Trumped Christianity

Earlier in the month, there was an op-ed in the New York Times entitled The Theology of Donald Trump, exploring Trump's faith and especially evangelical Christianity's response to him. It's interesting how we interpret behavior, which is obviously a complex process and rarely done objectively.

Another article came to my attention asserting how a covert video of Trump during a prayer session shows how faithful he is. Except his eyes are open the whole time, looking around, and to me, looking quite uncomfortable and appearing to want to know what's going on rather than really being present and moved by the Spirit. I don't know Trump personally, so I don't know what he's like personally or anything beyond his bombastic public appearance. So who knows...

Two months ago, I reviewed a book exploring the importance of evaluating presidential candidates' faith, broadly defined. The author, Stephen Mansfield, argues for asking questions about core values and where they derive from, seeing how those seem to match with the candidates' behavior. That seems to match the biblical verse about looking at the fruit of the Spirit.

Do we see the fruit of the Spirit demonstrated by Trump? A recent anti-Trump ad attempts to answer that question poignantly.

Oftentimes, it seems we tend to evaluate candidates' faith by their political position. In reality, faith can work its way through lives in many diverse ways. Christians can honestly and authentically come to completely different positions based on deep faith. That's one of the reasons I appreciate the Baptist core value of Soul Liberty.

Interestingly, I've heard very little debate about the faith of Hillary Clinton. Mansfield spends an entire chapter on her faith journey, which sounds quite authentic and applied, not superficial. But her faith and process is far more private than many.

Do we really know what to do with and how to even evaluate the faith of candidates? Should we? Is it possible?

Review: Desiring Atonement

Atonement can sound like a boring, droll topic (and it is to many people). However, it's also central to Christian theology and the topic of many vicious debates (some people's ordinations and even salvation statuses have been questioned due to even minor differences in atonement beliefs). For those not familiar, atonement in Christianity refers to becoming reconciled with God. I have previously written on atonement, including problems with "traditional" atonement theories, the application of René Girard's mimetic theory to Christian atonement, and the fundamental question of whether God needs to be appeased.

A few authors have written on similar topics, but André Rabe's recent book, Desire Found Me, provides a very thorough exploration of how mimesis impacts not only atonement, but a variety of fundamental Christian theological points. His is an incredibly ambitious project, not just describing a mimetic atonement, but laying a foundation of how mimesis provides a better explanation of Scripture all the way back to Genesis 1.

Some might think this foundation is too much. To be fair, it can be a lot to digest, although he makes fine theological points accessible (with appropriate background) to those unfamiliar with the topics, while also not being overly simplistic for those with more knowledge of some topics (his writing structure makes it is easy to skim where appropriate). However, discussing things such as human nature, justice, and even Satan are critical to understanding and constructing a theory of atonement. Even while being familiar with and having written on many of these topics, Rabe provides helpful strong evidence and detailed explanation supporting more accurate Christ-centered interpretation of Scripture than other more human-centric hermeneutics. He provides a nice balance of his own writing with strong citations showing a solid scholarly approach to Scripture, hermeneutics, and Christian history.

For those interested in mimetic atonement, restorative justice, and love-centered reading of Scripture that is more cohesive than the limited narratives told by so many others, I highly recommend Rabe's text.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Against the Death Penalty

Earlier this month, Al Mohler wrote an editorial on CNN's Belief Blog about why Christians should support the death penalty. There were so many things wrong with this article that I was going to write some of my reactions. Thankfully, Roger Olson (who has FAR more followers than I do) wrote an excellent piece noting the many inaccuracies in Mohler's regularly flawed "logic."

One of my big areas of interest is in transformation and motivation (both of particular interest to both theology and psychology). I'll reiterate what Olson said in response to Mohler: the death penalty does NOT act as a deterrent. While many Christians may say it is a deterrent for them, they also probably wouldn't ever engage in the kind of crimes that would get the death penalty anyway. So who is it really a deterrent for?

This gets into a larger discussion of motivation. Many people (especially fundamentalist Christians) advocate for aversive punishment. While that may work for people who normally follow rules anyway, it's not terribly effective for those who are not necessarily automatically compliant. I would put the death penalty as an aversive punishment. And people who commit crimes to earn the death penalty are likely not terribly compliant. So we need to figure out a different approach.

Hint: Reinforcing desired behavior is the most effective approach for all people. But that means we have to approach people with grace, and why would Christians want to do that?!

