What Can We Know About Heaven and Hell?

I’ve heard a lot of sermons on heaven and hell. Too many I think. But I have noticed something interesting in the last few years: the detailed accuracy with which people describe both eternal places. Preachers seem to know everything about heaven and hell. Particularly hell. And that strikes me as strange for a couple of reasons.

First, the New Testament language about heaven is pretty vague. Certainly not up to our Western standards of rational detailed analysis. Most heavenly images are taken from Revelation which is clearly a book of symbols and Jewish apocalyptic imagery. Plus we have various experts describing heaven in detail for us, even down to what kind of house we get and what types of jobs will be waiting for us. Honestly, despite the popularity of Randy Alcorn’s book, most of that is conjecture. Peacefulness, joy, and comfort certainly describe it, but most people understand that golden streets and crystal seas are illustrations for something truly indescribable. People are okay with a preacher saying, “I don’t know everything about heaven, but I know it’s gonna be good!”

What’s more fascinating is the painstaking detail in which hell is described. Eternal torment involving fire, pain, and torture. According to most evangelial views of hell, people have the rest of eternity to sit around on fire and think about the bad things they did. Okay, that’s a little sarcastic there, but honestly hell is used more often in altar calls than heaven is. Some people, just in my questioning of the standard image of hell are getting nervous reading this right now. But what’s so strange about that is just how ambiguous the Bible is about the afterlife. People are satisfied to know that God has prepared somewhere for them in heaven and that puts their lack of detail at ease. But hell is a different story. In fact, the more detailed you can be, the better chance of scaring someone into salvation.

But really, hell is even more ambiguous than heaven. The Old Testament uses the word sheol to describe the afterlife – a word that means “grave” and little more. The Jews were relatively unconcerned about the afterlife, fully content to focus on what they could do in the present life to honor God. The New Testament seems to be more exact. But a closer look shows that there’s still much to debate. Jesus describes some ideas about it, but never really gives us details. He compares it to a local garbage dump (Gehenna) and talks about worms. And there’s more. The Greek word (aiōnios) generally used to describe the fire of hell is translated in as “eternal” – a period of time.  But in other places, the same word is used to describe an act of permanence of destruction – a state of quality. So, traditionalists say that it means eternal fire while conditionalists say it means permanent destruction (death) of the wicked. But the truth is that aiōnios and its Hebrew counterpart (olam) speak of things that all come to an end: the Passover, Caleb’s inheritance, Solomon’s Temple, and Gehazi’s leprosy. It’s just not that simple – the word means both. Similarly, traditionalists say that “gnashing of teeth” describes the torment of sinners in hell. But the ancient use found in the Old Testament assigned “gnashing of teeth” to someone about to destroy another – in the conditionalist’s case: God. So what does that mean to us today?  Honestly, it doesn’t tell us much.  And that’s the point I’m making. The same verses are used by people who believe different things about hell. And, surprisingly, I’m okay with that.

Why can we leave the details of heaven alone yet be compelled to extract every detail about hell? Because hell helps preachers out. Descriptions of hell illicit responses from people and, if used just right, can increase altar call numbers. But in doing that, I think we miss the point. When I told someone the other night that the gospel is not about them not going to hell, they looked at me strangely. They simply had never thought that there might be something beyond “fire insurance” and a list of do’s and don’ts to the gospel. The Bible shrouds the afterlife in ambiguity for a very important reason: so we won’t be tempted to bribe people into the Kingdom of God using either heaven or hell. If that’s what made you decide to be a Christian, then great. But intimacy with God lies beyond such ”survival of the fittest” techniques of evangelism. The gospel is about falling in love with a God who has already declared his unconquerable love for you.

Minivan Discrimination! Someone Call the Authorities!

Beth went back to work today after 12 weeks of maternity leave. During her leave, we switched cars - she drove the minivan while I took the MINI cooper. For me, it was a nice change of pace. I started driving the van about three years ago when I stayed home with our girls and wrote my doctoral dissertation. You may think that driving a van is strange for a guy. I suppose so…but I just spent 3 months driving the MINI while wearing an Express for Men wardrobe. Trust me – that raised some eyebrows, too.

