Archive for category Definitions
Putting Church in the Blender
Posted by Erik in Church, Church in the Blender, Definitions, Elder Rule, General on January 4, 2012
When we started the merger process between Grace Baptist Church and Heritage Baptist Church back in 2009, our elders and I did a lot of digging and found few resources to guide us. There just wasn’t much out there on church mergers, and what was out there was overwhelmingly negative.
Despite this, we decided that the Spirit of God was bringing us together, so we pressed on. I can’t even count the number of times I told the congregations, “We don’t know what we’re doing. We’re making this up as we go.” Some might consider that an admittance of weakness. To us, it was just being honest. We were making it up as we went. We were seeking what wisdom we could and being quite deliberate in taking our steps, but we were in undiscovered country.
Two years down the road, we know the things we did well and the things we did not do well. Overall, I thought the elders did an extraordinary job and the congregation was incredibly forgiving as we stumbled toward God’s vision.
Early last year, we were approached to assist in a merger between two congregations in Manchester. Actually, we were approached by a congregation looking for someone to merge with. We offered what we had gleaned from our experience, and over the next few months, we were able to assist them when we could.
A couple weeks ago, both of those congregations voted to what we called a “merger in principle” and they are calling their “blended worship.” I have received emails from their leaders – expressions of celebration as God brings them together. It is a joy to my heart to know that what God has done at Bedford Road can help others in the Kingdom.
Their emails got me thinking. All along, I have been contemplating and working on writing a resource on the subject of blending congregations. I have stopped and started several times. At one point, I have fifty pages written when I stalled out and stopped working. I could not figure out exactly why, but now as I am thinking over things perhaps I have stumbled on it.
I was trying to write as an authority, with the voice of someone who knows answers. In reality, we never knew what we were doing. We were somewhat surprised every time something we did worked. We were humbled to see God at work, because we knew that it could not be our own efforts.
At the same time, we were constantly bucking human authority and challenging trends. We were upstarts, doing something you weren’t supposed to be able to do in a way that had not been tried before. We were inventing structures and rethinking traditions in ways none of us had actually seen done in practice. Everyone around us, people we respected, told us we couldn’t do it. But we did.
That got me thinking that perhaps the problem was the way I was writing the book. Rather than trying to be the new textbook for this stuff, I should be writing it the way we lived it – stumbling and bumbling to keep up with what God was doing. We still haven’t caught up.
Further Meditations on Psalm 29
Posted by Erik in Ancient History, Definitions, History on August 8, 2011
Ascribe to יהוה, O heavenly beings [sons of God],
ascribe to יהוה glory and strength.
Ascribe to יהוה the glory due his name;
worship יהוה in the splendor of holiness.The voice of יהוה is over the waters;
the God of glory thunders,
יהוה, over many waters.
The voice of יהוה is powerful;
the voice of יהוה is full of majesty.The voice of יהוה breaks the cedars;
יהוה breaks the cedars of Lebanon.
He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf,
and Sirion like a young wild ox.
The voice of יהוה flashes forth flames of fire.
The voice of יהוה shakes the wilderness;
יהוה shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.
The voice of יהוה makes the deer give birth
and strips the forests bare,
and in his temple all cry, “Glory!”יהוה sits enthroned over the flood;
יהוהsits enthroned as king forever.
May יהוה give strength to his people!
May יהוה bless his people with peace
In our thinking, a voice is simply what you use to speak. In ancient Hebrew the word for voice is קול (qowl). It is a shouted voice – a voice of proclamation. The image I always have in my head is Yul Brynner as Pharaoh in The Ten Commandments.
In the film, Brynner’s character has a speaking voice and a commanding voice. When he makes commands, it is clear that he is not to be questioned – that he believes his authority is absolute.
Reading Psalm 29, it is worth remembering that this “voice of YHWH” is not simply God speaking to us as friends. It is God declaring his nature and his authority. His voice cannot be separated from his nature and existence. It shatters mountains and shakes deserts.
