love – The Kayaking Church

God: Love, Justice, and Judgment

Who is God?

God of love,
God of peace,
God of justice,
God of judgment,
God of patience,
God of impatience,
God of strength,
God of power,
God of meekness,
God of humility.

No, this is not an exhaustive account of who God is.

God, whose character is consistent, sometimes seems to have contrary characteristics. Nonetheless, all of these characteristics are wrapped up in what can be called his holy love. It’s important to clarify that holy love isn’t our often subjective and changing definition of love, but God’s definition of love and his very nature.

As creator, God sets the standard, and we most clearly see that standard in Jesus Christ. In his opening words, John reminds us in his gospel that Jesus was there from the very beginning – not in the physical form of Jesus Christ, but certainly as one of the trinity. And as his created beings, we partner with God in his kingdom, but we do not set the standard for him; Jesus is the King and we have been invited to participate and contribute as his servants, and even as partners.

But still, with all of God’s characteristics being understood and entwined together as holy love, it can often be too easy for us, as people, to subjectively impose our standards upon him. Our western American culture is constantly telling us to let people be who they are; the same is true for God. We must understand God as who God is – not as we tell God who he is!

We don’t control God’s narrative; God controls God’s narrative. By his grace and love alone, he allows to participate and contribute in the narrative.

Then how can we understand this God? The answer begins with scripture. More than any other place, it is where God’s story with us is shared, and where we can learn the most about him: the Old Testament, the gospel accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John of Jesus Christ – God in human form and the flame by which we see the fire of God – and the letters of the New Testament.

As we learn about who God is, let’s look at some seemingly opposing views of God: love, justice, and judgment.

Here’s one of the most quoted verses from the Bible when it comes to peace and understanding God’s love:

“He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.”

This is a passage from Isaiah 2; it can also be found in Micah 4 with a slight variation. This verse that is often used to describe the peace of God and God’s kingdom; looking at the context of Isaiah as well as chapter 2, it also discusses God’s judgment and the day of the Lord – a reference to a “judgment day.” This verse certainly describes peace, and when we look at the life of Jesus Christ, we must seek after this kind of peace as his disciples. Micah also speaks of judgment, a restored Israel, and a day of the Lord. Reading the gospels and the New Testament, this revelation is not out of line with Jesus’ character.

While the focus is peace, it is a peace that God brings. In the life of Jesus Christ, we see that it is a peace that only he brings as Immanuel – God with us! As agents of his kingdom and filled with the power and authority of his Spirit, we participate in and find opportunities to bring that peace to the lives and cultures around us. Ultimately though, it refers to God and what only God will bring. In our lives, it is only Jesus Christ that can bring victory and peace to whatever it is that we are going through.

However, it is not a type of peace where anything goes, we all just mellow out, and everything is subjective, which I’m afraid our American culture tries to read when taking these passages out of context. Clearly, when reading these chapters, God has gained victory and cast judgment over evil people, nations, and entities, and those who come against him and his people. There is peace, but it is after God’s victory and his judgment.

Here’s the counterpart that’s also in scripture, found in Joel 3, and is rarely spoken about. I’m honestly not sure I’ve ever heard these verses expounded upon. They’re not particularly well-known verses because, on the surface, they contradict Isaiah and the popular way people have used Isaiah 3 and Micah 4.

“Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare war,
stir up the warriors.
Let all the soldiers draw near,
let them come up.
Beat your plowshares into swords,
and your pruning hooks into spears;
let the weakling say, “I am a warrior.”
Come quickly,
all you nations all around,
gather yourselves there.
Bring down your warriors, O Lord.
Let the nations rouse themselves,
and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat;
for there I will sit to judge
all the neighboring nations.”

Isaiah 2, Micah 4, and Joel 3 are all prophecies given to prophets, inspired by God, and found in scripture that all of orthodox Christianity believes is inspired by God.

Yet the words are directly reversed in these passages: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks,” and, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears.” Joel is prophesying to the nations and Isaiah and Micah are prophesying about the nations, both about the same event, yet there are two different directions they go.

Once again, when we read the chapter and look at the context, we see the same theme: God’s judgment and victory over those who come against him. Two prophets see it one way; another prophet sees it another way, though their pictures are remarkably similar. They both point to God’s judgment. On one side of the coin is world-changing peace that profoundly changes hearts; on the other side of the coin is defeat and destruction for those that come against him. There is peace, and though not always popular, there is also judgment.

It’s two sides of the same coin; so these two pictures aren’t really contradictory when we dig a little deeper. With God, there is life – incredible life that changes hearts and brings peace with his kingdom – life that is good by God’s standards and not the world’s standards; apart from God and against God; there is no life, in fact, there is defeat, destruction, and ultimately judgment. It’s not necessarily a destruction prescribed by God either; it is oftentimes more of a description of natural consequences. Paul speaks of this in his letter to the Romans and John speaks of it in his God-given revelation as well, where again, we meet Jesus. In fact, Jesus is given authority to judge in John’s revelation.

The defeat isn’t ours to give; that belongs to God. In fact, Jesus is the only one capable of bringing that ultimate victory. We must remember that, as disciples of Jesus Christ, God is the only one with power and capability to see into our hearts fully and bring appropriate judgment.

