The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

Martin Zender's "How To Be Free From Sin While Smoking A Cigarette" is another one of his quick hitting books that's full of wit; even though the entire book is not much longer than the title.  I think one of the things that makes his books enjoyable is he doesn't make them any longer than they have to be to get his point across.  Martin doesn't go for quantity.  He doesn't mince his words.  He's a straight to the point kind of guy.  If you've struggled with the guilt that comes from a habitual sin, this book is for you.  It's not about the one off sins. It's about those sins that we commit, fret about and then commit again over and over.  It's about freeing ourselves of the condemnation we put on ourselves, telling ourselves that we've let G-d down again (and again); or even worse that our habitual sins puts our very salvation in jeopardy.  Once again, Martin takes a shot at traditional Churchianity and delivers a solid blow, using scriptural backing to make his points.  Martin once again has great illustrations (literal pictures and parables) to deliver his message in a way that is always effective and never boring.


One of my favorite parts of the book is where Martin discusses the passages in Romans and I Corinthians that clearly show that the same principle that says all were condemned in Adam, says all were made alive in Christ.  Churchianity has no problems with the first part of the passage.  Say you weren't there when Adam sinned, they say "It doesn't matter."   Say you don't "accept" Adam's acting on your behalf, they say "Too bad."  But, OTOH, they tell you that you have to accept what Jesus did for you for it to count.  They have no problem with you being unfairly condemned.  Yet, they think you have to be "fairly" justified.  You have to perform some act to be justified when you had nothing to say about the condemnation.  There's a cartoon on page 36 that is one of my favorites of Martin's (sorry, you gotta buy the book to get it).  It's very simple and to the point.  Of course, Martin addresses the inevitable charge that he's actually encouraging people to to out and sin more (just as Paul had to).  It always amazes me when people jump to that.  It reminds me of the old story:

There's another great story on page 49 that addresses the objective truth that we're free from sin while most of us are living subjectively feeling like we're condemned by it.

Martin points out that being a slave of  Sin doesn't necessarily mean we are committing lots of sin.  Being a slave of Sin means being obsessed with sin.  If we're fretting about sin, worried that sin is removing us from G-d's favor, we are, in effect, slaves of sin.  I had never thought of this this way. But, it makes perfect sense to me.  If we want to be free from sin, the first thing we have to do is stop obsessing about it.

For me, obsessing about sin is something that has become less and less a factor in my life. A few years ago, this book would have been much more needed.  Never-the-less, it was quite enjoyable.  There were some new ideas and a lot of affirmation of what I've already come to believe.  I do recommend it.

I've been thinking a lot about Sunday morning services for the last year or so.  Ever since I went through my "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" series of posts last year this has been on my mind.  Since joining Nexus almost 8 months ago now, it's been even more on my mind as I'm unofficially part of the group figuring out how we'll attract and retain people.  I think many people still attend church on Sunday morning out of habit or obligation. But, I think in a postmodern world (and especially at postmodern churches), this is going to become a problem.  I could see postmodern (emerging, liberal, progressive use whatever adjective you like here) churches struggling to attract people to Sunday morning services, ironically because of the type of people they're trying to draw.   People who think and question, will eventually ask the question "Why should I get up on Sunday morning and give up an hour or more of my free time?"  After so many years of the canned service of "3 fast, 3 slow, 1 one to pray and 1 to go" (I've heard worship leaders use that phrase or something like it) and the 20 minute PowerPoint fill-in-the-blanks in the program sermons Sunday mornings can become something people dread rather than a time to gather with other seekers and be refreshed.  Yesterday morning at Nexus, that was broken through, at least for me.  Click here to see some pix of yesterday morning.

