missional thinking; truth or idol?

In reading Karl Heim’s wonderful book, Jesus the Lord, I was reminded about a little gem emanating from Luther’s very seminal mind. I must confess that apart from the last few years of his life, I really like Luther and find him the most compelling and passionate of the Reformers. I love his naturally existential and prophetic bent. Anyhow, Luther spent a lot of time pondering the nature of trust itself, and by extension, the objects in which we place our ultimate trust. In other words, he explores the nature of idolatry and true worship. I started a Master’s thesis once exploring the nature of idolatry and so these Luther’s reflections naturally resonated with me.

He says, “Man’s heart must have a god, i.e. something from which he expects comfort, something in which he trusts so that it may rejoice and play.” He says elsewhere “That in which your heart adheres, in which it trusts, actually is your god.” In referring to the objects of our trust, Luther is including about anything from ideas-in-themselves to more material things like money, wealth, physical strength, or of moral values, e.g. righteousness or wisdom. This necessity of building our lives on something, trusting in something, we can describe as the general religious orientation in the human heart. But this raises serious questions about of the object/s of our religious devotion–that in which we place our trust. But our sense of the abiding validity of these values or objects in which we place our trust are tested when we as responsible people have to carry out such an act of trust in practical life. And here’s the rub.

As soon as I act in reliance on a value, I discover that there are two possibilities. Either I have to make and keep this value valid by my own act of confidence, or this value is there as the sustaining foundation of my trust and exists entirely independent of my inventing or sustaining it by my devotion to it. In other words, according to Luther, that in which I trust is either a self-chosen object of faith to which I adhere, or I have found the ground which will hold my anchor forever, independent of my choice and action. Luther is clear on this, all objects of reliance apart from what we receive by the self-revelation of God are “our own fictitious thoughts and dreams” made into a god, and in the end have no foundation outside of themselves. The bible calls idols ‘vain’; in the end, they are ‘nothings’. Pretty black and white eh?

But the only way we can truly test the abiding validity of our ‘objects of trust’ is when we have to act consistent with them. For the one who has in a sense “invented” his/her values can be passionate about them (as is clear about all forms of idolatry) but that person has to generate a fair bit of passion when things happen around about them to challenge the truthfulness and viability of the idol. In other words, when ’shit happens’ and we turn to our idols to find validity, we soon discover them to be empty and vain–because they are merely our inventions and dreams made large by our inherent religious disposition.

On the other hand, if that in which we trust actually exists beyond myself whether I truly value it or not, then the object of trust remains even if only a heap of ashes is left of the fire of our enthusiasm and devotion. The idolater’s trust will fail when his/her devotion fails because the reality of the idol is an extension of human desire and thinking. It originates in the human; it is in a real sense our own creation. The idol requires our active devotion ‘to exist’, God does not; He exists apart from our devotion to him.

What’s this all got to do with this blog devoted to missional thinking? Well everything actually. Because unless our ideas about mission and missional church have validity arising from the revelation of God himself, then they are just idols and they will be sustained, and will only sustain us, only insofar that we give our energies to them. When our energies fail, the idol will fall. If however they are from God, then we don’t have to prop them up with our pathos, even through they ask for our commitment. They are true and exist apart from my trust in them. What I love about missional thinking is that it does arise from the very being of God…the fact that God is himself a missionary (what theologians have called the Missio Dei.) Along with this it is informed and shaped deeply by the Incarnation of God in Jesus, and takes its agenda from the Kingdom of God. We stand, at least as far as I can determine, on truly solid ground–we stand on the revelation of God himself.

March 19, 2007 | Filed Under theologia, wisdom |

Comments

21 Responses to “missional thinking; truth or idol?”

Steve Chatelier on March 19th, 2007 1:37 pm

Hey Alan
For me, this is so important. I have been thinking recently about the question that arises from the last section in Joshua: “whom will you serve?”
Reflecting on this, I have been writing about war. It occurred to me that, as Christians, we may often debate the validity of war from political standpoints. Yet, we must approach it from a theological position — which comes from “the revelation of God himself”.
It is the same for all of life, right? Our faith has something to say about all of life, yet we can get caught up in sociology (mission strategy), philosophy (abstract theology), science (?s re: how of creation) etc.
Of course, being able to engage on a political or scientific level is important. Being oblivious to these things helps no-one, but in the end we must begin with the right premise or we’ll end up at the wrong place.
Getting back to the mission focus of the blog…I believe that all these things - politics, science, sociology - relate to the mission of God. If we believe this, then we can begin to see advocacy as mission etc. Anyway, that’s enough from me!
bob roberts on March 19th, 2007 10:51 pm

Steve I love the way you think - Rock on baby -
Peggy on March 20th, 2007 8:29 am

The great thing that Apostolic Genius returns to the church is the wealth of diversity. The mission is confirmed as from God through the harmonious voices of all five components, with Jesus in the very center. Idolatry comes when Jesus is no longer the center and the voices of any of the components are excluded.

