Deconstructing "Hellbound?"

I'll confess, I'm generally not a fan of documentaries. I had to sit through several of them while at Biola, and I always found time to twiddle my thumbs and pretty much ignore everything else.

Well, Hellbound? is the first documentary that both moved me and annoyed me to no end.

Allow me to explain.

Rob Bell's Love Wins brought about a major shift in the tone of evangelicalism. Some reacted, some reconsidered. But a conversation began, starting with a multitude of books and blog posts denouncing Rob Bell. Even the SBC got involved, affirming their commitment to eternal conscious torment. So, clearly, a differing view of hell sparked enough of a debate to warrant intelligent conversation on the topic of eternal damnation.

Writer/Director Kevin Miller takes us on a journey that deals with his own personal struggles with eternal conscious torment, and the idea that God would send/allow some to go to hell. His encounters involve laymen such as the "God hates fags" protestors outside the 9/11 memorial, to famous and controversial pastors such as Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren. They all offer varying ideas, some of them quite extreme and others predictably toeing the traditional party line.

However, after setting the stage with what is at stake, the film takes a far more intellectual route, dealing with philosophy of religion, ethics, retributive justice and the meaning/s of the word "hell" in Scripture. Kevin marshals ample resources in the form of Brad Jersak, Sharon Baker and Michael Hardin. Greg Boyd makes several appearances to offer his clear perspective on things, but Robin Parry (one of my favorite scholars) has some a very wise perspective he offers. The interview is revealing, and quite profound in it's implications.

Though the film is somber and serious, there are some amusing moments in regards to prominent pastors screaming, and some charming anecdotes from Michael Hardin. It doesn't smack of the cheap editing tricks of "Religulous" but some/many may find them offensive anyway.

What annoyed me most about Hellbound? is the same thing that annoys me when I watch the evening news or listen to talk radio. Like I was, you will be tempted to yell at the screen and start arguing with a computer monitor. Hearing distinctions between theologies that I don't find compelling in the slightest really grated against my instincts. But this is to be expected.

You will be provoked, you will be challenged, and I do think you may be changed. The topic of hell can be extraordinarily divisive, but it would be a debate amongst Christians to conduct in love and respect. There is something in here to offend everyone, but none of it is intended to undermine or disrespect. Hellbound? offers much respect towards each view, though it does not shy away from revealing it's own conclusions on the matter. 

Like "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers," "Hellbound?" isn't interested in simple answers to complex questions. Indeed, many of the scholars and pastors interviewed are skeptical or hopeful or pessimistic about the state of the afterlife. You run the gamut between conservative evangelicals to progressives like Franky Schaeffer, and all have much to say on this topic. The finale of "Hellbound?" is deeply unsettling for some, but it is also moving and forthright.

The media hype about Rob Bell's Love Wins is nothing compared to the potential that Hellbound? is going to offer evangelical and progressive Christians. If Love Wins was a firestorm, Helbound? is a tactical nuclear strike and it's fallout will be felt for quite a long time.

Be open, be honest, and be prepared to have your buttons pushed.

I will post a more in-depth review once the film is released on September 21. You can check out the website for the film HERE.

--Nick

Numbers and the "Threat" to Inerrancy

Quient:

Currently, I am in the middle of someone’s sick experiment to see how soon MDiv students will go insane under pressure. I just finished one 4 unit Hebrew Exegesis class in only 10 days and am now taking a Pentateuch and Historical Books 4 unit class—in 10 days. Even though I have had to pull three all nighters in a row working on exegetical papers, much of what I am learning in class almost makes up for the pain and suffering.
One of the topics discussed today by Dr. Younger are the inflated numbers in the Old Testament book of Numbers. Basically, the way the numbers are represented in many of our Bibles makes it seem as though there is an absorbent amount of people—way too many for how many there could reasonably be for even a large city in the ancient world. Just one tribe: Ruben is said to have 45, 500 people! There are some who are dedicated to taking a literalist interpretation, who claim this presents a problem for believing the Bible is without errors.

