Monday, January 29, 2007
Stuff Happens
Had an emotional roller coaster last week. Worked things out. Went to DC on the weekend. Had a good time. Came back. Got sick. It sucks.
***
Political Tests:
My scores:
1) Liberatarian.
2) Social Liberal, Economic Liberal = Democrat. I'm right between Hilary and Robert Redford.
3) I'm close to Nelson Mandela.
Post your results.
***
I watched all three seasons of Arrested Development in around a week. It is one of the best sitcoms ever to grace the small screen, if not the best. The writing is superb. After it won six Emmys, you'd think people would have watched it. But they didn't and it got cancelled. People are stupid.
I'm 3/4 of the way through Firefly. It's a good show. Not as good as Battlestar Galactica, but it had a ton of potential. It's similar to Star Trek in that it's not very progressive (each episode contains self-contained storylines, for the most part). Joss Whedon has managed to mix genres (the western and sci-fi) very effectively, not to mention that the whole culture of the show is mixed American and Chinese. Which I like. If only my Mandarin was better so I could understand the Chinese phrases... This is yet another show that didn't deserve to be cancelled. I haven't even finished the season, but I already have a great deal more respect for the Firefly movie that came out, Serenity. It really does a good job of wrapping up all the leftover plot and character threads from the show, as well as being able to stand on its own as a film. It's like a 2-hour series finale you don't need to see the show to understand.
***
Um, how can a park promote privacy?
I stumble across the strangest articles.
***
Finished reading Hannibal. It was different from what I expected. It's much slower-paced and better-written than the previous books, but it all builds to some very good, suspenseful action scenes. I'm not quite sure what I think of the ending (which is different from that used in the film). It's either brilliant, or completely unbelievable. Either way, it creeped me out.
I also read Silent Bob Speaks by Kevin Smith. It's basically a collection of online essays and columns he wrote. They cover everything from production on Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Jersey Girl, to his problems with "Greasy" Reese Witherspoon, to when his wife said she wanted to get a nude painting of herself. The book is just as crude as you'd expect from Smith, but I enjoyed it. He seems like a very down-to-Earth guy. He knows his movies aren't anything special, he just enjoys making little "dick-and-fart comedies." Also: he has a serious man-crush on Ben Affleck (in the platonic sense), and thinks the actor is probably the coolest guy working in Hollywood.
***
Aaagggghhh!
Come on, we all knew someone would think of it eventually.
WARNING: Not for those sensitive to sexual undertones.
***
Interesting things to consider, inspired by my religion class, in which we're discussing how the Holocaust affected Jewish theology:
***
This couldn't possibly go wrong.
***
My screenwriting class is going well. By the end of the semester, I will have written the first-draft of my first feature-length screenplay. I'm currently thinking for ideas, and I think I've found one I'd like to try. It's one that's been in the back of my mind for a few months, and one I even already wrote a sample scene for a while back. More on that later.
***
Can you spot the irony?
***
They Live is a very fun movie. Worth seeing for the writing and the sheer B-movie fun.
My list of Things To Do Before I Die has been updated. It is now:
No matter what your views of homosexuality, you have to admit that this chorus goes a little too far.
Personally, I think it's hilarious. In a sad way.
Quotes of Da Past Few Moments:
"I couldn't hear you. There was a crack in the planet. Wow... that was noisy."
--Spanglish
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum."
--They Live
"One Christmas, five heavy boxes arrived at my office, with a note reading 'You can't subsist on four-letter words alone, you uneducated fuck. Merry Christmas.' He'd sent me the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary."
--Kevin Smith on Ben Affleck's Christmas gift
***
Political Tests:
My scores:
1) Liberatarian.
2) Social Liberal, Economic Liberal = Democrat. I'm right between Hilary and Robert Redford.
3) I'm close to Nelson Mandela.
Post your results.
***
I watched all three seasons of Arrested Development in around a week. It is one of the best sitcoms ever to grace the small screen, if not the best. The writing is superb. After it won six Emmys, you'd think people would have watched it. But they didn't and it got cancelled. People are stupid.
