promiseandpeace

Posted By evancurry on January 24, 2012

Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

The Roman centurion and the women present highlight again, in Mark’s Gospel, that Jesus’ closest disciples fail to see who he really is. Ben Witherington quoting Ched Meyers says about Mark’s inclusion of these three women,

“The world order is being overturned, from the highest political power to the deepest cultural patterns, and it begins within the new community. It will be these women, the ‘last’ become ‘first,’ who will be entrusted with the resurrection message.’” (Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 401).

Jesus setups up an alternative reality, where the last become first, where one’s gender does not keep him or her out of the inner circle, where its people turn the other cheek, live by the law of loving God and others, and live as true light and salt. It is not Peter, James, and John who are there to the end, but it is Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome—women, second-class citizens.

When I was in third grade, I remember my friends making fun of me because my shorts were too short. I must have missed the memo that went around but my friends went from wearing shorts at mid-thigh to down to the knee. I was embarrassed when my friend pointed it out—how different I was to everyone else. My immediate thought was: I need to get new shorts! I was different and that scared me.

But the cross is different. It is the way—the way no one expected—for God to bring about his kingdom. Jesus lived an alternative life and died an alternative death so that the kingdom of God might be seen. John Howard Yoder puts it this way,

“Here at the cross is the man who loves his enemies, the man whose righteousness is greater than that of the Pharisees, who being rich became poor, who gives his robe to those who took his cloak, who prays for those who despitefully use him. The cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to the kingdom, nor is it an event on the way to the kingdom; it is the kingdom come” (Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, p. 51).

Jesus on the cross

On the cross, Jesus shows that in order for God to be victorious over sin and death, Jesus must lose this battle. For God to win, Jesus must lose. God is victorious in Jesus’ death. His kingdom, his rule on earth as it is in heaven, has now come. So, in his death, Jesus experiences God’s victory, and we do too. The apostle Paul says in Colossians 1 that God’s fullness dwelt in the person of Jesus and in him God was reconciling all things—in heaven and earth—to himself.
And God wants us to be a part of this, too. He wants us to be people of reconciliation. This is the start of God’s new creation. The old way of doing things, where evil reigns and has a hold on this world, has been eradicated and replaced with the kingdom of God—God’s rule on earth as it is in heaven—and this all begins with Jesus’ death. 2 Corinthians 5 puts it this way,

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors…

The Church—the followers of Jesus—is the agent of the new creation. We are its agents. We are its ambassadors. We are its “people of reconciliation.” We are the alternative to the world. We are so because Jesus was so. Jesus heals the leper and is not allowed back in town. He takes the leper’s status. He is an alternative so his followers must also be.

If we are honest the world needs something different to its own way. What does it look like for us to be the alternative reality to the world’s reality? What does it look like to be the alternative to a world that believe in redemptive violence—that killing someone will make everything better? What does it look like to be the alternative to a world where racism happens and sex trafficking happens? What does it look like on a day-to-day basis to be the alternative to the Rat Race? Or consumerism? Or to be the alternative to cheating and backstabbing to get ahead? What does it look like to be the alternative to gossip? Or apathy? Or cyncisim?

Jesus has set up his alternative reality, which is God’s alternative reality. The alternative reality to the world looks like the cross. It looks like the Son of God dying to save Israel and the world. It looks like forgiveness. It looks like the end of exile. It looks like a man wrongly accused. It looks like the King of the Jews mocked and laughed at. But surely this man, Jesus, is the Son of God, who was abandoned and judged for the sake of the world so that we might live an alternative reality for the sake of the world.

May you be different. May you be the alternative reality. And may we live the life of the cross and see God’s kingdom come.

