I put up a new article on http://www.academia.edu.
I put up a new article on http://www.academia.edu.
Today there is a bit of a theological revolution going on as many Evangelicals are questioning the ECT (eternal conscious torment) view of hell, in favor of an annhilationist view, or purgative view, or some other form. To me, it seems odd how dogmatic people are on something that is, frankly, not clearly answered in Scripture.
Often, when something is not clearly
answered in Scripture, I believe there is a reason. Perhaps we are becoming fascinated with a topic that we are not supposed to be fascinated by. Maybe we are not supposed to be fascinated with Hell. Maybe we are to know it is where we don’t want to be, and then seek somewhere else.
Of course, the temptation for some is there… with Jonathan Edwards and other well-known “hellfire preachers” of the 19th century following the pattern of morality plays of the Middle ages, giving graphic imagery to some dark imagination. In this they are following Dante, except lacking the political and social satire. The great industrialist Andrew Carnegie decided he was an atheist after hearing a very graphic impassioned sermon on a hyper-Calvinistic God who arbitrarily sends many dead infants to suffer eternal torment in Hell. (It does make one wonder what the purpose of sharing such a controversial doctrine to a congregation would be.)
The fascination with Hell, historically, can rival present fascination with focusing on End-time events. This is despite the dearth of specific details, as well as statements inthe Bible that clearly point us towards focusing on living faithfully now rather than seeking to work out the timing.
Today, fascination for Hell has generally subsided except in cartoons. Some of the lack of fascination is due to disbelief. But even where there is a belief in Hell, global culture tends to move mysteries into abstractions, so belief often is more of a simple adherence to a doctrinal statement.
An exception to this downplaying of hell is in many of the the Evangelism methods out there. Many incorporate strong imagery of hell, while some even seem to seek to “scare the ‘hell’ out of you.” “Hell is Real” on youtube, some versions of the Bridge Illustration, and others often put a very strong emphasis on Hell. Walking around Baguio City here a few years back, I found a gospel tract lying on the ground called “The Burning Hell.” It had a picture of faces in agony surrounded by fire, with a strong message of condemnation, with a related message of hope at the end.
Now I believe in teaching the whole counsel of God. And I certainly believe that salvation is not just a “save to” process, but a “save from” process. Still, it did get me thinking about actual presentations of the Gospel in the New Testament. In most of them, it seems to me that there was a much greater focus on being “saved to” something than “saved from.” That is not always the case, but it does make me wonder about the focus of some presentations.
You can look up other presentations yourself. What to make of this? Do we remove all references to Hell? Perhaps not. What about judgment of condmenation? No. In fact, most of these presentations at least imply judgment.
However, Hell does not appear to be central to most presentations of the Good News in the Bible. The Good News is more a message of hope than condemnation. Does that mean that we put the gospel into a form that is all sugary and pleasant? Not necessarily, but presentations that focus on condemnation don’t appear to be any more Biblical than those that ignore judgment.
Consider Three Statements:
A. Wife: “We have been married for 20 years, and have never had an argument.”
B. Friend: “My neighbor died yesterday.”
C. 16 year old son: “I am going to quit school.”
In each of these statements, we know two things— we know who said it, and we know what it says. But there are things we do not know, and these things are huge.
First, we don’t know the situational context of the statements. Second, we don’t know the feelings associated with the statements. Because of these unknowns, we are left with two even more critical unknowns
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE STATEMENTS MEAN.
WE DON’T KNOW HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND.
Now you might think that you have no problem in figuring out what each of the listed statements mean, and how to respond— BUT YOU DON’T. Consider, some feeling and situation contexts added for each of the above statements.
A1: “We have been married for 20 years, and have never had an argument. I am blissfully happy. We have the perfect marriage.”
A2: “We have been married for 20 years, and have never had an argument. I am sad. We never talk about what really matters.”
A3: “We have been married for 20 years, and have never had an argument. I am frustrated. Whenever there is a conflict, he just walks away.“
A4: “We have been married for 20 years, and have never had an argument. Our marriage feels dead. We don’t talk, we don’t disagree. We just go through the motions.”