I'm 3/4 of the way through Firefly. It's a good show. Not as good as Battlestar Galactica, but it had a ton of potential. It's similar to Star Trek in that it's not very progressive (each episode contains self-contained storylines, for the most part). Joss Whedon has managed to mix genres (the western and sci-fi) very effectively, not to mention that the whole culture of the show is mixed American and Chinese. Which I like. If only my Mandarin was better so I could understand the Chinese phrases... This is yet another show that didn't deserve to be cancelled. I haven't even finished the season, but I already have a great deal more respect for the Firefly movie that came out, Serenity. It really does a good job of wrapping up all the leftover plot and character threads from the show, as well as being able to stand on its own as a film. It's like a 2-hour series finale you don't need to see the show to understand.
***
Um, how can a park promote privacy?
I stumble across the strangest articles.
***
Finished reading Hannibal. It was different from what I expected. It's much slower-paced and better-written than the previous books, but it all builds to some very good, suspenseful action scenes. I'm not quite sure what I think of the ending (which is different from that used in the film). It's either brilliant, or completely unbelievable. Either way, it creeped me out.
I also read Silent Bob Speaks by Kevin Smith. It's basically a collection of online essays and columns he wrote. They cover everything from production on Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Jersey Girl, to his problems with "Greasy" Reese Witherspoon, to when his wife said she wanted to get a nude painting of herself. The book is just as crude as you'd expect from Smith, but I enjoyed it. He seems like a very down-to-Earth guy. He knows his movies aren't anything special, he just enjoys making little "dick-and-fart comedies." Also: he has a serious man-crush on Ben Affleck (in the platonic sense), and thinks the actor is probably the coolest guy working in Hollywood.
***
Aaagggghhh!
Come on, we all knew someone would think of it eventually.
WARNING: Not for those sensitive to sexual undertones.
***
Interesting things to consider, inspired by my religion class, in which we're discussing how the Holocaust affected Jewish theology:
- If God is the God of history, and has some sort of direct control over world events, how do we explain the Holocaust? How could God cause/allow the murder of 6 million Jews, around a third of which were children?
- Jewish author and philosopher Elie Wiesel said something to the effect of: "Although not all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, all Jews are victims. Although not all Christians are killers, all of the Nazi killers were Christians. The victims are the problem Jews must come to terms with. The killers are the problem that Christians must come to terms with."
- Wiesel also told a story about how in the concentration camps he once viewed three rabbis put God on trial for the Holocaust. The trial lasted days, and at the end God was found guilty. After reaching a verdict, the rabbis went to pray. Wiesel later elaborated the trial into a book, The Trial of God, and made one major change: in the book, there is a fourth character that comes to God's defense, and justifies the Holocaust. It is Satan.
***
This couldn't possibly go wrong.
***
My screenwriting class is going well. By the end of the semester, I will have written the first-draft of my first feature-length screenplay. I'm currently thinking for ideas, and I think I've found one I'd like to try. It's one that's been in the back of my mind for a few months, and one I even already wrote a sample scene for a while back. More on that later.
***
Can you spot the irony?
***
They Live is a very fun movie. Worth seeing for the writing and the sheer B-movie fun.
My list of Things To Do Before I Die has been updated. It is now:
- Go skydiving (completed)
- Take part in the Running of the Bulls and survive
- Try on a thong for men
- Bungee jumping
- Go to China
- Write a script that is actually made by an actual company, with an actual budget, and actual release of some sort
- Adapt anything by Jeffrey Ford into a screenplay
No matter what your views of homosexuality, you have to admit that this chorus goes a little too far.
Personally, I think it's hilarious. In a sad way.
Quotes of Da Past Few Moments:
"I couldn't hear you. There was a crack in the planet. Wow... that was noisy."
--Spanglish
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum."
--They Live
"One Christmas, five heavy boxes arrived at my office, with a note reading 'You can't subsist on four-letter words alone, you uneducated fuck. Merry Christmas.' He'd sent me the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary."
