Risking heresy to gain the truth: an exploration of Christian cultural relevance

Preface

I have written this article and am looking for feedback on it, both the content and the manner of expression. Any comments would be gratefully received! Michael

Abstract

This paper brings together the thinking of the best of contemporary missiologists, Andrew Walls, and emergent theologians, Rob Bell and Ray Anderson. Walls shows that the Christian faith makes itself at home in different cultures in quite different ways, and that theology must be local in character. Because of this no group of Christians has any right to impose their assumptions upon another group of Christians. Rather, we are likely to find theologies arising out of other cultural contexts puzzling, even disturbing. Anderson demonstrates that the ‘work of God’ helps us interpret the ‘Word of God’. For example, the Apostle Paul used the fact that God poured his Spirit out on uncircumcised Gentiles (that is, a work of God) to reinterpret the Word of God – and he found an interpretation of the Word of God that was in line with that new reality. Anderson then gives two contemporary example of something similar going on. Bringing together these two strands of thought, this paper argues that in any culture, even contemporary Western culture, we need to be alert to the work of God by his Spirit as we explore how to be culturally relevant, while true to our faith. This is risky business, always running the risk of taking one small step too far into ‘heresy’ (Bell) or ‘blasphemy’ (Walls). The current debate about the blessing of homosexual couples is an example of this process.

Introduction: heresy and blasphemy

Rob Bell[1]:

The great German scholar Helmut Thielicke once said that a person who speaks to this hour’s need will always be skirting the edge of heresy, but only the person who risks those heresies can gain the truth.

Andrew Walls[2]:

It was necessary to explore the sense of the Scriptures using the indigenous vocabulary, the indigenous methods of debate, the indigenous patterns of thought. It was a risky business. There’s no such thing as safe theology. Theology is an act of adoration fraught with a risk of blasphemy, but an act of adoration, of worship, nevertheless.

Risking heresy. Risking blasphemy. I do not know whether Rob Bell has read Andrew Walls. I do not know whether Andrew Walls has read Helmut Thielicke. But Bell and Thielicke on the one hand and Walls on the other hand are saying pretty much the same thing: if our theology (that is, our study of God and God’s relation to the world) is going to be relevant it will be right there on the cutting edge, running the risk of going too far. But unless we run that risk of going too far (heresy, blasphemy) we will never gain the truth.

Andrew Walls and The Indigenizing Principle of Christianity

It was in 1982 that Andrew Walls wrote his paper, The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture. The paper begins with five snapshots of the global church down the ages. First there are the original Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, around 37AD. Then there are Greek Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Thirdly, a group of Irish monks, c600AD. Fourthly Victorian Christians in London in the 1840s, and finally Nigerian Christians dancing through Lagos in the 1980s. These groups are very, very different from one another, yet they are all good examples of the church in different places and at different times. Walls goes on to point out that there are certain key similarities between these (and any other) local incarnations of the Church:

Ø  each was founded (in some way) by the previous group

Ø  Jesus Christ is central to each

Ø  all use the same sacred writings, and use bread & wine and water in special ways

Ø  each thinks of itself as having some continuity with the others

Ø  each sees itself as in some way continuous with ancient Israel.

Walls proceeds to explain what he calls The Indigenizing Principle. That is, since God accepts us as we are, culture and all, there has always been the desire – the need, even – to make the church a place where people feel at home. This was what was decided at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Walls summarises: Paul taught that “since God accepts the heathen as they are, circumcision, food avoidance, and ritual washing are not for them”.[3] The broader principle that Walls extracts from this is that, “no group of Christians has any right to impose in the name of Christ upon another group of Christians a set of assumptions about life determined by another time and place” (ibid p8).

Walls’ second principle is The Pilgrim Principle. That is, God transforms people, God transforms cultures. As part of this process the Christian is given an adoptive past, linking all to the people of God of all generations and to the whole history of ancient Israel.

The final part of Walls’ paper looks at The Future of Christian Theology and its Cultural Conditioning. Even in 1982 when Walls wrote this paper he could state that the centre of gravity of the Christian world has moved south, to Africa and Latin America. How much more is that the case now, 31 years later! In fact in a more recent paper, the one from which the initial quotation was taken, Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the 21^st Century written in 2002, Walls adds Asia and the Pacific to the list of places to which the centre of Christianity has moved. And so he states that the theology of Europe and North America is going to become a backwater, while it’s the theology of the new centre (or centres) that is going to be of greatest significance. Because: theology “springs out of practical situations and is therefore occasional and local in character” (p10). Scripture is paramount, but hand in hand with real life: “Theology is about testing your actions by Scripture.” (p11)  “Theology arises out of situations that actually happen, not from broad, general principles.” (p11)  In short: theology is about doing. Therefore each agenda will be local and different.

Walls’ focus is on new African theologies, particularly as Africans grapple with their past. What might we white Anglo-Saxons make of African theology? Walls suggests: “It is safe for a European to make only one prediction about the valid, authentic African Biblical theology we all talk about: that it is likely either to puzzle us or to disturb us.” (p11) The sourcebook of all valid theology is the canonical Scriptures, but they are read with different eyes by people in different times and places. We all approach Scripture wearing cultural blinkers, and as we do theology we are engaging with the communities with whom we live and in the context of whom we are doing our theology. This is dynamite!

