If there is no hell

I've been contemplating this for the past few weeks, ever since an item appeared in The Province about a documentary by a professing Christian who claims there's no hell. Filmmaker Kevin Miller, whose doc is called "Hellbound?", is quoted as saying that the word "hell" isn't even in the Bible.

Well, on the principle that the way to disprove the statement that "all crows are black" is to find a white crow, the "white crow" in this case is in Matt. 5:22: "... whosoever shall say 'thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire."

Now, in the Bible, some words that are rendered in English as "hell" do not actually refer to the place of eternal punishment -- "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell", for example, actually refers to "Sheol", which Strong's Concordance defines as "the abode of the dead" rather than a place of eternal punishment (although that's listed as a definition, as well) -- but the "hell" Jesus refers to is, in fact, the fire-and-brimstone, abandon-all-hope, you're-not-getting-out "hell" that we've come to accept.

The Greek word is "Gehenna", which is basically a transliteration of the Hebrew "Hinnom". Strong's Concordance notes, "Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction."

(Remember, too, that when Jesus tells the parable of the beggar Lazarus, the rich man who rejected him in this world calls to Abraham from his vantage point in hell.)

So, the concept of hell as a place where the souls of people who are caught up in evil are sent to burn eternally is very much a part of Jesus' teaching, and since He is God in the flesh, we can be pretty sure this is the Word of God. With one deft stroke, we can see that this you is full of navel lint. Why bother any further?

There are a couple of reasons. One is that his idea seems to get some traction -- after all, it'd be oh-so-nice if the Bible was all about love thy neighbor and do under others as you would have them do unto you and everything is beautiful and don't worry about sin because God loves you so much He'll overlook it in the end. That's dangerous, because that's a lie.

Another reason is that this particular premise leads to the time-honored question, "How could a loving God ...?"

In this case, How could a loving God send sinners to hell? If He loves us (the thinking goes), why would He send some of us to hell? Ah, one can think, then the whole teaching of Christianity must be off-base. Miller says some Christian teaching is more about hell-avoidance than coming to Christ.

I couldn't agree more: I certainly didn't come to Christ because I wanted to avoid going to hell: I did so because I saw that was a better way than anything else I'd tried or heard of. But the concept of hell is very real to me, and avoiding it (or so I hope) is an added attraction, and particularly powerful when temptation starts prowling around, looking for an opening. After all, a truly loving human father still keeps the thought of punishment for disobedience in the background: just as there are rewards for doing good, the reminder of a punishment for doing bad is necessary.

Besides, the reason why hell is one of the foundations of Christianity is because, since God is a loving Father to us all, He needed to send Jesus to re-connect us with Him. If there were no hell, why would we need Jesus?

But let's get back to that idea that God sends people to hell. Here's an idea to put on the SkyTrain and see if it gets off at Metrotown: God does not send people to hell; He sends sin to hell. But if someone is clinging to that sin, they wind up going there, too. Jesus says, "every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up." (Matt. 15:13) And what happens to anything that is still hanging onto that plant? God has given us choice (because He loves us and wants His people to love Him not by coercion but by choice) and if we choose to hang onto that plant, we'll get cast out of His garden and tossed into that fire along with it.

Paul's list of people who go to hell -- 1 Cor. 6:9-10 -- is a list of people who choose to cling to sin rather that to Jesus. (Paul doesn't actually say they go to hell: he says they do not inherit the Kingdom of God; but since there is no "door number 3", that leaves only one other option.) But the Apostle also adds a note of encouragement after listing all of that: "And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

In other words, we all have gone through periods of clinging to sin but we found our way out through Jesus Christ; and we need to remember that when we deal with others.

That leads to another point about the concept of hell. It keeps those of us who have come to Christ from getting smug and self-righteous. Note that I said, above, that I "hoped" I had avoided hell by coming to Christ. What I mean by that is that I hope I'm not missing something in my walk: I'm grateful for the Grace God has extended to me, and I don't ever want to take it for granted. I'm ever aware that I don't deserve the blessing God has poured onto my life, especially since I came to Him.

One of the sad things about all this is the way that people tend to embrace the "Grace without sin" doctrine. People want to feel better about themselves without actually tackling the stuff that's put them in that space. Maybe it's because they believe that their issues will be too big and complex for them to deal with. And they're right. But that's why we have Jesus. Just as there is no grace without sin and no healing without sickness, there can be no heaven without hell.

If life means hope, what's wrong with Kaffeblubben Sø?

