Heresy and Hell: An interactive Blog Experience!!

It hasn't been that long since Love Wins was released. Yet the explosion of writing on it makes it feel much longer. The vanguard of reformed othrodoxy anathemesized Rob Bell. The two most notable leaders have been Piper who declared "Farewell Rob Bell" and Pastor DeYoung who cried heresy.

Heresy. That's not a weak charge. Could you tell me what you really think, Pastor DeYoung?

Do you remember what it was like to be a younger Christian? Maybe you can listen to a little story. When I was younger evangelical I knew -or at least thought I did- who was in and out when it came to the Christian faith. Evangelicals were in. Catholics were in, but not as in as Evangelicals. Mormons were completely out. Conservative protestants were in. Hippie new-age Christians were out. Orthodox/Near-Eastern Christians were maybe "in" but only with great suspicion. Of course, back then it was never clear to me why that list existed. Or which beliefs were essentials or why those beliefs but not others.

Why, for instance, could Christians disagree about the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing, but not the Trinity? Why was is kissing icons considered pagan, but not keeping Christmas trees? Can you believe in baptizing infants and still be a full Christian?

If you have ever wondered about that -and you probably have- than you may be equally confused. However, this blog is not about what I think, but it will be about what you think. Yes, this blog is interactive today! Why read this? Why follow along? Because this issue of hell and heresy is something that all Christians are going to have to think about, so please grab a pen and paper and attach your thinking camp now. It is going to be fun!



Here are four ideas that Christians believe, in no particular order:

• Christians look forward to a physical, bodily resurrection.


• God is three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit


• Those who reject Jesus will suffer unending, conscious, torment in hell.


• Jesus Christ is both 100% God and 100% human, known as the incarnation

You have probably heard them all in sermons, books, and blogs. Think about what your pastor emphasizes in his sermons. Remember the feelings that you have about each one. How do these influence your life? Do they come to mind in times of prayer or worship? Are they in your church's statement of faith? Ponder this for a moment, then continue reading.







Now with that pen and paper -and please do use a pen and paper- write them all down in order of importance and number them 1 to 4. Yes, they may all be equally important. This is only a thought experiment. Still, your intuition will probably guide you. Take only a few minutes, and then continue reading.







Now look at number 4 -your least important belief- and cross it out.

Let's now pretend that we are figuring out the essentials of the Christian faith. Numbers one, two, and three are what matter most to Christians. To violate these is to be anathematized and decidedly "out." Number four could be very biblical, but it is not an essential. Christians can disagree about that one.

Why did number four sink to the bottom, for you? What took precedence over it and why? Do you think about number four the least often? Is number two or three mentioned more often in the praise and worship songs of your church? Is number one frequently mentioned in your pastor's sermons? Or is there another reason entirely?

Now you might be thinking, "hey, we don't need to limit the essentials to three things. We don't even have to put them order. All four could be equally important! You're a mean blogger!" If you do, you are absolutely right*. The list is only a thought experimentand there is no need to limit the essentials to only three beliefs. It is entirely possibly that all four are equally important.

That is, in fact, what Kevin DeYoung and those who likewise anathematize Rob Bell are committed to. At minimum, a belief in eternal torment is as important as the hope for a future bodily resurrection, the Trinity, and the incarnation. This is true whether they are explicit about it or not.

In your comments you can share your list and your thoughts on this matter. Go ahead and skip this next part, scroll down, post, and share with friends of facebook because every evangelical is going to confront this sooner or later.



For me such a thing feels just plain weird. I could never consider all four beliefs equally important and equally essential. Certainly, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and future resurrection are lifted from scripture. They are equally emphasized in the major creeds, which Christians often use as arbiter between who is "out" and "in." Those three beliefs have become incredibly important to me in Sunday worship, the songs I sing, and how I interact with others. The Trinity reminds me of the importance of community. The bodily resurrection reminds me of hope after death and hope in this world today.

Eternal torment in hell simply isn't in the same category. It is as if I have to believe in three things that are good, that inspire Christians to do good, and then add on the loudest fear-appeal in history! Remember sesame street? "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

It is simply way too weird.




==================================
*except maybe the mean blogger part. I'm a nice guy! I swear! I think....

Book Review for Love Wins

My initial plan with this review was to write first about all the nasty things that have been said about Rob Bell and his book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. However, I think that writing an actual review of this book might be a bit more urgent at this point. I will still be writing a blog about the common criticisms of Rob Bell (some of which are good, and many of which are bad), but that will probably have to wait until the weekend. For now, I'll say that I don't believe that a belief in eternal torment in hell is an essential for the Christian faith, and I sometimes get a little frustrated with those who do.

Now to the review. Rob Bell is an incredibly lucid and talented writer. Many people accuse Rob Bell of "confusion" and insist that people need "clarity" instead of the emergent theology or such. Honestly though, if you read the book, you will probably find it pretty clear.

Maybe "confusion" is thoughtful questions to assumed doctrines. If that be the case, than I think a little bit of confusion is needed. In fact, Rob Bell's questions were my favorite part of the book. The first part of his questions could be summed up in the phrase "Hell: isn't it a little bit weird?" Secondly, he believes that there might not be a clear way to tell whether or not someone is "in" or "out" when it comes to heaven/hell. To support this claim, Rob Bell cites several Bible passages -about a dozen- that show that there is a great deal of ambiguity on this subject.

This is something that many Christians know already -espeically those who are emergent. The fact that evangelicalism wants this to be clear and exclusive might be part of the reason why evangelicalism can be culturally clueless. If you think that you and your exclusive club are the only one's who get in, than those are the only people you deeply associate with. If those are the only people you associate with, than you have a self-perpetuating social-proof of what makes someone "in." It becomes harder to understand those who are "out." It is a sub-culture that things it is relevant to the main culture, when it is in fact semi-autistic.

