irrational grace

i was reading the chart of a patient i was assigned to the other day and it read: "patient was found in a dumpster surrounded by trash, vomit and his own feces." this man was a homeless alcoholic, and i couldn't help but think of all the times i've seen people like him and thought, "what a piece of trash." and i also thought how, if i wasn't a social worker and supposed to be the epitome of compassion, i might have thought: "huh, well at least he knows where he belongs." i know that sounds incredibly harsh, but it is the truth. we do think like this. even social workers. furthermore, when i met this man and attempted to have some semblance of a conversation with him, he stated that when he left the hospital, he was going to go to a local party store and get some beer. he also could not understand, even after i described to him how he was found, why i didn't think he should go back to living where he was. once again, how many of us would think, "why waste the time and money on this guy!" yet, we do.

we do this despite the total irrationality of it. for the rational thing would be to just have let him die in the dumpster. after all, his worth to society is about the same worth as the trash he was lying in. if pure reason informed our decision making on such matters we wouldn't use the resources of our society at keeping people like this alive. why is it that we follow reason and rationalism to the tee in all of our academic disciplines yet, in circumstances like these compassion and grace trump reason? or put another way, in circumstances like these, we might say things like "i don't care what makes the most sense, or what is the most reasonable thing to do, i'm going to do what's right." the irrationality of grace turns reason on it's head because what is rational isn't always what is right.

recently, i was thinking about the question: how is one saved? often in discussions of this topic, arguments play out like this: the bible is the objective standard of truth about salvation. thus, one must extract a set of propositions from scripture from various proof texts that logically explain how one is saved. invariably, however, there are different verses that always seem to contradict other verses, and in the end, it is impossible to come up with a perfect unquestionable formula. in my own thoughts, i was considering the story of jesus and the rich young ruler. in the story, the rich man asks jesus how one can be saved-- or enter the kingdom of God. after the rich man says he has obeyed all the laws-- which implies he believes in YHWH and takes his beliefs seriously-- jesus tells him to sell his possessions and follow him. as i rolled this story around in my head for a while and pondered other salvation proof texts i just gave up. i was getting nowhere.

perhaps salvation remains mysterious to us for one, because God saves and not us; it's not our job. but perhaps another reason is because we are saved by grace, and grace is irrational. most people have a problem with the notion of turning the other cheek. "if someone hits you, then you ought to hit them back!" we say. grace just does not make sense. it doesn't make sense to fish someone from a dumpster and spend tens of thousands of dollars on him in hospital bills after he tells you that when he leaves the hospital he will go right back to living the same way. but we do. though we think angry thoughts when we encounter these people, our society creates policies that allow this. and most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

a day after my meeting with this individual, he coded and was transferred to the ICU where he subsequently died. thankfully some of his family showed up, so at least, he didn't die alone. but this person is in God's hands now. most people, and probably most christians, would agree that this man is in hell. i get why people come to that conclusion based on scripture, but the opposite can also be said-- based on scripture. and i also have to believe that if our society can conjure up enough grace to save people most of us despise, i have to hold out hope that the God, from where grace originates, might do the same.

on being a skeptical believer: chaos

this past couple of weeks have been hectic partly because my sister and brother-in-law lost their baby and anne and i have been travelling across the state to see them and attend the funeral. i'm not complaining. i feel horrible for them, and strongly desired to be with them in the midst of this. and it was incredibly emotionally draining for my wife, so i also wanted to be there for her. their whole experience is tragic, and it eerily co relates with a lot of things that have been on my mind. throughout human history, people have struggled to live often losing child after child. it's been only recent that medical technology has lessened the infant mortality rate in our world. and as someone who loves history and realizes all of this, and in watching them suffer, i have been constantly aware of how chaotic our world really is. these thoughts constantly whipped through my mind as i sat through the funeral and listened to their pastor struggle to find meaning in this loss. not to be narcissistic, but in an odd way their whole experience embodied many of the questions i have been wrestling with lately.

in the past few weeks, i have been obsessed with watching debates online. and not just any debates, but ones featuring the journalist, literary and social critic, christopher hitchens. i admit, i have a bit of a man-crush on hitchens. not just because he's brilliant and amazingly well-read and articulate, but because he's hilarious as well and his presentations are as entertaining as they are informative. hitchens recently penned a book called God is not great: how religion poisons everything. after writing this book he has embarked across the country debating various theologians, apologists, scholars and rabbis. i first watched him debate the microbiologist and oxford professor of historical theology, alister mcgrath. knowing mcgrath's credentials and that he has written several books refuting atheism, i expected him to mop the floor with hitchens. much to my surprise the reverse was true, and i was shocked at how foolish mcgrath looked. other debates i watched were between rabbi shmuley boteach and dinesh d'souza. there are actually several with d'souza, and i think he's faired the best. but some of hitchens arguments really bother me, and i've been finding myself arguing with him in my head ever since i began to watch.

