"Handel with his Messiah, Bach with his Matthew Passion, Rembrandt with his Denial of St. Peter, and the architects of those Cistercian churches were not evangelizing, nor making tools for evangelism; they worked to the glory of God. They did not compromise their art. They were not devising tools for religious propaganda or holy advertisement. And precisely because of that they were deep and important. Their works were not the means to an end, the winning of souls, but they were meaningful and an end in themselves, to God’s glory, and showing forth something of the love that makes things warm and real. Art has too often become insincere and second-rate in its very effort to speak to all people, and to communicate a message that art was not meant to communicate. In short, art has its own validity and meaning, certainly in the Christian framework."
One of our dreams for The Gateway Church has always been that it would become a place that would foster the arts, cultivate imagination and unleash the creativity inside the human spirit to change the world.
That is why I am so excited about A Creative Theology - a new book written by my friend Sam Mahlstadt. This book wrestles with the concepts of faith and creativity. Foundational to the book is the belief that there is something theological about creativity. That if we explore the relational force of creativity, we will uncover something both fascinating and life-changing.
The book is filled with profound insights on the beauty of creation, the ravages of the fall and the promise of restoration. It is a passionate call to wake up the creative spirit that has been woven into all of us but lies dormant within so many of us and to join The Creator in His project of restoration and renewal.
Sam worked together with a few talented designers from Gateway on creating a book that is so much more than a book. They have turned a series of words and thoughts into beautiful art. You can view some samples here.
This week another well known Christian speaker and author has thrown his hat in the ring on the debate about hell, creating some kind of an evangelical celebrity death match: Francis Chan vs. Rob Bell.
Let me say that I have deep respect for these men but I strongly disagree with both of them on this issue. In fact, I find Chan's recently posted ad for his new book Erasing Hell as troubling as anything I read or heard from Bell.
It seems to me that the main thrust of Chan's argument for the traditional understanding of hell (eternal conscious torment) is that God's ways are not like our ways. His justice is higher than our justice. His love is not like our love. Chan's says, “I’m a piece of clay trying to explain to other pieces of clay what the potter is like. It’s silly to think we are experts on him. Our only hope is that he would reveal to us what he is like, and then we repeat those things.”
All of this is of course true, but Chan is using this as a starting point to show what can and cannot be known about God. This is what I find troubling.
All Christian doctrines undergo a certain amount of development over time. A variety of factors in society, history and philosophical thought impact the way issues are viewed and interpreted. Scripture is of course primary - but it is illumined by two millennia of Church history, vivified in personal experience and confirmed by reason.
In other words, the traditional doctrine of hell forms a "lens" through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, tradition is not infallible and it must be balanced and tested by reason and experience. Reason (rational thinking and sensible interpretation) and experience (how a particular view of scripture is actually lived out) is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of tradition and adjust our interpretations of Scripture.
This is what I find so troubling about Chan's video. Arguments such as these, whether offered in love and humility or with contempt and fear, have been used by religion for thousands of years to prop up the existing tradition and stifle reason and sensible interpretation.
This morning over at Jesus Creed, pastor-philosopher Jeff Cook offers up three more important critiques to Chan's video (his book has not been released yet) which I would like to share with you here:
(1) In contrast to Chan’s claim, we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth. Scripturally speaking God invites us to use our minds when engaging who he is and what he does (Isa 1:18, Rm 12:2, among many others). In fact, we put God’s actions “in submission to our reasoning” every time we say that what God does is praise-worthy, loving, good, just, wise, self-sacrificial, etc, These are all rational assessments of God’s nature, actions, and character—and they should not be avoided. I can bring into this discussion two quotations from those who have pondered Job — one from C.S. Lewis and one from Robert Gordis.
“The point [of Job] is that the man who accepts our ordinary standard of good and by it hotly criticizes divine justice receives the divine approval: the orthodox, pious people who palter with that standard in the attempt to justify God are condemned. Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them” (C.S. Lewis, “De Futilitate,” in Christian Reflections, 70).
“Faced with the tragic dilemma of a righteous man’s suffering in an immoral world created by a righteous God, Job is nevertheless unwilling to surrender his ideal of rectitude ” (R. Gordis, Book of God and Man: A Study of Job , 153).
(2) There’s a real problem with criticizing all claims that begin with, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would….” We should choose not to believe in a God who would … repeatedly torture three year olds for fun. We should choose not to believe in a God who would …. command cowardice, betrayal, abuse, and ignorance.
“Belief in God” implies trust and devotion, and it seems to me *some* pictures of God are not worthy of either trust or devotion.