There is another charge that was tossed against Rob Bell. Rob Bell does "hermenutical gymnastics" to make his points. For sake of example, you can probably examine Rob Bell's assertion regarding the word "hell" in the Gospels. It comes from the word Gehenna when spoken by Jesus. This is really important point since many assert that Jesus spoke of eternal torment and hellfire, since he did -in fact- mention "hell." However, Rob Bell says that when Jesus was saying gehenna he was referencing Jerusalem's disgusting, burning, city dump. Here's why:

• The etymology of word Gehenna


• Relevant historical facts about Jersusalem in Jesus' time


• The usage of the word Gehenna in Jesus' time.

How is that "hermenutical gymnastics"? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you exegete a Bible passage?

I obviously haven't read every last internet critique of Love Wins, but I have not found anyone who actually addresses Rob Bell's point here: When Jesus says "hell," he is not referring to the nine layers of Dante's inferno. He is referring to garbage dump outside Jerusalem. This only one example of Rob Bell's exegesis, and cannot address all of them for you here.

Now many have criticized Rob Bell for not dealing with certain issues. It is true that Rob Bell did not address any of the predictable objections to his view. Yet, sometimes these critics demand to much. For instance, why did not Rob Bell discuss the two wills of God or limited atonement? I would venture to guess it is because Rob Bell is not a Calvinist (which should be obvious!) and is not writing to Calvinists. Why didn't Rob Bell expand on a particular issue, like penal substitution? I suppose because he is writing a popular book -which introduces and surveys a topic- rather than a article for an academic journal -which is very specific and narrow.

Despite all that, I still feel that the major weakness of Rob Bell's book was that he never answered any particular objections. Doing such, in my opinion, is one of the most important things you can do when you drop a bomb like this. Greg Boyd's God of the Possible was equally if not more controversial. In that book, Boyd devoted an entire chapter to answering objections in fair, direct, and polite manner. A simple addendum to Love Wins would have been equally desirable. It would have been nice if Rob Bell offered an alternative to penal substitution in this book too.

Ultimately though, I feel that all reviews of the book will fall short. Much of the internet does not deal with the substance of the Love Wins, but instead cry "liberal" or other anathemas. Like the Harry Potter series, many evangelicals have decided that it is wrong already and have not bothered to give it read.

The next blogs will mention a few of those other anathemas. Until then, thank you for reading, commenting, and reposting.

"Check your premises" all about hell

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

There's a new virus spreading on the internet. It's called "Rob Bell releases a new book."

People have already begun to accuse Rob Bell of universalism. I'll keep my opinion of Rob Bell quiet until I get a chance to read the book, which comes out later this month. Nevertheless, there is already a huge blog buzz about a prominent evangelical pastor making statements that sound like universalism. He would not be the first minister to be anathematized as such.

The purpose of this blog is not to take a position on exclusivism (only Christians go to heaven), inclusivism (Christians and some others go to heaven), universalism (everybody goes to heaven) or annihilationism (there is no hell), but rather to frame the debate. Specifically, I feel that detractors of Rob Bell (or anyone else who sounds universalist) might consider checking their premises.

What I mean is this: people who argue for the necessity of hell or God's wrath often assume that certain premises are true and undisputed. They are so deeply assumed that people often forget how to defend them. This is bad, because -mark my words- debates about universalism/inclusivism will lead to additional debates about the three premises I am about to mention. If other Christians want to persuade Rob Bell or others, they must be prepared to defend these major premises, and not make the mistake of assuming that they are self-evident and undisputed. Reformed Christians especially (forgive the generalization) seem to make this mistake.

Also, yes, this kind of thing is important for everyday Christian living. After all, another Pastor, Kevin DeYoung argues that we need hell to even forgive our enemies.

Let us begin:

Premise number 1: Justice is avenging evil-doers. This seems to make sense right? Justice, especially divine justice, is making sure that the evil-doer gets what's coming to them. Think of the death penalty. A famous Texas comedian once remarked "If you kill someone [in Texas], we will kill you back." A more academic example is Kant, who said that the death penalty was not just an option, but a moral requirement in the case of a murder. Even the Christian saint Thomas Aquinas said that "Justice was getting what is due to you."

However, this is not the only vision of justice. This idea of retribution has been criticized. An alternative is the idea of restorative justice. This type of justice is not concerned about smiting evil, but restoring what was lost to evil. Instead of "If you kill someone, we will kill you back" it says "If you kill someone, God will raise them back to life." It also implies that all are corrupted by evil, and restorative justice seeks to "restore" what evil did to the soul of the evil-doers themselves.

Premise Number 2: Penal Substitution is the best/only atonement theory. Penal Substitution is common idea. It is so popular that many do not know of any alternatives. I had to get a degree in theology before I heard of alternatives!

It works like this: Humanity has offended God with sin. Since God is infinitely good, so the debt of sin also infinite. Humanity is finite and cannot pay the infinite debt. God must somehow "pay" the infinite debt since no one else can. So God became human in Jesus in order to pay the infinite debt on the cross. This is very dry and technical, but I think it sounds familiar to everyone.

Now, please look for that description of atonement in the New Testament. Yes, please find something very specific. Make it as specific as Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ("why God became man"). A Lutheran minister once shared that penal substitution comes down to us from the middle ages -and he's right. Anselm wrote in the 12th century. That does not make his theory of atonement wrong, but it does put it up for debate doesn't it? When we think about penal substitution, we should not think "how does the Bible teach this?" but rather "did Anselm get it right?"

Premise Number 3: Things are made right/good because God says so. Of all the things mentioned here, I think this one is the quickest to come up. Someone might say that heaven doesn't seem good if there's a tiny torture chamber somewhere near it. Similarly, someone might mention that God's goodness does not allow room for eternal suffering. A common response is something like "God decides what is good" along with pious appeal to Romans 9:16-19.

