Regular readers will already be aware of my online sensation The Theology of Peanuts. (I'm joking about "sensation." But it was fun project to do.)

What makes Peanuts so interesting, theologically speaking, is how gloomy the strip is. Particularly in its early years. In fact, that's how I started the Theology of Peanuts series, with an essay entitled "Is Peanuts Funny?" From that lead essay:

The theological richness of Peanuts can be hinted at by beginning with an intriguing question, "Is Peanuts funny?" The answer is yes, of course. But we quickly must nuance that answer by noting that Peanuts is funny in a very dark and peculiar manner. The darkness of Peanuts was signaled in the very first Peanuts strip published on October 2, 1950:

Continue reading...

So how's your Lent going?

There's a lot of fasting going on during Lent. And in light of that I've been thinking a lot about the description in Isaiah 58 about "true fasting."

The passage starts with a question the people ask of God:

"Why have we fasted," they say,
"and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?"

It seems like a good question. Why fast and humble yourself if God isn't going to notice?

But God replies that the reason for the unresponsiveness is that during their fasting the people exploit their workers, among other things. And this economic exploitation nullifies the fast the people offer to God. If you exploit your workers you cannot "expect your voice to be heard on high." God wants a "true fast":

Continue reading...

I grew up in a very rationalistic faith tradition. For most of its history, the Churches of Christ have endorsed a Word-only pneumatology (Note: pneumatology is your doctrine of the Holy Spirit). That is, I was taught that the Holy Spirit only worked through the Bible. The assumption I grew up with was this:

Bible = The Holy Spirit

The bible is "the sword of the Spirit." Thus, if you wanted to be directed, prompted, or guided by the Spirit you simply studied the bible.

Of course, this equivalency between the bible and the Spirit was deeply problematic. First, and most worrisome, it borders on idolatry. Well, it is idolatry. The bible was treated as a part of the Godhead, a part of the Trinity. We, as a church, were worshiping the bible as if it were God.

Continue reading...

When you read all these online conversations about universalism, particularly in the wake of the publication of Rob Bell's Love Wins, you see people ping-ponging around between Calvinist, Arminian and Universalist soteriologies (Note: a soteriology is a theology of salvation, a theory about who is saved and who is damned).

In my opinion, as I've written about before, one of the best ways to compare and contrast these positions are the propositions of Thomas Talbott from his book The Inescapable Love of God and his essays in the edited book Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate. (These two books, along with Gregory MacDonald's (aka Robin Parry's) The Evangelical Universalist, are must-reads for anyone wanting to dig deeper into universalism as a biblical position.)

Talbott has us consider the following three propositions:

1. God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each one of them.
2. Because no one can finally defeat God’s redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires.
3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever.

What is interesting about each proposition is that all three have ample biblical support. But, as Talbott points out, you cannot, logically, endorse all three.

Continue reading...

Thanks to Tony Jones for pointing out this link to Greg Boyd's blog where he defends free will. Again, this is an issue being talked about a lot right now as human freedom is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the theology of Rob Bell's book Love Wins, as it does in a lot of Boyd's own work. For example, free will does a lot of work in Boyd's thinking about theodicy as he posits that a lot of the evil in the world is due to the free will of Satan and his minions.

Generally speaking, you see free will do theological work in the following areas:

Continue reading...

Let me start with a confession. I have no clue what an Evangelical is. If you asked me to define the term I'd struggle. I think they are conservative, but not fundamentalist. But a lot of them are fundamentalists. I think they are pro-Republican. Many are Calvinist, but I don't think all of them are. They believe in the Bible, but I'm not sure if they are all Young Earth Creationists. Beyond that, I don't know what to add.

I've been thinking about Evangelicals lately (as in "Who are these people?") because of all the buzz about Rob Bell's book Love Wins. A lot of that conversation has centered on a tweet John Piper sent out saying "Farewell Rob Bell" after some people leaked that Bell was going to espouse universalism in the book. (Which, by the way, he didn't. To my eye, and many others, it seems like Bell just worked out the theology of C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.)

