who really goes to hell? a review

This is my review for Viral Blogger on the book, Who Really Goes to Hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard.

First I'll get the criticisms out of the way.

What Rudel is attempting to do is commendable. With his book and several websites, he seems to be trying to start a massive theological movement. I wouldn't even be surprised if deep down inside Mr. Rudel fancies himself to be modern day Martin Luther, and get the sense that the author believes he has stumbled upon a new reformation. Now I won't disagree that we certainly need a new sort of reformation, and indeed I believe we are in the midst of one currently. But Mr. Rudel's less than subtle attempts to spark a new one himself with his book and blog comes off as a little naive.

Secondly, if Mr. Rudel wants to be taken seriously he should nix the "biblical heresy press" thing. The logo is amateurish and cheesey. But more importantly, while I get what the author means by the name, many people won't. I have decided not to lend out my copy of Who Really Goes to Hell to some conservatives in my life because I think the phrase "Biblical heresy" will be too off-putting and color their view of the author's arguments from the get go.

Thirdly, as other reviewers have noted, there are typos and grammatical errors galore. I also could have done without all the font changes, bold type face and previews of what's to come in further chapters.

Now that those quibbles, most dealing with style and presentation, are out of the way I would like to say that I really enjoyed the substance of the author's arguments. I thoroughly resonate with the notion that the modern gospel has been piled upon by centuries of theological lenses that are far removed from the world view and cultural-historical context of the first century Palestinian Jew. Mr. Rudel's argument that one would come away with a thoroughly different gospel than today's evangelical one, if he or she were only given the synoptic gospels, is spot on. Furthermore, I found many of my own questions and arguments being brought up in the pages of Rudel's book.

Because I'm not a bible scholar and I cannot adequately critique all of Rudel's claims about ancient Jewish beliefs and culture, I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt that his interpretations of Hebrew and Greek words and his depictions of ancient Jewish thought are accurate. However I would have appreciated Rudel citing his scholarly sources. Here and there he mentions N.T. Wright and David Flusser, but a notes section would have been much appreciated.

Overall, I agreed with much of Rudel's criticisms of "the modern gospel." Like Rudel, I grew up in the world of conservative evangelicalism, and found him asking the same questions I have. His observation that the modern gospel comes by way of reading the Jewish gospels through a western protestant lens, and that we must revisit the writings of the apostles through a Jewish lens has been made before. Yet I think that Rudel's contribution to this view is very helpful and I found his differentiation of deliverance and regeneration intriguing. I'll definitely be re-reading this book.

And by the way, I agree with his answer to the title's question.

original sin: a both/and?

in some follow-up thoughts to my last post, i've been thinking that maybe this extrinsic v.s. intrinsic debate on original sin is really a both/and.

if my premises are right that our ethics come from culture which comes from human relationship (with God, humans and creation), and our ethics are screwed up because our relationships are screwed up, then what happens when we consider that to be a human being-- ontologically-- is to be cultural and relational? in other words, human beings have a relational/cultural dimension, and when we are born into a relational/cultural tainted world, then the moment that dimension begins taking shape that part of us is tainted.

now i understand that this won't satisfy those who insist that a human being, in utero, is already depraved. but if we understand that being human is more than just biology, then i think my explanation that sin comes from the outside, but immediately affects our relational/cultural dimension from the very beginning of our life could be a satisfying explanation.

can't we all just get along? thoughts on original sin, culture and relationships

i've been reading a new blog lately by a fellow grand rapidian named jeremy bouma. he has been blogging about many things emergent including doug pagitt's view of original sin. it has got me thinking about my own view, and while i would typically say that i do believe in it, something doug said in the comments really resonates with me. in fact it has caused me to do a lot of thinking today because doug's statement fits into my own worldview quite nicely.

here's a summation of my thoughts on this:

all of creation, or reality, is relational. everything that exists, including us, is made of things are that also parts of, and exist in relationship to, bigger things. humans (which are made of atoms, which form molecules, which form cells etc.) form social institutions, which make up society. the DNA or soul of society is culture.

culture is a manifestation of human relationship. human relationship engenders culture. it is the water in which we swim. culture affects us from the very beginning of our life. we are completely enveloped in it.

relationship and culture are part of who we are.