my foundational belief for why i believe in God is that there is something rather than nothing. there is order in the midst of chaos. our universe has laws that can be articulated in mathematical language, and our earth exists against tremendously unthinkable odds. now this doesn't necessarily mean that the God of the bible is the intelligence responsible for our universe. that belief i base on the story of the jewish people laid out in scripture, and how that story, once again, despite inconceivable odds, shouldn't have even existed, and yet has changed the world. furthermore, even though there were countless jewish messiahs who were crucified by rome, one of them created a movement that some how flourished even after he was crucified. to me, the story of our universe, human history, and jesus all seem to have the same force driving them.

hitchen's argument, however, is so what? our planet occupies a vast universe full of failed solar systems that didn't give such a result. in focusing on the order, we ignore all the immense chaos that exists. we ignore that fact that we've had meteors crash into our planet or whizz right by us. we ignore the fact that in a few billion years our sun will burn out or the andromeda galaxy will collide with ours rendering us a frozen scorched rock and nothingness and chaos will be our reality again, just like it was in the preceding billions of years before the big bang. we're just a tiny speck in an enormous, dangerous chaotic universe. our existence is a blip in the history of the universe. as hitchens puts it, "we exist on a knife's edge. some design..."

why did my brother and sister in law's baby die? so that God could glorify himself? really? babies have been dying for thousands of years. was God just glorifying himself then? as i sat in that funeral listening to their pastor plumb the depths for meaning in this all too common-- in fact way more common than not-- situation, i couldn't help but think, "are we just bullshitting ourselves?" chaos really seems to have the upper hand. order really seems to be unfathomably rare-- so rare that maybe it is all just a fluke.

so here i sit. i don't have a good answer for this. these are the hard questions, and i think back to my high school days pissed off at myself at how cocky and certain i was. and it frustrates me even more when i hear christians, just as cocky and ignorant as i once was, dismiss these arguments. because at the very least, in wrestling with them, i am ever more aware of just how good, exceptional and precious this life is. and just how much i truly have to rely on faith.

in the midst of mediocrity

well the fourth of july has come and gone, and now we're smack dab in the middle of summer. in the past few years, as i have become increasingly geekier and boring, and as proof, the fourth of july brings up feelings of excitement in me about... not fireworks or boating or cookouts or other things people do on the fourth, but learning about american history. this all started a few years ago when i first subscribed to TIME and received my first annual "making of america" issue. that first issue was on my favorite president, teddy roosevelt, and ever since, the fourth of july has always gotten me interested in history. this year the issue was, fittingly, on FDR and had some great articles by FDR biographers and a critical article by amity shales who recently authored the book, the forgotten man. anne and i also spent the weekend at my parents where i got to spend a couple hours, on the morning of the fourth, watching american revolution documentaries on the history channel. i was in heaven.

we had a good and relaxing time, and we did other non-history related things. lately, i have just been feeling like life is pretty dull, good, but dull. i think about the things i like to do and they amount to reading, watching movies and trying new foods and drinks. anne and i have a good time together, but the exciting couple we are not. yet, in all this mediocrity, i can't help but wonder, if this is the calm before the storm. soon fall will be here and i will be starting my internship, we will be off to europe, the holidays will be upon us and we may even be pregnant. things could get crazy really fast.

overall, i feel as though we are in a transitional period. we have big goals and plans that are all set to begin in the fall. it reminds of me of when i first met anne. i had just finished my first degree, and gotten my first pharmacy tech job. i was in the midst of paying off my car and looking at finding a job in grand rapids and finally moving out of my parents house. things were exciting and new. fall is my favorite season, and it is always the season where big things happen for me. i am eager to see what this fall brings.

until then i'm just slogging through my last class and adding books to my reading list. currently i'm reading theodore rex, the wrecking crew, and two views of hell. the book, the fourth day by howard vantill is on the way in the mail. in the latter book, i have just really gotten into the section on the traditional view of hell. i admit that the author presents some convincing arguments, but i'm finding that it really does all come down to interpretation. do the dead bodies being burned and eaten by worms in isaiah chapter sixty-whatever symbolize people who have been destroyed, or do they symbolize people experiencing eternal conscious torment? you can really read it both ways.

such is also with summer. to some, summer means exciting vacations, camping, water-sports, and amusment parks. for me, summer is the last few months i have to get through before the best and most exciting time of the year.

is death really a bad thing?

a couple years ago my wife and i were talking about creationism, and what people believe about a literal creation story. in our discussion i mentioned that people who hold to a literal, or at least somewhat literal interpretation, believe that people weren't meant to die. now, i'm not sure if anne knew that or not, or if she ever really thought about the implications of that, but she asked a question that, to this day, i have no good answer to. she asked, "but if no one died, then wouldn't the earth get overpopulated really quick?"

