How Evangelicalism Changed in 1978-79 with a Call to Fundamentalism

I thought when reading through Roger Olson's observations of Evangelicalism in the late 1970's that it would be helpful to remember to those of us caught in similar changes "up north" in the Western Michigan area of Grand Rapids (which we famously nicknamed in good humor the "New Jerusalem" of Christianity) because of its many Christian publishing houses (Zondervan's, Kregals, Baker Book House, Eerdmans), Christian organizations like Mel Trotter, Uncle Charlie's Children's Bible Hour, and the plethora of churches (nearly "one on every block").

To this one may add the global synod headquarters of the Reformed Church of America with its corresponding college/seminary Hope College and Western Theological Seminary of Holland, Michigan, and Kuyper College of GR; the Christian Reformed Church of North America and its correspondent Calvin College and Seminary; several Regular Baptist and Dispensational schools (Cornerstone University and Grand Rapids Theological Seminary (both my college and seminary experience), Grace Bible College, and the Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music, now past); and an excellent Catholic school Aquinas College now guided by a friend of mine, Juan Oliverez, whom I met while serving as a trustee for the Grandnet Community Project under the city's Delta Strategies initiatives of the 1990s to provide technology services for area non-profits and the Grand Rapids Public Schools through city and county help and coordination.

To this may be added our area preachers (of which I'm only familiar with a few not being raised in the area's Dutch population of Reformed and Christian Reformed churches) such as Dr. Richard DeHaan of Radio Bible Class fame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Bible_Class) and one-time pastor of my former church Calvary Undenominational (a Reformed church that would later become associated with the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA). Whose association bore within it connections to Dallas Theological Seminary of John Walvoord and Merrill Unger; J. Vernon McGee of Los Angeles; Charles Ryrie of the Ryrie Study Bible; Charles Feinberg of Talbot Theological Seminary, and John MacArthur; all well known to me, especially McGee's Texas drawl and beloved Thru the Bible Series that I grew up on). Before attending and ministering at Calvary Undenom (as a lay person only, I might add, in the college and single adult areas) I attended the very fundamental IFCA church of Grace Bible of Ann Arbor under the strong preaching of Raymond Saxe a converted Jew from South Africa who gave a steady modern day picture of what Billy Sunday of the early 1900s must've been like in his heyday as he preached Christ to the world around.

Then there was David Otis Fuller of Wealthy Street Baptist Church (my wife's aunt and uncle's church) that gave birth to a new church plant that would later become my long time childhood church of Calvary Baptist under Dr. Matthews and later, Dr. John White from Iowa (himself, trained at Dallas Theological Seminary), who was one of the best bible teachers and pastors I've ever met, and now has become largely forgotten. To Calvary Undenominational's rosters I might add my pastor Louis Paul Lehman (associated with Anthony Zeoli of Chicago who himself (Zeoli) had preached with Billy Sunday in a much earlier life. I later would meet A.Z. in his great age and have preached a 4-minute, late-night, mini-sermon to myself at my election using only the furniture of the Marriot Hotel room about us to tell of Jesus our Lord as I stowed away his luggage from check-in). Also George Gardiner, my wife's pastor of Calvary Undenom who, with my pastor John White, would together marry us in the unusual practice of a "double shotgun wedding" (my wife's and mine own humorous description of our wedding ceremony - not theirs!) but one they gladly cooperated in to our great delight.

Many years later, my wife and I left Calvary Undenom to begin ministry at Calvary's newest church plant under Ed Dobson, to be known as Mars Hill Church, pastored by Rob Bell of Love Wins fame and one of the reasons for the formation of this emergent blog. Our ministry didn't last more than several years before the many changes at Mars replaced us with specialized staff members (though by that time I needed a time of spiritual rest and more energy for my family and small consulting practice). Curiously, Anthony Zeoli's son Billy had begun Gospel Films (Muskegon, MI) that was supported by Radio Bible Class (DeHaan) and Amway Corporation's original founders Richard DeVos and Jay VanAndel, whose son Richard Jr. attended Mars Hill as one of its founding and current members. It is curious in that the plethora of Christian connections in our lives seem to ebb and flow through time as one would expect when God is stitching together a tapestry of support and nourishment around - and within - our lives, from cradle to grave, as He would eternity's net of recreation for this lost world He intends to redeem.