This, then, also gets into the idea of transformation and redemption, absolutely central concepts to the Gospel and for me, a much more compelling reason to oppose capital punishment. If central to our faith is the idea that anybody can be redeemed (and ultimately at any time), then we need to give that opportunity. By killing someone, we are essentially stating that there is no hope for this individual. Is that our right? Should we really remove the ability of God to touch this person's life? Or some good to come through this individual? There's plenty of biblical stories about such redemption, transformation, and God using evil for good...

But Mohler and others argue that some people deserve death. We can get into long and drawn-out arguments over who can decide who deserves death. But let's suspend that. Let's assume some individuals do deserve death (frankly, hearing just a synopsis of the crimes the Oklahoma individuals have been convicted of gives me a gut reaction of them deserving death) AND that there is no doubt of guilt. Particularly for those who believe in the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (which Mohler avows), then we all deserve death. Yet because of Christ's sacrifice, we are spared.

If God will grant a pardon from death, why shouldn't we do so, even if death is deserved?

When Do We Engage in Debate?

Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).

As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.

She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?

I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.

In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.

I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).

Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.

But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...

The Brain and Theology

Tim Jennings' new book, The God-Shaped Brain: How Changing Your View of God Transforms Your Life, is advertised a bit as the newest exploration into neurotheology. As a psychiatrist, he has appropriate qualifications into the discussion, similar to Curt Thompson and his Anatomy of the Soul, which I reviewed a few years ago. In short, there were a lot of great points made in the book, but they weren't neurotheology or even centrally about the brain.

Jennings' work seems more to be a consolidation of his personal theology with examples from the Bible, his patients, and some neuroscience. His rationale for a loving God is frequently compelling, especially in the context of real-world relationships. He takes quite a literal view and interpretation of the Bible (or at least approaches it that way in his book), but he comes to very different conclusions than many biblicists, which I greatly appreciate. There were many explanations of biblical passages that he offered that were new to me and very moving and compelling. I hope more wrath-focused biblicists would read this book to offer a different option on how to still value the holiness and authority of Scripture while understanding it completely differently.

Ultimately, though, the title of the book seems like a bit of a false advertisement. Jennings definitely has neuroscience in the book, but that really wasn't central. Some of his theological theses weren't even supported by neuroscientific findings or interpretations. It seemed like he had many more anecdotal examples from his practice than brain science. That's not to say the anecdotes were bad; they were excellent and compelling. I found them excellent examples of the importance of paying attention to spiritual concerns while engaging in mental health treatment.

The narration by Sean Runnette was good (I've liked his stuff in the past). He kept me engaged and interested to continue listening. Although I wonder if there would have been a different nuanced emphasis if Jennings did the narration himself. I regularly prefer nonfiction read by the author, especially with texts that can be so personal, as with this one.

Overall, Jennings' work gives some good, multifaceted arguments for a loving, non-wrathful God that desired a relationship with each of us. I've heard many reasons for this theology in the past, but he offered several new narratives that are more moving than mere theology. Unfortunately, the book was lighter on neuroscience than the title advertises, and I wish he wasn't so dependent on a very literal approach to the Bible, which I personally find unnecessary and unsustainable. But this approach may be effective in reaching the people least likely to experience the loving, living Lord.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Theology in Fiction

When the Les Misérables musical came out a year ago on the big screen, it spurred a new wave of discussion of the theological concepts presented in Victor Hugo's time-honored novel.

While I normally review nonfiction books on faith, religion, and theology, it's actually quite refreshing to review fiction and recognize how powerfully it can convey theological points. Oftentimes, fiction can do so more effectively than systematic theologies. And Les Miz is a perfect example. The themes of love, grace, and mercy triumphing over the rigidity of the law are lessons we constantly need, especially in our current cultural landscape.

Up for review here is Focus on the Family's radio theatre version. I actually listened to it over a year ago before the film came out, but in the midst of flying to Florida for our baby, having him born, getting used to having an infant, etc., writing a review ran away from me. But that's not to say the audio drama was poor. Much to the contrary, it was an excellent presentation of the tale. I've never read the actual story (my attention span is too short for that :) ), so some of the subplots and specific stories used by Focus were quite new to me.

Listening to it made me really reflect on how elements of stories are chosen for adaptations. In fact, I think a great way to use this version is in conjunction with the film. Together, they probably present a more accurate picture of the overall tale, each exploring certain nuances that the other misses. This gives a much richer exploration of the story and characters and leads to much more valuable theological insights.

