The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism: January 2008

A Dialog About Hell

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeI can't add anything to this. It's just so well done! I copied it here in case the author moves it. But, I have to give him credit.

http://www.christianheretic.com/2008/01/dialogue-with-evangelical.html

Bob: Hi, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions.

Me: Sure, why not? What's up?

Bob: If you were to die today, do you know for sure where you'd end up?

Me: Creepy question, but okay. I'd probably end up in a coffin or an urn.

Bob: What I meant was, do you think you'd end up in heaven or in hell?

Me: I'd have to say heaven.

Bob: That's good to hear. Does that mean you've accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?

Me: I have, and I also do all sorts of good works.

Bob: But don't you know that salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works?

Me: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 and 9.

Bob: Then how can you believe that you're going to heaven based on your good works?

Me: When I read about the subject in the Gospels, I notice that Jesus seemed to teach that there are a few reasons one goes to hell, as well as a few ways to avoid going there. The Bible says He taught that those who were rich and those who said that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually the work of the devil and those who didn't help the helpless and those who didn't amputate body parts that offended them were the ones who had to worry about going there. He also seemed to tell us that the way to escape this fate is to feed the hungry, to give something to drink to the thirsty, to invite strangers into your home, to give clothing to those who need it, to take care of the sick, to visit those in prison, to cut off body parts that offend you, to be poor rather than rich, and to never say that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually of the devil. Avoid those things, and Jesus tells us we'll avoid going to hell and instead we'll go to heaven, at least based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

Bob: Yes, it does seem that Jesus taught those things, at least if we take them at face value without properly interpreting them. Since the apostle Paul taught us that salvation is not by works, but is by faith, then obviously Jesus didn't mean for us to interpret those things literally.

Me: So you're saying that He meant for us to interpret those passages figuratively, then?

Bob: We'd have to, in light of what Paul said.

Me: Okay, fair enough, the passages are figurative. I assume you're going to be consistent and interpret the whole of the passages figuratively, right?

Bob: What do you mean?

Me: Well, if we're going to interpret the passages figuratively, to be consistent we'd have to say that the "everlasting punishment in hell" part is meant to be figurative as well, right?

Bob: Well, um...

Me: Because there's nothing in those passages that gives us any reason to believe that Jesus suddenly went from figurative speech to literal speech when He went from talking about how to escape from the punishment to talking about what the actual punishment itself is, right?

Bob: I don't know. Are you saying that hell isn't real?

Me: I'm just saying that, to be consistent, one can't just choose to interpret half of a Bible verse figuratively and the other half literally for no good reason. Wouldn't you agree?

Bob: Technically, yes... but Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven, so it must be real.

Me: First of all, I never said hell wasn't real. Secondly, Jesus is recorded as having spoken about everlasting torment in hell a grand total of three times, according to my concordance. That's many, many times less than He's recorded speaking about heaven. Thirdly, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about, which is being consistent in our interpretations of Scripture.

Bob: Okay, then what about Ephesians 2:8 and 9? You agreed that it says that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.

Me: I did, which means that salvation and escaping from hell must be two completely different things if we're going to remain consistent in our interpretations, at least according to the traditional methods of interpretation.

Bob: But that doesn't make any sense. Everyone knows that salvation is about escaping hell and going to heaven.

Me: Do they now? Whether that's true or not, how do you explain the fact that it would be inconsistent to interpret it that way?

Bob: I don't know. I just know that this is what I was taught. Are you saying that my pastor is wrong?

Me: Are you saying that your pastor is incapable of being wrong?

Bob: Well, no. But that's what Christians have always believed. Isn't it?

Me: Actually, no. Many Christians have had a completely different take on heaven and hell than what you've been taught, from today going all the way back to the early church.

Bob: Really? Like what?

Me: These Christians believe that the passages talking about how to avoid everlasting torment in hell are indeed meant to be taken figuratively, but they remain consistent and interpret the whole passage figuratively, not just the first half. They believe that judgement in hell is not everlasting, but is only temporary, and that eventually everyone will end up in heaven.

Bob: You're talking about Universalism. We know that can't be true since the Bible teaches that hell is eternal.

Me: Only if one is inconsistent in their interpretation of the three places Jesus spoke about "everlasting torment in hell," which we just covered.

Bob: But that would mean that everybody gets the same reward. That means that all the good works I do, and all the sin I avoid, is for nothing, because someone who lives a life full of sin is going to heaven anyway. What was the point of all my good works?

Me: Good question, you tell me. Didn't you just try to tell me that salvation isn't based on good works?