Do not fear the ‘tech’
Posted by Erik in computers, Definitions, General, History, Media, Movies and TV, software, television, Things We Shouldn't Discuss on June 27, 2011
Thanks be to God, we have here neither free schools nor printing presses, and I hope we will not have any for a hundred years, for education has sent into the world doubt, heresy and sectarianism, and the printing press has propagated, in addition to all these evils, attacks against governments! -Sir William Berkeley (1605-1677), Governor of Virginia
Technology takes time to get use to. There is a bit of a delay between the implementation of something that has tremendous potential and the realization of that potential. Then, there is another delay between the realization of that potential and the integration of it.
Think of how drastically the moveable type printing press changed the world. The Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment were direct results of the printing press. This change did not happen overnight, and even as the change was happening, there were a lot of people abusing and misusing the new technology.
The same can be said for virtually all technology that changes how we live: the automobile, the jet liner, the telephone, the personal computer, the internet, the mobile device. These technologies are still in their infancy.
When Sir William Berkeley condemned the printing press, it had not yet spurred on the Age of Revolution. It was a century before the American Revolution. Many of the most subversive books of our culture had not yet been written. The printing press had not even begun to open the doors for heresy and sectarianism.
But along with the dangers came the tremendous benefits. The printed book gave millions access to information that had been hidden from them. Knowledge, wisdom, and information flowed freely in a way that we take for granted today, and which is dwarfed by the speed in which we share information now.
People condemned the telephone as dangerous to the family unit. The Internet was immoral and dangerous (parts of it still are!). Translating the Bible into ‘vulgar languages’ was condemned by clergy and monarchs alike. Every invention that has changed the world has been condemned at some point.
Technology itself is not evil. They are tools, and tools are only as good or evil as the hands that wield them. What can be used for evil can also be use for good.
The Meaning of Relevance
Posted by Erik in Definitions, Doesn't Fit in a Category on May 19, 2011
There is an awful lot of talk about relevance in the church. I read something today that really got under my skin. I won’t provide a link to the author’s blog, but essentially the author put having a “Starbucks feel” to the church foyer and a “spa-like” environment in the bathroom on par with the spiritual disciplines of prayer, fellowship and worship.
This is the ultimate expression of a corrupted view of relevance. In essence, it is the argument that in order to reach people, we have to appeal to the consumerism and self-centeredness of people. Let me strip down all of the pseudo-spiritualization that is done to defend this and reduce it to a central, motivating idea. This is what is being taught as relevance:
We need to give sinful people what they want so we can then slip them what they need without them noticing.
I used to scoff at my father when he told me that people think this way, but you know what? He was right.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that we need to create a clean, neat and inviting environment – and in our western context, that means there are certain things people will expect – but that environment is nowhere near as important as the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, of the teaching of the Word of God, of the exaltation of Jesus Christ.
When Jesus is exalted, the Word of God is taught and the Holy Spirit is present, it does not matter if you’re in the Crystal Cathedral or in a dirt hut in Africa – you are relevant.
Let me redefine relevance in the context of Jesus Christ.
Relevance happens when the Holy Spirit uses people to speak to other people through His Word.
When Jesus said to his disciples, “Go heal some people. Most of them won’t listen to you, but go anyway” – they were relevant.
When Paul got stoned for upsetting the Jews, he was relevant.
When Peter called us to be united with Christ in his sufferings, he was relevant.
Relevance is not about pleasing people. It is about being who God calls us to be where he has called us to be.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
“To Be With God”
Posted by Erik in Church, Definitions, Doesn't Fit in a Category, Personal, Prayers, Things We Shouldn't Discuss on March 25, 2011
Heaven.
That place where you go when you die. First, you stroll through the pearly gates and meet St. Peter, then you get a crown and a mansion and can eat all you want. There’s a temple and lots of holy people around, angels singing from the clouds. You get a harp. It’s great.
Of course, that image is entirely wrong. Oh, some of it is in the Scriptures, but the way we perceive it and the way it will truly be are two different things.
