Fascinating story-lines in last night's events in Iowa.
Is it me . . . maybe I'm crazy . . . but both Obama and Huckabee sounded like preacher's in their victory speeches?
So, let me ask a question that might stir the pot a bit: Would you rather listen to Huckabee preach at church on Sunday . . . or Barak Obama? This does not necessarily indicate who you would vote for. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister; Obama got his start working for the poor in Chicago. And, despite what some are reporting--Barak Obama is a Christian. He's a member of the United Church of Christ.
One person said to me recently, "But he's got a Muslim name! It sounds like Osama." That's about as smart as assuming that the people who live on my street in suburban Detroit are Jewish/Christians because their name is Joseph, Sara, Mary, Deborah, Jacob, or Samuel. That Barak can't be a Christian becuase his name is Osama is the kind of prejudice that runs deep in W.A.S.P. Americana.
I have to admit: I'm impressed with Huckabee as a person. I don't agree with him on some key issues (more on that in the future). However, I find him to be authentic, sincere, transparent, and honorable.
Please wait one moment . . .
About the Book (The Feast)
About Me
- Josh Graves
- Nashville, TN, United States
- I'm the best friend of Kara, father of Lucas, minister, author (The Feast), life-long Piston fan . . . I am the Preaching and Teaching Minister for the Otter Creek Church (Nashville) and I am working on a doctorate degree (second year) at Columbia Seminary studying the relationship of postmodernism and Christianity.
Some of Josh's Published Work (essays, books, articles, reviews)
Links
- Barbara Brown Taylor
- Brian D. McLaren
- Bronx Fellowship of Christ
- Chris Lindsey
- Columbia Seminary
- Donald Miller
- Doug Sanders
- Dry Bones--Denver
- Duke Chapel
- Focus: HOPE
- Greg Boyd
- Greg Stevenson
- Greg Taylor
- Jason Steckel
- Jesus Creed
- Jinja Mission Team
- John Mark Hicks
- John York
- Jonathan Storment
- Josh Ross
- Kara Graves (My wife and best friend)
- Kibo Group
- Larry James Urban Daily
- Lauren Winner
- Lee Camp
- Luke Norsworthy
- Mark and Lori Manry
- Mark Love (Missional Church)
- Mike Cope
- My Twitter Page
- New Wineskins Magazine
- Otter Creek Church
- Patrick Mead
- Randy Speck
- Rochester Church
- Rochester College
- Rubel Shelly
- Sean Palmer
- Stockman Family
- The One Campaign
- TOKENS (Lee Camp and the Arts)
- Wade Hodges
- Walter Surdacki
- Will Willimon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(192)
-
▼
January
(15)
- Kwame's Confession
- Fresno and Phil
- Kwame
- Springsteen, Herod, and One Hot Preacher's Wife
- The Peculiar Institution
- Another Sunday in the "D"
- A Day's Work
- Church Numbers, The Nation of Islam
- Michael Scott and George W. Bush
- CC:M Has a Home!
- Blank Sheet
- The Ohio State University
- Hoop Dreams
- Iowa
- The Shack
-
▼
January
(15)
48 comments:
very impressed with both guys. both are warm and charismatic. it would make a great match-up in the general election.
as far the religious aspect to their campaigns, i'm would guess that many evangelicals are unfamiliar with the united churches of christ. and once they learn more, i would assume they will challenge whether the ucc is even a christian organization...fundies like robertson/dobson will have a field day with their scare tactics.
i love the ucc's "god is still speaking" tag. almost as much as i love their desire to take the bible seriously (not literally) and their desire to see gays and lesbians fully accepted in the church.
http://www.ucc.org
Jon,
Good thoughts. There are elements of the UCC that I would challenge yet would still contend that they are Christian. I would so the same thing for the Catholic Church (abuse of power), the Evangelical Church (blatant racism and silence during the Civil Rights era), and the Mainline Church (universalizing Jesus beyond recognition of the prophet that was crucified).
I do not believe that we should ordain gays and lesbians (two very problematic words) BUT I do feel that the church should be leading the reconciliation/ministry efforts with this community, as opposed to fueling hate, and mistreatment ...as is happening in fundy/neo-evangelical land these days.