Additionally, some Christian audio drama can be quite heavy handed and cheesy. This one did not come across either way to me. It is one I would recommend to both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

From One Extreme to Another Without Support

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield's book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, is almost an understatement. Butterfield's text tells of some of her journey from an activist lesbian English department chair specializing in LGBT studies and publicly critical of the Religious Right to a Christian in a heterosexual marriage homeschooling her children as part of an ultra-conservative denomination. That alone would catch most people's attention, as it did mine.

Right up front, I have to give Butterfield kudos for being willing to share her experiences and "secret thoughts" honestly. She's had quite a life, and if more people were willing to put themselves out there to be honest about their journeys, our world and ability to be spiritually transformed would probably be improved.

Unfortunately, there are major limitations of this book. It is advertised as exploring her conversion experience and "journey into Christian faith." Very little of the book deals with her change of heart and mind. Most of it focuses on her post-conversion development.

With moving from one extreme to another, Butterfield did not really provide any explanation as to what made the change. She just vaguely says that she was convinced of the Christian faith. I also give major kudos to the pastor who walked with her without judgment or pressure. Butterfield explains that this played a major role. But it doesn't really provide an explanation as to why she made such a quick, radical shift to the polar opposite side of the spectrum. If she were able to explore that process, this text could potentially be much more helpful for many individuals who struggle with the many challenging questions she brings up in the book.

Butterfield clearly has very strong critical thinking skills, yet she seems to regularly drop them when explaining her theological convictions. For instance, she defends her Reformed Presbyterian stance of only a capella versions of Psalms (never using movement or dancing) by saying, "I believe God directed us to sing Psalms during worship to the exclusion of man-made hymns" because that's what Jesus sang. Um, how does she know that's what Jesus sang and without instrumentation? Did she forget about David worshipping through dance (also not allowed in her denomination), instruments, and clearly not singing Psalms in group worship, since he wrote many of them?

Her tendency to make large, absolute statements about theological truth without adequate support made her lose credibility to me. She really lost my support when she quoted Jay Adams (for those unfamiliar, he reads the Bible extremely literally and thinks it provides everything we need to know about humanity to the exclusion of anything else, like psychology) as having strong biblical and intellectual legitimacy. I've read plenty of books by people with whom I disagree theologically (and I differ from her on most points), but I can at least follow their line of reasoning. She has some of the best scholarly credentials, but doesn't apply them and actually provides some of the weakest explanations and support of any book I've read.

However, I would give this book two stars to give her credit for putting herself out there, for maintaining and promoting hospitality, diversity, and openness to people who differ from her, and for advocating for adoption (obviously close to my heart). I do have to say that I was quite impressed and even surprised by the ability of her denomination, which I would classify as ultra-fundamentalist, to accept people as they are. If more of these congregations would approach others like Butterfield and her colleagues do, then we would see more conversions and fewer condemnation of Christianity.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Whose Side Are You On?

Jim Wallis is well-known by many Christians, and he often is viewed as controversial in the evangelical community, as he uses the term evangelical while promoting progressive ideals through the social justice group, Sojourners. I've never read or listened to any of his work, so I was intrigued to listen to an audiobook version of his (very long) tome, On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn't Learned about Serving the Common Good.

The book, running at about 14 hours for the audio version and 300 pages for the print edition, has a lot of information and examples of Wallis' points. Many posts could be written about these points, but I was generally impressed with Wallis' ability to be rather balanced and try to find a common ground in the name of the Gospel.

The basic premise of his text is a fundamental shifting of the paradigm of faith in politics, which argues God is always on our side (whichever side you're on). As the title of the book suggests, Wallis asserts that this perspective and the question of whose side God is on misses the point. We should be asking if we're on God's side. While I'm sure this argument has been made before, and it's not simple to live out, I really appreciated how this view shifts the focus from being anthropocentric to being theocentric. Both sides of the political (and theological) aisle seem to increasingly emphasize humanity as central rather than trying to find out how to re-orient to be in line with God. The result, Wallis argues, should be striving toward the common good rather than our individual, siloed good. And I agree.

If you like texts on the politics of religion, this is a great addition. But the print version might be better. Again, I haven't listened to Wallis before, but for him being such a national leader who has to speak regularly, his narration of his own book was less-than-impressive. In fact, the almost monotonous tone made some very important points seem unimportant. I usually love authors narrating their own works because you can hear their passion and interest in their points, even if their readings aren't great. Unfortunately, both were lacking here, making me sometimes question if Wallis even believed what he was saying. I hope he does because his points are important and much-needed.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Basic Theology of Eric Liddell @christianaudio

Many people know Eric Liddell from the Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire. What many people don't know is  he also gave up the life of an athlete to be an overseas missionary.