A few year ago, when I was working through one of the earlier iterations of A Very Convenient Truth, I read with disdain the words of a maritime lawyer, who opined that global warming would actually be good for commerce, since it would open up the Northwest Passage to shipping and allow for quicker routes between world markets.

Well, that was then - this is now; and while looking at the economic benefits of something that others are bemoaning doesn't quite seem right to me, I'm also less inclined to look at something like global warming/climate change as the "disasters" that many others say it is.

Recently, CBC Radio's science program, Quirks and Quarks, looked at the latest discoveries about the Kaffeblubben Sø -- the world's most northern lake (it's in Greenland). As New Scientist notes in its article about the same research, the lake, which has been pretty much frozen solid for thousands of years, is now showing signs of life. Algae are multiplying again, after being dormant for all that time. While algae bloom has generally been associated with pollution from human sources, the scientists looking at Kaf-etc. have determined that this change is solely to do with global warming.

Global warming, in other words, has brought life back to a place that was virtually barren for millennia.

This, of course, is bad news, according to Geology magazine.

Wait a sec'. How is the appearance of life bad news? I'm not talking about cases where an invasive species like zebra mussels or snakehead fish have been introduced artificially: I'm talking about a situation where conditions have changed to allow life forms to flourish where there had been nothing before.

The boffins with the Geological Society of America (publishers of Geology) point to this as a sign of how the Arctic is our "early warning system" about climate change, tipping us off about the "threat".

Why not look at this as another sign that God is in control, is working out His plan, and confirming that by restoring life where none had been before?

It's rather like the Pharisees saying, "What shall we do with this man, for He works many miracles?" or John the Baptist's disciples, asking Jesus if He was the Messiah. The signs were all there, but Jesus didn't fit in with their world view, so they refused (at least temporarily, in some cases) to recognize the signs.

The trouble with a lot of our climate change research is that it's mostly after-the-fact. When the researchers say the Arctic is our "early warning system", they're still not saying that these warnings will have been in time for us to do anything about it. Nor have they actually established that there's anything mankind can do to prevent these changes from happening.

God, on the other hand, has already told us this would all happen. He's told us what to expect next, too, and while we're not supposed to fight Him, He's given us explicit instructions: clean up our environmental act, seek Him first, and lead others into the Kingdom.

A Very Convenient Truth has gone through another revision, and I think it's the last now. It also has a new title: A Very Convenient Truth - or, Jesus told us there'd be days like these, so stop worrying about climate change and get with His program.

That version will replace the one that's currently online at Smashwords (or any online bookstore) in the first week of November.

When zealotry takes hold

Nobody knows what we're for only what we're against when we judge the wounded

-- from "Jesus, Friend of Sinners" (Casting Crowns)

 

The verbal gaffe -- not gaffe: moronism -- by a candidate in the US elections this past week should be an example to Christians, to remember what our assignment from Jesus is.

 

I think I have it straight, here: the candidate was talking about abortion -- which he's against -- and stated that during a rape, a woman's body can "shut down", so that she does not get pregnant.

 

Evidently, he had been asked if abortion should be allowed if the woman had been raped and he was attempting to avoid what could have been a sticky question ...

 

oh, why am I making excuses for him?

 

(Are there not times when someone does something so phenomenally stupid, that you get hung up trying to figure out where in blazes he was coming from?)

 

One thing that's apparent: this fellow was so fixated on proclaiming what he was against that he stretched to find any point he could; and in so doing, cast all Christians as being judgmental, ill-informed and stupid.

 

That's sad. Jesus sent us to proclaim the Kingdom and the Good News that we can be reconciled to God through Him, but instead (as I pointed out in a posting two years ago) people get the impression that the way to declare one's faith is to express anger and outrage at things that offend God.

 

But throughout the Bible -- from "vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord" to "judge not, lest ye be judged" to "Thou ... shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth" to the parable of the talents, where the master calls for all those who hated him to be brought before him and executed -- the message is clear: we are to stick to our own jobs and let God handle the anger-and-outrage thing.

 

And let's not kid ourselves: there's going to be a lot more potential for anger and outrage in the not-too-distant future. There seems to be no end of Things That Offend God working their way into our culture these days, and people need to see the Truth and the Light. They won't see it if we keep pointing at darkness.

Climate change, hindsight and God's certain promise

A couple of weeks ago, the media reported on a large "ice island" that broke off from Greenland. One of the local papers in Vancouver placed a topper over the headline that read, "Climate Change" (even though the article from The Register here quotes an expert as being uncertain whether the break-off was caused by global warming); and that got me to thinking.