--Kevin Smith on Ben Affleck's Christmas gift
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 1/29/2007 08:12:00 PM 
Sunday, January 14, 2007
On Academics and Cannibalism
Well, the spring semester started. So far, classes have been pretty dull. It doesn't look like it will be a particularly enjoyable semester, just a full one. However, I have yet to attend my 3-hour screenwriting class, which hopefully will be the awesome and not the suck.
I haven't been doing much except drive around and watch movies/television. I bought the first season of Arrested Development and the whole series of Firefly on DVD. So far, A.D. is just as hilarious as I expected it would be. I haven't started Firefly yet, but I've heard it's nearly as good as Battlestar Galactica. We'll just have to see about that.
Lately I've been rather obsessed with Hannibal Lector. Reading The Silence of the Lambs in El Salvador made me crave to see the movie again. I ended up watching it twice. I bought Red Dragon and Hannibal to read at the Nashville airport. I finished Red Dragon (which I ended up liking slightly more then the novel of SOTL), and I've started Hannibal.
Also, last night I watched both film adaptations of the former - the 1986 version entitled Manhunter that was directed by Michael Mann (Collateral, Heat, Miami Vice) and the 2002 version with Edward Norton. I had heard the 80s version was better, but I was actually underwhelmed. It did have some strong things about it, but overall it just seemed too....80s, I guess would be the term for it. Maybe it was the electronic soundtrack. Also, they turned the main villain into a wimp and changed the dark ending of the book for a more cookie-cutter one.
I had heard the more recent film adaptation was only so-so, but I was surprised. Maybe it was because I had just finished the book and already knew stuff that perhaps wasn't explained as well in the movie, but overall it just seemed like a more faithful adaptation. They did add a few more scenes with Hannibal, but that's forgivable simply because the character is so cool and Hopkins plays him so perfectly. The opening and closing scenes were fantastic uses of artistic license, and although the ending wasn't exactly like that of the book, it was at least fairly close. It did a pretty good job at least denting the characterization of the protagonist and the titular villain, considering the book was so jam-packed with really interesting background.
Of course, Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lector is and will always be the main drawing point to the series. The more I read about him the more I start to understand why he's such a well-crafted villain (the American Film Institute named him the #1 movie villain, incidentally). Whereas most serial killer villains (eg. Michael Myers, Norman Bates, or even Buffalo Bill from SOTL) are scary because of they are demented sub-humans, Hannibal is scary because he is more like a superhuman. He is extremely intelligent (supposedly the latest novel suggests the two hemispheres of his brain can conduct multiple trains of thought simultaneously), surprisingly strong, and can achieve a James Bond-level of suave and charming. Everyone likes to be around him - until he eats their face. He is simultaneously the substance of everyone's best dreams and their darkest nightmares. The scary thing is you can never tell when he's which until it's too late; the things you like about him can quickly change to become the things he uses to kill you. That's why he makes such an effective anti-hero. It's no wonder he appears briefly in Red Dragon, moreso in Silence of the Lambs, and then finally gets his own book (or two) to himself. He's the most interesting character of them all.
Unfortunately, I can't help but fear the latest book/film isn't going to be very good. The book just came out around a month ago, and the movie is being released in February. It seems like a pure money-making move to make the film at the same time as the book. And although Hopkins is naturally too old to play a young Hannibal, I just can't see Gaspard Ulliel being a good pick for Lector. Then again, maybe he'll be fantastic and this will be his breakout film. However, I can't say I'm too impressed by the film's trailer.
Other than school and my current Lector obsession, things are pretty much the same as usual around here. I'm gearing up for some hardcore Southwestern recruiting. My seminars in Nashville went well, despite being woken up at 4 AM one morning by the cops, but that's a story for another time. Tomorrow's a holiday, so I get to sleep in. Woohoo!
Quote of Da Moment:
"How did you catch me?"
"You had... disadvantages."
"What disadvantages?"
"You're insane."
--Red Dragon
I haven't been doing much except drive around and watch movies/television. I bought the first season of Arrested Development and the whole series of Firefly on DVD. So far, A.D. is just as hilarious as I expected it would be. I haven't started Firefly yet, but I've heard it's nearly as good as Battlestar Galactica. We'll just have to see about that.
