Book Review: The Uncontrolling Love of God by Thomas Jay Oord

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2015. ★★★★☆

Thomas Jay Oord is, for me, one of the most compelling open/relational theologians writing today. His particular construction of open theology resolves some of the serious problems that arise in the work of other open theologians. He accomplished this in his 2010 book The Nature of Love: A Theology, by seeking to lay out a coherent theology that revolves around love. In his new book The Uncontrolling Love of God, he uses his theology of love to address the issue of providence, particularly as it pertains to the problem of evil.

He begins in chapter one by claiming that "tragedy needs explanation." If we have any theology, it needs to reckon with the evil and suffering we experience in concrete reality. He names this concrete reality by telling several stories that involve atrocities no good theologian could bear to overlook in addressing the question of evil and providence. Wherever our analysis goes in the forthcoming pages, he says, we must refer back to these stories as the standard for whether or not our theology is compelling.

In the second chapter, he discusses the inherent randomness of life, referring to experience and to science. His discussion of randomness based on science is more compelling than that of experience, (I will return to his treatment of experience in my overview of chapter three) but his overall point is a good one—to demonstrate that, empirically, we don't consider the universe as determined. Scientists recognize elements of unpredictability in the established order, and we in our experience assume such unpredictability.

But randomness, he says, is only one side of the coin. The other consists of life's "regularities"—such as, laws of nature, and morality. These regularities show that the universe is not altogether unpredictable, but is rather partly open and partly determined.

In chapter three, Oord deals with the topic of free agency. He applies his partly-open-partly-determined view of the universe to the human's free will. Humans are not absolutely free, he says, because we, by nature, have limited options:

We all know that we cannot do just anything we might imagine. For instance, we cannot fly to Mars this afternoon. We cannot change from being humans and become toads. We cannot all be president at once. We cannot freely put the entire moon in our basements. There are many things we cannot do, so skeptics say we must not be free at all. They seem to define free will as choosing among unlimited options and having no constraints. (58)

My criticism of this passage is that Oord does not provide an example of a "skeptic" who, seeing that a human can't become a toad, claims humans have no freedom at all. This seems like an exaggeration of the skeptic's case against free will. The passage also seems like a very conservative analysis of the human's limited options. What of the limitations placed on us because of our cultural conditioning, i.e. our presuppositions, established categories, inherent cognitive framework, etc.? Oord's silence regarding human situaded-ness makes me wonder if he thinks a human can assess options in an unmediated manner.

This leads to my next criticism of Oord's chapter on freedom--his argument from 'experience':

The most powerful evidence for free will is our own personal experience. In the way we act, we all inevitably presuppose we are, at least to some degree, free. I call this an experiential nonnegotiable. (60) 

Free will is an experiential nonnegotiable, and our personal experiences tell us something true about the nature of reality. (61)

I sympathize with this approach, while, however, not being uncritical of it. I sympathize with it because, at the end of the day, we are dependent on our experience to receive any information about the material world—so much so that it is even possible the "material world" is an illusion! I am critical of it, however, because it neglects the possibility that we could be misled by our experience, that the Truth could be much different than what our experience leads us to believe.

Why does Oord think we can trust our experience regarding questions of ultimate significance? Is our experience not mediated by cultural conditioning, evolutionary conditioning, and finite scope? If I were to, for example, deem my shirt blue, I would, in Oord's mind, be justified because my experience tells me my shirt is blue. However, we know that the colors we see aren't descriptive of the objects our minds attach to them, independently of our perception. A humorous example of this, with a blue and black dress, recently went viral. The dress was blue and black, but that didn't stop thousands from seeing it as white and gold.

If Oord's argument for free agency is personal experience, I think it is in trouble, because I don't think personal experience can be used as valid evidence of ultimate truth.

Oord also discusses "the problem of good" in chapter three. He says that, while theists have to reckon with evil, atheists have to reckon with good. "The problem of good is a real problem for unbelievers," he says (68). His only justification for this claim, however, is the assumption that phenomena must have explanations. If something is good, you have to explain why it is possible for good to exist in the world. But why do you have to explain it? He says "to make sense of life" (69), but he assumes that life is ours to make sense of, and I do not think this is a valid assumption. Already, in whatever ancient year it was, the book of Job claimed that the proper posture toward the chaotic abyss of the universe was humility and uncertainty. I think this might be a better framework than Oord's necessity of making sense of life.

In chapter four, Oord provides a helpful overview of different theologies of divine providence, complete with the problems he sees in various ones. They are too numerous to repeat here, but suffice it to say, Oord's overview is widely encompassing and well-balanced.

Chapter five includes Oord's overview of open and relational theology. He avoids merely repeating what has been published several times by including authors which have not normally seen the light of scholarship, such as Lorenzo D. McCabe, T. W. Brents, Jules Lequyer, Uriah Smith, and Edgar S. Brightman. Open theologians have much to uncover in the history of open and relational theology, and a lot of uncovered material to analyse, and it is commendable for Oord to begin to do so here.

Also included in chapter five is a fair comparison of process theology and open theology, as well as a helpful overview of the ways in which science has been in dialogue with open theology.

Perhaps the best chapter is the following one, which deals with John Sanders' theology of providence. In The Nature of Love, Oord looked at Clark Pinnock's theology, laying out in what ways it is strong and similar to his own, and explaining what he thinks its inadequacies are. He does the same with Sanders, and his criticism of Sanders ends up being quite similar to his criticism of Pinnock. That is, they both claim that God's is omnipotent and could always intervene to stop evil but often allows it to happen so that humans can be free. Oord, in both accounts, does a very good job of revealing how problematic these claims are. "The one who could stop genuine evil by restraining the perpetrator of evil," he says, "is morally responsible—or better, culpable—for permitting the painful consequences" (142-143)—and I could not agree more. He compellingly demonstrates that, in Sanders' theology, love does not come first.

For those who are familiar with Oord's work, there are no real surprises in the seventh chapter, for in it Oord offers his alternative to the models of God's providence he analyzed throughout the book—his "essential kenosis" theology, which claims that God is necessarily limited in power because it is in God's loving nature as a creator to share power with creatures. While as an a/theologian I find it ultimately unsatisfying (for reasons too complicated to go into here), Oord's "essential kenosis" theology remains, for me, the most compelling construction of open theology to date.

Oord's final chapter deals with the question of miracles. Orthodox Christians—including open theists, such as Sanders—often object to Oord's theology by pointing to miracles, which seem to them to be examples of God's unilateral activity. He has responded to this objection before, but here he dives into it in a more extensive manner. While an interesting assessment of the topic, I don't think Oord's response to the problem of miracles will sway his critics. I think he would do better to dialogue with historical-critical biblical scholarship on the subject, but part of Oord's project seems to be trying to keep an orthodox theology in tact while following his theological convictions. It is a noble task, even if a troublesome one.

Maybe we deserve persecution

Christianity on a massive scale has embodied a message of alienation. I don’t think Christians throughout America are being persecuted; but if we are, might we deserve it?

If I’m going to be persecuted, I want it to be because I minister Christ’s message of reconciliation to the world.

I don’t want to be persecuted because I demand my right to alienate people.

Christians, stop dehumanizing homosexuals! Stop dehumanizing people!