When I heard about the Piper tweet my first thought was, "Who the hell is John Piper? And why does everyone care what he thinks?" And to be honest, I'm still not sure. I now know a bit more about who Piper is, but I'm still not sure why anyone cares.

Continue reading...

Another standard objection you often hear in response to Christian universalism is this: What about God's justice? By subscribing to universalism are you not ignoring willful disobedience and the cries of victims? Isn't universalism kind of like a get out of jail free card? Plus, if everyone gets to heaven what prevents people from sinning and living it up in this life?

Let's address some of these questions.

First, to be honest, this post only needs to be about twenty words long. Let's try it:

Universalists (of my ilk) believe in hell and that God will punish sin with vigor. The only issue is if this punishment leads to any ultimate good.

Well, that's 27 words. Close. But really, the phrase universalists believe in hell--only four words--should suffice. And with that, we can end this post. This whole justice angle is just not a legitimate criticism.

But since we are all here I might as well say a few more things about this topic...

Continue reading...

I want to thank everyone who passed on advice and encouragement about my joining a bible study at one of our local prisons. Your input was very helpful, intellectually and emotionally.

Some of you wanted updates now and then about my experience with the study. So from time to time I'll share a story "from the prison bible study."

Because of a paperwork delay last night was actually my first night at the study. And I already have a fun story to share.

One of the teachers was talking about the boyhood of Jesus and was commenting on how the bible says very little about the early years of Jesus. Reflecting on this, he asked the class "Why do you think the bible doesn't share much about the childhood of Jesus?"

No one answered until one man raised his hand and said, "I think it's because in the Coptic gospels Jesus appears to be a mean little boy."

Silence and a lot of confused looks followed.

I just smiled to myself and thought, "I might really like this class!"

For one of the more thought provoking responses to my post How Facebook Killed the Church check out Elizabeth Drescher's article in Religion Dispatches entitled Facebook Doesn't Kill Churches, Churches Kill Churches.

Drescher's argument is that if the church were more meaningfully social then Facebook might actually be a boon to the fellowship. That is, as I argued in my original post, if Facebook activity is mainly involved in interactions with real-world friends then Facebook should supplement and facilitate real relationships at church. If those relationships existed. And that's Drescher's point. Since churches aren't facilitating deep and meaningful relationships Facebook can't get any traction. That is, if I'm not using Facebook to connect with people at church that is likely because I'm not that connected to them in reality. But if I were meaningfully connected to them, well, Facebook could be used to help us stay connected and keep track of each other throughout the week.

This argument seems to jibe with responses to my post where people have pointed out how Facebook has helped their church. Following Drescher, we can assume these positive uses of Facebook work in these situations because there is a pre-existing background of meaningful relationality already in place. Again, if we have meaningful friendships at church Facebook can be a great tool in keeping us "connected." But if these relationships don't exist, and they often don't, then Facebook isn't going to help much at all. Thus, Facebook doesn't "kill" the church as much as it might mirror a church that is already "dead."

Here's Drescher's summing up:

Continue reading...

I've been kicking around a series I'd like to start on this blog, a series aimed at another book I'd like to write.

The idea is to link theological understandings of the relationship between death and sin with the psychological literature building up around works like Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. Basically, I want to use theology and psychology to analyze the way death anxiety is implicated in human sinfulness.

The psychological side of this I can handle. And I also have a few good modern theological sources regarding the relationship between death and sin (e.g., Stringfellow, Arthur McGill, Bultmann, McCord Adams).

However, I'd like to go back further in time with this. So I'd like to ask for some help.

