The Gospel and the Kingdom

In the recent past, Brian Maclaran said that he doesn’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. Though it’s a hard thing to admit, he’s probably right about that. As Christians, we hear the term “gospel” thrown around quite a bit, and we should, as it is central to our identity as Christians. However, it is often used in such a sense that is disconnected from who Jesus is, and what he taught. Generally, Christians use the term to refer to the kernel of their message, the “simple” truth behind the confusing parables and obscure laws. Sometimes this is boiled down to a few bullet-points, printed on a tract, and distributed, often ending up as litter. Why does it end up as litter? Because it is wrong and irrelevant. There is a gospel, but it doesn’t come on tracts; it is lived.

The parodied gospel so-called gospel goes something like this:

1.       God loves you.

2.       However, you are sinful, and, therefore, deserve eternal torture for your sins.

3.       But instead, God killed Jesus in your/our place, and Jesus absorbed all God’s anger against you.

4.       Now, you can go to heaven, and freely receive God’s love.

So convoluted is this system that it led St. Augustine to say that God hated us even while he loved us (On the Trinity). Augustine couldn’t reconcile the internal contradiction of this system. Neither can we. It begs the question: “ Did God love us before Jesus died for our sins, or does God love us because Jesus dies for our sins?” This system, known as the penal theory of atonement, pits Jesus against God, and, ultimately, leads to a view where Jesus actually saves us from God, which means God save us from himself. This sounds like a pretty emotionally unstable God, if you ask me, a God made in the image of an abusive father.  Is this really the gospel? Is this what Jesus preached?

In fact, it is not. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus preached that “The time has come. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Repent, and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). In Mark 1, Jesus proclaims that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, not just near. Repent, he says, and believe the good news. What good news? That the kingdom of heaven is at hand. But it’s not . . . Confused? The kingdom of heaven/God is not pie in the sky; it’s now. It’s about repentance. You can’t join without it because repentance is the starting point for living a Godly life. We can’t participate in the liberation of creation if we are still in bondage to our sin, which is our selfishness. We confess to break down barriers. We put aside all pretense of righteousness and admit our brokenness before God and one another. Then, we seek “on earth as it is in heaven.” We share, we feed, we visit, we clothe. We live lives of love, which means patience, grace, charity, forgiveness, peace, truth, justice. This is why Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.” We do not wait for what we already have.

This life is active and activist. Throughout history the Church, despite its sins, has been the group creating hospitals, orphanages, and schools. It was Christians like John Wesley who advocated strongly for the abolition of slavery, and like the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. who gave his life for equality. These are Christian ends. Mega churches are not.

The Christian life struggles; it bleeds; it weeps; it fights, though without bloodshed because it means harmony, the harmony mentioned in Genesis 1 at the end of the 6^th day, when all creation lived together without violence (all things ate only fruits and herbs). We see this in Mark 1: 13, when Jesus was with the wild animals. It is a reflection of Isaiah 11:6-9, which says:

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatted domestic animal together; and a little child shall lead them.

                And the cow and the bear shall feed side by side, their young shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
                And the sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
                They shall not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

It is code. Mark is saying. “Here it is! Quit waiting for lighting from heaven. Let’s get going.”

The gospel is about right-wising the world, the whole world. When John the Baptist sent his followers to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah, Jesus responded “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor” (Luke 7:22). And we come back to the good news. What was this good news for them? What was Jesus doing for them, or telling them that was so great? Jesus made a place at the table for them. Rather than seeing life circumstances as some karmic arrangement, Jesus acknowledges the injustice and chaos of the world, and proclaims that love has the final say. No one is without value. There are no Christian death camps, no Christian undesirables. No one is pushed to the fringes of society, at least that how it is supposed to be.

The good news is simple, though multi-faceted: God loves and forgives like a father loves and forgives his children. Status has no place; all are invited to join God without exclusion. Suffering is part of life, but is made more bearable through loving relationships. The seeming finality of death does not have the last word, for the resurrection is God’s promise of commitment to us, a promise that we live out in a community centered in selfless love. The Good News is that our destructive pictures of God are wrong, that our hierarchies of oppression will be undone, that God hears our prayers, and is responding to them. It empowers us to live hopefully in an otherwise hopeless world.

The gospel has roots before Jesus. The promise to the Jewish people was a relational one. God would be their God, and they would be God’s people. God will walk among them (Leviticus 26:12). The Gospel is about the ongoing faithfulness of God. It is God’s proclamation of love. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have the life of the ages” (John 3:16). This culminates at the cross. “For greater love has no man than this: that he lays down his life for his friend” (John 15:13). This is a response to the condition of the earth, and should be juxtaposed with the Genesis account of the flood. Rather than curse the earth and destroy it in fire or flood, God saves it through blood, God’s own blood. God offers up himself as a sacrifice to the world to atone for the evil, to say “I’m sorry.”

                The Gospel is not all-together complicated, but it means several things. Negatively defined, we might say that the idea that bad things happen to people as a result of God’s curse is wrong. Secondly, the notion that we suffer and wait for better times is wrong. Third, judgment of others is wrong. Fourth, the idea that God is apathetic to our suffering is wrong. Positively defined, we might say that a) shit happens; b) work together to clean that shit up; c) don’t look down on others, because your shit stinks, too; d) God loves us, and cares about us, shit and all.

Can Christians Be Americans?

As today marks the 10-year anniversary of 9-11, it is important that we “never forget.” However, it is equally important that we know what we are not forgetting. It’s easy to put “never forget” on a bumper sticker, or facebook update, but it is much more difficult to think about what we are supposed to remember. Are we just remembering the approximately 2,8000 who died that day? If so, to what end? And if we remember them, what of the more than 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians that have died as a result of the American response to this heinous act? Aren’t their lives just as valid? Aren’t they worth just as much? Don’t people love and miss them?

                Some may counter that these people would have died anyway, and certainly some would have. According to a New York Times article by John Burns, in 23 years in power, Sadaam Hussain was responsible for the deaths of around 200,000 Iraqi citizens, not including his military ventures against Iran and Kuwait, but that’s a far cry from 1,000,000. And the fact remains that he did not kill these people, they were killed by military forces in missions led by the U.S. for crimes (real or otherwise) against the U.S. They were killed by our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and we cheered them on. We sent them off with Toby Keith and freedom fries.

                When we are wronged it is certainly natural to react with vengeance. Sometimes the word “retribution” is thrown around, but the intent is the same. Roughly translated, it means something like “If you fuck with me, I’m going to fuck with you.” I don’t like to throw around f-bombs, but the intent is violence, and this is a violent word. We can cover our mouths and gasp at offensive language, but do we react the same way when we hear that children are picking up cluster bombs they think are toys, and ending up setting off these bombs in their homes? Do we care that since the first Gulf War many children have been born with fatal birth defects because of the use of depleted uranium?

