Abraham has a bosom?

In reading the works of John Wesley over the past few weeks, I have been stopped dead in my tracks by an orthodox Christian doctrine that, I have to admit, has rarely ever slid across my radar. Let me ask you a few questions before I explain:

Do you remember what Jesus said to the penitent thief on the cross? "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise"? Have you ever wondered, as I have, well how does that work? Does Paradise=Heaven? or is something else going on here?

Or what about that passage in Luke 16, where Jesus tells the parable about the "rich man" who went to "Hades" (this is the Greek word used, not "hell"), and Lazarus who went to "Abraham's Bosom." What do we do with that? Does "Paradise"="Abraham's Bosom"="Heaven"? Does Hades=Hell? (And what about the Old Testament word, "Sheol" that I see in my footnotes all the time?)

Or what about that extremely awkward clause in our creed which says that Jesus "descended into Hades" (again, "Hades," not "hell" is the word used)? How did that make it into a creed for crying out loud?!

It seems to me that most of us, myself included, have simply glided past these problematic texts, never questioning the simple assumption that, upon death, people either go to heaven or hell. But is that even a biblically grounded assumption, or did we import that into the text?

But then what do we do with the fact that the biblical witness expects a general resurrection of all mankind at the end of time, when Christ returns and judges the world? Isn't it then that people go to heaven or hell--only once they have been judged?

And what do we do with the fact that "heaven" is not really what the New Testament says Christ invites us into, but rather "the kingdom of heaven," and, at the end of time he welcomes us to participate in "a new heavens and new earth"?

Once again, I submit that, for most of us, we have just ignored the problems in our theological understanding of the afterlife. We might suppose that this is the realm of "speculative theology," and have considered ourselves unfit for the task of sorting this all out. However, I would submit that this is not a very difficult problem to solve, it's just one that we're very unfamiliar with because of our neglect of it.
(I mean, come on, if you're going to explain how the world will end with a rapture of the Church, a 3.5year period of peace, followed by the "abomination of desolation" in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, which is followed by the great Battle of Armaggeddon, which includes armies from Russia, China, and Iran teaming up against the Jews in Israel, and then 3.5 years of anarchy and cosmic chaos ensue, which will precede Christ's final coming.... then the doctrine I'm about to propose we reappropriate is kindergarten-level stuff comparatively.)

It has occurred to me, as I've read Wesley's sermons, that we in the modern evangelical church have simply ignored a key doctrine concerning the afterlife: that doctrine is, for lack of a better term (there may be a better one I am unfamiliar with) the doctrine of the intermediate state--or, in plain English, the teaching about where people go when they die before the final resurrection and judgment.

So, if you were to die in the next five minutes, would you go to heaven or hell? Well, unless you intend to usurp the final judgment of Christ, I guess you would have to say that you wait in a place the Jews called "Sheol" and the Greeks called "Hades" (the Bible uses both terms), which is divided into two realms: "Paradise" or "Araham's Bosom" for the righteous, and the other, apparently unnamed side, where the wicked await final judgment. Either way, all of us wait for the final judgment, when Christ will decide who participates in the "new heavens and new earth," and who will be banished from it to the place he calls "Gehenna" or "hell."

Right Christian teaching says that we await the resurrection in the abode of the dead, which is given names like "Hades," "Sheol," "Abraham's Bosom," and "Paradise"--not that we go to heaven or hell when we die.

I am going to assume at this point that I have overloaded most of our brains, and stop here, even though much more could be said on the matter, and I have probably created more questions than answers.

However, I'm very interested in your comments on this: have you ever heard the doctrine of the intermediate state preached? Has it come up in Bible studies you've participated in? What did you think about the word "Hades" before you read this? Have you ever even considered that the idea of us going to either heaven or hell when we die sort of messes up our chronology of the general resurrection and judgment (not to mention that it's sort of not in the Bible)? Any thoughts, comments, questions, concerns would be much welcomed. This is my attempt to open up a dialogue on an orthodox teaching of the Church that, somehow, I think most of us have just simply missed. So, let's hear from you!

Salvation: Lifeboat vs. Renewal of the Imago Dei

As of late, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the topic of salvation. Take a moment, if you would, to consider what images, ideas, whatever come to mind when I say the word salvation….

