A friend of mine shared this on Facebook today and I thought it was pretty amusing.

And slightly awesome.

Lightsaber AND a jetpack in heaven? Um, yes please.

Of course, there are a couple things I’d want to trade out or at least add.

I was never a big fan of Firefly, so if I could get never ending seasons of Arrested Development, Michael Scott era The Office, and/or King of the Hill that would be pretty fantastic.

Also, I get that harps are the traditional heavenly instrument, but can I switch that out for Jimi Hendrix’s guitar?

Call me a heretic, but I’ll pass on the John Lennon album. How about a new Led Zeppelin album instead?

Oh, and no heavenly welcome basket of mine would be complete without unlimited gift certificates to In-N-Out and Oklahoma Joe’s.

But that’s just me.

What would you want in your heavenly welcome basket?

[Image via]

 
We live in a bottom line society.

If something isn’t efficient enough, if it doesn’t get the job done, or, most importantly, if it doesn’t make money, we get rid of it or ignore altogether in the first place.

Whether in business, church, or just day to day life, many of the decisions we make are based on what’s best for the bottom line, what makes the most sense in light of our resources, or what will be the most beneficial to us in the end.

Which means the people and things we cherish the most are those that are the most efficient, the most productive, and the most profitable.

In turn, this means there is no greater secular sin than being good for nothing.

If something is good for nothing, we toss it aside, trash it, vilify it, and go out of our way to make sure no one else bothers wasting their time, money, or energy on something or someone that is good for nothing.

Which is what makes God so particularly confusing and frustrating, if not altogether off putting.

God doesn’t always make sense. God doesn’t always do what is most efficient. God certainly doesn’t do what would be most beneficial to God.

Perhaps “worst” of all, God is good for no reason. That is say, God is good regardless of profitability.

God loves in the face of rejection. God gives grace even though it’s exploited. God forgives even as God is being trampled on. God gives when it isn’t deserved.

God is good for nothing.

For no reason.

For no profit.

God is good simply because God chooses to be good, not because of what God may get out of it. After all, God is not in need of anything.

This is, once again, what makes God so particularly confusing and frustrating, if not altogether off putting for those of us who live in a society consumed by the bottom line, where everything must have a purpose, a reason, a potential for profit.

But God’s love has no motive.

God simply loves.

Sure, God wants us to return that love, but God doesn’t force it and God certainly doesn’t stop loving when that love doesn’t see a return on its investment.

This is why Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell everything and give the money to the poor. It’s not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with money or wealth. It’s because the man had a motive in wanting to follow Jesus. He wasn’t in love in Jesus. He wanted what Jesus could do for him.

But that’s not the sort of life Jesus calls his follower to. Jesus calls his people to simply love like God loves.

To be good for nothing.

This is why we hear so many people talk about the Christian life, but few actually live it. Being good for nothing is a scary thing. It requires us to abandon our need for profit, efficiency, and the sense of security that come with them.

It means taking care of the poor even though they didn’t do anything to earn it. It means forgiving even when forgiveness isn’t asked for. It means extending grace to those who actively seek our demise.

It means pouring out one’s life without exception of gain, but simply out of love for God and neighbor.

This is the sort of life we see embodied by Jesus in the Gospels.

And this is the sort of God we encounter in Scripture.

But this sort of God doesn’t fit very well into our modern bottom line society. In fact, this sort of God stands in stark opposition to it.

Because this sort of God is good for nothing.

But that is the very thing that makes God worthy of our worship.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Yesterday I shared the SNL spoof “DJesus Uncrossed.”

Even without knowing it was from SNL you probably could have probably figured out on your own that it wasn’t a real movie.

Well, it may not be, but it seems “Fist of Jesus” is.

Or at least its creators want it to be.

There’s not a lot of information about this on the Fist of Jesus website.

Not even a description of what it’s supposed to be about.

They are, however, collecting donations to turn their short film into a feature one.

My first guess was that this was/is some sort of joke along the lines of the SNL parody and maybe it is. But at least the existence of the short film isn’t a joke.

It’s very real.

It’s in Spanish (with English subtitles).