When there is a major environmental event like a devastating storm or a gigantic piece of ice breaking off from a polar ice cap, the knee-jerk response is to say, "aha! Global Warming!" But it's always after the fact. As I point out in my book, A Very Convenient Truth, the Word of God is filled with promises and prophecies that are shown to be true all the time. God doesn't hide anything from us: He may say it in prophecies and parables, but He does reveal it to His prophets, and anyone who has ears to hear will receive it.

So it's one thing to point to an event and say it was caused by something in the past, but quite another to prophesy and have it happen exactly in the way it was said. You may have noticed this already, but the pronouncements from the environmental movement do not actually say that the measures they demand will actually stop global warming or reverse its effects; they just leave an impression that they might. God's promises are direct and clear and have been proven out over and over again.

The Bible, by the way, contains countless passages that draw a direct connection between our walk with God and the state of the environment. "If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal the land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Can't get much more direct than that, can one?

Consider this: it is written that Jesus' disciples went out, preaching the Gospel with signs following. The signs referred to there were "positive" signs like healings and other miracles; but are not negative signs -- like disease, war and problems with the land -- things that can also be expected to follow disobedience and straying from God?



From the book:
 

Jesus told us there’d be days like these …

Another reason why Satan is taking such an interest in climate change is because he knows what time it is. Again, we go back to Matthew 24:5-7, where Jesus foretells the signs of His return. Famines and pestilences can both be seen as climate change symptoms. Jesus spoke in language people could understand, and while “global warming”, “melting polar ice cap” or “ozone depletion” would have gone over their heads, they would definitely have known about “famine and pestilence”.

We also have plenty of false christs today – self-help gurus who claim to show people how to feel good about themselves without repenting; others who presume to “simplify” things by reducing Christ to Just Another World View and looking for ways other belief systems “agree” (“many paths to the top of the mountain,” as some say), when God has already simplified things by reducing the number of paths to one; men called “holiness” with beatific smiles, pronouncing that we are each our own universe.

We have the wars and rumors of war -- terrorism. Incurable diseases are cropping up, the moral rule book has been thrown out the window, “tolerance” has replaced “love” and “rights” have replaced “what’s right”; governments try to legislate things that can remedied if we were all walking in agape love for one another – truly, “the love of many (is waxing) cold” (Matt. 24:12). 

With those signs becoming more numerous and intense, Satan knows that the best way to keep people from turning their eyes towards God is to have them chasing straw men – like arguing over climate change. Like a magician using a “mis-direct” so we don’t see him slip the coin up his sleeve, Satan is using the debate as a sleight of hand.

Consider how something that is not part of the “climate change” discussion is the earthquakes in diverse places – Japan, Haiti, Iran, the California coast, Chile; Southeast Asia, with the horrific tsunami that followed; not to mention the volcanic eruptions in Indonesia. Famine and pestilence fit in with the “climate change” paradigm, but do volcanoes and “earthquakes in diverse places”? A 2009 conference in England raised the possibility that climate change is a cause of earthquakes, but even the scientists studying the issue admit it’s a “stretch” to draw that conclusion. But here again, there is a “mis-direct”: if the enemy can somehow bring earthquakes under the heading of “symptoms of climate change”, that can keep people from considering that these are the signs Jesus foretold.

The more time we spend worrying about climate change and searching for worldly solutions, the less time we spend doing what we should be doing: getting right with God, helping the poor and homeless, healing the sick, spreading the Gospel. The more time we spend on personal attacks against people who don’t agree with us, the less time we spend loving the Unsaved to Christ.

This is a battle in the Heavenlies: it is not a battle to be fought and won with worldly weapons and tactics (II Cor. 10:3-6[i]). As we have seen in many cases, relying on science and technology for solutions has not been blessed with success. Getting into a worldly debate over the issue has been a disaster. 

---

[i] For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds); casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ …. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

===

Forget Alligators!

The first time I heard of Chick-fil-A, it was as a sportscaster in Victoria, BC. I had no idea what it was, but I was reading scores from a women's golf tournament it sponsored and I tossed out the remark that I wondered who the sponsor was. (I even pronounced it "Chick-fil-AH".)

A listener called in and told me -- and mentioned the amount of charity work Chick-fil-A did in the southern states, including the 11 foster care homes it funds in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. I was very impressed. I've since learned that Chick-fil-A provides four-year scholarships to Berry College. It's the sort of corporate social responsibility that should get a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, Chick-fil-A's current media attention has nothing to do with its CSR -- and in fact, nothing to do with reality. It's president, Dan Cathy, has been "quoted" as making anti-gay remarks and as a result has been pilloried in the media, by pro-gay-marriage organizations and those who promote "tolerance" and "equality".