Walls’ Principles and the 21^st Century West

As just stated, Walls’ focus is on the emerging church in Africa and other places which were once the mission fields of western missions. That is, lands which until a few hundred years ago had not had interaction with the Christian faith; cultures which were grappling with local theologizing because they had not had any Christian influence earlier.

I would suggest that when culture changes that same process must take place. Unless that process of theological grappling takes place in each generation, our theology will quickly become outdated and of less relevance. Rob Bell compares this with his old Oldsmobile car. “They used to be popular, and your grandparents or roommate may still drive one, but the factories have shut down. Eventually the only ones left will be collector’s items, relics of an era that has passed. Oldsmobile couldn’t keep up with the times, and so it gradually became part of the past, not the future. For them, not us. For then, not now.”[4] So with God and theology. Our grandparents grappled in their day and age so that their faith and their articulation of it was relevant – or, in the words of Andrew Walls quoted above, “occasional and local”.

Western culture is changing at breakneck speed. What kind of theology and theologizing is “occasional and local” to contemporary post-modern Western culture? Before we seek to answer this question let us note, from Walls (quoted above) that:

Ø  the church looks utterly different in different places and eras

Ø  “no group of Christians has any right to impose in the name of Christ upon another group of Christians a set of assumptions about life determined by another time and place”

Ø  theology “springs out of practical situations and is therefore occasional and local in character”

Ø  traditional modernists who do not embrace post-modern culture are likely to find emergent theology puzzling or disturbing.

The Work of God and the Word of God

Ray S. Anderson wrote An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches in 2007. Chapter 6, entitled It’s about the Work of God, not just the Word of God, looks at the interaction between the written Word of God (the Scriptures) and the contemporary Spirit-inspired work of God. He begins with Jesus.

Jesus did not observe the law of Moses as understood by his contemporaries. For example, he broke the Sabbath law and allowed his disciples to do so too:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ²⁸ So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2.23-27)

Note that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees that the Sabbath law no longer mattered. Rather, he appealed to Scripture itself for a different interpretation of the text of Scripture.

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shrivelled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shrivelled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (Mark 3.1-6)

Jesus could have healed this man on any day of the week. But he didn’t. He deliberately chose to heal him on the Sabbath. He wanted to make a point. Whatever the rights and wrongs of traditional Sabbath practice, Jesus, as “Lord of the Sabbath” reinterpreted it. And he wanted his disciples, the Pharisees and any others who were watching or listening in to note this reinterpretation. Jesus did not claim a higher independent authority over the Scriptures. That is, he did not say, “The law of Moses says such and such, but that no longer matters because I’m saying to you something else.” Jesus showed high respect for the Scriptures (our Old Testament) and used it to show that another interpretation was possible, and indeed preferable.

Paul worked similarly. He faced the objective reality that Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. They had received the Holy Spirit as Gentiles. They had not been circumcised and become Jews first. The problem was that the Scriptures stated that circumcision was necessary to be included amongst God’s people and to be considered righteous before God. The fact was that the Word of God (circumcision is necessary for God’s approval) disagreed with the work of God (God pouring out the Holy Spirit on uncircumcised Gentiles). So Paul did what Jesus did: he went back to the Scriptures and discovered that the popular interpretation was not the only possible interpretation, and indeed another interpretation was preferable. Paul dug more deeply and discovered Abraham – or rather, Abram, as he was at that point:

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15.6)

Paul realised that when Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord credited this to Abram as righteousness, Abram was an uncircumcised Gentile. So clearly circumcision was not necessary to be considered righteous before God, not necessary in order to have God’s approval.

If it had not been for the work of God (filling uncircumcised Gentiles with the Holy Spirit), Paul might never have gone back to the Scriptures and sought for an interpretation which was in line with this reality. It is the work of God that forces Paul to go back to the Word of God and dig more deeply in it. Anderson describes this in terms of two ‘narratives’: there’s the written narrative of Scripture, the Word of God, and then there’s the new action narrative of the work of God. And so he writes, “The contemporary narrative of the Holy Spirit’s coming to the Gentile believers is laid alongside the narrative of Scripture so that the work of God through the Spirit becomes the lens through which he reads the Word of God.” (p123) This is an important point, let’s unpack it.

First of all, let’s consider Jesus again. Jesus showed that another interpreted of the law of the Sabbath was possible. From that point on it was not that followers of Jesus would choose, ‘Shall we adopt Jesus’ new interpretation or shall we keep the traditional interpretation?’ No. The followers of Jesus saw the work of God through Jesus (as summarised in the statement, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”) as the definitive understanding of the Sabbath – or, to use Anderson’s phrase, it “becomes the lens” through which the written Word of God would now be read. There was no choice. The work of God (Jesus’ Sabbath activities and his accompanying statements) has become the “new narrative” which guides the behaviour of those who followed Jesus.

Likewise Paul and the Gentiles. Paul and the early Christians recognized that it had been God’s intention right from the beginning to include Gentiles in his plan. When the Old Testament (the Word of God) is read through this “lens” of the work of God (God pouring out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles) God’s truth falls more fully into place. This is the lens through which to read the Old Testament. We don’t have a choice in the matter. I don’t believe there are any followers of Jesus today who believe that Gentiles need to, essentially, become Jews in order to follow Jesus. In fact the great majority of followers of Jesus are not Jews, and (quite rightly) feel no sense of obligation to adopt a Jewish lifestyle.