                The world systems may embrace an “us v. them” mentality, but Christians cannot. “There is neither Greek, nor Jew, slave nor free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus” writes the Apostle Paul. All are one. Furthermore, nationality has not place is proper Christian thinking. We are not Mexicans, Americans, Koreans, and so on. If we follow Christ, then that is where our allegiance lies. Any national allegiance that claims to usurp our allegiance to Christ and Christ’s church is idolatrous. It is sin. Patriotism is a sin. American flags (or any flags) in church buildings is sinful. Our commitment is not to any one nation, but the well-being of all, for all are one. All are loved by God, and therefore are worthy of our love as well. We do not disdain the poor, the naked, the oppressed. We clothe, feed, and pray for them, working for peace, not with violence, but with kindness. The world wages war and calls it peace. Christians know this to be a lie.

                Peace is in Christ, the one who died so that we might live, the one who humbled himself on a cross, the one who healed those afflicted by violence, the one who granted personhood to the marginalized. This is what it means to be Christian. To be Christian is to love. And love keeps to record of wrongs. It does not look for opportunities for vengeance, nor does it rejoice in the hardship or misery of others. If we do, then perhaps we need to re-evaluate our commitments. Do we want to be Christian, or just American?

Pacifism as Christian Worship

                Today a Norwegian right-wing Christian (Christian at least according to initial reports) killed nearly 90 people, teenagers, in fact. Some have responded that this is the result of extreme gun control, insisting that if these teens had just been armed, then they could have fended off their attack. Maybe so, though it seems unlikely that teenagers would be carrying guns. However, I think it brings up a greater point. When I tell people that I’m a pacifist, they say things like, “What about Hitler?” What about Hitler? The problem with this reactionary thinking is that it is just that: reactionary. Pacifism's greatest hurdle is not that it would let Hitler take over the world. Rather, pacifism's strength is that Hitler never would have risen to power in the first place.

               How powerful could the church’s witness be if it retained a non-violent position? Instead of having to ask “What about Hitler?” We should ask “How did the most Christianized nation in Europe let Hitler come to power?” The church failed. It was, and still is, filled with members of societies who are more of the world (whatever world they are a part of it), than they are a part of Christ. So-called Christians care little for the actual teachings of Christ. They care about their own petty and simplistic understanding of the world, a sort of cowboy-code, where everything is extremely rigid (men are men, women are women, good is good, and bad is bad), with little explanation of why, other than vague references to "common sense." This world creates people capable of murdering children, and societies where people do nothing while children are murdered, all in the name of some one's good, whether that is ethnic purity, national expansion, stopping terror, etc..

Non-violence is powerful because it resists the power of violence, not through passivity, but through purposeful activity. Jesus laid down his life on the cross in a way that was meaningful. He could have died several times, but those particular times would not have had the impact they did (even apart from the resurrection). Pacifists don’t just die stupidly. Rather, we risk death to stop evil. We act in ways that are “as cunning as snakes, but as innocent as doves.” This means that we act thoughtfully, and without engaging in evil. We “do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good.” We don’t blow people up, but seek reconciliation in all things. This, however, means that we must be trained and prepared. Those who call themselves Christians should train in the arts of conflict resolution, psychology, and even martial arts, so as to disarm attackers without causing permanent harm.

                Jesus did not live by a sword made from steel, but the double-edge sword that was his tongue. We must destroy the forces of evil through words, through logos, but we must also be willing to engage in acts of non-violent resistance that may cost us our lives. We do not kill for our beliefs, but we are willing to die, if necessary, to stave off evil and proclaim God's good, that is, unconditional love for the world, every little bit of it.

Easton’s Song

Oh, God where is your grace? I don’t feel it right now. How can you sustain me? God, please tell me how.

I’ve always trusted you. My faith has been strong. Look at what you’ve put me through; Oh, what have I done wrong?

*Where is the salvation that you promised? If not from this, what will you save me from? Oh, I prayed for a miracle, but still I am left without a son.

I do not feel your comfort. I feel anger. I feel pain. Some say that this is what you went through, but I don’t think it’s quite the same.

Oh, why’d you make the world this way? I don’t think I can endure it. They say that pain brings compassion, but without pain there’s no need for it.

*chorus

so once again I ask, “Where are you in all of this?”  How can I believe you care when it feels like you’re not there?

And God I’ve never prayed like I prayed for my son. Paul says to pray without ceasing, and I didn’t stop—not once.

*chorus

I laid my hands on his chest and prayed that he would take a breath, that his body would work as it should. You would heal him. I know you would.

Yet, still we’re left here with emptiness in our hearts, pain in our chests

no baby in our arms.

*chorus

What explanation can you give

You can blame adam end eve

but there was no sin in my son

God, you should've saved Easton

Searching for Answers We Already Have

Why do we still read the scriptures? What exactly are we looking for? It's not that we shouldn't read the Bible, but too often we look at the Bible for magical “instant answers,” seeking some greater revelation that will finally help us make sense of the world. Those unfamiliar with the scriptures, or those not properly grounded in them may experience some sort of epiphany, or even various points of epiphany as they come to a fuller knowledge of the Gospel. However, the ultimate theological revelation is simple; it's love. Love is the foundation of all things Christian.

Far too often love is not even a factor in the lives of Christians; it is not even considered. Like many conservative politicians, many Christians see God as someone who takes their side, guarantees their dreams, and protects them from bad things. In other words, God is a magic talisman or a good luck charm, or a genie. There is no sense of knowing God, no sense of relationship. It often boils down to a mathematical equation: if we follow the rules, God will give us good things like a nice house and money. Such people read the scriptures hoping to find the formula that will unlock the magic blessing of God. Is this completely foolish? Absolutely. Is it grounded in scripture? You bet.

While one can make a case for the magical mathematics of YHWH, one cannot make such a case when looking at Jesus. What do we have to do to live a godly life--the "life of the ages"? We must give away all we have to the poor. So much for faithfulness leading to wealth. What happens when we live faithfully? Well, Jesus was executed, and most of his original followers were murdered. What about Paul? Well, he experienced quite a bit of abuse. So much for righteousness guaranteeing our security. Paul's blessings were spiritual. He was at peace; he was content. His peace rested in the fact that he was loved by God, rather than the circumstances in which he found himself, which were not very pleasant. None of these people thought that faithfulness would bring them a hot wife, a nice home, or wealth. Yet they lived faithfully, regardless. But what does living faithfully mean?

Faithfulness is not a complicated subject, at least in a general sense. We are to love God and neighbors. What does it mean to love God? Well, since God is not tangible, the way that we love God is by loving our neighbors. This is a double reinforcement. Those who want to love God but not other people don't have the luxury. Loving God is directly tied to loving our neighbors. This means that faithfulness is relational; it is not a one man play, but something we act out in concert with others. This is why John Wesley believed that Christian Perfection is realized through the practice of perfect love. When we fully love others, we are faithful to the way of Christ and the commands of God. To love others means to take their interests seriously and to work for their good, their benefit. To be righteous is to act in such a way so as to benefit others. This is the entire direction of the Christian life.