And [WARNING] it’s pretty gory.

Anyway, check it out for yourself, and if you’ve got any inside information on this, um, project, let me know.

Real or fake?

ONE MORE WARNING – This is pretty violent.

You don’t get much more “American Jesus” than this.

Over the weekend SNL gave Jesus the Quentin Tarantino treatment with their movie spoof “DJesus Uncrossed” in which Jesus rolls away the stone with his bare hands, grabs his guns, and gets revenge on the bad guys who put him there.

Somewhere in Seattle I imagine Mark Driscoll sitting on his couch watching this and shouting “That’s my Jesus!”

Of course, he’s probably not the only one.

As my friend David Henson points out,

In the end, whatever the fallout from the skit, American Christianity didn’t need Tarantino or SNL or anyone in Hollywood to think up something as absurd and as base and as hysterically inaccurate as DJesus Uncrossed.

We’ve already done that for ourselves.

Say what you will about how offensive SNL’s sketch was. Our popular theology is more so. Because we should know better.

Anyway, check out the video for yourself and let me know what you think: perfect satire or blasphemous spoof?

Jesus once said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe.”

If I’m being really honest that’s a blessing I would rather do without. Given the choice I would rather “see” than “believe.”

Simply put, I wish I didn’t have faith.

I don’t mean I wish I didn’t believe in God or the resurrection or anything like that. That’s not what I mean at all. In fact, I mean just the opposite.

I wish I had knowledge. I wish I had surety. I wish I had proof.

I wish I could have walked with Jesus. I mean really walked with him down the dusty roads of Galilee. I wish I could have sat beside the historical Jesus and heard his voice with my own ears. I wish I could have seen his face with my own eyes. I wish I could have been there on Easter Sunday and beheld the empty tomb. I wish I could have joined with Thomas and put my fingers in the holes of his palms, felt the spear wound on his side, and know, not just believe, but know that he did indeed rise from the dead.

I understand that that wasn’t enough for most of the people who had the chance I so covet. Sure, Jesus and his disciples accumulated thousands of followers, but the majority of people in Jesus’ day didn’t join The Way. They saw just him as yet another in a long line of charismatic teachers and would-be messiahs.

But that real, physical, historical, tangible encounter would be enough for me.

It wouldn’t just wipe away my doubts, it would wipe away my faith and replace it with knowledge, affirmation, and the sort of assurance that doesn’t need faith because it has seen.

But it seems that blessed assurance must wait.

Even though we don’t like to talk about this sort of this, I’m willing to be if you’re a Christian, there are many times when you feel the same as I.

When you have doubts.

Tragically, doubt is an unwanted guest in much of the church today, particularly amongst those who call ourselves evangelicals. In the face of historical criticism, scientific breakthroughs, and the arrogance of fundamentalism, we are left thinking that doubt is the opposite of faith. Doubt, we are told, is the weapon of the enemy. If we allow it gain even a toehold, then the enemy wins and the Christian faith itself will come crashing down.

What we need instead it faith.

But faith is not a vaccination against doubt.

It is the embracing of it.

Faith embraces our deepest doubts, faces them head on, and chooses to believe anyway. We have faith because we doubt. If we didn’t doubt, we wouldn’t have faith. We would have knowledge.

But until Christ returns that sort of knowledge alludes us, no matter how arrogantly we may try to claim otherwise. Which means until that glorious appearing we must not only lean on faith, we must also make room for our doubts.

Doubting has a long tradition in Scripture.

Abraham doubted God’s promise. Moses doubted God’s gifts. Israel doubted God’s leadership. David doubted God’s presence. Job doubted God’s goodness. Peter doubted God’s Lordship. Thomas doubted God’s resurrection power.

And yet throughout these many doubts God did not pour out His wrath in anger. Why? Because God doesn’t fear our doubts. He embraces them, much like a parent embraces a child who doesn’t quite believe they’ll catch them when they jump into the pool for the very first time.

