revelife on Revelife

Weblog

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Discussing Life and Death

A friend had a question:

I have always struggled with this: Death. Assuming one were to go to heaven upon their death and in so few words, this is our goal, why aren't more of us happy and ready to die? Life on Earth is filled with so many ... not good things, especially compared to how we might imagine heaven, one should be ready to get this life over with as soon as possible. It seems that there is too much emphasis put on the earthly life by all, "Christians" and non-Christians alike. Say you were in a hospital in a life threatening situation, and the doctors managed to save your life, most people would say thank you to them, but really shouldn't we be almost upset that we didn't die? I know there are different views on "plans" such as we're here for how long we're supposed to be and what have you, but I was just wondering about your take on this.

Here is my response:

You know, I'm a minority in this but I don't see heaven as the goal. I think we are slightly out of focus when we look towards eternal destination as the end goal. Sure, we desire it and look forward to it, but Jesus taught that his kingdom has all ready come (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:25) and that we should seek that kingdom (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:31). We ought to be consumed by that kingdom by being one with our Father (John 17) and living in love (Ephesians 5:1-2, 1John 2:10, 4:7-21) by obeying His commands (John 14:15, 21, 15:10, 1John 2:3, 3:24, 5:3). More Here...
Political-Religious Maturity

One of the most frustrating things about witnessing the ridiculous merger of American politics and American Christianity is not so much the theologically questionable nature of such a venture, but the sheer immaturity of it. Listening to someone like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity attempt to reason from religious convictions to political stances is painful for anyone who understands the complexities inherent in either realm.

For this reason, it is always reassuring to recall politicians whose political-religious thinking is mature. Even where I disagree with him, Abraham Lincoln had this sort of deep maturity evident in his writings and speeches. It's undoubtable that his religious convictions informed his political stances. On the matter of conscientious objectors to the Civil War, Lincoln "felt that unless we recognized conscientious religious scruples, we could not expect the blessing of Heaven."

Probably the best example of Lincoln's mature thought is his second inaugural address, given just months before his assassination. After explaining the causes leading to the Civil War, which was still ongoing, Lincoln analyzed the war from his Christian theological perspective.

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

The maturity and humility of Lincoln's thought is impressive. More Here...
Exclusive Interview: Mark Galli of Christianity Today, Part One

By Aaron at The Mockingbird Blog

Back in July, many of us at Mockingbird discovered (see earlier blog posts here and here) the writings of Mark Galli, Senior Managing Editor of Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism (started in 1956 by Billy Graham). Galli's grasp of the Gospel—God’s grace in Jesus Christ to broken human beings (including Christians who can't get it together)—was as deeply refreshing as it was (almost) unique in the wider world of Evangelical Christianity. We were so intrigued that we sat down with him to find out more. It proved to be a fascinating conversation about the current landscape of Evangelicalism, the radical nature of the Gospel, and the pattern of the Christian life.

Here's Part 1 of the interview.

Mockingbird: Christianity Today is a magazine written for a broad spectrum of theological perspectives. But in your regular Soulwork column, you have a distinct theological perspective that emphasizes God’s radical grace in the face of our human brokenness and narcissism. What’s the origin of your perspective and what role does it play in the magazine?

Mark Galli: You’re right that Christianity Today is a magazine for all evangelicals. So my job involves publishing stuff I may disagree with on a personal theological level. But CT is like a village green. People from all backgrounds can come together and talk about what they think they should be doing in the name of Christ in the world. In that, there’s a certain continuity and coherence, maybe less than there used to be, but it's still there: a passion to love Christ and serve him in the world. More Here...
Do Some Churches Have a Membership Hierarchy?

I just read an interesting paragraph about churches from "What's Theology Got To Do With It?"

Nevertheless, perhaps because we have grown so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as consumers of various goods and services, the membership ethos is hard to break. I have noticed, for example, that in many congregations, when a new group gathers for the first time, the default option for introductions tends to take the form, "My name is ______, and I have been a member of First Church for 30 years (or 15 years or 1 year)." As a way of introducing ourselves, length of tenure at that particular church, to be sure provides some useful information. And there is much to be said for loyalty and commitment. But something else often seems to be going on during such a ritual. A pecking order is established based on length of membership. An insider-outsider dynamic is suggested. indeed as Michael Foss (Lutheran pastor) notes, "The membership model identifies who is in and who is out. No wonder those outside the church consistently say that church people are more judgmental than others.

What struck me as so fascinating is how such a simple thing like length of time in a group can immediately establish a "pecking order." This happens in all sorts of organizations and communities, but I believe the author is making a point that, in the Christian community, this is particularly damaging.

The holidays are coming up, which has a host of examples. More Here...

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Question About the Crucifixion: Did Jesus Go to Hell?

Jesus went to Hell. This is a totally new concept for me.

I was having lunch with a mid-western Protestant, Catholic from Queens yesterday and someone who didn't have an opinion either way, and I was astounded to hear the latter two begin discussing the "fact" that Jesus went to Hell for three days after He was crucified and placed in the tomb. My personal opinion has no place here; I am simply stunned by the fact that I was raised in the Church of Christ until my teens and I have never heard anything about Jesus having gone to Hell for three days while His body was in the tomb.

Did you know about this? I was always of the impression that being crucified on a cross would be pretty much enough misery and sin taking to account for mankind, but apparently there is a huge Christian contingency that believes that Christ spent three days in Hell as part of His suffering for our sins. I am not one to say one way or the other about what I believe and don't believe, nor to preach, but I am totally confounded at not having heard this before, since it seemed to be, at the lunch table today, such a commonly know thing. I'm certain my mother would have had a strong opinion about it one way or the other, and I never heard of this concept. More Here...