First, I've read in a couple of places that the Greek Orthodox tradition has some rich analysis on the relationship between sin and death. From what I understand the Orthodox invert the order of the causal association between sin and death found with Protestants. That is, Protestants see sin leading to death. Sin is the cause and death is the effect. My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox often flip this, seeing death as the cause of sin. Death here is the cause and sin is the effect. That is the argument that I want to make. So I'd like to read more about the Orthodox take on this. What Orthodox writers, living or dead, should I be reading to get up to speed on this?

Second, I've heard that Augustine talks about the relation of timor mortis (the fear of death) to faith but I'm having trouble locating where, in his vast works, he takes up this subject. More, are there any contemporary works that examine timor mortis in Augustine's thought?

Finally, beyond ancient sources are there other modern theological works that analyze the relationship between death and sin?

My goal would be to trace a line of thought from ancient sources through contemporary theology to modern psychological research. The biblical passage I'm building around is Hebrews 2.14-15 (the bold part is what I'm keying in on):

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

The sun is like a baby
soft and gentle
around the edges.
So different
from the power
of her maturity
only a few hours from now.
But in this moment, she coos,
and can be wrapped in a blanket.
I flip though pages
sipping coffee
as the dog chases
what is that?
a bug it looks like.
Rearranging ribbons.
Hunting for the collects,
psalms, lectionary,
prayers.
I find one
for the child of a friend.
And one for my family.
And this one for the lonely.
And one for you.
Finding my place
among the chorus of the saints.
Locating this day
in the calendar of Eternity.
Ready now
for the start of the Office
and the beginning of this day.
Here with the infant sun
the dog and the bug
my family asleep inside
on a lazy Saturday morning.
And the ancient voices
whispering with me.
Beginning, aloud,
voice cracking
stumbling, then righting itself
like a ship at sea
"The Lord is in his holy temple;
let all the earth
keep silence
before him."
I pause
to sip more coffee
grow still
and listen.

I have an odd religious history. I was raised in the North where the Churches of Christ are few and far between. The church of my youth was about 90-100 members. A small, tight-knit community.

The dominant religion of my hometown is Catholicism. Private school in my hometown means parochial school with kids marching off to school in their distinctively colored school uniforms. Yellow and green for Blessed Sacrament. White and blue for Our Lady of Peace. Brown and yellow for St. John's. Red and blue for Sacred Heart. And so on.

From K-5th grade I attended a public school. And when I hit 6th grade I left my grammar school to attend a large public middle school that was attached to a high school. This was a rough school in a rough part of town so I, as a little 6th grader, was pretty vulnerable on a school ground that mixed the middle school and the high school kids. One day, in the middle of the year, I came home crying from being bullied repeatedly. And that convinced my parents to make a change. They were going to send me to a private school.

Continue reading...

When you say you're a universalist the biggest stereotype you have to deal with is that people think you don't read the bible. Or that you are twisting the bible to fit some notion you have. That you are jamming the square peg of the bible through some round hole of your own imagining, making the bible say something you want it to say.

So let me address that issue.

Let me start by making two claims:

1. I read the bible just like traditionalists (as in "traditional views of hell") read the bible. There is no twisting. The bible speaks of eternal judgment and hell. And I believe that. Straight up.

2. I believe the universalist reading of the bible is, in fact, the most biblical perspective you can adopt. I think it's the traditionalist who is being unbiblical in their picking, choosing and twisting of the bible to fit their preconceived notions.

To illustrate this let's look at the most famous judgment passage in all of the bible:

Matthew 25.31-46

Continue reading...

Five years ago I was talking to Al, a friend and colleague in the English Department, about some book ideas that were rolling around in my head. Al is a published poet and novelist, so I was interested on his take about what I might do to get started on writing a book. Al's recommendation was that I start a blog. There I could collect and work on my ideas and, perhaps, attract the attention of a book publisher. And even if I never wrote a book, at least I could share my thoughts with others. And so, in 2006, Experimental Theology was born.