Throughout Scripture and throughout the history of the Church, the people of God have doubted, even in the face of God’s action in their lives. But this doubt hasn’t led to a collapse of the faith. In an ironic twist, it has tended to do quite the opposite. For many of God’s people who have faced even the deepest of doubts, those doubts have been the very catalyst for their faith. Why? Because the more they doubted, the more they were forced to rely on God to see them through the trails that gave rise to their doubts.

Thee saints certainly struggled through these doubts, but they didn’t fear them because they understood faith isn’t about knowing. Faith is about throwing ourselves headlong into the unknowable, the unprovable, the unbelievable and hoping that God will be there to catch us.

I have faith because when I have taken this leap God has been there catch me, not necessarily immediately, but always. This is what gives my faith strength. And this is as close as I will come this side of eternity to the knowledge of God I so desperately seek.

Which means my faith is a gift. And every time God catches me, that gift is given anew.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t times in between when I feel like I’m falling, when faith doesn’t seem to be enough, when I would gladly trade Jesus’ blessing for proof.

I have those moments in abundance.

I think we all do.

Our Biblical heroes certainly did.

And yet God did not strike them down.

God welcomed their questions, embraced their doubts, and offered them the gift of faith.

Which means if we as a church can’t make space for those who doubt, we have no right to claim to be a Biblically faithful people.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Well, it’s that time of year again.

TIme to scramble to find something to give up for Lent because you forgot Lent started today until you opened up Facebook and saw everyone’s posts about what they were giving up.

Have no fear. I’m here to help.

For the third year in a row, here is my Top 10 list of things to give up for Lent this year….

10. Healthy Eating

Lent is traditionally a time of fasting. Many modern Christians have put a spin on that and turned it into a time of de facto dieting, giving up everything from sodas to chocolate to fast food. Well, I say let’s put a spin on things again and give up healthy eating for Lent. Embrace your inner child for the next 40 days and consume all the junk food and culinary decadence you possibly can. Eat ice cream for breakfast. Go to McDonald’s three times a day. Don’t just eat a slice of pizza, eat the whole thing. After all, didn’t Jesus say unless you become like little children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven?

9. Coffee Enemas

This is a real thing. Seriously. I didn’t believe it either. I knew colon cleansing was a thing, I just didn’t know coffee could be part of that equation. Since most of us probably ingest our Starbucks in the proper hole, let this Lent option be a ministry opportunity. If you know someone addicted to coffee enemas, suspect you know someone who is addicted to coffee enemas, or just want to embarrass a close friend or family member in public, take the time over the next 40 days to talk to them about their addiction. Put your hand on their shoulder and let them know you’re there for them….just do it loud enough so everyone around can hear, ’cause, you know, accountability and stuff. Offer to pray for them. And then take them down to Starbucks and show them how coffee is meant to be consumed. Just keep an eye on them while you’re there. Addiction is a tough thing to break. You don’t want to find yourself embarrassed when your friend has dropped their pants in the middle of the store and is trying to shove their latte up where the sun don’t shine.

8. Ken Ham

Speaking of things that are lodged in our system, this Lent it’s time to cleanse ourselves of Ken Ham. You know Ken Ham. He’s the Austrialian guy who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky and insists that people once domesticated velociraptors. Look, we all loved Jurassic Park and, sure, it would be awesome if we could have pet dinosaurs, but for the sake of Christian dignity, can we please stop pretending that a random guy from Australia with absolutely no scientific training whatsoever knows more than the entire scientific community? Seriously, God won’t be mad if you decide to “believe” in evolution for Lent. After all, He invented it.

7. Dating Taylor Swift

Now, you may not think this one affects you, but give it time. At the rate she’s going Taylor Swift will have dated and broken up with everyone on the planet by the end of Lent. Which means you need to prepare yourself now. She’s gonna come along your way sometime in the next forty days, sing you a song, and try to sweet talk you into a date. But you must resist! And the only way to keep yourself from being turned into her next number one single is to decide now that you’re giving up dating Taylor Swift for Lent before it’s too late!

