How Can A Loving God NOT Send People to Hell?

Fair warning, I'm going to talk about Nazis.

I say that, not because it's controversial, but because this is the Internet, and Reductio ad Hitlerum is a thing that I'd like not to be accused of.


"How can a loving God send people to Hell?" is a question that is often asked by Atheists, Agnostics, and let's face it, many Christians as well. It's not a bad question, but I do think it's the wrong question to ask.

I've been reading Eric Metaxas' excellent biography on Detrich Bonhoeffer. I've been engrossed by it for months. It's a great book and it paints the average German living in Nazi Germany in a completely new light, you should read it. One passage caught my attention tonight:

"On the positive side of things, Heydrich was dead. At the end of May, the albino stoat had been ambushed by Czech Resistance fighters while he was riding in his open-topped Mercedes. Eight days later, the architect of the Final Solution fell into the hands of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

The Heydrich he's referring to is Reinhard Heydrich, One of the cheif architects of the Final Solution and the Holocaust. This guy was about as evil as you can get. He's on par with Herr Hitler himself.

Which brings me to the question: "How can a loving God send people to Hell?" It's hard to answer that when talking about your Great Aunt Betty who may have been a lovely woman, but happened to be an Atheist, but easy to answer when talking about such overtly evil men like our friend Heydrich. On the one hand: "She lived a good life, raised good, law-abiding kids and would never hurt a fly. She's in a better place." on the other: "Um...Nazi inner circle...go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass "Gehen" do not collect 200 "deutschmarks". I have yet to meet a reasonable person who thinks anyone involved in Nazi High command should be in Heaven because "God is love"


Why the disparity?

If God is too good and too loving to let Betty fall into Hell why does He suddenly draw a line at genocide? Is that where God draws the line? What about mass murder? A single murder? Manslaughter? Negligence causing death? Attempted murder? I could go on.

We have something in common, believe it or not. The "How can a loving God send people to Hell?" crowd and the "Hell is hot, forever is a long time, repent and turn to Jesus." crowd. We all believe, whether you admit it or not, that God has to draw a line somewhere; has to say: "You, welcome to my Kingdom!" and "YOU! OUT OF MY SIGHT!" Otherwise, when we get there, we'll see Heydrich and Golda Meir in the same room...

Awkward...

The difference comes in where we draw said line. Christians believe it to be anything short of prefection, that's why Jesus needed to be incarnated on Earth. To live that life, in our place, and give us the credit while He took the punishment. That's why we love Jesus.

Every sane, rational person believes that there are some people who deserve Hell. The difference between them and Christians, is we think that list includes us.

Thank God for Jesus.

Christopher Hitchens and the Glory of God's Mercy

 

     Christopher Hitchens is dead. He died yesterday (Dec 15 2011). He was an Atheist; a loud one. He was 62. He was an author, and a father and a husband; in that order it seems.

If the name and picture don't ring a bell, he's known for saying (with an English accent) things like:

"My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilisation, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either."

and

“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”

and

“Thus, though I dislike to differ with such a great man, Voltaire was simply ludicrous when he said that if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. The human invention of god is the problem to begin with.”

    I respect the man for being vocal about his beliefs (though he wouldn't have called them that) and I can even admire him for the veracity with which he kept them, but there's a section of his Globe and Mail obituary that caught my attention:

"In response to Mr. Hitchens’s outspoken and steadfast atheism, the faithful clamoured to the heavens, organizing prayer groups and even going so far as to designate Sept. 20, 2010, as Pray for Hitchens Day.

Don’t bother, unless it makes you feel better, he told the devout, insisting that he wouldn’t recant his atheism so long as he was lucid and rational. And he issued a plea asking people to forgive him if he did make a deathbed conversion, arguing that if such a thing happened, it wouldn’t be him speaking but a “half-demented” entity racked by pain and riddled with drugs."

     It's his desire to be forgiven by his friends if he recants his Atheism, that gave me pause. It's almost as though he's leaving the possibility for such a conversion... open?  That can't be right, the man was one of the most fervent and outspoken of Atheists yet here he is making a theological statement?

