book review: Bringing Heaven to Earth by Josh Ross and Jonathan Storment

dominionism from the left

Blogging for Books provided this book to me for free in exchange for an honest review.

Trying to give a fair evaluation to this book has been rather tricky. There were some things in it that seemed ok, but my overall impression was that the book was rather iffy, even trite.

For one thing, Scripture is used in a haphazard fashion. “When Jesus spoke about hell, He referred to the town dump right outside Jerusalem”, p. 60. So, in the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, the rich man died and ended up in the town dump? On pages 34-35, they tried to draw a parallel between Jesus' temptation in the wilderness and His baptism and Israel's time in the wilderness and then crossing the Jordan into The Promised Land, but they get the events of Jesus' life backwards—in Matthew 3 and 4, Jesus is first baptized, then He goes into the wilderness. “You might be convince that you're a sheep, and you might find out it's better to be a goat.”, p. 68. Umm...goats are those who will be taken from God's presence. I'm pretty sure it's never better to be a goat.

On pp. 105-107, in writing about the book of Galatians, the authors sum up the concerns Paul expressed in the book in this way, “...we can make a mess out of God's gift of life”. This is, at the best way to try to read it, a trite way of summing up how the Galatian Christians were adding their own works to try to earn salvation, and coming close to falling into apostasy. “There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus, or in the community that wears His name. Fred Phelps is just as forgiven as are those who rejoiced when he died”. This is definitely playing fast and loose with Paul's statement in Romans 8, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” I see no reason to think that Phelps was in Christ Jesus, and thus wasn't condemned. This statement by these authors seems to hint that they hold a universalist view.

Following a similar path I remember when reading some of the books by Emergents, these guys have littered their book with deconstructive “What if...?” questions. Their trite “Jesus party” mentality is, frankly, offensive. The way they continually slam the church because of bad press is so thin as to be laughable, especially since the accusations are clearly false.

This book isn't a complete waste, but it does a poor job of teaching Scripture, and honestly comes off more as a piece of propaganda then as a work of theology. It's seem like their trying to entice people in with all kinds of sweet thing while covering over or explaining away the bad things, like the statement about hell that I referred to earlier in this review. In the end, it's all law, and all their own law—do you hang out with people who are like yourself? Well, that's just bad. Do you care about the truth of the biblical accounts? That's not important. To put it simply, they are “Deeds, not creeds” types.

Finally, there is simply the dominionist note of this book. “We are to steward God's world and to exercise loving dominion over creation”. I've read books by dominionists who are on the conservative side of social, political, and thoelogical things, and it's not the first time I've noticed those on the left having similar ambitions. It's always amazing how much those on either side can make of the request in Jesus' prayer that “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. But what else does all of this talk about making earth into heaven, about earth being the womb of heaven, about heaven not being far away, mean except that it's our job to make earth like heaven? From the left or from the right, it's all dominionism, and I want nothing to do with either of them. Man's attempts to make a paradise on earth cannot but fail, and badly, no matter how much you dress it up in christian-like rags.

the jesus brand?

From the moment he became a professional golfer, Tiger Woods was marketing gold. He not only energized people who already loved golf, but he also influenced nongolfers to try to sport. And try it with a brand-new sleeve of Nike golf balls.

When it comes to representing Jesus, are you and I doing that? Are we energizing people who already love Him, as well as influencing non-Christians to try Jesus? Do people really want what we have? Are we giving them a reason?

I'll say it again: Many people have no problem with Christ, but a big problem with Christians. Expressed in marketing terms, the product isn't the problem--the spokes people are.Instead of bringing people to Jesus, it seems we're more effective at turning them away.
Tim Sinclair, "Branded: Sharing Jesus with a Consumer Culture", p. 140

Oh, where to begin...

So, we should market Jesus like Nike marketed Tiger? How does that work? If you have Jesus, you can win major victories? If you have Jesus, you can walk confidently, have swagger, never be down and out? If you have Jesus, you can be the best? If you add Jesus to your life, everything gonna be hunky-dorey?

Well, that sounds like the seeker-sensitive, relevant message, for sure.

It's interesting reading about us having to "market" Jesus like a company markets a spokesman. Let's say that someone who thought like this was around in Jesus' time on Earth, and was trying to get Jesus to act like he wanted Him to, so that He could be marketed better.

This marketing guru would likely have been apoplectic when Jesus drove off a bunch of people by talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He may have wanted Him to play a bit more nicely with the social religious leaders, having them on His side would have made things so much easier. Our marketing guru would have looked on with googly-eyes when Jesus let the rich young ruler walk away--hey, he's rich, he's young, he's a guy in charge, you don't let an opportunity like that just slip away!! He may have thought that having so many social misfits among the disciples was not the wisest of marketing moves--yeah, you want to appeal to a broad audience, but, really, isn't there a better selection process than just Your seemingly random choices? On the other hand, when Jesus discouraged people who claimed they wanted to follow Him, well, you can't sell your product when you do that!! And stop talking about "taking up your cross", that's polling badly, and by the way, this whole real crucifixion thing, no one thinks that is going to sell big at all.