It is not single scriptures divorced from history that will save us from the various bits of stress and pain that we experience. Rather, it is a life grounded in the love of God through Christ that empowers us to persevere amidst trials and suffering. No single scripture will save us, but the love of God will.  

Jesus, Capitalism, and Civilization

I read a book not so long ago that lumped Christianity, capitalism, and corporations together. This bugged me since I know that the first has nothing to do with the second or third, but it is understandable given that here and now, the three do often seem to coexist as a sort of unholy triumvirate. This is not unintentional. In 1956, “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance to set capitalism apart from “godless” socialism. Good god-fearing people were, according to this simplistic worldview, capitalists. And capitalism takes the form of large multi-national corporations, who, following the example of Jesus, take their worthless crap (Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Levi’s, and Nikes) to the “ends of the earth.”
But is capitalism in anyway Christian? The very word means belief/focus in money. Socialism, on the other hand, mean belief/focus in the community. One has the attainment of wealth for the good of the individual in mind; the other has the good of all members of society in mind. Which of these sounds more like the teachings of Jesus? (hint: the latter).

Does this mean we should be Marxists? No, Marxism doesn’t work for one main reason: it neglects the doctrine of sin. People are self-interested. This isn't good, but it's how things are right now, and probably how they've always been. It can work on a small scale among people of a similar worldview, but inevitably the next generation always abandons the goals set forth by the previous generation. Somehow, they weren't inspired by the same ideals as their parents; I can't say why. Perhaps, like so many parents, they simply took their worldview for granted and never directlty taught their children why one way is better or kinder or more just.

Nonetheless, how can we as Christians fit within a capitalist matrix? By subverting it. I don't mean bombing, or open revolt, or even Tea Parties, but working within the system to change it, to make it more communal. The economic system we have come to know has become increasingly individualistic and selfish. Pensions are all but gone, real wages are down, perks are all but eliminated. We work our lives away for nearly nothing, and then spend our "retirement" bagging groceries. Christians need to take their place at the head of businesses, but need to subvert the system by eliminating destructive greed from the equation. (In case it's unclear, all greed is destructive.) Christians in positions of power need to listen to Jesus and not the so-called prophets of capitalism. They need to look out for the well being or workers and the poor; they need to consider the interests of others before their own. In other words, an economics of love has to come before any other economic commitment, if such commitments are even possible.

It seems to be that such things need to be pragmatic, rather than dogmatic. We need to embrace systems that works. But what does it mean for a system to work? It doesn't mean increasing the wealth of stock holders and boards and CEO's. It means looking out for everyone. When Jack Welch made $900 million in a single year, that could have created 9000 jobs at $100,000 each. Which of these would be better for the economy? Which option is more just? We need to move beyond the stupid compartmentalized thinking that is the legacy of modernity and begin to recognize how connected things really are. What's good for Main St. will be what's good for Wall St, but not necessarily vice versa. By this I mean that instead of a trickle down system where wealth never really leaves the portfolios of the rich, a trickle up system will create more stability and stimulate the economy because people will have more real spendable income. (Trickle down theory is part of a brilliant mythology created by the powerful that makes regular working class people actually argue on behalf of those who exploit them. It's akin to a starving person arguing that they should give food to a fat person and hope for scraps. What a great irony!)

Any future shape that the economy takes though will have to have more than the well-bing of the middle class in mind, it must also take the environment into account. Arguments that taking the environment seriously will adversely affect the economy are stupid are short-sighted. It is like saying that a house will cost too much to build to code. It will cost a lot more to rebuild the house once it has collapsed, not to mention that people will be inside when it collapses. In the same way, preventing pollution will be a lot easier than cleaning it up later. Then there is the cost in life, both animal and human. We will soon be seeing victims of rising ocean levels due to global warming, but what about poisoned water and air? What is the legacy that we wish to leave our children? Do we want them to inherit a world devoid of green space, animals, and clean water? Jesus told us to pray "on earth as it is in heaven." I'm sure that when we said this, he did not have in mind that heaven is a toxic trash heap devoid of life.

What is Atonement?

Atonemnet is simply at-one-ment. It is to be at peace, or in harmony. It is friendship. What does it mean for the faith of Jesus? In terms of Jesus’ own teaching, it doesn’t mean much, at least not in the way that we think about it contemporarily. Despite the current majority opinion, Jesus did not come to die on the cross so that God would be capable of forgiving sins. What an uncharitable and irrational idea. The God of the universe—the One who created all things!—who is in essence Love cannot forgive apart from bloodshed? Nonsense! Such a theology hinges on just one verse, a very irrelevant verse at that, which has almost no historical usage and is surely not representative of even an ancient Jewish understanding.

Understood as satisfying God’s divine “need” for vengeance, atonement played no role in Jesus’ mission. In fact, Jesus’ mission undercuts this idea of atonement. Multiple times he forgave people. In none of those instances was blood involved. Prior to his ministry John the Baptist offered a baptism that symbolized repentance—the condition (or appropriation) of forgiveness. Forgiveness was recognized as coming through repenting of one’s sin, not through killing of any kind. Killing animals and offering them to God is nothing more than leftover pagan superstition that infected the Jewish tradition. While those are very harsh words, it is important that they be harsh, that God is not linked to such absurd barbarity.

The Scriptures even point out that such sacrifices are displeasing to God, though not unanimously. For example, Psalm 40:6 tells us: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.” God doesn't require rituals-- especially rituals that are harmful to any of God's creatures--but ears that hear and a heart that is open. Likewise, the Psalmist also writes in Psalm 51:16-17 “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” What God truly wants from us is repentance. God wants us to stop doing evil and continually do good. We do not need to shed blood, not now and not then. We do need to make reparations, however. When we have wronged another, we need to try and repair the damage that we have caused. We don't do this because of fear that God will cast us into hell if we don't, but because love reconciles. This reconciliation is what atonement is all about. Harmony is God's plan, is God's desire. Peace is atonement.

Should We Limit Love?

“When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?”—Marilyn Manson

I’m no Marilyn Manson fan. Though I do think he is both intelligent and articulate. Here, he is making a point. If we just throw love out to whoever, is it really valuable? If it’s valuable, shouldn’t we be more discriminating in who we love? I think his point makes some sense. What comes to mind is preachers who are very involved in their congregation, but neglect their families. St. Paul talks to us about that. If you can’t maintain your family, you have no business trying to run a church community. The needs of your immediate family need to be met. You can’t serve others at the expense of your family. To the responsibility of raising your children properly is a grave sin. Unfortunately, it is all too common. I think it is one of the reasons preacher’s kids have such a bad reputation, though there are other factors, of course.