Thus, the saying goes in Grand Rapids that "everyone is related to everyone else in some way or in some fashion." This seems very true of my wife and mine own past histories of churches, Christian education and societal networks of associations, mission agencies, and friends. Consequently, when reading through Dr. Olson's review of Evangelicalism's change in the late 1970s it perked my interest to discover how my church's and college experience would later change because of those alarmist changes occurring in other parts of the country. And consequently, as one steeped in biblical fundamentalism, and later evangelicalism, I would have the new experience of being provided an incipient form (that is, a very early and immature form) of Emergent Christianity through Rob Bell who himself was home grown from my former church Calvary Undenom that I would later marry into from Calvary Baptist Church with my Regular Baptist roots and heritage (otherwise known as the GARB). Interestingly, the president of the General Association of Regular Baptist's (GARB) was Joel Stowell's father; Joel himself was the past president of Moody Bible of Chicago, and now current president of my former school and seminary (Cornerstone University & GRTS).

So then, forgive me for boring you with my personal background aside from the thought that it may be relative to the article posted below to help us understand how a religious group's ideas and changes can impact the lives of so many others in very unpredictable ways and fashions. What my southern brothers and sisters were going through were no less our experience in the northern churches with our austere and challenging church histories and denominational relationships. Relationships that stretch all the way back to England, the Netherlands, Scandinavia (the Swedish Lutheran Church of my mother's heritage), Germany and Poland for us here in West Michigan, Holland, and Grand Rapids. Which at one time or another God would use to call out a people for His name that Jesus might be preached to the four corners of the world through a variety of missional agencies and humanitarian missions such as International Aide of Spring Lake, MI (restored by the son of Robert VanKampen of the VanKampen/Merrit fund whom I met when building his palatial lakeside manse in the 1980s... sorry, I couldn't resist yet another connection!). Hence, to move forward it is important to remember our affective pasts and presents. Enjoy.

R.E. Slater

June 23, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Way We Were

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/the-way-we-were/

by Roger Olson
June 18, 2012
Comments

I realize nostalgia is not for everyone; I’ve always been a nostalgic person. I’m one of those people who walks up to your front door and says “I grew up in this house. Would you mind if I came in and looked around? I want to refresh my memory because I think about it a lot and some of the rooms are getting quite fuzzy in my memory.” You feel like slamming the door in my face, right? So I don’t do that. But I am tempted to it when I’m in a town where we lived when I was a child or teenager.

I’ve explained here several times why I can’t give up calling myself an evangelical. I won’t go back over that again except to say it’s part of my identity.

One instrument of forming that identity was a magazine called Eternity. I’ve mentioned it here before, too. I don’t remember exactly when I first began reading it, but it was sometime around 1973. Then I read it religiously until it stopped publishing sometime, I think, in the 1980s.

Eternity played a huge role in my theological development out of extremely sectarian Pentecostalism and fundamentalism into the larger, broader evangelical world. It was articles and book reviews and even advertisements in Eternity that intrigued me and caused me to look beyond my limited horizons and even beyond “normal” evangelical horizons. Eternity published articles by non-evangelicals such as Helmut Thielicke and reviews of books by non-evangelicals such as Hans Kueng. (I picked those names just because I saw an article by the former and a review of a book by the latter in a bound volume of Eternity from 1973 that I own.)

I own three bound volumes of Eternity—1973, 1974 and 1975, volumes 24, 25 and 26. Which tells me it began publication in about 1949. It evolved out of an earlier magazine called Revelation which was founded by Donald Grey Barnhouse in 1931. Eternity was published by The Evangelical Foundation headquartered in Philadelphia and somehow affiliated with Tenth Presbyterian Church which Barnhouse pastored for many years. Barnhouse was a well-known and influential fundamentalist-turned-neo-evangelical Bible teacher who had a radio program and wrote numerous books and commentaries. (He was somewhat unusual in being both Reformed and dispensational.) His successor as pastor and Bible teacher (on the radio program) was James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000)—a pastor and theologian who studied with Karl Barth in Basel. Boice was my homiletics professor in seminary; I still have three written sermons I wrote for him. He seemed to like them. (Boice took a sabbatical from his pulpit and the radio program in 1976 to teach a “January term” at North American Baptist Seminary. It was there that I studied under him.)

Boice eventually became publisher of Eternity and then suspended it. For me that was a black day (or month). I was sad to see it go as it had served as one of my main avenues of socialization into evangelicalism. I do not know this for sure, I am speculating, but I suspect the Evangelical Foundation somehow or other turned into the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and that, in some sense, Modern Reformation is Eternity’s successor publication. I know that Boice was an early leader in the Alliance and I’ve always wondered where the money for Modern Reformation came from. Perhaps from The Evangelical Foundation? I’d be glad to know. I can’t find anything about the latter on the internet.

