Posted by Helen on: 10.10.2007 /
Kevin J posted this comment over on the ChurchRater blog
a friend of mine subscribes to the theory that “Christians should use other Christians for their services as much as possible, such that the money they give will, in some small way, go further to the kingdom of God.” When I first heard this, I reacted somewhat badly to it, since I’m more of a “Jesus ate with tax collectors, etc.” type. I finally realized that one of the things that drives me crazy about modern-day Christianity is the separate universe Christians have created. Don’t like secular music? Tune in to Christian radio. Don’t like the books out there? Go to Lifeway. Don’t like the public school system putting ideas into your kids’ heads? Start a private school (or homeschool).
While there is good in all of those things, it’s not really engaging the rest of the world, and I think that’s my fundamental issue with my friend’s views. I’d be interested to see what other people think.
Comment by: Stephan
1 10/10/07 6:58 AM | Comment Link |I am definitely more in the “Jesus ate with tax collectors” camp. I will keep my kids in public school unless there is a very strong reason to take them out. I have worked in Christian organizations and I much prefer not to. If I were ever to become a minister it would have to be in some capacity where I was in contact with people outside of church.
I think it helps in two ways. First, it allows me to be a witness to people outside of Christian circles. Second, I have noticed that I am challenged more to be a better person when I am around non-Christians.
Comment by: joe
2 10/10/07 9:51 AM | Comment Link |This simply illustrates the reality of the christian ghetto (or actually a collection of semi-automonous interlinked ghettos). If you can get through your day eating Christian junk food, relaxing at (low/non alcohol) bars, working with other christians, going out with other christians and finally when the day is finished, returning to your gated community (designed, so some of these communities plainly state ‘to keep the cockroaches out’) why would you ever need to relate to the rest of the world except on a ‘I’ve got my life sorted out and you’re a worthless sinner headed for eternal damnation’ level?
I disagree with Kevin. There isn’t good in all these things. They are mindsappingly awful and a result of a defunct moral superiority complex of many christians.
Comment by: inWorship
3 10/10/07 11:30 AM | Comment Link |Your frustrations and thoughts are mine as well. I don’t understand why Christians feel the need to completely displace themselves from life around them. I say them, because as a Christian, I don’t agree with that style of living. Jesus didn’t live to create a new culture or society, he came to change the one that existed. He wasn’t interested in separating himself from the community, he was interested in living himself out within it. We as a Christian community have failed at this.
Choosing the “Christian” mechanic or the best “Non-Christian” mechanic should never be the goal.
Comment by: Steve S.
4 10/10/07 2:26 PM | Comment Link |Western Christians are the modern offspring of the Essenes, not Jesus…
If a can-opener can’t open a can, then no matter how much it looks like a can-opener, it isn’t one…
If the Church is not involved in blessing the world, it isn’t the Church, no matter how many steeples, programs, pastors, etc.
That this is even a possibility (ministry w/o contact with the world as a whole) is a tremendous condemnation of the Church; we are in direct contradiction with the heart of Jesus (John 17:15-18 & John 20:21-22)
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 10/10/07 4:23 PM | Comment Link |Kewl said over on the church rater blog thread
I think he touches on an important truth that I’ve also found. What you get when you do this christians only thing is you still have all the same crap/unkindness/injustice/people being really horrifying to other people as you get *outside* the gated community. But in here, it’s got about 6 extra layers of really thick paint over top of it, holding the rusted through infrastructure together (sometimes, barely). It makes it a lot harder to deal with the underlying nasty stuff. Which is to say that christians are better at lying (to themselves, and to others) about this stuff than non-christians are. Okay wait. Not better. But as good as. and they have their own unique *way* of lying about it (as does any community, I suppose). O dear–too many generalizations here.
I guess what I mean is that when you choose to operate in a closed community, you limit your ability to gain (incalculably precious and altogether necessary) outside perspective.
Comment by: Steph
6 10/10/07 7:07 PM | Comment Link |The other thing that bothers me is the equating of Christian with “good” and non-christian as bad. So to give this mindset that one feels guilty not liking this truly awful music ot book or whatever, b/c it’s Christian and therefore every Christian should love it. There was an excellent article about this at burnside writer’s collective, tho I can’t find the link for it at the moment…
Comment by: Steve S.