Meanwhile, before that ultimate day of the Lord comes, bringing this fallen era to a decisive close and when God’s patience finally wears out, Jesus Christ has invited as many as who are willing to be a part of his eternal kingdom, his ongoing narrative, and his everlasting story, experiencing God’s life and peace. It happens in ways that the world does not expect, such as picking up a cross and following Jesus through meekness and humility while relying on his strength, power, and sovereignty to subvert the power and wisdom of the world.

God is God of love, but also justice. And with justice and love, there will one day be judgment when one day God ushers in a new age with a new heaven and new earth and makes his home among us. God will make the wrongs of this age right for a new age to come. God alone knows the exact details of how and when he will do that.

Who is God, then? God is God of love as well God of justice and judgment, wrapped up in his other, holy love. Digging deeper in scripture, where we can truly start to know God, these characteristics are not so contradictory after all. It is who God is. And remember, God says who God is, not us!

Crusades No More

God shattered Peter’s mindset when he received a vision of God; Peter realized, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”

As a result, Peter reached out to the gentile Cornelius, one whom it was illegal for Peter to talk to, and spoke the truth of Christ to him.

Peter changed his mindset toward “them.” What is your mindset toward “them,” “the others,” “the outsiders?”

The main text for this sermon is Acts 10:34-43. I had the opportunity to preach this sermon at the West Chester Church of the Nazarene on January 12, 2014, during the Sunday morning service.

I pray that the Holy Spirit challenges you as you listen and may God bless you.

Implications of Entire Sanctification in the Pope’s New Year’s Day Message

The Pope, in his message today, discussed the critical requirement of new life through regeneration in Christ. However, the working of Christ within us is not only a personal event, but a relational event. The validity of that aspect cannot be debated or challenged. Christ within us means evidence of the Holy Spirit manifests itself in how we relate to one another, and even to the creation, at individual levels, community levels, and even national levels.

Pope Francis delivers quite a good message which actually summarizes what, in the Church of the Nazarene, we would call entire sanctification and what it looks like – especially in the fruits of love for one another. Love for one another can often be a challenge, but is evidence of God within us.

Click here for a link to the text; Francis’ words speak for themselves.

Embracing Post-Modernity within Christendom

A few weeks ago I saw a Facebook post which read something along the lines of “Post-modernity is the biggest current threat to Christianity.” This person had quoted the statement from a book, though I remember neither the book title nor the author. Nonetheless, I thought it was a rather interesting sentiment for several reasons.

It implies that the only way to be a legitimate Christian is to think in a “modern” way … which is completely not true! Christianity existed before the modern era. Serious men and women of God existed before the modern era of technology, industrialism, reason, philosophy. and so forth. We, somehow, are not more Christian than them. To think that we can somehow be more loving of God and more loving of other people simply because we exist in a period of time we have labeled as “modern” is actually an arrogant statement! It needlessly diminishes our beloved Church’s rich history of demonstrating love to humanity and those in need (granted, there are some black spots, but the good far outweighs the bad).

Moreover, there are even some pockets of the world that could still be considered “pre-modern”; yet they have still received the gospel and are attempting to live in Christ-like ways. The gospel and modernism are not synonymous, nor should they be. A lot of evil and oppression from the “modern” world onto places perceived as “not modern” has occurred (“not modern” typically defined by the western world). This has usually involved forcing many to abandon their cultures and embrace aspects of the western world, typically to support that western culture and location while keeping their way of life subservient. For example, a lot of the chocolate industry is on the backs of slave labor in third world countries. More recently, we have the example of “blood” minerals from Africa, used in our electronics.

Perhaps, in considering this, Christians should not be so quick to defend modernism.

The reality is that God has existed before modernism. Believe it or not, people worshipped God with all their heart, mind, and strength before 18th century Europe existed. The stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, the time of Christ, the medieval period, etc. – people still worshipped God.

In scripture, we learn how God has revealed himself over time through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We have grown and learned to recognize God’s truth and respond to God’s revelation in love.

God has existed since before the first moment of creation and long before the first humans. God has existed eternally in the past and will exist eternally in the future, no matter what label we, as his creation, attempt to put on a specific time period. And people will continue to worship God in truth and love, no matter what label we will use in the future to brand an era.

We are moving into a post-modern world. That is really just the bottom line. To try to hang on to modernism is like trying to hang onto a slippery rope; it is futile. Modernism is passing into history. The world’s systems of thinking are moving on, whether you are with them or not.

Many times, post-modernism is meeting scattered pockets of pre-modernism and skipping right over modernism!

Modernism is typically marked as a product of the enlightenment (which was actually a fairly anti-Christian movement in and of itself – ironic for the Christian defending modernism) and the industrial age. We have tight systems of philosophy and rationale, often closed off to new and different ideas, so that they can be presented as a complete, everything-comes-with-it, package.

Within Christianity, we have adapted (rightfully so) for the purposes of missionally presenting God within this type of modern culture. We’ve attempted to show Christianity as a complete, everything comes-with-it, package. While that is perhaps a start to demonstrating God, it is only a start, probably even a misguided start, because the truth is that we can never fully understand God and present him as a philosophical system of thinking that is a completely understandable yet complicated package!