So what do I mean by Eternity representing “the way we were?” Eternity was by all accounts a mainstream evangelical publication; it leaned neither to the “right” nor the “left” although it published articles by evangelicals who “leaned.” Most of its regular contributors and editors, however, were middle-of-the-road evangelicals. If it had any agenda or editorial mission it was to serve as an instrument for expression of mainstream evangelical views.

As I’ve said many times before here, something happened within American evangelicalism around 1978. That was the year I graduated from seminary. That was also the year Harold Lindsell’s truly awful book The Battle for the Bible, about inerrancy, was published. I saw its effects close up. Suddenly, my mainstream, middle-of-the-road evangelical seminary was forced to adopt an inerrancy statement and professors who had been hired without any such expectation were forced to sign it or leave. I witnessed professors who had taught against inerrancy in classes sign the statement to keep their jobs. One refused and left. This happened all over the country.

Within just a couple of years the whole atmosphere of evangelicalism changed. Suddenly fundamentalism was rearing its ugly head within the ranks of mainstream “neo-evangelicalism” and in the Southern Baptist Convention. I went directly from North American Baptist Seminary to Rice University to study with Southern Baptist theologian John Newport who had taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and then, after I arrived, left Rice to go back to SWBTS as its provost.

The year was 1979. I sat in seminars with Newport as he reported to us blow-by-blow the “fundamentalist take over” of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Convention’s annual convention was meeting in Houston just a couple miles from the room where we met with Newport for seminars. He was attending the convention and pastors conference. He was dismayed by what he was hearing—that allegedly there were “liberals” teaching in the SBC seminaries! He had been one of them (according to some of his critics) because he wrote a book (co-authored with William Cannon) entitled Why Christians Fight over the Bible in which he denied strict inerrancy. Anyone who knew John, however, knew he was anything but “liberal.” If there ever was a God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian scholar, philosopher and theologian, it was John Newport.

Back to Eternity.

When I look back at those three bound volumes of Eternity what strikes me is the irenic approach the editors and authors took to issues. And how progressive and courageous many of the articles were—in confronting fundamentalism. For example, the January 1973 issue contains and article by a professor at Calvin College and his wife entitled “Was Paul a Woman-Hater?” The carefully crafted and biblically defended answer is “no” and the authors go so far as to argue that Junia was a female apostle. The implications are clear: they (the authors) believed in equality of women with men in ministry. The article purported to be a critique of feminists’ dismissals of Paul as a woman-hater, but, in fact, it was also a critique of conservative evangelicals’ dismissal of women as unworthy to be ministers.

Also in the January, 1973, issue of Eternity was a very well-written and insightful review of several movies (e.g., Straw Dogs starring Dustin Hoffman) entitled “Does Violence Have a Place?” by Karen R. DeVos. Her answer is yes—but not in the way Hollywood presents it. She complains that too many movies glorify violence as an initiation into true manhood.

The February, 1973 issue contains an article by Lewis K. Glanville entitled “How to Succeed as a Middle-Class Christian.” The title, like many Eternity article titles, is ironic. The thrust of the article is anti-middle class values and pro-social justice.

The same issue contains a book review of two books by Rudolf Bultmann by Nancy B. Barcus. While she is mainly negative toward Bultmann’s demythologizing hermeneutic, she points out positive contributions as well. Like most Eternity book reviews, it looks for the light even in unexpected places and advocates that evangelicals read scholars like Bultmann discerningly. (In contrast to fundamentalism that would usually forbid reading the likes of Bultmann!)

The March, 1973 issue contains a review of David Moberg’s The Great Reversal by Ronald Enroth. Enroth strongly commends the book for telling the story of evangelicalism’s abdication of social responsibility between the early 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

Many articles in Eternity during the 1970s promoted evangelical social action that today would be labeled “liberal.”

The April issue contains a ringing call for irenic evangelical relationships in spite of serious disagreements over secondary doctrinal matters by Vernon Grounds, president of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary (now Denver Seminary). The article’s title is “How to Keep the Peace.” Grounds concluded “As Christians concerned about keeping a genuine and permanent peace among ourselves, we must labor together according to these principles. There is no reason in the world why our charity, harmony and unity should not compel the reluctant tribute even of unbelievers , ‘Behold, how these evangelicals love one another’.” (p. 38)

How terribly that advice was ignored in the coming decades as evangelicals began to devour each other over different views about the Bible, politics, women, predestination, God’s foreknowledge, the salvation of the unevangelized, postmodernity, and creationism.