     Hitchens saw the possibility of recanting Atheism and espousing God, if he were "half-demented", drugged up, and in incredible pain. He saw the possibility. What if the Holy Spirit was starting to get to him? Would such a conversion be valid? Could it be? Many would say that it would only be an attempt by Hitchens to "hedge his bets" perhaps as an extreme version of Pascal's wager. Theological misunderstandings of Blaise Pascal aside, what if Hitchens' (hypothetical) conversion was legitimate?

     I have said this many times: the question eternal destination for any person is out of my pay grade. I am not the Lord. I know though, that God gives Grace to the humble though he opposes the proud.

     What if that's really what it took to humble Christopher Hitchens, esophageal cancer, his own death, great pain? What if it happened?

      What if he believed?

     Then I'd have a new brother, that's what.

I hope I do.

Thankful for Grace
-Kevin

Muammar Gaddafi And The Image Of God.

"When we break down, it all breaks down. That's just how it works. You can bend it, and if you make it hot enough you can bend it in a circle, but you can't break it. When you break it, it all breaks down until there's nothing unbroken. It starts here and now."

                                                                                     -His Grace Sir Samuel Vimes
                                                                                                            "Night Watch"

     I don't have a lot of faith in the new Libya. It's a country that I have a certain affinity for. In high school, I was a Libyan representative in the security council of our Model UN. I learned all about Gaddafi; I was his representative. (I won second place) So when I heard that Libya was in an uprising during the recent Arab Spring I kept an eye on the news. Don't get me wrong, I sided with the Libyan freedom fighters (history is unlikley to remember them as rebels I think) like the rest of the world. Gaddafi WAS a despot, he WAS an autocrat. He called down air strikes on unarmed civillians; hard to root for a guy like that.

     There's another thing that Muammar Gaddafi was though; an image bearer of God. Gaddafi WAS a man, he WAS human, this means he was created by God and bore His image (albeit poorly) on this earth. That simple fact means that he was entitled to something he didn't receive at his death: dignity. The reports comming in of Gadaffi's death, or rather the way he died are sketchy at best. It'll be a while before we get the true story if ever. Stories vary wildly, but video that has surfaces on the internet show Gaddafi being manhandled, beaten, dragged, stripped, and stabbed. There is even a story floating around that he was sodomized with a combat knife. His last words were allegedly: "Don't shoot" then he was shot.

      Don't shoot...he had surrendered, he had lost. It's hard to write this post. It's hard to plead mercy for someone like Muammar Gaddafi, but Sir Samuel up there is right, when we break down, when we become the beast we are fighting, it all breaks down. The new Libya could have risen above Gaddafi, by giving him the dignity he didn't give others. Offering the mercy he didn't. Proven that they are not him by being better to him. They failed though, the new country must begin it's history with a black eye. I think it's sad, they're not in an insurmountable position, but they could have started better.

     This raises a new question, how ought we, as Christians, respond to the death of Muammar Gaddafi? Can we rejoice with the end of his regime and be saddened at his treatment? is that the only appropriate response? We all bear God's image in this world and not a single one of us deserves to. Is this the real problem of evil? Not "why does an omnipotent God allow evil" but How do Go's children respond to evil in the world?

     I read a story this week, about Henry Tandy. He spared a young German lance corporal's life in WWI. This is not uncommon, but that lance corporal grew up to become Adolf Hitler. I was conflicted about this story and wondered if his decision to save a nameless man's life ever ate at Tandey. My wife reminded me that mercy is always the better choice. 

     I don't have all the answers, I'm not even sure there are any, but it's times like these I really can pray "How long Oh Lord, will the wicked gloat? How long until You make all things new?"

-Kevin

Sermon text 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

            So, good morning.  I'll be working out of 1Corinthians 9:19-23, though I will bounce around a bit. For now though, let's just read this one together

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

            What are some things that traditionally, stereotypically, Christians can't or don't do? (pause for responses)

            There's a rhyme in the more conservative baptist circles that I travel in: “We don't drink, we don't chew and we don't go with girls that do.” It's an archaic expression, but it still rings with truth. Christians don't drink, we don't smoke, or chew and we don't swear. At last that's the stereotype. I know I don't live up to the expectations that many people I come into contact with have of me once they find out that I'm a Christian. I'm a beer snob, which means, obviously, that I drink beer. I smoked a cigar with my uncles when my daughter was born, and much to my own shame, I'd be lying if I said I never swore though I usually do it in French...because fewer people understand me then....When I'm visiting Quebec, I suppose I'll have to switch to English.