B1: “My neighbor died yesterday. I am devastated. He was like a father to me.“
B2: “My neighbor died yesterday. I am positively thrilled. He was such an evil man.“
B3: “My neighbor died yesterday. I am angry. His self-destructive, selfish, behavior, now leaves behind a widow with three young children.“
B4: “My neighbor died yesterday. I don’t feel much of anything. I hardly even knew him.“
C1: “I am going to quit school.” <I am irresponsible, and don’t understand how difficult life really is without an education.>
C2: “I am going to quit school. I am bullied constantly. I am terrified about showing up there again.“
C3: “I am going to quit school. I am so bored. The classes do not challenge me. I want to learn, not just occupy a seat.“
C4: “I am going to quit school. Life is hopeless and meaningless. In fact, I am quitting everything. It’s over.”
C5: “I am going to quit school.” <Maybe now you will pay attention to me.>
Each of these statements now have emotional and situational contexts added. Has the meaning changed from the original statement? Not really. The original statements had no meaning. They only have meaning, when contexts are added.
So why do we think that the original statements (A, B, or C) have meaning? It is because we unconsciously supply the situational and emotional contexts. Sometimes, this is done through transference. That is, we draw from our own past relational and emotional situation and use that to supply the missing information.
Let’s go back to statement A. “We have been married for 20 years and have never had an argument.” There is not enough information here to provide meaning. So we guess at the context. Maybe past experience in marriage and observing the marriages of others has led one to be, perhaps justifiablly, cynical. Perhaps, on hearing the statement, one is tempted to assume the person is lying. One might assume that the person is trying to brag unjustifiably about the marriage. Certainly, the woman is getting ready to give unwelcome marriage advice and so is seeking to back it with the false credentials of “the perfect marriage.” But that is an awful lot of presumption. Statements A1, A2, A3, and A4 are quite reasonable alternative meanings.
How about statement B? “My neighbor died yesterday.” Commonly a hearer would try to put him or herself in the speaker’s shoes. Well, actually, the truth is the reverse. The hearer will try to put the speaker in his or her own shoes. So if one had a beloved neighbor, especially one that died, the hearer would tend to assume that the speaker is greatly saddened by this event. Again, it is very presumptuous.
Consider statement C. “I am going to quit school.” Once again, presumptions are likely to spring up. One’s child must be lazy and irresponsible. But that is only one possibility.
So why does this matter? In ministry, we do an awful lot of guesswork as well. How often do we frame a statement of another with our context and our emotions, rather than another. Consider a fourth statement.
D. Female parishioner: “I am struggling with my marriage.”
What does that mean? It means nothing… nothing whatsoever. We don’t know what it means until we know the emotions and the situational contexts. Here are a few possibilities:
D1. “I am struggling with my marriage. Will you help my husband and I mend our relationship so that it is as God wants?”
D2. “I am struggling with my marriage.” <I am giving up on my marriage, but I am going to talk to you first so I can let others know that I “made an attempt” to save it.>
D3. “I am struggling with my marriage.” <Maybe you can give me the emotional support that my husband no longer provides.>
D4. “I am struggling with my marriage. I am afraid for my life but have no idea who to talk to about this.”
D5. “I am struggling with my marriage. I have done horrible things. I don’t deserve forgiveness or a happy family.”
It is tempting to go into answer mode before one has even understood what the other wants or needs. We really have to listen for the meaning first.
Exegesis, drawing out meaning from a text, also applies to human beings. It is wrong (arguably evil) to take a passage of scripture and use it out of its context– thus without meaning. For example: Jeremiah 29:11 simply cannot be used to guarantee individual prosperity. First, it was given to Jews in exile, not to us. Second, even to the direct recipients, there was no direct prosperity… only hope that in a few decades future generations would be doing better. We need Exegesis, not Eisegesis.
Anton Boisen liked to refer to people he ministered to as “Living Human Documents.” We don’t need Eisegesis of a life. We can’t minister to someone by guessing at a meaning when no meaning was given… only statements.