I want to discuss an alarming trend in our country today: minivan discrimination. Now, don’t get me wrong – I like the van. However, a certain stigma does follow it. Minivans are known for erratic driving and illogical traffic behavior. I used to hate minivans as well for these reasons. Until I became the van driver: handing sippy cups and snacks over the seat, spending the majority of my time looking in the rear-view mirror to referee a fight, and rifling through toys while driving with my knees. Each van is accompanied by this type of behavior, compounded with speeding since (of course) vans are late to every engagement all the time.

However, as you become what I am now – a van ninja – you can do all these things without signalling to the outside world what is going on. Van ninjas look as if they are driving calmly down the road, never steering into the next lane by accident. But don’t be fooled, people. This state of perfection is more difficult than the game of golf. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend now that I have achieved van excellence. People pull out in front of vans constantly. At least 90% of the time, though there is no car behind me, a driver will pull out in front of me without hesitation.

Most other drivers assume that all van drivers are slow and incapable of efficient driving. That’s hardly the case. I drive my van like Jeff Gordon. Chances are that van drivers are doing twelve things at once – something that most regular drivers would never do…nay…could never do.  And there’s also a good chance that there are no children’s songs blaring in the background. I may be listening to the newest praise and worship CD…but it’s much more likely that we are rocking out to Cheap Trick or the Foo Fighters.

So, this is a plea to all other non-van drivers in the world. Give the minivan a chance, bro. There are van ninjas out there everywhere just looking for the chance to show off their mad skills. Don’t pull out in front of the van. Pull out behind it, knowing that the driving you will be witnessing in front of you is a work of art.

Life Lessons Learned From TV

My wife loves “So You Think You Can Dance.”

I (by contrast) hate it.

Yet, while feeding the baby or folding laundry, I am subjected to an unconscionable amount of this show. I really don’t mind that much – sometimes I get into it. But the most interesting thing about the show is the critiquing of the judges. I know, I know. You were thinking it was the dancing that fascinates the nerd within. Sorry to disappoint… 

We were watching last week and the judges said some things that really interested me as someone who deals with people’s perception of right and wrong on a regular basis. Channing Cooke with Phillip Attmore had just finished a jive routine that seemed to be done well. It’s early in the program so the judging tends to be a little softer at this point. I perked up at Mary Murphy’s comments. She was impressed but pointed out that the couple’s leg movements were not up to par. Now, this is the part that caught my attention: she attributed their lack of sharpness to laziness. There’s something significant about that. Mary attributed their deficiencies to a personal lack of internal moral motivation. Nigel Lythgoe went next. He commented on the same lack of sharpness, but attributed it to the couple not quite being in shape for the dance style. In essence, he said their tiredness resulted in the lack of sharpness - a much softer critique attributed to external factors, not their personal integrity.

As a minister, I began to reflect on how such a simple change in perspective can make criticism harsh or constructive. The church walks a fine line in this regard. We deal with issues of the heart but have to be careful not to make a difficult situation look hopeless. If I was physically incapable of performing a task and was told that my failures were intrinsic/moral, I would feel crushed under that assumption. And that’s all it is – an assumption. We don’t have access to the motivations of others. We merely have the outward manifestation of those intentions. Often times, bad intentions are easy to spot based on the actions that follow. But there’s plenty of gray area where intentions are hidden. Some people automatically chalk up the suspect behavior of others to time-honored doctrinal catch phrases like “Original Sin” or assume that failure is always preventable. When tarred with the moral brush, that will always be assumed. But sometimes people are just weak and scatter-brained and frail. Grace gives the benefit of the doubt in those situations. “Bad” does not always equal “weak.” After all, Jesus gave rest for the “heavy laden,” not the morally corrupt.

That’s why I liked Nigel’s critique better. When you’re a world-class dancer (or anything else for that matter) it’s easy to moralize/spiritualize the amount of work required to be the best in a given field. It helps us tolerate the extreme conditions in which that expertise is developed to the detriment of other areas of our well-being. Mary, at least at this moment, seemed to be trapped inside that paradigm. Nigel transcended above it. He gave grace by attributing that weakness to joints, ligaments, and muscles – something to be strengthened – rather than to inherent laziness – something to be ashamed of. Preachers know that both of these can motivate. But which one preserves the dignity of others? As Christians continue to confront sin, we need to spend less time making sure we call “a spade a spade” and more time concerned with making sure we never call something a spade when it’s really just a heart or a club. Guilt can motivate – there’s no doubt about that. But grace preserves and strengthens. I’ll go with Nigel’s approach anytime.