Now, if I say, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would … create a few billion people, knowing that they will never believe in him and are irreversibly destined to suffer in unending isolation and fire,” that *can be* an appropriate move. I can make that move while acknowledging that my course of action “might be the one flawed.” I can make that move while acknowledging that God’s “sense of justice” is superior to mine, and that God thinks about things in a different way than I do.
What those who defend the traditional view of hell must do is showcase why a good God *could* think unending conscious torment is the best option for the damned. Otherwise, it seems appropriate for a reasonable person (if they believe a “good” being by definition will not create conditions in which a person will experience torment for countless lifetimes) to either reject that picture of God or reject that view of hell.
(3) The idea of “justice” must be the same for God and for us, otherwise the term lacks linguistic value. Chan asks, “Do you ever even consider the possibility that maybe the creator’s sense of justice is actually more developed than yours?” Of course it is in one sense, but if God’s concept of justice is radically different than ours then it makes no sense for us to call God “just” any more. If we are to talk about “justice” at all, the definition must hold for ants as well as deities, otherwise we are talking of apples and oranges and all such language breaks down.
Cook concludes by saying that what Chan and others must do is show how the traditional view of hell is in any way “just,” The response that, “God knows things we don’t” or “God does things we wouldn’t do” is insufficient here (In philosophical jargon, this is a “phantom argument”). Some kind of story needs to be told that makes initiating eternal conscious torment morally praise-worthy and in accord with what we mean (or should mean) by “justice.”
Those who affirm the traditional view of hell need to do more than say “this is what the Bible says and we’re just repeating it.” Everyone involved in the debate about hell right now is saying “this is what the Bible says”. What those who affirm the traditional view must show is why that view is worthy of devotion.
By the way, Tim Keller does that better than anyone in his book Reason for God and in an article he posted HERE and I hope that in the book Chan will move more in that direction.
In his bestselling book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is famous for saying:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasohistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
While it is easy for a Christian to get angry at Dawkins’ exaggerated tone, many of us would admit that God (especially the God of the Old Testament) has a bad reputation.
There are stories in the Old Testament that make God appear really angry, sexist and racist. When we encounter these passages we are understandably concerned, perplexed and perhaps tempted to ignore them and move on to the New Testament. One of the questions I get a lot as a pastor is, “How do you reconcile the God of the OT with Jesus Christ in the NT?”
I want to point you to a great new resource by Dr. David T. Lamb called God Behaving Badly. Lamb examines both the positive and negative characterizations of God in the Bible. Not just the Old Testament but also in the New Testament.
While atheists like Dawkins are quick to point out the passages in the Bible to support their perspective that God is angry, sexist and racist, Lamb shows us that the biblical story is much more complicated than that. Alongside the troubling passages of God’s punishment and judgment are pictures of God’s love, forgiveness, goodness and slowness to anger.
Lamb unpacks many of the most difficult passages of the Bible to explore the character of God. He provides historical and cultural background to shed light on problematic passages without minimizing the sometimes harsh realities of the Bible.
This is an important topic for both believers and unbelievers to consider. Our image of God influences how we pursue God; it impacts how we read the Bible; and it shapes what we think of other humans. While this book may not answer all of your questions about God, I think it will bring a whole other dimension to your faith and imagination of God.
The Four Holy Gospels is a stunning new edition of the four canonical Gospels published this year by Crossway. It includes the four Gospels as designed and illustrated by Makoto Fujimura.
Fujimura is a devout Christian and one of the most highly-regarded artists of the twenty-first century. He is the founder of the International Arts Movement and has served on the National Council for the Arts. His art is on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Tokyo, as well as a number of art museums in the US.
The Four Holy Gospels is the first manuscript ever to feature abstract contemporary art in lieu of traditional representational illustrations.
You really must watch “The Art of The Four Holy Gospels.”
It appears the Bible is on backorder on Amazon. In the meantime you can download an excerpt (pdf) of the Bible HERE.
We, today, have a language to celebrate waywardness, but we do not have a cultural language to bring people back home. – Makoto Fujimura -
"You know, Hitler wanted to be an artist. At eighteen he took his inheritance, seven hundred kronen, and moved to Vienna to live and study. He applied to the Academy of Fine Arts and later to the School of Architecture. Ever see one of his paintings? Neither have I. Resistance beat him. It was easier for Hitler to start World War II than it was for him to face a blank square of canvas."
I found this book through a tweet @realrobbell posted a few days ago. I don’t have the book and I can’t even find it on Amazon… but the introduction is breathtaking. And by that I mean it will literally take your breath away.
Frank argues that the God presented in traditional evangelical Christianity is, quite frankly, difficult to love. This God does not give evidence of a truly loving heart, and this makes it hard for his children to love him.