Here is a quote by Howard Stone from “The Word of God and Pastoral Care”
Over the years, while making pastoral care visits and especially hospital visits, I have sadly encountered many people whose well-meaning friends and acquaintances have responded to their why questions with theological answers that left them terribly upset and proved actually to be destructive: ‘This is God’s punishment on you and for your sins.’ ‘This is God’s will; you have to accept it.’ ‘This has happened to bring you to the Lord.’ ‘God wanted your dear one with him in heaven.’ ‘If you hadn’t skipped out on your wife, this wouldn’t have happened.’ ‘If you had stayed home with your children where God wants you to be, they wouldn’t have started taking drugs.’
More recently I have also come across another whole class of answers — more psychological than religious — to theodicy issues: ‘You are responsible for your illness.’ ‘You are sick because of your destructive thoughts.’ ‘The cancer inside you is pent up anger; you’ve got to release it to get well.’ ‘You are what you eat; if only you had cut out salt and exercised more.’ Some people are so eager to give their answers that they scarcely wait for the questions to be asked. The results are often quite grim.
When I first began pastoral care work, I would have thought such pronouncements were rare, or occurred only in the more conservative denominations. Not so! Things such as this happen everywhere, regardless of the conservative or liberal orientation. Simplistic and damaging answers flow from well-meaning people at a time when their hearers are in considerable distress, vulnerable, and unable to talk back. I raise the issue here because if ministers care only for people’s emotional pain and do not respond theologically to the issue of theodicy, parishioners will inevitably get their theological education elsewhere, and it may not be the kind we would have wished for them. In other words, if ministers will not respond, sooner or later, to the vital questions of theodicy, neighbors and friends are likely to do so, and not always in a helpful manner. –page 165
A short post on the results of a couple of medical missions from over 10 years ago. Sometimes, one does not know the effect one has had until years later. Sometimes one never finds out.
I have noted to our supporters that we have been involved, at least loosely, with two churchplants recently. We are joining with one churchplant that has met for three weeks now. In its third week had close to 40 attendees. That is a pretty nice initial growth. Additionally, Bob gave the dedication/commissioning prayer for another churchplant that is being led by one of his students. This is only their second formal service. Our involvement there is likely to be less direct.
Interestingly, during the last few days we discovered that we were involved indirectly with two other churchplants.
View original post 264 more words
I am far from an expert on Evangelism, but I have gained some perspectives of it as it is commonly practiced over time. Here are some of the Top Posts on this topic.
Critique of Evangelism (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). These three posts summarize many of my views regarding Evangelism as it is commonly practiced. The posts were done back in 2010, so my views have evolved somewhat over time, but I think my critique is still generally sound.
Multi-Dimensional Evangelism. Looks at 0-dimension (Simple Conversion), 1-dimension (Engel Scale), 2-dimension (Gray Scale), and 3-dimension (“Evangelism Cube”) regarding evangelism.
Evangelism 315. A modified version of evangelism (more like permission-based) inspired by I Peter 3:15.
Salvation versus Conversion: Missiological Implications. Perhaps a bit controversial, at least in its vocabulary. I suggest that Salvation (the process of God’s transformational work in the life of a person being conformed to Christ) should be valued more than Conversion (the one time salvific event of adoption into the family of God).
Evangelism Thoughts: “Savior Salvation” and “Fallen from Grace.” More questions than answers. Brings up some questions regarding Lordship Salvation, Savior Salvation, and issues of Grace. Definitely more questions than answers.
High Context Evangelism. Short post noting the importance of contextualization of the message of the gospel.
New Evangelism. A long quote from Alan Walker’s “A New Evangelism” with my own commentary. Some of it points to the fact that people’s attitude about death affects their resonance to salvation presentations. The question is, “Do many presentations ‘scratch where it does not itch’?”
The “Toolbox” and “Big Hammer” Theory. Suggestions for a broader base of understanding and skills for Evangelists to be able to effectively reach a broader number of people. This is contrast to the one-size-fits-all idea for evangelism.