Come Join the Revolution!

I have a unique opportunity to share with you during the upcoming Advent season…

A few years ago, TFUMC (as part of the Advent Conspiracy movement) launched something called Advent Revolution. We asked our congregation to spend $50 less  on Christmas gifts per person and give that money to an international cause. We chose World Help - an organization that helps fight poverty, disease, and lack of education in over 40 countries. We have raised roughly $25,000 each year to build homes for orphans and families affected by the Rwandan genocide. It’s been one of the most rewarding events our church has ever undertaken. Along with our yearly Advent Revolution ministry, we have sent groups of missionaries to help build the homes and minister to the locals on a personal level.

The most rewarding part of the process is the personal connections we’ve made with the people of Rwanda. We’re no longer giving money to an idea or concept or even images on a brochure cover. We’re now giving to people with names and faces who know us as well. For example, recently a church member gave money to help a former prostitute named Diana finish her university education. Since Diana’s personal conversion, she has also led several women out of that same bondage. Our team met Diana on our last mission trip and heard her testimony of receiving Christ. She brought a friend with her that day and the team prayed with him to receive Christ as well.

We’ve managed to cause a stir in the process.  The United Methodist periodical The Interpreter is featuring Advent Revolution in this month’s issue. We’re excited about the exposure the ministry will gain – but more importantly, we hope other church (Methodist and otherwise) will join in. Visit our website www.adventrevolution.com for more details on the movement and how it’s impacted our church in such a significant way.

An Eastern Family in a Western World

The Bible is an Eastern book. It has Eastern culture, economics, social stigmas, literary style, etc., at its core. I believe that without this contextual “lens,” the ultimate meaning of the Bible at best is less impacting than in Jesus’ time.

However, some aspects of the Bible’s Eastern flavor seem to find their way into our lives without searching for it. Two of them are 1) the Eastern understanding of family roles and 2) the Oriental emphasis on shame and honor. It’s significant to me that there are technically two types of “shame” in Eastern societies. One is negative and the other is positive. The negative one condemns inappropriate behavior and the positive one helps individuals “save face” when confronted with a difficult situation. For example, with the persistent friend in Luke 11:5-8, Westerners assume that the friend banging on the door late at night has commited a cultural taboo. But actually, it’s the man who refuses to open the door and provide food for a town visitor that would have infuriated Jesus’ listeners. He violated basic Oriental cultural standards of hospitality.

Though these Eastern ideas don’t make it into our Bible interpretation very often (which means we usually miss the intended point), the Christian family can easily adopt these Eastern cultural norms for their own simply by reading the Bible together. My family did. We were different than other families I knew just based on emphasis of lifestyle. Though it certainly had to do with our Christianity, it also stemmed from living like an Eastern family in a Western world. Just by studying scripture, my brother and I absorbed Eastern understandings of right and wrong. We valued time, honor, authority, family rank, and so on without really understanding that the cultural emphasis for these concepts came straight outta scripture (not Compton). When I went out with friends or on a date at age 16, I fully understood that my family’s name and honor were on the line with each decision I made. I understood “losing face” without knowing what to call it. That was a greater deterrent than any punishment that may have followed an infraction. My other friends often saw themselves as individuals apart from their families – doing their own thing. I saw myself as part of a larger picture. Honestly, it made my decisions look weird to my friends.

Sometimes, those same cultural understandings, though appropriate for a family unit with children, become burdensome later in life if parents still enforce them on their adult children. But that doesn’t invalidate their usefulness during the parenting years. In fact, they may be vital to helping a child understand the impact his/her decisions have on others. Some of those “Eastern” family practices are still used with my two daughters now. Others aren’t. But I know this much: families with an Eastern understanding of honor are aware of one another. They respect each other more. And that makes them treat one another better, something all families could use a little more of.