            So what Paul here is talking about is how Christians are to behave around people who are not Christians. We're going to look at these all, but let's start off with the one Paul knew the most about.

To the Jews I became like a Jew:

            This first category wasn't all that difficult for Paul since he was, ethnically, Jewish. So for Paul to “Become Jewish” wouldn't have been a big deal because to most of the Jews of the day, he was. He was already Jewish. He was Hebrew. Now the difference comes in the book of Acts when Paul wants to take Timothy, a Greek, and Paul's student out with him on a missionary journey where they would be interacting and ministering to Jews. Timothy, because he was Greek before converting to Christianity, was never circumcised. Now Paul is known in other places in scripture to be adamant that circumcision is not necessary to be a Christian. He goes so far in the book of Galatians as to encourage those that do believe you need circumcision to just go ahead, finish the job and castrate themselves! So it should come as no surprise to anyone, that in this case, Timothy WAS circumcised!

Wait...what?

            So Paul is adamant that circumcision is not necessary yet Timothy is circumcised just to appease the Jews on the journey? Why the double standard? Because there's a difference between can, and must. See the pressure that was coming from Galatia was coming from other Christians who had been Jews and now wanted all new Christians to be circumcised as well, because they believed that you must be a part of the old covenant in order to be a part of the new one. They were adding circumcision to the Gospel, to the completed and complete work of Jesus. In Timothy's case, both Paul and Timothy knew and understood that whether or not Timothy was circumcised did nothing to change or improve his standing with God but they did know that as a gentile,  his status would bar him from many opportunities within the Jewish community, even if he was travelling with Paul. So he went ahead and got circumcised, because he could, not because he had to. Timothy flexed, and gave up some of his rights, and freedoms o that he might have the opportunity to teach the Gospel.

To those under the Law, I became as one under the law

            So right now the guys in the room are probably wondering how many more times I'm going to say “that word” this morning, and I think, or now at least, I'm done with it. So I'll move on to another topic, one that we men will enjoy a bit more, I think, meat. So it's a new school year at Heritage, where I went to college, and the kids will have probably, by now, moved into residence. I can almost guarantee you, that at some pint in the next eight months, this question will be thrown around in dorm, probably at 3am: Is it appropriate for a Christian to eat Kosher or Halal meat? On the surface it seems like a pretty simple question, Acts 10 effectively changed all of the dietary laws so that Christians are free to eat any animal which is great because I am glad God made pigs out of bacon. In the next chapter, Paul explicitly says that we can, as Christians eat food sacrificed to idols because we know that that idol is just a thing that was created by God and made into an idol by man. After all, if a man builds a statue of Athena, or Molech, or any other god, who made he wood? Who created the metal? God did.  But only four verses earlier, Paul says that to eat food that is sacrificed to idols is to share in the worship of demons! Not to mention that in Matthew 15 Jesus Himself says that it doesn't matter what you eat because it's what comes out of the mouth that matters, not what goes into it!

            So can I eat the Halal cutlets or not? Maybe, because again, there is a difference between can and must. If it's just me, and Cody, sure, eat the halal, though I don't know why, it's more expensive and tastes more or less the same. But let me ask you this, would you have a beer with an alcoholic? Of course not, that's irresponsible. Now, would you eat halal with an ex Muslim who is now a Christian and may have reservations about eating what he may consider to be food sacrificed to an idol? Moving on. But if someone comes up to me and says that all Christians can not eat halal and be Christian, geuss what I'm having for lunch. (laughter?) And I’m not being a smart alek. They are adding to the completed work and sufficiency of Jesus and the Gospel.

To those outside the Law.

            Now here is where we can get tripped up. Because this is where people get the idea of Christian freedom all messed up. Some people hear “outside the law” and think it's a moral carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name of “evangelism”. The problem with this is that there's no limit. To the drunk I became a drunk, To the adulterer, I became an adulterer, to the child molester, I became a child molester? No. Brothers and sisters, this is not what Christian freedom is. Christian freedom is the freedom to do ALL things to the glory of God because when you're a Christian, your desires should only be to glorify God. Not that any of us are perfect, we all fail in many ways at many times, but when we are talking about Christian freedom and the law of Christ; we talk about the freedom to do anything we want because all we want do to is glorify the Father. Because there's a difference between can and must. Just because I can exercise my freedom here, doesn't mean I must nor does it mean that by exercising it I glorify God. Besides, when Paul talks about those outside the Law, he's not talking about criminals, he's talking about people outside the law of Moses, he's talking about Gentiles, non-Jews he's talking about you and me.

