what the hell?
Next week, March 16, my friend Paul and I will be teaching our faith community about hell. Other than this being a great way for people to swear by using the word hell (for example see blog title), it also raises another question. Just what does a sermon about hell sound like?
Typically we think of a preacher leaning over the edge of the pulpit to decrease the distance between himself and the audience. He does this as he speaks of sin and iniquity and how if those seated in front of him do not repent they will surely spend eternity in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels in excruciating, conscious torment.
Then there is the sidewalk sandwich-board-wearing person. This person yells something about the end of the world, and of course repentance. On the board they is written some message about Red China being the Red Dragon in the prophecies of the Bible. Most people ignore this person both out of fear and in recognition that he is completely irrelevant to their life.
Some, who are less intoxicated with the idea of hell, believe it is one of two places that the dead will spend eternity. Some of those people hold somewhere in their hearts the thought that though hell may be awful, they will never have to experience it.
I have heard a little from all three perspectives on hell. One thing that all of these groups have in common is not the fear of hell being there, or the fear of them going there, but the fear of hell not being there at all. To speak of annihilation, no literal hell, or universalism raises the ire of those who believe in a literal hell that will hurt like hell for eternity.
This thought came to me when I was asked a question about the direction the teaching will go next week. There was moderate discomfort with the idea that the idea of hell was going to be explored and perhaps challenged at all. Which made me wonder why people become uneasy when the idea of hell is challenged.
Why do people get uncomfortable with questions about hell? Often they are the same ones who will entertain thoughts about what heaven will be like. They will throw out theories and explanations about heaven. Who will be there, what it will be like to ask God certain questions, comments about the purest of gold which will pave the streets, and on it goes. There is open discussion about the new heaven and the new earth. However, when hell is spoken about outside of heinous, agonizing, cognizant terror inflicted upon people forever without miserable end … there is a word of caution given almost immediately.
I wonder if people grow uneasy with questions about hell because if there is no hell (or at least a good whoopin’ for those who believe differently) then what is there to threaten others with? If there is no eternal fire then why argue for your world view? If there is no black abyss that will eternally swallow infidels then why even do this thing in the first place? In some ways it seems that to lose hell may actually be more of a loss than losing heaven. If there is no hell for the other then in some ways people lose a sense of self - at least in terms of their religious belief related to eternity.
It is interesting to me that Jesus spoke of hell much less often than we do today. While it appears that he considered it a reality he rarely used it as a threat (except to the religious) or as a dividing line. I suspect that if a follower of Jesus told him that they had significant questions about hell that he would have entered a dialogue with that person without fear.
For some the way to scare the hell out of them is to remove the idea of hell completely. Maybe it is time to speak about hell in a new way. Not as a threat. Not in such a way as to scare people into heaven. Rather so that we can better understand ourselves, the other, our world, and most importantly the God we serve.
Typically we think of a preacher leaning over the edge of the pulpit to decrease the distance between himself and the audience. He does this as he speaks of sin and iniquity and how if those seated in front of him do not repent they will surely spend eternity in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels in excruciating, conscious torment.
Then there is the sidewalk sandwich-board-wearing person. This person yells something about the end of the world, and of course repentance. On the board they is written some message about Red China being the Red Dragon in the prophecies of the Bible. Most people ignore this person both out of fear and in recognition that he is completely irrelevant to their life.
Some, who are less intoxicated with the idea of hell, believe it is one of two places that the dead will spend eternity. Some of those people hold somewhere in their hearts the thought that though hell may be awful, they will never have to experience it.
I have heard a little from all three perspectives on hell. One thing that all of these groups have in common is not the fear of hell being there, or the fear of them going there, but the fear of hell not being there at all. To speak of annihilation, no literal hell, or universalism raises the ire of those who believe in a literal hell that will hurt like hell for eternity.
This thought came to me when I was asked a question about the direction the teaching will go next week. There was moderate discomfort with the idea that the idea of hell was going to be explored and perhaps challenged at all. Which made me wonder why people become uneasy when the idea of hell is challenged.
Why do people get uncomfortable with questions about hell? Often they are the same ones who will entertain thoughts about what heaven will be like. They will throw out theories and explanations about heaven. Who will be there, what it will be like to ask God certain questions, comments about the purest of gold which will pave the streets, and on it goes. There is open discussion about the new heaven and the new earth. However, when hell is spoken about outside of heinous, agonizing, cognizant terror inflicted upon people forever without miserable end … there is a word of caution given almost immediately.
I wonder if people grow uneasy with questions about hell because if there is no hell (or at least a good whoopin’ for those who believe differently) then what is there to threaten others with? If there is no eternal fire then why argue for your world view? If there is no black abyss that will eternally swallow infidels then why even do this thing in the first place? In some ways it seems that to lose hell may actually be more of a loss than losing heaven. If there is no hell for the other then in some ways people lose a sense of self - at least in terms of their religious belief related to eternity.
It is interesting to me that Jesus spoke of hell much less often than we do today. While it appears that he considered it a reality he rarely used it as a threat (except to the religious) or as a dividing line. I suspect that if a follower of Jesus told him that they had significant questions about hell that he would have entered a dialogue with that person without fear.
For some the way to scare the hell out of them is to remove the idea of hell completely. Maybe it is time to speak about hell in a new way. Not as a threat. Not in such a way as to scare people into heaven. Rather so that we can better understand ourselves, the other, our world, and most importantly the God we serve.
question authority, part 2
About 1200 years ago Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, a Frankish king, King of the Romans, Imperator Augustus. This was a direct challenge to the Roman Throne that was in Constantinople. This eventually led to something called the Holy Roman Empire, which interestingly enough was not Holy, Roman, or an Empire. Nonetheless, the response to this event was not solely political, it was also philosophical.