6. Winter

Maybe this is just me, but I’m tired of winter. My house is still buried under 2 feet of snow and I haven’t been able to get warm since September. Besides, baseball’s Spring Training has officially started, which means spring itself is just around the corner, which means summer isn’t that far off. So, if you’re like me and you’re tired of all the cold, then fight back against the cold hard grip of Mother Nature and give up winter for Lent. Put on some shorts, wear flip flops to work, find somewhere and go for a swim. Sure, it may technically still be cold outside, but as they say in show business “you gotta fake it till you make it.”

5. Social Taboos

You may think you’re free, but your not. Our lives are enslaved by unspoken rules forced upon us by an oppressive society. So, this Lent say “no” to social taboos and “yes” to freedom! Frustrated by that awkward silence in the elevator? Strike up an equally awkward conversation with the stranger next to you. Tired of holding in that fart in public? Be bold and let it go. Annoyed that you’re expected to get dressed to go out in public? Live every day of Lent like you’re going to Wal-Mart and stop bothering yourself with insignificant things like combing your hair, putting on deodorant, or wearing pants. Christianity is about freedom, so this Lent embrace the freedom you have in Christ.

4. Believing Everything You Read On The Internet

Maybe you’re thinking this one is just for your parents, and maybe it is. But if your Facebook wall is anything like mine, it’s filled with people freaking out over the most absurd news stories, “facts,” and memes. So this Lent, let’s have parents and children unite together and stop believing every ridiculous thing you read on the internet. That Facebook post you read about some horrible thing the government is doing? Not true. That article someone forwarded you from a website you’ve never heard of about the evils of the medical community? Not true. That email you go promised you riches? Well, that one’s real, you’ll just need to send that money you were asked to send to me, not the Nigerian prince.

3. Giving Up Giving Up Facebook

Today on Facebook you’re gonna see a lot of people announce they’re giving up Facebook for Lent. Don’t fall for it. They’ll be back. They always come back. As my wife likes to say, “Giving up Facebook is the adult temper tantrum.” They may try to hide their attempt to be cool under the guise of devoting more time to God for Lent, but don’t be fooled. It’ll only last a few days, maybe a week. So, turn the tables on them. Show them how cool you are and give up giving up Facebook for Lent. Spend so much time of Facebook that everything else in your life falls apart. Sure, you may have nothing left in 40 days, but at least you’ll have the pride of knowing you stuck to your commitment while everyone else caved and went back to Facebook after just a few days.

2. The Gospel Coalition

This one is as much for me as it is for you. You know that crazy uncle everybody has who doesn’t have a filter and says whatever pops in his head no matter how awful or ridiculous it may be, and then somehow blames you for not having thick enough skin and getting upset about what he said? Well, that’s how a lot of us feel about The Gospel Coalition. Now, you may love it. You may think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. But for the sake of Christian unity and sanity let’s all agree to ignore them for the next 40 days. That way we could at least have the possibility of talking about the gospel as if it wasn’t the sole property of a bunch of middle-class Reformed white guys. And who knows, if we all give up The Gospel Coalition for Lent, then maybe by the end of it we’ll all be able to come together around the same table and agree…..that Jesus thinks women are people too.

1. Being Pope

Sure, there’s only one guy in the world who can give this up for Lent and he already has. So kudos to Benedict for thinking up the greatest thing to give up for Lent ever in the history of giving up stuff for Lent…..on the other hand, if he’s not going to be pope, someone needs to be. Which means there’s an opportunity for you to get in on this action. Apparently all that’s required for someone to be elected pope is that they be a baptized member (male, sorry ladies) of the Roman Catholic Church. So, if you’re not Catholic already go ahead and get yourself baptized. Once baptized, or if you already are, gather around a few close friends and hold your own conclave. Make sure they elect you pope. Once elected, throw on a cool hat and a sweet robe, after all you’ve gotta enjoy it for a little bit, I mean you’re the pope after all. Then, when your friends least expect it, but before midnight tonight because all this has to happen before midnight tonight to count, announce your resignation. But make sure you post it to Facebook! After all, if all your Facebook friends don’t know what you’re giving up for Lent, it doesn’t count.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

I’m apparently a bit behind the curve on this as I had never heard of The Bible Series that is set to premiere on the History Channel in just a few weeks.