To the Weak I became weak

            Last group. To the weak I became weak in order to win the weak. Does that sound really strange to anyone else besides me? When you're trying to present something to someone who is weak, you want to come at it from a position of strength don't you? You don't want to appear weak to the weak so that the weak don't trust you do you? You want to have it together so that the weak say “Wow, look at him, he's strong, I want what he has.” Paul says no, to the weak, become weak to win the weak from out of their weakness. So who are the weak here? Well that's the beautiful thing about the continuity of this passage. See, where the top two categories are Jews and God-fearers, that is Ethnic Jews and uncircumcised gentiles who have converted to Judaism; The second two sections are Gentiles (those not under the Law) and the weak. These weak ones are different than the weak in chapter 8, in that they are not Christians, we know that because Paul says he still wants to win them. These weak ones are probably the kind of people we see here in churches today, they come to church, they have good morals, and they're really uncomfortable with other religions, but they're not Christians yet. They're like the people who show up on Christmas and Easter, or Republicans. They’re not Christians so much as they are “religious”

I have become all things to all people...

            Do you see what Paul is doing here? He's gathering together ALL people for the Gospel! The Jews, Those under the Law, who were probably God-fearers and Jewish by religion and not ethnicity, and those not under the Law, the gentiles and the weak ones. That's everyone! I have become ALL things to ALL people that by ALL means I might save some. Paul is saying what I hope by now is rather obvious. The methods you use in ministry to get the gospel out are flexible, and it's you that does the flexing. YOU flex, don’t water down the message, but tailor it to your audience. And here's why Paul even says it.

Participate in the Gospel

            Paul says “I do it all for the sake of the Gospel” and most English translations here probably read “that I may share in it's blessings” or something similar. I learned something, however, when I was researching this sermon, that the original Greek is a little more ambiguous and translates literally to “That I might participate in it.” so: “ I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I might participate in it.” and what is participating in the Gospel all about if not all about doing what Jesus himself did and identifying with those he came to save. Jesus, the second part of the trinity, God, from eternity past perfectly holy, perfectly righteous, comes down to earth to identify with us. To the Humans, I became a human in order to save humanity. And not only become human, Jesus identifies with us so much He went as far as the cross, dying our death in our place to save some of us. I know that there are a lot of things that River City does to help you identify and be able to communicate the truth of this Gospel to the people around you. To help equip you to explain the story of the God who identified with us. We just finished a series on movies, and film, and how the stories we watch and are entertained by fit into the Biblical story. And I hope that you see that not just as light summer church fare because there's fewer people around in the summer, but take it as an opportunity to challenge yourself and grow as a Christian. Think of areas you may need to flex when it comes to the Gospel. Ask yourself what all things to all people looks like to you, and how can you live out the call that God has placed on your life as well as mine. Let's pray

Covenant Faithfullness According to Dr. Dre and Eminem

     


     I've had this song in my head for a few weeks now, It's "I Need a Doctor" from Dr. Dre's "Detox" album. It's a three verse ballad (can I call a rap song a ballad?) featuring Eminem in the first two verses and Dre in the last with Skylar Grey providing the melodic chorus. I've reproduced the lyrics here censoring the coarser language for our more discerning readers.