A question arose after the coronation of Charlemagne. Some began to ask, “Who is more powerful? The King or the Pope that has given him his power?” (I mean, could you imagine living in an empire where Church Leaders tell their people who the right political leader is?) Over the course of time there were many arguments over who had more power, the Pope or the Emperor … many would agree the papacy won. The title of the pope, Pontifex Maximus, (Latin for High Priest) comes from the title the Roman Emperor’s used for themselves.
Hundreds of years later many agree that the Pope was the more powerful precisely because he gave the power to the Emperor. In many great power struggles the papacy won out. They had the power.
I wonder if we have changed all that much in 1,200 years. Today, it seems as thought it is the people who give the Bible its authority. We speak of the Bible as being authoritative, the last and best word, and the chief and final authority on all matters of which it speaks. The funny thing is the Bible never ever speaks of its authority.
True, Paul says its, “… useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But he does not say this because he is pointing toward its authority. He says this because he wants Timothy to understand, “… that that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So often we say the Bible is authoritative, yet do not fully grasp what we mean. Yet the way we live out this belief reflects what we want it to mean. We say the Bible is authoritative often times when we need to win an argument, defend a belief, or to cling to our soapboxes. We tell people, “The Bible is the final authority!” Then we drive home slightly smug because once again we have won another battle with the sword of the Spirit.
This more argumentative side of authority is a hang over from the Reformation. During that time there was a council that met at Trent. The role of Scripture and Tradition was discussed. The debate got heated only further polarizing both sides. So the Reformers walked away saying things like nothing else but the Bible, no tradition, nothing but the Bible (which over time has become a tradition). So if the only thing you have is the Bible, then it has to be authoritative, because if it is not then your very beliefs may be false.
This may not be the idea of authority that we should be walking around with. We must begin admitting that the Bible was not God-breathed for us so that we could bury others with convincing arguments - it was given to equip us for good works.
The Bible’s authority like the Emperor’s does come from without, but not from us. The Bible is authoritative because it is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit speaks. The Bible never speaks of its own authority, but it does speak consistently of God’s all encompassing authority. The Bible has authority because the words in the Text are the words God breathed, and the words through which he still speaks to his people.
The Bible is not a science book, a stately volume filled with propositional truths, nor is it a complicated book filled with formulas. The Bible is a story about a God who loves his kids. It tells of murder, adultery, stealing, battles, drunkenness, prostitutes, sinners, tax collectors, deception, and the list could go on. When we come to this book believing that it is our weapon with which we can demolish opponents in a black and white world we just may be missing something. Stories cannot function like this … maybe it is something more.
If we are still long enough to listen, we will hear that still small voice speaking to us through those words and those stories. A voice that calls us not to demolish, but to form and grow. A voice that gives what is needed to do good work in our world … and not a world that is black and white, but a world that is Technicolor.
A question arose after the coronation of Charlemagne. Some began to ask, “Who is more powerful? The King or the Pope that has given him his power?” (I mean, could you imagine living in an empire where Church Leaders tell their people who the right political leader is?) Over the course of time there were many arguments over who had more power, the Pope or the Emperor … many would agree the papacy won. The title of the pope, Pontifex Maximus, (Latin for High Priest) comes from the title the Roman Emperor’s used for themselves.
Hundreds of years later many agree that the Pope was the more powerful precisely because he gave the power to the Emperor. In many great power struggles the papacy won out. They had the power.
I wonder if we have changed all that much in 1,200 years. Today, it seems as thought it is the people who give the Bible its authority. We speak of the Bible as being authoritative, the last and best word, and the chief and final authority on all matters of which it speaks. The funny thing is the Bible never ever speaks of its authority.
True, Paul says its, “… useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But he does not say this because he is pointing toward its authority. He says this because he wants Timothy to understand, “… that that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So often we say the Bible is authoritative, yet do not fully grasp what we mean. Yet the way we live out this belief reflects what we want it to mean. We say the Bible is authoritative often times when we need to win an argument, defend a belief, or to cling to our soapboxes. We tell people, “The Bible is the final authority!” Then we drive home slightly smug because once again we have won another battle with the sword of the Spirit.
This more argumentative side of authority is a hang over from the Reformation. During that time there was a council that met at Trent. The role of Scripture and Tradition was discussed. The debate got heated only further polarizing both sides. So the Reformers walked away saying things like nothing else but the Bible, no tradition, nothing but the Bible (which over time has become a tradition). So if the only thing you have is the Bible, then it has to be authoritative, because if it is not then your very beliefs may be false.
This may not be the idea of authority that we should be walking around with. We must begin admitting that the Bible was not God-breathed for us so that we could bury others with convincing arguments - it was given to equip us for good works.
The Bible’s authority like the Emperor’s does come from without, but not from us. The Bible is authoritative because it is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit speaks. The Bible never speaks of its own authority, but it does speak consistently of God’s all encompassing authority. The Bible has authority because the words in the Text are the words God breathed, and the words through which he still speaks to his people.
The Bible is not a science book, a stately volume filled with propositional truths, nor is it a complicated book filled with formulas. The Bible is a story about a God who loves his kids. It tells of murder, adultery, stealing, battles, drunkenness, prostitutes, sinners, tax collectors, deception, and the list could go on. When we come to this book believing that it is our weapon with which we can demolish opponents in a black and white world we just may be missing something. Stories cannot function like this … maybe it is something more.
If we are still long enough to listen, we will hear that still small voice speaking to us through those words and those stories. A voice that calls us not to demolish, but to form and grow. A voice that gives what is needed to do good work in our world … and not a world that is black and white, but a world that is Technicolor.
question authority, part 1
I have been reading a lot about “the authority of the Bible.” In my reading I have begun to ask, “What is authority anyway?” We speak about this as though it is something to fight and die for, yet when pushed many have a hard time explaining exactly what authority is. If we are to say that something as sacred as Scripture is authoritative then shouldn’t we first know what we mean when we speak about authority? If we do not then we, in the words of N.T. Wright, run the risk of holding our view of Scripture too low.