In the short, The Disciplines of the Christian Life, Liddell presents a fundamental (not to be confused with fundamentalist) theology and encouragements for basic spiritual disciplines. I was impressed with his knowledge of biblical scholarship and historical-critical methodologies. At the same time, I found myself tuning out a lot while listening to the book. That may have been because there was a lot on my mind or because I can't really say there was much in the book I hadn't heard elsewhere.

I don't have any complaints about it, and it's probably a good introductory resource to theology and how God relates to the world. I enjoyed some of the preface history of Liddell. Simon Vance's (the narrator) Scottish accent was also a nice change from many audiobooks. It was an understandable accent (some Scottish accents are incomprehensible to non-Scots) and brought a bit of authenticity to the work, as Liddell was Scottish.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Role of the Resurrection

This post is part of the April synchroblog, the Resurrection Hoax. It is adapted from a prior post I wrote in 2010.
---------------------------------
Many people emphasize the importance of the resurrection in their theology. They have said that if Christ did not rise from the tomb, their whole faith would be lost.

Honestly, I don't really understand this.

Is the resurrection central to Christianity? Of course. Is it a defining variable? I'm not so sure.

It's distinctive, but how different is Christianity from ancient, pre-Christ Judaism? In specific practices and culture, it's of course different. And people could argue a focus on the law. However, a focus on the law was really within certain Jewish traditions. And there's plenty of Christian traditions that focus on the law just as much.

In my studies, I have seen a rich and vital faith in ancient (and modern) Judaism that really connects with God, seeing God transforming lives. God is involved in the present, changing lives now.

However, that is often not as emphasized in a lot of modern Judaism. There is a big trend of seeing God less involved. That is a power of Christ--Christ came to bring life. Not just in the future, but now.

When we forget about the now, we only focus on life in the future (i.e. eternity). And if there is no resurrection, then of course we should be afraid of our life after death. However, when we see our faith and experience with God transcending more than just death, then we can value many more things than just the resurrection.

Would the absence of the resurrection make my faith different? Probably, and likely in ways I don't even realize. However, my faith is also not rooted in historial facts. It's rooted in faith. Belief that God exists and transcends not only death, but life itself. I have experienced that. And if someday I find out the resurrection did not historically occur, I think (and hope) I would still have a vibrant faith in God...

One of the interesting questions the synchroblog provided as a possible prompt was what religion (if any) would you be a part of if the resurrection did not occur. I believe I would still be a follower of Christ because his teachings are true. Further, considering options for epistemology, my experience and what I would interpret as my relationship with God (and each person of the Trinity) reinforces my faith.

Therefore, ultimately, a lack of the resurrection would have to change the way I understand Christ, but not necessarily the way I love him. I don't think the resurrection made the disciples love Jesus any more or any less. They probably cognitively understood him better (or simply acknowledged the awesome mystery). And I think one of the primary effects of the resurrection was God having the final word in dramatic fashion. But even if he didn't take the final word, that doesn't make him less powerful or less God.
---------------------------------
Here are the other synchroblog participants:

Marta – On Faith Seeking Understanding, Truth, and Theology

Carol Kuniholm – Risen Indeed? The Hermeneutic Community

Tim Nichols – How Would Life be Different if Jesus did not Rise?

Glenn – Kingdom Come or Kingdom Now?

Sonja Andrews – The Resurrection and the Life

Josh Morgan – The Role of the Resurrection

Abbie Watters – What if the Resurrection were a lie?

Minnow – Resurrection Impact

Leah – Resurrection – Or Not!

Hey Sonnie – The Resurrection Hoax

Liz Dyer – The Resurrection I Firmly Believe In

Ellen Haroutunian – Is There a Christianity Without the Resurrection?

Jeannette Altes – What if…

Christine Sine – If the Resurrection did not happen, how would the world be different?

KW Leslie – Supposing Jesus is Dead

Travis Mamone – If the Resurrection was a Hoax

Kathy Escobar – Jenga Faith

Jeremy Myers – What if Jesus Did not Rise?

Love or God? @markgalli @christianaudio

The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.


Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.

Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.

The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.

Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.

Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.

Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...

At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.

One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.

Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.

However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.

This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.

Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.

Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).

Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.

What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?

Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Love or Justice? @markgalli @randyalcorn @christianaudio

I'm currently listening to the audiobook version of Mark Galli's God Wins, a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. I started writing some responses while I'm listening to it, so I don't forget them all. I wrote so much in response to just the preface, I thought I would post this first, especially since the preface wasn't Galli's work at all and so should be somewhat separated from his review.