That implies that we’ve somehow got God totally figured out, which is definitely not true.

Post-modernism throws much of that out of the window. It says that maybe we don’t have everything figured out and that there might be some other ideas that can help us better understand the big picture. But it also says that we will never completely understand the big picture, but we can still always learn more about it; this is both a pre-modern and post-modern idea. It’s like a puzzle, constantly rearranging itself, in an attempt to move towards the goal of completion, yet realizing it will never be completed. These are all actually Christian ideas!

I can understand why modernism, which likes to remove threats, would react against post-modernism, especially within Christianity. The modern says, “This is the way it is with God.” The post-modern says, “Maybe that’s not exactly the way it is with God, but maybe God could be like this as well.” While both are seeking to find a fuller truth and still be faithful to God, the modern may think that they have the truth, or the system for finding that truth, already figured out. The post-modern may think that maybe this truth really isn’t completely figured out after all, or that a system doesn’t necessarily work, but we can still learn how to get to that truth and be faithful to God by thinking in some other ways.

Ultimately though, both are seeking after the same truth, which is the truth of God. Moderns should be aware, because they will inevitably come upon a “post-modern” idea that actually helps them understand God a little more!

In understanding this, it’s quite easy to figure out why an author would write, “Post-modernity is the biggest current threat to Christianity.”

What the author should really say is, “Post-modernity is the biggest threat to an established and comfortable way a certain group of people (which is actually only a sect within the broader population of Christianity) has thought about Christianity within relatively recent history.” Like I mentioned before, Christians have lived and worshipped in truth and love before modernism without committing heresy. Christians will do the same after. Whether we realize it or not, the story of God does not revolve around Christians living between the 18th and 20th centuries in the western world.

Besides simply recognizing the reality of the era we live in, post-modernity is rather freeing. With the rise of pluralism, Christians are free to say, “Yes, I’m a Christian and I can learn to live with many other groups of people who think differently than me. But because I’m a Christian, I’m also free to think like a Christian, act like a Christian, and live like a Christian. Perhaps others can also learn to live with groups of people who think differently than them!”

Relativism, the idea that one would say that all religions are simply the same, should not be a threat in true post-modernity. What post-modernity says is that religions are different (honestly, to say that all religions are the same, while it may sound like ‘enlightened’ thinking, is incredibly simplistic, demonstrates a lack of understanding between religions, and is actually insulting to all religions). And with that, one can embrace their religion without having to say that another religion is the same as theirs! The Muslim, the Jew, the Christian, the Buddhist, or the Hindu does not have to feel pressure to make their respective belief systems relativistic or equal to others.

A true post-modern would recognize the difference in religions, and therefore, respect the beliefs of those practicing their religion, without having to feel like they need to attack another’s religion. But this does not mean that we cannot have intelligent and informed conversations regarding one another’s religion and the search for truth. Unfortunately, though, we can also expect that the popular, often non-religious world, will completely misunderstand the intent of these conversations, both between religions and within a religion.

We have the freedom to embrace post-modernity within Christianity, which means we have the freedom to practice our religion and worship God in a Christian manner in truth and in love. We can critically examine our beliefs as Christians, freely say that a belief in Jesus Christ really is what we believe after examining why, further examine new and different ideas to see if they help us grow in our relationships with Christ, and examine how we are demonstrating the love that God calls us to show to people in our lives.

Perhaps, most of all, people in a post-modern world aren’t necessarily looking for a philosophical system of thinking that is a completely understandable yet complicated package. Rather, while a post-modern is still always wanting to learn more intellectual information, but still trying to make sense of it in a complicated world (which should never be forgotten!), they are more importantly looking for a religion that backs up that intellectual information with actions that agree with those beliefs. This may give us the most freedom to embrace post-modernity within Christendom – the freedom to missionally demonstrate to others the love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness which Christ commands of us.

Saviour, Cast a Pitying Eye

“Saviour, cast a pitying eye,
Bid my sins and sorrows end;
Whither should a sinner fly
Art not thou the sinner’s friend.
Rest in thee I gasp to find,
Wretched I, and poor, and blind.

“Haste, O haste, to my relief!
From the iron furnace take;
Bid me of my sin and grief,
For thy love and mercy’s sake;
Set my heart at liberty,
Show forth all thy power in me.

“Me, the vilest of the race,
Most unholy, most unclean;
Me, the farthest from thy face,
Full of misery and sin;
Me with arms of love receive,
Me, of sinners chief, forgive!

“Jesus, on thine only name
For salvation I depend,
In thy gracious hands I am,
Save me, save me to the end;
Let the utmost grace be given,
Save me quite from hell to heaven.”

Mr. Charles Wesley, thank you for these beautiful, true, and poetic words. We humble ourselves, fallen creatures full of sin and selfishness, before God.

The life, death, and resurrection of Christ is our only hope and salvation, our only cure.

Because of Christ, we live empowered by the Spirit to be in the life of God.