But there is a truer, better God…
I hear this God’s liberating word in the living spirit and the dying gasps of the shabby human being who was nailed, two thousand years ago, to a splintered pole in Palestine. Unlike the “bad-news God” of evangelicalism, this human God feels genuine warmth for me—in the words of the familiar hymn, “just as I am”—and my heart instinctively reciprocates. In the embrace of this human God, my fear of God and my religiously-inspired enmity toward myself begin to find relief.
If that didn’t take your breath away, read it again.
Every other week I meet with a small group of guys for breakfast. This morning Jeremy, who was leading the discussion, said that the heart of Christianity should be Christ.Simple right? The problem is that so much of our lives, our church experiences, our doctrine and theology are focused on things other than this human God.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus is depicted as the perfect embodiment – the incarnation — of God and his Kingdom. By definition, therefore, God looks like Jesus. This is His essence. And we participate in God’s Kingdom to the extent — and only to the extent — that we look like Jesus.
Christ’s life is an example of the very way in which we are supposed to live.
To be honest, that is easy to write, but that is very hard to pull off. It’s easy to say the church has lost its focus and has not always done the best job of modeling Christ to culture, but where are we supposed to get the power to do this? From following Christ’s example?
NO!
If Christ only came as an example of the reversal of the world’s values he wouldn’t be any power to us at all - he would actually be a burden. He would make us feel terrible trying to live up to his standard. Even this human God can be a "bad-news-God."
But that is not the gospel! The gospel shows us that everything Jesus did, he did to reverse fortunes with us. That is why he can say 'though you are weeping now, you will rejoice' because he took the weeping you deserve. He can say 'you will be comforted' because he was thrown away. He can say 'you will be satisfied' because he was utterly dissatisfied.
In other words, Christ took our place. He put us where he deserves to be, before the thrown of God, and he put himself where we deserve to be, utterly cast out.
So, the only way to actually receive this power is to become ‘poor in Spirit’, to begin to rely completely on Christ. Then we can say along with the apostle Paul, who after being set free from the “bad-news-God” and caught up in the embrace of this human God, ‘I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.’
When our hearts are captivated by the love of this human God, we will instinctively reciprocate.
Just picked up Love and War by John and Stasi Eldridge. So
far, this is the best book on marriage I’ve ever read. The Eldridge’s argue
that the Bible begins and ends with marriage (Gen 2:21-25; Rev 21:1-2;9) and
that in a very mystical sense marriage is a picture of the Kingdom of God - the
marriage of Christ and his church (Eph 5).
God is a great lover, and he created marriage to play out
on this earth a daily, living, breathing portrait of the intimacy he longs for
his people. This is why it has such a central role. It is a kind of
incarnation, a passion play about the love and union between Jesus and his
beloved. Which might help you appreciate why the fury of hell has been
unleashed against it. God is telling a love story and the setting is war.
There are many great books on marriage that give excellent
advice on communication, conflict resolution, keeping the romance alive, etc.
What I love about this book is that it places marriage within a much larger
story. The story God is telling, the story that explains our lives, the story
in which all other stories find their meaning. And in that story marriage is a
quest, an adventure, a battle to be fought together.
Marriage is difficult, because marriage is opposed. Marriage
is beautiful, because in the midst of this war-torn world, marriage is a picture
of God’s true love.
I am SUPER excited to announce our very first guest speaker at The Gateway Church. On Sunday night October 11th we will be welcoming New York Times best-selling author Donald Miller to Des Moines! Don is in the middle of his 'Million Miles' tour and will be speaking that night, along with Susan Isaacs, in our space at the beautiful Temple for Performing Arts downtown Des Moines.
Its fitting that Don is our first guest speaker. About six years ago I arrived at a crossroads in my life. I knew I was called to full-time ministry, but I hated so many things about the church. Honestly, I felt like I would probably end up taking the first ministry position that came my way, stick it out for a couple of years, then burn out and leave the church. I just didn’t see how I could be myself and work in the church.
I went on a spiritual retreat and asked God, “Why does following you mean conforming to a set of rules and regulations that feel so empty?”
I brought Blue Like Jazz with me on the retreat. It’s the only book I brought besides the Bible. On Saturday morning I picked up the book and I didn’t put it down again until I finished it on Saturday evening. I set the book down and I got on my knees and started crying. I thanked God for giving me this book. For the first time in my life I realized that being a Christian didn’t just mean fulfilling a list of church requirements. It was more like starting a journey with Christ, learning to walk in step with the Holy Spirit, and allowing God to use every experience in life to transform me into the person he created me to be.
I've only met Don once (and I don't think he would remember me) but I am really excited to hear him speak at The Gateway Church.