There is actually a very simple resolution to this problem though. The word used is “elef” which can certainly mean 1,000, but it can also mean “clan” (Judge 6 and Micah 5:2). What is the difference in result?

One example of the difference is 46,500 Rubenites vs 46 clans or families with some additional people perhaps not part of the clans.

The strength in this line of thinking is evident when we consider what other parts of Scripture have to say and do a little problem solving. Deuteronomy 7:7 tells us God did not choose Israel because they were the most numerous. This means, the Israelites did not stand as some radical exception to the norm in numbers for the ancient world. Also, when it came to the Israelites conquest of Jericho they are said to have went out with about 3,000 men, but lost and badly defeated on account of 36 men dying? This of course contextually makes no sense if 36/3000 died.

This is a case where understanding the original language the Bible was written in makes all the difference!

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

What Would Jesus Brew, or "Pub" Theology

I'm totally down for this. Stouts and Porters for the New Testament (particularly Paul) and IPAs for the Old Testament, particularly the good parts.

Kerby:

In Norfolk, Virginia, Holy Trinity Catholic Church regularly lists in the weekly bulletin “Theology on Tap” at a local bar and grill. There a regular crowd gathers to ponder Christianity over a glass of ale … or milk, whatever suits attendees, who often include local university students and sailors from the nearby base.

In New York City, Jay Bakker, son of disgraced televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, preaches in bars while sipping on iced tea since he’s been sober for 14 years after a tumultuous childhood in front of TV cameras.  

In Cheyenne, Wyoming, Uncle Charlie’s Grill and Lounge hosts a weekly “Bibles and Beer” discussion that routinely attracts people of all faiths – and even an atheist, reports Kevin Moloney for USA TODAY. “As many as 45 people have shown up, some toting Bibles. Some might have a drink; others stick to water,” he reports. “Some talk; others mostly listen. There are only a few ground rules: Avoid debate and stick to the text to be discussed that week.”

The idea of Bibles and bars may be highly offensive to devout teetotalers and worrisome to recovering alcoholics. Aftre all, in some circles, it’s not a matter of discussion whether the wine Jesus miraculously made from water at the famous Cana wedding was actually unfermented grape juice.

Southern Baptist spokesman Dr. Richard Land says he’s never tasted beer and doesn’t want to. “While the Bible may be subject to various interpretations concerning alcohol consumption (as well as the nature of the beverage consumed), Southern Baptists’ understanding of the issue has been exceedingly unambiguous,” the jovial Land wrote in a recent column, noting that the convention has regularly passed anti-alcohol resolutions as far back as 1886. “We often have been reminded of the potent question from Charles Sheldon’s In His Steps: ‘What Would Jesus Do?’”

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Women, "Desire" and Genesis 3

Quient:

It has been interesting to see how the meaning of the word often translated as “desire” in Genesis 3:16b has been treated in popular vs. scholarly circles. The former often tends to treat the term as obvious in meaning even though this has been far from the case from the perspective of Egalitarian and Complementarian scholars alike. The reason for this is that in the past there has been very little available for reaching any sort of confident conclusion on the matter (only three uses in the entire Old Testament). In my opinion, if there is little to go by then one should not be dogmatic about any conclusion reached in regards to this word.

The way most scholars end up deciding the term’s meaning is an appeal to a “context” or one’s already established theology in combination with scant evidence.[1]  Currently, the most popular understandings of  “t’shoo-kah” are: 1) the woman’s sexual desire, or 2) a desire to be subjugated, or to be overly dependant or, 3) Eve’s desire to dominate her husband. However, an additional option has reemerged on the scene that is in agreement with how the Greek Old Testament understands the word. Admittedly, I had previously opted for the third and dismissed this fourth option—as did most commentators I have read. What has changed my mind very recently however has been the availability of seven new examples to work with from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before going into what I think is the better option, I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of the other options.