7 10/10/07 8:06 PM | Comment Link |…well, I have come to the conclusion that to put the adjective ‘christian’ in front of something like ‘art, music, film, etc.’ usually means ‘bad.’
I would say that the worst experience I have ever had with an employer was with an overtly Christian one, and the problem had a lot to do with his faith and the way he expressed that in his business.
As to the school thing, we plan on home-schooling our children until they are ready to interact in a healthy way with unhealthy influences (which will be different for each child, I am sure). I had too many horribly corrupting experiences in public school growing up to do that to my kids; having said that, I would not put my kids into a christian school unless I knew intimately the teachers and students they would be in contact with. (A standard I wouldn’t use for public schools.)
I would rather my children experience the secular world and see the power of the gospel in light of the spiritual poverty that is in that world, than place them in an environment where they learn to live a life that has ‘about 6 extra layers of really thick paint over top of it.’ YUCK
Comment by: David H
8 10/11/07 12:07 AM | Comment Link |The first car I bought out of college was from a Christian who attended our family church. He was also a family friend. I had to pay a little more than for a similar car from a non-Christian but my parents felt it worthwhile because he was more trustworthy. a few months later I was hit by another car. The insurance adjustor was stunned that my car had passed inspection because of all the substandard, defective and broken parts he found on examining my car. There must be a metaphor here.
My parents went to a Christian garage for years even though their cars frequently came home with more problems than they had going in. they complained a lot but felt it was a Christian duty or some such. Finally my Dad blew an engine because they disconnected the temperature gague and didn’t fully screw in the drain plug on the oil pan. The Christian garage refused to take any responsibility.
What struck me was that dishonest and used-car salesman or mechanic was something I could come to terms with (not happy, but buyer beware and all that). But when I inserted Christian into those phrases I had something that I couldn’t accept.
Comment by: Helen
9 10/11/07 6:08 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
Stephan wrote:
This fascinated me because of all the reasons there could be for it…do you think it’s because
other reasons?
And does this imply…
I’m just curious.
Comment by: Stephan
10 10/11/07 7:47 AM | Comment Link |Helen, thanks for your question. I think the answer is probably all of the above and more.
Part of it is that non-Christians force me to take a more critical look at my life and faith. People who agree with me don’t really challenge me that much. When I am forced to really think about and verbalize what I believe it makes it more meaningful to me. It’s not that I am trying to perform better because of my audience.
It’s a little like the great compliment that Jack Nicholson pays to Helen Hunt in “As Good As It Gets”:
I think part of what it implies is that Christians should spend more time with people who don’t agree with them. They might learn something, both about others and themselves.
Comment by: Helen
11 10/11/07 9:07 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Stephan. I agree that this is a good reason for any of us to spend time with those who don’t agree with us. I also wonder if it means groups of like-minded people (Christians or otherwise) could do better at challenging each other to be better people. Because it seems unfortunate if we have to go outside our group of like-minded people for that to happen. I’d like to think it could happen both inside and outside it.
Comment by: Stephan
12 10/11/07 9:40 AM | Comment Link |Helen, I’m sure it happens inside of groups, even for me, but I find it happens most of me outside of my comfortable circle.
At my previous job there were a couple of people who disagreed with me but were genuinely curious about what I believed. I learned more about myself in my discussions with them than in a month of Sundays attending church.
I think, however, that this is indeed an area where churches need to improve. For most people church is just showing up on Sunday morning, singing a few songs and hearing a sermon. Few people are changed by this type of thing. Churches should spend more energy on putting people into small discipleship groups and sending people out to minister in the community. That is where hearts and minds are changed.
Comment by: Karen
13 10/11/07 10:46 AM | Comment Link |Wow, that brings back an old memory. When my children were babies and I had just started working from home, we were really hurting for money. We had an old junker car we’d inherited from my father-in-law and it finally just quit on us.