A Hymn from Charles Wesley

This Sunday morning, consider the poetry of Charles Wesley as we participate in the life of God and the Kingdom through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

“Come, sinners, to the gospel feast,
Let every soul be Jesu’s guest;
Ye need not one be left behind,
For God hath bidden all mankind.

“Sent by my Lord, on you I call,
The invitation is to all:
Come, all the world; come, sinner, thou!
All things in Christ are ready now.

“Come, all ye souls by sin opprest,
Ye restless wanderers after rest,
Ye poor, and maimed, and halt, and blind,
In Christ a hearty welcome find.

“Come, and partake the gospel feast;
Be saved from sin; in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of your God,
And eat his flesh, and drink his blood!

“Ye vagrant souls, on you I call;
(O that my voice could reach you all!)
Ye all may now be justified,
Ye all may live, for Christ hath died.

“My message as from God receive,
Ye all may come to Christ, and live;
O let his love your hearts constrain,
Nor suffer him to die in vain!

“His love is mighty to compel;
His conquering love consent to feel,
Yield to his love’s resistless power,
And fight against your God no more.

“See him set forth before your eyes,
That precious, bleeding sacrifice!
His offered benefits embrace,
And freely now be saved by grace.

“This is the time; no more delay!
This is the acceptable day,
Come in, this moment, at his call,
And live for him who died for all.”

Amen.

“The Great Divorce” and Understanding Eschatology

C.S. Lewis is quite a good storyteller. Now, I know that statement is obvious to anyone who has read any of his fiction. Nonetheless, when we read fiction, we often have a tendency to say, “What a nice story,” and leave it at that. We forget that the metaphor speaks to something greater; there is a legitimate direction of truth in metaphor. It is why, in reading the gospels, one will often find Christ saying, “The kingdom of God is like….” He spoke in metaphors because a metaphor will illustrate the greater truth, reality, and concept behind the words themselves.

The main theme of The Great Divorce says that, often, there is some grain of good desire even at the heart of an act that appears evil; good, even the smallest amount, taken in a selfish direction will be misused and abused and turned into something horrible. But when taken in the right (‘right’ in and of itself is a word that needs to be unpacked in today’s post-modern world!) purpose, right defined here as being used for the purpose and intention of God’s design, that grain of good turns into something beautiful and amazing. Additionally, there are themes and metaphors of heaven, hell, and even purgatory (believe it or not – it is a doctrine that has its basis in some legitimacy!), as well as the examination of the depth of God’s love and victory. These are aspects of what is commonly called eschatology. It is looking at, well, the end. It is trying to understand the end of this age, bonded to death through sin, and the beginning of a new age, with freedom in God to love.

And it begs us to ask questions; some might even call them dangerous questions. What do we believe will happen at the end of this age? And the even more threatening question – what do we believe will happen when we die?

Oftentimes, the quick, easy answer we receive in western, non-Roman Catholic theological traditions (sorry – I don’t like the term ‘Protestant’ very much; I’m not really protesting Rome anymore!) is that you die and your soul goes to heaven or hell. And that’s the type of bottom line, hard and fast answer we receive. Simplistic and easy – but that is the exact problem with that answer. In truth, it’s neither a simplistic nor an easy answer! And it should not be treated as if it were a simplistic and easy answer!

There are all sorts of issues with this answer.

The first issue is that none of us has died and returned. That is, none of us except Jesus Christ. And apart from Christ’s death and resurrection, we do not exactly know what comes after death. Christ is our best guide to understanding life after death. What the resurrection points to, and in line with scripture, is a physical resurrection in a renewed body.

The second issue is the concept of a dualistic eternal soul and non-eternal body; it does not come from Christianity nor the Hebrew Bible. Remove Greek and Platonist influence and you have the unified psychosomatic concept of the person as a whole; body and mind are together. It is the way God designed us to be as people; he did not design us to have a partially separated non-physical ‘soul’ for all of eternity – the person would be incomplete! I encourage you to take a journey through both the Old and New Testaments and explore this on your own.

The third issue is that it does not take into account the physical resurrection of the person, and all people, at the end of this age; again, this is in line with scripture; again, I encourage you to explore the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, in saying that someone will immediately descend into hell upon death turns God into an unjust judge. Scripture is clear that there will be both a day of physical resurrection and a day of judgment; neither has happened yet. It will be at the end of this age. God is not going to condemn a person to eternal damnation before the day of judgment! C.S. Lewis makes a great point here in The Great Divorce – ultimately, it won’t be God’s rejection of the person; rather, it will be the person’s rejection of God and his beautiful love that brings despair.

It should be known that on that day of judgment in the future, it will be God, and God alone, who is truly able to judge the person’s heart. This is not a responsibility that we, as Christians, ignorant of a totality of information, should take on for ourselves; we cannot claim to be God. However, it should make all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, want to seriously examine the condition of our own hearts and our receptiveness towards God’s grace.

Finally, it downplays the significance and the beauty of a new creation! As I mentioned before, God created us as physical beings, originally designed for good, beauty, life, and love; however we have been corrupted by sin and its effects through death. God did not create us to be an eternal, non-physical soul, yearning to escape a physical realm; that is the heresy of gnosticism. But in living in a new and beautiful creation, it will be a remade, physical world! There will be eternal, physical life available, with freedom in love and freedom from evil. One will not have to worry about needs or wants; there will be no pain or tears of sadness.