Just one problem with all this. He didn't say it.

Being in media relations myself, I have a pretty good idea of what it's like to have remarks taken out of context. But as Sarah Pulliam Bailey points out in her blog, Mr Cathy's remarks weren't just taken out of context - his detractors provided their own.

I'll let Sarah's blog speaks for itself, because she seems to nail it. But there's another thing Christians have to be aware of.

Jesus warned us there'd be days like these.

He said we'd be hated for His sake.

Were Cathy's remarks to be a stream of hateful diatribe, filled with slurs and stereotypes, the public criticism would be justified. But there was none of that, according to Sarah's blog: he simply declared his belief, as it related to marriage.

Kinda makes you wonder who the real bigots are, doesn't it?

But there's an object lesson here. As Jesus warned us, if we declare His Word -- no matter what precautions we take to make sure it comes out in a positive way -- we can expect to get whacked in these latter days. It's going to happen. No time to whine or complain about how unfair people are or try to outshout them -- because a spirit of anti-Christ cannot be shouted down.

The attacks will come from the most unexpected of places and the most unexpected of circumstances. At times like this, it's important to remember a decidedly non-Scriptural saying: when you are up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

That saying has often been used as an excuse -- "sorry I didn't get back to you, but I've been up to my ass in alligators ..." -- but it's really a reminder. The saying doesn't suggest that we abandon the job of draining the swamp: it merely suggests that when you're beating away alligators who are snapping at your hindquarters, it's easy to forget what you initially set out to do.

For Christians, our swamp-draining exercise is the Great Commission: heal the sick, bind the brokenhearted, minister to the poor and fatherless, make disciples of all nations. The alligators are those who attack for whatever reason, just to try to silence the Word of God. If we spend our time trying to fight off the alligators, the real work won't get done.

We have to keep focused on draining the swamp, and trust God to keep the alligators at bay. Remember that Jesus says for those who won't receive the Word, Sodom and Gomorrah will be a nicer place; and in the parable of the ten talents (Luke 19), the "master" calls for those who didn't want him to reign over them to be brought before him and killed.

So forget the alligators. Understand that, as we get that swamp drained, the alligators will die from exposure. There will be more alligators to come, but he who endures to the end shall be saved (Matt. 10:22).

 

Climate change, the fear factor and why should Christians be afraid?

In his daily message on The Catch, John Fischer muses about the way businesses use fear to sell their products and services and wonders what Christians should be afraid of. One of the key themes of my book, A Very Convenient Truth, is that fear is dominating all sides of the discussion over climate change (or global warming or environmental trauma or whatever you want to call it).

In fact, it's the fear of change that is driving the discussion. On one side, people are afraid that climate change will cause ocean levels to rise and animals to become extinct and the earth to become unbearably hot with violent storms. On the other side, people are afraid that if the environmentalists' prescriptions are followed, that will ruin the economy, people will lose their jobs and society will suffer. Throw in pride and personal agendas, which tend to make people magnify the fear factor, especially if they stand to make a buck off it, and you have confusion and the dishonesty that comes with worshipping Mammon.

One of the reasons why fear is a lousy motivator is because it always keeps us off-balance. There's always something to be afraid of: something waiting to rise up and just when you think you've got it licked, another one appears, followed by another and then the first one comes back again. Think of Whack-a-Mole in the real world.

As John points out, Christ is the antithesis of fear. We have a positive target to focus on -- a "mark" to press towards -- and in so doing, we don't waste time and energy fighting against an infinite number of things. Also, by turning to the Word of God as our guide, we start to see new realities -- such as the "very convenient truth" that the "scary" things we're seeing now were foretold thousands of years ago. What's more, those same predictions tell us that these are the forerunners of Jesus' return and God's moving to earth to live with His people.

His Word also gives us a couple of things to focus on. One is our duty to bring as many people into the Kingdom as we can, through love and faith in His Name. The other is to understand and live by the First Great Assignment -- be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it: in other words, return to being caretakers for His Creation. That doesn't mean trying to fight global warming: it means being as good as we can be at caretaking, but also understanding that some things in God's plan may look "bad" to us now, but as we remain faithful to Him, we will see His glory.

In other words, since God told us this all was going to happen, "fighting" global warming actually puts us in opposition to Him. Do we really want that?

Perfect love casts out all fear. Stripping it down to its essence, the Word of God says that if we turn to Him and love others ahead of ourselves, He will heal the land (2 Chron. 7:13-14). In this world, that requires a whole lot of faith in order to believe, but without faith, you cannot please God; and really, what else has truly worked?