Lately I've been rather obsessed with Hannibal Lector. Reading The Silence of the Lambs in El Salvador made me crave to see the movie again. I ended up watching it twice. I bought Red Dragon and Hannibal to read at the Nashville airport. I finished Red Dragon (which I ended up liking slightly more then the novel of SOTL), and I've started Hannibal.
Also, last night I watched both film adaptations of the former - the 1986 version entitled Manhunter that was directed by Michael Mann (Collateral, Heat, Miami Vice) and the 2002 version with Edward Norton. I had heard the 80s version was better, but I was actually underwhelmed. It did have some strong things about it, but overall it just seemed too....80s, I guess would be the term for it. Maybe it was the electronic soundtrack. Also, they turned the main villain into a wimp and changed the dark ending of the book for a more cookie-cutter one.
I had heard the more recent film adaptation was only so-so, but I was surprised. Maybe it was because I had just finished the book and already knew stuff that perhaps wasn't explained as well in the movie, but overall it just seemed like a more faithful adaptation. They did add a few more scenes with Hannibal, but that's forgivable simply because the character is so cool and Hopkins plays him so perfectly. The opening and closing scenes were fantastic uses of artistic license, and although the ending wasn't exactly like that of the book, it was at least fairly close. It did a pretty good job at least denting the characterization of the protagonist and the titular villain, considering the book was so jam-packed with really interesting background.
Of course, Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lector is and will always be the main drawing point to the series. The more I read about him the more I start to understand why he's such a well-crafted villain (the American Film Institute named him the #1 movie villain, incidentally). Whereas most serial killer villains (eg. Michael Myers, Norman Bates, or even Buffalo Bill from SOTL) are scary because of they are demented sub-humans, Hannibal is scary because he is more like a superhuman. He is extremely intelligent (supposedly the latest novel suggests the two hemispheres of his brain can conduct multiple trains of thought simultaneously), surprisingly strong, and can achieve a James Bond-level of suave and charming. Everyone likes to be around him - until he eats their face. He is simultaneously the substance of everyone's best dreams and their darkest nightmares. The scary thing is you can never tell when he's which until it's too late; the things you like about him can quickly change to become the things he uses to kill you. That's why he makes such an effective anti-hero. It's no wonder he appears briefly in Red Dragon, moreso in Silence of the Lambs, and then finally gets his own book (or two) to himself. He's the most interesting character of them all.
Unfortunately, I can't help but fear the latest book/film isn't going to be very good. The book just came out around a month ago, and the movie is being released in February. It seems like a pure money-making move to make the film at the same time as the book. And although Hopkins is naturally too old to play a young Hannibal, I just can't see Gaspard Ulliel being a good pick for Lector. Then again, maybe he'll be fantastic and this will be his breakout film. However, I can't say I'm too impressed by the film's trailer.
Other than school and my current Lector obsession, things are pretty much the same as usual around here. I'm gearing up for some hardcore Southwestern recruiting. My seminars in Nashville went well, despite being woken up at 4 AM one morning by the cops, but that's a story for another time. Tomorrow's a holiday, so I get to sleep in. Woohoo!
Quote of Da Moment:
"How did you catch me?"
"You had... disadvantages."
"What disadvantages?"
"You're insane."
--Red Dragon
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 1/14/2007 10:42:00 PM
Monday, January 01, 2007
Happy New Year, Happy Anniversary
Happy New Year!
Three years and 337 posts later, this blog is still here. I guess that means that on average I post every 3-4 days. That's not great, but I suppose it could be worse.
Ah, 2006. I laughed, I cried, I fell down, I got up, I grew, I loved. It was... a year. Great in some ways, bad in others. If I had to list some of the overriding themes of the year, it would be this:
1. God is not rigid. He is fluid, and impossible to fully know. This year was one both of spiritual stagnation and of growth. For a period of a few months, I was pretty dead, spiritually speaking. I wouldn't say that I was regressing, just that I was... stuck. This was due largely in part to a hectic summer that left me little time for spiritual focus (something I intend to remedy this summer) and a silence on the behalf of God that lasted a while after the summer, which combined to produce a case of spiritual indifference in yours truly.