When I was in college I had an 1991 Honda Civic Hatchback. It was not much to look at, but got great gas mileage, and it still ran after I went 11,500 miles without changing the oil. Around campus it never drew looks, until one day I put a sticker on my rear window. It was a bright blue sticker with two words that had large white block letters. QUESTION AUTHORITY.
As a student at a conservative religious university the sticker was viewed as something that would foment rebellion. I was asked about it by students, professors, campus security, and staff. Whenever I was asked about it I would reply by asking, “What is authority and what is wrong with questioning it?”
This question was met with a myriad of answers. However, one thing I never heard was “There is nothing wrong with questioning it, ask away.” I do not know why I never heard this. In my estimation, if one were confident in true authority questions would never be a threat, rather they would be a stimulant to greater understanding.
Maybe the reason why this sticker was eventually scraped off my rear window by someone one night, was because authority (whoever that was) was scared. Maybe those in authority did not know the “why” behind the “what” and were scared that if too many questions came along they would feel much like the wizard behind the curtain … exposed. Perhaps there was something even deeper going on.
Often when the word authority is used we immediately think of “the local authorities.” The men and women who wear a badge, carry a gun, and drive a car that my four-year old loves. They are an authority. The enforce the law and protect the innocent. This view of authority then is viewed as “that which keeps control of people.” Is that really the only thing authority is?
Another viewpoint is authority used in reference to information. So when Discovery Channel airs a special about the mating rituals of some animal bordering on extinction they call in the “foremost authority” on the mating rituals of some animal bordering on extinction. This person has the information that we need … she is authoritative. Is that it?
We also say things like “he hit that ball with authority” or “she played that piece with authority” or “the Scripture is the final authority.” Yet when we hold any of these things up to Scripture it seems to miss the mark. The Bible is not something used to control people. When used this way we get things like slavery, oppression, and rampant sexism. Nor is the Bible an answer book. So often we look at this book as though it simply a collection of static propositions that if we are able to memorize - we are good. It has the info we need.
The Bible is not something that seems to fit within our understanding of authority and maybe that is precisely the problem. We have for so long attempted to make the Bible try and fit within our framework rather than allowing the Bible to tell us what it is. The Bible is a narrative. It is a collection of stories written by men and women (hey, we do not know for sure who wrote Hebrews right?) who were inspired by God to write what they wrote.
So how does a story then, act as a thing that controls others? How does a story act as something that is a propositional truth from which one can create a systematic theology? Is the Bible even authoritative (don’t look now, but we may have just “Questioned Authority”). These are questions that we need to ask … these are places we cannot fear to tread. For if we ignore these things we may just do an injustice to the Bible. We may hold our view of it too low.
So let’s question authority (not a person or information or the police) but the word itself. Then, let’s allow the answer to come from the text itself and not from some outside idea or philosophy. We’ll investigate this more in part 2 …
When I was in college I had an 1991 Honda Civic Hatchback. It was not much to look at, but got great gas mileage, and it still ran after I went 11,500 miles without changing the oil. Around campus it never drew looks, until one day I put a sticker on my rear window. It was a bright blue sticker with two words that had large white block letters. QUESTION AUTHORITY.
As a student at a conservative religious university the sticker was viewed as something that would foment rebellion. I was asked about it by students, professors, campus security, and staff. Whenever I was asked about it I would reply by asking, “What is authority and what is wrong with questioning it?”
This question was met with a myriad of answers. However, one thing I never heard was “There is nothing wrong with questioning it, ask away.” I do not know why I never heard this. In my estimation, if one were confident in true authority questions would never be a threat, rather they would be a stimulant to greater understanding.
Maybe the reason why this sticker was eventually scraped off my rear window by someone one night, was because authority (whoever that was) was scared. Maybe those in authority did not know the “why” behind the “what” and were scared that if too many questions came along they would feel much like the wizard behind the curtain … exposed. Perhaps there was something even deeper going on.
Often when the word authority is used we immediately think of “the local authorities.” The men and women who wear a badge, carry a gun, and drive a car that my four-year old loves. They are an authority. The enforce the law and protect the innocent. This view of authority then is viewed as “that which keeps control of people.” Is that really the only thing authority is?
Another viewpoint is authority used in reference to information. So when Discovery Channel airs a special about the mating rituals of some animal bordering on extinction they call in the “foremost authority” on the mating rituals of some animal bordering on extinction. This person has the information that we need … she is authoritative. Is that it?
We also say things like “he hit that ball with authority” or “she played that piece with authority” or “the Scripture is the final authority.” Yet when we hold any of these things up to Scripture it seems to miss the mark. The Bible is not something used to control people. When used this way we get things like slavery, oppression, and rampant sexism. Nor is the Bible an answer book. So often we look at this book as though it simply a collection of static propositions that if we are able to memorize - we are good. It has the info we need.
The Bible is not something that seems to fit within our understanding of authority and maybe that is precisely the problem. We have for so long attempted to make the Bible try and fit within our framework rather than allowing the Bible to tell us what it is. The Bible is a narrative. It is a collection of stories written by men and women (hey, we do not know for sure who wrote Hebrews right?) who were inspired by God to write what they wrote.
So how does a story then, act as a thing that controls others? How does a story act as something that is a propositional truth from which one can create a systematic theology? Is the Bible even authoritative (don’t look now, but we may have just “Questioned Authority”). These are questions that we need to ask … these are places we cannot fear to tread. For if we ignore these things we may just do an injustice to the Bible. We may hold our view of it too low.