it's a fact that death is necessary for life. if there were no death, then much of the planet's inhabitants couldn't eat (which i guess they wouldn't need to?). and like my wife pointed out, if there were no death, not only would there be human overpopulation, but animal and plant overpopulation as well. there might not be any death, but life might be pretty miserable on such an overcrowded planet. death and life are totally interconnected. we even see this played out in the christian story-- to gain life, one must die to himself.

but wasn't death a result of the fall? some theologians would say spirtual death-- being separated from God-- was, but not physical death. i admit that this explanation, while it has some problems with the whole of scripture, seems, for me at least, to ring true. but at the same time i'm not so sure. what if we eliminated all physical death that is caused, directly and indirectly, by the activity of human beings? i wonder how much less death there would be. i wonder if people had stayed in that harmonious relationship with God, eachother and creation, if we would have continued toward a deathless-- at least for human beings-- existence. maybe we would have fulfilled our mandate to populate the planet and ceased having children.

another thought i have had is that everything seems to exist in a cycle e.g. seasons. the ancients understood this well. scripture speaks about the ages of the earth, and eternal life refers to life in the age that is to come. in other words, God made this creation, and later on there will be a new creation which inhabitants of this creation will populate. maybe this current creation is part of a cycle-- kind of like seasons-- of a whole continuous process of creations. and the first people who lived in that edenic state were aware that their life would continue on into the new creation after they died, and physical death was simply part of this creation (thus there was no fear of physical death and no need to care about an afterlife, which is what you see in the OT). maybe the death that resulted from the fall was a spirtual death that damaged the human-God relationship in such a way that humans couldn't be part of the new creation. thus salvation from death means a restoration of that relationship in order for humans to, once again, be part of that future new creation.

whether or not physical death was intended for humans, we'll probably never know. i find it incredibly problematic to imagine the current creation without any physical death. if there were no death there would be no need for A LOT of things that make this creation tick. the changes that resulted from the fall would need to be much more than labor pains, hard work, male dominancy, clothes, the end of talking animals, and snakes losing their legs.

and lastly, don't take this as a "this is what i believe" type of post. i'm just thinking out loud, throwing out ideas, and putting into print the crazy stuff that bounces around my neurons.

wrath, hell & judgement

last night anne and i ventured downtown to the yearly festival of the arts to see one of anne's coworkers play her banjo in a dixieland band. it was a good night, but part of it was spoiled by having to endure the sight of a massive crowd surrounding a guy with a big sign and a bible. the sign condemned gays by saying AIDS is God's judgement on them and even condemned-- seriously-- rock n' rollers. at one point i witnessed a scraggly haired gentleman storm towards the man and begin yelling in his face. another time a teenage girl with an enormous mohawk did the same. it was basically a jerry springer episode right in the middle of Calder square.

i've been thinking a lot about hell and wrath lately. last weekend anne and i attended church with her sister and husband. we went to sunday school where we learned about jehovah's witnesses and then sat through a sermon on--you guessed it! -- God's wrath. in sunday school the pastor argued that JW's have such a huge following because they are annihilationists. he said people would rather be in a religion that believed people won't suffer for eternity than one where people do. i also recently borrowed a book from a friend that i have been wanting to read. the book is called don't stop believing: why living like jesus is not enough by mike wittmer. i am seriously thinking about reviewing this book because i think there is a lot of great discussion points, but one of my main criticisms is that wittmer, like the sunday school pastor and the annoying street preacher, boils salvation down to getting out of hell.

i just received a book in the mail this week called two views of hell which discusses the traditional view of hell and the annihilationist (conditionalism) position. i bought this book because i am 99.9% sure i am a conditionalist, but i wanted to read the best arguments for both to make sure. i hope this book provides that, but more on that in a moment. i believe the biggest problem conservative evangelicals have, theologically, is the idea that salvation is all about life after death, and here's why: what the pastor said about the high numbers of JW's is telling-- he believes people are less scared of the JW view of hell when it comes to their loved ones, so they believe the JW's. now, regardless if he's right or not, he's saying that fear plays an enormous role in salvation. or take this example. in the service that day a number of people prayed for their relatives salvation. why? because they don't want them to go to hell. or take annoying sign guy. if you asked him, what would he tell you he's trying to do? he would tell you he's trying to get people saved so that they don't go to hell. the argument often goes like this: life is short, so you need to worry about eternity. yet, because of this traditional view of hell and the belief that salvation is about avoiding that fate, many people become christians in this country out of fear, and they struggle to understand why living a christian life is important. and thus they believe that the christian life is evidence that they're saved, in other words, their get-out-of-hell free card is still effective. i think this way of thinking is completely wrong, and i think there is a role for conditionalism in fixing this.