Thankfully, all obstacles are eventually overcome in Christ, and I am happy to report that after months of praying and waiting, I can feel Him alive and kicking in my life once again. I have a newly reborn passion for His message and His Word, and I am eager to see how He will work in 2007. Already I have come into contact with many spiritual ideas and concepts which challenge and stimulate me. I feel, more strongly than ever, that God is calling me to be His good servant and to help build His kingdom on earth. Some may call some of my theology into question (and already have, not the least of which is myself), to which I can only reply that I would rather be a good and faithful servant and struggle with God than be right about everything and bear no fruit. Besides, I'm in my 20s now - such crises of faith are part of the job description.
2. All you need is love... and communication. The two go hand-in-hand with a healthy relationship. This year was challenging relationship-wise in many ways, yet extremely fulfilling. I think I could get used to this love thing.
3. With the greatest risks come the greatest rewards. Sometimes, God wants you to get off your butt and step out of your little bubble into the unknown. In my case, this was going to Tennessee to work 80 hours a week selling books door-to-door. It was like someone smashed me over the head with a jar of life lessons. Who would've thunk it?
I hope you all had a good year, and may 2007 surpass it in every way.
Now let's talk about hell.
I realize that's quite a change of topic, but I just finished reading two more McLaren books, and the subject has been on my mind of late. The last book in his "New Kind of Christian" trilogy, The Last Word and the Word After That deals exclusively with the issue of hell. I think I can guess with 99.9% certainty that this is his most controversial book, simply because hell is one of those issues everyone knows about but doesn't like to discuss.
Personally, I found this book fascinating. I couldn't put it down. McLaren pretty much takes the conventional approach to hell and throws it out the window. Anyone who had suspicions he was a raging liberal would probably at this point deem him a heretic and damn him to the very hell he takes issue with. Instead of dealing with the usual exclusivist (only those who claim to be Christians and have a personal relationship with Christ will be saved), inclusivist (those people plus a few more) or universalist (everyone's in heaven - party!) interpretations, he looks at hell as it originated historically and culturally. Instead of asking, "Who is and isn't going to hell?" he proposes we start asking, "What does all of Jesus' hell talk actually mean? What is its purpose? What does it tell us about how we relate to God?"
I've had a problem with the conventional view of hell for a long time now. It probably originates from going to Bible studies and mission camps and hearing the speaker say, "If you were to die right now, do you know where you would go? If not, you need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior..." I can remember years ago thinking to myself, "That seems like a pretty selfish approach to things: accept Jesus because if you don't, you'll burn in hell for eternity." And yet, that is what the modern Church really does tend to focus on. Life after death, and where the soul ends up. Salvation by grace, so we aren't apart from God anymore. But isn't there more to being a follower of Christ than that?
Grace. That's another thing McLaren talks about that I recently have been coming to realize myself: if the focus is placed on salvation by grace and not works, does that not implicitly exclude us from good works?
He takes an approach he calls "salvation by grace, judgment by works" but I won't get into that now. I think he's at least on to something about that unfortunate side effect - our approach to salvation often acts as an excuse to prevent action. I remember growing up and hearing over and over again about how it's not good works that get us saved and into heaven. It's the grace of Christ. Which is true, but that doesn't mean good works aren't important. That doesn't mean we can let injustice slide just because we're "going to heaven", whatever that may mean. I find myself thinking about my past and realizing that until now, I never really have had a desire to do good works in the serving, stop-poverty-and-save-the-environment-and-feed-the-homeless sense of the phrase. It's the implication of a neutered gospel: if your soul is saved, you don't have to worry about life on Earth. Burn the rainforests, the tribulation is coming soon anyway. Let people go hungry, they're probably going to hell anyway. This whole in/out, us/them philosophy has really distorted the relationship of the church to the world. "Remember folks, works don't save you, grace does." Then I guess I don't have to bother with works then, do I? If humanity destroys itself and the planet, we can't be blamed because our souls are clean and imprinted with a barcode that lets us through the heavenly gates. Or something.