Sexual Desire

The first view, which understands Eve’s desire to be sexual in nature, has the advantage of being able to draw from the context in Song of Songs where the desire is of a sexual nature. In addition it can utilize an Arabic root “^saqa” which is a passionate longing compatible with Song of Songs 7:11.[2] It also draws from the immediate context of the pain in childbearing mentioned previously. Still, this view often relies too heavily on preconceived theology and speculation. For example, Gordon Wenham finds he must resolve the tension between Adam’s rule placed in the curse section and an understanding of the rest of Genesis before the fall to be in favor of exclusive female subordination. He decides: “Women often allow themselves to be exploited n this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands.”[3] Whether or not most would actually concur that female sexuality is the culprit behind falling for unreasonable male demands, this view does utilize some of the immediate context and at least the context of one of the Old Testament uses of the noun form of the word.

Desire to be Subject

The second view, believes the woman’s desire is to be subjugated or dependant. This can be understood under a positive or negative backdrop concerning male authority. Exclusive submission to leadership itself may be seen as motivated primarily by the result of the fall or it is often understood to be something good that existed before, but now functions as a curse in the new context of fallen male domination.

Michael Stitzinger takes the latter option, but awkwardly fits it in the context of what he perceives as Eve’s failure to obey Adam earlier. The text of course does not say this anywhere, but this is the presupposed theological paradigm being used to interpret an addition passage even if it does not quite explain why the desire here is for submission when elsewhere it was not evident and admittedly female “sin nature precludes that they will do this.” So, Eve didn’t do it before and women don’t tend to do this later—but this context indicates that Eve’s desire is for submission? 

Despite these weaknesses, one of the strengths of this view is also the use of the Arabic root “^saqa” which Stitzinger understands to be a deep female longing to be submissive to one’s husband.[4] However, even the best feature of this view and the previous one is criticized by Foh who points out that the similar word “saqa” is actually phonetically the equivalent Arabic word which instead means “to urge, drive on, impel.”[5]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

A Relatively Innocuous Post about Relationships and the Crucifixion

Waking up to over a dozen facebook notifications about Chick-fil-A was a bit of a surprise. I pride myself on staying current with culture and theology, and this day apparently slipped right past me.

But, honestly, though some have asked me my thoughts on that debacle, I couldn't care less. Instead, I had a dream about someone very special. It was a good dream.

The background is necessary. I found a couple of letters written by this person to me a while back, when they were going through a really tough time. I reread them a couple times and I remember vividly what they were suffering and why they felt alone. Their background is rocky, and they are still struggling to piece together everything that happened to them.

Yes. I am being intentionally vague.

But these letters really began to bother me, and I couldn't figure out why. I mean, they bothered me then, but not in the same way.  Looking back, I imagine that it was more based on regret and wishing that things could've been handled differently. Or that in that hopeless place there would've been something greater than sorrow.

Solidarity.

God's solidarity with us upon the cross is the ultimate identification with humanity. In being crucified for the sins of the world, He claimed not only everyone's sin, but also experienced with us the ultimate separation of sin from God.

But this struck me quite hard. I was taught in my childhood and at Biola that the Father had turned his back on the Son, thus the reason Christ cried out. But Jesus was quoting a messianic psalm (ch22) that prophesied his death. In essence, bringing solidarity between the OT and the NT. However, that isn't what struck me in these letters and in these words. Verse 24:

For he has not despised or scorned
    the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
    but has listened to his cry for help. 

I don't quite see anywhere in Scripture that demands that God turned his back on his Son. In fact, Habbakuk 1:13 is often the proof text to prove that God cannot look upon sin. However, the second part of the verse seems to refute that. Here is the entire verse:

You who are of purer eyes than to see evil
    and cannot look at wrong,
why do you idly look at traitors
    and remain silent when the wicked swallows up
    the man more righteous than he?

Dealing with theodicy and the problem of evil was something that seemed quite fervent in the mind of the prophet. Where was God's solidarity with humanity in such evil? Where was I in the other person's suffering? 