Category: Church & Theology | 1 Comment »
Tags: alternative, Church, crucifixion, Jesus, John Howard Yoder

Posted By evancurry on January 12, 2012

Jesus & Pilate

Silence is awkward. We don’t really do well with silence, do we? We are so used to talking. We are so used to being around other people. We are so used to having the TV on while we listening to Pandora on our laptops. Silence is just plain awkward. So, I have to say, when I approach the story of Jesus’ trial before Pilate, his silence is awkward. He doesn’t say anything about the false accusations. He’s awkwardly…silent. In fact, in my one red-letter Bible, I noticed that in Mark 15:1-15, only four words are in red. In verse two, Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews, and Jesus says, “You have said so.” Jesus is awkwardly silent before Pilate.

Pilate is concerned that Jesus would claim to be the King of the Jews. After all, that’s Herod’s position. So, Pilate could have Jesus flogged for that, but crucifixion seems a little extreme. So, he asks Jesus, “Aren’t you going to answer? Give me a reason to let you go, and I will.” “But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.”

So, Pilate, not wanting to give the chief priests what they want, pits Jesus against a rebel Barabbas, thinking surely the people will choose Jesus. That’s like choosing between Osama bin Laden and Mother Teresa. It’s not rocket science. But they choose Barabbas. So, what else is Pilate supposed to do, but have Jesus flogged and handed over to be crucified? Jesus is awkwardly silent and now his silence has gotten him killed.

So, then, we are confronted with Jesus’ silence. Why is Jesus silent? Most certainly, he knows that Pilate can’t convict him of death; flogging, yes, but crucifixion? Unlikely.

But the more I look at it…Jesus is more confidently silent than awkwardly. Jesus does not fear death. He knows that he has been given a vocation by God to be the light of the world, as Israel’s King, to be for Israel what they have failed be, to take the judgment for that failure on himself. He is silent because he knows that death cannot stop God’s desire for the world. And he believes that somehow his own death will bring about that desire. Jesus knows that in order for Israel to be what she is supposed to be, in order for God to bring about what he desires for his people and the world, he must die. Resurrection cannot happen without dying first. Or, as Jesus says earlier in Mark, “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it” (Mk. 8:35).

Jesus is not silent because he doesn’t know what to say. He is silent because he knows his vocation as Israel’s King. He is silent because exile must end and sins must be forgiven. Nothing can get in the way, not even him. Jesus’ silence shows the world that dying is the way to true life. Jesus knows who he is. He knows God’s plan for his life and mission, and that ends with Jesus dying. May we have the same resolve, and may God give you the same clarity in your life.

Category: Church & Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Jesus, Mission, silence, vocation

Posted By evancurry on December 2, 2011

N.T. Wright is interviewed on Fox News around the ideas present in his book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. As you may know, N.T. Wright is one of my favorite New Testament scholars, and I love how rational yet accessible he is:

Category: Church & Theology, Reflections on Others | No Comments »
Tags: Fox News, N.T. Wright

Posted By evancurry on October 31, 2011

Protester at Occupy Wall Street

I will first admit. I haven’t paid much attention to Occupy Wall Street/Philly/Etc. I don’t really care all that much, to be honest (which has more to do with apathy than anything–to be honest again). However, from what I gather, a bunch of people are tired of corporate greed and are rallying behind a slogan “We are the 99%.” I have a brief, yet I hope valuable, take on all of this.

For those pro-Occupy: It simply won’t do to complain about corporate greed. The line of evil runs through you. How can you stop greed in your own life? Part of maturing is resisting “blame-shifting.” We think, “Yes, I am in a bunch of debt, but it not my fault. It’s the government. It’s Microsoft. It’s the Sallie Mae.” Blame-shifting is an anxious, (often) knee-jerk reaction out of fear that someone might point out where we are to blame. My debt, true, is my debt. If I decide that I want an iPad, go out an buy one on my Visa, that’s my problem. If I believed I had to go to a more expensive college to get a better job, took out a loan to pay for the world’s most expensive piece of paper (i.e., degree), and now have 6-figures of debt, that’s my problem. There is greed in all of us. Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk, amidst the Vietnam protests in the 1960’s reminded everyone that unless we are going to look inwardly at the violence in us, pacifism just becomes another war-tactic. The same is true here with greed.

