Bishop David Kendall's Blog

“Hell is real!”  That’s what it said on the sides and back of the trailer being pulled by the van that proudly displayed its congregational logo.  More precisely, from a distance you saw the large letter “HR.”  Then, as you neared you saw under the large letters the words, “Hell is real!”  Also on the back was “Matthew 28:18-19” with the words, “His last command our first priority.” 

Within the same week the blog-o-sphere convulsed over news concerning the latest book soon to be published by a prominent mega-church pastor.  Though the book has yet to appear, an insider’s advanced review of some of its content raised suspicions that the writer was soft on hell and is probably a Universalist.  It’s a sure bet that the “HR Van” was not en route to that mega-church, though its drivers might wish it were.

Within that same week again, the world-wide community of Christ-followers began its Lenten observance—that season of sober reflection on the sin we cannot deny, the hell it causes now and later, and the call of Jesus to turn from all of it for his better way.  The season when, out of love for us and for all, the Son of God stared down Evil and Hell, at incalculable cost, to salvage the cosmos and humanity.

I want very much to believe that the best intentions of people in the HR Van, the mega church pastor and his critical reviewers, and the world-wide community of Christ-followers would be to embrace, celebrate and share what Hebrews calls, “so great a salvation” that Jesus accomplished and makes available for all.  And I am sure that they all would agree that Jesus himself is or should be at the center.  If we begin there with Jesus at the center, can we not agree on a number of things about “going to hell?”  For example:

Our scripture story guides us above all to the person of Jesus as the one who shows us God and gives perspective for understanding God’s saving and judging acts.  Therefore, whatever we say about judgment and the eternal destiny of people must pass muster with the words, actions and spirit of Jesus.

Jesus affirms the reality of what we have come to understand as “hell”—that God will judge, that some will not be saved, and that hell will be tragically real for them.

Jesus refers to “hell’ using the images and understandings of the people who heard him speak, without explaining or elaborating much on the details.  I can think of no time when we find Jesus giving a “teaching on hell” as we might wish.

Jesus almost always speaks of hell, eternal punishment, and even torment to “insiders.”  That is, he speaks to the religious in this way, and especially to their leaders.  He does not teach the irreligious about the prospects of hell.  Pagans are not told they will go to hell unless …

Jesus addresses, sometimes severely, the people who self-identify as God’s people, who pride themselves as righteous, and he warns them of the harshest of consequences for rejecting the clear and urgent teachings of the law and prophets, summed up in the commands to love God and neighbor—all of which was on clear display in his—Jesus’—own ministry.  He warns of hell to pay for his own people who have had all the benefits and all the light.  He warns that their rejection of his kingdom message was the ultimate mistake.

Jesus responds differently to outsiders, however, many of them culturally Jewish but not considered religious.  He responds differently to the broken, the aimless, the confused, even those who act out in profane and violent ways.  To these Jesus responds with broken hearted compassion, gut wrenching longing to be their good shepherd, to call them to himself and his kingdom.  He serves them, feeds and heals them, and invites them to follow.  He does not condemn them.  To be sure, there are consequences of not following, immediate and future and eternal, but Jesus does not make those consequences his message.

Jesus teaches a kingdom of love and a salvation of loving relationships.  Jesus embodies love completely, fully, perfectly.  Love does not compel or coerce.  Love does not frighten those it would embrace.  Therefore, salvation is all about the deep loving relationships believers have with God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and with one another.  Eternal life is knowing God in this way.  Heaven is more a Person than a place.  Hell is more the absence of a Person than a place.

Jesus’ teachings about kingdom and salvation make it clear to me that, of course, there must be a hell and that of course some will go there.  But those who go to hell will do so because they have chosen to do so by rejecting the love offered them. The last thing people in hell would want is to go to heaven because they couldn’t stand being there.  They do not love the One who makes it heaven.  They’ve become people whose habituated lives cannot tolerate a life of loving interaction, participation and cooperation with the One who is love.