The May, 1973 issue contains an article on prayer by Helmut Thielicke—a leading neo-orthodox pastor and theologian of Germany. Chances are he wouldn’t get published by any mainstream evangelical publication two decades later because of his view of Scripture.

The same issue contains an article by David Hubbard, president of Fuller Seminary, entitled “Should Evolution Be Taught as Fact or Theory.” Hubbard served on the California Board of Education’s committee responsible for textbook selection for public schools in that state. His treatment of this thorny issue is a model of common sense balancing with a cautious "yes" to evolution and resounding no to "[scientific] naturalism".

The issue also contains an article by Lewis Penhall Bird entitled “Can a Christian Ever Consider Abortion?” This and other articles on abortion in Eternity routinely referred to fetuses as “potential human life” (as opposed to full human persons). The article is definitely anti-abortion on demand but recommends compassion toward women who feel they have no other option.

Also in that issue was an article by D. Garth Jones entitled “Does ‘The Genesis Flood’ Solve All Our Problems?” Like many Eternity articles it is anti-young earth creationism.

That’s enough to illustrate “the way we were.” Mainstream, middle-of-the-road evangelicalism was, in the 1970s, irenic, open-minded, culturally-sensitive and inclusive. At least compared to today’s evangelicalism.

Eternity was a popular, not scholarly, magazine, but most of the articles were by scholars. Many of them were by Donald Bloesch, Bernard Ramm, Vernon Grounds and others who later came to be considered dangerously liberal by neo-fundamentalists who somehow managed to manipulate evangelical (and Southern Baptist) opinion to become paranoid about alleged creeping neo-orthodoxy and liberalism among the ranks of the biblical scholars and theologians.

What’s the evidence of that change? Well, of course, it will be called “anecdotal” and “impressionistic” by my critics, but I will simply claim insider experience and knowledge and let you, my readers, decide whom to believe.

During the 1990s I served as editor of a leading evangelical journal called Christian Scholar’s Review. For five years I listened to complaints by our editorial board (representatives of fifty mostly evangelical colleges and universities) about attempts to get colleagues to submit manuscripts for our consideration for publication. Very common was the answer “I’m afraid to” even among very evangelical scholars at conservative evangelical institutions. The opinions and results of research they wanted to write about were not radical or extreme; they were very much like those reported in more popular form in Eternity earlier. Suddenly they were grounds for investigation and possible firing.

A professor of theology at a leading evangelical institution was fired because his wife wrote a book promoting egalitarianism. (In response Eternity published an excellent article entitled “Why Do the Absolute Absolutists Always Win?”)

A leading evangelical professional society moved toward expelling a well-known and highly regarded evangelical scholar over his opinion about the infancy narratives in Matthew’s gospel. (The scholar resigned from the society before his expulsion came to a vote.)

Suddenly, increasingly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, evangelical voices were raised in anger and hostility against fellow evangelicals. A spate of publications decried the alleged defection of evangelical scholars from the faith “once for all delivered”—by Charles Hodge. Of course, that wasn’t what was said, but it was the subtext of many of those books. “The Stout and Persistent Theology of Charles Hodge” (article title by David Wells) was being turned into the norm for all evangelicals—something unheard of in the 1950s through the 1970s.

I taught in two evangelical institutions of higher education from 1982 to 1999. At the first one, in 1983, under pressure from conservative constituents, the entire theology faculty was asked to fill out a doctrinal questionnaire that contained questions such as “Do you agree with B. B. Warfield’s doctrine of the inspiration of scripture?” We took them uncompleted to the administration—all together—and laid them on the provost’s desk in protest. Fortunately, we never heard about it (at least while I was there). Suddenly, the president began talking about “inerrancy” from the chapel pulpit whereas he had never mentioned it before and no faculty member had ever been queried about it before.

Gradually, throughout the later 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the mainstream, middle-of-the-road evangelical college where I taught for 15 years came under tremendous pressure from angry, inquisitorial pastors and lay people. One Bible professor who suffered much was a conservative Old Testament teacher who dared to teach amillennialism (!). Dispensational premillennialists in the denomination wanted him fired even though the denomination had never had a doctrinal position on millennial views. Increasingly throughout the 1990s the college’s and denomination’s irenic evangelicalism was tested again and again and began to melt away as neo-fundamentalist pastors, inspired by leading neo-fundamentalist biblical scholars and theologians, began to bombard the college’s administration with complaints about alleged faculty defections from “the received evangelical tradition.”

