Readers Weigh In on the Book

First of all, to anyone who has reviewed my book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I want to thank you. Whether it's a positive or negative review, I honestly appreciate people putting their time and effort into reading the whole book and sharing their honest assesment. I'm pleased that the overwhelming response is positive, but also appreciate a couple more negative reviews that have come in. The point is, people care enough to express their opinion, and that's all good. Again, thank you reviewers!

Now, with the 15-16 total reviews out there so far (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, and various bloggers), I have to admit, it's fascinating to compare responses. For example, most people have said I have a respectful tone when critiquing evangelical doctrines. "When there is disagreement, the author respects the views of his friends. He doesn’t put them down, or indicate that they are in some manner less Christian than he is... Michael is critical of his conservative religious background, but his is not judgmental," says the pastor at Desert Streams. But the reviewer at Perceptible Reflections disagrees: "...the words used showed an arrogance of 'I’m right and your wrong' attitude, with a feel that if you disagree, it is because you don’t understand this higher level of thinking." Hmm... which is it?

On the craft beer theme, I can't tell you how many times people have praised the idea of anchoring half the book in a pub and using the conversations over microbrews to make theology accessible. One of my editors called it "genious." One Amazon reviewer "...found this format refreshing and brilliant." Not so, says the Parish reviewer: "He also has a bad habit of setting conversations in a bar which allows him to nerd out about his favorite microbrews, a complete waste of time for an undertaking like this, and indicates the book needed more editing." Hmm... mixed messages. That's why everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Although the Parish thought the sex and gay rights chapters are worth reading, he had pointed critiques of the Intelligent Debate chapter (where I critique creationism, defend intelligent design, and make a case for unorthodox evolution), which I fully expected. He didn't like me sourcing David Berlinski because he's not a scientist (A Ph.D in Philosophy and post-doctorate studies in Mathematics doesn't count), but with the exception of Lynn Margulis (who I give as an example of an unorthodox evolutionist), he overlooks the other scientists I cite, like Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldridge, James Shapiro, and Michael Denton, as well as atheist/philosopher Bradley Monton.

Overall, a great collection of reviews and I look forward to more. I invite readers to offer their opinions here or write a review on one of the sites listed above. Cheers!

Coming Home to the Wild Goose!

Despite the oppressive heat, last week’s Wild Goose Festival in North Carolina, proved to be a refreshing respite for my wandering soul. I went there to promote my newly launched book and discovered something I have sorely missed of late: a dynamic like-minded community within a progressive Christian movement devoid of religious overtones. I had a honkin good time at Wild Goose!
                First, there were the surprising parallels with my big idea. I thought my book (Confessions of a Bible Thumper) was unique with its craft beer theme—which anchors my spiritual evolution in a pub and uses microbrews as a metaphor for true freedom in Christ. But as my daughter Beth and son Nate helped me set up our book booth, no more than 100 feet away stood the beckoning beer tent run by a popular Durham microbrewery! As I perused the schedule, my eyes locked on sessions entitled “The Theology of Beer,” and “Beer and Hymns.” Hmm… my kind of festival! I mused.  Before long I found new friends like Pastor Jimmy Chalmers, known for praising God for hops and brew techniques as much as grace. And Bryon Berghoef, author of the forthcoming book, Pub Theology, about his experience connecting with God and friends in pubs and other unlikely places. Here we are below discussing the future of microbrew theology and attitudes in the church.


Pastor Jimmy Chalmers, Bryan Berghoef, Michael Camp, and friend
at the Wild Goose Festival, Shakori Hills, NC, June 24, 2012

                Despite the incredible interest in my book—amazing conversations and half-decent book sales—I found it more challenging and inspiring learning from workshops and making connections. Nikole Lim shared how she used photography and video to start a mentoring and scholarship program (Freely in Hope) to help women in Kenya affected by sexual abuse and poverty. Roger Wolsey, author of Kissing Fish, had an excellent session on The Progressive Reformation. Not only did I hear Frank Schaeffer speak (he had endorsed my book), but finally met him and his wife Genie. Phyllis Tickle spoke on the history of Christianity and how every 500 years a reformative stream arises in society. We are in one now, she says, called the Great Emergence. Finally, there was a sneak-preview of portions of a new film called Hellbound? that is due out this fall (I was unable to see it but there is a trailor, which you gotta see!). As does the Universal Life chapter in my book, it dissects and debunks the doctrine of hell and the churches that teach it. I also met and had a delightful conversation with Rich Koster of the Christian Universalist Association (I love this guy) and Eric Elnes of Darkwood Brew.
        If you attended Wild Goose, I’d love to hear your experience. If not, I highly recommend it and if out West, do attend Wild Goose West in Oregon this coming Labor Day weekend. If you resonate with emergent, progressive, or convergence Christianity, attend Wild Goose and support this amazing now-annual festival—a needed answer to the partisan and polarizing Christian Right and standard evangelical fare. I welcome your comments.   

Beer and the Bible

John and I got a laugh over the way the brewing noises of Sound Brewery (Poulsbo, WA) keep interupting our video shoot. I decide not to cut it, better to see the lighter side of amateur video. With a glass of a delicious dark Abbey-style ale in hand, I explain how I started down the road to rethink the Bible from my conservative evangelical days. There are two important chapters in my book that address this, Investigating Inerrancy and Confronting Bible Abuse. Check it out and stay tuned for more!

New Video Series! Craft Beer and Christianity

Check out my new video series. The first three are completed, including an overview of the book and summaries of the chapter on Bible abuse and how I started down the path of rethinking hell and adopting a more inclusive theology. Craft Beer and Christianity Series. More to come!

New Book Distills Faith and Fellowship Over Local Brews

Press release on book is out!

“Confessions of a Bible Thumper,” out June 19, traces author’s spiritual journey from devout evangelical to progressive believer; challenges status quo on modern religious issues.

Seattle, WA (PRWEB) May 08, 2012 -- When a former Christian conservative and missionary begins to question his faith, where does he find God? In Author Michael Camp’s case, inside a microbrewery near Seattle, Washington. He’s not imbibing irresponsibly, but rather enjoying Pacific Northwest craft beer, reflecting on his 25-year evangelical sojourn, and talking reasoned theology with friends.

“Confessions of a Bible Thumper: My Homebrewed Quest for a Reasoned Faith” tracks Camp’s story and his nine eye-opening revelations that caused him to rethink an array of conservative doctrines, including paradigms on the Bible, the church, the “end times,” gay and lesbian rights, and salvation.

Read full release

On Belonging, Behaving, Believing, and Brewing!

When I saw Diane Butler Bass's new book, Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening, I was excited that, again, the ideas I espouse in my book, particularly the Save the Ales (from the Church) chapter, are being embraced and promoted by others. Diane brings up a great point I want to share.