Jesus does not answer the question, “What about those who have never heard or known about God’s love, expressed in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection?”  He doesn’t answer this question except to declare his intent that the whole world should/must know and his plan to tell and show the world through his people.

Jesus himself—his words to the suffering, weak, and harassed, his welcome of children, his gentle but firm correction, his masterful ability to transform people and situations, and the Spirit in which he did and does all these things—all of this gives me confidence to say that in the end, or the new beginning, all persons will have been loved, invited into that love, and drawn towards its healing, restoring and recreating powers.  I do not know how this will occur.  I do not know by what means.  But for all persons love will not have given up, love will have reached out.  But because it is truly love some or many will refuse.  It blows my mind to imagine it.  But love can be refused, and love will honor the choice.

“Why,” my wife asked, “don’t they put on their van—HR: Heaven is real?”  Why indeed?  Better yet, why don’t they put, “Jesus is real?”!

Will Gluttons Feed the Starving?

This is the indelicate way I’ve come to think about the current budget crisis on display almost everywhere we look, with the obvious need to cut expenses and otherwise stop spending money we do not have.  Clearly, it is not wise to spend what one does not have.  In most cases it is, in fact, criminal.  But people in power often imagine themselves exceptions to the rule (this strikes me as a decent definition of injustice, come to think of it, but that’s another blog).

So almost everyone agrees we’ve got to stop spending or somehow acquire more to spend.  The latter turns most stomachs.  Thus, the former offers the more palatable and doable option.  We must decide not to spend a lot of money we and our systems are currently spending.

So what should we stop spending?  That’s the question.  Before addressing this more directly I will digress, but hopefully in a way germane.

I am certain that if someone in my neighborhood were starving, I would help.  I would do whatever I could to avert disaster for my neighbors.  No need to debate the issues or evaluate the starving—just the urgent need to care for people motivates.  I would make good on the call to love my neighbor.  For sure, this glutton (with way more than enough food to eat) would help the starving.

 If I knew that a sex-slave-ring were operating in my town I would do whatever to expose the scourge and marshal resources to shut it down.  No need to think long about it, just the urgent need compels me to rescue such slaves.  For sure, this glutton (with way more opportunities to feed my basic human needs) would help those so sorely deprived.

If I knew that some children on my street had no opportunity to get an education, that they’d never learn to read, wouldn’t come close to graduating from High School, and therefore couldn’t even dream of college, I would want to help and would place their need at the top of community must-address items.  For sure, this glutton (having enjoyed more opportunities to learn than I can count, many of them apart from anything I myself did) would be eager to create and share opportunity.

If my local municipality were financially strapped (which it is) I would surely abhor any attempt to fix our budget on the backs of the starving, enslaved, and educationally underserved.  In fact, the very possibility of doing so would strike me as obscene.  For sure, this glutton (whose surplus feels so good that he imagines everyone else feels it too) would want to supply those profoundly lacking.

In all these ways, I am sure this glutton would be desperate to feed the “starving.”

So, on a national and global scale now, where or what should we stop spending, we who are relatively “gluttonous” so that the “starving” might have at least some crumbs from our table—or better yet, a seat at our table?  I have no expertise from which to answer this question.  But I have some questions that may point the way forward.

Where does the bulk of our spending go?  Isn’t it on defending ourselves?  If so, then wouldn’t it make sense to swing the budget axe proportionately there more of the time?  But, if we did this, wouldn’t we compromise our security and safety?  Well, would we?  Really and truly?  If, to protect ourselves, we spend more for defense than the next 20 big-spending countries in the world combined, is it all necessary?  Aren’t we really being like gluttons, eager to protect our stuffed pantries when many, both near and far, have never had enough to make a pantry necessary?  Couldn’t we examine—ruthlessly examine—the systems that protect and defend us for ineffectiveness and waste?  Couldn’t we require the advocates and keepers of those systems to be creative and find ways either to live and protect with less cost or in different ways to get the job done without truly compromising anything?  And if they can’t, might there be some others who would perhaps rise to such a challenge?  I mean, why not require all parties who receive from our gluttonous bounty to be creative and innovative and come up with new ways to stop bad guys and protect good guys?  Why should we only require this of the starving or those who want to help them?