Randy Alcorn wrote the preface to Galli's book, and it actually sets a quite negative tone. One of the things I appreciated about Galli was that he stated he is not criticizing Rob Bell or what Bell believes, but simply what the book, Love Wins, says. I think this is a fair attempt at taking the personal attack feel out of a discussion. Unfortunately, Alcorn's writing seems to take jabs at Bell along the lines of what DeYoung, Piper, and others have done.

Like many of the neo-Calvinists, Alcorn emphasizes the role of justice in Christ's sacrifice. He (and Galli) at times, present love and justice as mutually exclusive. However, Galli does properly state that this depends on how one defines love. I would add that it also depends on how one defines justice. Yes, love without guidance is not all that loving.

However, Galli, Alcorn, and many people seem to equate justice with punishment. Just like love without consequences is a very anthropocentric idea, so is punishment-focused justice. Our emphasis on fairness and forensic-like exactitude is not necessarily theocentric. In fact, it flies in the face of most of God's most explicit commands about justice (Jubilee, anyone?). What if forgiveness- and grace-centered love is the true definition of justice?

While Galli doesn't really use this perspective explicitly, Alcorn argues that Bell and others forsake the straightforward meaning of Scripture. Personally, this argument is something that drives me nuts. There is no such thing as a straightforward meaning, particularly of the Bible. Everything takes interpretation, especially when it was written thousands of years ago. Even something contemporary, being read within the culture it was intended for, takes interpretation. Love Wins is a perfect example. Galli says Bell's book says some things that I simply do not see in it. We have interpreted it differently. And Bell is one of the more straightforward authors out there. If something like this takes interpretation, there's really no legitimacy in reading the Bible from a "straightforward meaning" perspective.

Alcorn also criticizes Bell's book for disregarding historical church doctrine. This argument itself is controversial, as there is substantial evidence that a wideness of God's grace has been held by many influential Christians over the centuries. But yes, official doctrine has been rather narrow. The thing I find ironic about this is that it is Protestants, often those who who hold the label of "Reformed," who emphasize this argument. The Catholic Church used this exact same argument against Luther and other Reformers. As Galli says, newer isn't always better. Older and traditional isn't always better, either.

As humans, we are fallible. That means our theology is fallible. I hope our theology improves over the centuries. The theology of the Hebrews and Israelites certainly did. That doesn't make latter people better, but they did learn from their ancestors. We need to be wise about our theology. That means giving serious weight to the thought that came before us. But it also means taking a critical look at it.

Galli is much fairer in his part of the book, and Alcorn states how open-minded and fair Galli has always been. This is one of the things I have appreciated about his writing over the years. However, thus far into the book, it would have been much better without the preface.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Priesthood of a Physical Church @KeithGiles

Keith Giles, an organic/house church advocate who offers all of his books for free electronically, recently released This is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended. First off, this book is a very easy read. The way Giles separates the chapters makes it feel like you are moving the book quickly and easily.

The book itself is intended to examine a biblical basis for what the institutional church and worldwide Church should look like. Long story short, Giles provides a wonderful, well-thought-out argument for the priesthood of all believers in a way that is accessible to most people (rather than heavy theological language). He notes important implications for what that looks like institutionally, including the lack of hierarchy. One of my deep spiritual/ecclesiastical values is an egalitarian organization, so I really appreciate the many angles Giles approaches this, from the role of pastor to the relevance of a "spiritual covering." There are so many wonderful things he says that I could elaborate on, but that would take forever and probably be redundant with his work. :)

There were a couple of parts that I struggled with. At one point, Giles mentions that he so dislikes it when churches raise so much money to put into creating or buying buildings rather than going to people. His rationale for this is wonderful, and I agree. When I was an elder at The Gathering, we talked about ways to make sure all of our income would go back out, which is what Giles' community succeeds at.

At the same time, I can and have seen the value of larger communities (Giles argues for very small groups) and church campuses. I grew up in small church communities and am currently drawn to the philosophy of house/organic churches. At the same time, I have been a part of some very large congregations lately. Particularly as one has been in the news lately in part because of poor financial planning related to their building,  I have seen first-hand how much time, energy, and money goes into buying and maintaining church property. A lot of time, energy, and money that could go into people.