There are elements of said churches I would also lift up: UCC (committment to social justice), Catholic Church (work for the poor), Evangelical (passion for evangelism), and the Mainline Church (passion for inclusion).
I don't necessarily think you disagree with the previous comments, just wanted push the discussion further.
Thanks for the note.
point well made about the positive and negative aspects of all denominations. we have a great propensity for good as well as harm. sucks being human sometimes.
i'm sure you and i could disagree about a great many things. but my new year's resolution is to find common ground and celebrate our strengths:
so here's to seeing the hungry feed and the widow's visited and if we're lucky... the blind being able to see.
Jon,
You wrote, "so here's to seeing the hungry feed and the widow's visited and if we're lucky... the blind being able to see."
That should be added to the canon. Shalom for you this year.
Glad to be on the journey with you.
Garbage...all of it is just garbage.
Anonymous...it is always interesting that there are people out there that seem to have such a big opinion but don't have the back-bone to put their name. That speaks volumes.
I would want to hear Obama preach. no question, I really enjoyed listening to him on TV last night.
While I could not agree with you more on your review of "The Shack" I have no interest in hearing Senator Obama preach...I agree his speech last night was incredible and whoever wrote it should be applauded...I will say if I voted there is no question Senator Obama would get my vote.
What's that noise? Oh, that is me on the Obama train. :)
I have to agree with you on Huckabee and Obama. Both are impressive.
Sin is sin, period. The fact that the UCC denies that homosexuality is very troubling to me. Barack's pastor is a racist bigot if you ask me. "Pastor" Wright is quoted as saying that 9-11 "was a wakeup call to White America" and has spoken profanity-laden sermons in the past. I believe that while accepting gays is important, we can't excuse their sin.
Because Obama considers "Pastor" Wright a spiritual father, it makes me question what kind of man he is. He has been less than forthcoming about his record regarding partial birth abortion.
Much of the UCC would also deny the existence of a literal hell in addition to sin.
I don't know if I trust Obama to begin with.
Having said that, I don't know Huckabee all that much theologically. He strikes me as being fire and brimstone, and I don't have a problem with that personally.
What's a WASP?
Still torn between voting between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee in the primary. Should be interesting...
Your Dobson "fundie"(not a Robertson follower),
David
I would have to argue against labeling the UCC as a 'christian' organization unless you are referring to the 80% of the 'christians' in America today. About 6% are evangelical christians who's faith affects their lives......kinda evidence of salvation, eh?
But I would look at Barrack with a bit of fear because he is very adept at twisting the truth to reflect his agenda and isn't opposed to using the puplit to do it....and the IRS is letting him get away with it.....
But Huckabee can't have a 'cross' image in his campaign ads?
We need to look beyond the 'declared' faith of the Democrat runners and the Republican hopefuls and look at the record of their political lives.
And pray, gentlemen PRAY! Of course, these are just my thoughts.....
Ok. Ok. It's getting hot in here.
Josh: Do you know anything more about Huckabee? I need to do some reading and research today.
David: Consider the logic of your argument. If the UCC is wrong on "the homosexuality issue, then they can't be Christian." If that were true, does this mean that the thousands (perhaps milliions) of fundamentalist's and evangelicals who've been on the wrong side of the race issue in America are not Christian? I would suggest that God's grace covers our theological and personal sin. If you have to be one hundred percent completely orthodox to "get in" as it were, then we are all in trouble.
A W.A.S.P. is a term used in history and sociology to generalize a large segment of Christians in America: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
Navalpride: If there is a UCC member (or Catholic, Baptist, Church of Christ) who believes that Jesus is the son of God, who taught humanity how to live the kingdom life, who died, was raised on the third day . . . how you can you not believe them to be Christian. Are you defining Christian more narrowly than Paul himself (or Jesus for that matter)?
One thing we should all be clear on . . . God is not a Republican or a Democrat. God does not prefer America over the other Nation's of the world. Deciding who to elect for President of a Nation "with the soul of a church" (Churchill's language) is complicated. Anyone who says it's clearly the Christian thing to nominate "party x" over "party y" is in danger of twisting God into an image they've created.