So let’s question authority (not a person or information or the police) but the word itself. Then, let’s allow the answer to come from the text itself and not from some outside idea or philosophy. We’ll investigate this more in part 2 …
igno(red)
For those of you who have read my last blog about GAP and Product (RED):
I emailed GAP about their products, and received a standard reply. Then I clarified my question saying that they were not answering me directly. Here is the reply I received from GAP regarding my question of (RED) garments being made in India,
"We regret that we are unable to provide the name of the factory of origin for any specific merchandise."
ange(red) and bothe(red)
Saturday mornings are a big deal for my son and me. Each Saturday we get up and head out for donuts. This particular Saturday, after donuts, we went shopping so that he could buy a gift for his mom. I knew some of the things that she wanted so we went to the mall to take a look.
One thing that she wanted was a new coat. She had a nice winter coat that my daughter tried to improve using a glitter marker - so rather than look like Elton John she decided to try and find a new coat. This task is not as easy as one would think.
Over the last year, I have really made a commitment to only buy things that are made using fair labor. So when I see a “Made in China” or “Made in Sri Lanka” tag, I do not buy it, until I do a little research on the product. This is because in many of these countries children are forced to labor in horrid conditions.
With this is mind I thought, maybe I can buy something from Gap under the Product (Red) label. If you are not familiar with Product (Red) it is a new line embraced by companies like American Express, Motorola, Armani and Gap. Each company creates a product that is red and has the Product (Red) logo on it. In exchange, part of their profits go toward the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
Product (Red) was made popular by Bono, the spokesman for the line, when he appeared on Oprah. During the show they trounced all over Chicago in a red car shopping for (red) stuff. Oprah put her philanthropic spirit on display buying gross amounts of anything with the (red) logo on it. With each purchase, up to half of the purchase would go to solving a piece of the problem in Africa.
Armed with this knowledge, I thought, “I should by my wife a Prodcut (Red) coat for Christmas.” So my son and I went into the Gap (a store that I have stopped shopping in due to its well-known connection to unfair labor practices). Ignoring all the other “Made in Cambodia” stuff we went to the Product (Red) area. I felt I could shop with confidence because, according to one Gap spokesperson, “Bono personally inspected the factory where the RED products were being made in Lesotho this year and, she says, it was ‘sparkling.’”
I grabbed the coat that I thought my wife would like best, and looked at the tag. The tag read, “Made in India.” I then looked at another coat’s tag it said, “Made in China.” I was bewilde(red) to say the least. I walked to wear the (red) t-shirts were on display, those were made in Lesotho, but the rest of the (red) stuff was made all around the world where people like Amitosh work.
In an Ocotber 28, 2007 article, Dan McDougall, wrote an article in The Observer. In the article he wrote:
“Dripping with sweat, his hair is thinly coated in dust ... the hand-embroidered garment on which his tiny needle is working bears the distinctive logo of international fashion chain Gap. Amitosh is 10. Amitosh works 16 hours a day hand-sewing clothing.
[Amitosh said], ‘I was bought from my parents' village … and taken to New Delhi by train,' he says … I've been told I have to work off the fee the owner paid for me so I can go home, but I am working for free … I don't get paid. It has been like this for four months.’ India has also become the world capital for child labour.”
These kind of sweatshops are a long way from the “sparkling” manufacturing plants in Lesotho. While Gap has claimed that they were unaware of this kind of thing, their less than stellar reputation connected to unfair labor practices makes this a little upsetting. Now they can have a person in India work, receiving 1% or less of the profit off the apparel he or she makes, so that what they make will go toward the global fund in Africa.
This sounds a little backward doesn’t it? Clothes made in India, the sweatshop capital of the world, are going toward charity? There is the chance that these clothes are not made by children like Amitosh, but until Gap is abundantly clear about how and where their clothes are made, maybe one should simply give money directly toward the Global Fund (if they want to give money in the first place). What is so upsetting is that Gap wanted everyone to know that about their factory in Lesotho, but never spoke of everywhere else their clothing would be made.
Gap has been very political in answering direct questions when asked about working with sweatshops. Their response is (paraphrasing), “We give it the ‘ol college try!” Please take a moment and email GAP to ask them about their India made Product (Red) clothing. Needless to say, we did not buy a coat for my wife - but we think she will like what my son bought anyway.
One thing that she wanted was a new coat. She had a nice winter coat that my daughter tried to improve using a glitter marker - so rather than look like Elton John she decided to try and find a new coat. This task is not as easy as one would think.
Over the last year, I have really made a commitment to only buy things that are made using fair labor. So when I see a “Made in China” or “Made in Sri Lanka” tag, I do not buy it, until I do a little research on the product. This is because in many of these countries children are forced to labor in horrid conditions.
With this is mind I thought, maybe I can buy something from Gap under the Product (Red) label. If you are not familiar with Product (Red) it is a new line embraced by companies like American Express, Motorola, Armani and Gap. Each company creates a product that is red and has the Product (Red) logo on it. In exchange, part of their profits go toward the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
Product (Red) was made popular by Bono, the spokesman for the line, when he appeared on Oprah. During the show they trounced all over Chicago in a red car shopping for (red) stuff. Oprah put her philanthropic spirit on display buying gross amounts of anything with the (red) logo on it. With each purchase, up to half of the purchase would go to solving a piece of the problem in Africa.
Armed with this knowledge, I thought, “I should by my wife a Prodcut (Red) coat for Christmas.” So my son and I went into the Gap (a store that I have stopped shopping in due to its well-known connection to unfair labor practices). Ignoring all the other “Made in Cambodia” stuff we went to the Product (Red) area. I felt I could shop with confidence because, according to one Gap spokesperson, “Bono personally inspected the factory where the RED products were being made in Lesotho this year and, she says, it was ‘sparkling.’”