A Very Convenient Truth is an e-book, available (US $4.99) through online bookstores like Chapters, Barnes & Noble and Amazon, published through Smashwords.

Getting one's head around bike helmets

It was refreshing to read the letter to the editor in the Vancouver Province over the weekend, weighing in on the controversy over bicycle helmets. Bike helmet laws in BC (it's illegal to ride a bike without one in this province) have become a source of discussion, with the City of Vancouver planning to launch a public bike-share program, similar to the Bixis in Montreal (and elsewhere). The essential problem is that the bike helmet laws make it difficult to run a Bixi program, because of the various considerations -- hygiene, sizing, inter alia -- involved in putting helmets on people's heads.

During Velo-city 2012, which wrapped up the week before last in Vancouver (with the brilliant Charter to make sure cycling is fun for children -- huh?), one expert from overseas denounced bike helmet laws, saying separated bike lanes would prevent car-bike accidents and we shouldn't let a fear campaign get in the way of the Bixi program.

Tom Littlewood's letter does a great job of putting paid to that argument. I would add that, while there's no question fear plays too big a role in our society -- consider climate change hysteria, airport security and the latest health warning to get tested for HIV even if you don't shoot drugs or have sex with people you shouldn't -- in this case, the argument doesn't wash. As Tom points out, you can have a bad injury on a bike without the assistance of motor vehicles or your own carelessness.

When my wife first moved to Vancouver 7 years ago (before we were married), she went for a bike ride on the Stanley Park Seawall. Somehow, she lost control and fell, doing a head-plant against a rock. She was wearing a helmet, which was cracked by the impact. Aside from a few bumps and bruises, Amelia was OK, but there was no question that things would have been a lot different if she hadn't been wearing a helmet.

When I was a teenager living in West Vancouver, I rode my bike a lot, including to school, which was called Hillside for a very good reason: it was perched about a third of the way up Hollyburn Mountain. Riding down that very steep hill, I remember glancing down at the front wheel and seeing little shreds of rubber appear from my riding the brakes. I didn't wear a helmet -- none of us did -- but rather than rhapsodize now about the sense of freedom, the wind in my hair and the bugs in my teeth, I think back now in horror to what a damn fool I was not to be protected (I even rode home a couple of times from a job at Panorama Studios along the Upper Levels Highway, for the luvvaMike).

But maybe the answer isn't in having a law requiring helmet use. After all, it's near-impossible to enforce and frankly, police have better things to do (and in today's media climate, even if police did bust someone for not wearing a helmet, the person getting the ticket would be portrayed as a victim of police harassment). I have a modest proposal: make helmet use optional, except for children under the age of 12. But here's the key: people think they have a "right" to go helmetless and have that feeling of freedom. Fine. But as Abraham Lincoln (I think it was) once said, "my right to swing my fist ends when the other man's nose begins"*.

In other words, exercising your freedom is just fine, until you start affecting others; and the sad fact is, if you suffer a debilitating injury, you are now affecting taxpayers who have to pay for your care; you're also affecting anyone who's dependent on you for income, love and support.

Anyway, instead of making helmet use mandatory, write it into our laws governing public medical care that if you exercise your freedom to choose not to wear a helmet on a bike, you automatically forfeit your right to have your medical care paid by taxpayers if you suffer a head injury as a result. Some accidents are not preventable, but the head injury could be, so even if a car driver is 100% at fault, if that helmet could have prevented the injury, sorry, pal: you're on your own.

(Case in point: as I write this, sitting outside on my patio overlooking a traffic circle in the West End, a cyclist who was clearly already in the traffic circle and thus had the right-of-way had to hit the binders to avoid being hit by a car whose driver didn't know or care about the rules of the road. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet. Had there been a collision, it could have been extremely messy and regardless of who was at fault, he would have been the loser.)

To make things a bit more interesting, maybe require bike-sharing companies to post graphic warnings at their rental stations about the possible consequences of not wearing a helmet or else they're partially on the hook for medical costs, too. After all, they stand to benefit from repealing helmet laws; this would also level the playing field for the bike rental companies that make sure their customers are properly fitted with helmets.

There could be an avenue of appeal: a medical panel could give an opinion that a helmet would not have prevented the injury, anyway; and if there are severe multiple injuries, that would change the picture, as well.

Bringing the broader effects of exercising this "freedom" into the conversation is certainly something worth considering. After all, it only takes an eye-blink to go from having the wind in your hair to a feeding tube down your throat.

===
*It may not have been Lincoln, but usually, anyone who quotes Lincoln in a discussion of personal liberty is usually credited with winning the argument.