I've been telling Ty for a while now that while I think Nexus is really good at thinking outside the box, there's something about Sunday morning that is still a little stiff for me.  I've discussed this with others at Nexus and it's fascinating to hear the different opinions.  Some think the service is already way far from traditional.  Others, like me, think it's still too familiar and "churchy".  It's stupid to change simply for the sake of change.  And I'm sure the traditional format has come to be for many reasons.  Having worship songs, followed by a sermon serves several very good purposes.  But, my thought has been a few changes here and there could make things a lot better.  For example, we generally set up the chairs in a very school-room type style.  Well, we don't have straight rows, we angle them in in semi-circles. But, they're rows none-the-less.  The general set up is band up front, pastor standing in front of us "students" all sitting in our rows and getting the information dump.  Gregg has left time for "talk back" at the end (which I sit waiting for, racing ahead, trying to come back is great practice at being in the present moment).  But, the talk back is in its own compartmentalized space.  Two things I've been saying (to Ty) I'd like to see are a different seating arrangement and the freedom to talk back during the sermon.  I remember when I first saw/heard a "emerging" church service one of the things that struck me about that one was the pastor sat in the middle while people were arranged in living room chairs and couches around him. His talk was interactive, inviting feedback during his talk and the whole thing had such a comfortable feel to it (even though I was only there via video).  There's a PodCast I listen to weekly, 21st Century Buddhism by Ethan Nichtern. I look forward to it every week.  I never miss it. Every time I listen, I wish there were a meeting like that near me that I could attend. Ethan kicks off the talk with a few minute intro to the topic, there's some (not necessarily a lot) of interaction during that time, then, it's open for discussion.  The talks are generally about an hour long and are focused on very practical things.  Even when they're discussion a Buddhist truth like "Buddhists should not kill." that people could easily pass over and say "I don't kill.".  Ethan always takes it to a very practical, pragmatic, "how does this effect my daily life?" level.

Nexus doesn't have big comfy couches and I don't see us sitting in the Lotus position on cushions.  But, what I've thought is we could arrange the chairs differently (maybe in a circle or semi-circle around Gregg).  Also, have each person put their own chair out and take it back at the end.  Each week we set up way too many chairs meaning someone has to show up early to set them up.  Everyone is very good about pitching in to put them away at the end.

Ty hasn't understood why I find the changes I'd like to see important.  In her mind they're pretty insignificant.  She doesn't think rearranging the chairs is a big deal.  And, she really doesn't participate much even when we have the talk back time.  But, yesterday, we had the chance try out things kind of the way I'd like to see them.  Nexus had an event called a "Free Slam" on Saturday evening.  It's an open mic situation where people could get up to read poetry, sing, juggle, whatever they wanted to do to express themselves.  That, I thought, was a really cool thing in itself.  But, one of the unintended consequences of that was when I got there to set up chairs on yesterday morning, the chairs were sitting at round tables.  The tables were covered with tablecloths and had candles on them.  On the floor up front was a rug with pillows on it.  Perfect set up for Sunday morning service I thought and planted the seed that maybe we should just keep it that way.  The seed took root and we did.

The second thing that came together was Deb was speaking yesterday and had planned for interaction during the message.  She kicked it off by introducing the topic, leaving space for a  moment of silence to reflect on the topic, by saying her piece about it and then inviting us to discuss it.  We then had a lively discussion about being our "authentic selves" and/or living out our faith in the workplace.  There was an interactive exercise with  a strip of paper (Amish PowerPoint) where we did several things with our pieces of paper to represent the inner life versus the outer life (including making a Mobius strip which some of the people in the group struggled with-  that struggle itself allowed for more community as those who "got" it helped those who didn't).   Jeff spent his time during the sermon interconnecting several Mobius strips, which Chuck observed was a great model for what a community is really like (or should be like).  BTW, Jeff was listening and talking during the discussion.  I noticed a lot of people were playing with the paper strips (I was too).  It's nice to have something to do with your hands while sitting in a discussion.   Deb then wrapped up the discussion, we sang another song and dismissed for the day.  What I loved about yesterday is it was really about opening a "collaborative exploration" session more than downloading information to us. I think "collaborative exploration " is what Nexus is all about and is one of the major things that sets us apart.