If it’s true that Corporate America (which is now more often Corporate Multi-national) gets seconds and thirds from the gluttonous smorgasbord before the starving have firsts, is this right?  And, if we argue that when the gluttonous are full and satisfied, the starving will be able to clean up after them—crumbs will inevitably fall tumbling and trickling down—well, does it really?  At some point shouldn’t we require the before and after pictures of the former starving to prove it?   And, if we can’t prove it, shouldn’t we stop making the argument?

The question remains, will the gluttons feed the starving?  Will we ask or demand that our leaders adjust budgets and downsize according to where the bulk or fat is?  Shouldn’t we demand that government enter a “Biggest Loser” contest, pull out all the stops, and WIN—for the sake of the starving?

And how should followers of the “Bread of Life,” who loves the starving and calls us to live by his love, answer such questions?

Egypt convulses with holy and unholy impulses these days.  Freedom and the end of tyranny number among the holy.  Mob violence and vengeance among the unholy.  Sadly, many innocents suffer unspeakably when caught in the cross-hairs by the convergence of these competing impulses.

Christ-followers, whose hearts beat in sync with Jesus’ will celebrate every holy impulse and repudiate every unholy impulse.  We will pray and work for freedom and the liberation of captives and we will stand against the mob (and world?) to reject violence and vengeance as solutions for the way forward.  In this immediate crisis hour, we will pray for restraint and relief for all who are suffering.

At the least, and perhaps also at the most, Christ-followers will pray.  They/we will enter into the spiritual fray that undergirds the tangible political, social, cultural and religious struggles now in play.  We will enter the deep pathos of the Father whose heart breaks over the oppression and repression of people and the brokenness and hurt caused by their uprising.  And out of such pathos we cry out to God for the coming of his kingdom, for the realization of Egypt’s best as God conceives it and plans for it.

As I have thought and prayed for Egypt it has been helpful to consider the story of God’s way with us and our world as a way of fueling prayerful imaginative pleadings for this great land that plays a prominent role in the story.  For example:

The story attests to Egypt’s place among the nations as highly developed and civilized, as a center of learning and inquiry, a place where human creativity and accomplishment flourished.  Surely it would please our Father to restore Egypt as a place where his beauty and creativity once again find a home for the world to see and enjoy.

The story tells us how Egypt became a place of refuge for the hungry and needy in times of drought and famine, among them our ancestors in the faith.  Surely, our Father would love to pour his bounty over this land and through her to the world’s needy.

The story sadly reports that at times Egypt’s place of refuge also became a house of bondage,  a place where those in power assuaged their fear of strangers among them by oppressing and enslaving them.  Surely our Father’s hand would protect and provide for the strangers there (and everywhere) and save both the powerful and powerless from corruption.

The story celebrates Egypt as the place where awesome acts of God set people free, free to be who God created them to be, free to receive and share blessing with the whole world.  Surely, our Father delights in setting captives free, and even now works to that end and invites us to join him!

The story pictures Egypt as the place of refuge when Herod, King of the Jews, sought to kill the newborn Messiah Jesus.  Surely, our Father would smile on Egypt’s welcoming the One whose rule brings freedom and life that will be wonderfully complete, healthy and joyful.

And, as the story launched off the pages of sacred text, early first and second century Christ-followers came to Egypt to establish centers for vibrant Christian community and mission.  Surely, our Father would claim this nation, now embroiled in birth pangs of new beginnings, as a glorious venue for showing and sharing his love and power with all the world’s peoples and nations!

O Abba, Lord and King of all, may you focus your grace upon this place and its peoples and do even more than we can ask or imagine.  Amen!