Anderson emphasises that the Word of God and the work of God function together. On the one hand, the work of God does not replace the Word of God. But on the other hand, the Word of God does not crush the work of God. Both come alive “as revelation”(p123). By this I believe Anderson means that both the Word and the work reveal God and his will to us, and that is why they need to operate together. The work of God interprets the Word of God, and we discover the truth of God by studying both these two narratives, the Scripture text and the work of God through the Holy Spirit.

Discernment is of course vital. Not everyone who claims to be led by the Spirit of God is in fact led by the Spirit of God. If a new work of God seems to be happening we need to search the Scriptures. Jesus and Paul always had a “biblical antecedent for what presents itself as a creative and liberating work of the Spirit” (p125). “Without such an antecedent we cannot allow for what might be claimed as a new work of the Spirit to become a hermeneutical criterion.” (p127)  A hermeneutical criterion is a pivotal point which guides or determines our understanding or interpretation of the issue in question. In other words, if there’s no antecedent the so-called new work of the Spirit is most likely not actually a new work of the Spirit.

Was God at work through his Holy Spirit only in the days of Jesus and the New Testament Church? Anderson: “The same Holy Spirit that brought about the work of God in the church at Antioch and those that emerged out of Antioch, is at work today as the Spirit of the risen and coming Christ.” (p125)

Which brings us back to Walls and contemporary missiology.

What happens when Christianity makes itself at home

“Christianity lives by crossing cultural frontiers.”[5] This is a deep and profound truth. In his 1982 paper Walls shows us glimpses of Christian communities in different places and times (p1 above). Not only are these different incarnations of Christianity, but Christianity lives by means of incarnating itself  in different cultures. Walls observes that if Christianity had remained a Jerusalem-based Jewish sect it would never have survived. But it “had crossed a cultural boundary into the Greek world” (ibid p4). Then, before the Greek world declined, Christianity had crossed another cultural boundary, to the barbarians of Northern Europe. This pattern has followed over the centuries. “Christianity lives by crossing the boundaries of language and culture. Without this process it can wither and die.” (ibid p5)

Each time Christianity crosses a new boundary and makes itself at home in a new culture, the Spirit of God is at work. The new believers, living as part of a culture which had never before been Christianized, need to find a way of being a Christian that is true to both the Word of God and to their own culture. The Holy Spirit is what equips them for this formidable task. “Hellenistic believers would have to find a Hellenistic way of being Christian under guidance of the Holy Spirit because they had to live in Hellenistic society and they would have to change Hellenistic family and social life, but change it organically, from the inside. The Hellenistic way of being Christian would be different from the Jewish way of being Christian and yet the two belonged with each other.” (p5)

Every culture where Christianity takes root needs to use its own local materials as theological building blocks. As the Greeks did this they gave us the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity, constructed “from the materials of middle-period Platonism converted to handle the material of the Christian tradition” (p7). As the barbarians did this they brought a higher level of understanding to the doctrine of the Atonement. How did this happen? “Of course the Bible was central to the debate, but there was no single text that would clearly settle the matter. It was necessary to explore the sense of the Scriptures using the indigenous vocabulary, the indigenous methods of debate, the indigenous patterns of thought.” (p8)

Walls writes of “exploring”. Anderson writes of “contemporary works of God”. These two need to work together closely. There is no single proof-text in the Bible for most of the issues Christians grapple with as their culture interacts with Christianity. And so we explore the sense of the Scriptures using the tools our culture gives us. But God does not leave us alone in this. He is at work by his Holy Spirit, and so it may just be that it is a contemporary work of God by his Spirit that shows us the route that we need to explore. This exploration, as Walls points out, is risky business. “Theology is an act of adoration fraught with a risk of blasphemy.” (p8) Or, as Rob Bell and Helmut Thielicke put it, “A person who speaks to this hour’s need will always be skirting the edge of heresy” (p4). “This hour’s need” is one’s culture’s need at this point in time.

Are there any absolutes? Or is theology destined to drift on the tides of culture as each evolving culture grapples with what its own occasional and local theology looks like? Yes, of course there are absolutes, and Andrew Walls hints at them when he draws our attention to what the original Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, the Greek Christians at the Council of Nicea, the Irish monks, the Victorian Christians in London and the Nigerian Christians in Lagos had in common. That is, the centrality of Jesus Christ as revealed in the sacred writings we call the Bible, and a sense of continuity and connection with one another and with ancient Israel. These statements could be unpacked at great length – but this is not the place for that.

Walls’ interest is those parts of the world to which the centre of gravity of Christianity has now shifted: “More and more the responsibility [for theological creativity] will fall on the Christians making their Christian choices in mother tongue theological thinking in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in the Pacific islands.” (p8) But what of those formerly Christian cultures in Europe and North America?

Contemporary Western examples

What does this mean for the 21^st Century Church in the West? What are some of the issues we face in Europe and North America where Christianity is grappling with our contemporary culture, where a “work of God” is evident and we explore the significance? Anderson gives two examples.