As regular readers know, I followed Al's advice. This blog is really just a series of books. If you look down the sidebar, you'll see them. Book after book. Sketchy and unedited books, more like drafts of books, but books nonetheless.

Then, about a year and a half ago, I got an email from Charlie Collier asking if I'd like to do a book for Wipf & Stock. After kicking around some ideas we decided I'd do a book building off a published paper of mine entitled Spiritual Pollution: The Dilemma of Sociomoral Disgust and the Ethic of Love. In that paper I used the empirical psychological literature on disgust and contamination to think through why churches so often fail in their stated goal of "loving the sinner but hating the sin." Basically, I wanted to think about the psychology of missional failure. And a whole lot more. And some of the early chapter drafts appeared as posts on this blog.

Well, that book is finished and is now available to be purchased at the Wipf & Stock website. The book is entitled Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality. The book description from the website:

Continue reading...

"Someone dies at the very moment that he has proven that Hell's punishment is eternal."

--Søren Kierkegaard
(from Joakin Garff's Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 96)

In the middle of these debates about the afterlife you often hear the following complaint: "All this talk about hell and the afterlife is a waste of time. Jesus' message was about TODAY, about God's will being done on EARTH. This entire conversation is a profound missing of the point!"

I understand, but here's the problem. You're complaining, not diagnosing. Yes, Christianity, as it is commonly practiced, is other-worldly. But what we need to do is to get to the root of the problem. We can't just complain about the symptoms. To gripe about other-worldliness gets us no closer to why Christianity is tempted in this direction. To say Christians are too other-worldly is descriptive, not explanatory. I want to know why we are other-worldly. So let's quit the complaining about other-worldliness and think. Think!

[Thinking]

Hmmmm. So why are so many Christians other-worldly?

Continue reading...

Starting on Monday I'm going to be participating in a weekly bible study at a local prison. It has taken me forever to get the paperwork, clearance and training done, but it looks like I'm ready to go.

I'll be leading the class with two other men from my church who have way more experience than I do. They will do most of the teaching. But each week I'm to offer my own thoughts on a topic of my choice. There are about 30 men who attend the class.

So I've been thinking a lot about what I might say. Not just for this Monday but for the long haul. So I thought I'd ask for some help. If you have any experience with prison ministry what might be some good topics or themes to dwell on in a bible study? What messages have seemed most meaningful and impactful in your experience?

Continue reading...

Matthew 3.13
An Ash Wednesday Lament

This is the season of ashes.
Of confession,
of mourning.
So I wonder why I find you
beside me
here at the riverside.
Why are you,
of all people,
seeking this bath of remorse?
This washing of guilt?
This immersion of grief?
What sits heavy
upon your heart?
What sins?
And what need for repentance?
Was it that baby
who died in her mother's arms last night?
Or that queer boy
bloodied and crying on his playground?
Or that woman
hushed, bruised, and still in the pew?
Are you here
to say you are sorry?
For these?
Or for the rest?
And what of me?
Why am I here
stripped, naked
and seeking the water?
Because I hold
resentment
and pain,
squeezing that sharp glass in my hand
until it bleeds.
Because I am angry with you.
I'm so sorry,
but I am angry with you.
And yet,
here you are,
willing to be baptized,
to follow me deep
into the wet coolness.
Let us, then, hold hands
our bloody hands
and go down together.
To drown
and rise up
to a new beginning.
You and I.
Clean.
And forgiven.

I hope these posts about universalism don't tire too many of you or rub you the wrong way. I'll try to post stuff in between these posts to give you a break. But I have bunch of stuff to say and, thus, quite a few posts planned. However, I'll try to give you a break from time to time.