First of all, there is not a single reference in the Scriptures to good people getting to “go to heaven.” Go ahead, look for it.
Let’s get some cold hard facts down before we go forward. For the sake of argument, let’s take the truth of the Scriptures as a given and recognize the following:
- There will be a resurrection of the dead. Jesus believed it. Paul believed it. There’s no missing it.
- There is a difference between those who are found “in Christ” and those who are not. (We can argue about what that means another time.)
Resurrection is a Change of Life
Now that we’ve laid those things out there, let’s consider the fate of those “in Christ.”
Although all will be resurrected, those in Christ will not suffer “the second death” described by John. This is inherent in their unity with Christ. These people – described variously as the faithful, the righteous, and a number of other descriptors – will continue in life.
“I am the resurrection and the life.” (Jesus)
The life that they will continue however will be a transformed one. According to the Apostle Paul:
…Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep [die], but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinthians 15:50-54)
The resurrection of the righteous will be to “the kingdom of God” – something that is incorruptible and does not die. Paul is at great pains to point this out. We will not be resurrected just to repeat this life. We will be resurrected to a different kind of life. He does not view death as an end, but rather as a transformation.
He also seems to connect our death to the “last trumpet.” This might have been because Paul believed the resurrection would happen in his lifetime. Every generation of Christians has. Paul believed he lived in the last days of this age because he did. We do as well.
Where Do We Experience This Change of Life?
The medieval church divided the afterlife into four realms:
- Hell – the place where the unbaptized pagan and heretic goes to be tormented forever
- Limbo – a theologically necessary place for the unbaptized children of believers
- Purgatory – the cleansing place where believers have their sin purified
- Heaven – the presence of God, reserved for the cleansed, or sanctified – hence the term saint
It is important to note that their reasons for this division were of theological necessity. Very early on in the development of institutional Christianity (after the 4th century CE), baptism into the church was considered the beginning of salvation. Baptism cleanses one from original sin (the sin we inherit from Adam) and initiates you into the Kingdom. This is why liturgical churches still baptize infants.
Obviously, during our lives we commit our own sins. We are not cleansed of the tendency toward sin, just the original sin. Therefore, since God cannot have sin in his presence, we will have to have that sin cleansed from us before we can join him in heaven.
It is easy to see how this four-tiered system developed. Later, a medieval poet named Dante Aligheri perfected the idea and developed levels within these realms. Although the most famous part of his Divine Comedy is “Inferno”, there are two other parts as well – “Purgatorio” and “Paradiso”.
When one reads the Scriptures with an open eye, it becomes quickly evident that God is not in the business of taking us somewhere else. According to Paul, we are changed instantly. We don’t go somewhere to wait for the end times. We go there instantly.
I am not going to claim how this works, but I don’t think that right now all the righteous people are up in heaven watching us and cheering us on. This idea of everyone watching us originates in a very poor interpretation of Hebrews 12:1. It would appear that there is something going on. The Revelation speaks of a marriage supper and an awful lot of singing and shouting. But my point is that whatever is going on/will go on in wherever Paul meant when he said “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:7), it is not some kind of eternal state of bliss with clouds and harps.
The Restoration of Eden
Here’s what John, the writer of the Revelation, seemed to believe would happen at the end. His vision of our eternal place was a global restoration of Eden. In one single magnificent image (Revelation 21), he pulls everything from the Hebrew Scriptures together. The heavens and earth will be destroyed and remade. God’s mountain will descend from earth, and the New Jerusalem of Ezekiel’s visions will stand on its top. God Himself will dwell among us once again.
To be honest, I don’t think anyone can be absolute on the details. Our fanciful imagery doesn’t do justice to the image of the prophets, who saw roads and altars and people working fields in this new heaven and new earth. This eternal destiny isn’t just a big party. It seems to be a restoration of what Eden was supposed to be.
- In Genesis 2, Adam is called to care for the garden. He is supposed to tend it. Because of sin, that got twisted into making bread “by the sweat of his brow” in Genesis 4.