My first reaction to this quote was to say that it is true if love is a limited commodity, but as I thought about it, it is limited, in a sense. By this I mean that we can only really invest in a limited amount of people because both our time and energy are limited. We have to choose wisely. However, we can love others without restriction in the broader sense of being concerned for their well being, and working to help improve it. We can give money to support charity (though this is limited by our available funds); we can volunteer at shelters; we can teach adults or children how to read; we can reconcile with those who are estranged from us; we can vote in ways that take the interests of the most people into account; we can use our time better so that we can do more to help others.

To teach children, or adults for that matter, to love everyone places the highest value on love. Love is not like money. If there is more of it, there is no inflation which causes it to have less value.

Love is so important because others are important, despite their stupidity, arrogance, and brokenness. Loving others is less concerned with love as an abstract thing, and more concerned with others as God’s children, and our brothers and sisters. We love because others are worth loving, despite themselves, despite ourselves.

The problem with the church and society is not that we are too free in our love, but that we are not free enough. How many people do you know that have broken past the insider/outsider binary? We tend to love those like us, and hate those who are different. Christians have not really been an exception to this, though Jesus called us to be. As he told his disciples, we must be better than the pagans, and love those who do not love us. Only when we do this will we be like God.

Such love is not a smug liberal self-serving love that assuages our guilt while remaining ultimately apathetic, nor is it a conservative love that is judgmental, loving in name only while secretly hateful. It works for the good of its object. As Christians, we must always work for the good of all creation, not just our own good. We must put aside hate, and look past difference. We must see with God’s eyes. We must be willing to put aside our negative feelings and selfish interests, and live compassionately. Every person is a son or daughter of some one. Every person is loved, if by no one else, then at least by God. And every person is broken and in need of kindness. We must be ready and willing to give them kindness, even when it hurts. We must not limit love.

Should Christians Be Vegans?

Being a vegan in church is probably like being a pacifist at an NRA meeting, or a Christian ACLU member. We’re just not that common. But why shouldn’t we be? There’s a lot that can be said about how the Church has conformed to a certain culturally conditioned means of understanding the world. It is anthropocentric and utilitarian in many ways. In other ways it is pessimistic and gnostic. These are all ways that it is unfaithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jesus may or may not have eaten animals. I don’t know. In the gospel of John, he is depicted as cooking fish post-resurrection, but that’s the only story we have. Even then, some contend that the Greek says he ate some honeycomb, not fish. I’m not a Greek-reader so I can neither confirm nor deny this. Even if Jesus did eat meat, it would not have been often. Separated from food production as we are are, we rarely think about how what we eat is produced. Meat, for example, is very expensive to produce (about $35 a pound) and resource intensive (17 pounds of grain and 440 gallons of water for a single pound of cow flesh). It is the food of the rich. The 1st-century Jews would have eaten it on feast days, but that’s about it. The staples of their diet would have been bread, wine, olive oil, some dairy, and whatever garden vegetables and herbs they grew. From archeological discoveries we know they were prone to diseases like rickets and, overall, didn’t have very good nutrition. (This is why diet books flouting Jesus’ diet are absurd—though he probably was skinny, but from hunger!) 
Some do insist Jesus was a vegetarian (we have have an early gospel from the Ebionites insisting quite strongly on this point), others insist he was not, still others don’t care. Should we care? The scriptures say that “ a wise man has regard for the life/needs of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 10:12). Are we wise? Do we have regard for the lives of the animals with whom we share the planet? Or are we cruel in our wickedness? Modern animal husbandry is indeed cruel. Animals are confined so that they are unable to move; they are denied natural food and light, kept in constant states of pregnancy only to have their young taken from them. Cows, vegetarians by nature, are even fed the remains of other cows who have died. That's how mad cow disease started.
These are just a few practices. In reality, the entire process is cruel, inhumane, ungodly, and sinful. Jobs at a slaughterhouse have a 100% turnover rate,  and are very dangerous, with assembly lines that run so fast and so ineffectively that 25% of cows are dismembered while still conscious. This is wickedness.
Even if killing animals for food could be done in a way that did not cause suffering and was not resource intensive, I still would not participate. Why? Because my morality is shaped by my allegiance to God's goodness. For example, Genesis 1:29-31 reads,
“ Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.”
Though I do not read the creation story as a literal/historical event, I still understand this as representing God's intention for creation. God desired a world without bloodshed, not just between humans, but between all creatures. This is not the case, but we can still do our part to contribute to God's vision of peace. God desires harmony, not just "back then," but now and always. Harmony precludes unnecessary violence.

But what of sin? Since humanity is sinful such initial prescriptions are put aside in favor of a “grace” that allows permission for such things, doesn't it? Isaiah thought otherwise. Isaiah 11:6-9 reads:
The wolf will live with the lamb,
       the leopard will lie down with the goat,
       the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
       and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
       their young will lie down together,
       and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
       and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy
       on all my holy mountain,
       for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
       as the waters cover the sea.
Even in a state of rebellion, of sin, God still calls us to exercise peace at the level of inter-species relationships, and to take the lead, just as the child led them. Such harmony is even associated with having knowledge of God.If we truly have God's knowledge then we must cease to inflict needless harm on animals. If we refuse to do so, we do not know God. To paraphrase I John, how can we love God. whom we do not see, and not love our fellow creatures who we can see? If we cannot love them, then we cannot love God." Tough words. John applied them to humans, but there's no reason that they can't be applied to animals.

Jesus tells us that God cares for animals, and the OT is full of various laws to protect them. Perhaps those who think themselves wise or righteous should be more willing to consider the rights of animals, to consider that God loved the "world" (John 3:16), and not just humans. Perhaps they need to raise their consciousness a little bit, and begin to expand their sphere of compassion. Such a thing would be quite Christian. Jesus challenged his listeners to move beyond the Jew/Gentile binary, to include more than just Jews in their sphere of concern. It's time we moved beyond just humans as well.