For those contra-Occupy: It also simply won’t do to complain about the protesters. A lot of “Stop being lazy, get a job, and work hard at it. I did that. So should you!” line of thought has been floating around. That line of thought is contingent on “get a job,” which appears to be extremely difficult at this time and partially why the protesters are out on Wall Street. Yes, I have a job. After I lost my job as a youth pastor, it took me almost a year to be hired at a full-time job, and there are many people out there that work harder than I do to find a good (or any) job to pay for their family and it is taking them much, much longer. It’s hard to say, “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” when someone can’t even buy the boots. Instead of thinking, “What systems are currently established that are keeping people from getting jobs?”, we complain about the people who can’t get jobs.

Basically, the line of evil runs through all of us. How are we involved in the evil that permeates our world? Let’s ask ourselves this question and work toward a solution. For me, I’m apathetic. What about you?

That’s my take.

Category: Culture, Politics, Reflections on Others | No Comments »
Tags: complaining, greed, Occupy Wall Street, Thomas Merton

Posted By evancurry on October 25, 2011

^{Mark 3:31} Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³² A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

³³ “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

³⁴ Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵ Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

“How do I know God’s will for my life?”

I’ve been posed with this question more than once before. (I guess people know I love theology and am a pastor so they think I have my finger on God’s pulse so they come and ask me.) Many want to know what they should do after college, or what car to buy, or where to serve at church. “I just want to do God’s will.” This is a fine request. In fact, so do I–I want to do God’s will, too. But…I’m not always sure what it is.

Then it hit me when I was reading this passage. Jesus is talking to a crowd when his mom shows up. You know, Mom…the one who spent hours upon hours in labor with you, risking her very life to push you out of her body–that Mom. Some poor soul gets to bear the news to Jesus, to which he expected more-or-less from Jesus, “Hey everyone, my family’s outside. Hold on. I’ll be right back.” But, no, Jesus turns to those around him–”These guys are my family. Anyone who does God’s will is my family.” Doing God’s will makes you part of Jesus’ family–that’s hefty. So, we’d like to know what that means, right?

In the Gospels, Jesus brings in God’s kingdom and reshapes what it means to be part of Israel, the people of God, around himself. He forgives people by his own authority instead of having them go to the Temple for that. He spends time at the Sermon on the Mount to lay out what the people of God look like–peaceable, humble, pure in heart, persecuted for righteousness sake. He claims he is the fulfillment of the Torah. He claims to be the Temple, then destroys it through his crucifixion. Those who do these things are part of “true Israel,” God’s covenant people, Jesus’ family. God’s kingdom is coming in Jesus–repent and believe the good news.

If in Mark 3 doing God’s will makes one a member of Jesus’ family, it would appear that “to follow God’s will” is to be part of “true Israel” (a common desire in first century Judaism). What does it mean to be true Israel? For Jesus, it means being holy, set apart living out the values of God’s kingdom. love God, love your neighbor, be a peacemaker, be humble, pure in heart. Thus, the will of God is not an individualistic outlook toward the rest of life (i.e., what’s God’s will for my life–take the job at the bank or go to the mission field?). The emphasis appears to be on holiness, of living in light of Jesus as God’s-kingdom-bringer, and, when Jesus is bringing in the kingdom, it looks like the Sermon on the Mount, looks like putting others before yourself, giving up your life, carrying your cross.

So, what’s God’s will for your life? It’s introspective, not extrospective. How can I bring in the kingdom of God? Seek holiness, live out kingdom values–”It is God’s will that you should be sanctified” (1 Ths. 4:3); “give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (5:18); “For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people” (1 Pt. 2:15). Seems pretty obvious to me then.

How does this change your outlook on what’s God’s will for your life?

Category: Church & Theology, Life | 1 Comment »
Tags: God's will, Jesus, Life

Posted By evancurry on October 14, 2011

Telling God's Story

First, let me apologize for the lack of involvement on the part of myself with the blogosphere. Life has been very, very busy. I am still alive, and I hope to write more often now that things seem to have simmered down.

