, and seek Godly advice. If you do all three then you can step forward into the unknown with confidence because in the end, God is still in control.

It sounds easy. Until you have to do it. Last week I interviewed for a new job. This job would take me and my family all the way across the country. It sounded hard and maybe a little over my head, but I was convinced it was an open door God provided. So last Friday, after months of prayer, study and input, I took a leap of faith.

(since this was supposed to have been posted last week before my interview, you’re going to have to wait to hear the ending. Stay tuned…)

Did Jesus Contradict Himself?

Frank

Interesting discussion at my recovery group last night. Did Jesus contradict himself at the Sermon of the Mount? Specifically, Matthew 5:16, where Jesus instructs us to “let [our] light shine before men” and Matthew 6:1, where he warns us “not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.”

So my question of the week is simply, what do you think? How do you let your light shine while not doing “good deeds” to be seen?

I have my answer, but I’m first interested in your thoughts.

Spiritual

Frank

I’m willing to bet you’ve had this conversation, or something like it:

“Hi, I’d like to invite you out to my church…”

“No thank you, I’m not very religious.”

“That’s ok, neither am I. I’m spiritual.”

That was a cute and clever response when I was in campus ministry, but now that I’m older my response leaves me scratching my head. “Spiritual”? What does that even mean? And that is the point of Michael Spencer’s fifth chapter of Mere Churchianity. Glynn Young does a good job summarizing the “flavors” of spirituality offered by the Evangelical Church, and Michael correctly points out that Jesus is often absent. Glynn (and many others in the comments) don’t like the use of the word because it is too vague and can be applied to everything from Christianity to Wicca. But I think that’s the point Michael is trying to make. Spiritual can mean anything. But Jesus-shaped spirituality is specific. I’m hoping he goes into more detail defining what this is, rather than what it is not.

I’m coming to this discussion late and I don’t have much to add specific to this chapter than what I wrote above. I could’ve blown off posting and just left this as a comment over at Glynn’s or Nancy’s blog. But I couldn’t stop thinking about who this discussion relates to as I was reading this chapter.

  • I know of a woman who stopped going to church because she couldn’t accept that a man, still reeking of alcohol and obviously hung over, could pass out the little communion cups, but she, being a woman, could not.
  • I know of a woman who suffered all kinds of abuse from her husband. Her church blamed her for the abuse, that she brought it on herself by not being a “good wife”. And they explained away his addiction by saying her faith wasn’t strong enough and she wasn’t praying hard enough.
  • I know a couple of women who left their church because their choices for the men they wanted to marry weren’t accepted. And when one of the future husbands left one of these girls, she was then shunned for being a single mom.
  • I know a whole family who left their church because they were blamed for being the problem when their church wasn’t growing fast enough.
  • I know someone who looks at his church and sees nothing but a corporation, built and operated like a business. And is constantly searching for a way out.
  • I know someone who stopped going to church, as many do, upon becoming a young adult. And won’t return because she is turned off by the political agenda she sees in most churches.
  • I know a family who left their church once they saw for real exactly how much their minister was being paid.
  • I know someone who is bipolar but won’t tell anyone at his church that he takes medication because he’s been told it’s a “spiritual” problem. I also know a young girl who died because she stopped taking her medicine for the same condition.
  • I know countless others who have left, or who are frequently tempted to, because of abuse from leadership, legalism, and just an overall lack of sympathy or concern for their spiritual growth.

I could go on and on. And I’m sure you could add to this list. Like I said, I could have blown off this post, but these people’s stories need to be told. They personally need to be heard. And someday, somewhere that values Jesus-shaped spirituality above all the other fluff, they need to be accepted and embraced.

Flashback Friday: Sanctuary

Frank

***Originally posted in September 2007. Updated because of the recent immigration law passed in Arizona which will likely be challenged by the Administration.***

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. Then time flied and I never finished that study. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current (2010) headlines show the debate never went away. But that post then (2007) wasn’t going to be about her, but about what role should our churches play in this debate?

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since their actions, by allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But that wasn’t really the point of this either. Is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They’re here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there’s someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.