The first full week of 2011 ended with a pop of automatic gunfire in Tucson.  An enraged, mentally disturbed young ideologue went violent—literally “ballistic” leaving six persons dead and many wounded, including Congress Woman Gabrielle Giffords.  This is a sad and telling reflection on our times and the state of public discourse.

I agree with those who say it would be wrong to blame the rhetoric of a political perspective and its proponents.  I also agree with those who do.  And I disagree with both.  Those who want to cast blame will need to accept some as well.  It does take two to tango.  Words can be lethal, especially a barrage of words, and one can never be sure what they will trigger and the trajectories launched. Still, most often even a barrage of words does not have to trigger anything.  It depends on how the other side responds. It depends on whether the response is “in kind.” It depends. But make no mistake, it takes at least two.

But what if … a barrage of verbal buckshot could find no one willing to respond in kind?  What if “the others” found another way?  What if … ?

I am advocating for a campaign of “Love Speech,” better an outbreak of Love-Speech.  Hang on though; it’s probably not what you think.

Love-Speech would be the polar opposite of Hate-Speech.  Please, now, hold on.  I know the very mention of “Hate-Speech,” which inevitably makes one think of “hate crimes” and the like, triggers all sorts of things for some.  It’s hard not to think of the clever tactics of those who want to deny the legitimacy of claiming that some things are right and some things are wrong, and that we can affirm our opposition to ideas, perspectives and practices without hating people or inciting their harm.  I know about that and I understand how it rankles.  But the Love-Speech I’m championing is not a weak acquiescence to whatever anyone thinks, says, or does.

I’m advocating for the Love-Speech we observe and hear in Jesus.  Our gospel names him, “The Word.”  So, “speech” applies.  And we affirm Jesus as the revelation of God, the very God who is love.  Hence, Jesus embodied and practiced Love-Speech.

Followers of Jesus will pay attention to what Jesus said and how Jesus said it.  Thus, followers will get a clue for understanding and practicing Love-Speech.

Jesus’ speech was about the kingdom or the governing of God.  He announced God’s presence and rule.  God is here and God’s way is on display, on its way to becoming the new way humanity and all of reality will be.  Love-Speech, therefore, will be a different way of speaking—different both in manner and content.

Jesus began his ministry with good news.  His message and ministry were about good news.  GOOD.  Of course, God’s idea of good may differ from many human ideas.  Even so, Jesus’ message and ministry were enough like those other ideas that most people recognized and called them “good!”  So much so that people were amazed, stymied, at a loss for words of their own.  What Jesus said and how he said it, struck people as good.

Jesus pronounces blessing.  His famous sermon began with a series of blessings, and blessing for most of the people usually left out or overlooked, like the poor and those who’ve suffered loss.  Jesus’ talk of blessing takes us all the way back to the beginning when God creates, blesses all he creates, and then calls it “very good.”  And Jesus’ talk of blessing also takes us forward to a new beginning when it will be very good once again.  Jesus relentlessly identified the good and called followers to embrace it—recognize the good, practice the good, nurture what is good until the good flourishes.

Clearly, the first followers of Jesus, who were filled with his Spirit and then fanned out across the world, became practitioners of Jesus’ Love-Speech.  They called one another to give thanks at all times, to bless all people, even those who cursed them, to respond to slander and attack first by praying for their attackers (and then by responding in ways that showed the slander was a lie).  They exhorted each other to speak things that are helpful to the listeners, things that build them up—and to do so as the alternative to the unwholesome things that might seem more natural to say in the heat of the moment.  In matters of speech as well as action, they covenanted never to return evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good.

What if Christ followers today were often guilty of Love-Speech?  What if they insisted on speaking mostly about what is or could be good, about what serves the well-being of all, especially those usually overlooked or under-served?  What if they spoke only in ways that expressed grace and built others up, even if not always winning the argument?  What if winning the argument fell to a distant second compared to clarifying and encouraging what is good?