Anderson’s first example is the ordination of women. Although there were instances earlier, it was during the 1960s that God began to call women into the ordained ministry and their churches were affirming that call. Anderson states that this was not based on ideological feminism or cultural changes. However I would suggest that if the surrounding culture had not been beginning to place an emphasis on the equality of women and men that this “work of God” might not have taken place and neither would the subsequent exploring of Scripture using indigenous vocabulary and patterns of thought. The result of this exploration of Scripture was that it was discovered that there are ways of exegeting the Scriptures to allow women a full role in church leadership, including ordination, just as it was discovered nearly two millennia earlier that Gentiles have a full and equal place amongst the community of the people of God.

Anderson’s second example is divorce. The Bible states clearly that divorce followed by remarriage would constitute adultery. See, for example, Mark 10.11-12:

Jesus answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Yet it would seem that the Spirit of God is at work, enabling divorced people to experience the forgiveness and healing of Christ. Should they have the Word of God held against them when the work of God brings them mercy and forgiveness? This was brought home personally to Anderson (who is also a pastor) when a member of his congregation, a divorced woman, asked, “On which side is God? Is God on the side of the Bible, or is God on our side in our new relationship in Christ?” (p131) Such a question and the way it is phrased bring home the warning that Bell, Thielicke and Walls give about being on the edge of heresy and blasphemy! But unless the question is asked, real theologizing cannot take place. Anderson states his conclusion: “When Jesus said that humans were not made for the Sabbath but that the Sabbath was made for humans, I took that also to apply to marriage. Humans were not made just to live under the law of marriage with no mercy for failure, but marriage was made for the benefit of humans. Jesus is not only the Lord of the Sabbath, he is the Lord of marriage… I could not and would not use the words of Jesus to cancel out the work of Jesus in his redemption of those who were not able to live by the law.” (p132) And so he married her and her partner.

Paul brought greater understanding of the inclusivity of Christ. Classical Greek culture brought greater understanding of the person of God. Barbarian culture brought greater understanding of the atonement of Christ. Is 21^st Century emergent culture bringing greater understanding of the mercy of God?

The current Big Debate in the Western Church is homosexuality, and in particular whether the church should bless homosexual couples and be in favour of gay marriage. Some well-known Christian leaders, such as Rob Bell, Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren, say yes. Others say no. I do not consider myself qualified to say either yes or no, but I will offer one or two thoughts, based on the preceding analysis of Gospel, culture, the Word of God and the contemporary work of God.

1.      The Word of God, both Old and New Testaments, states that homosexuality is wrong. For example, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18.22) “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1.26-27)

2.      It may be that the contemporary work of God is blessing gay people and gay couples. There are testimonies of gay Christians who live monogamously and faithfully with their same-sex spouse, potentially affirming a contemporary work of God in blessing monogamous, committed gay marriages.

3.      On the other hand there does seem to be a parallel work of God whereby gay people, through Christ, change their sexuality and celebrate the greater richness of life they experience heterosexually. Or they are convicted that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Christian faith, and as a result remain celibate.

4.      Points 2 and 3 above do not negate each other. In Corinth there were different forms of Christian conviction and practice with regard to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and Paul affirms both. If monogamous, gay, Christian marriages are a work of God, that in no way invalidates those who are convicted to give up their homosexual lifestyle. Neither would the fact that some are convicted to give up their homosexual lifestyle invalidate monogamous, gay, Christian marriages.

5.      Paul states in Galatians 3.26-28, “In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul was listing contrasting pairs well-known in his day. Could we legitimately add “neither gay nor straight” to this list, or would that be one step too far?

6.      If we were to accept this as a contemporary work of the Spirit of God as we engage with contemporary Western culture, we would need to go through a process similar to Jesus’ reinterpretation of the Sabbath law, Paul’s reinterpretation of how God accepts those who are not Jewish, and Anderson’s examples relating to the role of women and the permissibility of divorce. Chalke, McLaren, Bell and others would seem to have already gone through this process and are ready to affirm that this is a contemporary work of God. Others have gone through this process and state that this cannot be a work of God since it is in direct violation of the Word of God.

Closing thoughts

Anderson cautions (in the context of the ordination of women): “To refuse to recognize the work of Christ through the contemporary operation of the Holy Spirit might well be hindering the work of God.” (p130) However, Gamaliel advises (in a quite different context, but the truth of his words transcend context): If this is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop it; you will only find yourselves fighting against God (paraphrased from Acts 5.38-39).

The truth is that we need to make decisions. We, that is, inspired by the Spirit of God who dwells within each of us who follows Jesus. We have dual citizenship: we are each part of the culture into which God caused us to be born. We are also citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. May we have the discernment to see where the Spirit of God is at work in our day and age, the ability to distinguish what is of God and what is not, and the courage to risk following him. May our roots be firmly planted in the Word of God so that we will not take that small step into heresy or blasphemy as we seek the truth of God and seek to make the Church a place where people feel at home, whatever our place, time and culture. But may fear of that small step into heresy or blasphemy not stultify us from following the Spirit of God.