That, my friends, sounds absolutely amazing. Imagine the beautiful, remade beings of The Great Divorce. That could be our remade body one day. Imagine the rivers and the mountains, the grass, the apples, and the leaves that Lewis described in his story. Consider, at the very least, the abounding love that conquers all.

Think of hiking through a beautiful mountain path, living in conjunction with God’s Spirit and praising the Father for his works, all the while thanking the Son for making your participation in it possible through his work in this present age. Think of sitting on the most beautiful beach that God has ever made, while enjoying loving fellowship with others. Think of an awe-inspiring sunset or sunrise. Think of entering through the gates of the incredible city of God that John describes in Revelation. Think of walking with Christ, our King but also our friend, and embracing the love that is his very existence.

It will one day be a physical and true reality. It will be God’s beloved world, remade.

Do you see how the answer of saying that one will go to heaven or hell after one dies and that’s the bottom line is not only simplistic and easy, but a bit misleading? This fall-back and default answer, especially when there is a much better, truthful, and scripturally accurate answer, can even be damaging!

This gives us a fairly good picture of the future and where God is taking the world; the incredibly beautiful thing is that God invites each of us to participate in this awesome story! If that is not an expression of love, I am not quite sure what is.

Nor is it the promotion of a selfish ticket to heaven, but an invitation for us and an opportunity to participate in and perpetuate God’s amazing, redemptive love to the world; we continue in the work of demonstrating this kingdom as we respond to God today!

Nonetheless, we still ask the question of what will immediately happen after one dies. The short answer, and probably the best and most honest answer, is we don’t know.

There are a few possibilities, but we can’t talk about it with nearly as much certainty and scriptural accuracy as we can of the new creation.

The first is that one simply dies and then is raised again at the resurrection. At first this might come as a shock and the question is inevitably asked, “What? No heaven?” Well, if you’re really honest with yourself, it’s not that big of a deal. You’ll be dead; and the good thing about being dead is that you won’t know you’re dead! So the time between death and resurrection will fly by in the blink of an eye. It could be a possible reason why, in Luke 23, Jesus told the man next to him on the cross that, “Today, you will be with me in paradise.”

Or, if one absolutely insists on keeping the Platonic idea of an eternal soul not subject to death, then upon death, a soul could go to a type of Hades or Sheol to await the day of reunification with a physical body at the resurrection, when God will examine the person’s heart to bring them into eternal life in the new creation or damnation and eternal death (by the way, this opens a whole new can of worms as to what exactly damnation and eternal death means, which I won’t go into in this article). I explore this idea in one of my stories out of my new book, An Intertwined Reality: Short Stories for the Already but Not Yet. This is perhaps a more accurate understanding of an idea similar to purgatory. The grey town in The Great Divorce could be an illustration of this concept. At any rate, this idea could potentially explain a phenomenon of ghosts; still, supernatural forces that do not come from God are not to be trifled (there’s a good word!) with.

The last possibility is that by Jesus saying, “Today, you will be with me in paradise,” he means that the person’s soul who is in relationship with God will indeed wait in heaven for the day of reunification with a physical body to live in the new creation. Nonetheless, living in the redeemed physical body in the new creation is still the goal! In going with this idea, it does not mean that one who is not in relationship with God will go to hell; the day of judgment has not yet happened! They may either simply die or their soul waits in a type of Hades or Sheol.

Nonetheless, these are not known certainties. They are only ideas and theories. Like I said before, we don’t know! Moreover, we have such a lack of understanding between the concepts of time and space in eternity as opposed to the concepts of space and time as constructs that God has given us in his creation. We only know what we know through Christ, the physically resurrected Savior, a sign of the general resurrection and renewal yet to come!

But does it really matter what may or not happen immediately upon death? Again, if you’re really honest with yourself – no! Because ultimately we have the promise that there will be life again in the paradise of a new creation with God!

Moreover, I pray that we as the Church do not rely on simplistic, easy, or misleading theology. We should faithfully be ready to wrestle and struggle with our challenges, our questions, and even our doubts.

And sometimes, a good story can help offer a better explanation than one might initially think.

Eschatology – it can at first be an intimidating theological word, but it is a word we should be ready to explore. C.S. Lewis, in his imagination, helps us do that in his storytelling. His works of fiction are not simply stories to say, “What a nice story,” and leave it that, but stories to open our imagination to metaphors and illustrations of truth we find in scripture. The Great Divorce is one of those excellent works of fiction.

*A lot of what I discussed in this article can be found in N.T. Wright’s book, Surprised by Hope. He goes into all of the issues I summarized on a much deeper level. Check out the book!

The Protestant Heresy

The theological tenets of Protestantism as a movement within Christianity are, for the most part, fairly orthodox. And while there is much room for debate, that is not my aim in writing this article. Nonetheless, there is something much more dangerous going on in this ‘Protestant’ movement. It is the danger of a forced division within an institution meant to be unified in love. The Church, from the very first centuries, was called ‘catholic’ for a reason. Ignatius of Antioch, in 107 A.D., first used the word in a letter he wrote to Christians in Smyrna on the way to his martyrdom. Catholicity: it is a sign of love for Christ and a sign of purpose in adversity. It is a unification which produces strength in contrast to the division that produces weakness.