It all goes back to the question that people have been asking for ages: How can a loving God send people to an eternity of endless torture and agony? How can a finite sin deserve an infinite punishment?
The common answer given, and the one until recently which I full-heartedly accepted (or at least was afraid to question): "God is just. God loves everyone, but he's just, and there have to be consequences to rejecting Him."
"Eternity in hell hardly seems just."
"Well, God's sense of just is purer and better than our sense of just. Deal with it."
Does this not seem like a way of avoiding the issue?
Is this view of hell even biblical? McLaren doesn't seem to think so. He even goes as far as to include a table of all references to hell in the gospels and what the point of Jesus' use of them seems to be. I'm not a Bible-know-it-all, but even I noticed that there's no mention of hell in the Old Testament. Surely this at least suggests that the issue deserves a closer look?
Although I myself am still pondering the issue, and McLaren himself offers no concrete alternative to the conventional view of hell (though he does come to some very inspiring conclusions about what our role as Christians in the world should be in light of the issue), I think it's possible very much of my theological upbringing was influenced by my culture. This includes how I view salvation, and how I view the Bible. I am starting to think more and more that the Bible is not meant to be read as a timeless textbook that dissects God and His mysteries, but rather as a timely piece of divine literature that was influenced by a culture and way of looking at things far different from our own. It captures the beauty and majesty of God and His plan for the world through poetry, song, letters, and historical narrative. This doesn't mean that it's irrelevant to us today - on the contrary, it's the most relevant document out there today! Divine truths expressed through such a variety of mediums! But it's important to take into account the context in which these things were written. When Jesus talked about hell (or many things, for that matter), it might have been to inspire a response in His listeners far different from that which we are currently accustomed to. Are we really so naive as to believe that people in biblical times thought the same way about life, with the same points of reference, as we do today? Do we really think that their culture was the same as ours, so our immediate reaction to Christ's words is what Jesus really meant for them/us to hear?
Perhaps instead of focusing on these questions:
1) If you were to die tonight, do you know for certain that you'd go to be with God in heaven?
2) If Jesus returned today, would you be ready to meet God?
...we should focus on these:
1) If you were to live for another 50 years, what kind of person would you like to become--and how will you become that kind of person?
2) If Jesus doesn't return for ten thousand or ten million years, what kind of world do we want to create?
It is with these types of questions that I find myself being challenged with every day. I find myself exhilarated as I explore new ways of approaching God, and feel as if He is calling me to embark with Him on an adventure of new discoveries, insights and mysteries. A person told me recently that we shouldn't ask questions about our faith and about God, but I am realizing that the more I ask, the more God confirms that His plan is more magnificent and incredible than I could possibly imagine, and He wants us all to be part of it. I can't wait to journey with Him through this next year!
I leave you now with a quote from the book (not from McLaren, though) that I hope will inspire thought, and the last sentence of which I believe is an appropriate place to begin the year 2007. Out with the old, in with the new.
Quote of Da Moment:
"To believe in God is to believe in the salvation of the world. The paradox of our time is that those who believe in God do not believe in the salvation of the world, and those who believe in the future of the world do not believe in God.
Christians believe in "the end of the world," they expect the final catastrophe, the punishment of others.
Atheists in their turn... refuse to believe in God because Christians believe in him and take no interest in the world.
Which is the more culpable ignorance?
...I often say to myself that, in our religion, God must feel very much alone: for is there anyone besides God who believes in the salvation of the world? God seeks among us sons and daughters who resemble him enough, who love the world enough so that he could send them into the world to save it."
--Louis Everly, In the Christian Spirit, 1975
Three years and 337 posts later, this blog is still here. I guess that means that on average I post every 3-4 days. That's not great, but I suppose it could be worse.