Bob: Well, yeah, I guess. But still, what's the point of living a good life if you'll just go to heaven anyway?

Me: Because living a good life is its own reward, perhaps? Certainly not so you'll go to heaven, since salvation isn't by works, right?

Bob: I suppose. But these people didn't choose Christ, so why should they get to go to heaven?

Me: When you quoted Ephesians to me earlier, you left out a vital part of the passage. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Our faith in Christ is not of ourselves, it is entirely of God. We don't choose to have faith in Christ, God chooses for us by giving us the faith.

Bob: You're talking about predestination.

Me: Sure.

Bob: Okay, but whether they choose it for themselves or are elected by God, the Bible still tells us that only those who have the faith are saved.

Me: Actually, no, it doesn't. It tells us that God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. It doesn't say "particularly those who believe," or "only those who believe," it says especially. If a teacher were to say at the end of the school year, "everybody passed this year, especially Lisa who got an A+," we'd know that while nobody else got an A+, they still passed, since "especially" doesn't mean "only." To try to say this passage doesn't teach that everyone gets saved is reading one's own doctrinal bias into the passage, particularly since there's no good, biblical reason to believe otherwise, as we've already covered.

Bob: Okay, but what about the Lake of Fire?

Me: What about it? We know that it isn't hell, since the book of Revelation tells us that hell will be emptied and then cast into the Lake of Fire itself (hell, that is, not the people in it).

Bob: But aren't people who's names aren't written in the book of life thrown in there as well?

Me: Revelation does say that, yes, but you'll notice that it doesn't say that they'll be in there forever. Neither does it say how one's name gets put in the book of life. In fact it doesn't even say that anyone's name won't be written in the book of life, just that if someone's name isn't in there they'll be cast into the Lake of Fire for an unspecified length of time. Add all that to the fact that Revelation is entirely figurative up until this point, and, just like Jesus' warnings about hell, there's no reason to assume that this passage is suddenly meant to be interpreted literally after 20 chapters of symbolism either.

Bob: Hmmm. What about the other passages that warn about hell?

Me: Which ones? We've already covered every warning in Scripture about "everlasting torment in hell." There are other warnings about everlasting destruction and things like that, but we'd have to read these passages figuratively to read them as referring to everlasting torment in hell since they don't literally say that, they say things like "destruction."

Bob: Interesting. Do you have any more information on this subject? I obviously need to do some more research on the subject.

Me: Definitely. Check out my website at www.ChristianHeretic.com where you'll find writings by all sorts of Christian Universalists over the last two centuries or so.

Bob: Thanks. Can I follow up with you if I have any more questions?

Me: Of course.

Bob: Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The preceding was a combination of discussions I've had online and offline with various different Evangelical Christians. I hope you all enjoyed it.

Pagan Christianity?

Book Review 0 comments

“Pagan Christianity?” is a fascinating look at the history of the Christian church and the origins of the practices of the modern church. The book was written by Frank Viola and George Barna. You probably recognize one or both of their names. Frank is “an influential voice in the house church movement. And, George is the author of Revolution (and several other books) and is listed as an influential leader in the Christian church. “Pagan Christianity?” is a look back at the origins of many of the elements of the modern church and church service. It explores the origins of the modern pastor, the origins of the sermon, the origins of the architecture of the church building, and several other things most of us take for granted. Most people assume that all Christians for all time have done what we do now. They assume our church “service” was done this way by Paul and the apostles, which gives it the weight of “tradition” and the feeling of being handed down by G-d. But, the reality is most of what we do was developed well after the establishment of the church. IMO, the most important thing about this book is it gives us permission to question where we are today. Why do we have a sermon? Why do we dress up on Sunday morning? Why do we have a choir? Why is there a pulpit? Because most of us think things have always just been done this way, these are questions that don't enter most of our minds.

The title is a reference to the fact that many of our practices today originated in Pagan (secular) culture and came from outside the church. This will shock most mainstream Christians. My only criticism of the book is it does seem to appeal a little to emotion. And, the premise seems to be New Testament practice good- Pagan practice bad. In fairness to the authors, they point out, more than once, that just because something is pagan in origin doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad. But, in spite of the disclaimers, I kept getting that feeling from the book. I think there may have been criticism of earlier editions of the book for not documenting the claims the authors made concerning origins. You can't make that claim any more. The book is chock full of footnotes. I didn't read all of the footnotes. I glanced through them. To me, there were so many, reading them all would have interrupted the flow of the book.