At the same time, my wife and I have come to appreciate the opportunities available with a larger congregation.  While a lot of money may flow into administrative and building costs, these communities provide a lot of services to the world around them that smaller groups could not do. While the churches themselves may spend less on administration and building if they were small and without a building, then other organizations and businesses would have to pick up the slack on service. This might not happen at all. When it does, it usually occurs with non-profits, who also will often rely on donations and have the same administrative and building costs as churches. They frequently have more, as churches can often more easily be staffed by volunteers. In the end, more money may reach people if the institutional church does the work and includes the overhead. I get and agree with Giles' philosophy, but practically, biblical times were quite different than modern times when it comes to interpersonal service.

Further, church buildings can be services in themselves. While I hate the waste of space many sanctuaries are, many well-planned buildings can and are used for many activities and offered to the community to use. Further, appropriately thought-out buildings can teach spiritual stories and inspire people to go out and serve more. Yes, it is difficult to watch tens of millions of dollars go into a new building when people are starving. Yet what is the cost if that new building becomes a refuge for people to relax and become rejuvenated to then go out and help those starving neighbors? While I am very much a utilitarian with many things, I have come to value the importance of space that is life-giving. I've been to more utilitarian church buildings and those that are intended to be a sanctuary. I am much more open to people after spending time in the latter.

The other part I struggled with was a section on women leaders. Giles argues for the equality of women in the church with some excellent arguments. But then he ends by stating, "However, the authority to rebuke or confront a believer caught in sin seems to rest on those male elders and overseers who were recognized as having a Fatherly position within the Body" (p. 142). This statement stood out in stark contrast to the rest of this section and his book, which all provided examples and support for his claims. While the complementarian/egalitarian debate was not really the issue here, this statement just seemed unsupported.

While I spent most of my time here on the parts I did not fully agree with, they were actually relatively minor parts of the book. For anyone interested in organic church models and thoughts on hierarchy in ecclesiology, I highly recommend this book.

Why did you become a Christian?

Over the past several months of conversations and observing spiritual dialogues, one of the things I've become aware of (in part thanks to my wife's observations) is that the reasons people became Christians makes a big difference on their current faith and how they approach faith challenges. This may not be a big surprise, but I've never heard anyone talk about the relationship.

I became a Christian on Palm Sunday my freshman year of high school. It was a quiet decision during youth group. I was a bit embarrassed. I know I didn't realize the full weight of the decision until I built my relationship with Christ. I don't remember all the details, but I know I finally believed God was real in Christ. His story made life make sense, and I wanted a relationship with him.

My decision didn't have to do with eternity. I don't recall Heaven and Hell being on my mind at all. Nor was doctrine or the Bible. It was simply wanting to know this God who structured the world and gave meaning to life.

I think that's why I'm so able to hold a lot of my beliefs relatively loosely. I don't need to have a clear definition of who is going to Heaven and who to Hell to feel secure in my faith because that's not a motivator for me. I also don't need to defend the Bible or particular doctrinal issues because they really don't affect my relationship with Christ.

Of course, we could argue that if you don't believe in the Trinity, the Christ with whom you think you have a relationship is not real. There is some truth to that. Yet, God still pursues us. And our God image develops over time and through relationship. I didn't have a fully accurate picture of my wife when I married her. I still don't. But it develops over time and that doesn't diminish the reality and power of our relationship.

What's your story? Do you see that affecting how you deal with questions, doubt, and controversy?

Discussion on Membership, Authenticity, and Doctrine

Last month, I wrote a post about seeking unity among theological disagreement. It described some of my personal struggle at the moment and continues to emphasize what I long for and struggle with with regard to community.

In any case, two of my friends have posted very thoughtful comments on the post. I highly recommend you read them if you're interested in the topic. They bring up some wonderful points that I could not say so eloquently.

Follow-up on bin Laden, Justice, and Children of God

On Monday, I posted a blog about not celebrating bin Laden's death. It was also posted on Sandals Church's blog in an edited version. I have received a ton of positive feedback. In fact, the pastor of another large church in the area posted the Sandals version, and one of the parents of one of my kids saw it and told me she loved it. :)

Of course, with anything controversial, there are those who disagree. The two main protests were important enough to warrant a longer response, in my opinion, as they don't just deal with the bin Laden situation, but about a lot of life.

The most common critical response was that people aren't celebrating bin Laden's death, but the execution of God's justice. It is good to celebrate justice, I agree. However, we have to be careful to not attribute our sense of justice to God. We must not anthropomorphize God and assume that what we consider to be justice is what God considers to be justice.

Honestly, I don't think justice was done in this situation. Justice would have been putting bin Laden on trial in front of the world Again, I don't see that being practical in this situation nor am I condemning the killing of bin Laden. But I'm not convinced God's justice was done. The need for punishment in clear, concise ways is often more of a human need than a divine need.

