The Winning Side?

This morning, my pastor, Stephen Heinzel-Nelson, preached on Revelation 21:1-5. He started out by asking, “If you knew, with absolute certainty, who was going to win the World Series next year, would it change your behavior?” The point he was making was that, through the writings in the book of Revelation, we know that God wins. And, because God wins, God’s people win. So we should look to that “end state” and live our lives accordingly.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Heinzel-Nelson. Even though I think we probably disagree on some points of theology, I think he takes his positions thoughtfully and prayerfully, and with respect for others. I hope, in fact, that this post isn’t taken as a criticism of Dr. Heinzel-Nelson at all. The fact that his sermon is good enough to get me thinking, and trying to explore it further, is instead a praise of him and what he’s able to do to help me in my own spiritual growth. Now, of course, having said that …

While I agree fully with the intention of what he’s saying, I have a problem with how it’s being said. To use his example … yes, I think behavior would change if people knew the outcome of next year’s World Series, but not in the way I think he’s implying. A large part of the joy of being a fan of a game is encouraging your team, cheering when they prevail, and suffering with them when they don’t. If you knew ahead of time that your team would win (or lose) then I think that there would be a great deal less interest and enthusiasm on the part of the fans. The only people I think would would show more enthusiasm would be those who want to profit from the outcome – gamblers and bookmakers, rather than those who care about the team itself.

I think a better way to look at this would be that the “end state” discussed in in Revelation is, rather than an immutable fact, an end goal. We can believe that there will be a “New Heaven and New Earth” but, rather than it being a fixed point in time, like the World Series or the Super Bowl, it is instead a goal that will be reached through God’s people working toward it. Rather that “God wins, so God’s people win,” I would say something like “God wins through God’s people winning.”

I’m sure that some would say this takes away from the supreme sovereignty of God. I disagree. God is still in control. But God wants US to be a partner in that victory, not someone who sits on the sidelines. And so we try, and fail, and try, and fail, all the while moving closer to that end goal.

Any thoughts? Am I way out in left field here? Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was slightly “miffed” at Stephen this morning, because, prior to the start of the service, he spent a little time on “Worship Etiquette” which included turning off all electronic devices. I happen to use my iPad as a part of the service, not to distract from it, so I felt a little “put out” by that. ;)

Share

The Andromeda Strain

TiVo recorded The Andromeda Strain (2008 version) as a movie it thought I might like. I read the book as a teen and really enjoyed it. So I thought I’d give it a chance. Boy, was TiVo wrong on this one!

Admittedly, it’s been a while since I read the book, but, as I recall, the basic idea was that some dumb decisions, as well as some failures in technology, resulted in a tragedy. People died from an extra terrestrial germ that was brought back to Earth by a satellite.

This new movie has the bug on the satellite, but that’s about where the similarity ends. I understand that changes have to be made to move from a book to a movie, but this is ridiculous. In this version, the military is actively evil. They kill people to hide their secrets. The bug apparently doesn’t come from the far reaches of space, but a wormhole from the future. And it’s intelligent. They used a few items from the book, but this is NOT the Andromeda Strain.

Add on top of that some bad CGI birds with shades of Alfred Hitchcock, and you’ve got the makings of one bad movie. I actually laughed out loud at times, it was so bad.

Share

Insurrection Chapter One: I’m a Christian! I’m a Christian!

Rollins starts off the chapter talking about desire — desire for things, desire for people. He makes a fundamental distinction between desire for things, including experiences such as vacations and promotions, and desire for those whom we love. “Beloved” in his terminology. It’s not so much a matter of degree (wanting the beloved more than those other things), but rather the desire for the beloved allows all of those other desires to exist. I can see that, though he then makes what to me seems a rather sudden leap — that it’s the desire of our beloved for us that we really desire. While I think there’s probably a lot of truth in this, I found his leap a little jarring as I was reading it.

Be that as it may, he uses that to explain our desire for a relationship with a God who loves us eternally and unconditionally, quoting Voltaire:

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

The bulk of this section of the book seems to be oriented toward breaking down belief. He speaks of God as “deus ex machina,” meaning something inserted into life to arbitrarily resolve problems, rather than having anything to do with reality. The problem here, from Rollins point of view, is that of the meaning of life, or rather its lack thereof.

Having said all of that, Robbins finishes the chapter with a way forward. He rejects “pat answers” to questions, but encourages movement into doubt and ambiguity. Anyone who has read some of Rollins’ other works will recognize this as a theme of his. That doubt and ambiguity is very uncomfortable, but, he believe, essential. I tend to agree.

Back to table of contents

Share

Insurrection: Introduction

In the introduction to “Insurrection” Rollins states his premise that the church has undergone several radical transformations over its history. The first of these was over the question of the circumcision of new believers found in the book of Acts. He mentions others in passing, such as the protestant reformation, but he focuses on that first debate. His claim is that each of these milestone events is an example of taking the old beliefs of what is required to worship God, and burn away the chaff to get to the true heart of worship and believe.