In case you’re like me and you’re out of the loop, here’s the preview for it. If you have already seen it, I encourage you to watch it again, pay careful attention, and let me know if you notice anything.

Did you catch it?

Apparently according to this History Channel special, a network devoted to as much historical accuracy as possible, everyone in the Bible was white.

And Jesus was British.

Oh, and it seems that most, if not all, of the “bad guys” in the Old Testament are, well, not white and British. Although, to be fair, maybe I’m wrong on that. I’m just assuming they’re the “bad guys” because they’re the ones killing the white guys who have already been established in the preview as the heroes of the various stories being told.

Now, I understand there’s only so far we can go in the realm of historical accuracy when it comes to making movies. For example, creating a series like this spoken entirely in the original languages would be a tough sell for American, English speaking audiences (though Mel Gibson did manage to pull that one off).

And therein lies the problem with this series, but not just the series itself. Herein lies the problem with most of us.

It’s not an accident that the Jesus in this History Channel special is white and speaks with a fine British accent. After all, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of actors of MIddle Eastern descent available to play these roles. That was a decision made by the producers of this program because they need ratings, they need to sell ad space, and the best way to do that is to portray Jesus, and all the other BIble heroes, in a way that is comfortable for the audience.

In other words, to put it bluntly, the producers decided that their audience was racist.

Now, before you think write me off for wild conspiratorial speculation or before you get upset at me for nitpicking a show millions of Christians are bound to watch and think is amazing for its “historical accuracy,” I want you to consider something first.

The images of Jesus in your church. The pictures hanging on the wall. The stained glass windows. The children’s books used in Sunday School. The videos used in small groups.

What does that Jesus look like?

Without having visited your church, I feel pretty safe in assuming that if your church is located in the United States (or the West in general) and your congregation is predominately white, then all the images of Jesus that occupy your church are also white.

This may not be the sort of overt racism of the KKK. Obviously it’s not. But it’s still racism. It’s racism domesticated, racism coated in a veneer of pseudo-innonence and naiveté.

Most of us are not dumb. If you talk to most people in churches today, they’ll probably tell you that Jesus was Jewish or of Middle Eastern descent – even though all the images of him in their church portray him as a white guy.

Why is that?

It’s the same reason we go to the churches we go to, live in the neighborhoods we live in, and shop or eat at the places we do. Not because we’re ready to don hoods and burn crosses, but because there’s something inside all of us – white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. – that fears that which is different. It’s this fear of the other that spurs racism and, in turn, allows us to subconsciously convince ourselves that surrounding ourselves with only things and people, or images of Jesus, that look, act, talk, and think like us is an ok thing to do.

It’s not.

Diversity is a gift given by our Creator. To ignore it, or worse, to try and dismantle it isn’t just racist or bigoted, it’s akin to idolatry. Why? Because in doing so we are attempting to remake the world in our own image, in the ways we see fit.

This is why something like The Bible Series is so problematic. Not because it makes historical mistakes, but because it feeds this idolatrous fear of the other. Not overtly, but subtly, on a subconscious level. Which may be worse, because it domesticates our racism and idolatry by allowing us to justify it through the medium of entertainment and accessibility.

Which is exactly what we do.

And then we populate our churches with images of this same white Jesus and white Bible heroes. Then we populate our churches with people who look just like these comfortable white heroes. Then we move into neighborhoods which are filled with more people who look like these white Bible heroes. And we eat and shop alongside people who look like these white BIble heroes.

And before you know it, we’ve white washed the entire world.

We’ve remade the world in our image.

We’ve committed idolatry on an industrial scale.

Again, you may think this is much ado about nothing. After all, it’s just a TV show, right? Maybe, but I doubt it. Yeah, it’s great when the Bible gets this sort of attention, but this sort of attention doesn’t excuse the inherent racism involved and, in fact, negates any “good” that may have otherwise been accomplished. Worse yet, in giving this sort of thing a free pass because it calls attention to the Bible we are implicitly supporting the sort of subliminal, but destructive racism it engenders. The truth of the matter is television, entertainment, mass media, they all have a profound influence on the ways we think and act whether we realize it or not.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say this is just a TV show for the History Channel.