[Chorus - Skylar Grey]

I'm about to lose my mind
you've been gone for so long
I'm running out of time
I need a doctor
call me a doctor
I need a doctor, doctor
to bring me back to life

[Eminem]
I told the world one day I would pay it back
say it on tape, and lay it, record it
so that one day I could play it back
but I don't even know if I believe it when I'm saying that
doubt starting to creep in, everyday it's just so grey and black
Hope - I just need a ray of that
'Cause no one sees my vision when I play it for 'em
They just say it's wack
they don't know what dope is
and I don't know if I was awake or asleep
when I wrote this,
all I know is you came to me when I was at my lowest
you picked me up, breathed new life in me
I owe my life to you
but for the life of me, I don't see why you don't see like I do
but it just dawned on me you lost a son
demons fighting you, it's dark.
let me turn on the lights and brighten me and enlighten you
I don't think you realize what you mean to me
not the slightest clue
'Cause me and you were like a crew
I was like your sidekick
you gon either wanna fight me when I get off this f******g mic
or you gon hug me
But I'm out of options, there's nothing else I can do 'cause

[Chorus - Skylar Grey]
I'm about to lose my mind
you've been gone for so long
I'm running out of time
I need a doctor
call me a doctor
I need a doctor, doctor
to bring me back to life

[Eminem]
It hurts when I see you struggle
you come to me with ideas
You say they're just pieces so I'm puzzled
'Cause the s**t I hear is crazy
But you're either getting lazy or you don't believe in you no more
seems like your own opinion's not one you can form
Can't make a decision you keep questioning yourself
Second guessing and it's almost like you're begging for my help
like I'm your leader
your supposed to f******g be my mentor
I can endure no more,
I demand you remember who you are
it was you who believed in me
when everyone was telling you don't sign me
Everyone at the f******g label, let's tell the truth
you risked your career for me
I know it as well as you
nobody wanted to f**k with the white boy
Dre, I'm crying in this booth
You saved my life, now maybe it's my turn to save yours
but I can never repay you, what you did for me is way more
but I ain't giving up faith and you ain't giving up on me
Get up Dre, I'm dying, I need you, come back for f**k's sake 'cause

[Chorus - Skylar Grey]
I'm about to lose my mind
you've been gone for so long
I'm running out of time
I need a doctor
call me a doctor
I need a doctor, doctor
to bring me back to life
bring me back to life
bring me back to life

(I need a doctor, doctor
to bring me back to life)

[Dr Dre]
It literally feels like a lifetime ago
but I still remember the s**t like it was just yesterday though
you walked in, yellow jump suit
whole room, cracked jokes
once you got inside the booth, told you, like smoke
went through friends, some of them I put on
but they just left, they said they was riding to the death
But where the f**k are they now?
now that I need them, I don't see none of them
all I see is Slim
f**k all you fair-weather friends
all I need is him
f******g backstabbers
when the chips were down you just laughed at us
Now you 'bout to feel the f******g wrath of Aftermath, f******s
you gon see us in our lab jackets and ask us where the f**k we been?
You can kiss my indecisive a******k, maggots, and the cracker's a**
Little Cracker Jack, beat-making w******s backwards producers
I'm back, b******s
one more CD and then I'm packing up my bags and as I'm leaving
I'll guarantee they scream, Dre don't leave us like that man 'cause

[Chorus - Skylar Grey]
I'm about to lose my mind
you've been gone for so long
I'm running out of time
I need a doctor
call me a doctor
I need a doctor, doctor
to bring me back to life

     I love this song, I have loved it since I first heard it, I bought it on iTunes, learned the lyrics, sing along. But there was something else about this song, something that got to me at a deep spiritual level, it reminded me of something, of someone.

It reminded me of David and Jonathan.

     The storylines and narratives of these two groups of men's lives certainly have nothing in common, but what struck me was the depth of commitment between Eminem and Dr. Dre, how they have covenanted with each other, seen each other through both good and bad.

    This all got me thinking about something I think about often: Christians and Media. Can the redeemed learn from the world? I've been of the belief that we can, and should learn and seek to connect and understand worldly events, people and even art in relation to biblical metanarrative.

     How many of us would give almost anything to have the kind of deep, intimate friendship that David and Jonathan had or that Eminem and Dr Dre have? This song gives me shivers in certain sections because of the feelings of hopelessness and devastation that come with the loss of a friend who may not come back. Eminem pleads for the life of his friend: "Get up Dre, I'm dying, I need you, come back for f**k's sake!"

     Not only does Eminem plead for his friend's life, he has the courage to tell Dre like it is even though the truth will hurt. You can almost put a scripture reference at the end of the first verse. (Proverbs 27:6)

     We can learn about friendship and covenant from David and Jonathan.
     We can learn about friendship and covenant from Eminem and Dr Dre.