If God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, then I wonder about the solidarity the Godhead achieved on the cross, and what that means for relationships. We are to experience with the broken and the hurt, not turn our face from them. I see no reason to ponder the reasons why God could not look upon sin, as his entire earthly ministry was ministering to sinners.

I think that is why these letters bothered me so much. Though there is genuine relationship between us, it could always be better. A fractious relationship can be made whole in time, but in the meantime, solidarity is an ideal that should be driven towards. Distance should not separate us from one another.
Solidarity between sinners and God, and sinners and sinners. Makes me want to call this person right now. 

Just thinking in type.

--Nick

The Myth of the "Apparent" Meaning of Scripture

Quient:

When I attended Biola University as a Bible major (and seminary at Trinity later), the Bible came even more alive for me. What made the difference was not simply being told what passages mean, but understanding how one arrives at the meaning. Many of the passages I had previously misunderstood became clear after I learned about the culture, background and language being employed. Sometimes, it was merely a matter of understanding the context better (some of these have been discussed on this blog).

What has deeply troubled me in many of my interactions with other Evangelicals is also something I have been warned about by almost every professor I have had whether from Biola, Westminster or Trinity.  The problem is a subjective reading of the text. While this is obvious in questions like “what does the text mean to me?” it is also prevalent in a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the “clarity of Scripture.” This mentality can be summarized as follows: I can open up my Bible and understand its plain meaning on whatever topic. This is a simplistic understanding of the text that ends up distorting rather than understanding the text.

To begin with, the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not mean the Bible always says things “plainly” in a literalist fashion or that everything can be easily understood. The true doctrine says that the Bible is clear on what is necessary for faith and practice. In other words, you can open it and understand how to be saved and to be in a right relationship with God. The finer points however, are not always understood. Why?

1. There are major cultural differences that prevent us from understanding an otherwise apparent reading.

Ex 1: One example of this is in how we interpret the parable in Luke 11 where a friend knocks on the door of a neighbor because a guest came late at night and food is needed. The friend inside gives the excuse that the door is shut and it will wake up the children if he was to get up and help. Many westerners do not get the joke here—the person inside is giving ridiculous and laughable excuses. It is the whole villages responsibility and not helping will reflect poorly on all of them there is a strong communal sense of responsibility. Jesus is making a “how much more” argument here. Would this ever happen? No! How much less likely that God would do such a thing! Consider the next parable where He asks what father would give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish!? Not catching this nuance often paints the incorrect picture that perhaps one has to pray and pray and pray in order for God to be roused to help.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Who would Jesus Execute?

Usually I hate bumper sticker theology and politics. Well, not usually. I still do. But on my drive home I saw this bad boy:

"Who would JESUS execute?"

That got me thinking. Always a bad sign. I thought about Romans 13 and the words of Jesus, and compared the two. My initial thought was that some lines of communication had gotten crossed, and Paul simply hadn't gotten the memo.

Or Jesus was thinking only in a particular context in regards the death penalty, which I'm not certain he ever seemed to mention. I don't want go down the road of claiming "well since Jesus didn't say nothing...", so I'll make a few observations.

First, Jesus didn't seem to say anything about the death penalty, but Jesus didn't say a lot about a lot of things. I don't think it would be wise to really extrapolate such words from Jesus as to promote a political cause.

Based off this, does Jesus become our "trump Paul" card? We don't find much in the Sermon on the Mount about capital punishment, but we do find principles for social justice. Indeed, many Christian pacifists have used the Sermon on the Mount to adhere to their principles. For good reason. I don't find much in that Sermon about the death penalty.

Second, I'm not so sure that Paul's intent in Romans 13 was to convince us about the legality of governments and the death penalty. The principle behind this is verse 4, but it seems to be speaking about earthly authorities. But, Paul brings up "overcoming evil with good" in chapter 12 of Romans,
and "overcoming evil with good." I'm also not convinced that chapters 12 and 13 in Romans are to be read in isolation, as memory seems to indicate that they are all in one paragraph. But, that's not a hill I'm willing to stand on today.