If it is, and it’s just an attempt to present the Bible in as historically accurate a way as possible for the purposes of entertainment and maybe just a bit of enlightenment, we’re still left with one burning question.

In this historical drama about the ancient Near East, why are all the “good guys” white?

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

When I woke up this morning I awoke, as so many others did, to the news that Pope Benedict XVI is resigning.

I’m a big theology and church history guy, so I’m devouring every piece of news I can find about this event and can’t wait for conclave to begin.

And I’m not even Roman Catholic.

Which got me to thinking about something.

How many Protestant Christians think the Pope’s sudden resignation even matters? My guess is some, but that many more see the papacy, if not the Roman Catholic Church itself, as rather irrelevant.

Why I do say that? Because I think we as American Protestants have become rather myopic when it comes to the Christian faith. You can see our myopathy in the way we toss around the word “church.”

Many of us use “the church” as an all encompassing term, as if there were one united Christian body overseeing the faithful, deciding policy, and formulating theological positions (something the Roman Catholic church actually does see itself as doing).

While this makes it easier to talk about “the church” and far easier to criticize or trash “the church,” the truth is that when most of us non-Roman Catholic American Christians toss around the term “the church” what we really mean is “the Protestant/Evangelical church” or our particular denomination. Worse yet, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church for that matter, doesn’t even cross our mind when we Protestants think and talk about “the church,” even though it contains more of the Body of Christ than all other Christian traditions combined.

Why does our use of “the church” matter?

Because if we’re seriously about changing the church for the better, we can’t do that without knowing what we’re actually talking about. The church is infinitely more diverse than we give it credit for. And within that diversity are a whole host of gifts, resources, people, talent, beliefs, hope, goodness, and practices that get tossed aside in our sweeping critiques of “the church” as if all of “the church,” or even most of “the church,” believes, thinks, talks, or acts in the way we are critiquing “the church.”

Sure, there are plenty of problems across the various Christian traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church, but we do a disservice to, if not outright slander, the Body of Christ when we talk about “the church” as if our small corner of it exhausts the Christian experience.

The truth is, the church is far larger than we can imagine and, in many places, greater than we have experienced.

So, as the Roman Catholic church prepares to select a new pope, I hope this moment can be a reminder for all of us non-Catholics that “the church” is a far bigger and infinitely more diverse, and in many places healthier, Body than most of us give it credit for.

As such, it deserves the work it will take to talk about and critique it faithfully if “the church,” rather than “my church,” is something we actually care about.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Sex.

It’s not exactly a topic you associate with the Bible, at least not in a particularly positive sense.

If the Bible does talk about sex, we assume, it’s not in a very positive light. Often times that is true. There are many stories in the Bible that warn against all sorts of sexual vices.

But then there’s that funny book in the Old Testament called Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon.

Not only is it all about sex, it celebrates it. Not exactly the sort of thing you expect to be called “holy scripture.”

So, why is Song of Songs in the Bible? Does it even belong there?

If I can, allow me to momentarily add your confusion in order to offer an explanation that was given to me yesterday that I think does an excellent job of clarifying the role of Song of Songs in the Bible.

Why is Song of Songs in the Bible?

Because it can be the hermeneutical key for interpreting scripture.

Seriously.

Let me explain.

This semester I’m taking a course at Yale in medieval theology. It’s taught by the one and only Denys Turner. I say “one and only” because, not only is he one of the world’s leading scholars in this area, he’s a brilliant, kind, and utterly entertaining person.

During this first section of the course we’ve been covering the medieval monastic communities, those great men and went who left “the world” to find the real world.

As it turns out, despite their vows of celibacy, these monks were fascinated by Song of Songs. In fact, according to Denys, it was the second most commented on book of the Bible during this period behind only the Psalms, which the monks prayed and sang everyday.

So, why this obsession with Song of Songs? Was it simply pent up sexual frustration? Perhaps, but not likely.

As Denys so wonderfully put it yesterday, “This is where Freud has messed us up. We think the real thing is about sex, but the monks say “No, the real thing is God.”

