Hellbound? A thought provoking film and a missed opportunity.

A friend and former mentor during my time in Boy Scouts posted a link to a video on Facebook today that piqued my interest. When Pastor Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" came out in 2011 I did a fair amount of writing about it. Bell came under a lot of scrutiny for his book that asked hard questions about heaven, hell, the afterlife, and what that means for us on earth. The most outraged called him a heretic, and many began painting him as a universalist. This post isn't primarily about Bell, so I'll put him aside for a moment - it does give us a good launching point to discuss this film, however.

"Hellbound?" came out in 2012 and I completely missed it. I'm not sure how - though something tells me it had to do with my face being buried in Physics books during Yearling year at West Point. The film asks "Does hell exist? If so, who ends up there, and why? 'Hellbound?' is a provocative, feature-length documentary that will ensure you never look at hell the same way again!" After reading this brief description, I watched the trailer video.



If you're like me, this caught your attention. I couldn't help but dig up the full version - which didn't take long considering the film is now on Netflix. The movie clocks in at 84 minutes long, making it perfect for my after-lunch relaxation ritual. It explores exactly what it states - and I came away knowing a lot more about the various arguments about hell and was overall impressed with the quality. This could have easily been a one-sided argument slanted towards the director's personal convictions, but it wasn't.

Instead, "Hellbound?" starts with the 10 year anniversary of September 11th, complete with Westboro Baptist Church protestors. This powerful beginning led into an explanation about the "usual" Christian perspective (sometimes referred to as "conditionalism") on hell: if you die and don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are judged by God and sent to eternal darkness and suffering. It then offers up brief explanations about "annihilationism" which is similar to conditionalism, but asserts that instead of eternal suffering, souls that do not believe in Christ will be annihilated and cease to exist. Sometimes torment is a part of being annihilated, sometimes not. The third, and final, perspective on hell that the film explores is universalism, which states that in the end, God's grace is bigger than sin: all will be forgiven, and all will spend eternity in paradise.

Roughly half of the film is spent on conditionalism, while the other half discusses universalism. In an interesting move, the director interviews theologians, authors, pastors, death-metal guitarists, and atheists in an effort to develop a holistic perspective about the debate, letting the interviewees, in a sense, debate each other without ever coming face to face. The audience is left to decide for themselves and no final word is given on which side presents the best argument. Questions are asked and explored, but never fully answered. After all, at the end of the day, we really don't know.

I enjoyed the film. It got me to think. It got me to explore some of my long-held beliefs about hell, while at the same time, it pricked me with questions that had been nagging at my brain for a long time. Questions like:

• If God is all loving and all powerful, why, then, does he not choose to save all of humanity? Is he unwilling?
• Why is the literal translation of "hell" in the Bible hotly disputed?
• Why are there scriptures that seem to back up each side of the debate?

I asked my mom and dad to watch the movie, and after their viewing my father and I discussed the merits and pitfalls of the film. I had come away feeling that the director was even-handed in his approach. My dad, on the other hand, felt like the first third of the movie was set up as a straw-man to be toppled in the final third. We did, however, agree on one major issue:

The movie did not adequately express the importance of a faith in Jesus. While the nature and very existence of hell was hotly discussed, nearly all of the people interviewed in the movie agreed that Jesus is the only way to heaven. This was almost taken for granted, and the director simply did not make it clear why. Additionally, the documentary was clearly targeted at a demographic: mine. That is, Christians. Part way through my viewing, I stopped and put myself in the shoes of a non-believer watching the film. Why would I even care? Christian lingo and phrases were tossed around with little explanation, and very little effort was made to cater to the most important potential audience: those that need to hear the message of Christ the most. This, I believe, was a huge missed opportunity on the part of the director. 

Personally, I think I lean more universalist than I do towards the the traditional notion of hell. But this isn't, necessarily, because I have been convinced either way. Rather, I'm a firm believer that Love covers a multitude of sins and that believing in Christ's unfailing love will always bring me back to the Cross; fear of hell, and fear in general, is not only a poor motivator to pursuing God, but it puts my heart in a place of self-focused negativeness that in no way aids my spiritual journey. I am a strong believer in ultimate Truth. I'm just not sure we'll ever know some aspects of that Truth until after our bodies are six feet under.

And ultimately, pursuing Christ and being that city on the hill is what I want in my life. These questions about heaven and hell are important, and worth pondering. Questions are good: they lead to self-discovery and can open new cognitive doors. But only Jesus leads to salvation.

Colin

Rebirth, Renewal, Redemption

Moments ago I sat down to make a "Classic Christian" music playlist. I reached a certain song - Flood by Jars of Clay - and I was reminded of a post I wrote long ago. I made this post days after my brother Nate died in 2009. Jars of Clay resonated with me in a way few bands have during that time, and the post contains nothing more than pictures that I was using to relay where I was at emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically. And I was stuck.

College has brought with it a host of things to wrestle with and questions to ask.