The problem with this, is that it assumes a certain answer to the famous Euthyphro dilemma. The question is "Are things good because God loves them, or does God love them because they are good?" I think many Christians answer "good because God loves them" and may even endorse baby eating if God said so. I don't think, though, that the question is so easily settled by an appeal to Romans 9 or similar passages. That passages tells that we don't know the reasons for God's choices. God may not tell us his reasons for mercy, or those reasons might be beyond our keen, but neither one of those implies no reasons at all. Not all Christians are happy with "because God says so" type of answers. This blogger sure isn't

Now of course it is possible that someone might believe all three of these premises and be a full blown universalist. Alternately, they may disagree with all three and still be an exclusivist. No matter what though, these things are going to come up in the internet debates, magazine articles, and book reviews about Rob Bell's new book. If Rob Bell really is a universalist, and his detractors uses these premises to condemn him for it, they will need to articulate and defend them quite carefully.

Reposts, retweets make me happy. So also do your welcome comments.

On Creativity, Free-time, and Writing Crap

A long time ago a friend told me that he was reluctant to take up a musical instrument because he didn't think he'd be good. On that night, I shared a recent epiphany with him: in order to become good at any talent (or "excellence" as the philosopher says), one my first have the courage to suck.

Yes, the courage to suck. Not the absense of fear, but the resistance to it. One must suck, and suck for a long time, and only then will one slowly get better at whatever it is you are pursuing.

So get ready to suck!

Last year, I desperately wanted to NaNoWriMo. I got all excited for my friends who were writing their 50,000 words of garbage. I wanted so badly to have time to produce that same amount of garbage that I was even quite a bit envious. Why couldn't I angst up, force manic-episodes, and type feriously at my laptop until I needed some wrist exercises?

Because I was in grad school, I resolved rather to do it this year than last year. I have since purchased a few books on writing. One such book was Creating Characters, which is short but packed with a lot of really simple advice in order to get characters going. I have learned, that I have been thinking way to hard about the characters I create. So with that in mind, my characters will be much better. Another book (which is mostly about comics) was Scott Mccloud's Making Comics. It was book that also highlighted, expanded, and downright paradigm shifted, my approach to making any comics in the future.

Most importantly, I going through the Making Comics. This is part daily devotional, part mental exercise. Ideally, I would've started this months ago, as the book is a guide a long a twelve week program. Still though, I feel that book is good. The very first chapter of the book encourages the reader to shut off their left brain -internal censor- that constantly criticizes and judges.

I think I can live with that.

You, who read this, probably have a creative bone in you. I really hope that everyone who is checking this blog consider NanWriMo. Remember, have the courage to suck.

I mean, just look at the webcomic I ran.

A myspace salvage: "Are you Irresponsible?"

I orginally posted this on my myspace account years ago. It still has humor value, so I reposted it here. I have finally deleted my myspace account.

Hello everyone! I've been reading "To Own a Dragon
" by Donald Miller. It is all about growing up when you are in your late twenties.

I have been giving so much thought to adolescence lately. A former roommate shared the causes of prolonged adolescence with me. I work at a charter school where I baby sit teenage boys for $120/day. I have many friends who are all over the map in age and maturity. It has been something on my mind for quite some time.

I thought it would be nice to talk about if responsibility and making decisions because Donald Miller's advice keeps people out of prison. The hard part is identifying whether or not you are one of those 20 something guys and are irresponsible. I've decided, after some reflection, to put together a simple list. After this, I'll provide a list of signs that tell if you should go to college or to work.

If you were a kid at Bethel's youth ministry while I was there, this list is for you!

Are you irresponsible? Check these signs!

• Your diet consists of fast food, microwave burritos, and pepsi.


• You won't take a commission only job, because you don't wanna work that hard.


• You live in the basement of a more successful relative.


• You missed a job interview because of the the last World of Warcraft expansion.


• Somehow, you managed to fail PE class at a Junior College


• It has never occurred to you that now might be a good time to kick that Marijuana habit.


• You dream about being a rock star, professional skateboarder/surfer, comic book artist, or video game competitor while you are unable to wake up on time for anything.


• You still don't understand why your friend got so mad when you hit on his sister.


• If you don't open bills, they don't apply to you.


• You've ever been really concerned about the legal definitions of statutory rape and workman's comp fraud.


• You live off the trust fund your rich grandfather/uncle/parent set up for you.


• You maxed-out your credit card on electronics or car parts.


• You deserve more than $7.75/hour just because!


• You describe MAXIM and FH magazines as "Life coaching publications."
  
• Even though your rent is over $400/month, you still manage to buy junk at Spencer's.


• You don't like doing dishes, so you buy disposable paper plates.


• …and you don't like taking out the trash, so they still pile up.


• You have one or more restraining orders from ex girlfriends.


• Your life was the inspiration for the Chez Geek games.


• Your idea of saving money is buying your soda and beer by the case, not the six pack.


• It's not your fault anyway. It is all because of your estranged parent(s), the government, your boss, the mean kids in high school… blah blah ad nausem.

Now, I don't want to leave everyone hanging. There are ways that older boys in their twenties can become responsible. One common proposition, usually from the mind of their girlfriends, is "get Married." If the above list applies to you, I'd like you to read the next sentence out loud. Getting married in order to become responsible is a very bad idea. People wonder why the divorce rate is so high. I think this proposition is a cause thereof. Most guys have no problem not listening to their girlfriends on this one. Still, if this ever comes up, ye have been warned.


I propose two ways in which might help a person be responsible. I say might because there must be some degree of responsibility before you can do either of these. The prescription is one of these: go to college, or get a grown-up job.


You should go to College if…

• You did well in high school, but never applied to Colleges because you partied to hard during senior year.
  
• You read on a regular basis.
  
• You've ever sat around work and been annoyed with the stupid banter from your co-workers.
  
• You became the token introvert in high school because people got offended when you said things like, "No. World War I ended in 1918. You're thinking of the Civil War."
  