Eternity is the way we were. It’s not the way we are. But what I want to do with this blog, at least occasionally, is point back to the way we were and urge contemporary evangelicals to return to that irenic spirit and broad-mindedness about secondary matters. My hope, faint as it is, is to convince evangelicals to turn a deaf ear to the loud, angry voices of the neo-fundamentalists who have crept in and stirred up completely unjustified fears of heresy among the laity and pastors.

Let me close with just one example of the kind of thing I think we need to ignore or perhaps call out as unjustified. A leading conservative evangelical scholar and professor wrote “I cannot escape the dreadful feeling that modern evangelicalism in the West more successfully effects the gagging of God…than all the postmodernists together.” Really. This is just one example of what I regard as the over-the-top, breast-beating, “sky-is-falling” evangelical warning that wouldn’t have been given a hearing in Eternity in the 1970s. And yet it is all too common today.

- Roger Olson

Postscript by RE Slater:

And lest their is any doubt, postmodernism is where it is at today for those of us choosing to upgrade our fundamental/evangelical heritage towards an Emergent Christian perspective. Which, of course, is the stated purpose of this webblog. One which is in large agreement with Dr. Olson's post-conservative Evangelicalism but which finds the identity of Emergent Christianity a more open and welcoming form of Jesus expression to the non-Christians to whom we wish to minister.

Those Evangelical, progressive Evangelicals, and Fundamentalist Christians who wish to join us are welcomed by Emergents, but no longer at the expense of the ministry and witness of the Word of God's revelation of God's love and salvation come to man because of religious barriers and dogmatic concerns. As has been shown time and again herein, those barriers and dogmas can come down, and nicely, without losing God or His Word. It is more ourselves that need the changing.... Our posturings and biblical perspectives. Our culture and attitudes. Our fears and disappointments. This calling to Grace that we have must not be impeded by ourselves, our churches, our associations, schools or denominations.

And it is to this gracious background that I recall in mine own earlier days of involvement in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that I elect now to return to under a larger umbrella of thought and practice, academia and worship. One that I now chose to define and understand as Emergent Christianity. Though it practices vary widely, and its adherents are scattered and diverse, I believe there is a time and place that we may begin joining in to this newer definition of a Christianity that is expansive, permitting, gracious, and inviting to all men and women everywhere. And that Jesus' message may be seen, heard, felt and experienced through His people, the Church, by the rightful power of the Holy Spirit of God. I invite all readers to join in and rebuild the Church of God to the glory and honor of God's holy name magnified above all heaven and earth. Whether emergent or not, we are all of one brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ.

Amen.

R.E. Slater

June 23, 2012

Come [then], ye who are weary, and take my yoke. Learn of me.

For I am gentle and lowly in heart. And you will find rest for your souls.

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Mt 11.29-30)

Be now my faithful laborers...

The Importance of Fathers to Sons and Society

Some random thoughts on Father’s Day

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/

by Roger Olson

June 17, 2012

Comments

So another Father’s Day has come and will go without much real change in American society’s attitudes toward fatherhood and men in general.

First, the requisite admission: many fathers are bad models and many men are abusive, oppressive and stupid.

Second, an obvious observation: our society doesn’t help when the mass media portray men as stupid, silly, sinister and violent. (Nor is the current spate of movies portraying women as violent help women or society, either.)

We all know how important the father role is to holistically healthy childhood development. And how devastating it can be to have a father who is abusive, neglectful and/or absent. Even adult children can be harmed psychologically by having a father who turns abusive verbally and emotionally.

I mentioned in my immediately preceding post (about movies and books) that the father-son relationship must be the most complicated relationship known to humanity. I’m almost glad I don’t have a son; it seems so hard to “get it right.” (By “it” I mean fathering a son.)

Sons especially look to their fathers for approval and blessing. So do daughters, of course, but I think daughters are more likely to forgive and not be damaged by a few fatherly mistakes. Sons internalize fatherly disapproval even when it is communicated only by a lack of verbal approval and blessing. I think it’s built into males to need that blessing from a father. And I think many men are conditioned to expect too much of their sons and withhold approval and blessing when they seemingly fall short of expectations.

Many of today’s social pathologies are rooted, I believe, in what some psychologists have called “father hunger”–especially boys and young men having no strong, loving, approving male to guide them and bless them.

Our society has literally millions of young men who have grown up with no father figures. Even most of their teachers have been women. Not that women can’t teach boys and young men, but studies have proven that boys learn better from men than from women. Girls also learn better from women than from men. Our public schools have too few male teachers.