Toward a Fuller Reading of the Scriptures

Calvin told us that Scripture is the Word of God when it points to Christ. Such an idea is a proper hermeneutic in that it rightly places Jesus at the center of the narrative, using Jesus as the interpretive matrix through which to read the Scriptures. This helps us to determine God’s self-revelation from human distortions of God, attempts to make God ours, rather than recognizing that we belong to God. But this is not all that is necessary to understand the Bible. Reading the Bible, we can plainly see that there exist multiple genres of the written word. Paul writes in prose; Acts, the Gospels, and much of the OT are written in narrative form; the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are wisdom sayings and poems. We also have apocalyptic writings which are shrouded in symbolism and mystery, which is appropriate and necessary given their subversive nature. And even these are not clear cut, as the Gospels contain poems and parables, and so on. Additionally, we have the difference of context to consider. Ancient biographies were not structured as contemporary biographies are. They were not the empty recital of fact, but contained what we would call myths or legends as ways of communicating truth. Such a means was necessary given that, like the apocalyptic, the Gospels contained much that was subversive to the dominant religious and political climate. In a certain sense, the Gospels needed to be hard to understand in order to help secure the safety of the original communities from enemies.¹

In that some parts of the Bible were written in “coded” language, the community’s knowledge was imperative for rightly reading the Scriptures. Such knowledge is now lost to us. There are many points where we might have strayed. Perhaps it was when Constantine incorporated Christianity into the Empire, perhaps it was when the Church became more gentile than Jew, perhaps it was even when Jesus died, leaving the disciples to muddle his message. However, contemporary means of reconstructing the past have helped us immensely to gather a clearer picture of the early church community and its life. With all that is known it seems still that much knowledge has been lost when it comes to rightly reading the Bible.

Regardless, how we read the Scriptures contemporarily does not represent the only way or even the best way to do so. To say that each person is his own interpreter and the text is clear is simply untrue. If the text was that clear we wouldn’t have so many different interpretations. There is probably not a single interpretation that can exhaust the meaning of the text. If we confess the Bible to be inspired, despite its failings, we believe it to express who God is and contain God’s self-revelation. This means that the text is as full as God is, virtually inexhaustible. This is seen in the early readings of the Church. Historically, the Church understood the text as having multiple senses. It had an allegorical or symbolic sense, a literal or historical sense, and a tropological or moral sense, for example. In such readings, dating back to Origen in the 2^nd century, the literal sense was always the least important. This is important because it demonstrates that symbolic readings find a deep affinity with the historical Church, even though our readings will be different. For example, I would argue that significant parts of the OT are to be understood as symbolic stories meant to communicate certain truths. The issue is not whether something is symbolic or true, but whether the truth communicated takes the form of history or allegory.

Such readings do not endanger the Scriptures, for even in a historical reading, the meaning is found in and derived from the symbols. An allegorical readings simply asserts that the symbols were meant to be understood as symbols, rather than history, and that it is in the Church’s best interests—for the sake of its credibility, and its intellectual and spiritual life—to affirm rather than deny such readings. The discipline comes in determining which parts of the overall narrative are to be understood as parabolic rather than having actually occurred. This is where the sciences of history, textual criticism, and archeology, among others, come into play. Such tools can help us determine how to read the Scriptures. However, the traditions of the Church and its readings are the primary means of determining how the Bible is to be read. This does not mean that we can never disagree with those from the past, simply that we heed their input as wise voices from the Church’s life. We ought to give their voices a say in the life of the Church, which is, as G.K. Chesterton described it, a “democracy of the dead.”

1 Early churches had “gatekeepers” at the entrances of house church meetings who functioned as bouncers in order to guarantee the safety of believers who risked their lives to gather.

The Soul and the Resurrection

While doing some research on the relationship between science and religion, I came across John Polkinghorne, a physicist and Anglican Priest. Like me, he does not believe in a disembodied soul or a resurrection of one’s actual body, in terms of the same cells or matter that currently constitute us. I came to this conclusion quite some time ago, but this is my first attempt to articulate it in written form.

First of all, the soul and a bodily resurrection are two separate and contradictory systems, two different views of the afterlife. The first, is a more Greek derived system that saw matter is more prison-like, unreal, or to be transcended. Such dualism still influences many Christians today. The latter affirmed the the necessary materiality of life. Good or bad, this is what we are. It didn’t depend on lofty views of ideals or forms. We live, we die, and God will faithfully restore our lives and communities in a time of redemption that includes, but is not limited to, political freedom. Being a believer in the resurrection of Christ, I naturally gravitated toward the resurrection, but if the resurrection is true, why bother with a soul that survives death and floats around in some temporary place while it waits for the body to be restored? I suppose purgatory might suffice as an explanation, but purgatory strikes me as a rather inane idea. It is too guilt-ridden and ecclesio-centric.

I would propose that if we are indeed bodies, and are so essentially, we do not need souls that inhabit our bodies (what would said souls do anyway?), nor that survive death. If God grants us new bodily life, why bother with souls? I simply see no reason for both a soul that survives death and the resurrection as well.

So, if we stick with the resurrection, is it the same bones, flesh, and everything else that is given life again? No, I don’t think so. Why not? Think of it this way: we never lose water. The water we are drinking now could be the water Jesus was baptized in. Water never disappears, it just changes locations, and sometimes forms, but it is never lost. Matter is the same (yes, I know, water is matter too). It can’t be created or destroyed (not by us at least, perhaps by God). Our cells are created using matter from a mother and father, which is supplemented by nutrients, which are also matter. We then grow by ingesting more matter, and then, eventually, we die. Our bodies decompose and give nutrients to the earth, feeding plants, which are eaten by animals, whether human or deer or whatever. There is an overlapping of matter. to say that the exact matter, the same cells I am now will be resurrected is naive, even if my example of the cycle of life is in need of some fine tuning.

So if we are not resurrected cell for cell, then what happens?  Like Polkinghorne, I believe in reconstitution. We will be made again. But wouldn’t that just be a copy since it isn’t the same cells? We replace our cells constantly. In fact, those of us who are adults remembering things when we were children should note that we do not share a single cell in common with ourselves at the time of our memory. They’ve all been replaced. And yet here we are. Despite having all new cells, we remember. It was still our experience. How does this work? How do we retain memories if we’ve been completely replaced? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem likely that we would ever be able to know such a thing, though I am clearly no scientist. Nonetheless, our selfhood does not depend on cellular continuity. What does it depend on? That’s a good question.

Virtuous Pagans

Gandhi was a good man. He certainly may have had his flaws, but he provided an example of what a life lived openly for the benefit of others looks like. He, of course, is not the only example, but he is an example nonetheless. Yet, despite his deep love and the goodness he brought about, many Christians would condemn him to hell. They need not. Though contemporary Christians practice rigid exclusivism, it was not always so. Justin Martyr, for example, writing in the second century, even called the ancient Greek Philosophers Christians because they lived reasonable lives. While we should not necessarily call them Christians, Justin's general line of thinking is both accessible and applicable.

If God is the Source of all Goodness through which all kinds of goodness originate, then nothing good either is or occurs apart from God. This is something I believe all Christians can agree on. How this can be applied is much more controversial. This means that there is no virtue apart from God, and that, therefore, the virtuous, whether pagan, atheist, or agnostic, participate in God through living virtuously, as Paul says in Romans 2. This does not mean that virtue causes one to participate in God, but because one cannot be separated from God by the nature of their very existence--since we exist in God, and God through us--virtue is what occurs when we either consciously or unconsciously assent to the Goodness that God is. When we seek Goodness, we find God, even if we don't acknowledge God as such.