• You won't go to college because your afraid to lose contact with all your friends who are still playing HALO, doing crank, and getting their girlfriends pregnant.
  
• You ask, "if I to College, how will I have time to become a professional skateboarder, video-game competitor, or rock star?"

You should get a Grown-up Job if…

• You hear a statistic like, "The average American watches over 1140 hours of TV a year" and it sounds low to you.


• You want to move up in supermarket businesses.


• You're annoyed with that Mr-smarty-pants co-worker you keeps correcting you about history 'n shit.


• You are willing to work for commission and you look good in a suit.


• You became an extrovert in high school when you started selling the smart-kid's answers to the tests.


• You are delighted by the saying "PhD's work for the C students."

Well there it is!

In all seriousness, you might want to check out that book by Donald Miller because it is a very emotional and inspiring book.

N.T. Wright, thanks for speaking for me.

Since leaving graduate school, I have been reading Surprised by Hope. The book is incredible. The subject is Christian hope. Most evangelicals feel like they have an idea of what that is -especially in relation to the afterlife. Imagine though, you had never seen anything but a 1950s black and white television complete with bunny ears. Then someone came in and replaced it with 36 inch plasma screen. That is the difference between the tepid evangelical approach to Easter and the dramatic interpretation that N.T. Wright offers.

In one section, N.T. Wright took words straight out of my mouth. The final chapter of the book deals with Christian mission and Christian worship in light of Easter Sunday. When commenting on the various traditions in worship, specifically the difference between older traditions and low-church contemporary worship. He says:

I am always amused, on this point, when I visit churches that carefully abandoned all signs of professional worship from a former age -robed choirs, processions, organists, and the like -and then invented new forms of worship that demand just as much professionalism in terms of competent people managing sounds systems, lighting, overhead projection and PowerPoint, and so on. There is nothing wrong with either. All can and should be done to the glory of God. But the implication that older styles of worship are somehow less spiritual and modern electronic worship is somehow more worthy is sheer cultural prejudice and should be happily laughed at whenever it emerges. (Emphasis mine)

I could not have said it any better myself.

The Crow: Are There Crimes That Cannot be Forgiven?

This blog is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Apa-Gonzaga

Pardon the short departure from plans in my last blog, but I now return to my reviews of The Crow. In my last blog, I talked about the character of the Crow himself, but now I’d like to deal with the major theme. The book asks whether there are crimes that can be forgiven. Implicit in that question is a certain view of justice that leaves a taste a disappointment. I will deal with both in this blog.

Two Contrasting Views of Justice

The Crow is a revenge tragedy. In a revenge tragedy, there is a view of justice that is best called retributive justice. In retributive justice, the emphasis is on the perpetrators. Those who commit crimes or injustice must be brought to account and be punished for their wickedness. This may also be done in order to prevent them from doing more crimes, but the main purpose is that they have committed some crime and they must now pay. The scales must be balanced. Typically, the perpetrators are brought to account by an avenger who acts on the victim’s behalf, but in the Crow the victim himself rises again to overpower his enemies.

Retributive justice, whether in comic books or not, contrasts with restorative justice. Restorative justice, as far as I understand it, is part Christian theology, as expounded by Jurgen Moltmann’s In the End-The Beginning: The Life of Hope. Restorative justice does not place an emphasis on the perpetrators, but rather on victims. Justice, in this case, is not concerned about balancing scales of wrongs, but rather restoring what was lost to evil. So if a person is terribly traumatized by having a loved one taken from them, restorative justice seeks to bring that loved one back or at least heal the trauma of the victim. If a relationship between two people is broken, restorative justice seeks to repair the relationship not punish who was the wrongdoer. Moltmann takes this even further as he believes that all people are victims, including those who perpetrate evil*. The wicked man who abuses his spouse was first abused as a child.

Reprobates and Tragedy in the Crow

Is there any room for forgiveness in the Crow? Not really. The Crow is merciless and wrathful, as I mentioned in an earlier blog. Already, it is clear that J. O’barr thinks that there are things that cannot be forgiven –and one can hardly fault him for his feelings. The character of Fun Boy embodies this theme.

None of the characters the Crow kills are repentant, but Fun Boy is nearly the antithesis of repentance. The ugly criminals the Crow kills all have rotten souls, but none of them have any since of self-examination to acknowledge it. Fun Boy is different. Fun boy is fully aware of his state. He is not sorry for the crimes he has done. He knows that he is monster deserving of death. Yet at no point does he ask for or presume mercy. When the Crow kills him his dying request is not “forgive me” but only “kill that bastard slow.” (He refers to T-bird, the next person the Crow intends to kill). Fun Boy’s dying request is not forgiveness, but only more hatred, of which he is fully aware of.

Not only is there no forgiveness in the Crow, but there is not even the preceding penitence either.

After the killing of Fun Boyd, the story quickly moves into its final movement of tragedy. The Crow spends one night in his loft. He burns all of his memoirs of Shelly and then shouts out the window, “Shelly I’m coming home.” He confronts his final murderer, T-bird. The Crow’s last fight scene is long, insane, and bloody. He kills not only T-bird, but everyone who works for T-bird. T-bird dies in a panic, and the final time we see him is when the Crow veers over with holding a hammer.

After the last killing, the Crow returns to grave. The final pages of the comic are still, serene, scenes of a snow covered graveyard. The Crow is dead. He rests again with Shelly. This is the tragedy of the Crow. The avenger completes his task, and then just dies.

Happy Vengence?

I can now only speak for myself, and not what the story attempts to communicate. Is there such a thing as happy vengeance? I am not sure. In the story of the Crow, every evil doer is killed. But the hero leaves the dark world to its darkness. With justice done, he returns to his grave. The ending is sad, as it leaves the reader wanting. It is not enough to know that all the murderers will no longer murder. We all want to see the happy couple alive again and the Crow free from his mourning. Anger and wrath sprinkled with kindness leave a disappointed taste in the mouth not matter how one serves up the revenge platter. This feeling of let-down seems to go beyond the novel itself: J. O’barr admitted that writing the Crow did not prove the emotional catharsis he hoped it would become.