Bibliography

Anderson, Ray S (2007) An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches

Anderson, Ray S (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis

Bell, Rob (2013) What we talk about when we talk about God

Bell, Rob and Andrew Wilson with Justin Brierley (2013) Homosexuality & The Bible Live discussion @ www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

Dickenson, Ruth (ed) Christianity magazine, February, March & June 2013

Walls, Andrew (1982) The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture. This is also published as chapter 1 in Walls (1996) The Missionary Movement in Christian History

Walls, Andrew (2002) Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the 21^st Century, available at http://www.wycliffe.net/resources/missiology/globalperspectives/tabid/97/Default.aspx?id=3041

---

[1] What we talk about when we talk about God (2013) p4

[2] Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the 21^st Century (2002) p8

[3] The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture (1982) p8

[4] What we talk about when we talk about God (2013) p5-6

[5] Andrew Walls, Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the 21^st Century, p4

With bound hands I long for freedom

It's not true, and it's arrogant to claim or pretend it is. Somewhere in an earlier blog I wrote something like, "Well, I'm awake, how about you?" How can I claim to be awake? How can I claim to be free? How can I claim to have got it all together? As Bass'n'Helen sing (http://youtu.be/pdoZvhsERg8) "Käsin sidotuin kaipaan vapauteen" - which roughly translates as "With bound hands I long for freedom". Yes, I have that longing, yes I yearn, yes I pray "How long, O Lord, how long." But I ain't arrived. My hands are bound. And I long for freedom.

Awake me! This blog needs to be woken up! Let's see if I can.

Your fellow-traveller, Michael

Father, forgive us

Father, forgive us, we know not what we do.
Father, forgive us for making you so irrelevant.

Heaven & Hell

Introduction

Chapter 3 of my book is a very (very) brief look at heaven and hell. Why did I choose to get all my rough notes written up now? In the introduction to the book I write,

"Now, in April 2011, Rob Bell’s Love wins has just been published. I feel the need to articulate my own position, based on my own study and reflection, before reading Bell’s book."

So I wrote - and then I read Bell.

3. Heaven & hell:

What is heaven? Heaven is where God lives. There are many references in the Psalms that would illustrate this. See, for example, Psalm 14.2; 33.13; 53.2; 80.14; 102.19 and 123.1.

The Hebrew word normally translated “heaven” is “shamayim” and it is used 416 times in the Old Testament (NIV exhaustive concordance). The Greek word for heaven, “ouranos” is used 274 times. ‘Heaven’ in Scripture is compared and contrasted with ‘earth’. Heaven is where God dwells, earth is where humankind dwells. This is implicit in a number of the Psalms referred to above. Thus when Jesus begins his ministry by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven is near he is saying that in him the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of human beings is coming together – a picture picked up in the last chapters of Revelation where heaven and earth come together as one and God’s dwelling (heaven) is among humankind (on earth).

The Kingdom of Heaven, Tom Wright explains, “does not refer to a place, called ‘heaven’, where God’s people will go after death. It refers to the rule of heaven, that is, of God, being brought to bear in the present world.”¹ A programme of social justice, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind and freedom to the oppressed, giving dignity to men and women, the opportunity to live this life as God its Creator intended – this is bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the rule of God. The 1980s pop song was not far wrong:

Heaven is a place on earth
They say in heaven love comes first
We'll make heaven a place on earth
Ooh heaven is a place on earth.²

What about hell? In contrast to the 690 references to “heaven” in the Scriptures, the Greek “Gehenna”, translated “hell” in the NIV occurs 12 times. The Hebrew “sheol” occurs 66 times, but “sheol” is not the same as “hell” and the NIV reflects this by translating it simply as “the grave” or “the realm of the dead”, while the REB has “Sheol” and the RSV “the Pit”. See, for example, Psalm 16.10.

“Heaven” and “hell” are not equals in the Scriptures. Neither are “eternal life” and “eternal judgement/fire/punishment/sin. The NIV uses the phrase “eternal life” 42 times, and the phrase “eternal judgement/fire/punishment/sin” 6 times. That is not to say that the concept of eternal judgement/fire/punishment/sin is unimportant: four of these six occurrences are on the lips of Jesus himself. But we are wrong if we think the Scriptures have an equal focus. The phrase “eternal death” (which incidentally is a contradiction in terms) never occurs in the Scriptures.

1 N. T. Wright, “The challenge of Jesus” p20

2 “Heaven is a place on earth” by Rick Nowels and Ellen Shipley, a number 1 hit in many countries by Belinda Carlisle in 1987.

Gehenna

Intro
Chapter 2 of my book. In the intro to the book I relate that in my mid-20s I decided I ought to write a book about hell since my study and reflections on the topic showed that the traditonal picture of hell as handed down to me seemed to be in line neither with the straightforward meaning of Scripture nor the character of God. I wrote substantial notes at the time... and filed them away. But earlier this year I made the effort to go back over my notes and write them up in a presentable form.

2. Gehenna

“In the beginning God created heaven, earth and hell.”

Nope.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1.1)

The Scriptures never say that God created hell. Why? Because “hell” is not a separate entity, but part of God himself.

In Deuteronomy the Israelites are told,

The LORD your God is a consuming fire. (Deuteronomy 4.24)

This is quoted in Hebrews 12.29:

Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire”.

God, the consuming fire, consumes all that is not holy; that is, those whose robes are not washed (compare Revelation 22.14 above).