The Best Decision a Methodist Pastor Can Make…

Several weeks ago, I heard about a Methodist pastor who did something radical this past year. Those of us who are not  involved in a plant or an overly contemporary Methodist church work through a number of committees and groups who help foster the growth of our congregations. For the record, I don’t think this is a bad idea. I welcome accountability and input from those I am attempting to serve. At the same time, interaction with these committees can be precarious at best. Ministers must balance progressive ideas with the amount of change they believe a congregation is willing to undertake. Every church has a saturation point. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes that’s not very much. I’m blessed in that our congregation is open to innovative ways of church growth and has done a great job of balancing a vision for the present and future.

Anyway, back to this Methodist pastor. He did something amazing. He put a 35-year-old woman with three children as chairperson of the administrative board at his church. Female. Mid-thirties. Children everywhere. Family-oriented. So, why is this such a big deal? For two reasons, really. First, who is typically in that position in traditional Methodist churches? Male. Mid-forties and fifties. Empty nester. Business-oriented. After all, he can run a business – certainly he can run a church, right? And because of this, many of the programs and mentalities that receive attention by the administrative arm of the church are the ones that meet the needs of that demographic. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course…unless that’s the only ”type” of leader to ever be appointed to that position. This pastor broke rank. He appointed a homemaker. What type of programming do you think receives attention/vision from the chairperson of their administrative board? Children’s ministries. Relationally-oriented programming like small groups. Gender-based accountability groups. Marriage enrichment programs. In other words, the areas most often experiencing atrophy in traditional church environments.

Second, their change of personnel and subsequent programming direction speaks to a truth often lost in contemporary leadership discussions. People, not systems, lead the church. Now, I love systems. I love efficiency and forward-thinking models that anticipate church growth and beat it to the punch.  But in every fast growing, progressive, innovative ministry environment, there is always a charismatic, personable visionary who drives that ministry forward. You can copy Northpoint Community Church…but you need Andy Stanley to do that. Like Mars Hill’s model? Go find a Rob Bell. Like Cornerstone in Simi Valley? You need Francis Chan for that model. All of those churches exist because those leaders were there first. Leadership is not a program or a system - it’s a person. And that’s a common mistake – investing in the system rather than in the leadership utilizing that system. Systems merely complement a well-established vision carried out by someone who is relentless in conveying it. That Methodist pastor changed the game…not when he changed systems…but when he changed leaders. And their church culture is being re-made in the process.

Is this type of change the best decision a Methodist minister can make? Maybe not. But I thought it was nothing short of genius.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Final Thoughts

Well, I think I’m done with faith and science – at least for now. I sure have learned a lot about it all. My goal wasn’t to learn how to work the mathematical equations involved in a particular scientific discipline, but rather to investigate some of the thought patterns and paradigms that inform our view of science. So, really, this was more about a “philosophy of science” than about actual laboratory procedure.

Three things really rang true for me personally in the midst of all this:

1) The “humanness” of humanity: As humans, we are incapable of laying aside our presuppositions about life and our universe. It’s just impossible it seems. Yet it’s this same human element of our lives that lead many to believe (errantly, I think) that a gulf exist between science and religion. From what I can tell, that division is artificial, just like the Cartesian dualism from which it originated. In fact, some of our most notable scientific discoveries were discovered on a “hunch” that something exists or can be explained beyond the limits of empiricism. Call it Polyani’s “Tacit Dimension” or whatever you like - all elements of humanity (including the subjective/intuitive), when equally integrated, are the future of scientific inquiry. And that includes faith in something else discoverable, whether that discovery concerns God or the natural order.

 2) The depth abyss of discovery: One of the most amazing phenomenons over the past century? Science continuing to shatter our presumptions about the unknown. We used to believe that when we came to the edge of scientific discovery, the answers lay just a few feet in front of us. But now, particularly in the areas of biochemistry and quantum physics, when we shine the light of discovery ahead of us, the answers are miles away. If anything, our continued ability to measure objects on a smaller scale has at the same time reinforced our own limits of measurability. For all our efforts, we still understand very little about our universe.

3) Humility. There’s something good about dropping all the posturing and smoke screens and just saying, “We don’t know. Maybe we’ll know in the future. To draw conclusions otherwise is not only premature – it’s arrogant.” Science and religion need constant doses of humility to guide them. Otherwise, both disciplines can fly right over the top of something grounded in the simplicity and humility of life because they are obsessed with their own pretensions. It’s also what causes science and religion to speak past each other.