The Gregorian chant is hauntingly beautiful not because there is only melody and no harmony, but in the challenging blending of the different voices into a full, rich, resonant unity…they are, together, one voice. But the beauty of the multi-part harmony is not less difficult or beautiful, it is just different. The balance required so that one voice does not overpower another voices is critical…and the importance of not drowning out the melody is key.

Jesus is the melody in this tune…whether we chant in unison or add harmonies. And heavenly music he is, that soothes the savage beast…
Ralph Harris on March 20th, 2007 8:48 am

Having come through a fair bit of “doing a good thing for God,” only to see it fall, I’m thankful for your blog today.
We try so hard to do something for God, and that passion and focus sometimes becomes more of the cause that calls us than God Himself. What catches me are questions like the following: “What is the Spirit thinking or feeling about me right now?” or “What did I hear Him say this morning?” or “How do I know I am right now in step with the Spirit?”
Questions like these are sometimes bothersome speed bumps in the way of my race, but they restore me to that only thing that works—Christ in me.
Knowing Him is the only really safe passion I have!
Celtic Son on March 20th, 2007 4:25 pm

I’m interested in the conclusion of your thesis Alan, how did you define the nature of idolatry in the end?

While it is appropriate to ascribe to Luther, and other Reformers, the epithet “seminal,” in view of their enormous contribution to Christianity, we are also historically placed to be aware of limitations in areas of their thinking and teaching – as, no doubt, future generations will of ours. I am cautious about using quotes from prior contexts, without specific re-contextualisation – this is a core issue for our understanding and discussion of Scripture, the patristic writings, Reformers etc.

It is interesting that Steve raises Joshua’s question “whom will you serve” and that we note the question is not “what will you do?” Missional discussion can tend to relate to what we do rather than whom we relate to… The right premise for discussion of science, philosophy etc is from the perspective of relationship with/in God. When we understand our relationship then we operate as missional advocates – we accept responsibility to act as stewards on God’s behalf – rather than just venturing our own opinion or concurring with the latest trends.

The statements you quote from Luther are good, but with a lack of context their usefulness is limited – there is space in the human heart for several levels of loving relationship and they don’t all constitute idolatry. Christ calls us to love God and love people; God loves people. Trust is also part of the package in relating to people as well as to God; so simplistically considering something that we trust to be an idol is an inadequate definition – we need a clearer definition of “trust” – I trust the seat I’m sitting on to hold my weight etc etc.

Considering “objects of trust” as idolatry is also an interesting perspective on the Reformers. Some of them concluded that, to avoid idolatry, we should not have objects of religious devotion at all, that our attention should be focused solely on God. I suspect in all of these situations it is really a matter of perspective. Personally, overall I find the Reformers harsh and judgemental – there are moments of light – and I thanks God Mrs Luther was a beer brewer!

I agree with Ralph that it is vital to check that the good thing we are doing, is in step with the God we think we are doing it for… Rather than just speed bumps along the way, the questions he raises are necessary to build frameworks of relationship that we live within and subsequently act out of…

The example of relying on our idols (or our God) when “shit happens,” again is only partly helpful, without context. At times we can end up that particular creek because we’ve been ignoring signs for a long time along the way, sometimes we just ignored the last sign and took a wrong turn, sometimes it is simply that we have got caught up in the outflow of the sewerage pipe of life, in a community that doesn’t heed God etc. The reason that we’re up the creek without a paddle, has a significant impact on how we respond. Rather than testing out the abiding validity of our objects of trust by acting on them – we can apply a modicum of self control and submit them to God first and to the community of God’s people, redefining them in relationship with our Father. Rather than just basing our decisions on the experience of the consequence of our actions – according to Genesis 3 that’s what placed us in the boat, up the creek, in the first place.