He consumes the unholy parts of his people whom he has made holy (a “refiner’s fire”), and the entirety of those who are not holy, whose robes are not washed. There is a popular misconception in some quarters that the fate of those outside of God is eternal torment or torture. The Scriptures, on the other hand, teach that while the location of the lost is eternal, the lost themselves simply die there. That is, they cease to exist. Which brings us back to Gehenna.

Jesus says,

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’ (Mark 9.42-48)

The word ‘hell’ in these verses is the Greek ‘Gehenna’. Most places in the New Testament where most popular versions have the word ‘hell’, the Greek text says ‘Gehenna’.

A book that confirmed to me that my exegesis of Scripture is along the right lines is David Pawson’s “The Road to Hell” (Hodder & Stoughton, 1992) – not because Pawson and I agree with one another but because I found his arguments for a ‘traditional’ hell wanting. However, Pawson does give a good description of Gehenna:

So how did Jesus 'picture' hell? The answer lies in the name he usually gave to it Gehenna, which means 'the valley of Hinnom'.

This is a real geographic location. a deep gorge to the west and south of Jerusalem. From it the city is visible, but most of it is invisible to the city. Few tourists visit or are even aware of it.

The valley has a sinister history. At one stage in Israel's idolatrous infidelities it became a centre for the worship of Moloch, an Ammonite deity demanding the sacrifice of live infants in gruesome orgies. Jeremiah predicted that 'the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter' (Jer 9:6).

Partly for this reason and partly because of its convenient location and depth, the valley became the city's garbage dump. The south gate facing the valley is to this day called the 'Dung Gate', which speaks for itself. All the sewage and rubbish of a large city was 'thrown into' (note that term) Gehenna.

The waste was kept down in two ways - incineration by fire of what was combustible and ingestion by worms of what was digestible. Steep cliffs confined the heat and the smell (its lowest point was too deep for the sun to penetrate). (pp 28-29)

In the passage from Mark 9 Jesus quotes Isaiah 64 where the Lord, through the voice of the prophet, says,

“As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66.22-24)

The contrast in these verses is between “the new heavens and the new earth” and “your name and your descendants” on the one hand, which will endure, and “the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me” on the other hand. The new heavens, the new earth, your name and your descendants endure, whereas those who rebel against God do not endure. Those who endure look on the dead bodies of those who do not endure. The worm does not die and the fire will not be quenched: these are the agents of God’s punishment – as Pawson eloquently puts it, “incineration by fire of what was combustible and ingestion by worms of what was digestible”. But – and this is the important point – those who are consumed and ingested die. They cease to exist. The rebel has not endured.

The Tree of Life

Intro:
Today's blog is the first chapter of a book I have written about heaven, hell, love, and what it means for God to be a consuming fire.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He created light and space, sea and land, plants and all kinds of vegetation, birds, fish and all kinds of animals. Finally he creates humans, male and female, and instructs them:

Be fruitful and increase in number. (Genesis 1.28)

And:

You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Genesis 2.16-17)

It was like an accident waiting to happen. We deceive ourselves if we think God hoped Adam and Eve and all their descendants would resist temptation and refrain from eating the fruit of this tree. Of course they ate. And we still do. After they (and we) have eaten God says,

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3.22-23)

Because mankind has eaten from the fruit of the first tree (“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”) God ensures that we cannot eat from the fruit of the second tree (“the tree of life”). In so doing he ensures that mankind cannot live forever. We are mortal. We die. We are not immortal. We do not live for ever. The banishment from the garden of Eden is not phrased as a punishment: it was to stop them eating of the tree of life. Those who have not eaten of the tree of life will not live for ever. Only those who have eaten of the tree of life will live for ever.

But that is jumping to the end of the story. In Revelation 2.7 Jesus (through John) says:

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

In Revelation 22 the river of the water of life flows down from the throne of God and of the Lamb. The narrative continues:

On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22.2)

And:

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. (Revelation 22.14)

In order to enter the city (the new Jerusalem which has come down from heaven) you need to have eaten of the tree of life. In order to eat of the tree of life you need to have your robes washed.

There we have it: the beginning and the end of the story. In the beginning mankind is banished from access to the tree of life. At the end those who are “victorious”, those who “wash their robes” may eat of the tree of life and live for ever. What happens in between?

What happens in between is the result of mankind eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Death. They ate, they died. We eat, we die. Not instantaneously of course, but the result is that we are mortal. As Jesus puts it:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10.28)

Body and soul – that is the outer and inner person – God can and does destroy a person in “hell”. The Greek word translated “hell” is Gehenna, the rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem. And Jesus uses it as a metaphor for the destination of those who die.

Radical good news

The Gospel message is radical, so radical that we are afraid to share it. So we replace it with one that makes more human sense. Rob Lacey brings it out powerfully. Section entitled, “Smelly Feet”.

“Two guys, right? Both up to their hairlines in debt... The creditors cancel both accounts. They now have a clear credit rating. Which of the two will be more grateful? … The one with the bigger debt written off. And Jesus goes on to talk about the woman who is smothering his feet in kisses, etc – clear evidence that she was released from loads of debt. She is “forgiven”. Your mess is cleaned up. You're straightened out and sorted in God's books. The only further comment from Jesus: Your trust has got you through this. Walk away content.”