We needed to buy a used car and a couple in our Sunday school class - pillars of the church, former missionaries - tried to sell us their station wagon, which they told us had been meticulously maintained. My husband was willing to trust their statement, but even then I must have had a skeptical bent because I took it to my mechanic, a nice guy who’d taken pity on me and my junker in the past. He looked it over and drove it around for an afternoon, then called me up and told me to run as far away from the deal as possible. The car had not been maintained at all and was a disaster waiting to happen.
We were quite astonished and rather embarrassed for our friends, who had obviously lied to us. We told them we were going to pass on their offer and eventually bought a lightly used car from a local dealership.
That experience, and one where another “pillar of the church” duped a bunch of elderly people (including a pastor) into a fraudulent investment, cured me of any tendency to prefer businesses with the icthus fish in their advertising.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
14 10/11/07 11:53 AM | Comment Link |Great question Helen. Years ago, when I didn’t have much and did not consider myself a Christian, I decided to give something to a charity on a regular basis.
It’s now very ironic to me that I chose Habitat for Humanity. It certainly WASN’T because it was Christian, in fact, that part made me hesitate. It WAS because the to-be homeowners had to put sweat equity into the homes and because of the legions of volunteers who help build the homes.
I am once again reminded of how I could put “gay” in the place of “Christian” and ask the same question. There are those in the gay community who only shop out of the “gay” yellow pages. (No, I am not making this up.)
In some instances, this makes sense. For example, do I really want a plumber who spews 4-letter words or one who charges me more because he sees photos of me & my partner on the wall?
In reality, just because someone self-identifies as Christian (or, you know, fill in the blank), that does not make them more trustworthy, honest, etc., than someone who does not. Perhaps the odds are better (a big perhaps), perhaps not.
Comment by: Steve S.
15 10/11/07 2:01 PM | Comment Link |When the church is doing it’s job, (being a source of blessing to those outside the church), then we will naturally be coming into contact with those who are unlike us. This should be the natural state for a Christian to live…
Comment by: April Terry
16 10/11/07 2:26 PM | Comment Link |When I was with a traditional church, the pastor wanted to bring more instruments into our service to pep up the sound. We only had a piano and drums at the time, and so we all stood around and discussed whether that person should be a Christian or a non-Christian.
I was absolutely astounded to hear from several people that they didn’t want to bring in a non-Christian, and I remember asking them what they were afraid of because I knew that I wasn’t going to be any less Christian because the guitar player wasn’t a believer.
It seems to me that we’re all pretty flawed and have no business deciding where someone else’s heart is or isn’t.
Comment by: Jen
17 10/11/07 9:12 PM | Comment Link |I think the big difference between the gay yellow pages and the Christian yellow pages is that a gay plumber/business owner/whatever is at a disadvantage if they are out of the closet. There are people in this world that will not hire based on sexuality. On the other hand, Christians are a majority. If they are out out out as Christians, they are only going to turn away those who think super public displays and/or public prayer are disgusting. Hiring people who will suffer by being gay and a professional is a lot different than only trying to hire people of the same massive religion as you.
Comment by: joe
18 10/12/07 4:31 AM | Comment Link |I’m not sure that is the same thing, April. Is it not legitimate to expect those involved in a worship service to be members of that religion?
Comment by: Kevin J.
19 10/12/07 6:08 AM | Comment Link |First off, I want to thank everyone for their responses. It’s been refreshing hearing that the bubble of Christian insulation is probably meant to be pierced with some sort of sharp reality.
Joe, to address your question: Not necessarily. Ginghamsburg UMC in Ohio pays their musicians (because if that’s their profession, learning music, rehearsal, and four services is a lot of time to invest). They can play in a secular band until 4:00 a.m. Saturday night, then do the music for 3 services on Sunday by 8 a.m. If it enhances the message, if it helps get across what Jesus is saying, etc., does their particular membership matter? They’re not the minister or worship leader, but you’d expect those people to be members. This may be a whole other topic. :)
Comment by: joe
20 10/12/07 6:43 AM | Comment Link |Well I dunno. I wouldn’t expect to see anyone involved in a shop-front position who didn’t believe in it.
It makes no odds to me if they are professionals or not. If there are no professionals amoungst the faith community then maybe people need to put up with low quality music and deal with it. Anything else is hypocritical for everyone involved, IMO.
