Christian Magic

Many of the evangelicals I grew up with were horrified at the idea of magic and witchcraft, all the while promoting the biggest magic spell ever, known to many simply as "The Sinner's Prayer."

This magical incantation, when spoken out loud (and truly believed), is supposed to somehow change the location that we end up in after we die from hell to heaven. Not only that, but speaking (and believing) this spell aloud is supposed to also spiritually transform the speaker into a better person, a "new creation."

Of course there are some Christians who have realized that "The Sinner's Prayer" is not actually spelled out anywhere in the Bible and they will tell you that it's not the prayer that transforms your spirit and alters your afterlife itinerary but rather it's the faith one has in Jesus to save you that does the trick. The problem is that this still makes salvation into a transaction between you and God. Even if it's just a small transaction, a transaction it remains if there is something, anything, that you have to do to "get right with God." Unfortunately a transactional salvation is not salvation by grace, it's salvation by work, even if that work is simply "trusting Jesus."

So with all that in mind, how exactly is one saved apart from some sort of transaction? Well, I'll get to that in an upcoming post. :)

Universalism vs. Freedom?

Over the years of discussing the topic of Universalism I've been told time and again that Universalism takes away our freedom to choose, that if God saves everybody then He's ignoring our free will. While any Universalist who has studied the topic is quite aware that this isn't the case I find myself constantly having to explain why this isn't true to people who feel free to make such unfounded assertions without even bothering to actually study the topic at all (and who generally don't even know what they themselves mean when using the term "free will," but that's another issue altogether).

Universal Reconciliation does not at all remove our ability (or responsibility) to choose, it simply reveals that the choices are different from what most Christians assume they are. According to evangelical Christianity our choice is enjoying life forever in heaven vs. suffering torment forever in hell. With traditional Christian Universalism our choice simply shifts over to choosing to be resurrected for the age (or ages) to come vs. spending the ages in "hell" until the final resurrection and consumation of the ages when death and hell are defeated and God becomes all in all (see 1 Corinthians 15), or with a more metaphorical version of Universalism (which I personally lean more towards) it comes down to a choice of living life here on earth, and possibly in the afterlife as well, under the power of religion (hell) vs. living free from the power of religion in Christ (heaven). With the latter take on Universalism one is in hell right from the beginning and only when they choose to leave it behind do they enter heaven, either in this life or the next. This version even allows for loss of "salvation" if one needs that in their theology since one can always put themselves back under the authority and power of religion again if they so choose. Either way, though, it is quite clear that Universalism doesn't remove our ability to choose, it simply changes what we believe our choices are.

The Open Church

I've been a part of at least two really good house churches over the last decade. The fact that they were house churches, however, was not the important factor here, the fact that they were "open churches" was. This means that we didn't have sermons or dress codes or have to put up a false spiritual front. Instead we had theological and spiritual (and secular) discussions (and sometimes even friendly disagreements), where any point of view was allowed because we recognized that every human has a different one. We had full meals, not just a piece of bread and a sip of wine. We could wear whatever we felt like wearing, and it was always casual (I never saw a tie once except for perhaps in the closet of the person who's house we were in). Most importantly, though, we had fellowship. We became friends who didn't have to hide the truth about ourselves from each other because we knew we weren't going to be kicked out for not having fundamentalist views or preferences (or even for not having non-fundamentalist views or preferences). Even after each of the house churches stopped meeting regularly (because, in my experience, very few house churches make it to the end of year three) most of us are still good friends who enjoy hanging out with each other or just chatting on the phone. As I said, the fact that this took place in a home, while helpful, was not absolutely necessary. In fact it could even be done in a church building if the members were open to it. The key is in not trying to make it a house church but in making it an open church where fellowship is more important than being right. On that note, I highly recommend the book The Open Church by James H. Rutz. I was introduced to this book by my ecclesiology teacher back in Bible College (this is the "fateful book" referred to in my profile), and my life has never been the same since. This book was actually probably the first major spiritual turning point for me in my adult life. If I hadn't read it I could very well still be the fundamentalist guy I was back when I began Bible College.

Make Them Prove It

Admittedly it's only a few days old, but so far no takers on my Everlasting Hell Challenge here on my blog, and only one taker on the website where I originally posted it and so far he hasn't come up with anything substantial.

So with that in mind I want to give a piece of advice to all of my readers that has served me well in life. If somebody tries to convince you of something, make them prove it. Sounds obvious, yes, but too many people just take it for granted that when somebody they trust tells them something it must be true. The problem is, just because somebody is generally trustworthy it doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about. This goes especially for matters of religion. For instance, most Christians are positive that the Bible teaches that non-believers in Christ go to a place of conscious torment called hell for eternity after they die, even though the Bible doesn't spell this out anywhere. Most Christians are also convinced that a good angel named Lucifer led a third of the angels in a rebellion against God and got them all kicked out of heaven and turned into demons (and Lucifer was renamed Satan), even though this also isn't found anywhere in the Bible. I could go on and on with example after example of what I call Christian Urban Legends that Christians are convinced are in the Bible but are surprised when they find out they're not. So I repeat, if somebody tries to tell you dogmatically that something is definitely true, always make them prove it. If they can't, you are under no obligation to believe it.

The Everlasting Hell Challenge

On a Christian message board I sometimes visit we've been discussing the issue of hell which got me to thinking and I came up with a challenge for Protestant Christians who base their theology on the Bible alone:

Demonstrate convincingly that the idea that "those who die without putting their faith in Jesus Christ alone to save them (apart from any works) will end up in a place of torment called hell forever with no chance of escape" is a much clearer teaching in Scripture than the idea that "hell is not a place of everlasting torment." You must not contradict any other parts of Scripture or any other of your own theological positions in order to demonstrate this.

How to Lose a Dispute

I am declaring a new rule: As soon as one side in a particular dispute or disagreement begins persecution of the other side they have automatically lost and the other side is the victor by default (and if both sides are persecuting each other then they both lose, there's no excuse for persecution, though the side being persecuted more loses just a little less :) ). If those on one side of a disagreement have to resort to persecution to try to win they obviously don't have enough valid arguments to back up their position.

The Heretic has spoken.