What could society do to redress some of this? It’s a blatant lie that popular entertainment culture simply reflects reality. TV producers and movie makers clearly attempt to engineer society. So why do they not even attempt to help with this situation? In the past there were some TV shows and movies that portrayed fathers and men as good, but I suspect the widespread effect of the feminist movement, perhaps misinterpreted, has reduced that almost to nothing. It’s politically incorrect to portray fathers and men as good, competent, strong, honest, supportive and loving–unless there’s a “dark side” that eventually comes out that ruins everything positive portrayed.

Now, let me go back to the 1950s to illustrate. Some of you may remember the TV series “Father Knows Best.” The feminist movement has wrongly held it up to ridicule. I grew up watching it because my stepmother loved it. As I recall, the father, Jim Anderson, portrayed by Robert Young, was a good father in every way INCLUDING that he did not abuse or oppress his wife and kids. In fact, the very name of the series was clearly ironic. Jim Anderson DID NOT always know best. He frequently had to bow to his wife’s better knowledge and wisdom and he frequently apologize to her and to his kids for being wrong about something. Yes, he was a strong father, but not in any way an abusive one.

What I would like to know is why feminists vilified the show instead of promoting its portrayal of fatherhood?

In more recent years Bill Cosby was almost a perfect father in “The Cosby Show.” He was anything but patriarchal, but he was firm with his kids and portrayed wise, loving fatherhood.

Where are the good male role models in popular culture? I’m not talking about ones without flaws; I’m talking about ones that love their families and are neither silly (like “Phil” in “Modern Family”) or sour and emotionally withdrawn (like “Jay” in the same show). Sure, both of those characters do some good things and have positive characteristics, but they could hardly be said to be model fathers.

The other evening, after I had worked on my book all day, I sat down at the TV and flipped channels. I landed on a show I’ve never watched before where military fathers come home to their wives and kids–often surprising them. This was a welcome relief from the routine. At least for a few minutes we saw some really outstanding fathers–more than a few who cried about returning home to their children.

Would that a TV show would include just one really good father without having to bring out his “dark side.”

Maybe if society went out of its way to reward fathers who support their families, love them and bless them, and are competent and strong without any dark side, fathers would have more extrinsic motivation to be like that. Right now, what reward or acknowledgment does a good father get other than from his own family? All he sees and hears around him are negative images and messages about men and fatherhood.

Movie Review: Prometheus Decoded, Part 1

Big things have small beginnings

An Introduction

I think we will have some fun with the movie Prometheus and to do so we must be introduced to its labyrinth of characters, themes, backgrounds and plots.

Last night I decided I would be brave and go watch Ridley Scott's latest epic. When arriving to the theater I discovered that I was completely alone in a very dark, and suspiciously empty movie theater. Later I would find out that 300 or so patrons were two auditoriums over watching Ted leaving me to contend with stark images and surreptitiously heart-pounding soundtracks utterly alone in the dark caverns of my mind and heart. (Which I loved immensely by the way! Usually I like to listen to audiences responses, but with this film all I really wanted was reflective time alone for an intense engagement and scrutiny!).

Well... I got my wish. And it was a thrill ride from start to end as I analyzed from the producers viewpoint, and the would-be audience's point-of-view, our society's taboos and speculations, of the many popular themes of science, evolution, space travel, alien mutations, biologic warfare, the pathos of the human dilemma, our societal stories of ourselves, our purpose and the meaning of our existence. As Bill and Ted would say, "Most Excellent!"

Overall, the best part of my experience was that I was completely ignorant of the film's themes, its connections to other films, and intents. I got to see it on its own, as a virgin premiere unspoiled by critics and friend's presumptions alike! Normally I try to isolate myself from any initial thoughts and critiques of a movie until after I've had a time to see it on my own. Which is pretty unusual in this day and age but still possible if you resist movie trailers, reviews and go see a film on its first day's opening.

So to begin with, we must interview a few movie critics in-the-know (I also read Wikipedia's information as well) before we can begin any analysis. So here is the first part of perhaps one or more articles to be posted speaking to some of the broader implications at hand (and I suspect even a few more which we haven't yet thought about... like biomedical ethics, species extermination, information technology uses and abuses, the rapid propogation of technological revolution through AI, computers and swarmbots, etc). So sit back and enjoy the ride!

R.E. Slater

June 22, 2012

  

Prometheus Full Trailer 2

Wikipedia - The Greek Titan Prometheus who fell to Earth condemned by Olympus for sharing the fire of the gods with man that man may be equal to the gods of the cosmos - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus.