-Kevin

What the Church can Learn From AA

I went to an AA meeting a couple of weeks ago. No, I am not an alcoholic, and no I didn't crash some random meeting. I went to an AA meeting this weekend because of my father. He was receiving his medallion for being sober for a year. For an alcoholic, the one year medallion is a big deal, the whole meeting was about my dad. I'm proud of my father, and I'm happy and grateful that he has come this far, but this post is not about dad, it's about what I learned, and what I think the Church can learn from AA.
During the meeting, one of the men my dad asked to speak for him read the 12 traditions of AA, and what got me was the tenth and eleventh ones:

"Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy."
"Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films."

What if the church did this? What if we shut down the media blitzes, and the PR, and the battling bus ads and just lived attractionaly and stayed away from controversy? What if we could say:

"The Church has no opinion on outside issues; hence the Christian name ought never be drawn into public controversy."
"The Church's public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films."

Before you immediately disagree with me on the first one "Of course the church has an opinion on outside issues! the world is full of SIN!" (One may say) consider these two items. 1) Sin is not an outside issue, but is at the core of Christianity and what we believe. 2) Why do we insist on discussing and denouncing the moral actions of people who are not Christian? Is it not a waste of time? Did Jesus not die precisely because our moral acts can not and will not stand up to the Father's expectations? It is inappropriate to talk about morality until after we talk about the Gospel.

But what about the second statement? don't we need promotion and flashy ads for the church today in this consumeristic product-driven culture? Sure, if you're selling a product. Sure, if you want to compete with the World. Simple truth is, the Church will never be able to compete with the advertising world. We'll never be the Old Spice Guy, or Diamond Shreddies (If you didn't get this in the States Google it, brilliant campaign) and that's fine, we have something that consumerism and fads will never have, staying power. Jesus died 1972 years ago (give or take) and His Church has stood up to (and thrived in) ridiculous persecution and out and out wars to kill it. So why don't we just do what we do best, preach Christ, teach the Gospel and leave morality of unbelievers to Philosophers.

With Love For The Church
-Kevin

Valhalla vs. Heaven

 

     I watched a video today over at Vimeo, called "The Saga of Biorn" It's a cool little short about this old Viking named Biorn (above) and his quest to die in battle and gain entry into Valhalla. Theology and mythology aside, it's a fun, well done, entertaining, and funny short film.

     What really got me though, was the ending. (I'm going to ruin it here, so go watch it first, no, seriously, it's only seven minutes long. Go) Ok, funny right? and that thing with the wheel when he gets buried by the nuns? Classic. Seriously though, what struck me about this was the depiction of heaven.

     See in the short, heaven is this bland, boring and lame. It's where nuns literally stand aroung doing nothing, wearing their halos. Valhalla on the other hand is a fun, wild party. The message is clear. Nuns go to heaven, men go to Valhalla.

     Is this how we see heaven? As a culture? Harps, lyres and all that jazz (but no Jazz - Elevator music)? That's how I saw it for a long time. Then I went through an ascetic phase, where I was planning on prostrating myself before the Lord for all of eternity. Neither of those things are very appealing to us now. Then I realized that there will be a new earth as well as a new heaven.and God has always wanted us to enjoy and shepherd His creation, heaven may not be the debauchery of Valhalla, but it will be a party.

-Kevin

Spineless Small-groups, Sycophants and Shallow Saved Sinners

     So, the other day, Twitter showed me this article written by Brian Jones over at the Christian Standard about Small groups and why they (essentially) don't work. The argument is that 90% of all church small groups only ever produce is self confident believers but not missional disciples. The artilce stresses the weakpoints of what I will call "Organized Community" that is, small groups that are organized and you sign up for. these have become pretty standard in evangelical churches. I have personally been a part of about four of these types of groups; two of those, I have led. The one thread that I have realised is that the article is right. Small groups, in an overwhelming majority of cases do nothing or next to nothing to make disciples. Which is a shame, because the heart of Christianity is community and loving others, but that can't be manufactured, it has to be real. The best growth I've seen in my own life has been accidental. 2am conversations in Bible College, impromptu prayer meetings, and the breakfast club that a few close friends and I started a few months ago. Those breakfast meetings are real, we share eachother's burdens, pray for each other, share our successes and failures and fears.