I agree with Peggy that the concept of Apostolic Genius does create space for a wealth of diversity and is a great blessing. It brings a reflection, in the variety of aspects of community that we need to engage with, to refine our image of the creative God, who is the source of all authentic creativity. The Gregorian chant is indeed a hauntingly beautiful example, of the unity required to engage our diversity, in reflection of imago Dei – which as you note has Jesus as the melody in the tune.

I whole heartedly agree that the authentically missional has validity, arising from the revelation of God themself and continue in my pursuit of imago Dei, understanding authentic relationality as the source of missionality. It’s not so much that we stand on the revelation of God as we are included IN the relationality of the Godhead… but then that’s a whole other story.

Beannachd Dia dhuit

A Celtic Son
Peggy on March 21st, 2007 3:52 am

For years my dad sat on the steps at the front of the auditorium/sanctuary and talked with the children just before his sermon. I always considered it a head start for the adults, using the kids as a cover…so now, if you’re bear with me, I’d like to offer you a moment of reflection with a Children’s Missional Moment.

I have been reading through the Bible with my young sons…we’re just about finished with Joshua. Yes, that means we just finished with Deuteronomy…and Numbers…challenging text to read to 6, 8 and 11 year old boys! But the great thing about reading and discussing so that young children grasp what God is on about is the patterns that we see emerge…which my sons “observe” with the comment: “why does God keep saying the same thing over and over?” To which I reply: “he is reminding them (and us) because we tend to forget stuff.”

The “reminder” we keep coming back to discussing in my house is the whole problem with Israel “getting fat” and then “forgetting God” and then “turning to idols.” We see again and again the story of a God who wants us to join with him in his mission. He doesn’t “need” our strength or creativity, but he is so happy to use all that we are and all that we have to offer…to do what he wants–the way he wants it done. When that actually happens, we see that there is nothing that can thwart God’s plans and we do not need to fear anything when we are following his instructions. And things turn out even better than we could have imagined!

But when we step out on our own, problems strike. Especially poignant is the story of Moses…the unique face-to-face friend of God…who was fed up with whining of the rebellious Israelite “sheep” and strikes the rock dramatically, asking “Must we bring forth water from this rock???”

BOOM! Moses forgot who was bringing water from that rock (and that speaking to the rock was all that was required). And, regardless of their closeness, God explained that Moses had stepped over the line…and would not step foot in the Promised Land. The text later goes so far as to say that Moses was 120 years old and as strong as ever when God laid him down to rest and buried him. Our God is jealous for his honor and will not have it taken by, or given to, another. Here we still are, needing that reminder…

Of course, now we’re almost through Joshua…and the boys are shocked that some of the tribes of Israel were not able to drive out some of the inhabitants of the land. My 8 year old observed, “They must not have asked God what they were supposed to do.” Wait till they see the results down the line from intermarrying, etc…

Any good thing, engaged in without proper restraint or outlet, will result in “getting fat.” And spiritual obesity results in “resting on our laurals” (because we’re too fat and satisfied to get up and do the work anymore?) And when we’re resting on our laurals, we have stopped “asking God what we’re supposed to do.” And if we’re no longer interested in what God is doing and our part in it, we must be interested in something else. And if we’re interested in something other than joining God in his mission,
we are in danger of idolatry…because we’re serving something/someone other than God.

This reading through the Books of the Law has been fascinating with the context of TFW…as I see the whole Moses/Joshua story line as basically one of liminality and communitas.

And the story we find ourselves in, today, is another one of limiality and communitas. Only we’re not pubescent kids abandoned in the jungle to survive…and we’re not Israelites wandering in the wilderness with Moses, either…we’re Royal Sons and Daughters on a daring mission with our Captain and King, to establish his kingdom and take back all the land held captive. But, unlike Joshua (or Aragorn ), we are ambassadors of peace and love and life, sent to infiltrate and redeem and transform cultures rather than destroy them.

No one is to be getting fat and idolatrous here…and so we are about cinching up our belts like that band of brave Hobbits, and forgetting about 11 meals a day, seeing that there is more to Middle Earth than the Shire, learning to trust our Captain more and more every day, and finding that we are no longer in our “tweens” but are growing up in and like Christ–with some scars to prove it.

Thanks for the therapy of the day…love you all!
Joe Cross on March 21st, 2007 11:05 am

I love it Alan. Thanks for keeping our eyes focused on the center of missions.
Celtic Son on March 22nd, 2007 11:41 am

Love your thinking PeggyBrown.