As you may have read, I had been reviewing and practicing Olive Branch Books’ Telling God’s Story: Teaching Your Children the Bible shaped by scholar Peter Enns. My wife and I spent time by going through seven of the lessons (one lesson per week, as designed) with my three year old daughter. I read the Parent’s Guide, and we have done multiple activities surrounding the seven lessons. I am convinced that this curriculum is the best I’ve encountered for a number of reasons, not least, the ones listed below. I highly recommend that you pick up all three parts of the curriculum and begin walking through the Bible with your children. Let’s start with the negative then move to the positive–

What I Didn’t Like:

1. Materials: for some of the crafts, the materials aren’t things I have at home. I don’t have mustard seeds so I either had to skip the mustard mashed potatoes craft or go buy some. I chose to buy some. I don’t mind buying some of the items, but, for a curriculum designed to be used for the home, it wasn’t always easy pulling off the crafts.
2. Coloring pages: The pictures on the pages are great. The verse reference is at the bottom, but that doesn’t help me remember the “point” of the story. If the story is about when Jesus calmed the storm, and if the point is “Jesus has God’s power to control creation,” then perhaps it would be better to put the “point” at the bottom, instead of, the verse reference.
3. For young children only: at this point, the curriculum has been developed for 1-5 graders. If you want something for your middle schooler, you may have to go elsewhere. However, you never know. A middle schooler could enjoy this.

What I Loved:

1. It starts with Jesus. I know this sounds like an obvious statement, but most Bible curricula begin with the Old Testament (e.g., Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden talking to snake) and move to the New Testament over time. The problem with this method is, first, the NT authors read the OT in light of Jesus so starting with the OT stands outside of this tradition. Second, the stories of the OT become perceived as “childish”–a snake talking? We know snakes don’t talk, Dad. A flood and a boat–that’s cute. A shepherd boy kills a giant–reminds me of Jack and the Beanstalk. Third, some of the stories in the OT are not “Mom-approved,” in that, Mom probably doesn’t want little Johnny to be learning about Judah and Tamar. There will be a time for that, but not before bedtime.
2. The activities were fun and multi-dimensional. During my time with the books, my daughter has colored pictures, made mustard mashed potatoes (i.e., faith like a mustard seed), learned the first five books of the NT, and made numerous crafts. The activities aren’t all crafts or all coloring pages, but they are multi-dimensional, which should suit many different learning styles.
3. You don’t need to be a scholar to teach from the lesson. The books are written in such a way that the average lay person can communicate the material. Also, each lesson starts with a word to the parents, which provides the parent with a brief understanding of the point of the stories.
4. You don’t need a flannelgraph. ‘Nuff said. Talk about things you don’t have at home.
5. It sets up children with the proper tools to begin to study Scripture. I know this sounds strange, but, from what I gather, our children learn cute stories about the Bible, learn a few verses, grow up and go to high school and college, and are rather ill-equipped for serious Bible study. I’ve dealt with this on a number of occasions when a student goes to State school, takes a Bible as Literature course, and are blown away when they read the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, the plan for this curriculum is to develop over the years to provide children and their parents with resources to give them the proper tools for study as they mature.
6. It can be used at home and church: I personally believe that it is my wife and my responsibility to teach our children about Jesus. However, we are often stuck on where to begin. This curriculum provides us with great resources and fun activities. Also, it’s partially the responsibility of the church to teach my children the way of Jesus so to have a curriculum that can be used at church on Sunday and then home throughout the week is worth its weight in gold (so to speak).

I don’t like to say, “Parents, go out and buy this,” but go out and buy this curriculum. It’s a great place to start. It offers excellent resources. The interpretations, for one, aren’t simplistic–understandable, yes; simplistic, no. Olive Branch Books should be proud of this resource, and I, personally, will be continuing to use this with my children.