     I'd love to expand on this, but there's nothing I can add to what Jones says. He nailed it.

-Kevin

-edit-

     I have been taught not to complain about something unless you have a solution to offer as well, so here is mine,  let's place less emphasis on small groups the way they are, namley a leader, in a chair, with a curriculum. let us instead preach and teach the value of intentional community and individual growth and discipleship. Followers of Christ need to take responsibility of their own part in the process of sanctification, not to minimize the work of the Spirit, but if we are not open to Him, His words will fall on deaf ears.

With love for Christ and His church
-Kevin

Only The Good...

Recently, Pastor Mark Driscoll preached on the calling of the twelve apostles in Luke 6. In one of the key sections of that sermon, he encourages Christians to: "Die with your boots on" The gist of this is:

You're either going to go out like Judas or Jesus—that's how your life is going to end. You're going to go out like Jesus, faithful to the end, whatever the cost, or you're going to go out like Judas, prematurely, tragically, rebelliously, shamefully. I want you to keep your boots on, finish strong, run your race, see it through to the end, be a completer, a finisher, a closer of the things God has given you to do.

He goes on to describe how both tradition and history describe the deaths of nine of the apostles. The full text is available here.

I say this now because it is fitting on a couple of levels. A good friend of mine from college, Craig Simmons and his wife Kristin were in South Korea teaching ESL and living out the great commission. On June 9, Craig was walking home and was hit by a bus. The next week was filled with an outpouring of love, prayer and faithful facebook updates, keeping everyone in the loop. Despite apparent improvement in his condition, this past Tuesday (June 16) Craig Simmons died with his boots on. The reason that the Driscoll sermon is so fitting is that Craig introduced me to Driscoll's ministryback in my first year of Bible College. I owe a lot of owe a lot of who I am to the Spirit's work through Craig.

I miss my friend, and I grieve with his wife and with the friends and family who miss him more than I ever could, but I can't help but be reminded of Philippians 1:21. I know this too, not every man is blessed enough to die with their boots on, and one day, I will see my friend again, I can only pray that I get there with a set of boots too.

Well done buddy
See you soon.

 

Blasphemy?

An interesting thing happenned at work this week.






As a Christian there are things I, as a rule, don't say and certain things I won't say; blasphemy being one of the latter. Colossians 3:5-8 speaks on this directly when it talks about obscene talk, and so, as a Christian who believes the Bible, I seek to follow Paul's instruction by God's Grace.

The problem comes when we ignore the context and audience of this passage. The book is actually a letter written by the Apostle Paul to a church in Colossae; it's written to Christians. Paul is giving instruction on living to Christians. Why is it then that we (as Christians) get offended or freak out when a non-Christian does something that is in contradiction to these instructions? If a Brother or Sister gets frustrated and says something like "oh for christsakes!" we have a right (duty) to lovingly correct them, just like any other sin.  Why is it then that we get so upset when someone who is not a believer does the same thing? Yes, it's blasphemy, and it is sinful to take God's name in vain this isn't news to us, but guess what, blaspheming is the least of these people's problems. They're going to hell because they haven't repented of sin (all of it) and placed faith in Christ. They already have the judgement of God on them, what more could our reaction possibly add?

All we are communicating is God's anger, we're not communicating God's grace at all. When we show our overt displeasure at the language of our friends, we're preaching morality, not Gospel. Works, not Grace. At this point, I'm not concerned with the state of your tongue, but the state of your soul.

-Kevin

Manhood ReLaunched?

Those of you who know me in the real world know that I have a thing about gender roles, I like them. I am of the firm conviction that God created men and women equal, but different and because of that when I saw this ad campaign by Dockers, I had to weigh in...
 

In case you can't read it:

 Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s time to get your hands diry. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. It’s time to WEAR THE PANTS.

The people at Dockers also sponsored this documentary.


The ad has garnered has garnered negative attention from some feminist and women's Lib groups. But in a very real way they hit the nail on the head. If men simply "manned-up" and led as the leaders we were created to be (note: leading and oppressing/being the boss are different things) North american culture wouldn't be nearly as jacked up as it is.

Comments?