Dogmatic or traditional spiritual paradigms set up a process for people to go through to become part of the "church." People have to believe certain doctrines, then behave a certain way--i.e., follow the behavior codes and rituals of the church--whether it's traditional or contemporary--before they can belong in the community. This is the Believe, Behave, Belong approach and is almost universal in conservative churches. To become a member of a church, one must adhere to the church's statement of faith or even sign a covenant or theological statement (Mars Hill and Overlake are two examples in Seattle). One must believe the right things and then behave the right way. No one can truly belong until they jump through the right hoops.

Diane reminds us, that this is ass backwards. Taking the example of Jesus, the new spiritual paradigm is Belong, Behave, Believe. On the basis of love, everyone belongs right from the start. Doctrines, as important as they might be, are not paramount. Heretics are welcome. Once you belong to a group practicing Jesus' love ethic, the right behavior gradually emerges. It does not need to be imposed through law. Moreover, when acts of love fulfill the rulebook, behavior need not be strict and narrow. Outcasts are welcome. If they like what they see, they begin to emulate love. Finally, only after belonging and behaving does believing come. People have been loved, are learning to love back, and once they have, they are able to articulate what they believe. And it doesn't have to necessarily fit the offical party line. Iconoclasts are welcome. No need for clones.

Now, Diane used great illiteration for this lesson, but forgot the critical fourth part of the equation: Once you feel like you belong, you behave accordingly, and form a personal belief, you're ready for a higher level of fellowship: Brewing! As in enjoying craft beer, that is (well for some of us, at least). Actually, it should come first. I'd say brewing is crucial to making friends and letting them feel like they belong. So, here's to Brewing, Belonging, Behaving, and Believing. Cheers!

The Christian Nation Myth Revisited

Despite the fact that he's Catholic and evangelicals have been historically suspicious of Catholics, Rick Santorum has managed to do something Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich failed to do: win the hearts of the Christian Right. How? By focusing on social and conservative issues, such as marriage, family, and abortion (and paradoxically, contraception, something evangelicals are typically not against), and by his bulldogged campaigning that has left the others in the dust. Unlike Romney, whose Mormonism is even more suspicious, Santorum is delivering the goods for Christian conservatives, including the cry to revive our nation's Christian heritage.

At one of his campaign stops in Louisiana, he pitched his message to 1,000 strong at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church. At one point, the pastor delivered a message that summarizes the movement's motivation (and that evening's theme) and why they are now pinning their hopes on Santorum: "This nation was founded as a Christian nation," he said. "If you don't like the way we do things, I've got one thing to say: Get out! We don't worship Buddha. We don't worship Muhammad. We don't worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God's son Jesus Christ." [1]

Hmm... does that sound American to you? In Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I relate how I always wrestled with such claims and how I discovered the myth of a Christian nation. The Christian Right rewrites history ignoring the historical evidence that clearly shows our founding fathers to be a conglomerate of Christian progressives (most would be considered liberal heretics by the Baptist Church audience!) and students of the Enlightenment, with a slim minority being what we would call evangelical Christians. And would they make such assinine statements, that those of other faiths should just get out? Hardly! This pastor, and Santorum's association with his church, reveals a disturbing, familiar theocratic theme: Only those who worship our way, or at least only those who like our "Christian" way of governing, are deserving of citizenship.

There were two other statements that revealed this pastor's narrow-minded bias. He said, "We don't worship Muhammad." Well, who does? Last I checked, Muslims don't either. Worshiping Muhammad would be heresy to them. He also said, "We don't worship Allah." Are you sure, pastor? Last I checked, Arab Christians, who believe the same as you do, worship Allah. "Allah" is merely the Arabic term for God. So, yes, you actually do worship Allah, sir. You just don't know it!

I had hoped with the work of moderate evangelicals like Mark Noll (In Search of Christian America) and Gregory Boyd (The Myth of the Christian Nation), this kind of talk would be scarce by now. But no, the fallacy continues and apparently is the rallying cry of Santorum and his supporters. God help us. I welcome your comments.

[1] Time Magazine, April 2, 2012, The New Christian Right, page 33.

The New Spiritual Paradigm: Not Church

I recently cracked open the newest issue of Time magazine, which displayed the words “10 Ideas That Are Changing Your Life” on the cover, and was pleasantly surprised one of those ideas mirrors one of the major themes in my book: Many believers need to be saved from the church. The article explained how American society is experiencing a shift in its concept of spiritual community. More and more people, without rejecting God, are leaving the institutional church and rethinking “religion.”

Time’s article calls the number four idea “The Rise of the Nones,” the Nones being the now 16 percent of the population who say they have no religious affiliation. That percent does not correlate with the 4 percent of Americans who identify as atheist or agnostic, meaning 12 percent of these “Nones” are still believers. Their hunger for spiritual meaning and connection is still strong. Many have fled the doctrinal battles, hierarchal control, and spiritual abuse happening inside the church to create grassroots Christian communities, often meeting in homes.

There is an irony to this phenomenon. This movement of Nones and Not Church (what one Sunday gathering calls itself) is worlds closer to the original intention of what New Testament writers called ekklesia, in Greek, or what is commonly translated “church,” than what fundamentalist, evangelical, and Catholic churches have become. In Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I explain (as does author Frank Viola) that a more historical and linguistically accurate reading of the Bible does not support our modern concept of church.

I’m excited about this trend. I believe a Not Church movement has begun. A movement that exposes controlling churches and denominations, such as Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), which I was apart of in another life (and whose abuse is thankfully gradually being exposed here and here) and Mars Hill Seattle, whose recent extreme “church discipline” case was reported by KOMO 4 News Seattle. Moreover, I would hope, it would be a movement that funnels energy and money into fighting poverty and oppression, pursuing social justice, and simply loving others unconditionally (Jesus stuff), rather than building ego-driven empires that too often control the flock, idolize the Bible, and canonize doctrine. As I say in my book, the models for such communities are endless, way beyond simply a home church movement. I welcome your comments.

Curing the Plague of Churchianity

Someone wiser than I once suggested that in many churches, what is needed is not a long, skillfully-delivered, scripturally-based sermon following a passionate time of worship but rather a short admonition. She imagined God wanting a pastor to simply stand up and declare, "Brothers and sisters, God's word to us today is 'Love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemies.' Go now and immediately put this into practice. There's no need to return next week unless you have completed the assignment. You're dismissed." That would be the extent of the service.