I grabbed the coat that I thought my wife would like best, and looked at the tag. The tag read, “Made in India.” I then looked at another coat’s tag it said, “Made in China.” I was bewilde(red) to say the least. I walked to wear the (red) t-shirts were on display, those were made in Lesotho, but the rest of the (red) stuff was made all around the world where people like Amitosh work.
In an Ocotber 28, 2007 article, Dan McDougall, wrote an article in The Observer. In the article he wrote:
“Dripping with sweat, his hair is thinly coated in dust ... the hand-embroidered garment on which his tiny needle is working bears the distinctive logo of international fashion chain Gap. Amitosh is 10. Amitosh works 16 hours a day hand-sewing clothing.
[Amitosh said], ‘I was bought from my parents' village … and taken to New Delhi by train,' he says … I've been told I have to work off the fee the owner paid for me so I can go home, but I am working for free … I don't get paid. It has been like this for four months.’ India has also become the world capital for child labour.”
These kind of sweatshops are a long way from the “sparkling” manufacturing plants in Lesotho. While Gap has claimed that they were unaware of this kind of thing, their less than stellar reputation connected to unfair labor practices makes this a little upsetting. Now they can have a person in India work, receiving 1% or less of the profit off the apparel he or she makes, so that what they make will go toward the global fund in Africa.
This sounds a little backward doesn’t it? Clothes made in India, the sweatshop capital of the world, are going toward charity? There is the chance that these clothes are not made by children like Amitosh, but until Gap is abundantly clear about how and where their clothes are made, maybe one should simply give money directly toward the Global Fund (if they want to give money in the first place). What is so upsetting is that Gap wanted everyone to know that about their factory in Lesotho, but never spoke of everywhere else their clothing would be made.
Gap has been very political in answering direct questions when asked about working with sweatshops. Their response is (paraphrasing), “We give it the ‘ol college try!” Please take a moment and email GAP to ask them about their India made Product (Red) clothing. Needless to say, we did not buy a coat for my wife - but we think she will like what my son bought anyway.
god helped you do what?
Sunday night my phone rang. My friend was calling to make sure I was okay, and to see if our faith community was in any way connected to the shootings that took place in Arvada and Colorado Springs on Sunday. We chatted for a time about it. I told him how awful it was, and how just that morning in my teaching I spoke of how, “… we can even meet together without fear.” Little did I know that hours after that comment a faith community forty miles south of us would be forced to deal with unspeakable tragedy.
Now, just two days after the shootings details are slowly emerging. Of course, many are comparing the shooter, Matthew Murray, to the two young men from the Columbine massacre. There are psychologists being interviewed about what kind of person the shooter was, there are people from both places being interviewed on CNN, NBC, the Today show, and other media outlets. Everyone wants to know more and more.
In all of these interviews and commentaries I have watched the men and women from the church side of things with particular interest. I can say confidently that I do not know what I would do in this situation, either during or after the shooting. One interview however gave me pause. Perhaps it is too early to weigh in with a few thoughts on this, as the wounds are still fresh. I realize that the possibility of being considered insensitive is high. However, I was taken back by the comments of Jeanne Assam.
Assam is a former police officer and a member at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. She serves as an armed security officer at the church, and is believed to have been the one who shot and killed 24 year-old Matthew Murray. Her name was released on Monday and the carnivorous media crews lined up to speak with her. Because of this she granted a press conference yesterday.
What she said amazed me. Several of her quotes were posted from her interview on MSNBC and KUSA NBC Denver. When asked about her confrontation she spoke as an experienced fighter. She said, "I saw him coming through the doors and I took cover. And I waited for him to get closer and came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down,"
She continued as reporters leaned in to record what she was saying, "I was given the assignment to end this before it got too much worse … I said, 'Holy Spirit, please be with me.' I did not run away and I didn't think to run away. My hands weren't even shaking."
She then concluded with, "God was with me and I asked him to be with me and he never left my side … I was very focused and it was chaotic … I just knew what I had to do. It was me, the gunman and God."
Her commentary was echoed by one of the shooting victims, Larry Bourbannais, who claims that he ran toward the gunfire calling him a coward. He said, “I said [to an armed guard], ‘Gimme your handgun. I’ve been in combat. I’m going to take this guy out!’”
These people were called heroes, and were praised by the church leadership. I realize that they saved lives, but as I read these comments I thought, “Wait, wait, wait … God helped you to kill someone?” What struck me as odd is that none of these people have spoken about how painful it was to take the life of another person. Their attitude is much more triumphant about the killing, rather than saddened by Murray’s death. This is the feeling that I find most troubling.
Now I realize I am marching into a firestorm here. Many will say, “Well what else should she have done?” This is a reasonable question. I am not pointing fingers here saying they should have chosen another way. My intent is not to get into situational ethics, and speak of better ways to have handled this situation. I think that we jump immediately to “What would you have done?!” kinds of arguments because it is easier than dealing with the question at hand, which again is, “God steadied your hand so that you could shoot someone?”
Our society is so conditioned by violence that we cannot think of another way to respond to violence. Even more our churches are so conditioned by violence that when an armed volunteer takes the life of another human being (even with good reason), the church widely applauds and thanks God for his Holy Spirit that helped her take Murray down.
I am not sure I want to go there. No doubt what Matthew Murray did was awful. He was a troubled young man who acted in a cowardly way. He took the lives of innocent young people, and injured several others. I am not excusing his unbelievably violent act. But can we really stand and say confidently, “It was me, the gunman, and God?"