Category: Church & Theology, Reflections on Others | No Comments »
Tags: children, curriculum, Olive Branch Books, Pete Enns, Peter Enns

Posted By evancurry on August 10, 2011

Last night, I finished Richard Hays’ The Moral Vision of the New Testament, and, after I read the last page of 471 pages, I wanted to shout “Yes!” and dance around my apartment. The problem: my kids were sleeping. So, instead, I did what any good American would do — I watched TV. I had DVR’d Discovery Channel’s Curiosity on “Did God Create the Universe?” (click for clips from the roundtable discussion) with atheist Stephen Hawking. Now, I was skeptical of an atheist answering this question. However, I became engrossed in the program. Hawking’s basic (if anything Hawking says could be “basic”) premise is that if we take into account the laws of nature there is no need for a god to create the earth. Thus, no god, no heaven, no afterlife.

No, I haven’t become an atheist, or agnostic. I figured I needed to say that so no one gets the wrong impression.

I don’t know if you’ve ever struggled with this question of human origins (and please don’t respond to this post with Genesis 1:1 as many Christians are quick to do) and God’s existence. I have. I still do (on occasion). I believe the Bible, yes. I believe there is a god, yes. I believe that God is revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, I still struggle with certain questions. I’m just being honest. Neither creationism nor evolution have made me confident. But I thoroughly enjoyed Curiosity.

I’ve been pushed by Christians and atheists alike to know everything, or, at least, everything is knowable. I invite this challenge. I’m pleased by it, and I don’t think God is scared of human inquiry. But the Hawking seems so sure that there is no god. Many Christians seem so sure there is. To the atheist I ask: Are you really so sure there is no god? Are you really so sure we don’t need one? Are you really so sure? What about “miracles”? How do you explain those?

To Christians I ask: Why do you want to be so sure? Why do we go down the road of trying to “prove” everything to the atheist? Where does that leave “faith”? Is our attempts to be so sure leave no room for faith? Where does the Holy Spirit fit in? Perhaps, our attempts to explain everything leave no room for the Holy Spirit, and that would be a far worse tragedy than whether or not I can convince someone God created the world in 6 literal days.

In fact, we, humans, aren’t so sure about much of anything, are we? String theory (see video below) seems to blow that candle out. Multiverses, really? What goes on there? We, Christians, aren’t really that sure about much of anything, are we? Faith seems put those desires out. Perhaps, Newbigin in Proper Confidence was right — faith is real knowledge.

If the place where we look for ultimate truth is in a story and if (as is the case) we are still in the middle of the story, then it follows that we walk by faith and not by sight.  If ultimate truth is sought in an idea, a formula, or a set of timeless laws or principles, then we do not have to recognize the possibility that something totally unexpected may happen.  Insofar as our knowledge is accurate, we shall be able to predict the future.  Future and past events are governed by the same laws, the same principles, and the same realities.  But if we find ultimate truth in a story that has not yet been finished, we do not have that kind of certainty.  The certainty we have rests on the faithfulness of the one whose story it is.  We walk by faith (p. 14).

You can blow this off as postmodern pish-posh, but there’s something there that’s accurate. We don’t know much of anything, and that’s OK. It’s about time we start admitting it.

Category: Reflections on Others | 8 Comments »
Tags: atheism, creation, Curiosity, evolution, God, Newbigin, Stephen Hawking

Posted By evancurry on July 27, 2011

If you’re like me, “How should I teach the Bible to my children?” is a question you’ve more than just mulled over. I’ve tried and have struggled with how to teach my children the Bible. I tried the cover-to-cover approach, but lost their interest somewhere in Exodus. I also tried reading them Psalms and the Gospels. However, it never really “clicked.” I am very cynical of Bible curriculum, since they are usually overly simplistic and are nothing like how people study Scripture. With this being said, I was more than excited to be offered a chance to review Olive Branch Books’ Telling God’s Story curriculum when I heard it was shaped by biblical scholar Dr. Peter Enns (who I am fond of). The curriculum entails three books:

1. 