Comment by: Helen
21 10/12/07 7:44 AM | Comment Link |We had a discussion about whether church musicians should be Christians over on the ebay atheist blog recently. Evidently opinions vary on whether someone needs to be a Christian to be part of a Christian worship music team.
Comment by: joe
22 10/12/07 7:55 AM | Comment Link |Maybe that depends on your understanding of the meaning of the word ‘worship’, Helen.
Comment by: April Terry
23 10/12/07 7:57 AM | Comment Link |I think it’s exactly the same thing. If we can’t welcome non-Christians in church, where can we welcome them?
When we initially had the discussion, one of our members said, “Well, I think that it needs to come from the right spirit.” That comment disturbs me. It seems to imply that the music team is responsible for bringing Christ’s Holy Spirit into the building. Is the music team the only ones who are responsible for that?
I know someone who joined a praise team and was not a Christian. He was asked to listen to the music and learn it from a tape. He took the tape on a long drive with him and listened for several hours while he drove. Midway through the drive he pulled the car over because he was crying, and he prayed to God for the first time. He became a Christian because of his work with them.
If they had told him that he wasn’t welcome because he wasn’t “one of them” what do you think would have happened?
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
24 10/12/07 8:52 AM | Comment Link |hi Jen,
I should have been clearer. The gay yellow pages is not necessarily businesses who are owned/operated/staffed by GLBT. It is GLBT friendly businesses.
Comment by: Helen
25 10/12/07 10:23 AM | Comment Link |joe - maybe so. April, I take your point.
Comment by: Helen
26 10/12/07 2:39 PM | Comment Link |Kevin, thanks for stopping by! This is a public blog so anyone can post - but as you noticed, the people who tend to post here are generally not in favor of Christian isolationism.
Comment by: joe
27 10/12/07 2:45 PM | Comment Link |April, I don’t want to go over old ground if it has been discussed recently, but I think you’re talking about two distinct things: ie being open to outsiders and letting them ‘lead’ the church.
I’m not making a case against the particular example you mention, but in general the message is surely ‘we’re singing this stuff because we actually believe it’ rather than ‘we’re excluding you because you don’t’.
Comment by: April Terry
28 10/12/07 3:00 PM | Comment Link |I think that it is an elitist way of thinking if you are excluding someone from participating within your church, if you only purchase from Christian sources, or if you only hire Christian employees. Whatever the case, you are sending a message that someone is excluded and that someone feels excluded.
I grew up in Utah and was not Mormon. I know what it means to be an outsider to an exclusive party. I know what it feels like to miss being hired because they have a subtle way of figuring out that you aren’t a member of the church. I know what it feels like when you are excluded from participating in things at school because you are not a member of the church. I know how it felt to my parents when they couldn’t attend their granddaughter’s wedding because they weren’t allowed in the temple.
To me, it’s no difference whether it happens inside or outside of the walls of the church. I’ve experienced the same exclusionary philosophy in both places, and no matter what the degree of the exclusion is, it is still exclusion.
Comment by: Kevin J.
29 10/12/07 5:20 PM | Comment Link |We’ve twisted the topic of “services” a bit. :) I think maybe there’s a subtle difference in what Joe and April are saying, and it revolves around the level of leadership the particular person is. If the person is a band member as opposed to someone leading the service (minister, song leader, choir director, etc.), then I’m guessing it wouldn’t matter much. If it’s a person who’s job is to lead the church, then for that person to not believe would be hypocritical. I admit that at some churches I’ve been in, there’s been a deep sense of isolation/elitism (you could match derrières to pew indentations), but those churches do not grow; they die when their current members die. Having tried to lead one of those churches through a renewal cycle, I know how it feels to “lose” a church. The body is there, but the spirit has, just like Elvis, left the building.
Ultimately, we’re all broken in one form or another, searching for meaning and hopefully finding it in Christ (and not necessarily a church).
Comment by: April Terry
30 10/12/07 8:42 PM | Comment Link |I think that Kevin is right. I was not trying to move the topic away from the original post, I was just trying to share what I have experienced.
I wouldn’t expect someone without faith to be the leader of a praise team or the music director and especially not a pastor, but I would expect it to be possible for someone to play an instrument and possibly sing in a group.