Thanks also for the example of your Dad’s missional approach to children, passing from generation to generation, through you to your sons - it is a beautiful thing.

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Matt Stone on March 22nd, 2007 8:32 pm

Alan. You might find this quote by Albert Nolan of interest. http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2005/08/the_image_of_go.html

It’s a favourite of mine and along very similar lines to this one by Luther.

As an aside, I worry about the ‘church’ becoming an idol and in the past have written of ‘the golden church’ in a similar vein to the golden calf of exodus. As you say, we need to keep it all in right perspective.
Stu on April 6th, 2007 10:38 pm

Hi,

This is off the track of your post but I wanted to able to ask you this theological question regarding your missiology. Hope you don’t mind.

Your missiology is framed in a very positive light, as it should be. But you seem to say very little, if anything, about ‘hell’ as part of your eschatology as a potential motivator for mission. What is your theology of hell? And does it play any part in your missiology? If so, how come it hasn’t featured in either of your recent publications?

I know that ‘hell’ ought not to take the lime-light of a missiology, although it does with many evangelicals, but you are silent on the matter. Can you shed some light on your views on this?

BLessings
Janet on April 7th, 2007 11:31 am

The fact we are commanded to go into the world and make disciples should be all the “motivation” required. If we call Jesus Lord, we obey what He commands. End of story. We can stop calling Him Lord if obedience is an optional extra.

However… it’s clear there is plenty of stories and images in the scriptures about judgment.

It does appear judgment isn’t just one thing if we put all these scriptures alongside one another… eg Matthew 25 seems to be a judgment based on people’s works… I Corinthians 3:11 - 15 talks about a foundation on Jesus but reward based on “quality of work”… Revelation 22:14 - 15 talk about those “shut out” from the holy city and the tree of life because of immorality… then there’s the confronting words in Matthew 7 about those who are believers: 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

And so on… there’s lots of parables and passages about judgment. I don’t think judgment is just one thing… but I’d be interested in the input of greater theological minds than I!
Janet on April 7th, 2007 1:18 pm

Thought I might add… I had an evangelical upbringing that made this a really simple issue… if you confessed Jesus as Lord with your lips and asked him into your heart, you were going to heaven… if not, hell, end of story.

I recall the Christian group at my school showing the movie “Thief in the Night” (the 70’s version of “Left Behind”… showing my age!) and lots of scared kids “prayed the prayer”… but they did not become disciples! Did it mean anything, really?

The scriptures seem to paint a far more complex picture of judgment than the version I grew up with… Jesus teaching seems to base judgment on obedience to His words… Paul reflects on the role of salvation by grace through faith… James reflects that faith without works is dead… Revelation emphasises confession and faithfulness under trial etc.

Because it’s complex and Christians have different views on this, I do think a potential problem in articulating a clear view is that you can alienate a whole slice of the Christian community who might be otherwise willing to engage with your ideas about missional church. (If you challenge a narrow evangelical view, you end up being labelled a liberal by all the conservatives, and if you embrace a narrow evangelical view, you end up being labelled a fundamentalist by anyone slightly left of centre.)

Gosh… that does sound like a politician’s answer! Just because I think it’s a more complex question than my upbringing led me to believe.

But if you’d like to dig up all the scriptures on judgment Stu (biblegateway.com is a good start) and let me know what you think, I’d be really interested.
Peggy on April 7th, 2007 3:18 pm

Well said, Janet! Some things are difficult to nail down…because they’re difficult to nail down! And, oh how we like to have everything in neat little boxes!

I would say that we don’t have much to say about hell because we don’t really know all that much “definitively” about this consequence–except that it is a consequence! But, to me, it is basically a non-issue.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat…being a non-issue isn’t saying that it isn’t important. It is saying that there are many more important things to know and do.

Whatever hell is, it is associated with the judgment of covenant-breakers–those who were not faithful, who did not persevere, who did not obey (actually DO) what Christ commanded, who neglected the fellowship of the Body, who divided the Body, who did not love each other…THOSE are the issues!

Scaring people out of hell doesn’t get them to heaven, as Janet observed. Those who are “scared out of hell” remind me of the seed that was sowed in the rocky soil or among the weeds. They might spring up, but they are either scorched because of lack of deep roots or they are choked out by the cares of the world. Only the seed sowed in good soil grew and produced seed. And it is in the production of seed that we need to focus.