As I've written in my chapter on church, Save the Ales (from the Church), churchianity--the practice of making the demands of the institutional church more important than loving others--is a plague on evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Richard Beck made a similar point when he lamented how church and religious rituals (and I would add, believing the right doctrines) have supplanted the most basic Christian practice: being decent human beings. Rather than focus on what really matters, followers of churchianity put more stock in "church attendance, worship, praying, spiritual disciplines, Bible study, using religious language... and arguing with evolutionists..." (This is the short list). The outcome? As Beck says, churches become "jerk factories."

Churchianity rears its ugly head when we hear of spiritual abuse in denominations like Sovereign Grace Ministries and the Seattle Mars Hill church. I recently read the Mars Hill membership covenant and was shocked how lopsided it is. Members promise to "submit to church leaders, doctrine, discipline, and the authority of scripture," "not function as a member of another church," "commit to the mission of the church," which is to "make disciples (get other people to do the above) and plant churches" (get even more people to do the above), and promise to practice a long list in a behavior code having to do with sex, not living together before marriage, and refraining from pornography, alcohol abuse, and drug use. There was not one word about loving one another or loving the unlovely.

I'm not pretending that none of the things in their covenant are important, but that it's emphasis is on things only the church and its leaders can control (how they do church discipline, decide what's right to believe, decide what part of the Bible is authoritative, which interpretation to believe and which to ignore, what moral practices to follow, etc.). Churchianity is primarily interested in controlling others and empire building, not loving our fellow man, promoting social justice, and allowing people to govern themselves through Christ's superior law of love. These are the only cure for the plague. I welcome your thoughts.

Confessions of a Bible Thumper Book Summary

First some random thoughts. I liked Mike Morrell's Heresy Hunting piece on how to handle alternate views on theology and faith. He reminds us, despite accusations (or subtle implications) of heresy by some people directed towards us emergent, questioning, and universalist types, we should not tolerate the practice of demonizing people.

Second, I really liked this article by Richard Beck called The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity. He makes the point that much of Christianity has become a mechanism to replace being a loving human being with an endorsed "spiritual" list of ritualistic substitutes. The chapter in my book on the church--Save the Ales (from the Church)--is on this subject. I will blog something on this later.

Finally, as I said below, last week John and I made a video in a local microbrewery (Sound Brewing, Poulsbo, WA) that summarized my book. This will be the first of several videos I do on Confessions. Also visit confessionsofabiblethumper.com to read some new reactions to the book. As usual, I appreciate any comments!

Nine Reasons Beer Is Better than Religion*

*source unknown

I had the priviledge this past weekend of hearing Marcus Borg speak in Seattle and was pleasantly suprised when he began with a light-hearted piece about beer. It's seems every where I go, the subject of beer in relation to faith just crops up.

The next night, I went to a local microbrewery to video a blurb about my book and several of the patrons came up to me afterwards to voice their interest in my story. My friend John and I ended up chatting with Melody and her husband over some nice Belgium Porter about open-minded faith and how the church has squelched certain freedoms, one being the responsible enjoyment of beer. It really is a shame, because it's true. Beer really is better than religion (but not genuine reasoned faith) and here are nine perfectly good reasons why with my additional thoughts:

1. No one will kill you for not drinking beer. [Or devise some elaborate torture method, use it on you, and claim they're doing you a favor by compelling you to recant and thereby save your soul]

2. Beer has never caused a major war. [Or a nasty church split]

3. Beer doesn’t tell you how to have sex. [Nor when to have it]

4. When you have a beer, you don’t knock on people’s doors trying to give it away. [Or hand out simplistic tracts that you have to apologize for to intellectual types]

5. They don’t try to force beer on minors who can’t think for themselves. [Or force it on adults by telling them it's dangerous to think for themselves]

6. You don’t have to wait 2000 years for a second beer. [Or a second well-crafted microbrew fit for a returning King]

7. There are laws saying that beer labels can’t lie to you. [Or decieve, manipulate, or twist the truth]

8. You can prove you have a beer. [No need to blindly believe because a church or a pope says so]

9. If you’ve devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop. [They meet in buildings devoted to religion]

Any other reasons beer is better? I welcome your comments.

Did Jesus Hate Religion?

That is a question that Jefferson Bethke addressed in his "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" video that went viral. When I watched it, I found myself agreeing with a lot of Bethke's assertions, but was uneasy with the way in which it was expressed. It seemed like he wasn't getting to the root of the problem that I see in religious institutions.

Then I saw David Brooks' fascinating article on how Bethke caved to his critics; people like Kevin DeYoung, who "corrected" Bethke, saying that Jesus, although he hates self-righteousness, doesn't really hate religion because he observed Jewish holy days, went to the Temple, founded the church, instituted church discipline, initiated communion and baptism, and didn't abolish Jewish law. Bethke apparently wrote DeYoung in an email exchange and admitted to him that he actually "agrees 100 percent." Ahh, so this is perhaps why I was uneasy about the video. The "religion" Bethke critiqued was not the same as the one that DeYoung defends. But it's the religion that DeYoung defends that needs the critique!

In my book I make the case, based on historical analysis by people like Garry Wills, that Jesus in fact did not found a church, perpetuate Jewish law, and insitute a set of rituals to be followed to the letter. These ideas are read into the New Testament, not derived from a fair, exegetical reading of them. When Jesus taught on the church, he did not have our modern churches in mind, particuarly ones that promote spiritual abuse in the name of "church discipline," he is widely misunderstood on Jewish law (that's why Paul says "we have been released from the law" and "we are not under its supervision"), and in fact, not only was he opposed to this type of religion, but confronted the corruption of the Temple and accurately predicted it would be destroyed!

David Brook argues that disaffected youth and protestors have to do more than just cry injustice. They have to come up with an appropriate alternative, preferably based on an already establshed counter traditional school of thought, or else their critiques are vague and ineffectual. Excellent point.

On the other hand, in my mind, the answer to the "religion" Bethke ranted about is not DeYoung's view of Jesus' religion. Jesus' religion was a religion of the heart, where love is the only law. It wasn't a religion of unquestioned institutions and ecclesiastical authority. The alternative to DeYoung's "religion" (and the issues Bethke addressed) is Jesus' established but misunderstood philosophy of the loving reign of God. I appreciate your comments and thoughts.

Price of Biblicism Part II - Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll

I thought I'd go onto another topic, then a friend sent me a link to this blog, which discusses a recent church discipline action taken by Mark Driscoll's church, Mars Hill, right here in Seattle. Talk about spiritual manipulation and abuse!This is a another sad example of the price of biblical literalism, as a church uses Matthew 18 and a few other verses to "discipline" a member who fell into "sexual sin" (having non-sex contact with a single woman and having sex with his finance). They issued him a church discipline contract to sign that spells out his requirements for gaining restoration (including writing out his whole "detailed sexual sin and emotional attachment" life history! - and "all sins" during this time period!). Then when he refused to sign it, leadership sent instructions to the church to not even talk to this guy unless he was willing to abide by the hoops they set up (check out the level of control they stipulated in the letter to the church). So, he's basically booted out of the church with the whole congregation not only knowing his "sin," but commanded to shun him.