Jesus gave us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18) and entrusted to us the message of reconciliation (v.19). He did not give us the ministry of reconciliation and entrust to us the message of alienation!

Do for others what Jesus did for you. Love so as to inspire transformation.

Don't you realize that you have not only alienated most homosexuals, pushing them so far away from the church, along with many of their supporters, but now helpless children are suffering because of it?

Go on WorldVision.org. Flip through the pictures of the children that don't have sponsors, and then tell me your self-righteous stance on homosexuality is worth it.

"Whoever receives one child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matt. 18:5-6

"When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gay and lesbian people helping to provide that aid, something’s very, very wrong." - Rachel Held Evans

I say, when Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gay and lesbian people helping to provide that aid, then maybe we deserve to be persecuted.
 

Book Review: "The Nature of Love: A Theology" by Thomas Jay Oord

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: A Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010. $22.49. pp.vii-195. ISBN 978-0-827208-28-5. ★★★★★

In his book The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord seeks to construct a theology centered around the defining element of God's nature: love. In his introduction, he highlights the demeaned role love has played in theology, and understands well the reasons for this. For example, he recognizes the difficulty of building a theology of love given the loose definition of the word. In spite of the often undefined nature of love, he provides a well-rounded and helpful definition, the essential element of which is promoting overall well-being.

After his introduction, he has four sections. The first deals with Agape, the second with Eros, and the third with Philia. The three together encapsulate what love is to Oord. Agape, he says, is love in spite of; Eros is love because of; and Philia is love alongside of. In each section, he deals with an interpretation of one of the love forms that he subjects to critical analysis. His discussion of Agape dialogues with Anders Nygren. In the Eros chapter, he deals with Augustine. With Philia, he talks about the theology of Clark Pinnock. The last chapter of the book is dedicated to laying out his "Essential Kenosis" theology of love.

The Agape and Eros chapters are very strong. He exposes the flaws of Nygren's and Augustine's ideas about love. Nygren essentially said that love means self-sacrifice, and that humans do not love, but God is the one loving through us. Augustine said that love is either enjoyment of something for its own sake, or enjoyment of something for the sake of something else. He also believed that God is the only one who should be loved, and that we should love others for the sake of loving God, instead of loving others for their own sakes. While their ideas of love involve much more, this provides a general idea of what Oord was arguing against. And his arguments against these views are quite convincing. He completely dismantles the validity of their claims, and in a cool and collective way. I've seen Oord speak before, and I was struck by his charm and the smoothness of his presentation. This demeanor is present in his book. He describes the views of Nygren and Augustine as 'insufficient' while the reader thinks 'ridiculous'.

The chapter dedicated to Clark Pinnock is not quite as strong as the previous two. As he lays out Pinnock's Open theology, it's almost like he's making a case for it, which is to be expected since his Essential Kenosis theology lines up with Open theology on many issues. But there is one crucial difference: Pinnock said that God sometimes coerces, and Oord believes the God of love never coerces.

The problem with Pinnock's thinking, Oord says, is that God has the ability to prevent evil but doesn't, which is why Pinnock fails to resolve the problem of evil. Included in his discussion of coercion is a discussion of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo--creation out of nothing. Oord says creatio ex nihilo, which Pinnock embraced, implies coercion. He uses this to justify dedicating a section of his book to refuting creatio ex nihilo. However, I don't think it fits well with the rest of the book. He doesn't really explain how exactly creation out of nothing implies coercion, and his alternative understanding of creation is not given the extensive explanation that it warrants. It almost seems like he put it in there so that he could have another thing to critique Pinnock on.

The ideas present in Oord's Essential Kenosis theology that distinguish it from other theologies are fascinating and worth consideration. He says that since God's nature is love, he loves others necessarily. In this, there is no divine self-limitation to provide freedom for creatures; God necessarily provides freedom for creatures because it is his nature as love to do so. I find this concept compelling, and while he can be and probably often has been accused of down-playing the omnipotence of God, I think his theology provides a better approach to the problem of evil than theologies that claim that God can and sometimes does unilaterally intervene to prevent evil, but most of the time thinks human freedom is more important than preventing evil. While I advocate Greg Boyd's warfare worldview, Oord makes significant contributions to the theodicy discussion.

It is difficult to write a review of this book because so much is said in it and I have so many things to respond to. Being concise is something Oord does well; he says a lot in a small amount of space. The Nature of Love is a short book, but it covers a multitude of topics (though, a few of them could use more elaboration). He gives the reader a lot to think about.

Oord has presented a robust and reasonable theology of love, which resolves problems that other theologies bring up, without creating too many of its own. He also provides a good platform for dialogue between Open theists and Process theists. His book is very thought-provoking and it brings to the table ideas that need to be given significant attention in addressing God's nature as love.

Purchase "The Nature of Love: A Theology" on Amazon (here)

Matt Brake and John Daniel Holloway on Open Theism

What is your understanding of Open Theism?

Matt: In layman's terms, a good understanding of Open Theism: the future is not set in stone; God has not set the future in stone; God has delegated free will and choice to the physical universe and, in doing so, that gives free choice teeth; choice is not an illusion, as in double predestination. But, in that, God sees all the possibilities of the future.

John Daniel: David Basinger highlights key factors of Open Theology: a claim about God's power, God's moral nature, God's emotive nature, and God's knowledge. With regard to God's power, it states that at the beginning of time, he gave humanity power to create their futures--free will. With regard to God's moral nature, it says that he is love and perfectly revealed in Christ, who entered into solidarity with the world, experienced time with the world, and suffered to save the world. With regard to his emotive nature, Open Theism denies God's impassibility and says that humanity affects God intimately. He suffers with, for, and because of humanity. With regard to God's knowledge (and this is the most distinct feature), Open Theism denies that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The future does not yet exist, except as possibilities--all of which God knows perfectly.

Why do you think people are afraid of Open Theism?

Matt: Because they're afraid of a God who doesn't know the future. If God doesn't know the future, then he isn't in control--which undermines people's trust in God. They also fear because certain theological gatekeepers have made them afraid of it. People who say, "Open Theists don't worhsip the same God as the Christian God," etc. Even if the idea has its merits, they pressure people into thinking that they're committing idolatry if they give Open Theist ideas any consideration. They may lose their salvation.
(Which begs the question: what defines a true believer? one who believes all the right things, or who is all the right things? )

John Daniel: Open Theology gets vilified. The "guardians" of evangelical theology, when they hear something they think undermines God's glory, turn such a theology into something incredibly "liberal" and paint it as something which goes against all Scripture. Not only does it undermine the glory of God (as they see it) but in their minds it completely ignores Scriptural teaching. They don't accept that the view interprets Scripture a certain way; they consider Open Theists to be rejecting parts of Scripture in order to find a God who makes more sense to them.
People are afraid because they are fed this propaganda.

Matt: I remember talking to a pretty Calvinist dude before I heard of Open Theism. He said he didn't think Clark Pinnock was really a Christian because he was an Open Theist. That's inaccurate; with Open Theism you don't redefine who God is, you redefine what omniscience is.

John Daniel: Well...that's the most unique feature of Open Theology. There are others.

How is Open Theism compatible with the blatant predestination passages in Scripture?