What does this mean? God does not belong to the Church alone. Though I would maintain that the Christian faith is unique in that it is founded upon the teachings and life of the One we believe is God come to us (Emanuel), this same God that became Jesus was not devoid of work elsewhere. Both the Psalms and the New Testament witness to the idea of God's revelation in nature—a nature common to us all no matter which part of earth we may reside in. This makes sense if Christ truly is the Logos/Sophia, the wisdom of God, the reason or rationale behind the universe, and the ordering principle of creation. If God is the Source of reason and wisdom (both of which are forms of goodness), then no reason or wisdom is spoken or thought apart from God. Searching the scriptures of other religious traditions, this should become clear. There is much overlap, such as the Golden rule. This is not to say that all revelation is equal. It certainly is not. But to say that certain theological ideas are mistaken, unclear, or even distorted is different than saying that a religious tradition is devoid of God or even founded by demons. While there may in fact be demonically inspired rituals, any ideals that contribute to love, peace, and justice should be attributed to God and God's Spirit working through people to make God''s kingdom a reality. This doesn't mean that the Spirit's words aren't misunderstood at times. They certainly are. The Church's life, unfortunately, is full of such mistakes.

So what does this ultimately mean for the Christian concept of soteriology? It means that God is more gracious than we are. Though spiritual healing and eternal life are only available through Christ, Christ is present in more than Jesus. And though Jesus is the highest form of the revelation of God, there are still things to be learned from other faith traditions, and even non-traditions as we encounter people who do not hold to an overarching system of spirituality or morality, and yet still maintain the highest moral standards. Where there is love, God's purposes and plans are coming to fruition. Where there is love God is at work, and people are responding to God's call, even if they are unaware that such a call is being made.

Moving Beyond Penal Models of Atonement

Nearly all fundamentalists and Evangelicals believe in a model of atonement whereby Jesus made an exchange with God for us. The exchange looks something like this. God has to punish us because retributive justice is God’s nature, but God also wants to forgive us because God loves us. in order to satisfy the conditions of God’s love and of God’s justice, God orchestrates the death of Jesus—the one for the many. God pours his wrath upon Jesus, who acts as a guilt offering. When we become Christians, then, are sins are forgiven because they have already been punished God’s punishment of Jesus.

This should raise many concerns. First of all, God is divided amidst God’s self. Does God want to forgive or punish? It can’t be both ways. If we forgive, we don’t punish. If a transgression is punished it is not forgiven. If we do adopt this model, we can’t say that God forgives sin. What we say instead is that Jesus made satisfaction for the sins of humanity. But how can we say that God is love if this is the case. Certainly love entails forgiveness, the scriptures state this clearly. but if penal models of atonement are true, then God does not forgive sin.

There are also ontological problems with the model. It leads to an unforgiving Father God demanding “justice” and a forgiving son pleading for mercy for his friends. How does that work with the Trinity? God is of one will, not a divided will. Either father and Son both want forgiveness or they both want punishment. You can’t have it both ways; the result is nonsense.

The problem is that an obscure passage from Leviticus is read into the passion story. It states that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood. However, Jesus explicitly forgave twp people in the NT apart from the shedding of blood! John the Baptist also baptized with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? Wait, what’s that? repentance is the condition of forgiveness? But that undercuts all the metaphysical nonsense that makes the Incarnation necessary. A God/man had to die to forgive sins! No. In fact no one had to die, God simply had to proclaim forgiveness. That’s it. Of course, we have to do what’s right and make amends with those we’ve wronged. But there are no ontological magic tricks that make us “in” and others “out.”

Jesus didn’t die to make it possible for God to forgive sins. Such logic is a farce. Jesus died because he challenged the religious and political structures of his day. This made him dangerous. He knew that. He knew the people would revolt and make him king if he let them, and then the Romans would crush the revolt, as they did in 70 CE and again in 135 CE. Jesus dies because he proclaimed a radical and liberating kingdom that exists independent of institutions or borders or earthly kings. This certainly would have angered the earthly kings enough to have him done away with. God did not orchestrate Jesus death, but gave Jesus the courage to pursue his mission, to proclaim God’s kingdom. It is in this sense, and this sense only, that God desired that Jesus die. The mission required it. Not because of ontology, but because of the risks of peacefully challenging violent enemies.

When we understand Jesus’ life within a framework of non-violence, it takes on new depth. True love requires non-violence. If we love neighbors and enemies, there is no one to hate. And if there is no one to hate, there is no one to kill. The embodiment of such love is at-one-ment. When we seek to love all, just as God loves all, then we are at one with God. Otherwise, we are liars. For whoever does not love his brothers and sisters, whom we can see, cannot love God, whom we cannot see.

Post-Partisan Faith

Christians seem to be extremely partisan, more so than other religious groups. I recently saw a report on Fox News where the commentators expressed their concern about Obama’s supporters elevating him to the status of savior. I find this a bit ironic since many of Bush’s supporters claim that he was placed their by God. Bush was God’s chosen vessel in their eyes. That should be much more concerning. I’ve never claimed that God chose Obama, nor do I know anyone else who has. I do think he is a genuinely good guy who is trying to do what is right, rather than just playing the God card. It seems the former president did just that. He and his constituents used Christians in order to increase their power. It didn’t turn out so well. We ended up with two ongoing wars (Did God tell Bush to start those two? If so, God hasn’t read the sermon on the Mount.), and a ruined economy.
The solution to the alliance of the North American Protestant Church with the right cannot be fixed by younger generations of Christians allying ourselves with the left. We can work with all people and groups with common goals. This means we may work with both parties on different issues. Christians should join liberals and radicals in the streets to protest war. We should join libertarians when the government oversteps it’s boundaries. We should join conservatives in protecting the unborn. In other ways, we should join with feminists in asserting the equal rights of both sexes. We should join with labor unions, and even socialists and communists if need be, in asserting workers’ rights. We should join with hippies and deep ecologists to protect the environment. We rarely do such things, however. Instead, we focus internally and embrace a gospel of selfishness, wealth, and apathy. We shut out the “evil” world and pray for God’s judgment. How stupid we are!
Where is love if we shut the world out? How can we proclaim the victory of God in Christ if we know no one outside our church? How can we claim anything that can be legitimately called salvation if it’s all about us? Jesus never taught selfishness. We certainly didn’t tell us to shut ourselves off from the world. He enjoyed the company of whores, traitors, bastards, outcasts, and lepers. The church has become no better than those who opposed Jesus’ message. We have sold out. WE have become the enemies of God in our arrogance and hatred. For as I John tells us if we cannot love our neighbors, how can we love God?