Personally, I don’t think the origins of a thing have much to do with its effectiveness or appropriateness. As they point out, Christianity originally did not have the division between the “secular” and the “divine” that we find today. So, if a thing is “secular” or “Pagan” in origin that does not mean it’s not appropriate for the church. But, the authors seem to be claiming the model of the New Testament church is somehow divinely inspired and the way things should be done today. I don’t agree with this point of view. If the church is a living, breathing organic thing, the church of today should be the church of today, not the church of the first century or the church of the 15th century. But, what I do agree with the authors on wholeheartedly is we should examine the things we are doing today. The New Testament model has some things we can learn from and take forward, as do the some of the things that have come along since then. A practice should not be accepted simply because it originated with Paul, nor should it be rejected simply because Pagans first used it.

A great chapter that is not directly related to the church or church service but which I think every Christian should read concerns how we read the New Testament. The authors came up with a brilliant illustration of how absurd the ways we take Paul’s writings are. Paul’s letters are one side of a conversation with several churches and people over several years. Churches that were in different circumstances than we are today (and than each other were even then). We take those letters, divide them into chapter and verse and use them as “proof texts”. We would never dream of doing that with say Billy Grahams’ emails to churches he has visited.

I picked up this book because someone sent me a link to an article on the origin of the pastor, an article that I found very interesting. That is one chapter of the book. It’s quite possibly the most important chapter since the modern church completely revolves around the pastor who acts as CEO, spokesperson for G-d (on Sunday morning), counselor and just about everything else in the church. It’s way too big a burden to place on one human being. Reading how at one time, people actually thought ordination made a pastor more than a man is amazing stuff. We still do this to the pastor, expecting him to be superman and then marveling when he can't be all things to all people.

Another thing I found extremely important about the book is how the congregation in the church “service” has devolved from being an active participant to a passive audience. Early church gatherings were church meetings, not church services. Over time, most have become church services. Of course, practically speaking, you cannot have a church meeting with 2,000 in attendance on a Sunday morning. (Another reason why I will never attend another megachurch). Churches have grown larger and larger and practically speaking to have an orderly Sunday morning service, it has to be scripted, controlled and the audience must remain passive. But, is this the best way to equip people for G-d’s service and for us to edify one another? The authors talk of a “priesthood of all believers” which is a vision of Christianity where all us are functional priests serving one another. Most churches not only fail to promote this vision, the passivity they demand makes it difficult for people to grow into this role.

I don’t have any idea how well this book will sell or what impact it might have. I love the fact that the authors have discouraged people from grabbing the book, running to their church and trying to draw people out of it. Whether people are going to remain in the institutionalized church should be a personal decision. Personally, I continue to remain involved in a denominational church. I see pros and cons to house churches (which the authors are active in establishing) and I see pros and cons with institutional churches. Maybe someday someone will be able to blend the best of both.

I’m not much of a history buff. I really only read history when it has a direct bearing on where I am today. As I began to study universalism, it was important for me to know there has always been a thread of universalism in Christianity and that one time it was actually the prevailing doctrine of the church (until it was intentionally throttled by some church leaders). As people like myself continue to explore how we are going to be involved with the church, a book like this is extremely valuable. It helps us understand how we got where we are today. And it helps us realize many of the things we may believe are “holy” and ordained by G-d as part of our “order of service” are not necessarily so. I thank Frank Viola and George Barna for allowing us to question and to think outside of the box that the church has put so many of us in.

I hope this book has the impact of reviving the institutional church. We cannot turn the clock back to the first century, nor should we. We should take advantage of what G-d has spoken to us since then. But, just as important, we should not remain mired in traditions that have somehow been given the authority of scripture and declared holy, infallible and unchanging.

Radical Acceptance

Buddhism, Wisdom 0 comments

Image by Mesq via Flickr

I want to share a Buddhist lecture with you that I found to be just completely beautiful It is so full of wisdom, love and compassion that as I listened to it, I found myself feeling almost overwhelmed. You know how when you're listening to some talks/sermons/lectures, you just can't wait for them to end because you're bored out of your mind? And there rare ones when it ends just as it seems it was getting started? This was different from either of those. There was so much wisdom in this talk, I kind of wished she'd stop and save some for later because it was almost too much to absorb in one sitting. The lecture is titled "Radical Acceptance". You can find it here: Radical Acceptance Like most Buddhist talks, there's very little here that is uniquely Buddhist. It's mostly common sense and human psychology. I'm feeling increasingly comfortable with labeling myself as a Buddhist because when I do the Buddhist practices and listen to the Buddhist lectures I feel myself growing as a person, more in balance, better connected with everything around me and on a higher spiritual plane.