John Daniel: It's a case by case basis. Most of the time there's nothing incongruent with the passages about God predestining events, and God's lack of exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know in the future whatever he decides is going to happen--when he decides that he is going to do something, he makes it happen. He knew that he was going to send Jesus; he could know that because it was his choice. Sometimes he does make executive decisions, but, again, it is a case by case basis depending on the particular Scriptures that mention predestination. Lots of times the text doesn't actually say when he predestined such things. None of those verses require us to think he presdestines all things, or that he has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

Matt: So what you're saying is, as opposed to the classical view of omniscence, God's omnipotence causes something to happen rather than the future being set in stone?

John Daniel: Yes. He can make executive decisions because of his omnipotence.

Matt: Not fatalistic? He was planning it, but he made it happen in the moment?

John Daniel: I think God can look into the future as it is--as possibilities--and see a need. He knew that Christ would be a necessity; so, before time began he predestined Christ's coming.

Does Open Theism lead to the rejection of biblical inerrancy?

Matt: Since I don't buy into the concept of inerrancy, this is kind of a non-starter for me. I believe in inspiration; but if we're talking about the Bible being completely historically and scientifically inerrant, then no I do not believe that. When it comes to Scripture, I think Open Thesim, instead of imposing fatalism on the text, allows the Bible to say what it's actually saying. And it allows you to take into account things like genre, historical setting, and what modern science has told us about the world and about time. It makes our understanding of Scripture potentially richer. 

John Daniel: I agree with Matt. But I will add that I absolutely do not think Open Theism requires a rejection of biblical inerrancy. I suppose it doesn't look good, however, that I also don't buy into the inerrantist view of scripture. But I, like Karl Barth, still treat the Bible as inerrant in its teaching. Though there may be historical things we can't explain, and it's not a book of science or inerrant in its details, and it does include human elements, I think the teachings of Scripture are absolutely inerrant. In that, you could be an inerrantist and an Open Theist because the two beliefs are unrelated. They're two different topics. You dont have to deny inerrancy to say that God faces an open future.

Matt: Michael Saia might confirm. He holds a very conservative view of Scripture, and yet, is in Open Theist.

John Daniel: I'm an Open Theist because of Scripture. When God says "perhaps" and "if," I take it seriously, and I include it in my assesment of God's nature. Thus, there is no denial of biblical inerrancy inherent in Open Theism.

Question from Debbie: My interaction with strict inerrantists has shown me that they read the Psalms with just as much authority as the prophets or the words of Jesus or of Paul. And all throughout the Psalms is language of God's foreknowledge, and basically just language that says a lot about foreknowing and predestining and, so, it kind of refutes Open Theology in general. So, that kind of inerrantist probably would have a problem with Open Theology. Your thoughts?

John Daniel: I don't agree that the Psalms support exhaustive foreknowledge and predestination as you say. Some seem to support it, but they don't require it. When the psalmist says "you know my actions before I do them," the point is not to theologize about God knowing the future. The point is to say how well God knows him. I still think God knows the person so well that he knows what he is most likely to do, and he is not at all surprised at what he does. And I think you can be an inerrantist and look at the Bible in a more realistic way.

Open Theists tend to focus on the love of God, as claimed by both critics and advocates. Is there a place for God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in Open Theism?

John Daniel: Well, obviously there has to be because wrath, holiness, and judgment are in Scripture. So, if we are to have a complete theology from Scripture, we have to include such elements. However, I do not think we have to adopt the popular views of God's wrath, holiness, and judgment. Open Theism is a very Christ-centered theology: God experiences time with us, is affected by us, suffers with us and for us, does not control us, and in love gives us freedom. Open Theology takes seriously the statement that God is love. Thus, we look at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment through the lens of Christ and his love. This does not mean that God's wrath is somehow transformed into lollipops. But, rather than holding up an angry, wrathful image of God and combining that with a love-filled, Christ-like image of God, and by doing so creating a paradox, Open Theology looks at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in a way that is compatible with his Christ-like nature.

Matt: I don't think Open Theism does away with God's wrath. It does do away with the Calvinist notion of double predestination (i.e. that God predestines some people to Heaven and others to Hell regardless of their will). It takes choice seriously, and it isn't any different from Wesley's prevenient grace, anyway. So I don't know what the fuss is about!

John Daniel: It also does away with the Calvinist understanding of God's wrath. In Open Theology, wrath is not something that brings God glory, but rather is something that breaks his heart.

Does Open Theism make God smaller and less powerful?

Matt: I guess that depends on which Open Theist you listen to. I like Boyd's idea that God sees all of the infinite possibilities--which...put your head around that: ALL of the infinite possibilities--as a opposed to one set plan. However, If your idea of a big God is that of a God who needs to know everything in advance, and you want to continue dealing with the "paradox" of a God who knows the future, possibly causes the future, and yet still gives man free will, and then you want to say, "Well, we'll just never understand God, I guess"--well, then, two things: 1) I smell "cop-out" and 2) good luck...you're probably still going to Heaven.

John Daniel: Quite the contrary. I think a smaller, less powerful God would need to know the future. A smaller, less powerful God would need to control everything and everyone in order to get what he wants. A more awe-inspiring God is one who faces an open future full of possibilities, and through wisdom has to decide the perfect responses--and still get what he wants! First, like Matt said, think about what it would mean to know the trillions of possibilities because of your exhaustive knowledge of the past, present, and all of earth's inhabitants. Then, think about how wise God would have to be to execute the perfect responses to billions of free wills who constantly oppose his will. Then, think about the fact that in the midst of all of this, God still remains "in control" in the sense that we don't give him anything he can't handle, and we don't give him anything he can't use for good. Then, think about the fact that, in the end, God will get what he wants, even after thousands upon thousands of years of opposition to his will--all because he is so wise. I think Open Theology--maybe, ironically--presents a much more awe-inspiring view of God's wisdom than that of the Arminian and Calvinist views.

What do you think?
Feel free to join the conversation in the comment section below.

Universal Reconciliation Q&A

"I have reason to believe we all will be received in Graceland."
Paul Simon

I recently wrote a blog (here) advocating the doctrine of universal reconciliation. I knew there would be plenty of challenging questions in response, so I wanted to take some of them and respond to them here.

(I want to add to this, so please send me a question if you've got one to add.)

Yes, God is love, but he is also just. Though he wants all people to be saved, he also desires justice.

I have a few things to say in response to this.

First, universal reconciliation doesn't remove justice from the picture. Was justice not served when the prodigal son ended up fighting with pigs over food after demanding his inheritance and abandoning his father? In the same way, justice will be served when those who have chosen Hell on earth will get what they wanted. God's wrath is letting them have it (click here for a more thorough explanation of this view of God's wrath).

Secondly, what happened when the prodigal son returned?
In that day, it would have been the custom to make the son sit outside the home for days to prove that he was genuine in returning home. But when the son in the story returned, was the father so concerned with justice that he made him do this? Or did he run out to him (in that time, N. T. Wright provides, running was thought to be "undignified")(1) and embrace him? Did the father stop his son and ask him all kinds of questions to see if he was worthy of returning?

The son had a whole speech planned, and in it he was merely going to ask the father if he could become a slave in his house. The father wouldn't have it. He was just so happy that his son was returning.
Does this seem like a father that is super concerned about justice when it comes to his children?
Many say universal reconciliation is too human, but in this case, even the son himself was only expecting to be made a slave! In this case, the human version of justice wasn't good enough for God!