Just because our sense of justice has not been done does not mean God's sense of justice was not done.

Another comment was about bin Laden being a child of God. One person stated that my post blurred the lines of who was adopted into the kingdom of God too much. I strongly disagree.

As humans were made by God and made in the image of God, we are all children of God. That does not necessarily mean we inherit the kingdom of God. We still have to accept that inheritance. Yes, the Bible talks about being adopted into God's family. That is one metaphor to understand how we are reunited with God.

I find clearly demarcating who is and who is not a child of God is more to satisfy our own need to self-justification and self-assurance of salvation than honestly and authentically seeking Truth.

Toward Unity Amidst Theological Disagreement @alan_knox

Yesterday, I a post I wrote for my church's blog was posted about our new membership program and the attempt to have unity despite theological disagreements. This fits with other things I have written recently, in addition to some discussions in the rest of blogosphere, especially Alan Knox's blog. I had to cut down my post for word count purposes, but since I tend to be verbose here, below is the original, unedited version.

At a recent blog meeting in which we were brainstorming subjects, the topic of membership came up. We mentioned how some people have had problems with membership. Sandals' leadership openly admitted that they knew they would lose people through the membership process, so this was not necessarily a surprise. That doesn't make the separation any easier for anyone involved. I know there are many people who have various concerns related to the membership class and process. I am one of them. I thought sharing some of my journey may help validate those who have concerns and bring our community together to be stronger than before.

We have been very deeply involved in our previous church communities, both of us running major ministries within our churches (and sometimes practically the whole church ministry at times). We've seen the good, bad, holy, and ugly involved with church from the inside, including controversies that have been on the national news.

Theology has not been any stranger to us, either. My bachelors degree was in Religious Studies, and I did my doctorate at Azusa Pacific University because my passion is the integration of spirituality and psychology. One of my hobbies is a blog dedicated to exploring spiritual and theological questions. My wife has done her fair share of theological inquiry and writing, too.

So when we moved to Grand Terrace about two years ago, we knew what kind of church we were looking for. We were also both very wary of the inauthenticity that can go along with church institutions, leadership, and politics. We were actually burned out of any kind of church organization for a while. Then my wife found Sandals' website with the motto/vision of being Real with Self, Others, and God. I was instantly intrigued.

My wife and I came to Sandals right around the time fundraising for the new building really started with the pledges about a year and a half ago. One of the first Sundays we were there was when the kids brought in their offerings. While Matt made many statements that Sandals was not all about money for those who were new, this process actually made my wife and I appreciate Sandals more because the money was obviously being used wisely and authentically.

We quickly joined a small group and a few months later volunteered to step up as small group leaders despite vowing to not get too involved because of our past experiences. Then Tawny wrapped me into writing for the blog. Laci did some artwork for the church (she was the one who taught some kids--and adults--to draw Disney characters at Imago Dei last month). So much for taking a break from leadership roles...

One of the things that I loved about Sandals was the emphasis on authenticity and meeting people where they were at in every way. Then membership came up. I had a lot of questions. First of all, I'm very ecumenical when it comes to theology. I definitely have my beliefs, but as many other eccesiologists have noted, church institutions should not be about theological agreement, but rather living life in Christ Jesus. I was worried membership would make Sandals more sectarian, creating an "us versus them" within Christendom, further fracturing the already broken body of Christ in humanity.

A lot has been said in the membership classes about membership being about people committing to the local church and participating. I support that wholeheartedly. However, my wife and I have been and are very committed to this community. I was happy to learn about Sandals' official positions on issues. Others have noted that membership is useful so people know whether or not to commit to a group who may have a different theology.

One of the struggles my wife and I have been having is that we have been strongly committed, yet there have been some theological differences between our beliefs and some of Sandals' official positions. I know this has been the case with many others, too. As Derek said, any divorce would and should be painful. Leaving our other communities simply because of moving was hard enough.

At the same time, I do not believe that most of these issues should prevent a group of people from being in community together and forming a group known as a church. We need to agree on certain basics, but there is plenty of theology that does not determine whether or not someone is in fellowship with Christ. Not that the issues are unimportant, but again, they should not, in my belief, create a divorce between a person committed to a church body and that community.

I have really been struggling with this, though, as I was unsure where Sandals would draw the lines. Again, there are the official positions, and then there are the issues with which we all must agree (for instance, as Derek has said, Jesus being God is mandatory; believing men must be the head of the household and women cannot be pastors is not required). Yet there is a difference between what is preached from the pulpit and what is practiced in real life. I've had experiences in Sandals with people who are not willing to tolerate any disagreement while others have thanked me for asking questions.