When I listened to this talk, I was touched not only by her words, but I could feel compassion and love just in her voice. I've found the same thing listening to Gil Fronsdal (a regular on ZenCast).

As I was listening to the lecture, I was thinking "This is the best lecture I've ever heard". Usually, I'm not one for hyperbole. So, I'll back off of that. But, I would definitely put it in my top 10. I've downloaded the mp3 to save for later listening and I will be sharing it with Ty and with Kayla.

Of course as I'm listening, I'm bringing all my baggage along with me, as we all do. So, probably one of the reasons the message is so powerful for me is it's so counter to the destructive self-image I was taught all my life. Rather than focusing what is "wrong" with me, this approach allows me to focus on what is right with me. Rather than fighting the present, regretting the past and fearing the future, this teaching allows me to embrace who I am and where I am in all circumstances.

I liked where she (well, actually the Buddha) broke down self-acceptance to two simple things.

recognizing what is going on in any moment and
meeting it with compassion.

The Buddha even met Mara (his self delusions) with compassion. The softening she described is what I've been able to achieve increasingly over the past few years. Compassion begins with ourselves and we have to learn to accept our human frailties. As Tara pointed out, acceptance does not equate to complacency. Acceptance of how things are now does not mean we do not work for a better future. It just means we stop trying to hold on to what we cannot hold onto. And, we stop trying to resist what already is.

I really liked her point about having to do at least some of the work in groups and reaching out to what is beyond ourselves. Both Christianity and Buddhism (in the West anyway) are too into rugged individualism, IMO. I really didn't begin to heal until I got into counseling. All the reading (Bible and self-help books) did nothing for me until I got compassion from another human being. My counselor helped me find acceptance and forgiveness within myself. But, it took someone (a human being) outside of me to help me do that. And, I liked what she said about acceptance not being something we can do with just our minds. I knew in my head what I needed to do. But, I could not translate it to my whole being. Acceptance must be done with our whole beings.

I am beginning to be able to connect with the concept of being an observer and stepping outside of my "small self". Frankly, that meant nothing to me when I first heard it. But, now it's becoming reality. It's hard to describe to those who haven't experienced it. And, I could not experience it until I began meditating. An example is my mind races a lot. I have a lot of ideas and I tend to worry. This used to cause terrible insomnia. But, now when I wake up and my mind is racing, instead of fighting it, I accept it. Because I can (most of the time) separate "me" from my thoughts, I just sit back and watch it go. Usually, this allows me to fall back to sleep. But, when it doesn't, I accept that too. The other morning I woke up with two things on my mind. Neither was worry, actually it was more excitement about a project I'm planning (remodeling our kitchen) and planning for an undertaking I have to do for our company. My mind kept flipping back and forth between the two things. I watched it for a while, actually got a lot of good ideas out of it. Then, it was time to get up and I quickly ran to the computer to get down the ideas before they faded away. What could have been time spent worrying about and fighting insomnia actually turned into productive time.

The lecture is pretty long. It's about an hour. If you listen to it and you like it, let me know. Also, there's a great little novel you might enjoy, if this resonates with you. It's called Jake Fades.

Peace,
Brian

Church- What It's All About

Church Life 0 comments

Image by BrianWestChest via Flickr

The last several weeks at Nexus we've been discussing "social justice" issues. Poverty, debt, hunger, illegal immigration and health care have been our topics for discussion. I guess some people have questioned what these topics have to do with "spirituality". But, IMO, they're exactly what we as progressive Christians should be discussing on Sunday morning. As Nexus is forming, one thing I keep asking myself is "What is the role of church in the life of a Progressive Christian?" You can't get us out of bed with the threat of hell anymore. Most of us aren't going to come because of the old guilt motivator. So, what's left? Assuming we're going to have a sermon on Sunday morning, what should we be talking about?

I gathered, from a comment I heard, that maybe one or two people questioned the "spirituality" of these topics. I was blown away when I heard that. These are exactly the topics, I think those of us who say we are working to bring G-d's Kingdom to Earth should be talking about. What are we doing to help the least among us? What can we do to feed the hungry? What can be more important than that?