Where do I begin? This whole case makes me so angry. It's similar to what I encountered in PDI/SGM back in the 80s and 90s and share in my book on the chapters on church and bible abuse. First of all, even if one believes the Bible should be applied this way to spell our exactly how to discipline someone (which I don't), Mars Hill has gone way beyond the Bible! Where does it say draw up a contract in Matthew 18? Or get the guy to spill his guts by listing all his sins? Moreover, when Jesus said if a sinner doesn't listen to one or two or three others, then tell it to the church, he wasn't talking about broadcasting it to a mega church. The term is "gathering" and in a local setting it was always a small group. When Jesus said "treat him as a tax collector or pagan," since when does that mean don't talk to him unless he's ready to sign a contract and grovel to the demands of leadership? Last I checked, Jesus treated the Gentiles and tax collectors pretty well and told his disciples to do the same.

The amazing thing is, when you read the case, you'll see that by any reasonable standard the guy really did repent of his "sin." He just refused to sign the contract and good for him. But again, this case also reveals the incredible paranoia of the church over sex, a obsession that doesn't follow from a fair reading of the Bible as I explain in my chapter called The Sex God. You see, technically, having sex with your fiance, if love rules, is not a sin. I don't have time to go into it now but this is one of those fabricated offenses the church overreacts to. Look, read the case. This man wasn't spotless in what he did, but he's now paying the price for a church that adheres to a strict biblicism--and one that even goes beyond what the Bible teaches. This blantent spiritual abuse and manipulation and controlling behavior must be exposed.

The Price of Biblicism

I've written elsewhere about the dangers of fundamentalist or evangelical biblicism--the practice of attempting to apply the Bible's teaching based on the assumption that it is inerrant, self-sufficient, self-evident, internally consistent, and universally applicable. One obvious example is the way biblicists use the Bible to condemn gays and lesbians to an agonizing struggle to become "ex-gay" or remain celibate. Others are when they use it to preach salvation in very exclusive ways or still another, when they teach the supposed "end times," which is, by the way it's taught, extremely manipulative.

These results are the "price of biblicism," the fruit of making the Bible into something that the original writers (and God, I believe) never intended it to be. Another grave example I highlight here is the real-life case study of Soveriegn Grace Ministries (SGM - formerly People of Destiny International), a 30-year-old denomination that is now going through a very public investigation of ongoing spiritual abuse of church members and leaders. The root of this, I contend, is this denomination's strict adherence to biblicism.

The heart of most of the problems in this denomination is how it views its leaders' authority. For example, they take very literally Hebrews 13:17, which says "...Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give…an account." And as the leader of SGM, C.J. Mahaney, recently taught, they believe God has inspired and preserved these specific words in Hebrews with their churches in mind.

To see the fruit of taking such a Scripture so literally and applying it to church leaders, pastors, and members, one only has to visit two websites that track a myriad of cases of serious, spiritual and emotional abuse. SGMSurvivors.com and SGMRefuge.com are chock full of stories from former SGM members who report on specific examples of leaders using verses like Heb. 13:17 to control people's lives, impose psycological guilt trips, and manipulate/reject members or other leaders when they stand up to the abuse. It's a sad commentary, but important for people to be aware of so I encourage interested readers to check these sites out. The abuse can only stop when things come to light.

I was recently reminded of these websites when I noticed one of the founding leaders of SGM, Larry Tomzcak, had finally posted his story of how he was spiritually abused more than 13 years ago. Also, having attended one of these churches back in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s, I have personal experience. Finally, one friend of mine from those days, Darla Melancon, wrote a book about her family's abuse (I just discovered last year), called The Things I Learned After Being Kicked Out of Church. These sites and this book is a massive case study on the horrific price some people have to pay for biblical literalism.

Buried Truth Revealed Pisses Off Religious Elites

BOOK REVIEW: The Kairos, by Paul E. Hartman - Buy on Amazon

What if someone found sound historical proofs from Jesus’ lost years that revealed two shocking revelations about Jesus’ life? What if conservatives considered one revelation to be blasphemous, and liberals counted the other as mythological? Paul Hartman, in his new religious thriller, The Kairos—a term that signifies a point when God breaks into human history—deftly answers those questions. You don’t want to miss the ramifications found in this book.

When Hartman’s protagonist, Dr. Lute Jonson, a world-class archeologist and Dead Sea Scroll scholar, decides to unveil to the world these heretofore hidden proofs (scroll fragments accurately carbon-dated to the early first century), all hell breaks loose. Jonson inadvertently puts himself, his family, and friends in grave danger as powerful fundamentalist religious and secular forces (where else could you find Vatican officials and CIA agents working together?) race to stop him before he reaches a international media outlet. You won’t be disappointed with the book’s global intrigue that takes you from Jerusalem to northern Alaska, or its heart-stopping twists and turns, or an ending that’s anything but predictable.

What’s at stake, according to some, is the faith of a billion Christians worldwide. But the message in Hartman’s fictional account of what could be, goes beyond what the book’s characters think to the heart of Jesus’ message: follow the way of love, not historically-bound law, and embrace this love that drives out fear. Moreover, it goes to the heart of how we read the Bible. This engaging book reveals both a Jesus we never knew and one we always did, while reminding us to embrace the marginalized of our day.

Don’t let the few places where the protagonist sounds overly religious scare you away (the ongoing internal prayers and scripture citations were a tad overkill for me). You’ll get beyond that minor wrinkle and into a fascinating story and premise with realistic Dead Sea Scroll scholarship. I recommend this book! * * * * * [five stars]

The Meaning of Following Jesus, not Christmas

I just read Jim Wallis’ The Real War on Christmas… by Fox News. Boy, did he get that one right. In a nutshell, Wallis calls the annual counter attack by Fox News (against the supposed “war” on Christmas by our secular society) a misguided defense of our cultural and commercial Christmas symbols, not a defense of the real meaning of Jesus’ message.

When defenders of our Christian heritage scoff at the secular or government forces that replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” or no longer refer to “Christmas” trees or ban a crèche scene on public property, they inadvertently miss the genuine message from which our Christmas tradition derives: that God’s personal expression of Himself in Christ transforms us to be truly human, radically loving, and defenders of the poor and oppressed. And, as Wallis reminds us, Mary’s declaration foretelling Jesus’ birth and purpose, that God dethrones the powerful, lifts the lowly, fills the hungry, and sends the rich away empty, is what Fox and its defenders would call class warfare.