first, i believe that salvation and eternal life start now, and that the christian life is salvation. in last weeks church service the pastor discussed people who don't want to be saved because it means they have to live a different way. what is he saying? he's saying that salvation is about getting out of going to hell, and for God letting you off the hook, you've gotta be good. but if salvation starts now, then that means not only is one forgiven, but that christ is now going to begin restoring that person, healing his or her relationships and addictions. being saved means beginning to live like you were intended to live, and that life, that sort of living, is eternal. and not only are you being restored, but you get to participate in the restoration of everything else. hell is the path said person was currently on leading towards destruction, and now he or she is on the path towards life.

secondly, it's true, the traditional view of eternal torment is scary. and it's so scary that it should scare people into being christians. but, i believe, that that is one of it's weaknesses. nobody should become a christian out of fear. people should become christians because God loves them and desires to have a relationship with them. people should become christians so that they get to live the christian life, because living that way is truly being human. and finally people should become christians because God will win and resistance is futile. conditionalism-- the belief that everyone whom isn't redeemed will be done away with-- is a better view, not only because the whole of scripture supports it, but because by removing the eternal element, and thereby some of the fear element, the proper emphasis can be placed on the renewed life. don't get me wrong, it would scare me to think of never seeing my wife again or to face divine punishment for the things i've done. but the traditional view of unjustly punishing finite deeds for eternity, i think, has the effect of turning christianity into a fire insurance policy no matter how much emphasis is placed on God's love for us or the importance of living a christian life. with the traditional view, salvation will always boils down to keeping out of eternal hell.

lastly, after seeing sign guy, i wondered what if? what if christians like me and my friends who cringe at sign guy got our own signs. what if our signs said, "repent!" and then listed: of hatred, violence, objectifying people, destroying creation, judging others, tearing others down, racism and all other sins that destroy you and others whom God self-sacrificially loves. and what if people carrying these signs talked to passersby about a God who wants to put them and this world back together. i wonder what the response would be. i wonder if it would be angry screaming kids with mohawks and homosexuals, or angry screaming fundies with signs filled with hatred and wrath. at any rate, i bet i can tell you which sign carriers would be more effective at spreading the gospel.

book review: spirituality by carl mccolman

Spirituality, I admit like other reviewers, was my last choice from the books that were available. Yet despite wishing it would have been a tad shorter, I found this book to be worth reading.
McColman aimed to write a book on spirituality that would appeal to people of all religions or to those who lack any religion. I am not sure he accomplished this, as I found much of this book to be very much in accord with my own Christian spirituality. Thus, while I believe non-Christians would appreciate McColman's inclusive posture, I'm not sure if say Buddhists, Hindus or Wiccans would feel at home with the many aspects of spirituality or God that McColman describes. In fact, I would recommend this book to a completely secular person in hopes of opening her up to Christian spirituality.

My favorite part of Spirituality was McColman's explanation of the relationship between culture and spirituality. I found his analogy of culture as the body or lungs, and spirituality as the breath enlightening. I also enjoyed his explaination of how culture is imperative for spirituality.

All in all, I found this book useful for teasing out the differences between religion and spirituality. I also found it enlightening in the way McColman shows that spirituality is a human experience rather than a religious one. Like others who reviewed this book, I would say Spirituality is helpful as a crash course in deepening one's spiritual life.

knocking the supernatural, and some follow-up thoughts

my closing paragraph in my last post wasn't intended to trash the supernatural or miracles. i acknowledge the role of "miracles" in scripture as signs pointing to the coming kingdom of God; and i actually think we need to re-understand what miracles are, but that's a different post. my point in de-emphasizing the supernatural is that i think that most people view miracles and the like as the point of religion or faith. and, in fact, many people are atheists or agnostics because they do not believe in miracles and therefore cannot believe in God. thus i think the high emphasis that christians have historically placed on miracles and supernatural happenings have been damaging to the ultimate mission of the church.

i say this also because the more i think about how all of reality fits together and what christianity teaches about the human story, the more i realize how miraculous everything really is. for we, just like everything else around us, make up something that transcends ourselves.

our purpose, our function, is to be God's representation on earth. our purpose is to rule in his place. yet, adam screwed that up. but christ is the second adam. christ modeled what we were made to do, and now we are now to communally and individually embody him. we make up christ's body. communally, joined in agape, we are the closest thing on earth to its creator.

chaos--> sub-atomic particles--> atoms--> molecules--> cells--> tissues--> organs--> organ systems--> human--> church--><-- God

yesterday, a cousin told my wife how disappointed she is in her father because he doesn't go to church every week. if i were there i would have asked, "why? what's the purpose of going to church? is there an attendance quota we need to meet?"

i wonder how different things would be if we stopped seperating the supernatural from the everyday. i think about how my cousin's warpped understanding of what the church is affects her father's understanding of it. then i think about how the warpped understanding the church has had about itself affects the world's understanding of it. just sayin.