Finally, Jesus is a testament to the fact that [human perception of] justice is not God's main concern. He says something very interesting in John 12: "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" (v.47; also see Jn. 3:17). He then adds, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge" (v.48). He is implicating God the Father here (see vv.49-50). However, elsewhere Jesus tells us that "the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (Jn. 5:22). So, the Father is not the judge, but hands judgment over to the Son, and the Son does not come to judge the world but to save it! Yes, there is judgment. Yes, there is justice. But "mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas. 2;13). Ultimately, God's purpose is to save the world and not condemn it forever and ever, so Jesus will have mercy on those who reject him in this life. Timothy Jennings says beautifully, "biblical justice is delivering the oppressed, not punishing the oppressor!"(2)

(I elaborate more on this topic in another blog, here)


Can't "all people" simply refer to all races, cultures, and groups rather than literally every single person who ever lived?

In some cases, you can look at it that way, like when it says "all nations" or "all the ends of the earth." However, it is not more valid to interpret it this way. For other verses, I don't think you can avoid it by saying that it refers to all kinds of people. For example, when Psalm 65:2 says all people will come to God, the Hebrew words there don't mean, literally, "all flesh," same as 145:21.

In John 12:32 and 1 Cor. 15:22, the Greek text doesn't actually say "all people," but only says "all," and the Greek word for all literally means all, every kind of, each and every one, the whole.
 I don't see how you get past that.

If the Greek and Hebrew words for "forever" don't actually mean forever, wouldn't that also mean that God's love doesn't have to go on forever, since the same words are used to describe God?

I get this one a lot. It's a good point, but it stops short of disproving universal reconciliation because of two things:

1) I didn't say the Greek and Hebrew words for eternal can't mean forever. The reason these words don't have to mean forever is because they don't refer to an actual duration of time, because the biblical writers didn't think about forever and ever. They thought in generations and ages. Hell and God are similar in the sense that they are both beyond ages and generations, and their ends are not in sight to humans. When it says God's steadfast love goes on "forever and ever," it's really saying that it goes on and on and the end of God's love is not in sight.

I know what you're thinking. Wouldn't that mean that God's love can end?
No, and this leads to my second point:

2) These are not the only words used to describe God. Other words were used to describe God's everlasting characteristics. For example, God's love is said to never end. Nowhere does it say that Hell will never end.

Consider this illustration: the sun is huge.  Its circumference is 2.715 million miles long. We use words like enormous, gigantic, and humungous to describe how big the sun is, because it's so big we can't actually conceive of how big it is. The universe is also  enormous, gigantic, humungous. It goes on for billions upon billions of light years.

While the sun is enormous, it does have an end. The universe doesn't (well...maybe it does, but I'm not going to get into that; you get the point). Likewise, how long God lasts and how long Hell lasts can both be said to be olam or aion, it can also be that God can last forever while Hell ends at some point, because the words used to describe them doesn't actually specify a duration, just like the word humungous doesn't specify an actual size.

I should also add that this problem with these Greek and Hebrew words still comes up no matter what you believe about Hell. The Hebrew word olam (which is "supposed" to mean forever) is used by Jonah to describe how long he was in the belly of the fish (2:5-6). If it can be used to describe a period of 3 days, this word clearly doesn't have to mean forever.

If Hell is not forever, wouldn't that demean the atonement?

Maybe it would, if the only reason Christ died on the Cross was to save people from an everlasting Hell. But I don't believe this was the only reason, nor do I believe that this is the central reason.

Christ died on the Cross so that God could be in an intimate relationship with his creation. Throughout the Old Testament, God is trying everything he can to be in relationship with his people. All of human history is God in search of man. Jesus is a continuation of that story. The Cross is the greatest point in human history where we can see God in search of man, and I believe that story will continue even after death.

The atonement is many things. Let's not make it just about saving humanity from a never-ending Hell. It's so much more than just that.

I should also add that the doctrine of universal reconciliation doesn't take any of the horror out of Hell. One of the reasons for the atonement was still to save people from the horrible place in which they would experience all the consequences of their own sinful choices. It's not like Hell is any less terrible because it doesn't last forever and ever.

Consider this illustration: let's say all of humanity signed up to get addicted to cocaine at a certain point (it's a silly example, but sin is also silly). When God saw this, he sent Jesus to give them a way to avoid this doom. Some didn't accept his invitation, so they still headed to cocaine addiction. Sure, there's always rehab, but forcing oneself to submit to rehab while addicted to cocaine is incredibly hard, and the process of rehab isn't any easier. It doesn't take a Christian to tell someone to avoid cocaine. Why do most people avoid it? because they know that, though it promises euphoria, it leads to a terrible experience of which it takes what feels like a lifetime (here would be a good place for the word aionios) to break free.

Hell, like a cocaine addiction, is an awful fate no matter how long it is. Thank God he gave us a way out!

Isn't universal reconciliation an altered form of Calvinism's irresistible grace? Wouldn't the idea that God will eventually win all people over contradict free will?

I have a few things to say in response.

One, I am not saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to be turning up the heat, if you will, on his love so that he will become irresistible to people. I am saying that as long as there is a Hell, God is going to continue to do everything he can to save people from it. But as long as people have free will, they can reject him.

I will use an example to illustrate my point: let's say I find out that my friend Matt hates me. I can choose to ignore that fact and go on living my life forgetting that I love his friendship. But I do love his friendship, so instead I pursue him and am absolutely determined to find reconciliation. If I finally get to the point where Matt chooses to be my friend again, it wouldn't be because I overrode his free will, but because I pursued him long enough. In the same way, whenever God finally reconciles all people to himself, it will not be because he obliterated their free will with his love, but because he pursued them long enough.

Two, forever is a very long time. I don't think the day after judgment day God is going to win everybody over. Some will insist on Hell for a very, very long time. I just don't think God is ever going to stop pursuing those people.

Three, what I stress in universal reconciliation is not that everyone is going to be saved, but that God is never going to stop pursuing people. I stress this because I have no idea when everyone is going to be saved, and if it weren't for Scripture, I wouldn't believe it. It is because Scripture tells of a day when all people, all flesh, everyone will come alive and worship God that I believe that some day God will succeed in drawing all people to himself.


Have a question to add? Send it to me! 

Notes:
(1) N.T. Wright, After You Believe (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 12.
(2) Timothy Jennings, The God-Shaped Brain (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 188.

Is God a Universalist?

"I am not a universalist because there are some people that I don't want to see again. But God may be."
Jurgen Moltmann

Which Universe Do I Live in?

Before I get into a defense of Universalism, I should clarify which form of Universalism I am defending.

I don't believe that all roads lead to God, or that it doesn't matter how people live in this life because they will all be in Heaven when they die. Nor do I deny the existence of Hell.

I believe in Universal Reconciliation, which states that as long as there is a Hell, God will be trying to reconcile all of its inhabitants back to himself. In this, Jesus is the one way to salvation, but eventually everyone will choose to say Yes to him.

Is Universalism in Scripture?

Any Bible-believing Christian must at least recognize that Universalism is something God wants.

1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

We are told in 2 Peter 3:9 that God "is patient with [us], not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Similarly, in Ezekiel 33:11, God says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." So, at the very least, Unversalism sounds just as wonderful to God as it does (or should) to us.