- In Genesis 2, the beasts of the field seem to all get along with each other and man. There is a natural rhythm. By the time of Noah in Genesis 9, animals are afraid of humans. Sin has turned creation against man.
- In Genesis 1-3, God walks in the garden. He comes down for chats with Adam and Eve. I don’t need to quote Scripture to tell you that doesn’t happen anymore.
All of the Edenic things will be restored. The world is upside down today. God, through Jesus, is putting it right. John saw the final steps of that putting right. We glimpse what it will be like, and those hints of eternity keep us moving forward.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
God is not destroying and rebuilding. Yes, there is destruction of that which cannot be redeemed and transformed in creation. But he is at work restoring what our sin stole from us. The eternal destiny of man is not somewhere else but where we were intended to be in the first place – in his presence. And his presence truly is paradise.
What Do We Call It?
Referring to this eternal destiny as “heaven” is so common today, that I use the terminology myself. But I am careful to explain to people that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.
Remember when I started this with saying the Bible doesn’t say people “go to heaven”? That is because there is a lot mythology tied to that phrase. It is true. But in the Bible, Jesus does use the word “heaven”. He uses it as a synonym for God over and over again. If you read the Synoptic gospels, you will see that the gospel writers used “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God” interchangeably whenever quoting Jesus or talking about his mission.
It is not wrong to refer to our eternal destiny as “heaven” as long as we know that means the presence of God. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses love to point out that people don’t go to heaven when they die. You can throw them off their game by showing the parallels of Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God and point out that heaven is wherever God is.)
My preference is to refer to our eternal destiny as “in the presence of God.” Because Jesus gives us new life through his atonement for sin, then we can enter into synergy with God’s Spirit. We experience, as I mentioned, hints of the eternal and the change from this life to the next should be a relatively seamless one as we journey with Christ.
After all, the same John who wrote the Revelation also wrote:
The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. (1 John 3:1-3)
We are being transformed through Christ’s resurrection to be like him. This is not a transformation we can necessarily detect or hold over the heads of others in the manner of the Pharisees. Rather, it is a mysterious transformation that occurs as the Spirit of God draws us to Jesus.
Heaven is not here on earth. We don’t create it. We don’t carry it with us. But at the same time, it is being formed in us because Jesus is at work. The church that is moving with Jesus should be transformed by His Spirit.
There is plenty imagery to aspire to. Think of Enoch in Genesis 5:
All the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. (Genesis 5:23-24)
We pass from this life to the next in union with Christ. There is just one life that passes through resurrection. We should not so much be looking forward to “getting away” from this world but to continuing our journey with God.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
Some Parting Thoughts
A friend once asked me why I would want to go to heaven, knowing that all the judgmental bigots that exist in Christianity were also planning on being there. He would rather die uncertain than be certain he would be with the Christians he had known in life. That’s rough – but unfortunately, it is a true assessment of what calls itself the church here on earth.
Sadly, there is very little of heaven at work in most organizations and groups that call themselves churches today. Because they have bought into the medieval ideas, either they reject the whole afterlife (liberalism) or they become obsessed with death (most of evangelicalism, if we’re honest with ourselves). Perhaps if we realize that we are journeying toward the coming Age rather than either trying to be it now or longing for it as a “payday some day”, we would become hints of heaven ourselves.
I can think of no better way to end this post than with Jesus’ own prayer:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
(Matthew 5:9-13)
Following Up on Rob Bell’s Love Wins
Posted by Erik in Definitions, Theology, Things We Shouldn't Discuss on March 22, 2011
Yesterday, I posted an entry about Rob Bell and his latest book, Love Wins. in it, I noted that I think Rob’s theology is a bit loopy and that his definition of hell is different from my own. Today, I want to take my thoughts a bit further and point out where Rob misses the point of many of the Scriptures he uses in his book.