I expect that if it were only God and the gunman, that we would have seen a God who was deeply saddened. I do not expect that God would have pointed a gun and returned bullet for bullet. I do not expect that God would have yelled, “Gimme a gun, I’m gonna take him out!” I expect that God would have stood with his arms open, waiting for Matthew to turn to him. I suspect that God would have taken the wounds rather than inflict them, even the wounds that Matthew carried around that led him to commit such a heinous crime.
Was it wrong for Assam to kill Murray? I can only answer that by saying, “She definitely prevented more people from being killed, and God does not enjoy killing. Furthermore, I do not know what I would have done in the same situation.” However, I do not believe that for any reason one should invoke the name of God when taking the life of another human being, even a human being doing the things that Matthew Murray did.
The above quotes were taken from the following websites: www.9news.com www.msnbc.com
Now, just two days after the shootings details are slowly emerging. Of course, many are comparing the shooter, Matthew Murray, to the two young men from the Columbine massacre. There are psychologists being interviewed about what kind of person the shooter was, there are people from both places being interviewed on CNN, NBC, the Today show, and other media outlets. Everyone wants to know more and more.
In all of these interviews and commentaries I have watched the men and women from the church side of things with particular interest. I can say confidently that I do not know what I would do in this situation, either during or after the shooting. One interview however gave me pause. Perhaps it is too early to weigh in with a few thoughts on this, as the wounds are still fresh. I realize that the possibility of being considered insensitive is high. However, I was taken back by the comments of Jeanne Assam.
Assam is a former police officer and a member at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. She serves as an armed security officer at the church, and is believed to have been the one who shot and killed 24 year-old Matthew Murray. Her name was released on Monday and the carnivorous media crews lined up to speak with her. Because of this she granted a press conference yesterday.
What she said amazed me. Several of her quotes were posted from her interview on MSNBC and KUSA NBC Denver. When asked about her confrontation she spoke as an experienced fighter. She said, "I saw him coming through the doors and I took cover. And I waited for him to get closer and came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down,"
She continued as reporters leaned in to record what she was saying, "I was given the assignment to end this before it got too much worse … I said, 'Holy Spirit, please be with me.' I did not run away and I didn't think to run away. My hands weren't even shaking."
She then concluded with, "God was with me and I asked him to be with me and he never left my side … I was very focused and it was chaotic … I just knew what I had to do. It was me, the gunman and God."
Her commentary was echoed by one of the shooting victims, Larry Bourbannais, who claims that he ran toward the gunfire calling him a coward. He said, “I said [to an armed guard], ‘Gimme your handgun. I’ve been in combat. I’m going to take this guy out!’”
These people were called heroes, and were praised by the church leadership. I realize that they saved lives, but as I read these comments I thought, “Wait, wait, wait … God helped you to kill someone?” What struck me as odd is that none of these people have spoken about how painful it was to take the life of another person. Their attitude is much more triumphant about the killing, rather than saddened by Murray’s death. This is the feeling that I find most troubling.
Now I realize I am marching into a firestorm here. Many will say, “Well what else should she have done?” This is a reasonable question. I am not pointing fingers here saying they should have chosen another way. My intent is not to get into situational ethics, and speak of better ways to have handled this situation. I think that we jump immediately to “What would you have done?!” kinds of arguments because it is easier than dealing with the question at hand, which again is, “God steadied your hand so that you could shoot someone?”
Our society is so conditioned by violence that we cannot think of another way to respond to violence. Even more our churches are so conditioned by violence that when an armed volunteer takes the life of another human being (even with good reason), the church widely applauds and thanks God for his Holy Spirit that helped her take Murray down.
I am not sure I want to go there. No doubt what Matthew Murray did was awful. He was a troubled young man who acted in a cowardly way. He took the lives of innocent young people, and injured several others. I am not excusing his unbelievably violent act. But can we really stand and say confidently, “It was me, the gunman, and God?"
I expect that if it were only God and the gunman, that we would have seen a God who was deeply saddened. I do not expect that God would have pointed a gun and returned bullet for bullet. I do not expect that God would have yelled, “Gimme a gun, I’m gonna take him out!” I expect that God would have stood with his arms open, waiting for Matthew to turn to him. I suspect that God would have taken the wounds rather than inflict them, even the wounds that Matthew carried around that led him to commit such a heinous crime.
Was it wrong for Assam to kill Murray? I can only answer that by saying, “She definitely prevented more people from being killed, and God does not enjoy killing. Furthermore, I do not know what I would have done in the same situation.” However, I do not believe that for any reason one should invoke the name of God when taking the life of another human being, even a human being doing the things that Matthew Murray did.
The above quotes were taken from the following websites: www.9news.com www.msnbc.com
looking for baby jesus under the trash
This morning started like any morning does. Wake up, lay in bed, think about how much I hate waking up (not a morning person), shower, dress, breakfast, coffee, stare at the wall, think about how much I hate mornings, more coffee, dressing my kids, and getting them breakfast.
This particular morning my son, daughter, and I headed off together so I could drop my son off at school. Then my daughter and I went on a date. A date in the morning with her involves chocolate milk and donuts, and more coffee.
We then went to a Christian bookstore so that we could buy candles for our Advent wreath. I usually bring a brown bag with me into Christian bookstores because they often cause me to hyperventilate (in addition to a massive breakout of hives). These stores are the epitome of everything that is not Christian. I readied the paper bag, which was a good thing as upon entering I saw a Christian t-shirt with the Burger King Logo. Inside the logo was cleverly written, “Christ is King” in the bubble font that BK uses for their design.
Now that makes sense, Jesus and fast food. Not to mention parodying the fast food chain who oppresses and abuses its farm workers by paying them what people made in 1965 (for more on that see: burger king's tomatoes). My breath was staccatoed and my neck started to itch. My daughter walked around looking at all the Christian stuffed animals. These are no ordinary stuffed animals mind you, they are Christian. This is because they have a bible verse embroidered on the ribbon tied to their neck.