I wonder at Nexus, if being such a different place we'll be plagued by the very nature and/or experience of the type of people we will naturally attract.  I've already observed there are people who don't seem to be too interested in making it to Sunday morning services, but they are there for a Pool Party, a picnic in the park, a discussion group on Wednesday or a Free Slam on Saturday night.  I think we should do two things to address that:  1.) while still encouraging people to come on Sunday morning, make a conscious effort to allow people to feel like they are a part of Nexus' community and mission without having to come on Sunday.  I think there are people who would like to participate with us, on some level, but just ain't gonna come on Sunday.  2.) At the same time, try to make Sunday morning as interesting and compelling as possible because that is the one time a week we do gather as community on a regular basis.  I think people should come on Sunday morning.  But, they should want to come. In my opinion a service like yesterday morning would be more appealing to the type of seekers that would be drawn to the mission of Nexus.

What do you think?  I know many of you who read my blog don't attend church at all.  The last place you want to be on a Sunday morning is in church.  Is there anything that would draw you back to church?  If you could design a Sunday morning meeting what would it look like?

I found this little gem in the Sunday paper yesterday.  Normally, I don't care much for Opus.  But, the last two weeks it's been great.  Click on the picture to see it full size.

How'd you like my attempt at Latin?  I'll explain it later.  I promise.  Last Thursday I was at the "She Who Is" meeting on feminist theology (yes, me at a meeting on feminist theology).  We were talking about feminine versus masculine images of  G-d.  It was a very good conversation. It's the first time I've really been able to talk about this with anyone since reading "Is It Okay To Call God Mother?" and being laughed at by Mark and Scott. (you can continue reading after scrolling past the picture)

But, this post really doesn't have much to do with that.  In fact, it's not at all about the femininity or masculinity of G-d.    It's about doubting the very existence of G-d.  It came up during the meeting and prompted a meditation session, which led to this post. I think we all wrestle with the existence of God from time to time.  I've had doubts on and off all my life.  But, usually they're pretty minor and pass fairly quickly.  Doubting God's nature.   Now, that's another story.  I do know some people who are serious doubters though and it's often difficult for me to relate to them.  I'm reading a book called "Doubt" right now.  It's a history of doubt down through the ages, from the earliest recorded time up until the present.  I got it to explore my own doubts and to help me better understand some people I'm pretty close to right now who have serious doubts about the existence of G-d.   The author points out that we divide ages into periods of belief, but we often overlook the in between times of doubt.  Her focus is on those troughs, those periods in human history where doubt seems to prevail.    The book is not my usual read as it deals a lot with philosophy and history; two of my least favorite subjects.  I find philosophy confusing (and often pretty silly) and history just plain boring. However, I have made it a spiritual discipline to complete this book (I must confess I have skipped one chapter so far).  The book is over 500 pages of small type.  But, I'm learning a lot about doubt and doubters.  I just finished a section about Descartes who said "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum".  In English, "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."  Now here's what I'm talking about when I say philosophy can screw you up.  This dude sat in a room and thought so long and hard he began to doubt his very existence.  I mean, if there's one thing that is self-evident, it's that I exist.  He began by doubting all his senses, wondering if he might be in dream state and (I guess) wondering if he might be a character in a dream.  Finally, the one thing he could cling to was that since he had thought, he could at least trust that he existed (even if his perception of himself was an illusion).  The fascinating part though is that after he finally established something he could firmly believe in (his existence), he set about to prove the existence of G-d.  Amazingly, that was simple for him.  Basically he said that we have an inner knowing of G-d that G-d has placed in us.  We just know G-d exists.  People until that time had been trying to prove the existence of G-d through looking outside of themselves, through looking at nature and through logic or philosophy.  Descartes flipped the whole thing upside down basically said "Sum, ergo Deus est" (my phrase).  "I am, therefore G-d exists."  When I first read this I thought "Whoa!  This guy couldn't figure out that he existed?  Yet, once he finally established he did, he so easily 'proved' the existence of G-d from 'inner knowing'?".  This is the idea I want to explore.