Defending symbols and terms is not important. Acting out the message behind them is. The way I see it, Fox News defends civil religion, not spiritual transformation or good news for the poor. Yes, our family will exchange gifts and rally around our Christmas tree. But the real “Christmas” stuff happens when we choose a poor African entrepreneur to give a microloan to, correspond with one of our sponsored children in Malawi, or write a letter to a forgotten prisoner in Yemen. In other words, when you or I love the physically or spiritually poor.

I welcome your comments on what Christmas means to you.

31 Reasons I Left Evangelicalism and Became a Progressive But Not a Liberal

Okay, in the spirit of Rachel Held Evans' blog post on 13 Things that Make Me a Lousy Evangelical (and a Lousy Progressive and a Lousy Feminist), I've come up with my own list of 31 reasons I left evangelicalism and became a progressive (for lack of a better term) but not a liberal. So, here we go:

1. I'm allergic to contempary Christian music.
2. I never believed in the inerrancy of the Bible (and think it's rather obvious it's not inerrant) and got tired of hiding that fact.
3. I realized biblicism (the notion that the Bible is infallible, internally consistent, universally applicable, contains all the truth we need, and makes us certain about most everything) is intellectually hallow and dishonest (see The Bible Made Impossible).
4. I think it's not only fine to try to ascertain what Jesus meant or what Bible authors meant, in the original culture, but more importantly, if we don't, we're not taking the Bible seriously. We love tradition over truth.
5. I think it's perfectly acceptable to pick and choose what one thinks is inspired and true in the Bible. After all, that's how the Bible was composed. Someone else picked and chose and copied and translated, so why can't we? Why do we have to take it on faith and they get to decide? How does one do that you ask? Have an open mind, look at objective biblical scholarship, use some common sense, and let the Spirit speak to your heart. What? You think that's crazy? If accepting everthing at face value works, then why does evangelicalism have a thousand denominations and opinions about what the Bible teaches?
6. Despite 2-5 above, I think much of the Bible is inspired by God.
7. After studying the historical and cultural context of the Bible and learning how it has sometimes been miscopied, and frequently mistranslated and misinterpreted (by people who care more about tradition than truth), I find it a remarkably progressive book--okay, okay, minus that stuff about genocide and killing women and children, etc.
8. I might be called to love him, but I don't like Rick Warren, and especially those Hawaiian shirts he wears.
9. R.C. Sproul defending Mark Driscoll makes me a bit nauseous. Okay, a lot nauseous.
10. I not only think believing in The Rapture is delusional, but also believing we live in the end times too.
11. I believe Jesus already returned (figuratively) in the first century (you gotta read my book).
12. I believe the Bible teaches the good guys get left behind (again, it's in the book).
13. I sometimes agree with R.C. Sproul. For example, he actually pretty much believes #11 too.
14. Going to a U2 concert is a spiritual experience for me.
15. I no longer believe evolution is the enemy.
16. I think intelligent design is a grand idea that needs to be seriously considered.
17. I think one can be a practicing gay or lesbian and still follow Christ.
18. I'm a microbrew enthusiast and love to talk theology over a couple of brews.
19. Rick Perry makes me really nervous (but not as much as Sarah Palin).
20. I hate sexual exploitation but find some erotica perfectly acceptable for adults.
21. I think the evangelical church is sex-negative (okay, there are a few good evangelical marriage sex manuals out there, but that's the only exception).
22. I think Charlize Theron is hot and I'm not afraid to admit it.
23. I voted for Barak Obama. I still support him but see a lot of things he could do better.
24. I hate it when Republicans accuse Obama of doing or proposing things that George W. Bush (increased the deficit by $5 trillion) and Ronald Reagan did (raised taxes 11 times).
25. I think what evangelicals call "church" is a non-biblical, man-made construct (back to my book, and yes, these are shameless plugs!).
26. I think nine times out of ten spiritual disciplines (praying, fasting, time in the Word, worship, going to cutting-edge, spiritual conferences, and following the latest, trendy book -- think Purpose Driven Life) becomes a legalistic treadmill.
27. After studying the issue and examining the historical and biblical evidence, I became a Universalist.
28. I think the emergent "conversation" is good (and I really like Brian McLaren), but wish they'd come to a concluson once in awhile. Just for grins.
29. I often disagree with Bishop Spong, but sometimes I do agree with him.
30. I like Bishop Spong way more than Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll.
31. I think the truth is embodied in a composite of Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Please comment, challenge me, and share your own lists of where you're at!

Hope for Forgotten Prisoners

This year, there were at least two prisoners who caught our attention in the media: Troy Davis and Amanda Knox. Davis spent 20 years on death row for murder--a crime for which recent evidence strongly supported his innocence. Despite an Amnesty International petition signed by a million people worldwide to commute his sentence and other pleas by politicians, Davis was executed by lethal injection in September. "I know you're still convinced [of my guilt]... but I am innocent... I am so sorry for your loss. I really am," he said to the victim's family in his final words.

Then there was American student Amanda Knox from Seattle, held for four years in Italy on murder charges and finally found innocent and released on appeal last month. Knox, along with Raffaele Sollecito, was a victim of a miscarriage of justice by an Italian court. Despite their ordeal, compared to prisoners of conscience in corners of the world out of the spotlight, they were the lucky ones.

Today, hundreds of forgotten prisoners languish in detention, some in the most squalid conditions, for crimes they did not commit, and often for merely defending human rights. Because of the work of Amnesty International, there is hope for these prisoners. Next month, Amnesty is holding their Global Write for Rights initiative to get people involved to shine a light on these forgotten souls.
I helped organize two events last year and know from experience how effective they are. When you simply write a letter to a prisoner or a government official on behalf of a prisoner, a lost soul is encouraged, prison conditions improve, and sometimes the deluge of letters help to get people released. "I am alive today, after 34 arrests, because members of Amnesty International spoke out for me," said Jenni Williams, human rights defender in Zimbabwe. And there are many more successes.

I encourage you to get involved in a local write-a-thon (or just do it individually) and see how this small, strategic gesture--writing a handful of letters to several of the 14 cases highlighted this year--can help change the world and shine a light of hope to the oppressed. I'm helping to organize another event in Seattle with a local Amnesty chapter. Come join us.

Smart Aid to Somali Refugees

Finally. The humanitarian community is wising up when it comes to providing emergency food aid during famine or disaster. But, as usual, the United States is lagging behind.

I'm gathering information for my second book on innovative ways to change the world and erradicate global poverty. Microfinance is at the forefront with its microloans distributed to groups of poor entrepreneurs. When you add in the new products that microfinance institutions are providing today--agricultural loans, cell phone banking, and crop/funeral/health insurance--the future for your typical poor urban dweller or villager is hopeful. These programs are effective and are reaching more and more people.