God cleans up mess. God straightens people out. All people? In Jesus' story the reason the creditor cancels both accounts is that neither can even get close to paying off their debt. He doesn't, for example, send them off to permanent penal pain because they are unable to pay off their debts. No, he cancels the debts. When it comes to us and God Jesus clearly states that some have a huge debt cancelled (and they are hugely grateful). But: “for someone who's done little wrong, we're right down the other end of the spectrum – not that grateful really!” Some huge debts, some tiny debts. Jesus recognises that some are worse “sinners” than others – and all have fallen short. And so all debts are cancelled, all are forgiven.

Does this apply to everyone, or just some? If just some, what are the criteria? The only clue given is Jesus parting shot: “Your trust has got you through this.” She trusted Jesus. Meaning? Presumably meaning that she recognised that she could not sort out her mess on her won, that Jesus had God's authority to sort out mess (“forgive”) and her foot-washing act demonstrated some kind of penitence. That is, she had a desire to be right with God, and not “shove the mess behind the sofa”.

So Jesus is probably not saying, “Increase your debt as much as you can, so that you will enjoy the release of so much more forgiveness,” but rather, “However huge your debt, if/when you come to your senses and want to sort it out with God, don't be afraid – he will sort out your mess and straighten you out.”

This is good news. “You're heading for permanent penal pain unless you do this or that,” is bad news – and also misses the point.

I am a communist

Yesterday I visited ВДНХ in Moscow. ВДНХ is packed full of soviet idealism – as these pictures suggest. If the ideals were so great, what went wrong? The ideal of striving together for a better future, moving forward together, progress together, equity, fairness, justice, whereby all would have enough and resources would not be hoarded by a few – why did it so spectacularly fail?

1. Firstly it was brought in by violence and it continued to live by violence. Blood was on the hands of the soviets from the very first day. You cannot bring about a society of freedom and equality by force. Striving for a better future together – yes but. Providing sufficient food and resources for all – yes but. Such things can only be achieved by the glad cooperation of all, not by force. Freedom by force doesn’t work.

2. Secondly, why did the soviets throw God out? Didn’t they realize that God is on the side of the poor, the upholder of the weak, oppressed and downtrodden. Why didn’t they enlist his support in their strivings for justice and equality? Well, unfortunately the church had sided with the oppressor. Church went arm in arm with the Tsarist State and no one would have guessed that God was the defender of the weak and the protector of the downtrodden. The church had identified with the oppressor and so the soviet idealists ditched the church along with the rest of the old corrupt system, and of course God was thrown out too. No one realized that God was redeemable, that he is King of the Broken.

3. Thirdly, the soviets seemed to not appreciate beauty. There’s a case for arguing (as I did in 1991) that they deliberately tarnished the natural beauty God had created, and tried to create a beauty of their own – massive buildings, broad roads, spacious parks. In the late Tsarist period beauty was the luxury of the rich, the privilege of the oppressor. Out with the oppressor, out with his beauty – like God, the proverbial baby was thrown out with the dirty bathwater.

4. Fourthly, the selfishness of man was not taken into account. Not everyone wanted to work for the common good. Some were just out for no.1. An ideal state of equity and justice can only be reached with people who live up to those ideals. And while some (one likes to think many) of the early soviets really believed that their communistic ideals were achievable, sufficient numbers of others were opportunistic and/or selfish.

Think RBM. Impact statement: “A just and equal society for all.” But the ‘outcomes’ set for achieving that impact get it completely wrong:
1) Bring about a revolution, violent if need be (and it probably does need to be) in which the oppressor is toppled.
2) Banish belief in God because God and his church are part of the system of oppression.
3) Don’t waste precious resources on beauty; people don’t need things to be beautiful, they need them to be utilitarian.
4) In order to bring about our new society of justice and equality those who are opposed to it (and who are therefore opposed to justice and equality) must be eliminated.

I am a communist. I embrace the goal, the impact statement of a just and equal society for all. But I do not espouse the route the soviets took. If change is not peaceful the oppressed simply become the oppressor – and that is what happened. I recognise that God is King of the Broken, and so I harness his support. Beauty is important, people need it to bring esthetic quality to their lives. Those who are opposed to the new society – love them. Melt them with the warmth of the sun; blowing a howling gale around them will just make them cling to their opposition more tightly. But as I look at those communist ideals, they resonate with me. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth just as it is in heaven.

A Psalm of Michael

I was glad when they said to me,
Let us go to the house of the Lord
Let us gather together in the name of our God
Let us rejoice together and celebrate the life that we have together in him.

How I long for the house of my God
Where the joy and laughter of the saints
Mingle with the heights and depths of coming before your throne
In awe and love and worship

There it is spring.
New life blossoms; beauty and flowers are all around.
Here it is winter.
The land is held in an icy grip; there is no together.

O my God, I long for you, I thirst for you
And I know that I do not need the community of worship
In order to find you…
But you are present in the praises of your people

You are present too in the wide open spaces
In the hills and forests, in all you have made, in me
And I can find you, new depths of you
As I wait and seek and long and thirst in exile here

But still – the psalmist was glad very glad to join the community of worship
The New Testament church reveled in the joy of meeting together
Down the ages the church, the gathering together of the people of God,
Has been the source of nurture and strength, sustenance and support.

Show me heaven! Show me the community of worship!
But like the psalmist I will rest and be at peace
You send forth your light and truth to guide me
My hope is in God.