Well, we can’t be sure about all that would happen, except this: Love-Speech Jesus’ style will make some uncomfortable and some angry.  Love-Speech will even make some violent and murderous.  That is, in fact, what happened with Jesus and his Love-Speech.  He himself never acted with violence toward others.  But he did speak the truth in love.  We could say Jesus told it like it was.  Only in Jesus’ case it really was the way he told it.  (Often when we tell it like it is, we’re really just telling others how we feel and what we want)  According to Jesus, how was it?  Jesus pointed to the heart as the source for many things that defile and destroy the individual and community.  Out of the heart comes much that obscures the light and feeds evil.  In fact, from the heart people say much that is not good and much that curses instead of blesses others.  From the heart fear, anger, and threat rush out and flood the places where people must live.

Jesus told it like it was, only to announce that it can be better; it can be good.  Jesus spoke in love for love.  Because love can lodge in and flow from the human heart as well.  Jesus said it, Jesus demonstrated it, and Jesus invites followers who will take him at his word, who will join him as practitioners of Love-Speech.

I mentioned that Jesus’ Love-Speech made some mad and even murderous.  Jesus Love-Speech incited some to violence.  But note this: Jesus’ Love-Speech made people mad at him, not others and Jesus’ Love-Speech incited his own murder, not that of others.

So, what if followers of Jesus became guilty of Love-Speech?  What if they focused almost exclusively on good news, on what would bring blessing to people, especially the worst off?  What if, they wouldn’t return the verbal barbs and barrages in kind?  What if, the most hurtful and hateful things others said only encouraged them (us) to insist that there is a better way?  What if we were the only people who suffered because of what we said?  What if the kind and gentle way we spoke the truth—as we see it reflected in Jesus—was the primary or only contribution we made to the important discussions of our day?  What if we were guilty like that?

As a new year begins here are five aspirations that have the potential to bring renewal to any who holds them.

1. 1. We respond to God’s passionate love for us, drawing us into the divine intimacy, and making us new people, marked, shaped, aflame with his love.  Thus in loving response we would champion our theological heritage—to be a holy people, free from the tyranny and damage of sinful self-addiction and free for loving God with our all and loving neighbor as self. 
2. Our focus is therefore to be on Christ at the center.  Our aim is to draw near, as near as humanly possible, aided by grace.  Our journey is movement toward the center.  Our passion is to be so near that concern for the boundaries recedes—what matters is where Christ is, how we and others are oriented toward him, and whether we and others are moving toward him.  On the journey, with gaze fixed on him and while moving toward him, God makes us all he wants us to be, individually and corporately.
3. What and whom God loves we love.  What and whom God pursues we pursue.  For what and for whom God cares we care.  Therefore, our concern and compassion will be global, but particularly activated toward the “poor,” and toward places where the poor live.  When we care for those whose condition and circumstances in the world offer us no advantage, we reflect the love of God most authentically and powerfully.  And the world sees God at work.
4. We stand in awe to realize that God invites us into the middle of what he is doing.  Jesus calls us to follow him and learn his ways.  The Spirit empowers us for this journey.  On the way, we share in what he is doing, and carry on his works in his name.  We discern his method and embrace it in relation to others.  Therefore, we look for those about us, within reach, whom God has drawn near and prepared, and we invite them to come along with us, as we continue the journey.  We identify those whom God will raise up after us.  We invest in them.  We pour out our time and energy on their behalf.  Together we anticipate a holy synergy—that God will do more with these little investments than merely add them up, that a miracle of multiplication will occur, sparking a divine fission that releases mighty untapped kingdom power.
5. We confess our utter inability for the awesome ventures of a truly kingdom journey.  And we humbly seek and submit to the Spirit’s filling and on going fullness in our lives.  We are holy only as the Holy One indwells, and only to the degree that he has his way without qualification.  We repent of anything that blocks his access to the deep places in our lives.  And we yield ourselves and relationships, as deep reservoirs and freely flowing channels of grace and love.