Let me say this about Rob, in defense of my review of his book. I think Rob has confused the eternal destiny of the unrighteous with what I call the hints of hell in our present life. His book describes quite accurately the hints – or perhaps echoes – of hell in our lives. He sees the suffering and misery and violence and injustice of our world and cries, “Isn’t that proof of a hell?”
And I would agree. The hints of hell in our world are proof that unrighteousness exists, and I think they are signs that hell is real. What happens with Rob is that he is trying so hard to connect with people on a relevant level that he focuses on the hints but misses the reality. At moments he glimpses it, crying out, “Hell is MORE REAL!” than the hints we see, but then he backs away.
I think Rob is in earnest, and I’m not one to throw him to the wolves and that is why I wrote what I wrote yesterday. I won’t back away from my thoughts because they were my honest impressions.
I do believe that Rob addresses some Scriptures in the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel primarily) that most evangelical or even broader forms of Christianity fail to address. These passages which discuss a restoration on a global scale are often ignored in most Christian theologies of the end times (called eschatology) because they are complicated and difficult. We like the idea of a nice simply, “I go to heaven when I die” theology, but that is not what the Bible teaches.
But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Today, I want to start with a brief statement about eternal destinies in general, and clear up some mistakes I think Rob made. Then, I want to deal specifically with the eternal destiny of the unrighteous. I will address the destiny of the righteous in a later post.
Why Heaven and Hell are Inaccurate Descriptions of Eternal Destiny
In our congregation’s statement of faith, we have the following statement on the end of all things:
We believe that Jesus will keep his promise to return to earth as our Lord, King and Judge. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the saved and the lost, and the final judgment of all people to either eternal joy in the presence of God or to eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Notice anything missing?
There is no mention of heaven or hell. Do you know why? Because the Scriptures make it plain that heaven and hell are not the eternal destiny of the righteous and unrighteous, respectively. Rather, the righteous will enjoy fellowship with God in the New Jerusalem, a mountain set in the new heaven and new earth, while the unrighteous will be cast into the Lake of Fire with death, hell, the false prophet and all that is Antichrist. (Revelation 20-21)
The Hebrew Scriptures and sheol
So, where do the dead go in the meantime? Let’s look first at the Hebrew Scriptures and what they say.
There are various terms used in Scripture for the intermediate states – where people go when they die until the events described in Revelation 20-21.
- In the Torah, when a patriarch died, he was said to be “gathered to his people”. (Genesis 25:18, 35:29, 49:33, Numbers 20:24, Deuteronomy 32:50)
- Likewise, in the Former Prophets, we read of the kings of both Israel and Judah dying, and the motif is “and he slept with his fathers”. (1 Kings 2:10, 11:43, 14:20, 2 Kings 8:24, 14:22, 20:21, 2 Chronicles 9:31, 12:16, 14:1, 21:1. It is used 36 times.)
- The Hebrew authors use the term sheol, which means simply “the place where the dead go” with a certain ubiquity that can be frustrating because we really don’t know much about what the word is supposed to evoke. As a result, it gets translated a lot of different ways. All together, the word appears thirty some times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here are just a couple examples:
“For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase,
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. (Deuteronomy 32:22)
“When the waves of death compassed me, The floods of ungodly men made me afraid; The sorrows of hell compassed me about; The snares of death prevented me; In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried to my God:” (2 Samuel 22:5-7)
Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do?
Deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, And broader than the sea. (Job 11:7-9)
What is interesting is that the Hebrews did not seem to distinguish a place of the dead for the righteous and for the unrighteous. Sheol is described as a place of torture though, and it doesn’t make sense that the righteous went to a place of torture. There are also these references to joining those who died before you, which further complicates things.
In Christian traditions, this is usually explained using Jesus’ narrative of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:14-31). Many traditions say that before Christ died on the cross, the dead all went to sheol but the righteous were in a place called “Abraham’s Bosom” and there was a divide between them. Then, when Jesus died, he went to hell and “led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:18) and then hell (Sheol) filled up that space.