Am I good enough?
Do I fit in?
Can I succeed?
Will the future be bright?
Is God real?
Am I product of my environment growing up?
Is there a girl out there who is the One?
Is the Bible truth?
Do I have boundaries?

And I can tell you that most of those are unanswered. But as I sit here listening to a song that spoke to me years ago, I am reminded of the road I have traveled and the things I have learned along the way.

Recently I've developed an affinity towards the history of old, abandoned, broken buildings. Exploring them, researching them, taking pictures of them, sharing discoveries with others. Every building has a story as unique as the people that once walked its halls and slept in its rooms. There's something about them that reminds me of how fragile the world is. Titanics sink. Towers of Babel fall. There is a beginning and an end to everything. Seasons come, and seasons go.

The last year and half has been a season of doubt and insecurity. And that season, at long last, is coming to a close.

God is speaking into my life through his Word and my closest friends. I'm ready to step into the next season, and I'm ready to walk in His confidence and Love. I know now that this road is one not easily traveled. It's easy to mess up, get sidetracked, and do the wrong things. But I know who I am in Christ, and I know that I am forgiven.

I'm not as quick to judge the church anymore. I'm not as quick to think that I am somehow spiritually superior to my brothers and sisters in Christ. The truth is, I don't know much. And what I think I know, I question every day.

I've been stuck before. God was there then. God was there when Abraham messed up. He was there when David stumbled. He was there when man chose sin. He was there when Jesus hung on the cross. He's always been there, and He always will be.

A new season is upon me, and I'm so ready.

Colin

Getting Controversial: I read my Bible because I feel guilty. Featuring: Being vs. Doing

I attend a Bible Study every Tuesday night here at West Point called OCF, Officer's Christian Fellowship. It's been great to get to know the people involved and make some new friends. I had a great time at the OCF retreat last month, getting away and spending some quality time with Papa was soul-nurturing.

OCF uses the Christian tried-and-true recipe for a Bible study: worship, announcements, short message, small groups. Quite frankly I'm cool with this, Jesus shows up regardless of the format, and that's what really matters.

Tonight the memory verse for this week came from the book of Joshua:

Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.
Joshua 1:8

After the verse was read aloud, the speaker posed this question to think about during the week:

What should I be doing differently in my life or continue doing after reading this verse?

It got me thinking, in a big way.

(First of all, I'm referring to the question throughout this post, not the verse from Joshua. I believe the verse is a very Old Testament way of saying "you guys don't know how to live. Do it this way: it works." If you think I'm off-base in this thinking, let me know.)

These days, whenever I hear someone talk about "what should I/we/he/she be doing?" I immediately stop to asses what's being asked.

First, the question comes with an inherent sense of expectation. Not "what's the right thing?" but instead "what should?" The person asking has some sense that there's an expectation to be lived up to. There's an invisible point in the distance that they must reach, and this action should be a step towards that point.

Second, the question is all about action, rather then personal development. "What should I/we/he/she be doing?" There's no sense of personal change, rather just a change of action. It's almost as if the person asking is saying "surely there's some action I can participate in that will change me from the outside-in."

Clearly, I disagree with the premise of the question being asked. However, my disagreement and inner frustration reached a climax during small group time.

I really do like the small group I'm a part of. All of the guys are solid brothers in Christ, and I believe they are truly seeking after God. My small group leaders are both Firsties (translation: seniors) and have 100 other things to be doing on a Tuesday night during a Thayer Week (translation: week with a ton of tests and papers due). I admire them for showing up and leading our group week after week. Also, I admire the other plebes (translation: freshmen) who attend the group. I know I have at least 50 other things I could be doing, and so do they. They help push me continue coming every week.

So, that said, moving on to the frustrating part of the night.

Guilt really grinds my gears. I feel as though if I am doing something because someone has made me feel guilty if I do not do it, I'm probably doing it for the wrong reason. I believe guilt has its place - and it has kept me out of trouble more than once. I do not believe that its place is in manipulating people. Unfortunately, much of Christianity today relies on that second kind of guilt: the kind that really pisses me off.

An on-going challenge that my small group leaders push every week is for all of us to read our Bibles on a daily basis. I love this idea. I understand that reading God's word is important, and I know that not reading the Bible is not helpful to my walk with Christ. The leaders of my small group check us every week,
"Colin, how'd your time in the Word go this week?"
"Good! I spent time in James and got a lot out of it."
"Did you read every day?"
"Nope, I missed Thursday and Saturday"
"Oh...well you gotta get on that every day man."

And so it goes, every week. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for accountability for my actions. I appreciate the check up because it keeps it fresh in my head. Tonight however, one of my leaders said something that shocked me.

"Guys, if this keeps up we're gonna start some kind of competition where you do push ups if you didn't read, or something. I mean, we want you to succeed."

Here's the thing: I want to read Papa's words because I want to read them. If I'm reading them because I have to, because somebody else wants me to, or because I don't want to have to do push ups next Tuesday, I honestly don't really see the value in reading at all. I know this probably goes against the whole "the Bible never returns void" but I also know that a seed planted in fertile soil is going to give much more fruit then that planted in rocky soil.

My point is this: what's with the church guilting people into doing things that supposedly "grow our relationship with Christ?" If we are doing it to not feel guilty, then we're not really doing it to grow closer to Christ, are we? I have a theory: I don't think God's into the whole "actions first" thing. What if Papa was more interested in our hearts then with our hands?

You may not agree with everything I'm saying here: I'm sure there are plenty of verses that contradict my heresy. That said, I think we can all agree that manipulation through guilt is unhealthy. I'm not talking about choosing "the hard right over the easier wrong" (although, I'd love to do a post on that later). I'm talking about doing something because I feel like I have to, when the option is there to do that same thing out of personal desire for growth in my relationship with Christ. After all, it's the heart behind the action that matters, isn't it?

Hit me: where is my theology all jacked up?

Colin

Thoughts on Sunday

When I think of Sunday, a few things come to mind.
First, naturally, church.
Second, hanging out with my family. Normally this is breakfast after church, talking over the week's events, and laughing alot.
Third, relaxing. A great Sunday, in my mind, consists of sweatpants, dinosaur slippers, a good book or laptop, and (in the colder months) a fire roaring nearby.

Isn't it interesting that the first thing that I think of is church? The American culture has almost sold church as a "must do." It's like, if you want to feel good the rest of the week, you should go to church. Get your god face on, sing a bit, space out, then head home to kick back and let the good times roll.
Obviously something is wrong with this picture.

Some would argue that church itself is the issue. Atheists may say that church attempts to copy that community which families naturally share together already. This artificial ecosystem, they might say, only breeds a gross copy of the original.
On the other side of the spectrum, Jesus-loving Christians might say that the real problem with church is that the building is often filled with fake, mask-wearing, judgmental people. For a church to work, they might say, people must realize that the church building isn't really the Church. Some might even say that church is entirely unnecessary for the Church to exist.

I'm being real here: I really am not 100% sure where I lie in this spectrum of opinion. I would love to say that I know where I stand, what I believe, and that I have the Bible verses to prove it. But I don't.
I'm in process.

What I know (or think I know):
I know I'm not an atheist. I know that many people find value in even the most dysfunctional of churches. I know there are people who feel closer to God in the most religious of buildings, and really can't focus with roaring guitars and a huge sanctuary with overhead screens. I'm close to people who have stepped away from "church" altogether, in order that they might embrace BEING the Church. I see value in that as well.

I know that I don't like feeling like I should go to church on Sunday. On the other hand, I know that the things I don't want to do can be those that produce the most value. I understand that obligation does not breed love, but I'm not sure if love can breed obligation. I know hierarchy is the natural human response to disorder, but I also know that the Holy Spirit can reveal herself like the most wild, disorderly thing there is. I also know I probably offended someone by calling the Holy Spirit a her.

What are your thoughts?

So much to think about, so little time to process.
Well, for now, I will enjoy my Sunday.

Here, have some Calvin and Hobbes:


Colin

Re Blog: Church Alumni

This post is taken from Captain's Blog. View the original post here.

Last week I was interviewed by Recycle {Your Faith} ministry about my current story and thoughts on corporate church. An hour and a half session was clipped into three minutes. Oh my! It is scary to put your thoughts down on tape knowing that someone could edit your comments to make you look other than what is in your heart to share. I'm glad I trusted Craig. I think he did a great job with a dicey topic and an amateur interviewee.

Recycle {Your Faith} produces short videos that are designed to be shown at small groups to introduce topics for discussion. I wonder what dialog will come out of this!

Click here to see the video Craig titled, "Church Alumni."

Questions on Church

This past week I've been with my aunt and her family in Buffalo, NY. They go to a quant Baptist Church, and when I first walked in the door on Sunday to attend service one thought went through my head:
"I'm not in Kansas anymore."
The service went about as expected. Sunday school was decently thought provoking, worship was less then engaging (hymns) and the overall message was pretty good. My post today has nothing to do with this church or the way it is run. Rather, I want to bring up the topic of denominations.

My observation of church denominations is that they don't work.

I think denominations are started by people who think of the church (building) rather then the church (people). This goes back to the whole issue of relationship. Is the goal of church to teach certain things, have a message, then go home to watch football? Actually, football may be closer to the actual purpose of church. I believe the purpose of church is to bring believers in Christ together as one body to worship Him, and to encourage each other. A "Sunday message" may or may not be ideal for this purpose, and the same for for worship and Sunday school, etc.

What if the "rules" of Church (denominations, common practice, tradition) simply don't work. Where would that leave us? What if what we call "church" is but a shadow of what God wants the Church to be?

What about you? What do you think?
Is church necesary? Is it mandated? Is it working?

Colin



-- Posted from my iPhone --