But then there's food aid, an intervention that is notorious, believe it or not, for doing more harm than good. One, it's expensive (shipping halfway across the planet to remote areas); two, it takes weeks or months to arrive; three, it presents a security nightmare (stolen or sold on local markets); four, it's culturally inappropriate (why would an African want to eat American grain and why are foreigners distributing it?); and five, it hurts local economies. How can local farmers' produce compete with free or discounted food?

The better solution? Vouchers distributed by local NGOs. Seattle-based World Concern has designed a brilliant system to feed desparate victims of drought and famine in eastern Kenya and southern Somalia. In fact, most nations donating food aid are moving towards giving vouchers.

No surprise when you see the benefits. Food vouchers are faster, cheaper, more dignified for the needy, and don't harm the area's economy. In fact, they grow it. Regional farmers have a new market and local merchants have new business: distributing food to places like Dhobley, Somalia near the Dabaab refugee complex. A Somali NGO, the African Rescue Committee, determines who should get vouchers and distributes them. Needy families simply go shopping for their food in local markets. Shop owners accept vouchers knowing that, when they match up with duplicates, they receive a promissory note and eventual reimbursement to their bank account (electronic transfers from Nairobi of all things!). Unfortunately, US AID has not adopted this superior method of intervention. Why? Our motive isn't entirely pure. Our food aid is surplus crops the government buys to keep prices high for US producers.

Yet, this voucher and local-NGO-partnership idea is the kind of ingenuity poor people desperately need. And donors need to insist on it. We really shouldn't just be giving aid to people living in poverty, we should be giving effective aid--aid that uses innovation and smart alliances to build self-reliance and long-term development.

I welcome your comments. Look for more related posts as I continue my book research.

How Big is Your Spiritual Umbrella?

I'm a member of the Christian Universalist Association (CUA) and just read their latest newsletter. In it, Donne Hayden reported on the board's discussion on how large the CUA umbrella should be. I am really encouraged by some of their conclusions.

Answer: As big as it can be to cover any person who claims to be Christian and a Universalist. In other words, any "conservative" or "liberal" believer who fits the above would be included. This is a wise decision on their part because it is diametrically opposed to what evangelical and fundamentalist churches love to do: Draw boxes around doctrines and dogma and declare who is a true Christian and who is not. Typically, the doctrines include the many that are problematic when examined closely. Namely, biblical inerrancy and its literal authoritative nature, hell, the return of Christ, the end times, the institutional church, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and more. Even more moderate evangelical organizations have this tendency, such as World Vision, who recently won a lawsuit (and an appeal) brought against them by former employees they fired because one didn't subscribe to the deity of Christ and the other, the Trinity.

In my former life as an evangelical, I carried far too small an umbrella and adhered to a far too narrow statement of faith. Hayden cites Jonah as a biblical example of someone who had a small umbrella. But God's rebuke of him reveals God even includes His enemies in his cosmic umbrella, calling Ninevah to repent (not to a particular dogma, but of their violent ways) but even moreso, showing his care and concern for the most misguided people. How much more should we? I welcome your comments.

A New Spiritual Age

I recently read Harvey Cox's latest book, The Future of Faith, and took away a few nuggets of truth that are very encouraging. First, Cox divides the history of Christianity into three periods: the Age of Faith, the Age of Belief, and the Age of the Spirit. The Age of Faith was the two centuries after Christ, when followers embraced the Spirit and emulated Jesus in community. "Faith" is more accurately translated "trust," as this period was not about doctrine but trusting a new way of relating to God through Jesus.

The Age of Belief--which includes the dark ages--is from the time of Constantine to the 20th century. During this period the focus was on what one believed--either orthodox dogma and creeds or heresies--rather than trust in Christ. Some of this period is still going on within fundamentalism and literalist evangelicals as they dig in their heels around various traditional views. For example, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll told his flock not to read The Shack because it promoted unbiblical ideas. I'm not sure why he didn't encourage people to read it and decide for themselves. This "Age of Belief" mindset puts more emphasis on what one believes rather than on how one acts in terms of loving others and living like Jesus did. Notice how a conservative blog portrays and endorses Driscoll and how many times "heretical" and "false teaching" are mentioned. "Age of Belief" people will find it difficult to admit that The Shack might have some redeeming value, even if they disagree with some of it.

The Age of the Spirit, Cox argues, has begun and will continue to emerge as new paradigms replace fundamentalist and literalist thinking and as the number of non-Western Christians grow. This Age is also a renewal of the initial Age of Faith (Trust), as focus isn't on the details of what one believes, but how one is led by the Spirit of love (Not that what one believes is irrelevant, but it is secondary to love). I have seen this trend, especially in the last ten years, and trust Cox is correct. The Age of the Spirit is here to stay.

Why the Christian Right Should Support Gay Marriage

(Even Though They Believe It's a Sin)

Conservative churches need to do everything they can to reconcile with the LGBT community. I have written about the paradigm shift that needs to take place for this to happen and how it occurred in my evolution from conservative to progressive believer. Interestingly, until yesterday, I thought the only argument to present to my evangelical friends in favor of a reconciliation, which in my mind should include acceptance of gay marriage, was to show that the traditional Biblical basis for rejecting all homosexual behavior is flat-out wrong. This is still a good strategy, because the case is so strong that those "clobber" passages have been mistranslated and misinterpreted and that the NT law of love prevails in such cases. One can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian.

But wonders never cease. Misty Irons, a young mother, seminary graduate, and conservative Christian, has made a brilliant case that conservatives should support civil same-sex marriage, even though they believe it's a sin. How can this be? Irons says it's simply an issue of civil liberties and supporting such liberties is always to the church's advantage.

Think about it. Even the Christian Right always argues for religious liberty and concedes that people like Buddhists and New Agers should have a right to practice their religion, even though they would call it an idolatrous practice (I would add they do this in countless ways, e.g. not calling for a legal ban on pre-marital sex even though they call it a sin). The reason is simple. To protect their own religious liberty, the church supports the liberties of others they disagree with. This is the American way, after all. So, why not support the liberty of the LGBT community on the gay marriage issue?

You must read Iron's rationale, which is really quite good. She says the church should allow homosexuals the right of same-sex secular marriage to affirm their civil liberties, but still have the right to keep the conservative church's religious marriage homosexual free. She doesn't concede that there are progressive churches that would choose to accept homosexual religious marriage, but then again, her audience here is conservative Christians.