There's an old song called "He Lives".  Mike Williams brought it up in one of his sermons at the Grace Gathering last week.  At least, I assume this is the song he was talking about.  Part of the lyrics are:

He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way.
He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?  He lives within my heart.

Don't tell anybody.  But, when I was growing up, I thought that song was a bunch of hooey.  I know He lives because He lives within my heart?   No, I could know He lives if I could see Him.  I could know He lives if I could touch Him.  And, later, I might say I know He lives because I can see His handiwork in the world.  But, the last way I would know He lives is because He lives within my heart.  But, I've slowly come around to this concept that G-d lives within my heart and that is where I can find Her.  Once I stopped looking (and listening for G-d) so much outside of myself and started looking and listening inside, my doubts about G-d's existence and (amazingly) Her goodness began to melt away.  That and giving up my false, preconceived notions about what I expected G-d to be like (not that I've completely given them up.  It's just now I know they're false preconceived notions).  J.B. Phillips "Your God Is Too Small" is a great little book I recommend to doubting Thomases.  It's now available in PDF format for free.  Click on the link above or do a Google search to find it.  When I begin to doubt G-d now, I really don't doubt the existence of G-d as much as I doubt my conception of G-d.

It's abundantly clear to me that because I am, G-d exists.  Because I am a personal, spiritual, human being, there is something greater than I, a First Cause, at a minimum.   There is something inside of me that whispers and sometimes shouts the existence of G-d.  Buddhists call this something Buddha Nature (although they don't talk about G-d).  Christians might refer to it as the Holy Spirit.  New-Agey type Christians (which I might be accused of being) refer to it as Christ Consciousness.  But, I believe this spirit is in each and every human being (although it's sometimes so deeply buried by junk it's hard to find even for the person possessing it).  Someone asked me yesterday if I believe I have a spirit inside of me or if the very Spirit of G-d is in me.  Tough question.  I can't honestly say.  But, there is something and this something lets me know that G-d does exist. Now, does the big old White man on the throne with the beard and the furrowed brow exist?  No.  But. Sum, ergo Deus est is a proof of the existence of G-d that works for me.

I made a couple of mistakes in my piece on What I Did On My Summer Vacation. I'd like to print what Debbie Truscott wrote to me. She meant it as a comment. But, it deserves its own post.

Debbie, thanks for taking the time to read my piece and comment on it. And, thanks for the compliment. I also appreciate your setting the record straight. I guess if I ever become a newspaper reporter, I'll have to hire a fact checker. ;-)

Lately the subject of labels has been coming up more and more in my life.  I'm seeing an aversion to labels that really surprises me to a certain extent.  People who are Jesus followers don't want to be called Christians.  People who believe in the ultimate "salvation" or redemption of all bristle at the term Universalist.  I even went through a period where I wanted to reject labels and be free to just be me.  But, I've realized that won't work for me.  So, for now, just call me BUTCH.

BUTCH is my acronym for Buddhist-Universalist-Transcending-Christian-Heretic.  In the spirit of Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy, I decided to slap a few labels on myself.  These work pretty well.  They don't describe me perfectly.  None of them is a perfect fit.  I'm not fully Buddhist (embracing all its precepts) or probably fully Christian (certainly not by Modern Churchianity standards).  But, I'm mostly both of these things and more.   

You're probably familiar with all these labels except Transcending which I adapted from Daniel Helminiak's The Transcended Christian. Since I'm not fully transcended yet, I prefer transcending to transcended. These labels don't confine me to be only what they are nor do they force me to be everything they are.   They don't define me anymore than the name Brian defines me.  But,  I happen to think nouns are a pretty useful part of speech. 