May we all demonstrate humility and believe that we have something to learn from those around us. Thanks for the comments.
Huckabee and Obama both concern me. Ron Paul is the answer for 2008. I will admit after voting for Bush the last 2 elections I feel someone burned by what having a man of God in the white house can do to polarized and damage a country. I am not saying that we should not pay attention to the morals of the candidate but I am saying that this person is to be our political leader. He does not have to been my Spiritual leader...I will leave that to Jesus.
"Consider the logic of your argument. If the UCC is wrong on "the homosexuality issue, then they can't be Christian."
Never said that Josh. Mr. Navalpride was questioning their Christianity.
Homosexuality is spoken of in the Bible as an abomination; I'm sure that you're familiar with that passage. We can disagree on Scripture and still be Christians, but it doesn't mean we are both right.
"If that were true, does this mean that the thousands (perhaps milliions) of fundamentalist's and evangelicals who've been on the wrong side of the race issue in America are not Christian?"
Oh, please. The church has made great efforts at reconciliation. Most churches that I know are open to people of all races. We have come to terms with the past in large part, but I see the UCC getting more and more liberal. They ignore certain Scriptures.
"A W.A.S.P. is a term used in history and sociology to generalize a large segment of Christians in America: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant."
This is one thing I don't understand about you. Why do you always make people feel guilty about being white? Why can I not be proud of my heritage just as an African-American. In fact, the whole "white" category makes people forget that there are many differences among European countries. My Polish heritage is much different than someone who is Swedish.
"One thing we should all be clear on . . . God is not a Republican or a Democrat. God does not prefer America over the other Nation's of the world. Deciding who to elect for President of a Nation "with the soul of a church" (Churchill's language) is complicated. Anyone who says it's clearly the Christian thing to nominate "party x" over "party y" is in danger of twisting God into an image they've created."
I totally understand that argument, but few Democrats care about the sanctity of the unborn. I think God cares about that. That's an issue that matters to me.
I am not saying that the Republicans are innocent. I don't like their ties with big business like many others.
However, it is my opinion that integrity matters. THAT is why I appreciate both Huckabee and Paul.
And an honest question to you, Josh, that I have wondered. Do you believe in a literal hell?
David, for almost 8 years now we have had a president that cared about the "sanctity of the unborn" and what has that accomplished? If the next president does not believe in the "sanctity of the unborn" what damage can they do? The fact is we live in a country that allows abortion. Bush has not changed that. I am not sure that another Christian in office would change our countries views on the sanctity of of the unborn.
Dave:
The "hel" discussion is, to say the least, a complex historical "combination" of Scripture, cultural experiences, and dominant images. I'm sure you know this, but many prominent church Fathers have disagreed over the nature/length of hell.I can suggest some good reading on this if you are interested.
If by "hell" you mean, the judgment of humanity and the absence of God for a segment of the human population--yes, I believe there will be persons that experience this.
In your post, I think that you are referring to fire and nashing of teeth (hence "literal"). I'll save that discussion for another day.
There are five main understandings of hell, at least as I have come to understand. All of them have differnt biblical texts and unique interpretive assumptions that mesh together.
First, the literalist interpretation: fire, weeping, eternal punishment of sin without the chance.
Second, same as the first with the addition that humans have the opportunity to respond to God after a period of suffering.
Third, some suggest that hell is the absence of God. For the first time, according to this view, God fully removes himself from humanity--the worst possible reality.
Fourth: annihilationism. In this understanding, those who reject God cease to exist. Lastly, the universalist perspective claims that all people will experience heaven through the means by which God has revealed himself. So the Hindu, Muslim, or atheist will be judged based upon their knowledge of God.
Kyle--the only way to overturn Roe VS. Wade is to ammend the U.S. Consitution. That ain't happening anytime soon. I think that is where you are coming from.
The first line should have the word "hell" not "hel" . . . my bad.
Josh,
You have a "Cope-ish" ability to start arguments. You should be proud.
Kyle- I completely agree with your attitude about allowing Abortion to dictate voting. I am cynical about ever seeing the fruition to the Republican parties claims.
Josh- I thought the pertinent issue was the Supreme Court appointments. And if i am correct, the latest appointment was a socially liberal judge.