…Alright, do you have those images, ideas, etc. in your mind? Good. Now I would pose to you this question: Do the images, ideas, etc. that come into your mind when I say the word salvation seem to fit better with the idea of “getting out of Dodge,” or are they more akin to the image of a caterpillar’s metamorphosis into a butterfly? Are these ideas and images more like jumping into a lifeboat to escape a sinking ship, or are they something like looking in the mirror and finding a more beautiful image than you expected? When I say salvation do you picture a bodiless spirit floating up into some spiritual realm called “heaven,” or do you see a fully embodied person being re-made into the likeness of Christ?

The question can be put like this: Is salvation about saying the right words or conjuring up the right disposition so that someday, after I die, my soul can avoid hell, or is it about being re-made into the “image of God” (the imago Dei), which is the existence God always intended for us to have?

Does salvation change the now or just the future?

Does salvation make us better, or just our destination?

Does salvation mean anything to the world, or is it just a possession of the individual?

Does Christ primarily save us from something or to something?

Obviously, the question is largely one of emphasis. The standard evangelical answer in Protestant America today (as influenced heavily by the Reformed tradition) is that salvation is a lifeboat, a way of escaping this world that is surely on its way to hell. Salvation is about getting individual souls into heaven. This view is accentuated by the pessimism of contemporary dispensational apocalypticism—i.e. The Left Behind series and Hal Lindsay’s Late Great Planet Earth—and by the individualism of popular American culture. It is a worldview that firmly believes that evil is on the rise, and that it is the predetermined will of God that this should be so. However, it also awkwardly desires to propose that we can “save” some individuals from impending doom—even though this doom, and those who will be saved from it, is determined by God—by confronting them with questions like: “If the world (or your individual life) were to end tomorrow, would you go to heaven or hell?”

[Now let me answer the critics before they even speak: (1) Yes, I believe in a two-fold outcome to history: some will finally be saved, and others will finally be lost; (2) Yes, I believe the lost will eternally perish in hell—for if heaven is eternal, its antithesis must be also; (3) Yes, I believe the Gospel of Christ confronts us with choices, which have eternal implications.]

OK, hopefully I’ve already answered the main blows I’m sure to get for this blog.

I wish to continue, however, by proposing a different view concerning salvation. This is not a new view; in fact, I would argue this view is more in line with the classical Christian faith than the above-mentioned view, and it is certainly the view most consistent with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, of which I am a part. (Unfortunately, many of this same tradition have adopted the above-mentioned view without even realizing that it runs counter to our tradition.) The alternative view of salvation can be summarized like so: Salvation is about restoring people to the image of God (imago Dei).

This is a holistic approach. It says that salvation is about body and soul, community and individual, the moment of repentance and the process of being sanctified. John Wesley once preached that “the great end of religion is to renew our hearts in the image of God.” The lifeboat approach to salvation doesn’t really speak to the renewal of the imago Dei—the whole point of God’s saving work in Christ. The lifeboat says, “Quick! Pray this prayer! Jump in the boat and let’s get the hell out of here!” (or maybe “let’s get the here out of hell!”)

But if we view salvation in this way, what impetus is there to change our world? What point is there in challenging the systems of evil in our world that cause exploitation, famine, and dehumanization? The “lifeboat” approach to salvation says, “See! I told you the world is getting worse! Now, don’t worry about changing things, just get in and let’s get out of here!”

Viewing salvation as the renewal of the imago Dei, however, encourages us to participate in the redemption and restoration of all things. When we are made into the likeness of Christ, we are not simply concerned about getting others into heaven; we’re at least as equally concerned about bringing a foretaste of heaven into our existence here on earth. This is not universalism, or utopianism. This is simply saying that salvation is about redemption and restoration—not just of individuals, but of communities, societies, ecosystems, everything—and it is not just about getting individual butts into heaven.

This view of salvation also changes the way we do “evangelism.” If we understand that salvation is about restoring the imago Dei in not only individuals, but in communities, then our evangelism might simply be this: Creating communities of faith that exhibit the imago Dei, and inviting others to participate in those communities.

We, especially those of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, need to reappropriate this holistic view of salvation, which includes a holistic view of evangelism, Church, and eschatology. Salvation is not about getting people to jump from the sinking ship into the lifeboat headed for heaven; it’s about allowing Christ, through His Spirit, to re-create the image of God in us.

Living for the Future

So I am hooked on a new show.