However, when we hired a musician for the second service, we were recommended a kid by the pianist and we didn’t know his faith. I will never forget running into him later, after our pastor had eliminated their jobs and our service (all the while telling us he was getting behind us), and he said, “…and they call themselves Christians!” It felt like yet another stab in my heart to hear it.
This isn’t what I want Christ’s church to be remembered for and it is why I am so passionate about helping those on the outside. I would like to see those on the inside of churches realize that there exists an elitism that they don’t recognize.
Comment by: Helen
31 10/13/07 5:41 AM | Comment Link |Kevin, yes, when I was looking at the title I realized “Christian services” could mean “church services” :)
I feel like it should be up to the church leadership whether they require their musicians to share their faith. There will be consequences of the decision they make - like, people thinking they are being unreasonable and unChristian if they make belief a requirement - but I still think it should be up to them.
As a former church musician whose faith changed while I was a church musician, I’ve thought about this a lot. When I was more Christian I used to think churches should only have Christians involved in their worship music since the issue was not quality but praise acceptable to the Lord. And if we are saying people are sons of disobedience, it’s not very consistent to then go running to them because they can play the cello better than any Christians we know. It just didn’t seem right to me. Those were my thoughts when I was a member of a church who paid semi-professional musicians to come in and play at special events, who evidently had no faith requirement for those musicians.
More recently, at another church, I had to face the issue personally when my own faith changed. I knew I was giving my best - as always - and it seemed to me that on that basis my conscience was clear, because I had no Evil Non-Christian plan to ruin the church worship music. My desire was only to help, in a way I was able to help. The reality was, the church was short of violin players and for much of the time there I was the best violin player they had (at least, who admitted being able to play and was willing to play). If anything I might have worked harder at it once my faith changed because if I wasn’t giving my best I couldn’t fall back on some reason like “Of course I’m involved - I’m a Christian!”
Although I was giving my best I felt like maybe I was playing under false pretences because I think that church did want their musicians to be Christians. I mentioned it one time to the worship pastor once and he said “As long as you’re playing for the Lord it’s fine”. That didn’t really help though. I couldn’t frame my playing that way but I wasn’t *not* playing for the Lord either. I was playing for the church, not just for me (although I did enjoy it)…I was serving, sharing what I was able to share…I guess maybe I could have said that if I’d thought it through but at the time I didn’t know how to respond.
Anyway that was close to when I stepped down from involvement. I had to step down at that time because I was getting increasingly sure I’d quit church altogether soon. I couldn’t just not go if I had any obligation to be there, so I had to step down to make it possible to quit church.
Comment by: Steve S.
32 10/13/07 12:27 PM | Comment Link |that really ticks me off! Not that you said it, but that it is sometimes true…
The Church is to be the very manifestation of Jesus in the world! It shouldn’t be possible to separate a ‘Jesus experience,’ and a ‘church experience.’
I had some famiily members of a friend of mine come over for a party at our house this week. They knew I was a pastor so they asked questions about our doctrine…
In spite of the fact that we had openly welcomed their son into our community (for the first time in his life I might add) and welcomed them into our home; they coulnd’t be at ease in our interaction until they knew if I was a ‘real’ christian…
It is this OCD about doctrine that prevents us from embracing all sorts of people; the very people God put us in the world to embrace in His name!
Comment by: Helen
33 10/13/07 2:21 PM | Comment Link |Steve, did you pass their ‘real Christian’ test? If you stick around you’ll probably hear or see Jim (the director of Off The Map) talk about how weird/disappointing it is that Christians check each other out by asking about beliefs/type of church - they don’t ask “what are you doing to follow Jesus?” Yet shouldn’t that be the point?
Comment by: Steve S.
34 10/13/07 4:42 PM | Comment Link |I just finished reading a book where they make the point that Jesus seemed to expect theology to flow out of praxis instead of the other way around.
I have seen too many emphasize orthodox theology assuming that would naturally lead to orthodox praxis, and I have watched that approach fail time and time again…
How many mean spirited ‘correct’ people do you know?