I was pleasantly surprised to see her logic and candor. Of course, as to be expected the conservative church is not taking up her recommendation. In fact, her own church forced her and her husband to leave their denomination as a result of her plea. Not surprising. But also take note she is a speaker at the Gay Christian Network conference next January. Way to go, Misty. And thank you for your insight and showing me I have another tool in my arsenal with which to challenge my evangelical friends on this issue.

The Root of the Anti-Gay Church

The source of anti-gay homophobia in the church is the Christian worldview that buys into incoherent biblicisim. It's the view that the Bible is God's Word and the literal exclusive authority for Christian faith and practice. It claims the Bible is (1), inerrant, (2), self-sufficient, (3), self-evident in its meaning, (4), internally consistent, and (5), universally applicable. These are the root of a host of misguided theologies in mostly conservative churches, not the least of which is the anti-gay rhetoric and "ministries" that attempt, in the name of God, to de-gay GLBT people.

But as Christian Smith argues in his new book, The Bible Made Impossible, this worldview is indefensible. In light of logic, the Bible's own assertions, and the historical/cultural context of its writings, none of these five claims hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, the many theologies associated with this brand of biblicism (in addition to the attack on gays are the "end times," idolizing the institutional church, and making moralism superior to love) are false.

A more sensible way of looking at the Bible can still uphold much of it as inspired by God and holding a type of authority. However, this alternate way recognizes much of what it asserts was never meant to be universally applied as a set of behavior codes but is culturally or historically conditioned. Moreover, many of its proclamations are misinterpreted or mistranslated due to the misguided assumption that the divine word is always self evident.

In the case of religious conservatives, a handful of passages are used to condemn all homosexual behavior while ignoring the cultural evidence that biblical writers were addressing unique sexual sins, such as cultic prostitution, pederasty, and exploitation; also ignored is the New Testament powerful theme that all things are lawful as long as no harm is done to one's neighbor and love rules.

I trace my own personal evolution from evangelical narrow biblicist to progressive believer, and particularly my transformation from an anti-gay to a pro-gay position, in my forthcoming book Confessions of a Bible Thumper. As I was sincere and well meaning in my views, so are today's religious conservatives. The path to understanding is wrought with psychological and theological struggles. Activists should challenge prevailing narrow views on homosexuality, but should also be aware how entrenched this worldview root is.

I welcome your thoughts and comments!

Why Rick Perry Makes Me Nervous

I have to admit, Rick Perry's rise to prominence among Republican presidential candidates, shortly after he convened a prayer meeting (The Response patterned after The Call), makes me nervous. Why? It has to do with his close alliance with the theology, ministries, and at least one former pastor of mine on the evangelical Christian Right.

On the surface, Perry has remarkably diverse political positions. While maintaining conservative credentials, he has called for a quick exit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, college financial assistance for children of illegal immigrants in Texas, and once used an executive order to create a mandatory HPV vaccine program for schoolgirls to fight cervical cancer. These are some of the reasons he has been attacked by other Republicans at the debates. He's doesn't fit neatly into their box. That part is good.

On the other hand, in other ways, he does fit the conservative bill. He scoffs at global warming, claims there are holes in the theory of evolution, and has a disdain and distrust of big government. Yet, these aren't the reasons I'm nervous. You see, I'd agree there are problems with orthodox Darwinian evolution (but support other unorthodox evolutionary theories) and have no problem with the "concept" of limited government, albeit I disagree with most conservatives on where to draw the line.

No, the reason I'm nervous is Perry (and Michelle Bachman for that matter) still buys into the popular evangelical fairy-tale notion that America is a Christian nation the roots of which we must return, or else. His kick-off prayer meeting was part political ploy and part rallying cry for true believers. By quoting strategically selected scripture (Joel 2), he told the audience, and the whole conservative evangelical movement, that he's one of them--one who, in the context of the OT prophet Joel, is calling our nation to repent of our sins (think gay and abortion rights) and return to the Lord. At Falwell's Liberty University, Perry said "America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is gonna be, whose values? It's those Christian values that this country was based upon." Never mind that's not exactly true. We're equally based on Enlightenment values and some of the "Christian" values of our early history were detestable.

But what makes me really nervous is how Perry and the religious right and my old pastor Lou Engle (of The Call) define "Christian values." It's an extremely narrow, black-and-white view of Christ that I am all too familiar with, having spent almost 25 years in this movement. It's a view that ignores huge swaths of Christ's teachings. One that promotes OT law over NT grace (think Perry's pride at the 200+ executions in his state), militaristic solutions over non-violent alternatives, criminalization of homosexuality, protection of the rich from equitable tax increases, literalistic biblicism, and control (influence at the very least and dominion at worst) of government and major sectors of society. Some very devoted Christians would say these aren't Jesus' values at all.

These evangelical pseudo "Christian" values consider anyone outside the conservative fold as part and parcel of the enemy in a world of "spiritual warfare." It can't recognize that God works outside the institutional evangelical church/parachurch, reveals himself to people of other religions, and our current President, although obviously not perfect, is a devoted follower of Christ and might actually have some Christian values of his own!

What makes me nervous is not the Christian values, but the inconsistency in claiming them--the narrow mindset--and how it negatively affects public policy.

Does Jesus Need Saving?

Yes, according to the Saving Jesus Redux DVD I recently purchased. "Kidnapped by the Christian Right, discarded by the Secular Left, Jesus needs saving." I'm enjoying the host of theologians that explore a more credible Christ for the 21st century and yes, I give a hearty "amen" to the program's premise.

In my experience within evangelicalism, the Christ of the scriptures (and of the original first century gatherings of followers), although honored as Lord in evangelical churches, was routinely used to espouse political, social, and "moral" positions that today I find are foreign to the gospel message. Pushing church hierarchy and programs, mandatory doctrines, acceptable behavior codes, and devotional rituals come to mind. As does condemning gays and lesbians, worshiping the Bible, preaching exclusive salvation, and twisting scripture to create a "last days" mentality that assumes we are on the cusp of the "end" with the world going to pot. These attitudes provoked an "us vs. them" approach to life and society that can be seen in religious right personalities today, including some of the leading Republican candidates (think Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman) and their supporters who come across like only their brand of Jesus is authentic.

On the other end, are secularists who mock all faith and ignore Jesus as an irrelevant religious teacher of a bygone era who has no claim on modern society. It appears they haven't twisted scripture, but have discounted Christ's teaching based on those who have.

This set of discussions on DVD is more evidence for the new trend that Harvey Cox explains as the Age of the Spirit--a movement where traditional Christianity is giving way to more grassroots and organic communities of faith (rather than institutions) who take Jesus seriously, respect biblical scholarship and historical evidence, and focus on the inclusive message of the good news, particularly that love, not religious law, is paramount. Yes, Jesus, and his teaching, need saving. Listen to Saving Jesus and see how you can help with the rescue.