I would like to hear both, but Obama more. Unfortunately neither have emailed me back about coming to my church.
The abortion issue is more than a stance someone takes. Both parties are in agreement that they want to lower the abortion rate. That is the starting point. I write as someone who is "pro-life" but I want to be able to join with people who aren't to discuss ways that we can invest in adoption agencies, better sex education, after school programs, etc.
I am not Graves so I can't speak for him--I am white, and I am often very hard on my race.
David you said, "Oh, please. The church has made great efforts at reconciliation. Most churches that I know are open to people of all races."
Reality is that churches are still decades behind our society when it comes to integration. Less than 5% of churches in the US are multi-cultural. We have white churches that have sought to welcome minorities, but they want them to come and worship the "white" way. They have failed to embrace and accept other cultures.
Josh Ross---you have a way of articulating exactly what I wanted to say, but with much more candor.
I guess that is why you are in the pastoral field and I am just the stubborn bank teller/college student!
Luke: I'll have to double check on that, read some more. I'm under the assumption that it would take Congress and the President to alter the Constitution . . . a scenario highly unlikely, though not impossible. I know many states have already passed laws in case this happened at a federal level. That gets into the age-old debate of States Rights versus Federal Rights. I'm not going there.
I will email Barak and see if he's available to come to Florida :)
Boss Ross: I started writing about hell and forgot the race issue. I agree that the church has been behind on this issue in America: the proverbial wags the dog. I'm grateful for the work you are doing to address this.
Graves- we agree that Roe V Wade is not changing any time soon, but more importantly I can not think of anything that Bush has doe in the last 8 years to try to make he US more pro-life. That being said I believe that the Presidents opinion on such issues is fairly irrelevant. If we were a country that outlawed abortion, I can see why the need for a President that is pro-life might be important, but since it is not I would like to have a president that focuses on issues that can be affected. Secure Borders, Labor Laws, taxes etc.
Luke- we would get along well. You agree with me and have a cynical view? Eureka!
What's up Graves? Hope everything is going well. Things are going pretty well in Kentucky. We're still rednecks, but Jesus is working on us! And most of us are wearing shoes now.
I think Obama wins in the preaching category hands down. But I have an affinity for black preachers. He sounded a little bit like MLK to me on Thursday night. And it doesn't get any better than MLK!
But the main reason I'm commenting is to weigh in on the hell question? Thanks for giving us the five perspectives on hell. I think a lot of fundamentalist Christians forget that church history and the Bible itself have a wide variety of teachings on punishment in the after-life.
I have one question for a person who believes in a "literal hell," meaning a place of unimaginable torture in real fire that never ends: Could you possibly want it to be true that in the end God turns out to be the worst sadist in the history of the universe, much worse than Hitler or any other evil person ever thought about being, that he not only punishes people for their sins, but he never gives them a chance to leave his eternal torture chamber no matter what? What kind of God would that be?
Whatever the Bible means when it uses words like "gehenna" and "tartarus" and "hades" and "eternal fire," etc. we at least need to believe, in my opinion, that all the "hell" language doesn't contradict God's immeasurable, unfailing love for every person he has created, the love that was incarnate in Jesus.
Thanks for a great blog. I don't comment on it much, but I read it a lot. Shalom.
A constitutional amendment can only be requested by Congress or by a national convention of states and then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Roe vs. Wade was judged against the 14th Amendment's clause of right to due process and right to privacy (even though the latter is not specifically mentioned, but inferred). Blackmun's opinion determined that there were several statutes that could over ride the decision to grant the right to an abortion but the only viable one open for discussion was when was a fetus viable as a life. Which is why we have the ability to limit third trimester abortions but not first trimester. Although I'm definitely in the right to life camp I have to agree with Kyle that I believe there is little a President can do that is going to change the court's stance in our lifetime even with ultra-conservative appointments. Because of this I'm still not convinced that a candidate's position on right to life is a fair litmus test for supportability.