No one can stand in judgment of the Crow or J. O’barr for the feelings they have, least of all me. Anyone who has lost someone they love has a right to feel angry and to want the murders brought to account. Yet I cannot help but think that the let-down feeling at the end of the Crow is part of the failure of retributive justice. The grief at losing a love one to murderers is to fold: the desire for that person to be back in your life, and for the death to be avenged. It seems to me, that the first is the stronger emotion. The desire to overcome our own grief is what turns into anger and wrath directed at those wicked people who hurt us. But vengeance does not remove sadness and grief from the heart of the victim. It only adds more dead bodies.

I cannot help but see the restorative justice of the Christian Gospel as the only hope for the victims of evil, both living and the dead. The Gospel tells us that God-the-Son became a victim of horrendous evil at the crucifixion. It tells us that God the Father is well acquainted with the feelings of grief and injustice. The answer is that of a Resurrection from the dead and overcoming of evil with restorative justice. Christians look forward to a glorious future in which every victim of murder, every dead prisoner from the gulags, every refugee who was gunned down by soldiers, and every martyr who was fed to lions will one die rise again in resurrected bodies and meet their savior who suffered as they dead. Death and injustice are not avenged. Death and injustice are reversed. The feelings of anger, wrath, and trauma will likewise be defeated in the all-encompassing victory of God. There will be no need for vengeance in the new heaven’s and new earth.

Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind. –Isaiah 65:17

In that place, the Crow dances joyously with his untarnished bride, and the atrocity of their deaths never comes to their minds.

Thanks for reading.



========================
*I can never forget that Moltmann was a German soldier in WWII and knew fully the kind of evil that infected his whole society.

A Tiny Blog... What Books to Read?

This blog begins with the following Maxims: Writing down goals and making them measurable is the best way to get them accomplished. Millionaires read one non-fiction book a month. I like reading a lot. I can't wait till I'm out of graduate school.

I have several goals. Perhaps to many. However, one of my goals is to read five books this summer. That's already a lot. However, I know I can do it. I am busy, picking them right now.

What I need are suggestions from other smart people of what books out there are worth reading -especially in the second and third categories.

Here's the list of books by categories:

1. Theology and Pastoral work. (So that I can be better lay minister).
I will without a doubt read Surprised by Hope. My brother got it for me for Christmas. It will be the last "middle-weight" theological reading I do for a long time. I also really want to read From Wild Man to Wise Man by Father Rohr. I like the whole masculine Christianity stuff. I like it better when it is thoughtful, serious, and not cheesy. This book came with the recommendation of a retired Methodist minister -my cousin-in-law's father. I am trying to keep my theological reading down to a mininum this summer. I imagine I'll read both of those, and no more in this category.

2. Creativity and Humor (For my writing talent and future re-imagining of the Uber Bean webcomic.)
I am right-brained, technique oriented writer. I need therefore, to read some stuff that is decidedly left-brained book like Writing Down the Bones. Dr. Kern, from APU, said I should read it. I will. Also, there are other books on writing and story telling like Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters. I don't know much about this book, but I know I want to learn how to tell better stories.

3. "People Skills" and other things that make you money. (So that I can learn how to be kinder, gentler, leader)
This is probably going to be the most important category. I need to get some of these skills growing again whether I become a teacher, a sales rep, a manager or whatever I do for employment. There is one book called Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion which I am interested in, but I have no idea if it is good or not. There are others that are aimed specifically at large groups (students maybe?) such as Win the Crowd. Finally, there are even sexier books aimed at using the verbal medium only.

Of course, there are books like If Aristotle Ran General Motors that sit on my shelf unfinished.

That's the end of this strange little blog. I am not sure what to read next.

But five books this summer for sure. That's nearly two a month.

The Crow: Hatred Sprinkled With Kindness

I have recovered a bit of teenage goth past; I purchased a copy of The Crow by J. O’barr. I only recently read through this graphic novel, but have enjoyed the movie since I was about fifteen. Originally, I intended to write a one blog review of this book, but I realize now that I might as well do two. For those of you who don’t know, The Crow is about an anti-hero who comes back from the dead to kill all the people who killed him and his fiancée. It has many of the qualities of film noir and reminds me a bit of Frank Miller.


What made me really want to read though this was the trauma that inspired the book. J. O’barr grew up in the shit-hole ghetto of Chicago as an orphan. When he was barely out of high school, his fiancée was killed by a drunk driver. He joined the marines to deal attempt to cope. The Crow was a further attempt at a catharsis to deal with the tragedy.

Knowing this made me read the novel differently. It certainly has a very angry and raw feel to it. One does not get the impression that this comic was drawn with a clear, beautifully planned, story arc in mind. Neither do you get deeply insightful characters. You do not even get deep into the protagonist’s past and history. The comic is simply pages of anger and pain drawn in the form of an ugly hero in an ugly world doing ugly things to ugly people.

Yet all this is what makes the character, the Crow, so interesting. On one hand, he is abjectly and unashamedly hateful. This first comes out vividly when he kills his first mark, Tin-tin. The Crow gives him a few aphorisms on the rottenness of his soul (and it surely is) and then stands over the body and says, “may God grant you the mercy that I cannot.” His second kill is a fellow by the name of Top Dollar. Top Dollar is in a meeting with other unsavory cronies. The Crow mocks them by coming in the window and declaring himself Santa Claus and they’ve all been very bad. The killing of the entire group of criminals could only be described as a bloody wrathful mess. Top Dollar attempts to barter for his life, but the Crow ignores him. He shoots top through the eye first and finishes him with another shot.