I looked around for the candles as quickly as possible, and finally found some small ones that were not the right size. It was then I began to realize that I endured all the Christian stuff only to not find what I was looking for. I approached the counter to ask about the candles and was told that they were all out. Then the woman behind the counter, on which were stacks of Christian Chocalates, Christian Candies, and Christian Key Chains, said, “I’m sorry we have no candles left, but we have a lot of wonderful Christian resources here on sale.” As she motioned I looked at the Christian books to which she pointed.
When I looked, something struck me as odd. I saw the faces of many men and women, both of whom looked as though they were wearing a lot of make-up, smiling back at me. These were the Christian authors of the Christian books that were sold at the Christian store. On many of the books were pictures of these authors.
There were Christian books on (between 7 and 21 ways) how to have the most unbelievable, wealthy, amazing life ever of all time, which are not selling too well in places like Darfur or Uganda. Christian books about knowing which voice is God's, by the way if you are hearing many voices you may need more than this book can offer. Christian books about being happy in every and all circumstances, which I suppose I should read because I was not happy in the Christian bookstore. Christian books about being authoritative when you pray, which sounds odd. I mean are we now telling God what to do? And several Christian books about finding purpose, no doubt trying to capitalize on a million dollar idea. The more I looked the more bothered I was. It was then the woman told me they had Christian bags for me to breath in and out of.
All I wanted were some candles. A symbol that my family and I use as we celebrate this season of hope, peace, and anticipation. Advent is perhaps a holiday that focuses on simplicity more than any other. As we celebrate and contemplate what it is we are hoping for, we see Jesus. A peasant from the North of Israel. The part of Israel that caused people to say, “Can anything good come from up there?”
In the midst of all of this, I had to sort through the Christian trash of this Christian store. Incidentally I am not sure if I saw Jesus in any of it. I saw a lot of Christian people on Christian book covers smiling at me. I saw a lot of Christian candy, Christian t-shirts, Christian stuffed animals, Christian gift bags, Christian pictures of eagles, Christian sno globes, and a host of other Christian crap. But no Jesus. I suspect if I had been in the stable on that wonderful night I would have seen Jesus plainly. After all isn’t that what Advent is all about?
This particular morning my son, daughter, and I headed off together so I could drop my son off at school. Then my daughter and I went on a date. A date in the morning with her involves chocolate milk and donuts, and more coffee.
We then went to a Christian bookstore so that we could buy candles for our Advent wreath. I usually bring a brown bag with me into Christian bookstores because they often cause me to hyperventilate (in addition to a massive breakout of hives). These stores are the epitome of everything that is not Christian. I readied the paper bag, which was a good thing as upon entering I saw a Christian t-shirt with the Burger King Logo. Inside the logo was cleverly written, “Christ is King” in the bubble font that BK uses for their design.
Now that makes sense, Jesus and fast food. Not to mention parodying the fast food chain who oppresses and abuses its farm workers by paying them what people made in 1965 (for more on that see: burger king's tomatoes). My breath was staccatoed and my neck started to itch. My daughter walked around looking at all the Christian stuffed animals. These are no ordinary stuffed animals mind you, they are Christian. This is because they have a bible verse embroidered on the ribbon tied to their neck.
I looked around for the candles as quickly as possible, and finally found some small ones that were not the right size. It was then I began to realize that I endured all the Christian stuff only to not find what I was looking for. I approached the counter to ask about the candles and was told that they were all out. Then the woman behind the counter, on which were stacks of Christian Chocalates, Christian Candies, and Christian Key Chains, said, “I’m sorry we have no candles left, but we have a lot of wonderful Christian resources here on sale.” As she motioned I looked at the Christian books to which she pointed.
When I looked, something struck me as odd. I saw the faces of many men and women, both of whom looked as though they were wearing a lot of make-up, smiling back at me. These were the Christian authors of the Christian books that were sold at the Christian store. On many of the books were pictures of these authors.
There were Christian books on (between 7 and 21 ways) how to have the most unbelievable, wealthy, amazing life ever of all time, which are not selling too well in places like Darfur or Uganda. Christian books about knowing which voice is God's, by the way if you are hearing many voices you may need more than this book can offer. Christian books about being happy in every and all circumstances, which I suppose I should read because I was not happy in the Christian bookstore. Christian books about being authoritative when you pray, which sounds odd. I mean are we now telling God what to do? And several Christian books about finding purpose, no doubt trying to capitalize on a million dollar idea. The more I looked the more bothered I was. It was then the woman told me they had Christian bags for me to breath in and out of.
All I wanted were some candles. A symbol that my family and I use as we celebrate this season of hope, peace, and anticipation. Advent is perhaps a holiday that focuses on simplicity more than any other. As we celebrate and contemplate what it is we are hoping for, we see Jesus. A peasant from the North of Israel. The part of Israel that caused people to say, “Can anything good come from up there?”
In the midst of all of this, I had to sort through the Christian trash of this Christian store. Incidentally I am not sure if I saw Jesus in any of it. I saw a lot of Christian people on Christian book covers smiling at me. I saw a lot of Christian candy, Christian t-shirts, Christian stuffed animals, Christian gift bags, Christian pictures of eagles, Christian sno globes, and a host of other Christian crap. But no Jesus. I suspect if I had been in the stable on that wonderful night I would have seen Jesus plainly. After all isn’t that what Advent is all about?
god and war, part two
From the earliest of civilizations warfare was somehow connected to the gods. The ancient people believed that the forces that controlled the world - sun, rain, earth, growth of crops - were a divine force. Mythologies grew out of this, and some of the earliest mythologies began to compare all that happened on earth as a representation of what happened in the heavens.