Ah, 2006. I laughed, I cried, I fell down, I got up, I grew, I loved. It was... a year. Great in some ways, bad in others. If I had to list some of the overriding themes of the year, it would be this:
1. God is not rigid. He is fluid, and impossible to fully know. This year was one both of spiritual stagnation and of growth. For a period of a few months, I was pretty dead, spiritually speaking. I wouldn't say that I was regressing, just that I was... stuck. This was due largely in part to a hectic summer that left me little time for spiritual focus (something I intend to remedy this summer) and a silence on the behalf of God that lasted a while after the summer, which combined to produce a case of spiritual indifference in yours truly.
Thankfully, all obstacles are eventually overcome in Christ, and I am happy to report that after months of praying and waiting, I can feel Him alive and kicking in my life once again. I have a newly reborn passion for His message and His Word, and I am eager to see how He will work in 2007. Already I have come into contact with many spiritual ideas and concepts which challenge and stimulate me. I feel, more strongly than ever, that God is calling me to be His good servant and to help build His kingdom on earth. Some may call some of my theology into question (and already have, not the least of which is myself), to which I can only reply that I would rather be a good and faithful servant and struggle with God than be right about everything and bear no fruit. Besides, I'm in my 20s now - such crises of faith are part of the job description.
2. All you need is love... and communication. The two go hand-in-hand with a healthy relationship. This year was challenging relationship-wise in many ways, yet extremely fulfilling. I think I could get used to this love thing.
3. With the greatest risks come the greatest rewards. Sometimes, God wants you to get off your butt and step out of your little bubble into the unknown. In my case, this was going to Tennessee to work 80 hours a week selling books door-to-door. It was like someone smashed me over the head with a jar of life lessons. Who would've thunk it?
I hope you all had a good year, and may 2007 surpass it in every way.
Now let's talk about hell.
I realize that's quite a change of topic, but I just finished reading two more McLaren books, and the subject has been on my mind of late. The last book in his "New Kind of Christian" trilogy, The Last Word and the Word After That deals exclusively with the issue of hell. I think I can guess with 99.9% certainty that this is his most controversial book, simply because hell is one of those issues everyone knows about but doesn't like to discuss.
Personally, I found this book fascinating. I couldn't put it down. McLaren pretty much takes the conventional approach to hell and throws it out the window. Anyone who had suspicions he was a raging liberal would probably at this point deem him a heretic and damn him to the very hell he takes issue with. Instead of dealing with the usual exclusivist (only those who claim to be Christians and have a personal relationship with Christ will be saved), inclusivist (those people plus a few more) or universalist (everyone's in heaven - party!) interpretations, he looks at hell as it originated historically and culturally. Instead of asking, "Who is and isn't going to hell?" he proposes we start asking, "What does all of Jesus' hell talk actually mean? What is its purpose? What does it tell us about how we relate to God?"
I've had a problem with the conventional view of hell for a long time now. It probably originates from going to Bible studies and mission camps and hearing the speaker say, "If you were to die right now, do you know where you would go? If not, you need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior..." I can remember years ago thinking to myself, "That seems like a pretty selfish approach to things: accept Jesus because if you don't, you'll burn in hell for eternity." And yet, that is what the modern Church really does tend to focus on. Life after death, and where the soul ends up. Salvation by grace, so we aren't apart from God anymore. But isn't there more to being a follower of Christ than that?
Grace. That's another thing McLaren talks about that I recently have been coming to realize myself: if the focus is placed on salvation by grace and not works, does that not implicitly exclude us from good works?
He takes an approach he calls "salvation by grace, judgment by works" but I won't get into that now. I think he's at least on to something about that unfortunate side effect - our approach to salvation often acts as an excuse to prevent action. I remember growing up and hearing over and over again about how it's not good works that get us saved and into heaven. It's the grace of Christ. Which is true, but that doesn't mean good works aren't important. That doesn't mean we can let injustice slide just because we're "going to heaven", whatever that may mean. I find myself thinking about my past and realizing that until now, I never really have had a desire to do good works in the serving, stop-poverty-and-save-the-environment-and-feed-the-homeless sense of the phrase. It's the implication of a neutered gospel: if your soul is saved, you don't have to worry about life on Earth. Burn the rainforests, the tribulation is coming soon anyway. Let people go hungry, they're probably going to hell anyway. This whole in/out, us/them philosophy has really distorted the relationship of the church to the world. "Remember folks, works don't save you, grace does." Then I guess I don't have to bother with works then, do I? If humanity destroys itself and the planet, we can't be blamed because our souls are clean and imprinted with a barcode that lets us through the heavenly gates. Or something.