Hillary and I don't have cable, but we sometimes watch shows posted to the Internet. "LOST" has been our addiction for some time now, but as "LOST" heads into its final season, ABC has begun airing a new show, which I believe is intended to catch all those "LOST" fans who will be without their favorite show in a about a year: the new show is called "FlashForward."

The mysterious premise of the show goes like this: all of the sudden, on October 6 of this year, everyone in the world blacked out for 2min. 17sec.--everyone in the world at the same time. Not only did everyone blackout, however; during their blackouts everyone saw what appeared to be visions of their own individual futures 6 months from the present. Whether good or bad, everyone saw what the future could/will be 6 months from now.

Obviously, mass chaos ensues following the 2min. 17sec. of blackout, once everyone reawakens. However, once the pandemonium settles down a bit, people start to ask themselves: are the visions real? Will I really be __________ 6 months from now? If their vision was good, the person becomes extremely hopeful and embraces the future. If their vision was bad--or, if the person only saw darkness during their blackout--the person fights to resist the future.

I need not draw the whole plot out or give away any more. However, I simply can't stop thinking about the parallels that could be drawn for the Christian life. What I mean is this: for those who see a hopeful future 6 months from now in their vision, life becomes an extremely joyous adventure, one the person can embrace wholeheartedly, even somewhat recklessly. For instance, one character literally had a gun to his head when the blackout occurred, but as a result of having a vision of a bright future, he woke up 2min. 17sec. later with hope and joy. Another character [sorry, I'm giving away just a bit more] needs to have a fairly dangerous surgery, but since he has also had a bright vision of his future, he goes into the surgery relaxed and even a bit eager!

I am immediately reminded of Jeremiah 29:11--a promise made to the people of God centuries ago which still speaks to the people of God today: "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord. 'Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.'" I am also reminded of the ultimate, two-fold hope we believers have because of Christ's resurrection: (1) the hope that we too will be raised to new life! (2) the hope that Christ will one day make all things new, giving us a new created world in which we will finally live in completely restored relationship to God.

We too are given a vision of the future--and this vision is recorded in the Scriptures. (I'm not just talking about the Book called "Revelation"; I'm talking about the whole narrative of the Scriptures, which culminations in Christ's return and the recreation of all things.) We too can live with hope for the future.

Not only that! We've got it even better than those who had good visions in FlashForward, for we have received the Holy Spirit! The Spirit of Christ enables us to bring a glimpse of the future into the present, through his movement in and through the Church. The future has broken into the present, and we live in the "already/not yet" with hope, because we know that our future is bright in Christ!

Bad Hermeneutics: Part 2

Well, it's time for another grand edition of "Bad Hermeneutics!"


The following video is meant to primarily illustrate a bad hermeneutical practice that, unfortunately, too many Christians have gotten in the habit of: namely, reading the Bible with one hand and the newspaper with the other.

Check out the video HERE, and, if you're interested, there are noted below a few other points of dispute with regard to the views expressed in this video.


Points of historical and hermeneutical dispute:

1) Dispensationalists often like to argue that the establishment of the independent state of Israel in 1948 is significant because it is the first time since the Babylonian Exile (which began under the infamous King Nebuchadnezzar) that Jews have ruled the land called now known as the nation-state of "Israel." This is actually a simple historical fallacy. Protestants are oftentimes unfamiliar with the stories recorded in 1 & 2 Maccabees (because they are not found in our canon of Scripture), which tell about a Jewish Revolt against Greek occupiers that took place in the 2nd c. BC, and which brought about the creation of the Hasmonean Dynasty--an independent and autonomous Jewish state in the same location as the modern nation-state of Israel. (See HERE for a quick synopsis of the Hasmonean Dynasty.) Simply put, this is not the first time since the Babylonian Exile that Jews have ruled an autonomous, Jewish state in the land called "Palestine." This does not necessarily rule out the importance of the state's creation in 1948, but that importance cannot be derived from the idea that this is the first time since Exile that the Jews have occupied and ruled the land today called "Israel." Mr. Van Impe is simply badly informed historically.

2) I am perplexed by Christians today who attempt to use the predictions of Nostradamus to buttress their prophetic claims. Moreover, I am perplexed by Christians who attempt to use the Mayan cyclical calendar system (which is said to put the date of the end of the world [or of this age] at December 2012) to buttress these same claims. Since when did Christians start looking to Nostradamus and the pagan Mayans for their prophetic information? Even more appalling is the fact that several of those who have done this--including Mr. Van Impe, see HERE--are those who want to claim (as they hold the newspaper and Nostradmus' prophecy in one hand) that the Bible is their only basis for prophetic information. Too which we simply reply: bologna.