Also, I'm curious to see you write another blog further detailing what we can do to further integrate churches racially just to see if we can set a new record for number of replies to one of your posts ;-) Personally I feel that widespread racial integration is never going to be achieved by churches. Before anyone blasts me for comparing religion to food bear with my next analogy. Worship, for most people, is like dining out at a restaurant specializing in a particular ethnic cuisine. When I'm in the mood for asian food I don't go down to the Mexican Village (a Detroit neighborhood) just as I wouldn't go to La Shish looking for Italian. When I worship I tend to look for people that worship in a manner with which I'm comfortable - regardless of race. I don't look for black, white, asian, or latino but I do look for charismatic versus restrained, lessons versus fire & brimstone tirades, etc. Unfortunately the worship style I tend to enjoy is the "white way" and that's going to not be as comfortable to a person who grew up primarily exposed to another cultural style of praise & worship. My end point is this . . . I feel that racially integrating our churches is not the biggest issue but culturally integrating our churches is the ultimate challenge. Of course, I don't think I'm ready for all churches adopting an Applebee's worship becuase I like the option of having a little variety every now and then. ;-)
Josh Ross, black churches also want whites to worship the "black way". It goes both ways. I am so sick of the white guilt garbage peddled by people ashamed of their own race.
On to the issue of abortion....Our government has been a friend to Planned Parenthood. Our great liberal educators have seen it ok to distribute condoms to our children. Basically their message is "Sex is ok, and we're there when you make mistakes and need an abortion." President Bush totally duped all of us; he wanted to start a war machine and took social conservatives along.
I want somebody like Ron Paul because he will cut government funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups overseas.
Matt Deaton writes:
"Could you possibly want it to be true that in the end God turns out to be the worst sadist in the history of the universe, much worse than Hitler or any other evil person ever thought about being, that he not only punishes people for their sins, but he never gives them a chance to leave his eternal torture chamber no matter what? What kind of God would that be?
Whatever the Bible means when it uses words like "gehenna" and "tartarus" and "hades" and "eternal fire," etc. we at least need to believe, in my opinion, that all the "hell" language doesn't contradict God's immeasurable, unfailing love for every person he has created, the love that was incarnate in Jesus."
Well, my liberal friend, God is a God of justice and love. I'll ask you a question, how could anyone not appreciate the life that God had given them? Satan was once an angel and cursed God just once, yet he is condemned to the Lake of Fire. Why would I want an inconsistent God that makes double standards for people on earth and for Satan? So, my friend, will you deny that the wages of sin is death as it is written in Romans?
The Lord makes it clear that his love is abounding, but his grace is not to be treated lightly. We are not supposed to sin so that grace will increase.
If there is no literal heaven, why not curse God and live the way I want? I still get heaven in the end, right? I think anyone who does not believe in a literal hell diminishes the worth of salvation and a personal relationship with Christ. All religions lead to God basically if there is no literal hell, and we all achieve eternal peace in heaven. That's the same message as the fraudulent Unity Church.
Without a literal hell, I can't be a Christian, personally. Our actions have consequences.
Quite frankly, those of you who do not believe in a literal hell make me worry about the future of the church.
If I sound harsh, I apologize. This is heartfelt.
Not ashamed to be white, pro-life, and believe in a literal hell,
David
I am going to quote my friend Wade Hodges: "without disagreement, nothing can be learned."
I don't feel like continuing any more discussion tonight. So, I'll trust that God will cover all of us in our faulty theology and attitudes, and that his mercy will overshadow our blemishes.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Proud to be a disciple of Jesus, husband, white, Independent, and a Pistons Fan :)
David,
Thank you for the response, for clearly stating your opinion about hell. I receive your words as heartfelt and not harsh. Please receive mine as heartfelt as well.
I am not saying that there is not a place of punishment for unrepentant sinners in the afterlife. That is surely what the N.T. means when it speaks of "the lake of fire" and "eternal fire" and the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and the place of "outer darkness." That is surely what Jesus meant when he employed the term "gehenna," which would have been a very poignant image for his first hearers, gehenna being the cursed Valley of Hinnon outside Jerusalem where they burned trash. I am also not saying that Jesus Christ is not the way to eternal life, nor am I saying that the gift of salvation he has given us is not costly.