James and Media

I was reading in James tonight, and I had to stop in verses 26-27 of the first chapter. It's not often that I have to stop like I did, usually I can finish a book like James in one sitting and then Meditate and think on what I've read. But this section stopped me dead:  

"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

The relevant part is at the end. Christians are called to keep ourselves "unstained" from the world. The language James is using is the same as 1 Peter 1 talking about the sacrificial Lamb being without blemish. this got me thinking (again) about what Christians should and should not partake in when it comes to media.

Pastor James Harleman from Seattle has his own site where he reviews movies that most Christians won't even watch. (reviews available here) he explains why here but a shortened quote may help those who don't want to read the whole thing:

"We are image-bearers of our Creator, a master storyteller whose narrative spans all of creation, a metanarrative in which we all play a part. Made in the image of our Creator, we have a yearning to both create, and be entertained, by narrative"

By connecting "secular" narratives created by that save God-given creativity to the metanarrative of the scriptures, Harleman takes cultural engagement to a new level.The question now is what is acceptable to watch and what is not.

The answer to this comes from Jesus, in Mark 7:15 Jesus says this: “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” Yes, in context, Jesus obviously was not talking about movies or any form of media. The immediate context is food and eating. But the broader context applies directly doesn't it? I'll explain.

I had a conversation with my lovley wife tonight, we were talking about the recent controversy surrounding "South Park". Read about that here. In the end she won't watch South Park and certain other movies because the gratuitous language may cause her (and other good friends of ours who share the same postion) to fall into the same behaviour themselves. I on the other hand am free to watch the show and appreciate the (usually) excellent social commentary without it affecting by behaviour.

What we have here is a basic "weaker brother" situation. Some of us are free to watch things like South Park et al because they woun't blemish us or defile us and some cannot. Because the measure is mot what goes in, but what comes out.


Christianity: we have shades of grey too!


-Kevin

River City Church blogposts pt.1

The following is a post I have posted elsewhere, in addition to my unique work here, I will post these theology posts from the River City blog as they appear.

In the first question we're posting at the River City Church blog, we're dealing with a specific verse and the subject of forgiveness, so let's start with the verse itself and get right into it.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Luke 17: 3-4 ESV


The short answer here is yes…and no, however the short answer is incomplete.



As Christians, this verse calls us to forgive in a way that exceeds the cultural standards. The reason Jesus says: “Forgive seven times” is because in first century Hebrew (Jewish) culture, forgiving three times was honourable.[1] So, Jesus here is telling us to go beyond what is culturally acceptable and forgive completely. So in that regard, forgiveness is not withheld until repentance. This is not the end of the matter, however.
In Christian doctrine, we have two phrases called “Limited Atonement[2]” and “Unlimited Atonement[3]” I won’t bore you with  a long drawn out explanation of each, but the Wikipedia articles on each are pretty good. In a sentence they are this:

Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement  on the cross (His death) is limited in scope to those who are predestined to salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

Unlimited Atonement: Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
Each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses, and good solid evidence can be found for both in Scripture[4].

This has led to a rise in a third position which is relatively new and called “Unlimited Limited Atonement” which Pastor Mark Driscoll describes this way: “By dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect, those in Christ, by grace, and he applies his wrath to the non-elect, those who reject Christ.  Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone and, subjectively, efficient only to save those who repent of their sin and trust in him.  This position is called unlimited limited atonement, or modified Calvinism (Death by Love: Letters from the Cross, pg. 171-172)”





All of that is background so that you understand me when I say this: As Christians, we are called to forgive people just as God has forgiven all of us through His son  Jesus Christ, BUT for that forgiveness to be effective on the person who has sinned themselves, repentance is necessary.

Keep in mind as well that the verse says: “If your brother sins”. The term “brother” in this context is different than “neighbour”. Where neighbour would include all people, the term brother[5] specifically refers to the believing community.

In short, forgiveness is not conditional on repentance from the point of view of the forgiver, but in order for that forgiveness to be effective on or received by the sinner, yes, repentance is necessary.
Yours in Theology
-Kevin Seguin

---

[1] It’s also because seven is the biblical number for “total” or “complete” so Jesus was telling us to “Completely forgive”.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement
[4] Further reading on these terms will lead to discussions on Lapsarianism, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, these discussions are FASCINATING…really…
[5] Which, in context, also includes and could be translated: brother or sister.