3) Another significant historical point: Mr. Van Impe often mentions the possible future rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. While the above videos did not discuss this at length, it is Mr. Van Impe's (and many others') opinion that the future rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem (which implies the [often violent and illegal] destruction of the Dome of the Rock, which sits in the same place), if this one day occurs, will almost assuredly usher in the last dispensation of history, the end of the world. It is interesting to note that this is not the first time this belief has been strongly held by those in the land called "Israel." When the Jews returned from the Exile, under the Edict of Cyrus in 538 BC, the Temple was rebuilt, under the leadership of the Jewish governor, Zerubbabel (it was later destroyed by the Romans in 70AD). During this time, the biblical texts evidence great religious fervor amongst the people of Israel, and a strong belief that Zerrubbabel might be the promised Messiah and the "Day of the Lord" (i.e. "end of the world") might be at hand (see the book of Haggai, Zechariah 1-9, Ezra, and Nehemiah for pertinent texts). The last time the Temple was rebuilt people believed that the end of the world was upon them--unfortunately (or fortunately for us!) it was not. I guess you could then summarize the dispensationalist, Israel-supporter's stance like this: "We'll get 'em next time boys!" I am being facetious, of course, but in a truly biblical way we must recognize what the New Testament Church recognized, and which Jesus himself declared: "One greater than the Temple is here."

Praise God that Christ has superseded the need for a Temple in Jerusalem (not too mention Nostradamus and the Mayan calendar), and has made his body, the Church, a Temple of His Own Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19).

Hope and Optimism: Hallmarks of the Christian Worldview

I am so tired of hearing and seeing Christians caught in a pessimistic worldview!




"The country is in a downward, immoral spiral...."
"Obama's gonna make this nation godless and socialist...."
"The whole world's going to hell in a hand-basket...."
"Iran's gonna nuke Israel and set off Armageddon...."
"Things are going to keep on getting worse and worse...."

Brothers and sisters, I ask you: Where is our HOPE?!

We serve the Lord Jesus Christ, Who has conquered death and now sits on his glorious throne in heaven, interceding for us! He is the Lord of History, and will move all things toward his ultimate purpose and fulfillment. He has already won the crucial battle, and has already passed judgment on the rule of evil and death in our world. We are victors according to his faithful self-sacrifice on the cross, which redeems us from sin, separation from God, and the decay of this world. We live in anticipation of the new age realizing that, in Christ, it has already dawned! We live in the light of his glorious resurrection, which is our guarantee--along with the deposit of his Holy Spirit--that Christ will come again! We know that all of history is moving toward the final day when he will make all things new! We know that not a single event falls outside of his redeeming plan for creation. We have hope!

Need I say more?

Paul emphasized three essential characteristics of the Christian way of life: faith, hope, and love. I think we get the love part--at least we talk about it enough, even if we don't get it yet. And we probably talk enough about faith as well (although we often tend to privatize and individualize it). But what about hope?

We don't talk enough about hope.

We need to remember that we have great hope because of Christ's first advent and the promise of his second advent. We live in the interim--in "this present age," longing for "the age to come." And we have great hope that it will arrive, and that all of history is moving toward its arrival. And so we ought to be more optimistic, because even though there is great evil in the world, we also know that there is great good in the world as a result of Christ's work within it, through his Holy Spirit. Moreover, we know that the great evil in the world will ultimately be removed when the kingdom of God is consummated at the return of Christ.

And so we are optimistic, but not in the way the world sometimes is. We don't place our hope in any politician, political party, or new movement or activism.

We do not have the hope this poster suggests (and we would not have the hope it would have suggested had McCain or Pat Robertson won)!

We don't tout the great "ideal of progress," as Western science and politics so often do. We don't buy into the idea that human progress is inevitable, because we have seen what man can do on his own--two World Wars, the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


We do, however, remain optimistic because we know that God has broken into history and is redeeming it for his own purposes, even against the will of those who would rebel against him.


Do you have hope? If you serve the Risen Lord Jesus Christ, you do!




He has come and he will come again! Therefore, we wait with optimism and hope!