In other words, Song of Songs isn’t really about sex. And if we think it is, it’s because our modern sexually saturated minds can’t let us see anything else.

The great church father Origen had a way of talking about this. For him, there are two ways to interpret scripture: the literal sense and the spiritual one. New Christians, or as the apostle Paul might call them, children in the faith, read the Bible in the literal sense, what is simply written on the page. They are not quite ready for spiritual meat, so they must settle for spiritual milk.

But God does not intend us to stay as children, reading Scripture merely in the literal sense.

God wants His children to grow into mature adults, to eat spiritual meat, to read the Bible in the deeper, spiritual sense God intended.

Such is the case with a book like Song of Songs. When we read Song of Songs as nothing more than a handbook on sex, it’s because we are spiritually immature. Spiritually erotic literature is not to be read as sublimating sex. What it’s really about is Christ and the church.

Why is that?

Because according to the Christian faith, the entire Bible is about Christ, including the Old Testament. In fact, Origen would go so far as to argue that because everything in scripture is directed towards Christ, there really is no Old Testament for Christians. It’s all the same story.

The monks understood this. Which is why they were so interested in Song of Songs. Not because they were sexually repressed, but because, celibate though they were, they understood what sex is really about – expectation and fulfillment.

Song of Songs is a beautiful poem describing the ebb and flow of expectation and fulfillment that comes about between two lovers. They long for each other, they embrace, and the process begins a new. Anticipation may not be better than the realization in this particular case, but it’s an essential component that makes the realization all the greater.

As the medieval monks so brilliantly observed, this ebb and flow of expectation and fulfillment isn’t just about sex. It’s a description of the entire Biblical narrative.

There is the expectation of creation, fulflled when the world is finally finished on the seventh day.

But the process begins anew when the flood waters come, the earth is remade, and new expectations begin for a people who will devote themselves to God, expectations that are finally fulfilled when God chooses a man named Abram and he says “yes.”

The story of the Exodus is one of hundreds of years of patient expectation in slavery, finally fulfilled when Moses leads the people of out bondage.

But then the process begins anew when 40 years of expectations in the wilderness are finally fulfilled when the people cross over into the Promised Land.

As Origen, and others, observed, the rest of the Old Testament is filled with the expectations of a coming Savior, expectations which are finally met in the Gospels.

But once again, the process begins anew after Jesus’ ascension and the rest of the New Testament begins a new set of expectations which will one day be fulfilled with the Second Coming of Jesus.

The narrative of scripture is one of expectation and fulfillment. It’s a story of longing and embrace between God and His people. It’s a story of expecting that God to be faithful, and then standing back in wonder when God fulfills His promises in ways we could never begin to imagine.

Song of Songs captures this beautifully. Which is why, strange though it may sound, the monks were right.

Song of Songs isn’t just a sex manual.

It’s the key to understanding the entire Bible.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

If you would allow me, I’d like to try something a little different today.

Instead of “pontificating” about a subject that’s been rolling around in my head, I want to hear from you about something.

I want to talk about election.

Not presidential elections.

Biblical election. You know, the election that determines who gets to go to heaven and who gets to go to hell.

If you’re not familiar with the doctrine of election, or predestination, let me briefly fill you in before explaining what sparked my interest, and then sharing with you the questions I have about it.

The doctrine of election essentially states that because God is sovereign and controls all things, God therefore determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Now, there are nuanced versions of this that would try to argue that God only decides who goes to heaven, but suggesting that that decision doesn’t necesserarliy also determine who goes to hell by virtue of not being chosen for heaven is absolutely and unequivocally nonsense. If God determines everything and there are only two options in this scenario, then by choosing people for one option God necessarily chooses people for the other option.

It’s basic logic.

And that’s where my questions about election come in to play.

Yesterday a popular mega-church preacher tweeted that one of his members had recently been saved, therefore that person must have been among the elect. This raised a lot of questions in my head, questions I’m very curious to know how you would answer or reconcile if you affirm the doctrine of election.

My first questions is this: If God has already predetermined before the dawn of time who will or will not be elected, i.e. saved/chosen for heaven, then how exactly could the aforementioned preacher’s congregant “get saved?”