   Parents Guide: this is the “owner’s manual” for the curriculum. Peter Enns helps provide a framework for how to read the Bible and teach it to children. Enns’ notices that there is a significant gap between how we teach children to read the Bible and how the Bible is studied when they approach college. (Read excerpt here).

2. Instructor Text & Teaching Guide: Telling God’s Story Year 1: Meeting Jesus is written by Peter Enns for grades 1-4 and starts with the Gospels. It is Enns’ belief that the point of Scripture is Jesus and thus we should start there with our children. There are 52 lessons for 52 weeks of the year. The sections are split up in 8 different parts surrounding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
3. Student Guide & Activity Pages: The Instructor Text & Teaching Guide is complemented by this activity book which provides corresponding activities (music, craft, art history, coloring, cooking activities) to each lesson.

My goal in reviewing this is to try 5 lessons on my 3 year old daughter and blog about it here. I will also provide a review of each pieces of the curriculum. My thought is, if a 3 year old can follow the lessons, a first grader will definitely be able to do so. I have recently taken over the children’s ministry at our church, and, if I find the curriculum valuable, I will be implementing it there as well and will encourage you to do so, too. So, keep checking back, or follow me on Twitter for updates.

I want to thank Justin Moore of Olive Branch Books for approaching me and giving me the opportunity to review this curriculum. I am looking forward to it!

Category: Church & Theology, Life | 3 Comments »
Tags: Bible, children, curriculum, Gospels, Jesus, kids, Olive Branch Books, Peter Enns

Posted By evancurry on July 25, 2011

By know, you should already know that Norway was subjected to a terrorist attack (both a bombing and a mass slaughtering). But what most shocking to many people is the terrorist’s religion was not Islam but, according to the terrorist, Christian. Anders Behring Breivik, 32, killed numerous individuals in the name of Christianity in his opposition to the “colonization” of Europe by Muslims.

I admit. I was shocked to hear the terrorist’s claim that he’s a Christian. I think most people realize that such terrorism is an anomaly in Christianity (see Is ‘Christian fundamentalist’ label correct for Norway terror suspect?). Although Christians do not always live lovingly and peacefully, Christianity is a religion of love and peace. As a Christian, I know this is the case, and I condemn the actions of Breivik.

I’m not here to challenge the fundamental claims of Christianity or Islam, but I want to challenge you with this question: why do many Christians dismiss Breivik’s claim but discount claims (from Muslims) that Islam is not a religion of violence?

Let’s be honest. The original speculation was that the terrorist attack was done by Islamic jihadists, and, if it stayed that way, we would probably think to ourselves, “Yeah. That doesn’t surprise me.” But I’ve heard Christians insist, “The Koran encourages violence and terrorism.” Does it? If someone said that about the Bible (and many have), wouldn’t you disagree?

I haven’t read the Koran at length, and I am under-researched in Islam; but I think it’s time for Christians to give up the idea (that is very present) that “Muslims are terrorists” when we see sadly that all religions have extremists. Christianity included! What happened in Norway, doesn’t stay there. The effects of this should hit home in every Christian. How are we viewing Islam? How do we view the Bible and Christianity? Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik do not represent Christianity. So, why do we presume Al Qaeda represents Islam?

Category: Church & Theology, Culture | 5 Comments »
Tags: Christianity, Islam, Jesus, Norway, terrorism

Posted By evancurry on July 4, 2011

"Erasing Hell" by Francis Chan

I was honored to receive a pre-published copy of Francis Chan’s (and Preston Sprinke’s) soon-to-be-released book called Erasing Hell: what God said about eternity, and the things we made up from its publisher David Cook. To be quite honest, I’ve never read anything by Francis Chan, but I know he’s extremely popular in evangelical circles for his book Crazy Love. Thus, I was excited when I was asked to review Erasing Hell (release date: July 5).

If you’ve been paying attention, Rob Bell’s most recent book Love Wins has sparked a great amount of controversy but, more importantly, a great amount of conversation around, particularly, the topic of hell (quite frankly, evangelicals should have had these discussions ten years ago but, alas, here we are). Francis Chan, assisted by Preston Sprinkle, has now entered the conversation with his book Erasing Hell. It is my desire to give you enough of the book to whet your appetite to read it but, also, provide you with my critique.