Given that there have been several such events throughout history, the implication of course is that we’re coming closer and closer to “true” belief. Rollins believes that we are in another such transition time now, and that the thing that is being “burned away” is religion itself. He quotes Bonhoeffer referring to something called “religionless Christianity” as at the core of the transition. “Insurrection” is Rollins attempt

… to outline what this radical expression of a faith beyond religion might look like and how it has the power to give birth to a radically new form of Church

My hope with these series of posts is that I’ll examine his position, as well as my own beliefs, hopefully coming out with a solid, mature understanding of my own faith, as well as where the church is heading.

back to table of contents

Share

Insurrection by Peter Rollins

The theologian Peter Rollins seems to be one who is speaking to me recently. Starting with “How (Not) to Speak of God” I’ve found myself drawn to his iconoclastic approach. His newest book is “Insurrection.” I’ve just completed reading it. I now want to go back through it, chapter by chapter, and write my thoughts. I’m doing this not so much for any one else to read as much as I am as something of a spiritual discipline for myself. My goal is do do one chapter every other day or so. I’d like to say a chapter a day, but I’m afraid that if I set too ambitious a schedule, then I’ll fall away and not do it at all.

This post will act as a table of contents to the posts on each chapter. I’ll update the links below as posts are written.

Introduction: There Is a Fire in the Building; Please Step Inside

Part One: Crucifixion
Chapter One: I’m a Christian! I’m a Christian!
Chapter Two: To Believe Is Human; To Doubt, Divine
Chapter Three: “I’m Not Religious” And Other Religious Sayings
Chapter Four: I Don’t Have To Believe; My Pastor Does That For Me

Part Two: Resurrection
Chapter Five: Story Crime
Chapter Six: We Are Destiny
Chapter Seven: I Believe In the Insurrection
Chapter Eight: Neither Christian Nor Non-Christian

Share

Gingrich more normal than Jesus?

I found this short video interesting. It’s Newt Gingrich talking about forgiveness for his past infidelities, which is certainly a fine topic for discussion. However, at the very end, he makes the claim that his public failings actually make him “more normal” than some unnamed person who “wanders around, seeming perfect.” I’m sure he’s referring to Mitt Romney, of course. But the first thought that jumped out at me when I heard this was “did he just compare himself to Jesus???”

oh, and I also liked the “been there/done that” comment from evangelicals on the infidelity thing. I know he meant forgiveness, but that’s not what it sounded like. ;)

Share

The passing of one of my favorite authors

One of my favorite authors, Anne McCaffrey,died today. I’ve been a fan ever since high school, when the girl who sat behind me in study hall, Amy Gheres, introduced me to her “Dragonrider” series. (Thanks, Amy!) There were only two book in the series then, and I remember waiting with anticipation as new books came out. (there are 14 in the series now). I also greatly enjoyed the “Crystal Singer” trilogy.

McCaffrey’s books tend to feature strong female characters, which was quite a break from the rest of the authors of the genre at the time. While there are certainly strong male characters, in general, it’s the women who are the primary focus of many of the books.

I may have to go back an re-read some of those books now. Anne McCaffrey, along with Frank Herbert and J.R.R. Tolkien, were the primary staples of my library as a young adult.

Share

Plugin documentation

I was really surprised when I was contacted recently by somebody who might want to use my theater productions plugin. I’m not 100% certain it’s going to do what he wants, but he’s willing to try. But that means that I need to actually document the silly thing. So I’ve spent this weekend writing up a first draft of a page on how to install and use my plugin.

Go ahead and give it a read if you’d like. If that doesn’t scare you away from using it, nothing will.

Share

There Are Two Marriages

Tony Jones posted an article on his blog this morning entitled There Are Two Marriages. This is something that Wendy has been espousing for years, and I’m glad to see somebody else bring this up.

The key point that’s being made, as I see it, is that the concepts of marriage and civil union, long considered synonymous, should be broken apart into their component elements. The state has an interest in civil union, for purposes of tax law, inheritance, etc. The church hasn’t (or, rather shouldn’t have) any interest in those matters. Marriage, on the other hand, is a sacred union, binding the couple in the eyes of the church, God, and each other. The state has no interest in that aspect of the relationship.

Looked at from that perspective, I can’t see why the state would have any concern about the gender of the parties involved. If the church feels that a given union is not right in the eyes of God, then by all means they should not sanctify it with marriage. I disagree with that stance, but I respect that their views are held with honest conviction.

Be that as it may, that’s completely separate from the interest of the state, at least in this country.

Share

Pledges against raising taxes

I went to the website of my representative in Congress, Ted Poe, to voice my opinion on the debt ceiling issue. In the course of reviewing his stand on the issue, I found this quote in the section titled “Taxes/Federal Budget

I came to Congress with a pledge that I will never vote to raise taxes.  I never have and I never will.  Period.

Upon reading that, I was immediately reminded of instances when I have been called on to serve as a juror. One of the instructions that I remember receiving is that, if I cannot imagine an instance where I would be willing to impose the minimum sentence, or if I cannot image an instance where I would be willing to impose the maximum sentence, then I did not have a place on that jury. My civic duty requires that I be willing to consider all legal options.

So, why is it different for a member of Congress? In my opinion, if Congress Member Poe, or any other elected official, is not, under any circumstances, willing to consider all legal options to a given situation, then that Congress member is not doing their job. Note, I do not say that they must ACCEPT that option. Only that they be willing to honestly CONSIDER it.

Mr. Poe — from one humble taxpayer and constituent — please do your job.

Share