All I am trying to say is that God will mete out punishment that is both totally gracious and perfectly just for every person who refuses his offer of grace in Christ. That seems to be what Paul is teaching in Romans 2:5-11. "God will reward everyone according to what they have done." That is also what Jesus taught in Luke 13:47-48 and John 5:28-29.
Also, in regards to Romans 6:23. It says "the wages of sin is death." And that is a price we are all going to pay for being sinners in a sinful world. We are all dying, and we will all die. It does not say "the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment in God's unending torture chamber."
In other words, I think some Christians have a view of God's punishment in the afterlife as a "one-size-fits-all" punishment. It's "hell" for everyone who doesn't know Christ, no matter what the situation of their life on earth was (whether they ever heard the gospel, how they were raised, etc.) and "hell" is defined as eternal conscious torment.
But I think the Bible teaches that God's judgment in the afterlife is going to be perfectly just, and at that point, to quote Paul in Romans 2:6 (as he quotes Proverbs 24:12 and 62:12), "God will repay everyone according to what they have done." That could possibly be different for everyone, as God sees each unique, beloved life that he created and takes into account everything that happened in that life and every decision that person made and every time they prayed and every good thing they did and what they did with whatever knowledge of God they had access to, however limited, etc. etc.
Peace,
Matt
Kara,
I miss you and Josh too. I'm glad you got our Christmas card. I may be just a little, teeny bit biased, but you're right, they are extremely cute kids. God has been good to us. We got your Christmas card; it's a good picture of you and Josh. Thanks for remembering us. I look forward to talking to you guys more soon.
Blessings!
Matt
Graves, you did it with this post. We have about 3-4 conversations going on here.
I would write more, especially on racial integration and what I feel Paul would say concerning blending cultures, but I have to preach in a few hours.
I hesitate to link to my blog, but I posted on this subject a few weeks ago:
http://h-townpreacher.blogspot.com/2007/12/should-christian-churches-be.html
Sorry about the Pistons tonight. Looked like a great game.
David, I am a big Fan of Ron Paul as well. I really hope he gets more respect in the future caucuses. If he does not get the nomination I really hope he goes Independent. A true constitutionalist. the founding fathers would be proud.
"All I am trying to say is that God will mete out punishment that is both totally gracious and perfectly just for every person who refuses his offer of grace in Christ. That seems to be what Paul is teaching in Romans 2:5-11. "God will reward everyone according to what they have done." That is also what Jesus taught in Luke 13:47-48 and John 5:28-29."
I know it's somewhat controversial, but I have not dismissed different levels of heaven and hell. The details are somewhat fuzzy to our feeble minds.
I think Revelation provides on overview about what heaven will look like. Again, impossible to put those words to an image.
My issue is strictly with the New Agers etc. who believe hell is nothing more than a state of mind.
Josh R. - Please don't hesitate to post links to external blogs. You are correct that there are 3-4 conversations happening hear at once (that happens when a blog becomes a discussion thread) and directing the conversation to a place/topic that is more appropriate is always appreciated!
Josh G. - Sorry we all gave you a headache the night before you're giving three+ lessons ;-) See you in a little while!
I love the dialog. I was just worn out last night and couldn't muster a coherent thought.
It looks like some understanding came about and I enjoyed learning something new from each of you.
Thanks for being the official political correspondent for this blog, Russel. I hope Josh gets a chance to weigh in on your "food analogy."
wow. just read through everyone's comments...ok...i picked through them.
i love that people feel so strongly about two of my favorite topics to discuss...hell and gay issues.
you are all wrong and i am right.
the end.
"Without a literal hell, I can't be a Christian, personally. Our actions have consequences."
i think that is the sadest thing i've seen someone post on this blog. almost scary.
"Without a literal hell, I can't be a Christian, personally. Our actions have consequences."
I agree with Jon on this one. Not to Dog on David, this sounds like Fire Insurance. Being a Christian should be about want to g to Heaven (among other things) not about avoiding Hell.
Jon--c'mon, you can't be serious. You are God. I didn't know.
Jon and Kyle--to be fair . . . the view of a literal hell is one of the major streams of thinking on the afterlife. So, it's not like David is part of a fringe movement. In facy, believing in a "literal hell" is one of the key elements of the litmus test that determines fundamentalist/evangelical/liberal/postliberal/Roman Catholic.