For example, let's examine a chair (you could do this with any object).  Why do we call it a chair?  Well, it's something people sit in. When I say chair, you get a mental picture in your head.  You have some idea of what I am talking about.  You don't know perfectly.  You don't know if I'm talking about a chair with legs or wheels, with arms or without, reclining chair or straight back.  You don't know the color of the chair.  But, you know I'm not talking about a car or a couch.  I could go into to great detail about the chair to make sure you know exactly what I'm talking about.  But, if I were telling you a story and stopped to do that with each person, place or thing I came to in the story, my short story would quickly turn into a novel.

Some reading this may think this is directly at them.  But, you'd be wrong.  This first struck me several months ago when a guy in our church performed a poem about he is more than the labels that people try to slap on him.  And, of course, in a very real way he was absolutely right.  It struck me when I read Martin Zender's website (a devoted follower of Jesus and Bible scholar) who says he is not a Christian.  We are all much, much more than the boxes people try to shove us in. Labeling has definitely been abused.  And, by daring to call ourselves Christian, for example, we run the risk people might think of us as one of those types of Christians.  But, what I've decided is that is a risk I'll have to take.

The label Universalist seems to draw the most funny looks.  I really don't know why.  For me, other than Unitarian Universalists (who I had heard of but had no idea what they really were), I had never heard of Universalists or Universalism until a couple of years ago.  I embraced almost without hesitation the idea that G-d would (or has) redeemed all.  To me, that is Universalism, plain and simple. There are many, many variations on that theme and we can bicker all day long about how G-d accomplishes that.  But, I think that everyone who believes that is some sort of Universalist. But, notice when I ask people point-blank if they are Universalists most get very uncomfortable and begin to squirm in their seats. I tried it today at lunch with a guy I thought was a Universalist.  I guess I was expecting an unqualified yes.  I didn't get it.  Carlton Pearson calls his doctrine "The Gospel of Inclusion".  I think this is an effort to avoid the label Universalist.  I think my buddy, Martin Zender (well, he's not really my buddy but I've emailed him a few times and I have an autographed copy of his book, so he seems like my buddy), would punch me in nose if I called him a Universalist.  But, for me, I'm not going to try to avoid labels anymore.  If you like, you can just call me BUTCH.

I had a rare opportunity to meet some fellow on-line seekers face-to-face this weekend.  I went over to the booming metropolis of Straughn, IN to meet my blogging buddies of a couple of years, Bruce and Geo.  Unfortunately, Steve couldn't make the gathering.  I also had the opportunity to meet and listen to and meet Mike Williams in person.  The Grace Gathering 2007 was a special time and I want to thank Cliff, Bruce, Geo and Steve for their sacrifice (in more ways than one) in putting it together.

Cliff, Steve, Bruce and George have combined their blogging efforts into Bold Grace now.  The day I attended (Saturday), Mike was speaking on the difference between Redemption and Salvation.  If you think they're one in the same, you owe it to yourself to listen to this talk. BTW, a bit of a spoiler... Redemption is something we all have and that G-d has accomplished (past tense) on His own with no help from man.  Salvation is something we all need (and it's not a one time thing).  Mike spoke from Romans Chapter 10 (and Chapter 5) and did a wonderful job of breaking it down over the  period of about an hour and a half.   Friday, Mike spoke about his discovery that G-d is not angry with us.  The talks from the weekend are available at Bold Grace- here.

These guys took me under their collective wing a couple of years back when I first started exploring universalism (a word they hate and I'll explain that later).  I can't remember how I found them or they found me.  But, they turned me on to Mike Williams who is a gifted preacher and Bible scholar who happens to believe that Jesus' work on the cross is finished and He accomplished the task of saving everyone.  One thing that is interesting about these guys though is they shun any attempt at labeling them.  So, when I mentioned universalism, they kind of bristled a little.  Their impression is that Universalists believe in a temporary "hell" or period of punishment.  That is somewhat true.  Many Universalists do believe in a period of correction (burning away of the dross if you will).  But, not all.  See my post here for what my thoughts on what a Universalist is.  IMO, these guys are Universalists.