A couple of weeks ago during a leaders meeting, we had some prayer time related to confession. Quickly into the individual time, I heard a very strong voice tell me that I need to stop worrying about these minor theological issues and live according to what I believe--that we can have theological disagreements and still be in communion with one another, encouraging and discipling each other in movement toward the same mission and vision.

This week's membership class validated this idea, as Derek explained that small groups and Christian community should not be always based on affinity (similarities), but based in Jesus. He also stated that theological differences help keep us all in check and honest with ourselves and each other. That is so true.

I still have questions about how everyone can live in community when we disagree. It doesn't always work; that's why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. My hope and prayer for Sandals is that we can live in unity because of theological diversity through Christ. This does not mean that we avoid issues of theological disagreement, but rather we do not demonize dissenting opinions. I have been guilty of this. If we are going to have a successful commitment to one another, we all need to be honest, real, and respectful of each other to grow in Christ and work together to bring the Kingdom of Christ to our neighborhood and the world. A wide group of committed, unified followers of Christ will be able to bring the Gospel much farther than segments of bickering believers.

Compassionate Conservative Christianity from @MaxLucado #MaxOnLife @LucadoTeam

Back in December, I wrote a review of Max Lucado's latest (at that time book). I mentioned how refreshing that book was because Lucado presented conservative evangelical Christian ideas while emphasizing "liberal" social justice. It's a great case for those two to not be in opposition to one another.

Lucado is one of the few authors whose work I have known since early on my Christian life and who I still read and respect highly. I recently had the opportunity to read his newest (and man, does he have a long authorship credit!) book, Max on Life, providing answers to 172 common questions he has received over the years. These were culled from letters, emails, sermons, books, etc.

The result is the most theological work I've read of Lucado's. Usually his work feels more devotional and singly-focused, emphasizing the encouragement of the saints. And this is good stuff. Many of the questions he addresses, though, require more directly theological responses.

Readers of my blog and tweets know I have lobbed a few volleys against penal substitutionary atonement lately. Lucado advocates this atonement theory. However, he doesn't do so in the same condemning hellfire and brimstone fashion that many other big names do these days. His emphasis is more on the transcendent love of God that rescues us from everything. Rather than being against sin, he is for love and God. His presentation of some of these ideas helped me realize that my theological problems are at times more with the viciously vociferous advocates of some positions than the pure theology itself.

There are some gems of lines in this book. One of Lucado's strengths is clarity in his writing and purpose. If you're one who has a lot of questions and want a clear, concise answer, this is a great book. If you want more of Lucado's traditional writings that are more narrative in format, you may want to pass.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Jesus Can Be Hard to Find in the Present

Over the past few years, I have come to deeply appreciate the value of living in the present and not always the future. When I came across Warren Wiersbe's Jesus in the Present Tense: The I AM Statements of Christ, I was very intrigued. I've always loved hearing the various names of God and their significance. Using them as a devotional to see God around us all the more is awesome.

The book starts out great, emphasizing the importance of names, including that of God. I particularly loved the exploration of people who know God but have not known God's name for various reasons (this could be a full separate conversation).

In the preface, Wiersbe that Jesus "is alive and says, 'I AM.' He can meet our needs today. He is alive this very moment and offers us a satisfying spiritual life in the present tense" (p. 11) He explains that the simple statement, "I AM," emphasizes the present nature of Christ, which is a reflection I had not noticed, but think is powerful.

Unfortunately, the rest of the book does not really seem to focus on the present nature of Jesus. The names of Jesus and subsequent exploration of their meaning is fine, but they're not that significant. Most of the time, it simply feels like a new way to present conservative evangelical theology. It's a much more organic way of doing so with some devotional elements, but it honestly feels more didactic than devotional.

Ironically, halfway through the book, Wiersbe states, "As important as doctrine is, it isn't enough for us simply to affirm what we believe. We must realize that Bible doctrine is incarnated in the Son of God and that He through the Spirit makes each doctrine real and active in our lives" (p. 103). This is an amazing statement that I think really is the motivation for the book. While we need to know what we believe and why we believe it, our faith is not living or effective if it is not vibrantly present in our daily life in the context of relationship. Again, though, this book just seemed to miss this focus consistently.

Just prior to the above quote, Wiersbe states the following, already in italics: "He moved the resurrection out of a statement of faith and into a person, and out of the future and into the present" (p. 103). This is a great reflection that we should all remember!

Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).