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.

finding jesus in ken wilber

in velvet elvis, rob bell, recommends the book, a brief history of everything, by ken wilber. rob received a lot of flack recommending a book by a zen buddhist philosopher. but i was intrigued that rob found this book so worth reading, and since i believe all truth is God's truth, i thought i would pick it up. i'm about half way through, and though i reject wilber's pantheistic view of God, i am finding a lot of thought-provoking content.

wilber explains that all of reality is made up of "holons." holons are nothing more than anything that is a whole, yet is also a part. for example, an atom is its own entity, but it is also part of a molecule. and likewise, a molecule is something in and of itself, yet is also part of a cell. wilber then explains that as holons go into deeper levels of complexity (e.g. atoms to molecules) there become fewer of them. to put it another way-- there are more atoms than there are humans, which are made of atoms.

the implication that human beings are holons themselves is obvious. i spend a lot of time as a social work student learning about systems theory. put simply, systems theory theorizes that human being are and function in systems. our bodies are made up of organ systems, and we live and work in social systems e.g. families, neighborhoods, communities, governments etc. we are wholes and we are parts. the big question i have in all of this is that just like atoms work together to create molecules, which work together to create cells, is there something greater that we create when we work together? or, just like there are forces that hold atoms and molecules together to work in a functionally, orderly way, what forces hold people together?

what are the implications in all of this for christianity?

the bible is rife with commands to love others, your neighbor, your brother and to love God. in fact, there is a strong connection with loving God and loving people. the bible, in many regards, is a book about relationships-- what happens when they are good, and what happens when they go wrong. the apostle paul teaches that the church-- a group of people loving each other and loving God-- are to be christ's body. maybe paul was one of the first systems theorists. he seems to be saying that people are to be bonded together by the force of love, or agape, and live in this higher, functional way. which leads me to wonder that maybe there is something deeper going on when people start getting emotional and all touchy-feely in intense worship services, or listening to speakers that seem to tap into something or hit a nerve.

what if the bible is the story of people plugging into the force that binds humans together and takes them to higher levels of complexity? just like sub-atomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, cells form tissue, tissue form organs, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form us... what do we form? what are we meant to form?

i think spirituality is rooted in relationships and community; and i'm really not interested in God being proven by miracles or supernatural phenomenon, which i think is what many people think of as "spiritual." jesus had some strong words for people begging him for miracles. so needless to say, i'm finding a lot of stimulating ideas in ken wilber's writings, and in many regards because of some of the ideas in his book, God seems realer and closer than before.

my first book review

i'm reviewing books for the ooze's viral blogger site. check it out.

Rebecca Price Janney's new book entitled, Who Goes There: A Cultural History of Heaven and Hell, sets out to trace the history of American beliefs concerning the afterlife. The problem I found with this book, however, is that I continually had to remind myself that this is what the author was supposed to be doing. Because while much of the book is a history lesson, the author is simultaneously arguing a theological position, which I think she does unsuccessfully.

In the first chapter, Janney argues that Americans have a wishy-washy view of the afterlife believing most people go to heaven, while only the most wicked go to hell. She then says that this is dangerous because only Jesus can provide assurance of heaven. From there, Janney goes on a whirlwind tour through American history chronicling various Christian movements. During this portion of the book-- which is pretty much all of it-- I sensed in Janney's tone the notion that America was once a godly, Christian nation, and it has slowly descended into liberal unorthodoxy (prior to the 1960's people didn't have sex outside of marriage?? p. 179). In the epilogue,Janney argues that in the good (bad?) old days when life expectancy was like 30, people took comfort in the thought of heaven and lived by biblical principles because they feared hell. But now with modern medicine, the media, and technology, Americans do what they please without the fear of death. She then says that this ground is sinking sand, because the Christian hope of heaven and horror of hell are real and appropriate (p. 211).

My question to her is why? How have you shown this? Because what I just read basically says that when life was short and fragile, and when people were considerably more ignorant then they are today, they found comfort in the belief that they were going to heaven. I think Janney unintentionally argues is that Christian beliefs in the afterlife function as a comforting mechanism to those facing death. It's comforting to believe your loved one is in heaven, or that murderers are being punished. That was a comforting thought then, and it is a comforting thought now. Yet, she never gives any compelling reason to believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is what I believe her intention is.

But maybe this book was written only for believers, and the author assumes the reader already believes in Jesus. That's fine, but I still had other problems. In the epilogue, Janney says that Americans historically have believed and acted upon the literal belief of heaven and hell, and that this is what "tenacious" souls continue to accept as true (p.211). But right after she say this she quotes C.S. Lewis, who had beliefs concerning heaven and hell that would make literalists cringe. On page 214, she describes a 700 Club episode that featured a man who had a near death experience where he "went to hell." Not surprisingly, 1,200 (I'm assuming terrified) callers phoned in to get saved. I couldn't help but remember how Janney discusses NDE in a previous chapter. In this chapter, people who had NDE described a place of love and light where they were told sin wasn't a problem and that all religions lead to God. So the NDE guy on the 700 Club had a valid experience, but the NDE's from the previous chapter didn't? Concerning this, Janney says, "people will respond to God's truth when the Holy Spirit convicts them (p. 214)."

I really tried to keep an open mind when reading this. I have to disagree with the previous reviewer about Janney not being "preachy." I did find her preachy, and also confusing. But I will agree that she asks good questions, and I enjoyed the history lesson.

my first celebrity commenter

today i was surprised to open my email and find a comment on an old post. the post was on a quiz that i found and posted that deals with annihilationism. the celebrity (at least to me and students of theology) who commented is the author of the quiz, biblical scholar edward fudge. apparently, even he enjoys arguing with heath.