We’ve replaced the word today, in the Protestant movement, with universal; it is a replacement brought forth by a reaction stemming from a 500 year old disagreement between Martin Luther and the Church.

But catholic means much more than universal. It means to be unified. While there is truth to the universality of the Church, it does not adequately do justice to what the Church is meant to be. It ignores the unification of Christians all over the world into one body with Christ as our leader. It subtly says that division is okay.

Division is not okay. Disagreements are okay. Conversation is okay. An argument is even okay every now and then. A willingness to listen to various theological ideas and respectfully, intelligently, and lovingly discuss them is okay. This would have been ideal for Martin Luther and the Reformers; they had legitimate concerns over the practices of their beloved Church. Nonetheless it is not what happened; division resulted. And division has been perpetuated. As a result, people are influenced to react against the word catholic in an association against Roman Catholicism.

They were called protesters. And the protesters embraced it. It was not what they were for that defined them; rather, in claiming the identity of Protestant, it was what they were against that defined them. It was a motivation of division.

Love, specifically the love of Christ, conquers division. Isn’t it time that we allowed our love to overcome an argument from half a millennium ago? Perhaps, on our path to seeking holiness, we can embrace our fellow Christians from around the world, and even those brothers and sisters who might think just a little bit differently theologically, in a true unified fashion. Maybe we can quit our ‘protesting’; by hanging on to this word – protestant – that is, in essence, what we are doing. We are clinging to a separation, a label with motivations that come out of objections, complaints, dissent, strife, disapproval, and even hate. We are embracing the negative over the positive. We are clutching onto a fear of perceived threats instead of welcoming a healing love.

This is not a Christ-like, holy love that encompasses healthy disagreements, fellowship within the body, and grace and forgiveness. It is a reaction. It is a word that states most clearly exactly what it is – a backlash and a division in the holy body of Christ.

Thankfully, the tradition of Christianity that I belong to, the Church of the Nazarene, recognizes that we are a part of the worldwide body of believers. I am grateful for that. We do not need to deny our Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, Anglican, Lutheran, or, yes, even Calvinist, family in Christ. We do not need to push away Pope Francis or Patriarch Bartholomew or Archbishop Welby; they too are our Christian leaders.

Yet we still bind ourselves, slavishly, to that word, as if we are still in some sort of protest! Perhaps it is better to define ourselves first as Christian, then as Reformed, or Calvinist, or Wesleyan, or Arminian, or Baptist; that would be a step forward. Maybe we can finally embrace love for one another, and as a sign of that love, remove our protesting root as an identifier, this word that promotes the dangers of division and adds, as one of my seminary professors put it, “scar tissue” to the body of Christ. Division is not orthodox; it is not a characteristic of the kingdom of love that we are supposed to proclaim.

In true medieval fashion, and indicative of practices from the period of the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago, I may be burned at the stake for this article by some of my fellow protesters whom I still love. I will most likely be put on some sort of list as someone to be careful of. But these are chances I am willing to take. The healing of scar tissue is too important. The message of God’s love in a unified, worldwide, universal, catholic body of Christ is just too critical to be rendered ineffective by a heresy of division and protest.

Unlocking ‘Inception’ (and a reference to 1999)

“You need the simplest version of the idea in order for it to grow naturally in the subject’s mind.”

Eames states these words in a conversation with Cobb as the two discuss the idea of inception – successfully planting an idea in a subject’s mind. The characters, played by Tom Hardy and Leonardo DiCaprio, respectively, unlock the key to Christopher Nolan’s 2010 movie, Inception, with this sentence. The movie, unfortunately to some puzzling and not worth the time to figure out, is both complicated with its plot layers, yet at the same time more simple than we first realize. Therein lies the beauty of the story.

In a way, it reminds me of the story of God and his creation: complicated layers of depth and meaning in its plot, yet very simple to understand in the theme that unlocks it. But, just as in Inception, the simplicity needs the complexity and the complexity needs the simplicity in order to tell the story in the best way possible. It is the only way to grasp the full and nuanced detail yet focused truth.

Granted, I finally saw the movie almost three years after it first came out; therefore this post might be a little late. Oh well! However, Inception is perhaps one of the best and most original stories out there. The greatness of Inception is that the film does just that – inception – to the viewer’s mind, especially in light of the final scene.

There are two possibilities to explain the movie. The first is that there was indeed a level of reality evidenced by Arthur, Ariadne, Eames, Saito, Yusuf, etc. From this level of reality, the crew progressed into dreams in order to work in Fischer’s subconscious. This understanding is more clear cut and easier to handle. However, the problem with this idea is that, considered against the second possibility, this explanation renders the movie flat and without an extremely rich layer of storytelling, depth, and meaning. If you are one who is happy and content with this idea, read no further.