But can we go further than that and say that all people will actually be saved?

The Psalmist of Psalm 65:2 says to God, "to you all people will come."

Psalm 86:9 says, "All nations whom you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and they shall glorify your name."

Psalm 145:21 says, "all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever."

Isaiah 2:2 says that "all nations will stream" to "the mountain of the LORD's temple."

Then, in 52:10, we are told that "all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of God."

Jesus says in John 12:32 that "when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (15:22).

He tells us in Philippians that, "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" (2:10-11).

The writer of Hebrews quotes what God revealed to the prophet Jeremiah, that "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (8:11).

So it appears there are actually several places throughout Scripture that support Universalism. How then do we reconcile these verses with verses that talk about Hell?

Is Hell Forever?

The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated 'forever' or 'eternal' or 'everlasting' do not actually fit the description of these English words. The Hebrew word olam and the Greek words aion and aionios do not have specific durations. They do not mean "absolutely unending."

They denote time-independence, describing an age that is not bound by time and cannot be measured. It cannot be measured because the end is not known or in sight. These words mean "until the vanishing point" or "beyond the horizon."

The punishment one experiences in Hell is described in Scripture as something that is perpetual, ongoing. However, its actual duration is unknown. Thus, it does not have to be taken to mean forever.

And why should we limit God to that one thing? Why limit God to "All unrepentant sinners will go to Hell when they die and will be there forever and ever"? Does this not make us like Jonah, who, after he prophesied to the Ninevites, sat and waited for God to destroy them? He limited God to that one option. But God, when he "saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" (Jon. 3:10).

Forever is a long time. Why decide for God that billions of years from now he is still going to be in Heaven thinking, "Yah, they still deserve it. I'll let them continue to suffer"? Why not let God decide how long Hell is going to last? This is what the biblical writers did. The words they used implied that people would be punished but they left the end of that punishment up to God.

Is God a Universalist?

The parable of the Lost Sheep is one of the most powerful explanations of the Father's heart that we have in Scripture. Every time I read it, I see something new and experience a little piece of the Father's love in the most magnificent way.

As an aspiring theologian, I often think about the theological implications of this parable. What does it tell us about God? Recently I have asked, what does it tell us about God and the doctrine of Hell?

But before we go there, let's look at some other parts of Scripture that tell us about the character of God.

Psalm 30:5 tells us that God's "anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime."

It is revealed in 1 John 4:16 that "God is love" and in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that "Love never fails."

Similarly, in Lamentations 3:22 we are told that "the steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end."

A few verses later, we are told that "no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love" (vv.31-32).

This is similar to what James says, that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (2:13).

God tells us in Malachi 3:6, "I, the LORD, do not change."

Simarly, James tells us that "there is no variation or shifting shadow" in the Father of Lights (1:17).

So, now let us return to the parable.

God is the kind of God that leaves the 99 sheep to rescue the 1 that ran away (Lk. 15:4-7). He searches for it "until he finds it" (v.4). And "when he finds it" (v.5), he rejoices and throws a party. This is God's attitude toward sinners who run away from him.

Let us put these pieces together.

God is love. God's love never fails. (The Greek words that are used to describe punishment after death do not have to mean forever, but the Greek and Hebrew words for never are quite clear.) Though his anger comes, though he brings grief, mercy triumphs over judgment. He will show compassion because his love is unfailing. 

This is the way God is. He does not change. Though we are inconsistent, God remains the same.

What about after people die? Does God stop being the God who leaves the 99 to rescue the 1? Does his love cease? Does he stop trying?

In the Old Testament, God struggles with his people. He often threatens destruction and brings punishment, but he always ends up bringing restoration and promising ultimate reconciliation and victory. This is because, as Abraham Joshua Heschel says, "God does not delight in unleashing anger"(1) but, rather, his anger is used "to bring about repentance; its purpose and consummation is its own disappearance."(2) Ultimately, he pours out his love on his people; "It is a love that transcends the most intense anger, a love that abides in full recognition of human weakness."(3)

In the New Testament, this is beautifully revealed through Jesus, who tells us that God is not indifferent to sinners, but searches for them until he finds them. He runs to them when he sees them and embraces them as much as he can, knowing that when they sin and run away "they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

Will this change once they die? Or will God keep seeking sinners even after they have chosen Hell?

Heschel said that, "All of human history as described in the Bible may be summarized in one phrase: God is in search of man."(4) I don't think this is a search that will ever end until God finds all of his creations and can embrace all of them.

So how do we reconcile the Universalist parts of Scripture with the Hell parts? We can affirm both. Yes, people will go to Hell if they choose it with their lives now (click here to see my blog about the nature of Hell for more explanation).

But, eventually, it will be that all people will come to God, all people will worship and glorify and bless his name, all nations will stream to his temple and experience salvation, all people will be drawn to Christ, all will be made alive in Christ, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, and everyone will know him.

Yes, I think God is a Universalist.


Notes:
(1) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 369.
(2) Ibid., 367.
(3) Ibid., 380.
(4) Heschel, God in Search of Man (New York: Farrar, Starus and Giroux, 1983), 136.

To Love Another Person...

I was talking to a friend of mine tonight about my trouble experiencing the love of God in my life. You may find this ironic given the fact that "love" is the most used tag of all my blogs. Nevertheless, it is a problem I have had all my life. I know God loves me. I know his love for me is unconditional, without limit, overwhelming, and absolutely insane. But to experience this in my life? To have it put a stamp on my nature? To have it transform my inner being, my feelings, my daily life? I told my friend that it is almost like I have within me two consciences: my thought-life, and my inner-being. I can control my thought-life. I can decide what I think, what I'm going to believe, what I am going to know. But it seems like I cannot control what my inner-being feels. I know God loves me, yet I still find myself looking at the number of page views on my blogs, searching for affirmation. I know he loves me, but I still yell, "Why do you hate me?!" when something bad happens (though, it is always followed by an immediate correction--my emotions may not have good theology, but my brain knows how to straighten them out). I know God loves me, but I am still insecure in several ways.

My friend proposed that I might be having trouble receiving love from others. Love from others, he says, is a way to experience love from God. I really don't think that that is the problem. I know my fiancee loves me unconditionally. I know my friends and family love me unconditionally; and I experience their love in my inner-being. But for whatever reason, I cannot connect that to the love of God.

So what is my problem?
Before answering this, I should give a little bit of back story.

For a while, there has been some tension between a friend and I. We had been on awkward, no speaking terms for a while. That is, before tonight. In my small group on Monday, the Spirit was really moving us toward the topic of forgiveness, and it was revealed to me that God's love isn't awkward around anyone. God doesn't not speak to people. He never feels awkward when there's that elephant in the room. I was really convicted that night, so when I saw this person tonight, I made a point to go out of my comfort zone and practice Christ-like love. This was after having the conversation with my friend about not being able to experience God's love.
Now that you have the back story, I can tell you how I came to understand what my problem has been.