original sin then is the relational fracture between God and humans. this fracture spreads to human relationships and culture, which spreads to the human/creation relationship. this broken relationship with God affects our behavior and ethics since ethics are cultural and deal with relationship.

thus, because our fall comes by way of a relational fracture with God, our salvation comes by way of relational healing with God through Christ.

the statement i liked that doug posted was from his book, a christianity worth believing. here's the statement that resonated with me:

"Sin isn’t a legal problem with God; it’s a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that’s what sin is—disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God."

i think doug is right. sin, from the beginning is a relationship problem, and not an imago dei problem. yet jeremy argues that ontologically we are still made in God's image, but ethically we are rebellious:
"We are not worms. We are the Image of God. That image is cracked and corrupted though, though, by sin which is why we act in ways that we were not intended to act, resulting in death that was never intended to be. Ethically we are morally rebellious. The ontological consequences of ethical autonomy that comes from that sin nature which Paul says we've inherited from Adam is Death (and I would also say Diseases, like cancer), but could also affect us at the DNA level."

jeremy really seems contradictory in this statement. we are the image of God, but not really...
why instead can't it be: we are the image of God, but our relationship with him is broken. that would make much more sense, and would explain why our ethics are so screwed up given that ethics are grounded in relationship and culture which affect who we are.

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.

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.

what is the meaning of this?

i had a good end to my work day yesterday. a co-worker, a couple months ago, had her kids taken away from her by her ex-husband. this guy, from everything i have seen from him and heard about him, is a douche, plain and simple; and he is out to make her life miserable regardless of how it hurts their kids. long story short, he won custody because certain papers weren't filed right, and the judge was sympathetic to him because he is in the military. anyways, this co-worker has been no angel herself and there are times, in the past, where i have questioned her fitness as a mother. however, last week she and i had little talk. it seems that this whole ordeal has caused her to come to some serious conclusions about her life, and she went on and on about how she quit drinking and going out and is seriously trying to get her life together. she told me how she cannot wait to get her kids back so she can be the mother they deserve. and she told me that God does everything for a reason.

last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.

john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...

now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.

if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.

yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.

belief in what?-- or-- random updates and thoughts on faith and belief

things have been good as usual. i am finally finishing my upstairs with the help of my realtor. it's been fun so far, and i'm about to make another trip to home depot in a little bit. i've been a little obsessed actually and i'm probably starting to drive anne nuts with how much i talk about it.

i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.

there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?

in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.

in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?

a monstrous God of love?: my thoughts and feelings on the bible revisited

today i have to turn in a paper for my final biblical perspectives class, once again, discussing my thoughts and feelings on the bible. my real final paper isn't due till next week. i may or may not post that one. the idea with this one though is to see if the class has changed my thoughts and feelings.... this class unfortunatley was kind of a disappointment. but anyways, here's my second paper, which really doesn't reflect much from my class experience, but is fine because the only requirement is that the paper begin with "the bible is..."


The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.

The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.

Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.

And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.

you'd think a class that discusses genocide and prostitution wouldn't be boring

it's sad to say, but i'm so glad that i have one more week of biblical perspectives. i really was looking forward to that class, but sadly our instructor has been a composite of sunday school and high school bible teachers (excluding david rudd) of my past. last week she ended class by reading us a children's book... complete with showing us the pictures by spreading wide the pages, facing them towards us and twisting back and forth. i felt so bad for her, as we all sat slumped in our chairs waiting for it to be over.

tonight wasn't as bad. we talked about the resurrection, and jewish perspectives of isaiah's suffering servant. i find myself holding back comments, however, because a. i don't want to look like a know-it-all and b. i don't want really want people to think i'm enjoying class, because it is so incredibly boring. and that's pathetic. but most people think studying the bible is absurdly boring and i'm sure it is because they have had bible teachers like my instructor.

but the bible and theology shouldn't be boring. for starters, the bible is full of what entertains people today-- sex, violence, drama. but more importantly, if you believe it is true, then the bible and theology are about the very foundational truths of existence. so it shouldn't be very difficult for teachers to make class interesting. on top of that, most americans have very deeply held beliefs about God, the bible, the end times etc... so it's pretty easy to say something provocative that will get a discussion started. i think about joe and i. we try to get together on a regular basis, and besides talking about life issues and other normal stuff, every time we meet the discussion almost invariably turns to something theological and it's typically about hell. it happened today, actually. why? because if you believe in God and a life beyond this one, then all of life now-- everything truly meaningful-- is rooted in what and how you think about source of all existence.