This is not the killing-style of a shrewd, professional, assassin. It is plain vigilante rage that is almost animal. It is human only that it is fueled by emotions that only humans have.

On the other side, the Crow shows politeness and even compassion. Right after killing Top Dollar, the Crow walks casually down a hall, turns back and winks and an old lady and politely says “Good evening ma’am.” The compassion comes out even stronger when he meets the victimized little girl named Sherri. Sherri’s mother is busy having sex for drugs. Sherri, who looks about twelve, is neglected and without a childhood. The Crow takes compassion on her and gives her a necklace that belonged to his dead fiancée and it is the first gift this little girl has ever received.

His compassion for Sherri is exemplified when he meets her mother, who is bed with the morphine addict Fun Boy. Sherri’s mother is panicked and scared, but the Crow touches her gently on the head and says, “Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of every child. Your daughter is waiting for you on the streets.” When the Crow kills Tin-tin, Top Dollar, and Tom-tom, he is unconcerned about collateral damage, but for Sherri’s account he slows down just little bit and waits for the mother to leave.

Right before the Crow goes to kill his final mark, and prepares himself for his own funeral, he visits Sherri one last time. Without spoiling the moment for those who have not read the book, I can only say that the Crow shows gentleness one last time and eliminates one other “problem” in her life. He even finds a way to ensure that someone else will look out for her in the dark, shit-hole, of a world that the comic takes place in.

That is the first part of my thoughts on The Crow. In my next blog, I will talk about its overall questions: “are there crimes that can never be forgiven?” and “Is there such a thing as happy vengeance?”

Thanks for reading.

Book Review: Mad Church Disease

Book Review: Mad Church Disease

Does Working at this church interfere with your communion with Christ?

In a previous blog, I mentioned that one of the perils of preaching is the pressure on the preachers. This can easily be extended to all Christian leadership. This problem is one that is not easily addressed. Thankfully, Anne Jackson has provided Mad Church Disease: Overcoming the Burnout Epidemic for the perplexed.

If you even consider getting your feet wet in ministry, even at the lay level, this is a book worth reading.

Spend time with any group of Christians who have done ministry, especially those in the mid-twenties, and you will hear tales of burnout. Feelings of lack of fulfillment, depression and betrayal abound. Bad church politics can chew up the most idealistic and caring minister. People fall into sin and hide it from others. Other times, so much moral judgment is passed around that no one measures up. Too much can be demanded by a few people. Family health can go by the way side. All of this happens as ministers and lay people attempt to fulfill the God’s mission through their work in the churches.

Anne Jackson’s own story is unique, but her experience is no doubt familiar to many. The closed door church meetings are often the sanctuary of the hypocrites, and she knew this as a pastor’s kid. In one episode, her father voluntarily stepped down after a vicious fight about what “evangelism” meant for his church. The verbal and emotional abuse eventually infected him and his family. Not surprisingly, Anne Jackson spent a period of her life that could be described as a “secular sabbatical.”

Yes, we’ve all been there. If you haven’t yet, you probably will be soon.

This book in no way pretends that we can avoid all the trouble that comes with being in church, but there are nonetheless ways to protect ourselves and even endure in the task of ministry. Her recommendations begin with common prescription: spend time with God and spend time in prayer. I have admit, when I first read that chapter I was little irate. Why would you prescribe to someone burnt by the church to go do more “church” things?

Fortunately, her prescription begins, but does not stop there. Rather, Jackson expands to other sections. Physical health, for instance includes obeying a reasonable sleep schedule and exercising. Emotional health means avoiding bad outlets of emotional escapism –like dodging our feelings through work or substance abuse. Relational health cautions us to keep relationships a priority over our ministry. Also, there is the need for those in the ministry world to create practical and firm boundaries. It is saying ”no” when we asked to do too much even if other people will not understand or insist that they “depend” on us. All of this comes from meticulous research that only a popular blogger can provide.

But what else I think is really great about this book its presentation. The subject matter could easily go on and on and fill academic journals, but it is presented in a short and concise way. Also, the end of each section Anne Jackson offers a personal checklist for her readers. It is done so in order to demand that the reader check up. It helps catch the hidden problems before they fester into something worse. It also provides second opinions in the forms of interviews with other pastors. The is also meant to be used in groups, so that ministry teams can prayerfully consider how to avoid burn out.

Mad Church Disease is a good resource. The sad part is many people might only read it on the other side of burn out. Because of that, anyone who is entering ministry –or even considering it- stands to benefit from this book the most.

So all you ministry n00bs, go check it out.


More book reviews

Book Review: Jesus Made in America

Just Give me Jesus…Which Jesus?

One of the most difficult endeavors anyone can undertake is describing what “water” is to fish. Or in this case, how American culture influences Christianity to members of American cultural Christianity.

Yet this is exactly what Stephen J. Nichols accomplishes in his book Jesus Made in America.

This book is a historic survey of American Christianity. It begins with the puritans and ends with the present day. Some chapters on the past help us understand the present. Who is Jesus according to founding fathers or Jesus according to cowboys? Later, several chapters of the book are dedicated to issues relevant to the present day Christians. Who is Jesus according to the political right (and left) and who is according to Bible book stores? The book is a flowing, and fascinating read that is neither boring nor heavy on jargon. All of it is quite illuminating and challenging.

But this book is not for faint-hearted or the non-introspective. Nichols criticizes much of contemporary evangelicalism as having missed the mark on the understanding of Jesus of all matters. Not only does he tell fish what water is, he tells fish that the water is polluted. There are more than a few sacred cows (golden calves?) that Nichols wants scratch at. He even calls out a few heroes by name, including Max Lucado, Beth Moore, and James Dobson. Not even Veggie tales remains untouched!