For me, this is not a completely satisfactory answer. I think there is a lot to be learned yet about the way the Hebrews viewed the afterlife and used the word sheol. It does seem to signify a single idea, and it has tangible meaning to it, but I don’t think we know enough about what was intended by the word and its varied uses to make a judgment as to what the Hebrews believed or didn’t believe. What they definitely did believe was that people die and there is more afterward, that physical death was not all there was to life.They also did seem to believe that whether you were righteous or unrighteous had some bearing on what happened afterward.
There are huge passages of the Hebrew Scriptures dealing with the restoration of God’s kingdom on earth (like I said before, in the Latter Prophets, which most Christians refer to as the Major Prophets) and those have direct bearing on the righteous dead. I’ll deal with that in the next post.
On to the Christian story.
Gospel Terminology Used by Jesus
The New Testament is not anywhere near as vague. In fact, it is quite clear from the teachings of Jesus that there is a difference in how the righteous and unrighteous fair in the afterlife. In the Christian testament, the gospel writers use two words for the afterlife.
- Hades, which is a Greek word borrowed from the Greek god of the dead.
- Gehenna, a borrowing from the Hebrew ge-hinnom, which appears in the Hebrew Scriptures from the latter kingdom of Judah as a place of idol worship (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31-32, et al)
(There is a third word that only appears once, Tartarus. It is a Greek place of darkness and torment for the wicked, but it only appears in 2 Peter 2:14 and in a verb form.)
I don’t think it is a mistake that the former Jews who wrote the Gospels used terms tied with Greek mythology and Canaanite religions when referring to the place of the unrighteous dead. It is a very intentional move on their part. The Gospel writers are turning the Gentile terminology back on the Gentiles. When Jesus spoke in Aramaic and used whatever word he used, the Gospel writers were there. When they sat to pen their gospels in Greek, they intentionally chose these words.
This is where Rob makes a bad interpretation of Jesus’ words. He doesn’t think about the words. He doesn’t give the Gospel writers (and the Holy Spirit) enough credit in their word choice. The Greek speakers who received these gospels knew what Jesus was trying to say. This was an intentional association.
Think about it.
Let’s look back at Luke 16:19-31. Go ahead. Read it.
In Jesus’ narrative, the rich man is “clothed in purple and fine linen.” Who wore purple in Jesus’ day?
The Romans.
Again – an association with the pagans, but why? Because they were pagans? No, because they were oppressors and rapists, because they were captors and destroyers, because their culture was focused on the satisfaction of human desires and the pursuit of success at the cost of others.
In short, the Romans represented everything that Jesus was teaching against.
Hades is for the unrighteous. Not for those who do not assent to a creed or say a sinner’s prayer. It is for those who do not follow the way of Jesus – which is the way of GOD.
What about Gehenna? The word is self-explanatory, isn’t it?
Read Jeremiah and you find that this is the valley where the devotees of Canaanite gods burned their own children. It was the place of fire long before the time when it became the garbage pit that most commentators use to interpret the word. Jesus probably did use this term directly, and he uses it to again turn things on their heads. The place where once kings burned children now becomes the place where their spiritual successors will burn, the people who would sacrifice children to get ahead, who are of their father the devil – both ideas Jesus uses and condemns.
Gehenna is the fires of pagan sacrifice consuming the worshipers of pagan gods, any god who is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – even if that god is yourself.
Gehenna is for the unrighteous.
The Lake of Fire
And in Revelation 20, John writes that death and hell have an end that is not an end. This is what appears there:
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:13-15)
Previously, John had already pointed out that the lake of fire was a place of torment “day and night for ever and ever.” Despite Rob’s efforts to show that eternity does not mean never-ending, there is no denying the Greek that underlies this. The Greek phrase, just like the English, is a doubling. It literally means “age upon age.” In Greek, this form is used to indicate infinite or unmeasurable scales. This is not purgative – pruning away your wickedness. This is everlasting and unending.
Can I be honest? I’m with Rob on wishing that this condemnation was not eternal. That’s why I understand him as being in earnest. I would love for this passage to not be in the Bible, but it is. End of discussion on that one.