Church on Tap!

I meet with a group of progressive Christians at a restaurant or pub from time to time to discuss spirituality. You never know who is going to show up! Last week, eight people came, representing a continuum from conservative evangelical to avowed atheist and everything in between. My friend Jonathan, said, "I live for this kind of discussion!"

These type of meet ups are critical to build bridges in the religious community. No one is trying to convert the other and everyone's perspective is respected, although also occasionally challenged in good faith. These meetings are foreign to my days in my evangelical enclave, where people were content to build an alternate moralistic universe (where everyone basically believes the same way) to protect themselves from the "world."

So during the conversation, a guy name James announces, "I go to a Foursquare church and wanted to get outside the walls, so started Church on Tap. Our group gets together at a different microbrewery every month to encourage each other and share our love for good brew."

If you know about my new book, you'll know both of these meetings sound familiar. At the end of each chapter, which deals with a hot-topic issue, friends and I discuss it over a couple of microbrews. I believe these types of organic groups are key to the future of Christianity and a way of building bridges with others of various spiritual stripes. Meeting at microbreweries is just one of a myriad of ideas. The important thing is to get outside (and in some cases, out from under) the church structure.

Our progressive Seattle Meetup and Church on Tap are good examples of an emerging trend. I'll drink to that! Will you join me?

Water, Hope, and Life out of Death: The Story of Rachel Beckwith

How could a tragic car accident that killed a nine-year-old girl this month have a silver lining? Because of Rachel Beckwith's one act of compassion before she died. Just a month earlier, she had requested people not buy her birthday gifts but rather make a donation to an international agency called Charity: Water--an organization that brings clean and safe drinking water to the poor in developing nations. Her goal was to raise $300. When the community heard of her death and commitment to help, an outpouring of support flooded Charity: Water. By this week, $200,000 has been raised. It's likely her $300 wish will turn into $300,000! Maybe more.

Charity: Water is not just pouring money into projects with little long-term impact. They are committed to sustainability, which means building community ownership, partnering with local organizations, and designing an ongoing maintenance program for their projects, which include wells, protected springs, and rainwater catchments. May more of us help make Rachel's dream come true and honor her short-but-meaningful life by participating in this effort to empower the poor.

Review of Julie Ferwerda's Raising Hell

Here's my review of Julie Ferwerda's new book on Amazon.com:

Finally, permission to think for ourselves!

For too long most Christians have been told the Bible they hold in their hands is inerrant, miraculously preserved, and its pronouncements should be accepted without question. Any doubts about the Bible's major teachings are interpreted as "liberal" bias or "heresy." Julie Ferwerda, in Raising Hell: Christianity's Most Controversial Doctrine Put Under Fire, reveals why these assumptions are grossly misplaced.

On the issue of hell, Julie brilliantly weaves the case for believers to think for themselves and honestly investigate this controversial doctrine. One that, for many of us, clashes with our sense of reason and experience with God's love. If you have a high view of scripture and you've ever openly (or secretly) questioned the concept of eternal conscious punishment, this book is a must read. It traces Julie's sincere quest for biblically affirming answers about the afterlife based on objective scholarship.

Our modern Bible is the product of centuries of institutional and theological interpretations that may or may not be accurate. What Julie does is show us how important it is to understand what a Bible passage originally meant. If we don't, we are not honoring the Bible but dishonoring it. Julie's conclusion is the modern church, through mistranslations and misinterpretations, reads hell into the Bible, rather than derives it from the original meaning. When we read the Bible with a "Hebrew lens," we discover the modern concept of hell is foreign, she says. As she clearly argues, she's not the first person to come to this conclusion. The notion of everlasting torment was not a widely held view for centuries--including among early Church fathers--until the Western (Catholic) Church took root.

Having taken the same journey as Julie's, I especially appreciate this courageously written book that helps readers think critically while maintaining their faith. Far from advocating an easy believism, Julie's Christian Universalist take on the hereafter doesn't belittle God's judgment, but puts it into the context of a consistently loving God. Without an air of superiority (that some Universalists may have), Julie uses both heart and head to make her case. You will enjoy her personal vignettes and appreciate her in-depth biblical research (Part 4 alone, the Resources for sound Bible study are worth the price of admission). Whether you welcome such a message or find it unsettling, Julie will give you a smooth ride and let you come to your own conclusion.

Rob Bell's Hell

Looks like Rob Bell has stolen my thunder with his new book Love Wins and now front page coverage on Time Magazine. Well, good for him! Having only read the Time article and not the book (yet), I don't have full knowledge of his arguments, only that he is making the case for an alternative to the traditional understanding of hell--an evangelical-style Universalism. And a view I wholeheartedly endorse and defend in a chapter in my book.

What's fascinating to me is the reaction of the evangelical world. From John Piper tweeting "farewell Rob Bell," to the claim his arguments are out of context and ambiguous, to Amazon reviews that charge he made the flimsiest case or that claim “hell is essential to the gospel,” to David McDonald at The Ooze who makes the outrageous assertion that Bell is irresponsible for writing the book in the first place! “Rob Bell has deliberately chosen to expose the world to some of our ugliest flaws,” he says, referring to the reaction of the Religious Right. Are you kidding? Rob Bell is irresponsible because he knew how people would react to his book? Was Jesus irresponsible because he knew how the Religious Right of his day would react to his message?

Then there's McDonald's even more ridiculous assertion: “Rob Bell was also irresponsible in publishing this book this way because of what he did to everyday, ordinary pastors like me... Rob Bell has forced the rest of us to speak up about our own beliefs concerning the Final Judgment.” You can't be serious! Then McDonald goes on to admit he has rarely if ever taught on the subject for 15 years because he'd rather talk about the good news not the bad news.

Now let me get this straight. Rob Bell should have shut his trap about this subject because he's making us all look bad that we purposely avoid a large swath of scripture because we don't have the courage to address it head on. I'm sorry, David McDonald, and anyone who agrees with you, but Rob Bell is free. Free to preach on the whole biblical narrative and ask the tough questions to ascertain the truth. And you're free to avoid those questions. Just don't blame Rob Bell when you do.

I look forward to reading this book. From Amazon reviews, in my mind, it appears the book's only weakness is that it doesn't exegete the eternal punishment passages very well, nor back up the claim of Universalism in the early church with solid evidence. Perhaps an oversight by Bell, but hardly a reason to reject his case with the growing number of other books on the subject, e.g. The Inescapable Love of God, The Evangelical Universalist, and even a more conservative variety in Hope Beyond Hell (and the Universal Life chapter in my forthcoming book). Really, we ought to thank Rob Bell for being responsible and courageous to address difficult questions and be willing to rethink this problematic doctrine in light of the biblical and historical evidence.