so i'm thankful for friends that i can have those discussions with, and i'm thankful for a blog where i can dump my unfinished and unpolished theological and philosphical ramblings. maybe bible teachers subconsciously keep it boring because the bible is full of such jarring and confounding insights into reality. they keep it surfacy because when you dig deeper, things get murky and uncomfortable really quickly.

confrontation and adaptation

i am a non-confrontational person. i will typically avoid confrontation at all costs. when i get into heated arguments with people i don't know too well my sympathetic nervous system kicks in full gear and i begin shaking and my voice trembles. basically, i look and sound like i'm going to cry, which sucks, because i'm actually pissed and crying is the furthest thing from my mind. i would bet that if i didn't behave this way in confrontational situations i wouldn't be as prone to avoiding them. but alas, i do and i only get into them when they come to me, and the other day, one did.

i won't get into specifics because that would take too long, but while i was doing a job a co-worker should have already had done, said co-worker walked up, got in my face, and told me she needed help with something else, and that i wasn't helping her. now this co-worker is already on the brink of being fired because she struggles to keep up with her work and others have to always come bail her out, and i already had a laundry list of things i wanted to say to her. so, needless to say, the opportunity presented itself and when my fight or flight response kicked in, i fought.

in the end, i think this was good for me. i need more experiences like that. that's not to say i need to start picking fights with random people to improve the way i handle myself in confrontations, but i need to learn to not fear them and to keep my self in control while firmly arguing my side. the rest of our day together went fine, and while we didn't talk about our blowout again, i think she understood that my frustration wasn't towards her personally, but her lack of certain skills.

when confrontation and conflict turn ugly, it often has to do with how the two parties are communicating, as well as, their history. i think that being honest and open with people is important, but it's also about how you're honest and open. i have a diverse group of friends. most of my friends are not friends with each other, and only know one another through me. i get nervous when some of my friends are around each other. during the week of my wedding two of them almost came to blows, and another set of them did. why do i get along with all of them, but some of them cannot get along at all? a lot of it has to do with communication. the way i communicate-- what i say and how i say it-- changes with each friend. most people communicate one way with everyone, and if they clash with some people, they respond with: "oh well, you can't get a long with everyone." and some people are so oblivious, they cannot even grasp basic communication etiquette like: don't talk religion and politics with new people. my dad is a good example of that.

i think my desire to avoid confrontation has a lot to do with why i can communicate and maintain friendships with people who are very different from one another. rather than getting into fights, i adapt to how others communicate. my big challenge on the conflict and confrontation front, like i said, is learning to not look like i'm about to cry. i think a good step towards that is learning to recognize when things are escalating, and then to take it down a notch. it's interesting to me how something that is usually problematic-- avoiding confrontation-- has been somewhat of an asset to me. now i just need to learn to adapt in times when it's unavoidable.

demythologizing good and evil- some observations

note: i could not, for the life of me, figure out how to create columns on blogger, so this will have to do.

good~evil

light~darkness

order~chaos
creation~destruction
function~dysfunction
life~death
righteousness~sin
love~hate
peace~violence
truth~deceit
healing~suffering
healthy~decaying
joy~depression

i think it's fair to say that most people have an incorrect view of good and evil. most people believe in good and evil, but believe the two are in some sort of mythical opposition to one another. this view is, of course, played out in incredibly popular books-turned-movies like the lord of the rings, the chronicles of narnia, harry potter, and the twilight series. i think most people would also say that the bible is a story of the epic struggle of good and evil as well. i would disagree. i would not only disagree that the bible is a story of good versus evil, but i would disagree with the whole notion of the epic struggle of good versus evil. and i would also reject the incredibly mythical way that most people think about good and evil.