Which brings us to the last part of that excerpt--the notion that people have no problem with Jesus. This isn't the first time I've heard or read someone make that claim, and, frankly, I'm not convinced. I've no doubt people may say that, but I've never heard of anyone asking a follow-up question like "Can you tell us about this Jesus that you like?"

Because, I'm pretty well sure that when it comes down to it, the Jesus most people find so unoffensive is a Jesus that is only marginally like the Jesus we read about in the Gospels.

There is a little skit I've heard on an internet radio show, that I think will explain what I mean. A woman walks into a Build-A-God store, and with the help of someone working in the store, creates her very own deity, one that embodies all the things she likes and doesn't like. At the end of the skit, the store worker asks the woman what she wants to call her deity, the woman calls her new deity Jesus, to the delight of the store worker, who says that that is what everyone calls their newly-created deity.

When people make a claim such as "I like Jesus, but it's the church that I can't stand", I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb, and say that the Jesus they claim to like is a Jesus that has more to do with their own likes and dislikes than any outside information about the real Jesus, a Jesus that they themselves created. I suspect that, if they could jump into a time machine and meet the real Jesus, they would dislike Him even more than they dislike the church. I'd even bet that they would be among those calling for Him to be crucified.

This notion of marketing Jesus seems rather problematic. Jesus seemed to have done a poor job of marketing Himself. The early church didn't do all that hot at it, either. The churches today that seem to be most concerned about it are...well, are they really the best examples we should follow? Cheesy rap videos, circus churches, televangelist who sell Jesus as the doorway to wealth and health.

Plus, how should we market Jesus? Health and wealth are bad theology. Life change is problematic at best. Jesus Himself talked about the world hating those who follow Him because the world hated Him. Trying to pretty up Jesus so that the world will like Him seems to simply lead to a compromised message.

When we try to market Jesus like a product, it seems to lead to silliness.

sojrone blames Christians, using bad argument

So, what else is new?

'Dexter Theology': Shedding Blood in God's Name

I’ll admit I’m a sucker for stories about the malleability of human morality. From the mob movies, where a guy can whack his cousin but better not show his Patron any “disrespect,” to justice-seeking serial killers like “Dexter,” there’s plenty of justified violence to be found.

Where do such seemingly contradictory value systems come from? And do they actually happen in the real world today?

How about the politician who claims a platform that values a respect for “all life,” while justifying war and advocating for capital punishment? Or those who celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And the list goes on.

Oh, boy, and there we go...

So, somehow, it's the fault of those who are think there are good reasons for going to war and executing murders that we have "Dexter"?

Sorry, I'm laughing my head off here. Or I would be, if I weren't in a library.

Because, really, how does that work?

I haven't watched "Dexter", and frankly have no wish to. Why should I watch anything that glorifies what is essentially murder, and the glorification of a serial killer no matter his reasons?

So, let's change this argument a bit, shall we? How about if we call it "NCIS theology"? That being one of my favorite shows, I'm a bit more familiar with it.

"NCIS" is essentially a detective show about usually military situations and issues. The team of investigators are law-enforcement officers. They use investigative techniques and technology to solve crimes. Sometimes, that also involves pulling out guns and having to shoot people, and sometimes that means the criminal is killed.

So, we have law-enforcement officers, abiding by the law and rules of their organization (even if they sometimes bend those rules a lot sometimes) and who sometimes have to use lethal force. A far cry from "Dexter", I would guess.

Do they show a disrespect for life when they try to bring criminals to justice and sometimes have to use lethal force? I would say, no. There is nothing in the position that supports capital punishment that leads to a lack of respect for life.

(and would one dare point out that those on the left are the ones who advocate for the real killing of innocents, the unborn, in the form of abortion?)

So, yes, I respect all life, and am pro-life in that I am against abortion, and wish to see it's legality ended. I am also pro-capital punishment, because there are crimes that deserve that punishment.

But, I think this sojrone has a bigger fish to fry.

Some even suggest that a culture of justified violence was applied to Jesus’ own crucifixion. This can even be found in the writings of Paul, who came from a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism as well. So it’s understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus’ death.

His "bigger fish" is the substitutionary atonement of Christ, that "Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures tell us".

Jesus forgave sin while he was still alive. Was this a lie? A Mistake? Or did he actually present a grace to the world that was greater than sin, even then?

How does Jesus forgiving sins while He was alive contradict anything? Christ was going to lay down His life for us. Forgiveness, then, was likely based on Him doing that, just like all other sins before His death were forgiven through it. There is nothing contradictory there.

I believe that Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’ message rings the most true, and it can be summed up in three simple words:

Violence never redeems.

We come to it, the real point of this whole sad sojo post--the death of Christ is needless.

It’s love that redeems, and love requires no blood to be spilled in order to exist, or else it’s not really love. There’s no such thing as conditional love; love never comes with an asterisk, a caveat or fine print. It is whole, complete and absolute in and of itself.

Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may even be considered Biblical in some cases. But it’s not Christ-like.

"Without shedding of blood there is no redemption of sins". That is God's Word, and if the words of Walter Wink or this sojrone contradict it, then they are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".

Even heathens honor those who sacrifice their own lives for their family or countries, but this sojrone belittles and dishonors the Christ who gave His life for us by his trite and unscriptural positions. This is blasphemy, pure and simple. He is one who trods upon the blood of Christ, calling it an accursed thing.

the dark underbelly of being a sojrone

So, a writer at Sojo is in a pickle.

The Dark Underbelly of Fundamentalist, Charismatic Christianity

Now, I do believe that there are some serious problems in charismania. Namely, they have for far too long tolerated the 'ministries' of fake-healers and people who claim to be apostles and prophets but are not.

But, those aren't the problems this Sojrone finds appalling. Here is what bugs him.

In my late-20s, I began to notice the poor track record that fundamentalist Christianity produces on a societal level. The first shocker was when I discovered that all those prayer groups I attended to “Bless Israel” in my youth and Bible college years were in fact providing theological cover to justify colonialism and oppression of Arab peoples in the Middle East. Then I started wondering why it never occurred to me that the Vietnam War was immoral, even though I had traveled there as a Bible college student and seen the gruesome pictures of what it looked like from their perspective. Then I learned that the most vehement opponents of civil rights in the 1960’s were Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians. So far, not so good

I’ve noticed that the same loving, happy people that I grew up with are the same people who think of homosexuality as if it were the moral equivalent of pedophilia. I’ve seen people very close to me — people who love Jesus and strive to live a moral life — isolated, shamed, and rejected by the same happy, loving people who believe that if gay people would just pray hard enough and forgive their earthly fathers, then they can be “cured.”

So, he doens't like it that charismatic, as a whole, are pro-Israel and think homosexuality is a sin.

In other words, two aspects of the charismatic movement that could be considered biblically informed are what this man calls the 'dark underbelly'.

I don’t want to pass homophobia along to my children. My heart tells me its wrong, though my head still has a hard time figuring out how to reconcile what my heart is telling me with the way I read Scripture.

What are we in, a Disney movie? Some shloppy Hollywood fairy tale where all is right if you "follow your heart"?

News for you, Sojrone, the Bible does not follow your "My heart tells me it's wrong" thinking. It has little good to say about the heart as a decision-makers; rather, it flatly tells us "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, more than we can know". If your heart is contradicting God's Word, your heart is wrong.

the source of division

This is my theory anyway, my working assumption, let's call it a place to begin. I'm open to the fact I may have read too much into that "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers" bumper sticker, but I did have this tangible reaction to that experience. The tug in my gut felt real: this isn't how it's suppose to be and you are not suppose to sit here idly waiting for things to change.

Why Is the Gospel of Love Dividing America?

If I had to boil it down to one question that would be it. This is where the contradiction lives. If I could figure out what part of the gospel (or perhaps, how we present it) is doing the dividing--if it even is--then I'd find my answer.
Dan Merchant, Love, save us from you followers, p 29

At the risk of being flippant, I wonder how much of the New Testament and the Gospels Mr. Merchant has really read.

I wonder that because, well, how could one read the accounts of Jesus' life and how the people around Him reacted to Him, and come to think that Jesus was one who was some kind of social unifier.

Jesus had people love Him, and other people hate Him. He had some people try to throw Him off a cliff, and others try to stone Him. There were people who tried to trip Him up by asking Him trick questions. He had people adore Him, have faith in Him, come to Him for help and healing. He drove off many people who seemed to want to follow Him by talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And, at the end, He had such enemies as wanted Him killed in a very public and humiliating and torturous fashion.

And that didn't really improve with His followers. They quickly made enemies, and were soon subjected to persecutions. Paul gives an extensive list of the things he had suffered, and almost all of the Apostles died in martyrdom. Among the churches Jesus addresses in Revelation, some were suffering severe persecutions, and these were the ones Jesus seemed to rebuke the least.

And finally, we have Jesus' very own words, which were not happy-happy-joy-joy. He says that He did not come to bring peace, but rather a sword, which would divide mothers from daughters, and husbands from wives--pretty much, I guess, people who should be closest to each other would be divided by Jesus. He says that those who would follow Him must hate those closest to them, or they would not be His disciples. He also talks about how the world hated Him, and how it will also hate those who follow Him.

Many of His parables spoke more of division than of unity--dividing sheep from goats, wise virgins from foolish ones, faith servants from unprofitable ones.

What part of the Gospel is doing the dividing? I'm don't think I'm exaggerating if I say that the Gospel itself is doing the dividing. Just as it divided the world that Jesus lived in, and then the Apostles and early Christians, so too it is dividing us today.

Rather than adorn himself in a silly bumper-sticker-laden suit and asking the world about the division, perhaps Mr. Merchant would be wise to look to the Christ he seems to think is some kind of social unifier, to see if his views are correct or not.