Jesus said ‘come follow me’ and assumed that they would see God-revealed in the process; He did not say ‘here are the seven (10? 12?) eternal attributes of the godhead, go and memorize them and then bask in your enlightement.’
Comment by: Steve S.
35 10/13/07 4:44 PM | Comment Link |…and yes I passed the test, but I cheated, I have a cheat-sheet…
I just mumbled something about orthodoxy and the Apostle’s Creed…
Comment by: Helen
36 10/14/07 5:50 AM | Comment Link |You’re not the first person who has said to me they throw out ‘the Apostles Creed’ to disarm Christians wanting to verify whether they represent ‘true’ Christianity or not.
This used to bother me until I realized it’s actually impossible to tell some people the truth because whatever I say will go through their filter and end up as something different. If I say A then in their head it becomes B. Knowing this, I wondered if I could work with their filters and figure out something to say that would end up as A in their head. I concluded, no, after some thought and some failed attempts to communicate.
So, since the truth is impossible to convey, I settle for something else. Which generally is the easiest thing under the circumstances.
Comment by: Steve S.
37 10/14/07 11:56 AM | Comment Link |Wow, Helen, I have been having an almost identical conversation with the woman who is a part of our Church Plant team.
I have been in Buffalo a year, and I still fumble about trying to explain to people why I moved here.
When I say we came to start a church they imagine something (almost) the opposite of what I am pursuing. How do I communicate what we are doing without handing them a 40-page manifesto, or coming accross like an Amway salesman, or defining myself by what I am against…
…my conclusion so far has been, the only real way to communicate who I am is by opening my whole life up to whoever wants to share it with me…
PS In light of one of our other conversations, I would love to hear your thoughts on this, sorry it is so long, but I am a windbag…
Comment by: Helen
38 10/14/07 1:23 PM | Comment Link |Hi Steve, I’ll read it all but for now I have comments about the opening, since you asked…it currently reads:
Actually, that’s not quite what I think the doctrine says - it’s not that humans are totally evil with no redeeming features. It’s humans are a mixture of good and bad but somehow in God’s accounting system, only the evil counts, so everyone is condemned to eternity in hell. It’s not that the doctrine says there’s no good in humans; it’s that it says the good doesn’t count and the bad does. So good and bad are given infinitely unequal weight (imo).
Comment by: joe
39 10/15/07 3:06 AM | Comment Link |Depends on who you ask, Helen. According to the Calvinists, original sin means that humans are totally deprived and incapable of doing anything good.
This is one of the major problems - although christians often talk about the same terms, what they actually mean by them can be tremendously different. I don’t believe in original sin. I think it (or perhaps the way it is often presented in church) is nonsense.
Comment by: David H
40 10/15/07 9:47 AM | Comment Link |Perhaps I am misreading, but Helen’s extrapolation/explanation seems to cover most doctrines. It doesn’t necessarily get all the details, but the bottom-line is that the sin of Adam is the only one that matters in the eyes of God. I am condemned for that first sin before I even get a chance to sin for myself. God doesn’t accept sin and all people are born with a sin nature. Thus one thing that I didn’t even do becomes the only thing that matters on God’s holy scales.
Comment by: Steve S.
41 10/15/07 1:52 PM | Comment Link |…thanks for the correction, let me know when you get around to reading the whole thing. I value your input…
Comment by: Helen
42 10/15/07 3:44 PM | Comment Link |David - yes, exactly.
You’re welcome Steve. I’ll post another comment on your site when I’ve read the whole thing.
Comment by: Steve S.
43 10/16/07 11:05 AM | Comment Link |…what if ’sin’ isn’t neccesarily what I do, but what has been done to me?
Then David’s statement (the one Helen quotes) is a statement of immense hope for the coming judgment…
God will put right what has happened to us…
Comment by: Helen
44 10/16/07 1:17 PM | Comment Link |Steve, all I can say is, that’s not what I learned in Bible study.
So I am back to the same question which has come up before: how do I know you are right and my Bible teachers are wrong? I like your version better but that doesn’t make it true, does it?
(I’ll go read and respond to your ‘long’ post on your blog now)
Comment by: Steve S.
45 10/16/07 8:08 PM | Comment Link |Helen, have you read McLaren’s treatment of hell in the final book of his ‘creative non-fiction’ trilogy?