In the words of Karl Barth:

“God does not yield before our encroachments—and when do we not encroach upon His rights? The encroachments of revolution He meets with the sword of government; the encroachments of government with the sword of revolution. And in the fate of both we behold our own destiny—in fear and in pity. The wrath of God falls upon all of us. Upon each one in some way or other the sword is drawn; and it is not drawn in vain. Whether we attempt to build up some positive human thing or demolish what others have erected, all our endeavours to justify ourselves are in one way or another shattered to pieces. We must now assert that all these endeavours of ours not merely cannot be successful, but ought not to be so." (p. 490 of Epistle to the Romans).

There seems to be room for Christians to draw a parallel in Paul's writings in that submission is to bring about peace or healing, or to showcase our lifestyle to be wholly without blame. This would include attempting perfection, and not repaying vengeance. That's up to God. I doubt the myth of redemptive violence, but only because we are the one's who seem very quick to carry it out; especially since God is notoriously patient with us.

At this point, I'm not convinced that the Bible whole-heartedly endorses the death penalty. However, the question of acting in violence to save another life is in question. Part of me wants an evil person to suffer for his crimes. Part of me would probably rejoice in the fact that evil has been extinguished. But what troubles me is that Christ did indeed die for him as well as me. So I will leave that last sentence on the table to temper the finale of this post.

Just because Jesus didn't speak on something doesn't negate whether or not that thing is true or false. We must try to take Scripture as much into account, and thus far, I'm still not inclined to accept the death penalty. But, I haven't taken the option off the table as extreme circumstances and various other passages would suggest it's legitimacy. But everything in me wishes we lived in a world where we didn't need the death penalty. Or pop music. Or hello kitty.

To thinking it through.

 --Nick

Odd Theology: Pokemon, Dominionism & Appositional Musings

I might just do this every Sunday. Play some Pokemon and muse about the relationship between Pokemon and theology or philosophy. Y'know, nerd stuff.

Beginning with the naming of the villain:

Of course he does.

I did name my Bulbasaur "Origen." Yes. Yes I did. And I got my ass kicked by the little flamer.

This is actually kinda fun. Won't lie.

And the final results of my foray into the Pokemon realm:

Most of my favorite theologians, or at least one's I tolerate. Augustine being one. The next one's on my list are KIERKEGAARD, DANTE, PINNOCK, HITCHENS (yes, that guy) and TALBOTT.

In thinking and playing this, I do wonder why Pensacola and others reacted so strongly to the creatures "evolving." I probably learned more about biological evolution and science from the two weeks I was allowed to play Pokemon than I did in the several years of A Beka book material. Though Pensacola did allow me to play with corrosive chemicals.

Anyway.

I just got a Pikachu and named him CLEMENT. I tried naming him GAIMAN, but I think I'll wait for a psychic Pokemon to be caught.

As for theology, I do find interesting parallels between Genesis, Christian dominion-ism and the Pokemon world. Not really, but run with me.

I don't really consider Genesis 1-11 to be historical. Sure, historical things may have happened, but I see too many parallels with near-eastern creation myths and don't find the hermeneutical methods of interpreting Genesis in a young earth way very persuasive. In regards to Pokemon, I see some sort of De/Theistic Evolution at work, given the near mythological creatures and that some of the townspeople have a near "religious" fascination with them.

Gotta catch em' all never sounded so fanatical.

But, considering that Genesis 1:28 is often the central proof text for Christian Re-constructionists to support literally "ruling" the earth ( as well as "Christian" rule but I won't get into that), it came to mind when I realized I was capturing and subduing the entire nation of creatures known as Pokemon. Was it "good?" Not "good?" Or very "good?" It begged the question, "should I have dominion over this world, and subdue each creature for my own personal gain?"

Then I realized that I was debating this over brightly colored pixels when I could be eating tacos and playing basketball.

Til next Sunday!

Gonna catch em' all.

--Nick