Anyway, I digress, back to the meeting.  I walked in as they were having a sharing time.  What was funny is I saw Mike Williams sitting in the front row as I walked in and the guy speaking was addressing him.  But, I had this picture in my mind of Mike as an older guy, a little guy (for some reason his voice on the recordings I had heard sounded like a little guy) and kind of conservative looking.  But, Mike is a big, shaved bald guy who was wearing cowboy boots.  He's well-built and an imposing figure.  Kind of like an NFL tight end. 

Mike's speaking voice though is not intimidating at all and his knowledge of the Bible is amazing.  What also comes across in his speaking is his absolute love and reverence for scripture and his total commitment to Jesus.  That is one thing that could not be any clearer when you listen to Mike.  As he was speaking I was reminded of a commenter here a couple of days ago who implied those who believe Jesus will save all are ignoring scripture.  No one could make that accusation of Mike.  Mike also made it very clear both days that he spoke that he believes in Jesus and the Gospel story literally (from the virgin birth through the resurrection and ascension).  Both days he spoke, he took time out from un-teaching the distortion of the gospel most of us have heard all our lives to make a declaration of his faith. It was a very detailed declaration and necessary because if you tell people you don't have to believe Jesus saved you to be saved by Jesus, they automatically think you must be some kind of lunatic or worse, a liberal.  Mike's websites are Gospel Revolution and Gospel Logic.  Many of his talks are archived there.

Something I found fascinating about the weekend is how we have come to the same conclusions via different paths.  I overheard Mike telling some people after his sermon that he feels he does not have a choice in what he believes concerning God.  Mike trusts in scripture, it sounds like 100%. Mike has a very high view of scripture. I heard him say if God did want to condemn people to eternal torment, he's God.  Certainly He could do it.  I guess I agree with that. But, what I don't agree with is that if scripture did clearly say God was going to do such a thing, I still wouldn't believe it.  I'd have to toss out the scriptures.  I believe scripture because I believe it reveals the true heart of God. But, I don't believe scripture because it says I should believe it.  It was a relief for me when I found out that scripture did not say what I had been taught it said all those years, because I was at the point where I was just about to reject scripture and Christianity as nonsensical and pointless.  I could never love the kind of God that was supposedly revealed in scripture (something else Mike and I agree on).  One thing Mike said that really jumped out at me was something to the effect of:

I agree with Mike 100% on what he said there.  I don't take scripture as literally as Mike. I don't even attempt to reconcile everything in the Hebrew Scriptures with what we know about G-d today (or think we know anyway).  I believe in progressive revelation.  Paul said we see through a glass darkly. I believe that has always been the case and that the glass is getting a little more clear (even though it's still darkly).  I believe the UCC motto that "God is still speaking..." and I think we're slowly, slowly hearing.  But, what is really cool is that while we may not agree on the mechanics of how we got here, we do agree that God is bigger than Churchianity teaches and that he will (or has) redeem every last one.

George, Cliff, Steve and Bruce have a thing of telling each other how perfect they are.  I guess they are talking about being perfectly righteous because of God's grace.  But, I have to admit it makes me a little uncomfortable.  I'm more in line with Martin Zender's view that we are Flawed By Design.  I'm perfect for what I was designed to be.  But, I still have quite a ways to go to be the person I am capable of being.  However, I think their reminder of their perfection is a far cry better than the condemnation of the traditional teaching that says we are all still just miserable sinners.

Anyway, the Grace Gathering was a very special time.  I am hopeful that as George and Bruce are saying this is just the beginning of a revolution.  I'm certainly ready to do my part to make sure that happens. Where do I sign up?