What the Church Can Learn from the Justice League

In the amazingly well done cartoon “Justice League Unlimited,” there is an episode where the Justice League saves several small towns from an alien weapon. Ultimately undoing it from the inside, they attempt to buy some time by using a large laser cannon to create a barrier between the expanding alien weapon and the towns in danger. After defeating the alien technology, the United States army keeps the weapon, in case they ever need to use it against the Justice League. Why because the Justice League is a loose cannon. True, they only do good, but they do not hold a strict allegiance to the United States government. This makes them dangerous.
The Church would do good to remember its roots. It was originally a small persecuted movement within the Roman Empire, only doing good as it spread among women and slaves, but a threat to the Pax Romana, a peace dependent upon predatory violence and exploitation. How legitimate is the peace that America is trying to secure? Is the means by which it does so contrary to God’s kingdom? What kind of allegiance, if any, can Christians have to a government that demands unquestioning obedience to its arbitrary mission. Doesn’t the Church’s ecumenical and universal nature transcend national allegiances? The Church should take a lesson from the Justice League. We work for God’s good, which means the good of the world, not the petty interests and power plays of nation-states. Christians must remain independent of such claims. We must be, in a sense, anarchists.

The Irony of My Universalism

My journey toward universalism is a bit ironic, I think. I first began to flirt with the idea in grad school while studying Paul. Reading E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright gave me a wholly different understanding of covenant. Reading Paul, especially Romans gave me an understanding of God’s grace that was, in fact, gracious. At that point, I rejected the idea of hell all together. God’s faithfulness to us was greater than humanity’s unfaithfulness.
Later on, as I struggled with the idea of evil, I rejected universalism in favor of annhilitionism. I took a more material view of it. Some understand it to mean that the unrepentant suffer in hell for a while and are finally destroyed. I took it to mean that they just die, but the those who commit themselves to God’s ways are raised up in the resurrection.
After the death of my brother, I began to see that God’s love is greater than our baggage. My brother was a sinner, he was steeped in it. Despite that, despite choices for which some might label him “wicked,” my family and I still loved him. Despite the fact that he took his own life, we still deeply cared for him and would have done anything to bring him back to us. I began to see that if we cared about my “wicked” brother, if we did not reject him, if we loved him without condition, how much more did God love him? How much more was God’s love for him unconditional. And so I was a universalist again. Though it was not purposeful (my parents are not universalists) this is the greatest lesson they have taught me.
At this point, I still rejected hell and so discarded the parts of the Bible that mentioned it, while emphasizing the parts of the Bible that talked about God’s love. I didn’t think I could reconcile the two. However, when I began reading some books about the subject I discovered that many Christian Universalists do believe in hell. They just believe that it is temporary and purgatorial in nature. Furthermore, they made a strong biblical case for their belief. The irony of the position I now find myself in is that as a universalist I am now more orthodox and more biblical than I was when I wasn’t a universalist. My universalism is a matter of being more conservative, not more liberal. And I find myself in good company. Origen, Clement, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs Von Balthasaar, Karl Barth, and many more throughout the Church’s history have been universalists. Into the 5th century it was actually pretty common. Strange now how it’s considered heresy while the idea of a loving God condemning billions of people to hell, most on a technicality, is considered true and good. What perverse morality. Thank God it isn’t true.

God’s Irresistable Love and Human Freedom

God’s Love and Human freedom, even the nearly absolute freedom we enjoy (in respect to our relationship with God, not necessarily with others), are not in contradiction. Most would not probably see a contradiction, except, perhaps in the case of universal reconciliation. Some believe this doctrine to contradict the idea of human freedom. We know humans have freedom to reject God. Therefore, God must not be able to reconcile us. In this model, hell is something we choose. I use to think like this. I remember having a conversation with a friend in Santa Cruz who was anything but a Christian. I said something to the effect that non-Christians, when confronted with the reality of God essentially spit in God’s face (I was more naive then and saw things in a more black and white nature. Now I understand that things aren’t so clear cut, even if we would like them to be). He responded, sort of shocked, that he would do nothing of the kind, that he thought it would be a more awe-inspiring experience. Though my friend rejected God, he did not do it out of a hatred of God, but out of either disbelief or misunderstanding. He did not understand why God interacts with the world the way God does, or would make the rules the way God did, therefore, we chose to reject the theistic model. There were blockades that stopped my friend from becoming a Christian, but if they were removed, if he was directly confronted with the power and love of God, my friend would repent and respond to God’s love in kind.
So is our understanding of freedom accurate? I don’t think so. Much of contemporary theology is radically conservative, which means it fails to recognize the influences and limitations of both our genetic predispositions and our environmental factors. I do not want to go to far the other way and say that we are not responsible for our actions, but I don’t want to say that genetics and environment influence and thus limit our ability to make certain choices in certain situations.

So what is freedom? In the following propositions I hope to come to a clearer understanding of it, as well as its obstacles.

1. Freedom is the ability to choose to act on our desires without being restricted from doing so by another and without restricting another’s ability to do the same.
2. We only desire what is actually good or is seemingly good, goodness being a matter of pleasantness or usefulness—something beneficial.
3. Anything that hinders our ability to understand what is pleasant, useful, or beneficial compromises our ability to know what is good, and thus restricts our freedom.
4. Removing  or overcoming that which distorts our vision of the good increases our freedom.
5. Therefore, God’s act of purging or correcting our understanding of goodness is not a violation of our freedom.
6. This correction will result in our freely choosing God and our welcome into heaven, even after death.

We already believe all these things. Think of those who are brainwashed, either in cults, or as children in terrorist groups like the LRA. Their ability to understand what is good has been compromised. We also say things like “If he only knew!” when some one we care about is making or has made a bad decision. We understand that such a person’s understanding of what is good is distorted. They are not acting with their best interest in mind, and are, therefore, acting irrationally. But irrationality and freedom are not compatible, which is why we punish those with lower brain capacity less for the same crimes as those of us with full capacity. We also understand that mistakes do not warrant full culpability, some culpability, but not full. And this is where those of us who reject God fall: we reject God and God’s way because we do not understand it (though many who accept it do not understand it either), but our lack of understanding is a mistake. Something blocks us from choosing properly, whether predisposition, environmental factors, or misinformation. In any case, these can all be cleared up. We can be healed, retaught, and told the truth. Wouldn’t we do the same for our children? God desires that all be saved and God desires that we freely choose to be saved. If we cannot freely choose, then God will give us the freedom we need to make the right choice and dwell in love for eternity.

The Logic of Christian Universalism

Most Christians are not universalists. In fact, most believe that God eternally tortures non-Christians. Some hold to a more inclusivist model where the faithful in all traditions are accepted by God because they are doing the best they can given their context. For example, if a person is born in Saudi Arabia and raised a strict Muslim, never really hearing the Gospel, is it fair that god damn that person? Inclusivists say it's not fair. While I believe the inclusivist position is the better of the two, it still has its problems. As I will show, and I'm indebted to Thomas Talbott for this, the logic of who God is leads to the conclusion that God will save all people.

Profesor Talbott suggests a simple exercise in logic, an exercise which distinguishes three different groups of Christians based on their denial of one of the three proposed points, which I have taken some liberties with here, but which lead to the same conclusion. They are as follows:

1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.

2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.

3. Most people will be separated from God and tortured in hell forever.

The third premise does not seem to follow the first two. The third only makes sense, in fact, if we deny one or both of the other two points. Calvinists escape this logical conundrum by denying that God loves all people and desires their salvation. According to Calvin, God only desires the salvation of some--the elect. Arminians, though they faithfully confess that God is love, deny the second proposition by positing that human freedom stops God from accomplishing God's will, even in the afterlife. Christian universalists, such as myself, affirm the first two propositions and so deny the third. Because we believe that God is love and desires the salvation of all, and because we believe that God can bring God's will about ultimately, we deny that the unrepentant will be eternally lost. They may experience a time of punishment in hell, but not for eternity.

Much of God's will is not accomplished on earth because God has given creation freedom. We can do as we wish without God intervening to stop us. In this sense, we do many things that thwart God's will. Where God desires peace, we make war; where God desires love, we hate; where God desires compassion, we are selfish. However, there is no reason why this logically carries over to the next life. I do not mean that there are not consequences for sin in this life or the next, only that our ability to thwart God's will on earth does not mean that we will be able to do so in the afterlife. While freedom is important, it is not the end all. God is the end all, and all things will be subjected to him, according to St. Paul. Every will will be in alignment with God, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. This is not because God will lobotomize unbelievers so that they do what God says. God is not a "sky bully." Rather, the reality that God is Love in essence, and wants us to be supremely happy--wants what is in our best interest and will provide us with lasting joy--should persuade us toward God. Do we reject a loving parent, a parent that not only wants what is best for us, but brings it about? Any rejection of those who love us, requires valid reasons, but if there are no valid reasons for rejecting God, why would we do so? (I'm assuming here that our various philosophical objections to theism or the problem of evil will be asnwered in an adequate manner). A rejection of God in the afterlife, once the truth has been made known to us, would require such irrationality that we could say that such a person is not actually free, but still clinging to old wounds or stubbornness. The removal of such afflictions does not require a breach of one's freedom any more than a removal of cancer does.

The Cross as a Symbol of Non-Violence

St. Paul wrote that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8),”the ungodly” (5:6) who had made ourselves enemies of God according to our sin (5:10) that we might come to repentance (2:4).

Empowered by the love of God in him, Christ allowed himself to be killed because he desired his persecutors to repent and be reconciled to God, which is why he forgave them with his last breath. Christ could have called down legions of angels to defend him, but faced his death without threats of violence, without responding to violence with counter-violence. Instead, through active peacemaking, he proved his innocence and exposed his killers for the villains they were. Thus the cross should be seen as a non-violent act by which God attempts to bring us to repentance by exposing our guilt in the death of the innocent. This is Christian non-violence, and we see it rooted in the very ideas of the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus. So why aren't more Christians practitioners of non-violence?

Better an Atheist than a Calvinist

Wesley said that, and he was right. Calvinism is evil. Really, really evil. It's also rooted in a bad reading of scripture, a very, very bad reading. I used to be more tolerant (blame society's liberal influence for that), but I'm becoming more “conservative,” which requires me to reject ideas that I find morally repugnant, like Calvin's thought. For those who don't know Calvin maintained that God, from eternity, determines before a person is born that they will be condemned to hell (This is different from knowing. The second is passive, while Calvin's damning is active) or "saved" to heaven. You would think that this would conflict with the confession that God is Love, wouldn't you? And isn't this is the central Christian confession? God forgives; God opens up the way of salvation to us. Why? Because God is Love. This is exactly what the famous John 3:16 tells us: “For God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” Pretty clear, unless you're a Calvinist.

J.I. Packer, a reformed theologian, and thus in inconsistent one, tells us that the confession “God is Love” is not the whole truth about God. This is true in that there are other things we can say about God. We can also say that "God is triune" is not the whole truth about God, but it names somethign about God's essence. It tells us something. However, this is a roundabout way of explaining that God isn't really love. I've heard many times that God is “Holy” Love”, which is another way of saying that God isn't love at all. If we cannot draw any parallels between love as we know it as humans and God's love, then there is no point in saying that God is Love. This is, in fact, just what the Calvinists do. Thank God they are wrong.

Of course, we have I Corinthians 13 to tell us what love is. We also know that Christian ethics are rooted in God's very person. We are to be perfect, just as God is (Matthew 5:48), merciful just as God is (Luke 6:36). But if God predetermines who goes to hell, and a person is judged according to the things he or she has done (Ezekiel 24:14, Revelation 20:12), then God must cause sin. This is what Calvinists must say, and have said. “Neither rape, nor adultery, nor theft, nor murder happens apart from the will of God.” If Calvin believed this, no wonder he did the things he did. Calvin was personally responsible for at least one death, that of Miguel Servantes, some one who dared to disagree with Calvin. Servantes sent Calvin a copy of his book, a letter outlining Calvin's mistakes, and a copy of Calvin's work “Institutions,” where the mistakes were pointed out. This outraged Calvin so much, that from that point on, he desired the death of Servantes. (We know this from Calvin's correspondences) Apparently, Calvin forgot to love his enemies, but I guess you don't have to do that when you don't believe that God is Love, but arbitrary power. Calvin's God is formed in the image of kings and emperors, who apply their will without reference to goodness, love, or justice. They do as they please. Calvin reasoned that God must be the same, forgetting to root his theology in the love of God. In fact, he easily brushes off God's love in his theological work. Why? It doesn't fit within his theological framework.

So, in this schema, God's not really love, and determines beforehand who will go to hell and who is lucky enough to go to heaven. Faced with a religion like this, atheism is the right response. Better no god, than a monstrous one. Fortunately, this is not our choice. Calvinism simply isn't Christian. It has nothing to do with Judaism, then or now, Jesus' own teaching on the matter, or Paul's. It's nonsense, and nothing more. God is not the author of evil, for the Bible bears witness to God working against evil, but if God wills evil, then God works against God's self. And as Jesus said in Matthew 12:25 that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Abe Lincoln said that too, but he was quoting Jesus.) Paul also tells us that love does not delight in evil (I Corinthians 13:6), but if God wills evil, he must desire evil because God only wills what God desires. And if God desire evil, he must see some good in it because no one desires that which they don't think good. This would mean that God delights in evil since surely, we delight in that which we find good, right? Rather, God “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). Even the unrighteous are loved by God, for God loves those who do not love God, the very basis for our call to love our enemies. If we must love our enemies, how much more does God love them? And if God loves them, Calvinism is nonsense that must be purged from the Church. Jesus was a martyr who forgave, but Calvin was a murderer who had a man brutally killed for disagreeing with him.