Prometheus: The Rockefeller Center, NYC, NY

Wikipedia - Prometheus is a 2012 American science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(film).

Ridley Scott directing Nooma Rapace

Movies

Prometheus Decoded: Connecting Ridley Scott’s Dots (in Three Minutes or Less)

By Steven James Snyder | @thesnydes | June 11, 2012

A stunning star field fills a cavernous alien spaceship.

Warning: Major, epic, devastating spoilers throughout

and beginning immediately!

Prometheus weekend came and went, but the speculation rages on. I first saw the film nearly two weeks ago, and was left stunned by the post-film deliberation among critics that broke out at the Times Square movie theater. The next day, I interviewed screenwriter Damon Lindelof (he sheds some light on the film’s secrets here), and he described a very similar post-premiere scene at his London theater. And I’ve heard from other friends across the country that the debate was alive and well at screenings both Friday and Saturday, among Alien fans trying to connect all of Ridley Scott’s dots.

Now I’m not presuming to have all the answers (for a more thorough, expert take, see Richard Corliss’ comprehensive review or Jeffrey Kluger’s analysis of the science behind Prometheus), but here is the analysis I pitched in, during the great New York Critics Prometheus Debate of 2012: Obviously this is an Alien prequel – regardless of what the movie studio may be claiming — and the most interesting plot points in Prometheus do indeed stem from the through-line of the franchise. In other words: How does this piece of the Alien puzzle connect to the other films in the franchise?

Warning, major spoilers ahead: The film opens with an alien standing above a waterfall. (Maybe to keep things straight later, we’ll call his/her species ETs). A spaceship is taking off in the background, clearly leaving this ET behind. He’s the chap who must have signed up to be the “engineer,” agreeing to sacrifice his life in order to fuel an entirely new civilization. He drinks his mysterious substance, self-destructs, and his DNA is injected into Earth’s ecosystem. All life as we know it derives from that sacrifice.

(MORE: See TIME’s complete Prometheus coverage)

It’s a powerful prologue — and also one that doesn’t deviate all that far from the current scientific debate about what brought life to the planet (see Jeffrey Kluger’s full breakdown of the science in Prometheus). From here, let’s jump forward to the mystery planet: When the Prometheus crew lands, everything appears to be dead or dormant — a vast series of deserted caverns and creepy cargo holds. David, the resident robot, has been programmed to assess these discoveries with only one objective in mind: How might these futuristic beings, and their futuristic technologies, be harnessed and utilized to aid his maker — the dying Mr. Weyland.

This is why David extracts, analyzes and manipulates the metallic orbs found in the cargo holds, why he drops a bit of the black goo into Charlie’s drink. David is trying to do anything — everything — to these precious alien artifacts to resurrect mankind’s ancestors. It is here where David utters the memorable line “big things have small beginnings,” and indeed the entire Alien universe as we know it can be traced back to this singling decision — the mingling of this exotic DNA with human DNA.

[as aside, I saw David as a modern day type of HAL without compassion or real knowledge of the mystery of man. He was brilliant but a very sloppy and over eager symbiont monster in his own rite. - res]

Now this black ooze is not the alien life-force as we’ve come to know it in other Alien movies. This black substance is essentially a biological weapon. A weapon of mass destruction. For some reason, which (beautifully enough) is left as a mystery in Prometheus, the ETs who created humans, and gave sentient life to Earth, later decided to return to our solar system to kill us off. These metal orbs, and the black ooze inside, is the weapon they designed. They were created to exterminate us. And in the many holographic flashbacks that we watch, it appears as if the weapons activated early and killed all the ETs by mistake.

David, though, lets that cat out of the bag. He helps Charlie to consume the weapon and, sure enough, the weapon destroys the human. Just as designed. David is delighted, though, to find that Charlie had sex with Elizabeth during his infection, resulting in a mutation: A fetus derived of both human and weaponized DNA. In the film’s most gruesome, but absolutely essential scene, Elizabeth extracts the mutant fetus (never thought I’d get to write that phrase!). She initially thinks she’s killed the creature, but it continues to grow and thrive outside our view.

(MORE: Prometheus, Before Watchmen and the Tricky Art of the Prequel)

Meanwhile back on the alien warship, David is waking up the mummified ETs, eager to introduce them to his boss. When the pilot awakens, he picks right up where he left off — plotting to blast off from this barren planet, carrying his payload right into the heart of our solar system. For this planet is not his home; as other characters carefully describe, this is just a forward operating base. A planet where weapons can be built and tested.