Okay. Back to normal topics of life, love, family, and theology… 

Reconciling Faith and Science: Quantum Physics

One of the most interesting topics about faith and science to date is quantum physics. First, some background. For the majority of the history of modern science, scientists operated on something called Newtonian physics – based on the work of Isaac Newton.  For centuries, physics was understood in broad sweeping terms – big, simple, measurable, systematic, mechanistic, etc. According to Newton’s world, the universe could be measured in large scale equations. And rightfully so. Everything seen with the naked eye looked big and vast, so the physical properties underneath were assumed to be big and simplistic as well.  And anything that was worth investigating could be measured using classical methods of science. This is part of the reason that those who embraced the view that science and religion were not compatible had no qualms about dismissing God. He did not easily fit into the classical physics mold.

But then quantum physics was born through the work of Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. Quantum mechanics describes physical things at an atomic and subatomic level. For example, a quantum is the name for the smallest unit of energy – and it’s tiny. Add to that more particles like quarks, gluons, and hadrons and things change drastically. Rather than try to measure things as we have in the past, Planck came up with a constant that made measuring anything very, very small. Planck’s constant looks like this: 6.626176 x 10^-34. The number I want you to notice is the 10^-34. That’s an infinitesimal number. To measure our world, we had to stop using kilometers – now we use nanometers. Heisenberg added to this confusion (or revelation) by introducing the uncertainty principle. He said that when you are measuring two physical properties against each other, the accuracy of one eventually restricts the accuracy of another. In other words, the more you can measure one thing at the quantum level and use it as a reference point for another, the more the second object becomes immeasurable. And scientists have also discovered something called superposition – that these particles can jump from place to place – sometimes existing simultaneously in two different places.

So, what does this stuff mean for people attempting to integrate faith and science? It changes everything, actually. Science in continuing to discover more about our world also exploded our previous understanding of how the world works. The stable uniform world we thought we knew for the past several centuries is now a whirling mass of infinitesimal particles that won’t stay still long enough for us to learn anything about them. Furthermore, general relativity and quantum physics are basically incompatible. So, not only do we have a new way of seeing the world, we can’t even reconcile it with previous models that we know also have supporting data. Scientists are presently attempting to reconcile general relativity and quantum physics with something called string theory (which states the world is made of ridiculously small strings that operate not in three or four dimensions, but in nine or ten). But string theory operates on a scale 16 orders of magnitude smaller than anything we can currently measure.  As with other areas of science, the more we delve into the complexities of the life, from the universe to the structure of a cell, the more issues are raised for which we have no answer. But I want to point something out to you: string theory is considered a rational scientific field of study. Yet, there’s no empirical evidence for its existence other than a hunch or two derived from our inability to perfect quantum mechanics. So what guides the day to day experiments of physicists working in that area? Faith. Faith in the idea that string theory will be able to reconcile all other physical disciplines.

Here’s something else to notice in all of this. In the area of quantum physics, the unknown or “gray” areas of conceptual thought are considered not only appropriate, but are expected. Yet, when theology is experiencing a “gray” area, it is often dismissed as unscientific. In fact, theology is held to a stricter standard of proof than those investigating string theory or chaos theory, much less some grand unified theory. For science, the unknown gray areas somehow represent progress or hope while for religion, they are conceived as doubt. But they both represent the humanness of our endeavors and should be treated with the same level of respect and care. There’s a great verse that Jesus spoke about removing the beam from your own eye before mentioning the speck in another’s. We don’t do that with science and religion – instead, we parade our experts across the stage to discredit the other. We fire shots across the bow or each other’s ship. But both ships are floating on a sea of philosophical beliefs, assumptions, worldviews, and…well…faith. Faith sends one person to church on Sunday while it sends another to the laboratory. And for many scientists who have accepted faith as part of being human, it sends them to both places in the same week.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Cosmology and the Origins of Life, Part 1

This post and the next, I want to talk to you about the recent developments in our understanding of the origins of life. A lot has happened in this area over the past several decades and scientists are still hashing out the details, just like in other disciplines. Similar to biochemistry, the discoveries of the last several decades have not closed the “gap” for science to explain away God or anything similar to that. The opposite is the case – more discovery has conveyed more complexity and intricacies that we would otherwise assume didn’t matter. It was “out of sight, out of mind.” Our discoveries, while increasing our knowledge, have also made it very clear just how little we truly understand about our universe and origins. As such, to draw inferences assuming that we do have everything figured out is certainly premature.