Now, I’m not talking about the atoning role of Jesus in salvation. What I’m referring to, and I honestly hadn’t really thought about this before, is this: If God already decided who is saved, then how could this church member choose to get saved?

In other words, how is evangelism even a possibility if God has already chosen the elect?

To me, and many others, it seems that the need to “get saved” is actually an impossibility if God has already decided who is saved because in that paradigm they are already saved and therefore couldn’t be saved in the evangelical understanding of that idea.

Which leads to my next question: If God has already chosen who will go to heaven, what is the point of evangelism and/or missionary work?

If God has already decided our eternal fate, then logically these sorts of activities are a complete and utter waste of time.

Now, I have heard the rebuttal to this that despite election, evangelism and missions should continue because the Bible, specifically Jesus, commands it.

Which leads me to another question: Why is it that Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples,” a calling which implies this is possible (and would only be possible if people could be saved), if, based on the doctrine of election, those people are already saved? In other words, why does Jesus call for evangelism and missions not give those of you who affirm election pause to question the idea that God has already decided salvation?

To me, and many others, it seems that Jesus’ call to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth is a pretty clear affirmation that the gospel is needed everywhere because everyone has the possibility of hearing and being saved.

Which leads me to another question: If that is not the case, that not everyone can be saved, and Jesus is calling us to preach the gospel to those who have already been condemned (by God, not by their own decisions), then what doesn’t that imply some pretty terrible things about God? Namely, that not only does God create people for hell, but God torments them in this life by pretending to offer them salvation even though God has already determined they are not part of the elect.

To me, and many others, this makes us questions why anyone would choose to believe in such a God? What is the appeal? Because belief or not, worship or not, your eternal fate is sealed.

Which leads me to another question: If via election our eternal fate is sealed before the dawn of time, then why does sin matter? Moreover, why does Jesus even need to die for our sins if God predestined our salvation before the cross?

To me, and many others, logically speaking, election makes the issue of sin essentially irrelevant.

Finally, I have a couple questions about Biblical interpretation.

(I promise this is the end of my questions.)

I understand and agree that the Old Testament narrative is pretty clear that Israel is a chosen, or elect people. God chose them out of the nations on no account of their own.

Fair enough.

However, Paul says everything changes in Christ, i.e. in Christ the old has gone, then new has come; in Christ we are a new creation, there is no more male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free.

So, my question is this: If the old order of doing things has passed away, then why must one passage from Romans (“for those God foreknew he also predestined), trump everything the New Testament (and even the Old Testament if you consider Jeremiah’s prophetic statement about God doing a new thing) says about God extending salvation beyond Israel, beyond the elect?

If that verse trumps all of that, then doesn’t it necessarily require a rewording of the most famous passage in Scripture?

If election is true, then doesn’t John 3:16 have to be reworded from “For God so love the world” to “For God so love some of the world”?

And finally (for real this time, I promise): Why do Paul’s words about predestination have to only be about a few people?

To me, and many others, it seems that since God created everyone, God necessarily also “foreknew” everyone.

Why would Paul, whose entire mission is a mission to the Gentiles, e.g. a mission to take the gospel beyond the elect, suddenly change his tune from “this gospel is for everyone” to “this gospel is just for a few”?

Ok, that’s it.

Those are my questions about election. At least for now.

NOW IT’S YOUR TURN.

Whether you affirm election or not, but especially if you do, I want to hear from you.

How do you respond to my, or others’, questions about elections? Why must this doctrine be affirmed?

Or, if you don’t affirm election, what are your thoughts on all this? What other questions about election do you have for those that do affirm it?

I am genuinely and seriously interested in having this conversation. So if you have some thoughts, please don’t hesitate to share them. And if you know of someone who doesn’t regularly read this blog, but would be a valuable contributor to the conversation, please invite them to join our dialogue.

Obviously I have a lot of questions, and I want to give you plenty of time to respond. So, instead of posting something new tomorrow, I’ll be staying with this one so there will be as much time to discuss as there needs to be.

Anyway, I can’t wait to hear what everyone has to say in the comment section.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt