Real Reality

I'm reading a book right now by Chuck Palahniuk called Haunted, a strange story about a bunch of writers who have gone on a retreat, only to find themselves locked in an old theater with no windows, limited food, and no way out.

Sounds kind of disturbing, doesn't it? Well, it is kind of disturbing. But then, Chuck Palahniuk is known for writing on disturbing subject matter--he's best knows for writing the book, Fight Club, on which the movie of the same title is based.

So, why am I reading this book? Because I like disturbing subject matter? Not really.

I'm reading Haunted (aside from the fact that's it's an engaging book) because I believe Chuck Palahniuk is a window into the world of our culture, especially the world of Generation X and younger. A world filled with despair and hopelessness. A world that is desperately searching for meaning beyond itself. A world that wants more to life than just wealth and good looks.

The book itself is made up of short stories "written by" the writers who are stuck in the old theater.

Last night, I read a story called The Nightmare Box, in which a young woman looks into an antique box called a Nightmare Box. The Box itself continously ticks (like a clock), and then at some random point stops ticking. When it stops ticking, the first person to look into the box sees something that drives that person to utter despair.

What is it that people see in the Nightmare Box? What could be that terrible, that awful, that horrifying?

By the end of the story, we learn what the Nightmare Box reveals:

It's something that goes beyond life-after-death. What's in the box is proof that what we call life isn't. Our world is a dream. Infinitely fake. A nightmare.

One look, Rand says, and your life--your preening and struggle and worry--it's all pointless....

All your problems and love affairs.

They're an illusion.

"What you see inside the box," Rand says, "is a glimpse of real reality."

I don't know about you, but I see truth in these words. When we understand "real reality" we discover that all our "preening and struggle and worry--it's all pointless."

But what's "real reality"? If we caught a glimpse of "real reality," would it really lead to despair? Or would it lead to hope?

I'm also reading another book right now, this one by Dallas Willard, called The Divine Conspiracy. In this book, Willard delves into the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount (or, as he calls it, the Discourse on the Hill).

In his chapter on the Beatitudes, Willard challenges the common notion that the Beatitudes are instructions on how to live. When Jesus says "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," Jesus isn't instructing us to be "poor in spirit." Jesus isn't saying it's a virtue to be "poor in spirit."

On the contrary, Jesus is saying that the "real reality" is that those who are "poor in spirit," those who are "spiritually bankrupt, deprived and deficient, the spiritual beggars, those without a wisp of 'religion'"--theirs is the kingdom of heaven!

Here's how Willard puts it:

Those poor in spirit are called "blessed" by Jesus, not because they are in a meritorious condition, but because, precisely in spite of and in the midst of their ever so deplorable condtion, the rule of the heavens has moved redemptively upon and through them by the grace of Christ. (italics Willard's)

See, that's "real reality"! Jesus has brought into the world a new "real reality." A reality in which the kingdom of heaven is here! Among us. With us. In Jesus.

We are living in the midst of the kingdom of heaven because Jesus has brought it near. And all can experience that "real reality" because of the grace of Jesus.

So here's the question: Would the Nightmare Box really lead a person to utter despair?

I don't think so. Not if it revealed the "real reality" that Jesus revealed.

More Bad Theology

Michael Foster has been leaving some pretty stimulating comments in my post about "Bad Theology and Salvation." In that post I said, "All that's required for salvation is faith in Christ--even if the theology about Christ may be off-base." To which Michael responded:

I have a hard time accepting this in light of the following passage:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Here's what I think Paul is saying. First of all, the primary onus is on the teacher, not the followers. The ones who Paul says ought to be "accursed" are not the Galatian believers, but those who preach a "gospel contrary to the one we preached."

Face it. People are gonna have bad theology. Even good, loving, Christ-like believers will get some things wrong. Some will get things way wrong. But I don't think Paul is cursing those people. Paul is cursing leaders who lead people astray with bad theology.

And I don't think Paul is telling the Galatians that they are losing their salvation--he is saying, "Don't have bad theology! Trust what we taught you. And don't believe these new teachings which are contrary to what we taught you."

But the fact that the primary responsibility lies with the leader raises another point. Just because someone can have bad theology and still be saved, I don't think that excuses their bad theology. As Christians grow spiritually, that bad theology needs to become good theology. That's where we as leaders come in--part of our job is to help people develop good theology.

We need to help people understand that God is sovereign. We need to help them understand that we were enemies of God because of our sin. We need to help them understand what was accomplished through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and what continues to be accomplished today through his Body in the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, here's what I think in a nutshell: I don't think we need to have good theology to be saved. God's grace isn't about theology, it's about faith ("whoever believes in Him should not perish," not "whoever believes the right doctrines should not perish"). However, as Christians we need to strive to develop what we would call good theology.

And if you're a teacher or leader who is teaching bad theology--yikes...

Bad Theology and Salvation

Our little group of "pastors, leaders, and dreamers" that used to meet at Barnes and Noble every Thursday has morphed into a more intentional discussion group that meets once a month at Cincinnati Christian University. Today was our first meeting. It was good!!

All of our regulars were there, plus two others. It's pretty interesting how group dynamics change just by adding one or two new personalities.

Anyway, we started talking about what it means to be "ecumenical" vs. "non-denominational" and how the more mainline/liberal theologies tend to prefer the word "ecumenical," while more conservative/evangelical types like the word "non-denominational" better.

Pretty soon we were talking about what the essentials of Christianity are and what happens if someone doesn't believe certain essentials.

To which I raised the question, "Can a person be saved and yet have bad theology?"

That's easy to answer when you're talking about something like infant baptism. If you come from the Anabaptist side, you might say that, yes, a person can still be saved even if they were only baptized as an infant. If you come from a more Reformed perspective, which holds that infant baptism is a sign and a seal of God's covenant with humanity, it really doesn't matter if someone else thinks you can't be baptized as an infant. They're just wrong on the issue, but they're still saved.

But what about issues like the resurrection or the virgin birth--so-called "closed hand" issues? Can a person who believes that Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament was really a metaphor for the spirit of Christ and his teachings being resurrected in the community of early Christians--can a person who holds that belief on the resurrection be saved?

Or can someone who doesn't believe in the virgin birth be saved?

I think that they can. Nowhere does the Bible say, "To those who hold to good theology and true doctrines, to them he gave eternal life." It says, "To those who called on his name, he gave the power to be children of God." (That's a rough paraphrase from John 1.)

All that's required for salvation is faith in Christ--even if the theology about Christ may be off-base.

This, of course, opens a whole new can of worms--one to which I haven't yet given enough thought. But let's open the can, anyway.

If a person can be saved even if they have bad theology (as I propose in all my wisdom and authority), does that mean that Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses can be saved? Or other theologies that might be branded heretical or cultic?

I don't have the answer to that....

Punk Theology

Just found a new blog called Never Mind the Bibles: A Theology of Punk. It seems to be a book in progress (that, I guess, may or may not end up published on paper), but it looks pretty interesting. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but I've gotten through enough of it that I thought some of you out there might be interested in it.

Let me know what you guys think.