War between cities and nations, which happened on earth, was thought to represent battles between deities in the heavens. So it was not just one brother killing another. It was a citizen of one nation fighting for his god. His enemy was a brother who was a citizen of another nation fighting for his god. War which grew out of a connection to the divine, now had become battles that represented the gods in the heavens.
As such gods were created who represented warfare. They were called upon by people to be their gods of war. Ianna (called Ishtar by the Akkadians) was the Sumerian goddess of war. Her story was one wrought with aggression, wrath, and vengeance rooted in betrayal and rejection. The ancient story warned people not to reject her at the risk of their own lives. A goddess with an attitude like this would be the perfect goddess to represent war. For the Sumerians war was associated with the gods.
The Egyptians had their own goddess of war. Her name was Anuke. She was pictured as a woman dressed in armor carrying a bow and a quiver full of arrows. She existed in the Egyptian pantheon before the dynastic period of Egypt. For the Egyptians war was associated with the gods.
Mars was the Roman god of war, not to mention one the most worshipped gods in the Empire of Rome. Roman soldiers were trained on the Campus Martius (The Field of Mars). A Roman soldier never went to war without having the name of Mars on his mind. For the Romans war was associated with the gods.
Has much changed since the beginning? Civilizations began by using the names, stories, and mythologies of their gods as reason for fighting wars. Today the names of gods are all over wars that are fought in our world.
During the Revolutionary War George Washington, whose faith in God is famous, gave a message to his troops in which he said, “…Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.” Across the ocean the King of the country he was fighting against claimed to be king, “… by the Grace of God.” Both sides were calling on the name of God.
The South African government who enforced the system of Apartheid handed out Bibles to its soldiers who were involved in enforcing racial segregation. Inside the Bibles issued to the troops was a message from the President which read, ”… of all the weapons you carry, this is the greatest because it is the Weapon of God.” Eugene DeKock who was head up the Apartheid death squads has spoken openly about the Bible studies he and his squads would have together.
Muslim extremists call on the name of Allah. These extremists have declared a holy war in the name of Allah against the infidels. In response world leaders have responded by using saying things like, “Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”
Once again we see that both sides have couched themselves in rhetoric involving the divine. The wars that are fought today are still connected to the gods. Like the ancients we believe deep inside that our wars represent struggles among deities. In our own country we speak in military terms of God and Country.
War without the gods behind us would just seem barbaric. Without humans being mere pawns in a divine clash we would be reduced to people killing people. Brothers killing brothers. We need the gods to make sense of what we do to one another in warfare.
Without the gods humans would be killing one another over plots of land, resources, or money. We would attack one another out of fear, or because we feel threatened. Without the gods we would be taking our orders from mere mortals. The gods make sense of war. Or do they? The first time war broke out between brothers God spoke. He came to the gardener and said, “Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.” I wonder, just what would this God have to say about warfare today?
War between cities and nations, which happened on earth, was thought to represent battles between deities in the heavens. So it was not just one brother killing another. It was a citizen of one nation fighting for his god. His enemy was a brother who was a citizen of another nation fighting for his god. War which grew out of a connection to the divine, now had become battles that represented the gods in the heavens.
As such gods were created who represented warfare. They were called upon by people to be their gods of war. Ianna (called Ishtar by the Akkadians) was the Sumerian goddess of war. Her story was one wrought with aggression, wrath, and vengeance rooted in betrayal and rejection. The ancient story warned people not to reject her at the risk of their own lives. A goddess with an attitude like this would be the perfect goddess to represent war. For the Sumerians war was associated with the gods.
The Egyptians had their own goddess of war. Her name was Anuke. She was pictured as a woman dressed in armor carrying a bow and a quiver full of arrows. She existed in the Egyptian pantheon before the dynastic period of Egypt. For the Egyptians war was associated with the gods.
Mars was the Roman god of war, not to mention one the most worshipped gods in the Empire of Rome. Roman soldiers were trained on the Campus Martius (The Field of Mars). A Roman soldier never went to war without having the name of Mars on his mind. For the Romans war was associated with the gods.
Has much changed since the beginning? Civilizations began by using the names, stories, and mythologies of their gods as reason for fighting wars. Today the names of gods are all over wars that are fought in our world.
During the Revolutionary War George Washington, whose faith in God is famous, gave a message to his troops in which he said, “…Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.” Across the ocean the King of the country he was fighting against claimed to be king, “… by the Grace of God.” Both sides were calling on the name of God.
The South African government who enforced the system of Apartheid handed out Bibles to its soldiers who were involved in enforcing racial segregation. Inside the Bibles issued to the troops was a message from the President which read, ”… of all the weapons you carry, this is the greatest because it is the Weapon of God.” Eugene DeKock who was head up the Apartheid death squads has spoken openly about the Bible studies he and his squads would have together.
Muslim extremists call on the name of Allah. These extremists have declared a holy war in the name of Allah against the infidels. In response world leaders have responded by using saying things like, “Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”
Once again we see that both sides have couched themselves in rhetoric involving the divine. The wars that are fought today are still connected to the gods. Like the ancients we believe deep inside that our wars represent struggles among deities. In our own country we speak in military terms of God and Country.
War without the gods behind us would just seem barbaric. Without humans being mere pawns in a divine clash we would be reduced to people killing people. Brothers killing brothers. We need the gods to make sense of what we do to one another in warfare.
Without the gods humans would be killing one another over plots of land, resources, or money. We would attack one another out of fear, or because we feel threatened. Without the gods we would be taking our orders from mere mortals. The gods make sense of war. Or do they? The first time war broke out between brothers God spoke. He came to the gardener and said, “Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.” I wonder, just what would this God have to say about warfare today?