Let’s look at a couple of examples (this post and next) of how things have changed and what they mean for people of faith.

 The Big Bang:

The “Big Bang”  theory (originally a derogatory term) came about through the work of two scientists in the 1920s – Lemaitre and Friedmann. They took Einstein/Hubble’s data about the universe expanding and made an obvious conclusion: if the universe is expanding, at sometime in the past, the distance between all matter in the universe must have been zero. Though the model made sense, I posted about all the attempts to produce another theory that didn’t have a “starting point.” Why? Because up until the Big Bang theory, cosmologists uniformly believed that there was no beginning or end to the universe. And all research endeavors to that point had been undertaken with that assumption firmly in place, once again denoting the “humanness” of science.  But when a beginning point became a possibility, it became entirely feasible to ask what produced this beginning. In 1965, scientists found evidence of the big bang: residual radiation coming from all directions at equal length. Called cosmic microwave background radiation, their discovery silenced most critics of the Big Bang theory.

So, why is this a big deal? Well, it points to a beginning. And that makes it some of the best news science has ever produced for those looking for reconciling science and faith. For strict young earth creationists, the Big Bang is often seen as the enemy. But for all other models (various forms of intelligent design or theistic evolution, for example), this is an example of the reaffirming/collaborative effort faith and science can bring to each other. Science is still dealing with understanding this. For example, in attempting to reconstruct the precise point of the universe’s inception, astrophysicists have been able to calculate backwards to a point about 10^-43 second from the zero point. At that point, their physics breaks down due to quantum’s uncertainly principle. Does this “prove” God exists. No…the only thing it “proves” is that we don’t know what happened beyond 10^-43 second. All inferences at this point become philosophical/religious.

Seeing Ministry Through a Child’s Eyes

About five years ago, I got a call from a mother who was in the throes of a battle with her seven year old. The problem? Her son wanted a pair of green and orange shoes for the new school year. Mom was much more interested in buying some respectable (and cheaper) white and navy sneakers – the kind you’d expect to be mother “approved.” So, she called me asking me what I thought she should do. I asked some leading questions: do they provide support for his feet? Are they structurally inferior? They were only ten dollars more expensive (and within budget). Then, I asked her the question that really mattered: why didn’t she like the green and orange shoes?

“Because they are ugly and embarrassing.”

“Ugly and embarrassing for whom?” I asked.

And that’s when the conversation went in another direction. Eventually, this concerned mother saw that her shoe preference had little to do with the happiness or protection of her seven year old son. It had to do with her.

Of course, I thought about the larger context of this conversation in regards to children’s ministry. I wear several hats at my job. One is the minister to families. That includes creating a healthy environment for everyone - from marriage enrichment to casting a vision for children’s ministry. Most often ministers, when making renovations to children’s ministry areas, look at the responses of the adults and volunteers when pitching ideas. In fact, as we were planning for our own recently completely renovations, we visited different churches. And sure enough, we focused on the comments and concerns of the adults. But about halfway through the field trips, I began to completely ignore the parents and staff members. I began to look at the children’s faces – their responses, smiles, singing, and dancing. I also paid attention to their looks of boredom and (for some) downright torture. And those images became my ministry goal for our church renovations.

Months later, as we unveiled our new ministry areas, I stood back and watched the children’s faces as they walked in for the first time. Many smiled. Others were not impressed. So, we added more. More smiles. And after a few more over-the-top items, every child began smiling. That’s when I knew we were heading in the right direction. Do I like everything about the design and curriculum choices? No. They are much more “green and orange” than “white and navy.”  But I’m not the focus. The children are. And they think it’s great. Adults forget this. I see volunteers and staff beam with pride after a children’s production while the younger participants behind them would rather stick a fork in their eye than be there. They are telling us something…but we’re not listening.

Children’s ministry is very important in church life. Happily involved children bring their happily involved parents. But sometimes, ministers forget the most important aspect of children’s ministry: follow the children’s lead. If we are looking and listening, they rarely lead us astray in meeting their spiritual needs.