What I liked: Francis Chan has a great amount of exegesis of the biblical text along with extra-biblical material in order to describe what the Jewish people during Jesus’ time believed about hell. One of my greatest frustrations with Love Wins was the lack of references and extended exegesis. This is not a fault of Erasing Hell.

Chan explains that Jesus grew up in a Jewish culture that believed the following about hell:

1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment.
2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament.
3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment (p. 50).

Jesus and his followers, basically, fall in line with these viewpoints. Francis Chan (and don’t forget Preston Sprinkle) does well to build this argument.

Francis Chan

In the appendix of FAQ’s, Chan addresses the question, “Are the images of fire, darkness, and worms to be understood literally” (p. 153)? Francis Chan, after explaining how Scripture mixes imagery of darkness and fire (i.e., light) for hell, says, “Given the widespread use of fire as a metaphor in Scripture, I find it best to take these images nonliterally” (emphasis mine), and, concerning the details of torment (i.e., worms, gnashing of teeth, etc.), he says, “So while the passages examined in this book are clear about hell as a real place where the wicked will be tormented, the Bible does not seem to tell us exactly what that torment will entail” (p. 155; emphasis mine).

I credit Francis Chan (and, oh yeah, Preston Sprinkle) for both Erasing Hell’s exegesis as well as rejecting the tendency to take metaphors literally.

What I disliked: Outside of his treatment of some of Rob Bell’s arguments (e.g., Bell’s “hell on earth,” p. 48) and framing Origen’s heresy as a matter of universalism (p. 24), I have one major dislike in Erasing Hell.

One of my friends once said to me, “There’s a difference between theology and apologetics. Theology, you seek to learn new things about God. Apologetics, you seek to confirm what you already believe.” What I most disliked about Erasing Hell is that (I believe) Chan was doing apologetics—confirming what he already believed. Although Chan claims to be allowing Scripture to change his viewpoints (emphasized in the book and pre-release video), I have trouble believing this. For instance, Chan interprets the division of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-45, “Believers are awarded everlasting life, while unbelievers are awarded everlasting punishment” (p. 75), and, then later describes the sheep as “believers in Jesus” and the goats as “unbelievers” (p. 82). But does Matthew 25 actually say the sheep are believers in Jesus and the goats as unbelievers? Not really. In fact, the judgment in Matthew 25 (along with most, if not all, New Testament judgment passages), is based on works, not belief. In my opinion, Chan is reading his already-formulated, evangelical position back onto Matthew 25.

Overall: Erasing Hell is an excellent book for those seeking better articulate a position on hell. Chan’s humble approach is necessary in the conversation, and I applaud his position of hell as being after judgment and hell-imagery as metaphors (I know the latter will not make literalists happy but, really, what does?). Unfortunately, Chan’s exegesis and the writing style in Erasing Hell often read like a research paper, and this possibly could be lost on most laity, which is problematic for the evangelical conversation around hell. For instance, my 15-year-old brother is reading Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. I will offer Erasing Hell to him, but, unfortunately, unlike Love Wins, most of it will be “over his head.” I credit Chan for his exegesis and his use of ancient texts, but I doubt most people will resonate with this approach. It’s not that I want Bell’s Love Wins to win the day (in my opinion, Bell’s views are a little too loose). I’d rather the conversation move forward with both Bell’s and Chan’s (and Sprinkle’s) viewpoints.

I would recommend Erasing Hell as a sparring partner to Love Wins. Although it might be “over the head” of many, I hope Erasing Hell’s approach will resonate with enough people for the betterment of evangelicalism in the future.

Category: Church & Theology, Reflections on Others | 4 Comments »
Tags: Bible, Erasing Hell, Francis Chan, Heaven, hell, Jesus, Love Wins, Rob Bell