I thought about what this person said to me, how it hurt me, and how frustrated I have been. It's always hard to forgive because there's always the, "But, this, and this..." But I have been listening to a Jason Upton song in which he encourages the audience to sing "I choose to forgive!" So I chose to forgive, and tonight, I chose to love. I didn't have any reason to, and, in my mind, this person didn't deserve it. But I chose not to care. I chose to forgive and forget; I chose to love.
When I made that choice, for a second I felt the love of the Father come over me. In that brief moment, something inside me understood the love of God. I had been in a horrible mood all day, but for the rest of the night, I felt so overwhelmingly blessed and joyful. I often went and hugged my fiancee simply because I needed to rest from all the overwhelming knowledge of how blessed I am. And I realized what my problem has been:

I don't have a problem receiving love from others, but I do have a problem choosing to love people for no reason at all. My love for people is usually conditional. It is sparked by something in particular, and is almost never developed without a specific reason.

Jesus said that if you don't forgive others, you will not be forgiven. What I think he means is that without forgiving others we can't ourselves experience forgiveness from God. I think it is the same with his love. If we don't choose to love others unconditionally, we will not experience the unconditional love of the Father. As the song in Les Miserables says, "to love another person is to see the face of God."

I've been reading Henri Nouwen's book The Return of the Prodigal Son. In it, he talks about his journey from being the prodigal son returning home, to becoming the father welcoming others home. I've been thinking, "Gosh, would I like to know the experience of being the prodigal son!" I realized tonight that I need to become the father running to the son with the most unreasonable love, the love that rises above awkward situations. I know God the Father loves me. I know I've been the prodigal son and have returned home. In order for me--for it will not be the same for everyone, this may be the answer for me and not at all the answer for someone who loves others naturally but has a problem receiving love--to experience  that home-coming, that welcoming love, I have to give it to others.

I learned tonight that as long as I don't choose to love people without reason, I will never experience the unreasonable, unconditional love of God.

I choose to love you.

Is Homosexuality Sinful?

Does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin?

There are 5 references relevant to this discussion: Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Tim. 1:10; 1 Cor. 6:9; and Rom. 1:26–27. I will briefly go over each of these and then try to establish a conclusion.

Lev. 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

For Jacob Milgrom, it is quite clear what these verses are saying: "the Bible allows for no exceptions; all acts of sodomy are prohibited."(1) Victor Paul Furnish, on the other hand, raises some questions:

No consideration is given to what the circumstances or character of a male same-sex relationship might be. Is it consensual? Has one party, perhaps an adult male, forced himself on the other, perhaps a boy? Has one party purchased the sexual favors of the other? Nor is consideration given to whether the relationship is good or just or loving.(2)

Terence Fretheim observes that people in that time had

developed a habit of sexually abusing strangers who came into town to demonstrate who was in charge. If such violence against strangers is the concern that led to the laws in Leviticus, this would help explain why the punishment--death--for such behavior (Leviticus 20: 13) was so severe. It may also help explain why only male-male behaviors are forbidden.(3) 

Furnish, however, suggests that the phrasing of the verses implies that "male same-sex intercourse violates the honor of both partners; the penetrated male dishonors himself by submitting as only a female should submit, and the penetrating male dishonors himself by dominating another male."(4)

I think Fretheim's view is valid, but as we can see it is complicated by the specific wording of the verses. However, cultural context is key to understanding these verses. If the only form of homosexuality known to the ancient Hebrews was of an oppressive kind, would the wording be different? To me, there is no clear choice between Fretheim's view and that of Furnish.

One's conclusion here is also complicated by the New Testament's transformation of a lot of Hebrew Bible laws. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an example of a teaching that was nullified by the truth of Christ. It should also be considered that Gentiles were among those deemed unclean in the ancient Hebrew ideology as well. In Acts, the Christian community has to learn that those who were once thought to be unclean are no longer to be regarded as such. Could homosexuality be a similar case? For a clearer understanding, we must look elsewhere. 

1 Tim. 1:9-10: the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient . . . the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality . . .

1 Cor. 6:9: the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God . . . neither the sexually immoral . . . nor male prostitutes, nor men who practice homosexuality.

I am discussing these verses together because they use the same Greek word: arsenokoitai. Gordon Fee provides that this word is "a compound of ‘male’ and . . . [a] vulgar slang for ‘intercourse’" and is rarely used in the literature of the time.(5) "What is not certain," he says, "is whether ‘male’ is subject (= ‘males who have intercourse’; for male prostitutes of all kinds) or object (= ‘intercourse with males’; therefore male homosexual)."(6) Rubin Scroggs and John Boswell believe the former to be the more probable.(7) Thus, they conclude that this word does not refer to homosexual behavior, but male prostitution, specifically (at least for Scroggs) the prostitution of young boys.(8)

1 Cor. 6:9 uses another word, however, that is relevant here: malakoi. Fee states that this word most likely refers to "the younger, ‘passive’ partner in a pederastic relationship—the most common form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world."(9) He states further that it is difficult to put a finger on what exactly the word is supposed to mean in this context, but he believes 'male prostitute' is the best guess.(10) Furnish recognizes this as a possibility, stating that we could "take malakoi as a reference to ‘male prostitutes’ (e.g., NRSV) and arsenokoitai as a reference to males who pay to have sex with them. But it is equally possible, and probably better, to take the words as referring, respectively, to the ‘receptive’ and ‘aggressive’ males in any homoerotic encounter."(11)

As far as these verses are concerned, it is not clear whether homosexuality is forbidden or if they are referring to male prostitution. Therefore, our conclusion cannot be made here and we must now venture to the most significant reference to homosexuality in Scripture.

Rom. 1:26–27: women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Douglas Moo provides that, "Paul generally uses the word ‘nature’ to describe the way things are by reason of their intrinsic state or birth, and in these cases there is no clear reference to divine intention."(12) However, he adds that,

In keeping with the biblical and Jewish worldview, the heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced to God’s creative intent. Sexual sins that are ‘against nature’ are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to ‘nature’ in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order. Confirmation can be found in the context.

Thus, when Paul says that same-sex relations are contrary to nature, he is saying that they are contrary to the way God intended things to be. James D. G. Dunn echoes this understanding, stating that Paul’s use of nature meant, "to live in harmony with the natural order and its divine rationality."(13) Joseph Fitmzyer agrees, saying that Paul’s understanding of homosexuality is that it "is a way in which human beings refuse to acknowledge the manifestation of God’s activity in creation," because ‘nature’ refers to "the order that is manifest in God’s creation or . . . the order seen in the function of sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of children."(14)

Furnish thinks this reading is the most accurate considering the context. He states that Paul "apparently found same-sex intercourse to be an especially apt illustration of the moral confusion to which idolatry leads: when the creature has been exchanged for the Creator (v. 23) and the truth about God has been exchanged for a lie (v. 25), who can be surprised that ‘natural intercourse’ will be exchanged for ‘unnatural’ (vv. 26-27)?"(15)

On the other end, Scroggs believes that Paul here is referring to pederasty and that the example of homosexuality in Paul’s day bears no resemblance to "the model aspired to by the gay community today."(16) He suggests that the word ‘unnatural’ could have been chosen because of the apparent injustice in pederasty: "Perhaps he was impressed by the lack of mutuality, the physical and emotional humiliation suffered by youths who were forced into slavery or who accepted the degradation of the prostitute."(17)

However, Scroggs’ reading is not likely. Dunn states that, "Paul’s indictment seems to include all kinds of homosexual practice."(18) Fitzmyer agrees, stating that, "Paul is clearly referring here to the conduct of active male homosexual persons and is merely echoing the OT abomination of such homosexual activity."(19)

Application

After thoroughly reviewing these passages, I must conclude that the teaching of Scripture is that homosexuality is not what God intended for humanity, and so I am compelled to lean towards that understanding. While I resist making an unwavering, concrete stance on this issue, I will continue to [hesitantly] recognize homosexuality as a diversion from God's created order, because that is what Scripture teaches.