The other possibility is that the only layer of reality was the relationship between Cobb and his wife, Mal. Therefore, what we viewed throughout the entire movie was Cobb’s dream – a dream that ended up being at least five layers deep. But here are the inevitable questions: why? and so what was the point of the movie then? I point you to Eames’ words: “You need the simplest version of the idea in order for it to grow naturally in the subject’s mind.” In a single word – inception. The point of the movie: planting an idea in Cobbs’ mind. But even more masterful and genius in Nolan’s storytelling: planting an idea in the viewer’s mind.

In addition to other negative emotions from his wife’s death, Cobb was overcome by guilt, shame, anger, and depression. Forgiveness – again, think of Eames’ statement – was being planted into Cobb’s mind so that healing could finally occur in his life. The movie was not about Fischer and his father at all, but solely about Cobb’s healing. This “simplest version of the idea” is present in the movie’s themes: forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing.

In the story of God and his creation, of which humanity is a critical part, there is a word that encompasses forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing. It is the theme present throughout of all scripture. It is both the “simplest version of the idea” and the key to unlocking scripture’s complexities and nuanced detail in order to find its focused truth. This word is love. More specifically, it is God’s love. It is holy love.

The themes in Inception are demonstrated clearly with the forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing between Fischer and his father; however, this storyline is meant to illustrate and label these ideas so that we can apply them to what the story is actually about, Cobb’s overcoming of his own pain, anguish, and guilt. Forgiveness and reconciliation are shown to Cobb – ‘incepted’ to Cobb if you will – so that he can finally see and apply these ideas as his own, and therefore be able to finally heal from his own trauma.

With this idea, the rest of the characters are projections of his own subconscious; his children, too, would be projections meant to symbolize the hope of healing in the story and the act of healing itself when he finally sees their faces. It is a possibility that some of the characters, such as his father, could be the ones performing inception, though it is not critical to know who. Moreover, the viewers see just how far his guilt is buried in his own being; he must go five layers deep in order to finally come face to face with his guilt and forgive himself. We also see the elaborate systems of protection that his subconscious has created in order to bury his source of pain, rather than confront it.

And while this understanding is a much richer understanding of both the complexity and simplicity of the story, the final scene is the pinnacle of Inception; the final scene is inception. I asked myself – why would Nolan leave the end open in such a way that we do not know if the final scene was reality or a dream, with the top spinning in such a way where it could be either one? The answer to this question shapes whether my first or second explanation is more plausible.

The answer is that it does not matter. It is not supposed to matter. Remember Eames’ words: “You need the simplest version of the idea in order for it to grow naturally in the subject’s mind.” The simplest version of the idea is forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing. Although in my second explanation they are revealed in a much deeper and more profound way, these are themes that are present in both understandings! So whether the movie ends in a dream or reality, Nolan’s point hinges on neither – “the simplest version of the idea” remains the same.

Herein lies the brilliance of Inception, a movie, where similar to our dreams, we thought we were going to escape for a few hours: Nolan is able to perform inception on those who viewed the movie. The viewers ask the question of whether it was a dream or reality, eventually coming to a conclusion on what really happened, while the “simplest idea” of forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing is planted within the viewers mind.

He quite literally spells out the answer to the last scene as soon as the movie is over. Was it a dream or reality? It does not matter; it is Inception. It is incredible and genius storytelling.

However, the idea of inception existed long before Christopher Nolan was even born; it is an idea evident in God and his relationship to humanity, although not necessarily so subversive. God gives us a choice in the matter. Humanity was originally created to be together with God, operating in a perfect union with him and bound together in holy love to experience true life. “The simplest version of the idea” was, and still is, love. It was what gives people life, goodness, and an opportunity to participate in the kingdom and work of God. In sinfulness and selfishness, though, humanity separated itself from a true understanding of life and love; as a result, we have death and all of its consequences. We unfortunately see the effects of death all too often in our world.

But God is still there, calling to us everyday, attempting to plant a seed within us that there is something more to life than what appears on the surface; he is working to bring us back toward him. For some, that seed takes hold and grows naturally; others might deny that seed. But no matter who we are and whether or not we have denied the idea before, God is still calling to us with this “simplest version of the idea”: love. It is up to us to accept it; in accepting it, we realize the forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing that Cobb experienced, but on a much deeper and cosmic level. It does not matter how deep our guilt, shame, or depression is buried, or what walls we’ve built around it, God can and will break through if we allow him so that we may experience true life and love in God. In communion with God, we return to the way we were created to be.

There was another movie released in 1999 which suggested ideas of a dreamworld and a harsh reality. In The Matrix (yes – it’s already been 14 years!), when a person was unplugged, one realized the truth of what was happening; but the truth of reality was not as easy as living in the Matrix. This may serve as a good warning to us: in choosing life in God, there will be times of difficulty when our faith will be stretched. Christ warns us of this multiple times; nonetheless, there is truth, hope, and love in God. We are no longer under the bondage and delusions that sin offers. The truth is ultimately better than living in the Matrix.

God is calling us, each and every human being living on the planet, back to him. His Spirit is planting seeds even in the most unknowing mind that might one day grow and mature. God has extended grace to all the creation, evidenced by the work of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection; it is a reality offered to each one of us with life in God through the Spirit and Christ. It is an opportunity for true life and love and an opportunity to begin to break free from the constraints of sin and death.