people who know me well, actually read this blog, or have a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy know why i would reject these ideas. the notion of good versus evil is dualism. it's really lame, but i first rejected dualism after reading a corny email forward about a bold christian taking on his philospohy professor. while the email was corny and probably not true, the arguments put forth in it completely changed how i view good and evil. and i'm sure they are age old arguments created by someone a long time ago, but up until that point, i had never heard them. the argument is that evil really isn't a thing, but a lack of a thing, namely, good, just as darkness and cold aren't things, but are a lack of things, namely light and heat. interestingly enough, a metaphore for good and evil used throughout the bible is light and darkness.

the above chart i made, i believe, represents several different ways people say "good" or "evil." death, suffering, violence etc. get lumped under the big mythical umbrella of "evil" and love, life, peace etc. get lumped under the mythical umbrella of "good." my first observation echos what i mentioned in the previous paragraph, in that many of the things on the right are nothing more than a lack of the things on the left. note that this observation concerns relationship. the relationship, for instance, between order and chaos isn't that they are opposing forces, but that one is a lack of the other.

my second observation is this: certain items on the two lists have a cause and effect relationship.
take life and death. a while back i was going to post a series called, "is death really a bad thing?" because for there to be life there has got to be death. we eat dead plants and animals. animal waste is used to fertilize soil which creates life. if there were no death there would be over-population which would make life miserable. death is necessary for life.

my next observation is that there cannot be life without order. i am composed of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. and all of these particles working in an orderly way to allow me to live do so because of orderly physical laws. without order there can be no life, and this truth carries on into the worlds of living organisms-- people create families, which create societies, which create cities, and countries, and governments, and nations etc... in other words, we try to create order, and when we stray from order, we see destruction, lies, hate, violence, disease, suffering, depression, death-- chaos. so it can be said that everything in the good column is just another way of saying "order" and everything in the evil column is another way of saying "chaos."

so how does this square with the bible? as previously stated, the bible uses the metaphor of light and darkness to describe good and evil. i would also point out that there are "order from chaos" themes in scripture. these observations cause me to conclude that sin is any behavior which works against God's order-- which i believe is all "true order." i say "true order" because there can be order used for destructive purposes, but this order ultimately destroys itself. sin is also our straying from our role of being agents of order creating more true order. and sin, of course, leads to suffering, destruction and death.

i am still stuck with the life and death thing. life and death work together; i do sometimes question the evilness of physical death. and suffering, as well, brings similar issues, for suffering can lead to redemption. suffering can purge us of destructive behavior. suffering is often a bridge from the right column to the left. can chaos create order or does an outside agent have to intervene?

my last observation is that i believe order is a tangible way of seeing God. this isn't to say that order is God and God is order, but that if we want to see the living God all we have to do is ponder the fact that without order all would cease to exist. we don't have to search far to see God; we don't have to look for signs or miracles-- existence is a miracle.

success

i found out yesterday that i, for sure, got the internship and was given a name and number of the person i am to be shadowing and reporting to. this was a huge load that has been lifted as i had not heard back from my contact in weeks after she told me she was pretty sure they would have a spot for me. a couple weeks ago i had paged her several times and emailed her never hearing back. so this was huge. i can't wait to go shopping for some professional looking attire, as well as, a sweet moleskine to take notes in.

yet, in the wake of this victory, this morning i began falling into a mire of regret. from time to time, i get caught up thinking about how we should have stayed in our apartment. when we moved into our house we were living dirt cheap in our nice little one bedroom. we were paying off debt like mad. my income paid all the bills so anne's income was just extra. i think about her income now and how much more she makes. i think about what our lives would be like if we had paid off all our debt and she would have gotten the job she has now and if we still lived in our apartment. i think about how we could have a new(er) car, or how cheaper houses are now, or how we could have gone to europe.

in the past, when i thought about this, i always thought about how we never would have bought niles. but seriously, would i trade niles for no debt, a car, a trip to europe, and a nicer house with a smaller mortgage? uh, yeah. i love the little shit almost like a child, but i would rather have stayed in our apartment. so the only think that gets me through this bout of regret is simply the fact that what is is what is, and there is nothing i can do to change the past. all i can do is live in the present. and in the present i am blessed. i have an internship. i have an internship at the biggest hospital in this half of the state, and it's also where i happen to work. all i gotta do is keep getting A's, and i'm set. and i have the day off tomorrow, with no real homework. that helps too.