On a universalist message board I'm on, we often get "sidetracked" with these issues. We talk a lot about politics. We talk a lot about the morality of a consumeristic, capitalistic society (and we have some disagreements that become extremely heated). We've been together for years, we all agree on G-d's love for all of mankind and the need to spread that message. However, now that we've got that established, what do we do next? Agreeing that we don't have to spend all of our resources saving people from hell frees us up to do other things. IMO, one of the main roles of a Progressive Church must be to motivate and equip its members to go out and do G-d's work in the world? Is G-d's work simply puffing up the congregants with self-help lectures every week? Is G-d's work simply getting people to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior?" I think not. Not that these things aren't important. But, as long as people are dying of starvation, as long as richer nations charge poorer nations interest they can't afford, as long as the gap between the rich and the poor is as wide as it is and people are dying because they don't have access to health care, G-d's will is not being done on Earth as it is in Heaven. And, we can keep paying lip service to it by saying the Lord's prayer, or we can do something about it (and pray about it).

Personally, I was really jazzed to see this series of sermons coming up. Not only have we just talked about these things theoretically, we've talked about concrete things we can do as individuals, as voters and as a group to address some of these issues. Things as simple as going to www.hungersite.com and clicking once a day to provide food to the hungry to things as far-reaching as contacting our representatives to make sure they are using our tax dollars wisely.

The recent series of sermons at Nexus is one of the reasons I got excited about the church in the first place.

Barack Obama's Church-Segregation on Sunday Morning

Barack Obama, Church Life, Race 0 comments

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeImage by Getty Images via DaylifeImage by Getty Images via Daylife

This was posted on a message board I frequent. I found it sickening and sad and just had to respond.

Please read and go to this church's web site and read what is written there. It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their web site, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing. Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa! I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers.

This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary. Cut and paste the link below into your browser:

This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm

What I find "really scary" is that this message would even be forwarded to the "Universalist" board I participate in. But, it just goes to show how deeply seated racism and ignorance remains in our society. Here is my response:

I find this almost laughable. But, now that it's come up, let me point out something to you guys.

Sunday morning is probably the most segregated time of the week in America. Most churches are either Black or White. I've always hated that. But, it's a fact. Many (most) Blacks feel unwelcome and very uncomfortable in most of the Lilly White churches in America. There aren't people like us leading the choirs, leading the prayers or in the pulpits. The music doesn't suit most of our tastes. The cultural references aren't from our community.

As a UCC attender myself, I've been aware of Obama's church for about a year now. It's not my personal cup of tea. Personally, I try to remain an "idealist". I've made a conscious effort to jump across the color barrier and haven't been a member of a Black church since I was a child. But, it's a difficult thing to do. We have often been the only Blacks in a church (we are now). We have to listen to all kinds of stupid, ignorant racist remarks. We're constantly having to educate people on what it's like and what it's not like to be Black. For many of our friends at church we have been the spokespeople of the Black community. Some people don't have that kind of fortitude. Since a lot of Blacks have to put up with this alienation every day of the week in the jobs and in the community at large, they don't really want to put up with it on Sunday morning. So, they attend Black churches. Also, since Black people are at such a disadvantage in this country, many Black people feel we should band together to help each other like a lot of other people do in this country. Our lack of ability or willingness to work together has held us back. And, when we do try to, cries of reverse racism rain down on us. I'm not going to criticize the Trinity United Church of Christ for focusing on an issue that is of a great interest to its members and trying to correct social injustices.

I don't see people here being shocked that Romney is part of the Mormon church (which up until a few years ago said Blacks were cursed). I don't see people criticizing any of the other candidates for attending what I'm going to presume are mostly White churches. I could be wrong. I don't know, don't care about the racial makeup of their churches. It's not an issue for me.

Yes, Obama is part of the TUCC. It's is an Afro-Centric church. In case anyone hadn't noticed, African-Americans sometimes get a pretty rough go of things in this country and some people feel we need to band together to support each other. That doesn't mean the church is anti-American or racist. And because Obama is a part of this congregation certainly doesn't mean he favors Blacks over Whites. Given that half of his family is White (his mother), that would be pretty self-defeating. It's ironic this is spreading at the same time a lot of Blacks won't vote for Barack because he isn't "Black enough". Yes, his father was a Muslim. But, clearly Obama is not today. The author of the email alleges Barack is "possibly a covert worshipper of the Muslim faith". That would be funny if it weren't so sad.

p.s.- Drew shot this link to me from FactCheck.org.

http://factcheck.org/articles/articleview.php?id=433

Newer Posts Older Posts

The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

A Dialog About Hell

Pagan Christianity?

Radical Acceptance

Church- What It's All About

Barack Obama's Church-Segregation on Sunday Morning

Facebook Share

Search This Blog

Please Read This!

About Me

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

What I'm Up To...

Live Traffic Feed

Subscribe via email

Blogged Rating

Blogged