It was not only the first inception, but it is the continuing inception at work in all people. I pray that this “simplest version of the idea” might begin to take hold in each of us today!

To give or not to give – how do we consider that question?

by Kelly Zwink

Money is not only a taboo subject among friends and family, but also in the church. When it is discussed, it is usually behind one’s back. Why? Could it be pride? Embarrassment? Privacy? Shame? There could be many reasons as to why money might be an uncomfortable subject; however I don’t believe it should be that way.

I worked as a missionary of sorts in college ministry for two different organizations. Both times I was responsible for fundraising my entire budget! I learned a lot during these times. I thought about my responsibility with money in a whole new way. Before my college ministry days, I never realized that so many missionaries had to raise their own support. They typically have to raise their entire budget, comprised of their salary as well as insurance and and various work and travel expenses. Also, the idea of regularly giving over and above church offerings was foreign to me.

I have come to believe that we as Christians should be intentional givers. If we truly desire to share Christ’s love and serve others, intentionally investing our money is one way we must do so. I like to use the word invest because, when we give, that is truly what we are doing. We are not only investing in things such as education, health, food, and shelter, depending on where you choose to give, but by giving out of love we are investing in the Kingdom of God.

Many times the problem is that we see the dollar amount first, but the need and opportunity to love and serve second. For example, in my area last week there was a vote for school budgets. My local school district’s budget, for the first time in a while and to the devastation of many students, did not pass. It wasn’t even close. It was mainly because the budget included a 10% tax increase.

That day the local news shared interviews of voters; I was quite shocked by the interviews of some who voted against the budget. I understand that this would have been quite a tax hike, and admit that I personally do not know all the ins and outs of how everything works within the budget. What shocked me was not that people voted no because of the tax hike. Rather, one woman said that she voted no because her kids were all in college now and no longer in the school district. Do the children currently in the district not deserve the same opportunity that her children had? Is community education education no longer her problem? What if her college aged children wanted to major in education and come back in the area to teach? Having several friends who went to school for education, I know that it is already close to impossible to find a teaching job in the area.

Another woman said she felt there were other ways to cut costs (which there could be, though I heard many of the budget issues were at a state, not local, level) and also stated “…maybe the district didn’t need as many administrators.” It shocked me that this woman so easily dismissed the value of others’ jobs. If these two women had said that they cared about the children and the school programs but felt the budget wasn’t fiscally responsible, I would have respected their decision to vote no. However, there was not a sense in either of these interviews that there was a desire for the children’s best interests. It was all about the money. To me, this is an example where the dollar amount was seen first and the need second – if at all.

As Christians I believe we must look at the need and opportunity to serve and love first, and the dollar amount second. Does this mean we should give recklessly? Certainly not! While giving requires sacrifice, I do not mean to imply that we do not have other financial responsibilities, such as caring for our own families. Becoming an intentional and generous giver requires us to think carefully about how we spend our money. The best way to do this is by keeping a budget. I once heard one of my former supervisors say, “I feel more free in my spending because I have a budget.” After setting up my own budget about a year and a half ago, I completely agree.

Having a budget allows me to keep track of how much I have coming in and going out, whether for savings or regular expenses. I then know exactly how much I have left to spend. In my budget, I’ve incorporated regular giving to church and other organizations as well; I don’t have to worry about giving money I don’t have. Finally, after accounting for all of these things, I have an allotted spending amount for both needs and spontaneous giving. Keeping a budget can eliminate much of the stress and worry that giving and normal living expenses can bring if your financial situation is a bit ambiguous.

Setting up this budget was easy; I am the type of person who organizes for fun. I keep track of my budget in an excel spreadsheet with formulas. I fully understand that for many others that is not really an enjoyable task and even the idea of setting up a budget may be daunting. However, if we are truly to be good stewards and give generously, I believe it is necessary. If you feel that setting up a budget might be a struggle, then I would advise asking a friend or someone in your church for help.

As Americans we often carry a stigma against asking for help and think we should be able to figure out and do everything on our own. These things, plus money being a traditionally taboo topic, can hold us back from getting organized so that we are able to give when God calls us to do so. Besides, utter independence is just simply not how God created us. He created us to be in community with him and with others, with different strengths and talents to complement each other. Therefore, there should be no shame in asking others to help in this matter.

If you are not a currently an intentional giver, I challenge you to become one. God asks us to give all of ourselves for his work and his purposes, including our finances. I encourage you to begin by choosing a couple areas you are passionate about to invest in while being open to new opportunities to give that come your way. This may mean being more conscious of where our money goes, setting up a budget, and cutting back in some areas. If we truly desire to serve and love others and invest in the Kingdom of God, the time, effort, and money required in becoming an intentional giver is a worthwhile sacrifice.

*Kelly Zwink graduated from Dickinson College with a Bachelor of Arts, where she double majored in Italian Studies and Political Science, spending her junior year studying in Bologna, Italy. After working in college ministry for two years, abroad and in the US, she moved back home to Buffalo to begin a career in business and is currently pursuing her MBA. Kelly is a loyal Buffalo Bills and Sabres fan, and enjoys spending time with family and friends, food, singing, reading, exercising, cycling, and other outdoor activities.