Space does not allow me to cover every section of this book, but I there were two that hit close to home for me. The first was Christian music. Nichols points out how often Evangelicals get their theology from their songs, and their songs are sometimes –shall we say thin. Much of evangelical CCM creates and then perpetuates the cultural image of Christ that Nichols decries. There is too much emphasis on “how Jesus makes me feel,” little regard for “what Jesus has done in history,” and barely any “who Jesus is.” He even points out how close Christian lyrics are to pop love songs*, as has been satirized on South Park. At one point the Christian Contemporary music was a grass-roots, spontaneous and genuine before in turned into a money making industry that watered down its message as it tried to evangelize. This leads to the second section of the book I enjoyed: Jesus according to consumer culture.

Many Christians are often shocked when Jesus overturned money tables and chased out the lenders with a whip. Strange think is, Nichols probably believes that Jesus would do the same thing at most Bible bookstores. Jesus and consumer culture form an unhappy marriage in Nichol’s view. One of the saddest points in the book is a story of women who was not able to buy a Jesus fish for her car. She wondered who she was supposed to witness. Nichols is fair in his belief that the Holy Spirit can use anything, but the culture of T-shirts, endless mass-market books, childhood media, etc makes him wonder if this is because of or in spite of a mass-market Jesus. Yet this is the water that many people swim in. What kind of Jesus are we really looking at? Is the culture conforming to Christ or is Christ revised to fit the culture?

Even thought the book is critical, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Nichols, in the epilogue, explains that he believes evangelicalism can hit the mark. To do so, Christians must learn to look outside their own generation and pull on resources from the past. He suggests the great Creeds (while recognizing the bias they had) as a guide for evangelical Christology. He also admits that the Christology has never been an easy task, but we should never be afraid of complexity. It is our job, as Christians in the dominant west to ensure we both learn and pass on these teaching of Christ. No matter how difficult the task.

Thanks for reading. Now go read this book or see a few other interesting ones.




======================================
*May I gently add a point to all the Christian girls/women who ask “where are all the good, single, Christian men?” this comment: please consider that men worship God differently than women do. For instance, Christian heterosexual men are generally not interested in relating to Jesus as if he is our boyfriend. We’re not interested competing with him either.

Book Review: The Orthodox Heretic by Peter Rollins

The ironically titled Orthodox Heretic is the first books I have read of its kind. Peter Rollins might be called an innovator for writing a book of parables, but on closer reflection it seems completely obvious. Why not, when talking about God, the Kingdom of Heaven, and other subjects, use the same teaching method that Jesus used? I doubt that Peter Rollins is the first, but he is likely the first for many.

The full affect of Jesus’ parables are often loss to us in the modern age. Many of them used irony, cultural references, and scandal to drive home the message. For instance, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, no self-respecting Israelite would’ve have expected the son to be accepted back after such a terrible offense against his father. Also, the parable of the Good Samaritan was spoken in such a way to shame the honored religious leaders who derided the inferior race. Even little things, such as the importance of dressing properly for a wedding, are misunderstood in our time.

The parables of the Orthodox Heretic affect contemporary Christians in the same way that Jesus’ parables affected his audience. One parable “turning the other cheek” tells Christians who lived in suburbs of affluent countries that we are not Jesus’ intended audience, who were the oppressed and helpless. Rather, we are more like Romans. We expect those in the third world or the more helpless to carry our burdens while we reap the benefits. We are not the ones commanded to forgive, but rather those must learn to accept forgiveness.

Another great parable is “the Payoff.” The parable tells of a humble priest and an indignant, anti-Christian, prince. The prince envied the priest’s influence sought to discredit his rival. To this end, he offered the priest a large sum of money to confess publically that he was a hypocrite and so was his church. To the prince’s surprise, the priest was eager to so and offered the prince money to print the confession instead. This is an interesting lesson in how Christian leaders today seek to expand their influence by hiding, rather than exposing, their own sin.
The number of parables cannot be summed up here; but this much can be said. These are relevant and insightful parables for contemporary Christians. It is a book that is best read slowly and discussed with others despite its relatively short length.

I was really, really impressed with this book. Peter Rollins really understands what parables are. His stories all contain commentaries if there is any confusion as to their meaning. It is probably one of the most creative and insightful books I have read in a long time.

Gen X meets the fourth Century or “Who’s afraid of the Incarnation?”

I often lament the perceived exclusiveness of “doctrine” and “spirituality” or between “religion” and “relationship.” It is strange to me that because something is traditional or put in religious terms that is no longer relevant to the contemporary, unchurched, and unsaved individual. Two of my favorite books I think show otherwise. The first was written by a poster child of Generation X. The second was written by fourth century saint. One cannot get much farther apart than that.

Douglas Coupland wrote a collection of short stories entitled “Life After God.” These stories speak to the first generation that was raised without religion. Now, they make up much the professional work force. The current generation of 20-somethings is no more raised with religion than the Gen X’s were. I still find many of these stories heart-wrenching and emotional. One of my favorite quotes is “we have religious impulses – we must- and yet into what cracks do these impulses flow in a world without religion?”

Saint Athanasius was a famous saint of the fourth century. His book,” De Incarnatione Verbi Dei” (On the Incarnation of the Word of God) is seminal classic of Christian thought. Athanasius wrote it to expound on and explain the Incarnation against the doctrines of Arius which denied, among other things, the idea that Jesus Christ was both 100% God and 100% human. Clearly, one does not get more “religious” than this. I found this book incredibly easy to read. I find very little except scripture to be as equally inspiring.

Despite their vastly different cultures and times, both of these authors talk about God using the same simile. One uses it to describe those religious impulses with nowhere to flow. The other uses it describe the dramatic immanence of God in the world.

I was wondering what the ceremony itself would be like –it was like wondering about a coronation- of the old king being dead –long live the new king. I was wondering about trumpeters raising their horns, of the crowds-of the world somehow becoming new again in the process.

-Life After God

Here is the second quote.