Who goes?
Of course, the biggest criticism of Rob’s book was that people said he advocated universalism – that everyone ultimately gets to be in ‘heaven’ (this is a misuse of the word heaven, for one thing – but that’s for another day).
I actually don’t think Rob’s point was that clear. He uses the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) to illustrate that God confronts us with “his story” of our lives.
In the parable, one son goes off and squanders his inheritance and comes back to his father believing he is worthless. His father receives him and says, “NO! You’re my son, returned from the dead!” and throws him a party.
The other son has remained with his father and gets mad that his father is celebrating his brother’s return. He believes he is worthy, and the father says, “Hey, you’re not worthy. You’re no better than my other son. You can’t earn my love. I was with you the whole time.” This other son completely misses the point – that this whole story is about the father, not about him.
I think, and I could be wrong, that Rob’s point in using this parable was that it is not about the good we do or the sin we commit. Ultimately, ‘getting into heaven’ is about whether we will accept God’s truth or not. In other words, when I come to God with my own version of my story – either being worthy or being unworthy – God says, “No, your story is found in my Son Jesus and I accept you as resurrected in Him. Come into the party.” Maybe I am reading my own feelings into Rob’s writing, but I thought that was what he was saying.
But I digress.
My Final Thoughts
Let’s be clear.
This is where I have no doubt that Rob is struggling with the wrong questions.
Who goes to hell?
I think Rob has it right, even if I misunderstood what he was trying to say. The people who go to hell are those who refuse to listen to God, who refuse to hear their story as he wants it told.
But here is where Rob goes wrong. The story is not my story but Jesus’ story.
Who goes to hell?
Those who refuse to be united with Jesus in the resurrection (Romans 6:4-7). What Rob missed about the prodigal son is what I mentioned above. The father says, “My son was DEAD, and is alive again!” (Luke 15:24)
Jesus said to Nicodemus:
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)
Everyone wants to talk about the question, “Why would a loving God send people to hell?” And that’s the wrong question. Jesus says we are condemned ALREADY. And the condemnation doesn’t come from him. It comes from me. It comes from you. It comes part and parcel with being sinners.
Who goes to hell?
The dead. That is who death and hell give up to be judged in the passage I started this whole thing with in Revelation 20. The dead are those who have not partaken in the resurrection.
The dead are those who are not in Christ.
The dead are those who want to believe their own story and come to God with their own version of righteousness.
They are eternally condemned.
Rob is right in that hell is present in people. It is inescapable.
Except in Christ.
Rob did stop short of spelling that out directly. I wish he had. It would have made this whole controversy much simpler.
Because it isn’t about the hell we create or the heaven we hope for.
It is about the living Jesus Christ, who once was dead and calls the dead to rise with him.
What Do You See?
Posted by Erik in Church, Definitions on September 6, 2010
vi·sion [vizh-uh
n]
1. the act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight.
2. the act or power of anticipating that which will or may come to be
3. something seen; an object of sight
4. glimpsing the image of our future that exists in the mind of God.
Vision is not just some kind of nifty idea for church growth. In fact, it has very little to do with growing a big church. It has everything to do with seeing what God wants for us and having the intestinal fortitude to pursue it, despite what it might do to our ‘comfort zone.’
Vision is about seeing what God sees when he looks at our congregation. No one possesses it; no one can make it up on their own (although many have tried). It is all his; and we can only see glimpses of the glory he has prepared for us – not just in heaven but here on earth.
Yesterday, we did A LOT of vision-casting at Grace Baptist Church. We laid out a lot of the things the elders and other leaders have been praying about and discussing over the past nine months. No doubt, people have questions about how this vision will happen. No doubt, some people are wondering how we’re going to pay for this.
To begin answering some of these questions, I have to ask a couple of questions:
- Do you believe that God is truly at work in our congregation?
- Do you trust the spiritual leadership of our elders?
- Are you ready to stop just doing ‘church’ and help make Jesus’ vision for our congregation a reality?
