"But I don't believe what they believe..." redux

A little over a year ago I posted a piece about the theology of one of the local megachurches - Eternal Punishment and the Local Megachurch in which I questioned whether the member of that church really believe that their "unsaved" neighbors are all going to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

I had a vacation week this week and we were in town on Sunday and attended that church.  The church scene in greater Santa Barbara is dominated by a couple of megachurches and it seems that the individual congregations go in and out of style.  When I speak to the families whose children attend our nursery school and ask whether they're a part of a local religious community, about 1/2 say they attend whatever megachurch is in style at that time.  The church we attended this morning is the in style church now and it showed.  There was a line of cars waiting to get into the parking lot.  The average age was significantly younger than Cambridge Drive and there were scores of pregnant women, toddlers, and kids. The sanctuary was very full.

This morning's experience felt authentic.  I felt the genuineness of the worship leaders and deeply appreciated that.  Signage was poor.  A first time visitor could easily get lost in the shuffle but that is part and parcel of a megachurch.   There were bits of the service that literally made no sense (communion was just weird), but the biggest problem for me was the sermon.  The preacher spoke on John 12:27-33 and said the passage addressed two questions: why did the cross have to happen and what did the cross accomplish.  The sermon was consistent with the statement of faith I read a bit over a year ago.  The woman who spoke (yes, a woman) talked about the purity and justice of God requiring the death penalty and that Jesus "had to suffer for a day so we would not have to suffer for eternity."  I'll let the logic behind some of the arguments go but the theological underpinnings I find really problematic.

The preacher presented the defining characteristic of God as being purity... and the purity is so pure that it is literally immiscible with the sinful nature of humanity.  Why is the cross necessary according to the sermon?  Because God's purity requires wrath and justice, which in the case of human sinfulness equals death and eternal punishment.

I found myself wondering how many of those young mothers would pour out wrath on their children regardless of what they had done.  Earlier in the service, members were asked to share scripture passages that gave them comfort during difficult times and one quoted Matthew 7:9-11

⁹ Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? ¹⁰ Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

You can see the inconsistency here... especially since these words were spoken by Jesus long before the cross.

Again, I found myself wondering how many of those in the congregation actually believe in a God whose wrath is so all consuming that the only answer is the death penalty or eternal agony... and if that penalty is meted out on one who is innocent, then all the better.

Sorry... that i not the God I believe in.

I would argue that the defining characteristic of God is love and that by its very nature love is never immiscible.  Indeed, that is the very message of the incarnation.  In my theology, God's love requires forgiveness and reconciliation not punishment.  The cross is not punishment for human sin but the example of human sin and the example of love that goes so far as even to suffer.  It is God reaching out to us no matter the cost.

Just like the other local megachurch we attended a few years ago, I found myself wondering why the folk are there.  This one did feel authentic... at least it has that going for it and it is possible that much of the congregation actually agree with the theology that came from the pulpit this morning.  On the other hand, if they do not believe that message... you can draw your own conclusions.

Love Wins

I've posted before about universalism... and I clearly believe it is the only reasonable option. I've been interested to see the topic being raised in evangelical circles lately. I think they struggle too hard against it, but more and more, especially younger evangelicals, seem to be embracing the idea.

Here's a video promo for a new book by Rob Bell

LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

If you want to think a bit more theologcally about the subject, check out this excellent short post from Richard Beck on his blog. In a comment on that post, Tyler Priest remarks that at a conference he had attended, Jurgen Moltmann was asked if he was a universalist, Moltmann replied, "No no, there are some people I've met that I do not wish to meet again. But God, now God might be a universalist."

Is This All? Hard question #2

It's been a while since I wrote about my friends 1st hard question... and to be honest, I've been avoiding the 2nd one. She asked me whether there is life after death or if this is all there is.

From a pastoral viewpoint, I would guess she's feeling some deep frustrations regarding the current direction of her life (or at least was the day she wrote me) and as a pastor, I would want to address those issues first. That said, the question still is an important one.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a great deal about life after death in the Bible. Many of the passages that are typically cited are either metaphor or parable and may or may not tell us anything about life after death. As a result some Jewish traditions have affirmed life after death while others have denied it. In the Christian church we have seen very different understandings of life after death ranging from a literal physical resurrection of the body to a spiritual existence, absent a body to a more eastern idea of becoming part of some more universal presence to no afterlife at all. I think you can find support for any f these ideas both in the texts and in the tradition.

So, what do I think? I don't know. Philosophically, I have difficulty understanding my existence separate from a body - after all this physical body with its attributes and failings has made me into the person I am. At the same time, the idea of a physical resurrection does seem a bit... unusual and raises a ton of other questions. I like the idea of continue conscious existence but i just don't know.

So what do I believe? First off, I believe in an inexhaustible and unquenchable love that never abandons us and never lets us go. I believe that in life and in death, God's yearnings for us are full of mercy and grace. I believe that even the smallest actions can have results that change the universe and that because I have been here, things will never be the same as if I hadn't. I believe that life - here and now - is good even if it is never easy or pain free. I believe that if I open my eyes and my heart, that I can experience eternal life, heaven, the kindom of God, today, wherever I am.

Here's what I'm sure I do not believe. I do not believe in a heaven or hell that is comprised of rewards or punishments. While I would not dare to speak for God, I can speak f my own experiences. I cannot imagine a situation where I would turn away from my children forever. There is nothing they could ever do or say that would make me, in my very finite humanity, abandon them. I could never subject them to endless suffering. If my love is bigger than that, I cannot imagine God's being smaller than mine. And if salvation involves the necessity of a person turning to God, then in spite of it being a very small action, it is still an action done by the individual and salvation is no longer a matter solely of grace. Whatever comes later is a gift of God's love. There is nothing I can do to deserve it and nothing I can do to deter it.

And we come back to the underlying question - what about here and now when life seems to be or certainly is less than it should be? I cannot dismiss the pain of another. Sometimes the psychic pain is more than we can bear. Sometimes our most wonderful dreams and deepest hopes are snatched away, never to be seen again. Some of us are broken by poverty that is almost unimaginable. Some of us find ourselves in circumstances where hopelessness is a reasonable response. All I can say is that in my experience, God is always there with us. At those times when the pain is deepest, we are not alone. When we find ourselves dwelling in the land of the shadow of death, in the darkness and anguish of Good Friday, there is always an Easter coming.