Take these broken wings...

Kyrie eleison. Take these broken wings and let them fly again…

Michael, son of Arthur, do you love me more than these – these other things that clutter up your life and take you away from me? Yes, Jesus, you know everything – all the details of all this rubbish that clutters up my life. And you know that I love you, that I love you more than I love this junk. Then lead my people in the Bible translation movement; let the peoples know that I love them, that I have compassion on them, that I forgive them. Follow me. So Lord, take these broken wings – my broken strength, my broken vision, my broken imagination, my misuse of time and resources – and let me fly again, on the wind which is your breath, your spirit. Like the red kite soaring on the currents. Take my fish (which I can only catch when directed by you), add them to your fish, and let’s have breakfast together. Free to soar, free to serve, free to free others.

Just suppose...

Just suppose there is a God. And just suppose he created this universe for a purpose. And let’s imagine that he created humankind as part of that purpose. Now let’s be really reckless in our imagination and suppose that God loves us; in fact that he created us so that we could enjoy a relationship of love with him; him loving us and us loving him. Now let’s imagine that God is at work even now in the world, and it is his desire for humankind to partner with him in that work; that work of spreading his love, his beauty, his truth, his wisdom…

If that were true, what would be the most important thing for us as humans to be doing? Let’s just suppose, let’s just imagine that all that were actually true. How would I respond? How would you respond? What ought we to be doing?

Listening.

If God is God, and God is love, and God is at work, and God wants to partner with you and me in his work, the absolutely most important and most vital and crucial thing for us to being doing is listening to God, so that we will see where he is moving, what he is doing, how he wants us to partner in what he is doing; to be in tune with the movement of his Spirit to be moving to the tune of his Spirit.

But of course we don’t have time for that. We have our plans to manage, our goals to accomplish, our impact to make, our activities to get done, our emails to write, our meetings to rush off to, our funds to raise, our ministry to fulfil.

And because we don’t have time for listening we have grown unaccustomed to knowing how to listen – if we knew in the first place, that is. How do I listen to God? How do I detect and recognise his voice? Unless I stop. And find out how to recognise his voice, and actually listen to God, I am like a bull in God’s china shop, rushing around with all my grandiose plans and goals and impacts and activities.

This world is God’s china shop. He created it with sensitivity and beauty, with life and vivacity. He wants to partner with us, the stewards whom he has appointed to look after it and everything in it, everyone in it. But sorry, God, I don’t have time for that. I’ve got my three-year goals to manage.

But don’t worry. Perhaps there isn’t a God after all, or if there is he isn’t concerned about us, he doesn’t love us, he doesn’t have plans for the world which he wants us to be part of. Perhaps we’ve got carried away in our imagination, and whatever religious creed we give lip-service to, to all intents and purposes we’re just a bunch of atheists.

Looking for an interpreter of dreams...

Here is the dream. I want an interpretation...

Teija and I are going for a walk. But I keep realising things I’ve forgotten, and so we turn back home. The front door leads straight into the living room, where three men (somehow part of the family) are watching TV. They turn it off as we enter, maybe as if they do not want us to know what they were watching. I go upstairs. There is a young girl on the landing at the top of the stairs, close to my bedroom door. She shows me that the little door up to the attic/roof space is open, would I like to go up there with her. I tell her that first I must pop into my room. I pop into my room and out of the corner of my eye notice a figure pressed up against the wall behind the door. I go back for a second look. I realise that this figure is out to get me, catch me, defeat me. But on this occasion the element of surprise is on my side, and because of that he is fairly small, and I grab him and start to flap him up and down, beating him. As I do so I exclaim something (which I cannot remember) and Teija wakes me up.

Don't look for the living in the place of the dead

Easter Sunday! I want to celebrate the risen Jesus with joy!

And so I go to church. It was horrible. The screen said "Welcome!" - but the people certainly didn't. The presenter woffles on about joy and prays, and gives the notices, and says a bit more about joy - and then eventually we get to the first hymn: a ghastly Victorian number, and if you happen to be in possession of a hymn book you can sing along. We are accompanied by a piano and a soloist.

After the hymn the soloist and his pianist launch into their own programme... Give me back Lutheran hymns, all is forgiven, even 16th century Lutheran hymns! We had to suffer a performance by a male opera singer accompanied by a pompous theatrical piano. We, the congregation, were nothing but audience - and the show was ghastly.

So when the children left, so did I. But not to be put off, I press on to another church, arriving 45 minutes late, but never mind.

The atmosphere was far more modest, no pomposity or theatrical performance. In time for a dirge-like hymn - but at least they provided the words. Then the sermon: Easter joy, etc. But where was the said joy? He quoted the line from the Easter narrative, "Don't look for the living in the place of the dead." And I realized I'd made the same mistake. I was looking for the living in the place of the dead. Both churches paid lip-service to joy but neither church showed evidence of joy. The service concluded with a hymn and - horror of horrors - it was the same hymn as the first church had had. One up on the first church: they provided the words. But they sang it so slowly; a funeral dirge would have been fast in comparison. And the only accompaniment: a veteran organist.

I won't return to either of those churches in a hurry. I want life! I want joy! I need to look for the living in the place of the living. Just need to find where that place of the living is.