What if hell is not a place where God sends people because they did something He told them not to, or even a defect in their character that is a result of their distant ancestors, but rather, a state of being that is the end result of a life bent towards self instead of towards God?
The bentness is the problem, not the individual bent actions. The proclivity for bent actions is what will rob us of our value as created-in-the-image-of-God-humans and lead us to the personal garbage heap (Gehenna). If you bend a hanger into a tool to break into a car, you can still bend it back into a useful hanger, but what if it gets bent so many times that it breaks into peices?
…and God is doing all He can to keep people from being broken to peices, and is doing everything He can to change people’s proclivities for bentness, but when the hanger has been broken by it’s long mis-use, He can do nothing but hold the peices and weep…
…hell is not a place that God created. It is the outer edge, the no-place that is where the used-to-be-humans flee to escape the reality at the center…
“…the gates of hell are locked from the inside.”
Comment by: Helen
46 10/17/07 5:45 AM | Comment Link |Steve, I haven’t read that. I reject all teaching which implies people choose eternal torture. I simply don’t believe anyone ever does, which means if they end up there, they were not fully informed of the consequences of their actions. Which I see as God’s fault, since he is all-powerful and he could have warned them more convincingly.
What you said gets God off the hook for people being eternally tortured which - with all due respect - I find rather reprehensible.
It’s hard to fit things all together so people who have hurt others get appropriate justice, in a framework based on forgiveness and grace. But I’m sure the answer isn’t eternal torture. Which as David pointed out, isn’t based on someone’s own actions anyway; it’s based on some congenital “I was born a sinner”. Even though this lines up very poorly with Jesus’ own words about hell, in which over and over again he said it was the place for evildoers. Not wrongly-believing humans.
Comment by: Steve S.
47 10/17/07 6:32 AM | Comment Link |okay Helen, I followed the link and got bushwacked! …that is a miniseries! I am interested in reading it and I will post a comment there when I get a chance…
I would highly sugest the book, provokative, yet scriptural (shouldn’t those two words go together more often!), The Last Word and the Word After That
What if God doesn’t let Himself of the hook for it? What if He eternally endures the crucifixion?
I’ve heard it said, “God is a lover, not a rapist…” Which means to me that He chooses to set aside His power in many instances to respect our dignity and choice.
That is the problem right there isn’t it…
Perhaps torture is the wrong word to use. It connotes someone inflicting pain and damage upon another… The imagery used in the Bible is more helpful, ‘outer darkness,’ ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth,’ ‘the garbage dump.’
What if the state of the human being is such that there is not enough of a person left to even be called a person? What if to stand in the presence of beauty and power would be so infinitely painful for this used-to-be-person that existing apart from existence is preferable. What if the people in hell are simply the remains of people? That is a kind of ‘eternal torture’ and yet, it is not something ‘inflicted upon…’
What if they are fully informed? (After all this whole thing began with the fruit of the tree of the ‘knowledge of good and evil’) What if heaven actually is less preferable to these poor souls? What if the presence of love is so painful they prefer its absence? Shouldn’t a merciful God allow them to seek a shelter from the blinding light?
Which brings us here… if someone has done something wrong, but is still a fundamentally ‘God-filled’ person, then those evil deeds could be removed from that person and still leave the ‘person’ intact… what happens if someone is so twisted by evil that there is nothing of a God-filled-person left? They don’t have anything in them that even desires God’s presence, much less that could withstand God’s presence.
I would love to talk more, but perhaps I will read your other post first, and I would love to hear your thoughts on McLaren…
Comment by: Helen
48 10/17/07 8:27 AM | Comment Link |Steve wrote:
I was quite pleased with that. I wrote it back in 2002. It was my first systematic attempt to address a point of theology I had major issues with: my point being, as best I could tell the doctrine of hell I had been taught didn’t line up with Jesus’ words.
The short answer is, if I follow these ‘what ifs’ I end up at “God is incomprehensibly mean/uncaring to create a situation with this outcome”. I respect that you don’t see it that way, but I can’t not see it that way. And there is never any excuse for God that I can accept, because the buck always has to stop with God, by definition.