So, go for it, Stu…study is always a good thing and it frequently leads unexpected places. We’ll stay tuned…

Be blessed,
Stu on April 8th, 2007 3:43 am

Hi Janet & Peggy,

It sounds like we very much agree. I have very little to add to your comments. But let me just explain why I asked the question initially. I think that you have misunderstood my motivation in this.

I have had some conversations recently with friends who are involved in missional communities. I asked some probing questions about ‘no go’ areas of theology, like different views on hell to those you and I grew up with. It turned out that what is driving some of these people was ultimately a very conservative doctrine of hell, not the positive missional emphasis that Alan Hirsch writes about in his books, despite the fact my friends agree with Hirsch theologically.

I feel like I have to ask evangelicals who are a part of the emergent movement (whatever that is) about this to see if a scary doctrine of hell lies behind their missiology or not as well. I’m interested if some of our emergent theologians are simply hiding this critical motivator of mission or not by not being expicit in their books.

I actually agree with you on most of your points. But, you must deal with biblical voices that say, “The one who belives and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mk.16.16); The first 2 chps of 2 Thess. must be addressed as well, as these are the strongest defence of a traditional view of ‘hell’ per se.

If you want to theologically engage over what hell is, its nature, what condemnation and judgement is, grand. That’s a whole other ball game. But my motivation for asking the question is coming from a point of view that your response didn’t know about.

I simply want to know if emergent theologians are simply overlooking the tough stuff in scripture about hell as a motivation for mission or not?

Blessings,
Stuart
Peggy on April 8th, 2007 8:32 am

Well…I must admit to being a bit confused, Stuart. I need a clearer description of exactly what is this “scary doctrine of hell (which) lies behind their missiology” before I can even formulate a response to your question.

I will, however, repeat something I know I’ve said somewhere in the threads of this blog, because I believe it is important context:

The audience for the vast majority of Jesus’ comments (in the Gospels) were Jews…some of whom were waiting for a Messiah who was very different from the one God sent in Jesus. Jesus, following John, was calling in the faithful remnant of God’s people as he was preparing to introduce the New Covenant that the prophets had spoken about for so long.

The faithful Jews were often rather quick in recognizing Jesus. The Old Covenant/Mosaic Law covenant-breakers among the Jews–both common men and those in leadership–were equally quick to be outraged at what Jesus had to say–and to condemn him. Many other Jews didn’t really get the picture until after the New Covenant was “signed, sealed and delivered” in Christ’s blood on the cross…and his triumphant victory over death at the resurrection…and his return to Heaven in order to send the Holy Spirit. To these Old Covenant people, the message was frequently one of a threat of “hell” as another image of “being cut off” as the deadly consequence of breaking covenant. Like Johh, it was a call to repentence.

In the rest of the New Testament we find both Jews and Gentiles in the audience. The approach Paul (and others) frequently took with pre-Christian Gentiles spoke little of “hell” because this would not be particularly meaningful to them. So, the early evangelists looked for ways to identify the God who was there-but-unrecognized. And many were glad to know and embrace him in and through Jesus the Christ.

Then there are those texts which speak, sadly, to the New Covenant’s covenant-breakers among the churches. Here we again hear of the terribly dire consequences of rejecting the claims of Jesus and not being obedient to his commands.

However, the many covenant-breaking NT verses just don’t apply to pre- or non-covenant people. Now, these people, if they are not grafted into Jesus, the True Vine, will be left out of heaven–because there truly is no other way to the Father than through the Son. But this “Hammer of Hell” is not necessarily the most effective manner of offering God’s amazing grace to those who are estranged from their Creator!

A true seeker is usually more responsive to a “carrot” than a “stick.” I am reminded of Jesus’ words: “those who have been forgiven much, love much…those who have been forgiven little, love little.” In my own experience (so this will probably be a gross generalication), those who breathe “hell-fire” have little love and little grace because they either have not made any really poor decisions (yet) or they are in denial about their condition. An approach to God offered through a humble and broken and forgiven servant is much more full of grace and love.

The message God has asked us to spread is one, first and foremost, of love and forgiveness. We certainly don’t hide the consequences of choosing poorly, but we don’t want to use fear to hijack the priority of God’s message of love, either. God’s love is not coersive, but winsome. Perfect love casts out fear…it doesn’t use it as it primary tool of reconciliation!