In any case, we have seen that these verses are not as clear as they are made out to be, and this issue in Scripture is a very minor one compared to others. At the very least, practicing homosexuality or believing that homosexuality isn't sinful are not damnable. Scripture shows us that God is used to stooping to humanity's level, accommodating for the sake of the relationship. God knows better than anyone what all people go through, and, empathetic towards us, his grace abounds and can and will cover a multitude of sin and deception for all of us. As Richard Hays says,

Can a soldier be a Christian? Probably so, but my understanding of the gospel requires me to urge that person to renounce the way of violence and to follow Jesus in the way of costly refusal of violence as a means to justice. . . . Just as there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe in just war theory, so there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe that same-sex erotic activity is consonant with God's will.(20)

Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:25), but that doesn't mean all people who accumulate wealth and indulge in lavish living should be alienated from the Christian community and are banned from the kingdom of heaven. "All things are possible with God," Jesus said (v.27).

That being said, I do think gay Christians need to be open to the possibility that homosexual activity is sinful. As hard as thought would be to come to terms with, at the end of the day Christianity is a commitment to selflessness. God’s nature is revealed in Christ’s kenosis, his self-emptying:

    Though he was in the form of God,
    he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    but made himself nothing,
    taking the form of a bond-servant,
    being born in the likeness of men.
    And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death,
    even death on a cross!
    Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name
    Phil. 2:6–9

This is the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and since Christianity is about engaging their embrace and participating with them, we are called to be of the same nature (v. 5). We must be self-emptying and self-sacrificing. We must demean our own desires. This does not mean that we should never pursue things that we desire, but we should never let our desires lead us, for that is idolatry

It would be sinful for me to pursue another woman after committing myself to my wife, no matter what my desires told me to do. Woody Allen said, "The heart wants what it wants." This is true, but as Christians we are called not to be bound to what our hearts wants, and we all have things in our inherent nature that we must deny for the sake of the kingdom of God.

So how should Christians approach this issue?

First of all, Christians must approach it with empathy. I cannot imagine how hard it would be if someone told me that my attraction to my wife is sinful and I need to either change my sexual orientation or commit to celibacy. We have to recognize that most homosexuals have had an attraction to their own sex for as long as they can remember. We have to imagine being in their position and we have to come to understand how hard it would be for them to embrace self-denial and celibacy.

I think part of the problem is our social construct of a reproductive temporality, in which it is basically assumed that getting married and starting a family is just what one does in life. This mindset is heavily engrained in the modern church, but it is not Scriptural. Many of the Bible's key players, including Paul, didn't get married and have families, and as Hays says, "1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 25-40, commends celibacy as an option for everyone."(21) Henri Nouwen, a devout Christian who struggled with homosexuality all his life, even believed that celibacy is a gift.(22)

Sexuality and reproduction in our culture are raised to a level of importance that is not shared by Scripture. Part of dealing with the church's approach to homosexuality will be shedding our expectations that women will become wives and mothers and men will become husbands and fathers. Due to this, celibacy in our culture is dominantly viewed as strange. Being single when over 30 years old is considered a problem, as "it is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). A culture that sees celibacy as strange or against God's will cannot expect gay people to embrace celibacy, for celibacy in our culture is in itself alienating (for example, a single person hanging out with a couple is a "third wheel"). So, we offer two options to homosexuals: be outside the church and be alienated by it as the people of the church condemn you for your sin, or be inside the church and experience alienation because of your celibacy.

We must shed our family/reproductive social construct, with our expectations for people to grow up, get married and have kids. Removing this obstacle will take some of the pressure off of those who are attracted to their own sex (as well as others who cannot or don't want to get married and start a family), as they are essentially trapped in a queer temporality (in which one cannot reproduce). If we are to encourage celibacy for homosexuals, we need to create an environment in which celibacy is not so unusual, and we need to stop discouraging celibacy in general.

Thirdly, we need to stop focusing on standing against homosexuals in the gay marriage debate (I have written on this several times; the collection of my thoughts on the matter can be found here).

Also essential is that if we do regard homosexual activity as sinful, we should not self-righteously condemn it over and above other sins, especially if we aren’t willing to condemn our own sins in the same manner, and also because the Bible condemns many other sins much more than homosexual behavior (selfish accumulation of wealth, for example).

Just read Romans 2:1. Immediately after describing the sinful state of humanity, where the passage about homosexuality resides, Paul says, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." It is a horrendous tragedy what many homosexuals have been put through because of certain Christians.

Another vital step is to lovingly embracing homosexuals with open arms. If we say homosexual activity is sinful, we still can't pressure homosexuals to change immediately. We should encourage them to walk with the Lord, and then trust God to help them along the way. The way of Jesus is a mustard seed transformation from the inside out. We shouldn't give homosexuals an ultimatum ("change or leave"), and we shouldn't expect to "love the gay out of them." Most Christian homosexuals will struggle with homosexuality their entire lives.

Hays suggests that it might help if one thought of homosexuality the way one thinks of alcoholism:

a considerable body of evidence suggests that some people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism. Once exposed to alcohol, they experience an attraction so powerful that it can be counteracted only by careful counseling, community support, and total abstinence.(23)

But most important is that we should ask Jesus how to approach them. Let Jesus and his example determine the way you embrace homosexuals. If he wants to use you as an instrument in the transformation of a homosexual, then he will make it known to you. Otherwise, as far as Christian homosexuals are concerned, know that we are all in this Christian walk together, and remember your own sins as you walk with them.

UPDATE: I have recently developed further reflections on this issue; please read my new blog "Does Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality Apply Today?" (click here)

For further reading, I highly recommend the follow chapters:
Victor Paul Furnish, “Homosexuality?” in The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 55–93.
Richard B. Hays, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins: New York, 1996), 379-406.

Notes:
(1) Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, Vol. 3A of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright, and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1566.
(2) Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 62.
(3) Terence Fretheim, 2001, "The Old Testament and Homosexuality: What is God doing?" The Lutheran, p. 54.
(4) Furnish, 63.
(5) Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 244.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 107, and John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 345.
(8) Scroggs, 116.
(9) Fee, 243. Scroggs states, “There was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which would come to mind”—that is, pederasty. See p. 116. This, however, is not true. As Fee notes, it was simply the most common.
(10) Fee, 244.
(11) Furnish, 80.
(12) Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 115.
(13) James. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Vol. 38A of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1982), 64, emphasis mine.
(14) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright, and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 276, 286.
(15) Furnish, 87.
(16) Scroggs, 109.
(17) Ibid., 117.
(18) Dunn, 65.
(19) Fitzmyer, 288.
(20) Richard B. Hays, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins: New York, 1996), 401.
(21) Ibid.
(22) See Michael Ford, The Wounded Prophet: A Portrait of Henri J.M. Nouwen (Doubleday: New York, 1999), 141.
(23) Hays, "Homosexuality," 398.