It all goes back to the question that people have been asking for ages: How can a loving God send people to an eternity of endless torture and agony? How can a finite sin deserve an infinite punishment?
The common answer given, and the one until recently which I full-heartedly accepted (or at least was afraid to question): "God is just. God loves everyone, but he's just, and there have to be consequences to rejecting Him."
"Eternity in hell hardly seems just."
"Well, God's sense of just is purer and better than our sense of just. Deal with it."
Does this not seem like a way of avoiding the issue?
Is this view of hell even biblical? McLaren doesn't seem to think so. He even goes as far as to include a table of all references to hell in the gospels and what the point of Jesus' use of them seems to be. I'm not a Bible-know-it-all, but even I noticed that there's no mention of hell in the Old Testament. Surely this at least suggests that the issue deserves a closer look?
Although I myself am still pondering the issue, and McLaren himself offers no concrete alternative to the conventional view of hell (though he does come to some very inspiring conclusions about what our role as Christians in the world should be in light of the issue), I think it's possible very much of my theological upbringing was influenced by my culture. This includes how I view salvation, and how I view the Bible. I am starting to think more and more that the Bible is not meant to be read as a timeless textbook that dissects God and His mysteries, but rather as a timely piece of divine literature that was influenced by a culture and way of looking at things far different from our own. It captures the beauty and majesty of God and His plan for the world through poetry, song, letters, and historical narrative. This doesn't mean that it's irrelevant to us today - on the contrary, it's the most relevant document out there today! Divine truths expressed through such a variety of mediums! But it's important to take into account the context in which these things were written. When Jesus talked about hell (or many things, for that matter), it might have been to inspire a response in His listeners far different from that which we are currently accustomed to. Are we really so naive as to believe that people in biblical times thought the same way about life, with the same points of reference, as we do today? Do we really think that their culture was the same as ours, so our immediate reaction to Christ's words is what Jesus really meant for them/us to hear?
Perhaps instead of focusing on these questions:
1) If you were to die tonight, do you know for certain that you'd go to be with God in heaven?
2) If Jesus returned today, would you be ready to meet God?
...we should focus on these:
1) If you were to live for another 50 years, what kind of person would you like to become--and how will you become that kind of person?
2) If Jesus doesn't return for ten thousand or ten million years, what kind of world do we want to create?
It is with these types of questions that I find myself being challenged with every day. I find myself exhilarated as I explore new ways of approaching God, and feel as if He is calling me to embark with Him on an adventure of new discoveries, insights and mysteries. A person told me recently that we shouldn't ask questions about our faith and about God, but I am realizing that the more I ask, the more God confirms that His plan is more magnificent and incredible than I could possibly imagine, and He wants us all to be part of it. I can't wait to journey with Him through this next year!
I leave you now with a quote from the book (not from McLaren, though) that I hope will inspire thought, and the last sentence of which I believe is an appropriate place to begin the year 2007. Out with the old, in with the new.
Quote of Da Moment:
"To believe in God is to believe in the salvation of the world. The paradox of our time is that those who believe in God do not believe in the salvation of the world, and those who believe in the future of the world do not believe in God.
Christians believe in "the end of the world," they expect the final catastrophe, the punishment of others.
Atheists in their turn... refuse to believe in God because Christians believe in him and take no interest in the world.
Which is the more culpable ignorance?
...I often say to myself that, in our religion, God must feel very much alone: for is there anyone besides God who believes in the salvation of the world? God seeks among us sons and daughters who resemble him enough, who love the world enough so that he could send them into the world to save it."
--Louis Everly, In the Christian Spirit, 1975
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 1/01/2007 04:02:00 AM