Further, while I have pretty strong opinions about all of this I'm an inclusive fellow. So let's all feel free to disagree. Christians haven't agreed on much for over 2,000 years so I don't expect that to change today on this blog. Christians just have different views about heaven and hell. There will never be a consensus within the Christian communion on this topic. But I expect for many people the great diversity of the Christian faith--from Catholic to Protestant, Mormon to Greek Orthodox, Reformed to Universalist, Jehovah's Witness to Pentecostal, Lutheran to Anglican, Evangelical to Anabaptist, Presbyterian to Non-denominational--is a data point they can't wrap their heads around. So it's okay if you conclude that I'm a heretic. That, it appears to me, has been the status quo within Christianity for quite some time.

In light of this diversity, and on the subject of hell in particular, I'd like to tell you why I once believed in annihilationism and why, ultimately, I rejected it.

Continue reading...

I wanted to give you all a heads up about an exciting event coming up at Rochester College this May 16-18. In its inaugural year the Streaming: Biblical Conversations for the Missional Frontier event will be hosting a powerhouse lineup. A stunning theological and biblical lineup. Miroslav Volf. Scot McKnight. Tony Jones. To name some big names.

If you don't know Volf, you have to read Exclusion and Embrace, a book many of us consider one of the best theological books written in the last two decades. McKnight many of you know from his Jesus Creed blog and as the author of a ton of books (name your favorite), most recently One.Life. And Jones, prolific blogger and author and leading thinker within the emergent church movement.

It's the can't miss conference of the spring. I'm pumped about it.

I watched a videocast of a great sermon this week: Phil Vaughan's Extending Grace installment for the Gracenomics series at the Southeast Christian Church.

The most powerful part of the sermon comes when Phil asks us to type into Google the phrase "Why are Christians so..." Due to Google's autocomplete function the most popular querys starting with this tag immediately pop up.

And guess what? The results are depressing. Here is one screen capture:


Feel free to try it yourself.

Phil then goes on to compare these results with the Google autocomplete for "Why are Buddhists so..." The top autocomplete for this tag is: "Why are so Buddhists so happy." Quite a contrast between Buddhists and Christians.

The provocative question the sermon leaves us with is this: What would it take for Christians to get the Google autocomplete to become the following:

Why are Christians so loving?

For those interested in the culture of the Church of Christ universities across the country you may want to follow and weigh in regarding the recent events at Harding University regarding a zine published by group called HU Queer Press entitled The State of Gay at Harding University.

The zine has been blocked on the Harding campus. And yesterday the Harding president addressed the student body about that decision.

To get a start on media reactions see the Huffington Post and the New Yorker, and a Google search will take you to much more news, commentary and reactions.

Perhaps the biggest objection you hear about universalism is how it handles (or refuses to handle) the biblical passages about hell. As is often noted when these discussions come up, Jesus talked about hell/Gehenna more than anyone in the bible. So how does a universalist deal with those texts and the words of Jesus?

Of course I can't speak for all Christian universalists, so I'll just tell you how I approach this issue.

My main premise is this: To handle well the language of heaven and hell you need to master the language of the Old Testament prophets.

Continue reading...

In the last post I said C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright get three things right in their conditionalist visions of hell. I then noted two of those things: they get God right (the most important thing to get right!) and death right. In this post I want to talk about the third thing they get right: Volitional integrity.

Vocabulary Note:

When I talk about "will" and "choice" I use the word psychologists use a great deal: volitional.

vo·li·tion
noun
1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
2. A conscious choice or decision.
3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

Whenever I talk about universalism I invariability get this question: Doesn't universalism imply that God has to force people into accepting and loving God? That is, if everyone is eventually reconciled with God how does God overcome our willful, and even hateful, rebellion?

Continue reading...

Given all the speculation about Rob Bell's upcoming book and lingering questions from my post last week on universalism I thought I'd devote a few more posts to clarify how I approach the doctrine of universal reconciliation.

First, Rob Bell's book isn't out yet, so the speculation surrounding his book might be much ado about nothing. But the speculation I'm hearing is that Bell is going to forward a form of "universalism" that is closely associated with C.S. Lewis and, more recently, N.T. Wright.

The basic argument goes like this.

Continue reading...