Blessed are the Persecuted: Responding to Skeptics

After posting the previous blog (here), I received the same objection from several people. Thus, I would like to respond to it formally.

I stated that if it really came down to persecution of Christians or persecution of homosexuals, it would be the most Christ-like response for we Christians to choose our own.

The main objection I got goes something like this:

By standing against homosexuality, we are not persecuting them, but are rather declaring God’s truth, that they are sinning. Furthermore, we must be the responsible citizens who are going to stand up and fight for truth. It has nothing to do with persecution.

(If I could state it better, let me know and I’ll alter my wording)

You may not think it is persecution, but it is persecution in the eyes of homosexuals and of millions of others.

Sure, you could say that we are supposed to present the truth and they can call it what they like, but you’d be missing the point of ministry, and missing the point of God’s truth.

Would a good minister disregard how he/she comes across to those he/she is ministering to?

Paul knew the importance of presenting the Gospel in a way in which his audience could understand and appreciate (Acts 17:16–34).

Furthermore, Christ came to save sinners with his love, not to condemn them into following him.

I was watching a documentary about homosexuality and the church, and in it there was a real story of a Christian mother who found out her daughter was a lesbian. The mother was devastated and told the daughter that, though she would never stop loving her, she could never accept that and would always hate it about her (like “love the sinner, hate the sin”). This mother, in her eyes, was just telling her daughter God’s truth.

A few months later, her daughter committed suicide.
When I got to that part of the story, I couldn't help but cry. And I know Jesus also cried.

We have to learn how to better minister to homosexuals. We have to learn that the way so many Christians adamantly stand against homosexuality makes homosexuals feel persecuted.

When we put up our signs that say “Homosexuality is an abomination,” we are, in their eyes, persecuting them. Doing this will not only cause many to reject God completely, but it can and does make people feel horrible.

This is not at all what Christ looked like.

Not only did Jesus dine with sinners, but they were drawn to him! There was something about him they wanted to pursue.

This drove the Pharisees crazy, because they sought to be moral guardians. They were the ones standing against others because of their sin.

Christ knew how ineffective and unloving this was. Christ was someone who stood with sinners, not against them. 

Furthermore, Paul said, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside of the Church?” (1 Cor. 5:12).

If it isn’t our business to judge the sins of those who are outside the Church, why are we making it our business?

Christianity shouldn't inspire someone to commit suicide.
Christianity should be marked by a salvific, transforming love that inspires people to become disciples of the beautiful Christ.
For that to happen, we need to get rid of our moral guardian mindsets and stop making it our business to judge the sins of others.

Our job is to love sinners like Christ, and love is patient and kind, not jealous, not boastful, not proud, not self-seeking, not easily angered.
Love does not delight in evil, and nor does love keep a record of sins.
Rather, Love rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres; and it never fails.

We should be focusing more on practicing these qualities towards sinners than trying to make their sins illegal (especially if we’re not willing to make our own sins illegal).

Blessed are the Persecuted: A brief note on Christians and Gay Marriage

"God will judge us not on how much we endured, but on how much we could love"

- Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ

A large number of Conservative Christians today believe that if gay marriage is legalized, it will be the beginning of the end of Christian liberty.
It will lead to persecution of Christians, including the prohibition of saying that homosexuality is a sin.
Though I doubt that it will be anywhere near that drastic, let’s say they’re correct and it will be.

If I had to choose between being persecuted as a Christian, or finding out about another homosexual committing suicide because of persecution, I would choose my own persecution!

If it really came down to our persecution or theirs, it would be the most Christ-like response to choose ours.

Though Christ was equal to God in nature, he emptied himself completely, made himself nothing, became a human servant, and then became obedient to death. And for this he was exalted. (Phil. 2:6-11)

We should seek to be like Christ (v.5).
We should be self-emptying, self-sacrificing, and other-focused.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition” (v.3). The Greek word for ‘selfish ambition’ denotes one who demands his own rights.
“Let your benevolence be evident to all!” (4:5). The Greek word for ‘benevolence’ denotes one who does not care about his own rights.

Rather than demanding our own rights, we should forget about ourselves and focus on the rights and interests and needs of others (2:3-4).
In our lives, we should look like Christ dying on the cross to transform people with infinite, salvific love.
Even if that means sacrificing our religious liberty and accepting persecution!

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when people persecute you and insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you on account of me.
Rejoice and be glad! Your reward in Heaven is great, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” - Matt. 5:10-12

The End of America as We Know It?

Obama's presidency is not the end of America as we know it.
In four years two other candidates will run for president just like all the other elections.
Sure, we'll see changes; perhaps even drastic changes. But Obama can only do so much; he can't take from us Jesus Christ.
Side note: Obama is not against religious liberty. If you're believing that, then you should probably do some re-evaluating.
But even if he was, would there be reason to fear? I suppose by the world's standards there would be; but we Christians do no live by the world's standards, do we?
We are citizens of another kingdom; followers of a different leader.
This government is not our hope. Romney was not America's hope. And America is not the world's hope.
Christ is the one and only hope for all of humanity, and he isn't bound to a president.
Don't spend your time fretting and complaining. Your God is bigger than Obama!
Don't spend your time predicting the doom of America. You have no idea what God can accomplish!
Don't spend your time ranting and raving. Would Christ?
Would Christ fear, complain, rant and rave about who is president?
What would he do?
What did he do?
His work was in the transforming of the world from the inside out, not from the outside in.
The world tries to change things from the outside in. Romney would have tried to, and Obama is going to try to. But that's not the way Christ does things.
He is in the business of transforming people with his powerful love.
Instead of fearing and weeping about who is president, you should, as Ghandi said, be the change you want to see in this world!
Instead of jumping to extremes like "I'm moving to Australia," go out and make a difference with the love of Christ!
Instead of complaining, pray for Obama. Don't pray in anger. Don't pray selfishly. But pray that he would see God and that God would become an influence in his decision-making. Is it not possible?!
Pray that God will invade the White House, and that all those who would listen to him will, and will be empowered to make a difference, not for the Republican party, but for God's will.
Pray for this country. Pray that God will make you a tool for the beautiful transformation he desires in America.
Pray for your attitude toward the president and toward the country. Pray that you will be the salt of the earth, the light of the world; that you would not lose your flavor nor hide your light under a basket, but that you would enrich the world and give light to all who see you; that by witnessing your good works they would glorify the Father in Heaven.
Pray that you would be a glimpse of Christ to all who see you. Pray that God would transform you into the kind of American that he wants you to be.
And TRUST GOD.
If everything the extreme conservatives are saying is true, would that mean that God is no longer sovereign?
Can God not take care of you?
I'm almost glad that Obama was re-elected. This will give Christians another chance to fully trust God and focus more on him than on the government.

Remember in these days to trust God, be the salt and light of the world, be like Christ, be transformed, and pray for Obama and for the country.

God Bless.

Scripture passages for reflection:

"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save"- Ps. 146:3

"Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him." - II Timothy 2:3-4

"our citizenship is in heaven" - Philippians 3:20

 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." - John 18:36

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities . . . Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. . . . clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." - Romans 13:1, 7-8, 14

"Abide in me . . . If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love . . . This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you." - John 15:4, 10, 12