I can't believe I'm sticking up for David.
However, I'm not in the "literal hell" camp for philosophical reasons--many of which Matt Deaton raised.
I should also note that there have been many excellent books written on heaven and hell: Brian McLaren (The Last Word, pt. 3 of a trilogy) does some fascinating stuff with "hell" in the Gospels. He would be considered a liberal evangelical.
Anyways, there are other books, of course, but McLaren is kind of between pop-lit and academic. He's a good blend.
Rusty,
While I disagree with the "food metaphor" when considered alongside Paul's passion that there is no longer black/white, male/female, blue state/red state--you got me thinking simply because you used food.
Ha.
I thought I mentioned some pretty sound philosophical reasons as well, Josh. Without sin and hell, there is no need for a Savior! Think about it guys!
Brian McLaren is postmodern, and I take anything he writes with a grain of salt. I am more likely to read revisionist Christianity as entertainment.
david...you just plain rock! i wish i had time and space to unravel your logical knots. maybe we could email back and forth. or josh can feature us on his blog.
food for thought: Early Judiasm had no concept of an afterlife. Sheol was the grave, the pit...the end.
that's only the beginning.
"Jon--c'mon, you can't be serious. You are God. I didn't know."
Josh...honey...email and blogs are terrible places to bring sarcasm. i should have left them at home. oh course i am kidding.
David, I get what you are saying about needing a savior from Hell, but if you will notice that does not require a literal Hell. Before any type of hell, the issue is Separation from God. That is why we need a Savior. All types of Hell that Josh Mentioned are Separation from God.
I guess it could simply be a Glass is half full difference. I am not saying you are wrong, just that there is more Joy in focusing on getting to Heaven not focusing on avoiding Hell.
David, I am surprised that you did not nail McLaren for being an Open Theist.
Kyle,
Oh no you didn't go there . . . I'm not picking up the pieces . . . yet.
Here's a completely different perspective from what's been said so far:
We are all post-modern. That's a demarkation of time, not a way of thinking. Yes, the phrase has been grafted into a different group of language use that would suggest otherwise, but that doesn't make it accurate.
The history books of the future will call us all post-modern because of our birthdates. So, it might be worthwhile to reconsider what McLaren (and others) is/are trying to say in the context of this timeline. Maybe he isn't "revising Christisanity" and distinguishing himself as an opponent to modern thought. Maybe he's just trying to help encourage useful discourse about how people feel now. Some people just need to feel God to get there instead of how the well-planned scientific process of modern thinking has been telling us to feel about God.
Not everybody needs the details laid out, the tests proven or the points argued to meet God in their hearts. If I am striving toward Heaven, it doesn't actually matter to me whether Hell is "insert your idea here." As long as I know there are consequences and that they are bad ones if I choose some path other than God's, the modern desire of pinning all the details down is just a waste of my time.
Just a thought.
Good addition to the discussion Dana. YOUR LSU Tigers represented last night.
WOW.
You are right in that McLaren is attempting to appropriate Christianity for today's world/mind just as Luther did so in his day. Which, by the way, we know Luther had serious detractors.
I'm so bummed that I missed this discussion. Josh, if its alright I think the end of this thread is a good place for this link to appear http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm
I think that both sides will appreciate the humor in these images.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll drop in about a half cent's worth. In response to the person who (jokingly) said, "You all are wrong and I'm right", I would respond, "No, we're all wrong." I believe the reality of spiritual matters is so far beyond our ability to comprehend that God probably views discussions like this much the same way a father of small children would view them trying to have a "serious discussion" of world politics.
I think there's this much we can be fairly certain of (since God spelled out in simple words we could understand):
1) God is good.
2) Hell (being separated from God) is bad.
3) Sin separates us from God.
Because we have all sinned, we are all separated from God.
4) The only way to stop being separated from God is by accepting the gift Jesus died no the cross to give us.
Regardless of the exact reality of hell, it is sufficient to know that its not even a nice place to visit, never mind living there.
Now, let's all go back to drinking our koolaid and eating animal crackers and leave the serious thinking to Dad :o)
Post a Comment