I certainly don’t overlook the tough stuff in scripture about hell…but I do find that it is more helpful to be sure to check for proper context before I jump in and apply scripture in ways that are not compatible.

Don’t mean to sound like I’m venting or over-stating the case…just trying to cover the full spectrom of my view. I look forward to hearing your specific description of your context.

Be blessed,
Janet on April 8th, 2007 10:42 am

On this issue (a bit out of context, but never mind) I echo the sentiments of Paul:

“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Personally I think a strength of Al’s writings is that he doesn’t pick unnecessary theological battles… TFW is accessible to people who have a spectrum of views about the nature of judgment (which reflects some of the complexity in the bible itself IMO).

Do you think it’s a battle worth picking? Do we have to all think the same on “non core” issues?
Peggy on April 8th, 2007 12:57 pm

I sure don’t want anyone to think I’m picking a battle here…just trying to understand the precise issue Stuart is raising.

So, Janet…back to my comment #13 and the whole “non-issue” point. I’m certainly an “in opinion, liberty” girl!
Janet on April 9th, 2007 11:10 am

Hello again Peggy.

I actually didn’t think you were picking a battle… it’s an interesting issue to tease out. My point was more in relation to Stu’s comments re. published works:

“I’m interested if some of our emergent theologians are simply hiding this critical motivator of mission or not by not being expicit in their books.”

I can’t speak for Al or any other emerging church writers… I’m simply saying there can be good reasons for NOT laying all your theological cards on the table in one book… partly because it can end up too long, partly because you can alienate some Christians unnecessarily. Christian do (alas) have a strong tradition of picking sometimes bitter battles based on points of doctrine, even when we agree with 99.9 % of what another person believes. Seems crazy to me.

I posted the following comments over at Signposts recently in relation to Brian McLaren, which seem pertinent here. I did this in response to someone who claimed Brian “often seems to be intentionally vague”

I’ve been thinking about that… you know, Jesus was too. He spoke in parables to the crowds that most people didn’t understand. He did so for very good reasons.

Some people are intentionally vague because they actually know they’re not competent to answer a question (that’s like me teaching junior physics… I’m more of a biology/chemistry girl!).

Others are intentionally vague for good educational reasons (”I’ll make them do the work of connecting all the loose ends so they REALLY think this through”) or for political reasons (”In this room are people from reformed churches, pentecostal churches, liberal churches, evangelical churches… if I go too far down a particular theological track I’ll alienate at least one of these groups, and it’s not necessary”) or for pastoral reasons (”these people are likely to be at very different stages of faith development, and it will be very unhelpful for some to be critical in a particular issue… it may cause a faith crisis that simply doesn’t need to occur if I choose my words with some care”)

In summary… I have no real problem with a writer not being explicit about everything. Still… there’s probably a book on God’s judgment begging to be written by any budding theologians out there!

As an aside… I have found people with a strong gift of evangelism often do have a strong consciousness of the “lostness of the lost”… it’s like God has burned this truth deep into them. Has anyone else noticed this?
Stu on April 10th, 2007 10:31 pm

Peggy & Janet,

I resonate with pretty much everything you’ve outlined in your responses. I in no way intend to be rude. I certainly can say that. I have been interested in your responses, but I ultimately do want to hear Alan’s response in particular since I’ve had the time to read his missiology in some detail over the past 2 books.

Are you away AL or are you dodging the original question?

Blessings to you Janet and Peggy.
Alan Hirsch on April 10th, 2007 10:58 pm

Stu, I don’t mention hell because as you mention it probably doesn’t feature a lot in my thinking bro. Partly because while I believe in the reality of hell, I have to admit that I don’t take well to the concept of a place where human beings are put in some sort of cosmic rubbish dump. Its a painful thing and I believe all of us should feel the sheer tragedy of it all. Anyhow, I think if I was writing about evangelism and the gospel proper, I would have to cover the topic, but because I deal with incarnational missiology, I get to avoid it. I know this answer probably won’t please you but I am just being honest.

BTW, I do find C.S. Lewis understanding of hell the most convincing (Great Divorce, etc. )
Stu on April 11th, 2007 9:14 pm

Cheers Al. Thanks for being honest. Just wondered about hell in your missiology that’s all. It’s rare to be able to dialogue with an author at all on any issue s/he’s written on.

Good call on Lewis’ theology of hell! I like it too!!

Blessings