You, as a congregation, have the potential to grow into something amazing and wonderful – but it requires that we see God’s vision, not our own.
What do you see when you look at our church? Do you look at our church? Do you see what was or do you see what could be? I do not believe Jesus sees the past glory days. I certainly don’t believe he wants us to recreate them. Jesus sees the future – and we get glimpses of that future. We get to be his hands and feet to make that future a reality.
What do you see?
A New Word – DIDACTIC RETRODICTION
Posted by Erik in Definitions, Theology on April 6, 2010
I’ve searched for a way to describe the way that people tend to interpret the Bible according to their own preferences. For example, an ultrapatriotic American in the 1980′s (or an ultranationalistic German in the 1930′s) reads prophecy and decides that the prophecy applies to them. Then, as they read other parts of Scripture, they redefine their interpretations based on what they saw in the prophecy.
I think I’ve finally found a term for this: didactic retrodiction. The term didactic means simply “teaching” but retrodiction is more complicated. I encountered the word retrodiction in Raymond C. Hundley’s analysis of the 2012 apocalypse craze, particularly dealing with the writings of Nostradamus:
It is difficult at times to tell whether Nostradamus actually predicted something in amazing detail or whether those who transmitted his text after the event had already taken place made subtle changes in his writings to make it fit the event more exactly. This process is sometimes called “retrodiction.” – Raymond C. Hundley, Will the World End in 2012?, p 47.
In the same sense, it is very easy for interpreters and/or interpretive schools of thought to come to the text of the Bible and see what they believe they should see, based on their context. So, Martin Luther reads the Revelation and sees the papacy as the Antichrist. Tim Lahaye looks at Eastern Europe and sees the potential for the coming of an Antichrist. In both cases, their contextual matrix yields an interpretation that fits with the matrix. And those who adhere to their interpretational school of thought will be taught the same retrodiction. They see the taught interpretation in the text.
No matter who you are, you do this. Covenant theology and dispensationalism (two ways of understanding God’s message of salvation across time) have very set retrodictions which you learn at a fundamental level. Learn one and the other interpretive scheme makes no sense to you. You enter an interpretational matrix that cannot conceive of the other way of thinking.
I deal with retrodiction in my own thinking all the time. I think things are in the Bible that really aren’t. I miss things that were there all the time but I never thought to look. I have conversations with people and sit there dumb-founded because they say the wildest things that make no Biblical sense to me but they hold as absolute convictions.
It is how a Baptist and a Charismatic and a Mormon can read the exact same verses and see completely different things. We all see things in the light of the retrodiction we are trained in.
Acknowledging this is the first step to realizing that you may not be right about everything, that your focus is limited somewhat, that you need to question things you ASSUME immediately without thought, that you cannot accept the first interpretation you encounter.
Supranarrative
Posted by Erik in Definitions, Theology on April 29, 2009
I was searching for a word to define the nature of the Bible as an overaching narrative of the human condition and redemption.
Some writers use the term metanarrative, but this word is deceptively elegant. It denotes a veiled, true object of a story about another subject. In other words, a story about a video game might be about the struggle with violence. It is a case of this being about that.
This is not what I was looking for.
Ultimately, I decided to create a word and infuse it with the meaning I needed.
![]()
su·pra·nar·ra·tive (soo-pruh-nar-uh-tiv)
noun. The overarching story of human existence and struggle as seen through the revelation of Scripture.
Myopegesis
Posted by Erik in Definitions, Theology on April 22, 2009
There are two accepted terms for interpretation of Scripture:
- exegesis: a form of interpretation which attempts to allow the text to guide interpretation
- eisegesis: a form of interpretation which reads an agenda/doctrine into the text from an external source
I felt that there was a need for another word denoting a type of interpretation I observed in many forms through the years.
my·op·e·ge·sis (mahy-op-jee-sis)
noun. a flawed method of interpreting Scripture in a near-sighted, limited way. The text is seen without consideration of greater context, supranarrative, and interpretational heritage.
![]()
n]