For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honoured, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled…

De Incarnatione

These two passages hardly need further commentary. It is as if Coupland says, “I want God to be like a king. I want him excite and inspire us the same way those mythical just rulers do.” St Athanasius says, “God is like a king. In fact, he is the only just and right king. Through the Incarnation, he lived among us and continues to work in our world to this day.”

It should not be said, I think, that religious doctrines and old tomes aren’t relevant to contemporary culture. The parallels here are far too close. The spiritual experiences of Christians are never far from the doctrines we expound.

Clearly, I have shown my Christian hipster stripes with this blog, but thanks for reading.

Book Review: Monk Habits for Everyday People

At long last, I finally purchased and quickly read through Monk Habits for Everyday People: Benedictine Spirituality of Protestants A review of the book is overdue. I hope those of you MOSAIC types, as well the folk at Colorado, are reading this right now.

I can’t pretend to be objective in writing this review. Dennis Okholm (the author) was one of my professors at APU. I took a class on monasticism while this book was in the process of being published. That monasticism class was probably the most important theology class I took at APU. Learning how people could get together, withdraw from the so-called real world, and live out the Kingdom of God remain guiding principles in life to this day. Naturally, it is not something that is easily summed up and explained. After all, we went through at least three books for that class.

Monk Habits is a smaller and fruitful introduction to the Christian values of Benedictine monks. It begins with Doc Ok’s personal interest in monasticism. The “good evangelical boy” first began exploring and visiting Benedictine monasteries in the 80s. Because of his background as a Presbyterian minister, Doc Ok is able to explain the habits and customs of monks in ways that Protestants can understand and certainly learn from. This approach challenges many of our habits in Evangelicalism. Instead of finding the newest and latest work on Christian spirituality, Doc Ok points us to an old tradition. We need not re-invent the wheel for every generation.

Many object that monks withdraw to much from the world. It seems that monastic spirituality –even for those outside the cloisters- is irrelevant to the real world where the heavy lifting of evangelism is done. A careful reading of this book will help Christians see that this is not a problem. First, it reminds the reader that serious evangelism –one in which people truly change for the long term- often happens slowly. The habits and the virtues taught in this book help Christians grow closer to God. This likewise makes us better evangelists if we’re veteran Christians, and stick to the faith if we are new.

Secondly, this book gives a hint of what the “real world” is supposed to look like in the first place. The world culture we do evangelism in is the fake world. The way people treat each other and the habits that they do in that world are not what God originally intended. The monastic world, in which people actually forget how to have an argument, is the true world. The work of monks in cloisters inspires Christians outside of it to form alternative cultures to the prevailing one. It challenges us to live such good lives in our churches that those outside will be drawn to those communities.

So get the book now. Monasticism had a profound effect on my life. I’m sure it will for anyone else.

“Cur Custodes Legatis” or “You Should Read Watchmen”

I have a strange relationship with comics. On one hand, I am sometimes annoyed with people who think it is really important to argue whether Superman is faster than The Flash or whether Iron Man could win in a fight with the Rust-Monster Queen or some other nonsense. Yet, I authored a comic for about three years and I never deny that comic books can be good genre to tell a story. Back on the other hand, I still think many comics are cheesy and adolescent.

So maybe my problem with comics is their fans, or maybe that so few comics have great stories. Or perhaps I am a judgmental hypocrite.

Anyway, on to my recent reading of Watchmen

Watchmen is good. Watchmen is very good. I by no means claim to be a comic book expert, but I really enjoyed what I read. This is rare for comic books and me. This book was not only a “page-turner,” but a “page-put-downer,” in the sense that it was so dark that I had to leave it be for a few days.

Let’s start with the overall plot. The story starts in an alternate history in the mid-80s. It is during the cold war –an era the few today appreciate. Super heroes where once part of everyday life, but since 1977, they have been outlawed as “vigilantes.” Most of the super heroes have since retired to a quiet, humdrum, existence. One retired hero is murdered, and the plot takes off from there.

I won’t ruin the story for you. Instead, I will concentrate on its existential themes. These are only two among many. The first is the negative existential theme. In the chapter “The Abyss Also Gazes,” a psychologist interviews the particularly violent and uncompromising super hero, Rorschach. At the end of the chapter, Rorschach explains that existence is random, there is no moral rudder, and we devise reasons for it later. This hero, at some point in his past, found himself “free to scrawl [his] own design on this morally blank world.” The visual symbolism, an ink blotch, could not be more artfully placed than if it was done by that ugly, google-eyed, Frenchman himself.

There is also a happier existential theme. In another chapter Dr. Manhattan (the glowing blue guy you’ve seen in the trailers), realizes that he is losing his emotional link to the human world. He takes his former girlfriend (Silk Spectre), via teleportation, to Mars. As he gives her the grand tour, he asks a serious question: why is earth better than Mars? What is so important about human life? Why should I, Dr. Manhattan, bother with it anymore? After a series of flashbacks into the life of the Silk Spectre, Dr. Manhattan gets his answer. The chapter closes with a famous quote from Jung: “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being.”

My favorite part of the comic was the aforementioned Rorschach. This is the character who is quoted in the movie trailers: “All the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘Save us!’ … and I’ll look down and whisper ‘no.’” This is a character who does not call his disguise a “mask” but rather his “face.” This is a character so damaged on the inside that he makes Batman look well adjusted. This is the one character who kept going out into the urban filth to fight crime even after super heroes were banned.

Rorschach is a complicated and believable character. He uses brutality to get information when he needs it. He had no problem burning someone alive, which is harsh even when they deserve it. His other actions that make you wonder how much of a hero he really is. But at other times, he demonstrates gentler things, such as his friendship and commitment his fellow masked crusader.

So there are my thoughts on Watchmen. I’m sure we can’t wait for the movie. Of course, it is in the mires of legal trouble. Even Watchmen author, Alan Moore, hates it. This could turn into another Starcraft: Ghost. It might be better for people simply buy the book instead.