As Elizabeth pieces the puzzle together, she realizes what’s at stake: Her crew has traveled across the universe only to reawaken the sleeping enemy. She tells Janek that he has to scuttle Prometheus, and destroy the alien craft, before it can take off. Which he does, killing all the humans onboard.

At this point in the tale, only five creatures still exist: Corporate lackey Meredith Vickers, scientist Elizabeth Shaw, the wounded ET pilot, the mutant fetus, and David’s severed robotic head, still functioning apart from his torso. The crashing warship kills Meredith. Then Elizabeth flees the escape pod, ensuring that the mutant fetus leaches onto the body of the ET pilot. The closing shot of the film witnesses the end result of this altercation: The birth of the alien creature, as we know it in Alien — an ultra mutation, derived from an ET body and a human DNA-weaponized DNA fetus. An entirely new life form, that will systematically lay eggs across the planet’s surface and multiply, until Nostromo arrives years later with Sigourney Weaver onboard.

(Update, 9:20 am: A trusted colleague has informed me that I have this all wrong — that Nostromo lands on a different planet, one which apparently has another of these ET ships sitting around. I think I’ll need to go back and watch Alien again tonight, and see which planet they refer to, in the opening discussions. But assuming he’s right, and I’m wrong, this is a pretty wild plot twist in and of itself. How did these alien mutants manage to spread across the universe? I feel a sequel coming on)

David, partly in a bid to save himself and partly because he finds Elizabeth a curiosity, lets her in on some of his observations: Yes, there are indeed other alien ships here [(as witnessed to by the several other temples laid out in a grid behind the first temple the astronauts were exploring - res)], and he knows how to fly them. He suggests going back to Earth, and she says she wants to find the ET home world. So they take flight, going who knows where (cough, sequel!), leaving the planet to the ultra mutant. The era of the Alien begins. [Wikipedia gives a fuller discussion here - res]

Or anyway that’s the way I read Prometheus — until I see it a second (or possibly third) time. How did you guys solve the riddle? Agree with this assessment? Where have I been led astray?

Steven James Snyder is a Senior Editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @thesnydes. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page, on Twitter at @TIME and on TIME’s Tumblr.

Read other related stories about this:

• Prometheus Review - Spectacular Sci-Fi CNN
• Prometheus Box Office Nearly $4 Million In Midnight Screenings EW.com
• Prometheus: Noomi Rapace the Next Sigourney Weaver? Los Angeles Times

Movies

Prometheus, an Epic Cinematic Puzzle: TIME Talks to the Screenwriter Behind the Secrets

By Steven James Snyder | @thesnydes | June 8, 2012 |

Michael Fassbender as David

If my post-screening discussion is any indication, Prometheus will be one of the most hotly debated films of the year.

Typically, film critics are in a rush to flee the theater after the credits. Particularly if it’s an evening screening, there is commuting to do, deadlines to meet and families to see. That’s what made the scene last week in Times Square that much more remarkable—following Prometheus, dozens of members of the New York press corps lingered in the theater hallway afterwards to debate the Meaning Of It All. And to float their theories about an enigmatic, universe-spanning plot that will have fanboys debating the origins of the alien species—not to mention the origins for mankind—for months to come.

The same night I was discussing the significance of Prometheus (alongside TIME’s film critic Richard Corliss, who has already published his review of the blockbuster) in New York, Damon Lindelof, the film’s expressive co-writer, was witnessing his first post-screening reaction with an audience in London. Widely known for his work on the TV series Lost, and also for serving as producer on the hit reboot of Star Trek, Lindelof said he came to Prometheus when the script was already well underway, reportedly reworking a first draft to add depth and mystique to a story that was already overflowing with Alien franchise references.

(MORE: See TIME’s complete coverage of Prometheus)

When I finally managed to wrestle away from the Great Times Square Prometheus Debate (watch for our analysis of the plot’s secrets early Monday morning), I had to give Lindelof props: If he was hoping to dust off a worn-down franchise, and restore some sense of wonder of curiosity, he sure got the job done. The movie studio may be hesitant to call Prometheus a “prequel,” but it is—in the best possible sense. It expands and deepens the mythology, adds complexity to the characters and decisions that are to come and colors the whole Alien universe in a shade of dark irony. Unlike the Star Wars prequels, here’s an early chapter that might entice me to look at the later ones slightly differently.

TIME talked to Lindelof about rethinking Prometheus’ alien appeal, working with director Ridley Scott, and the fine art of allowing moviegoers to connect the dots:

TIME: I’m trying to put myself in your shoes. This has to be incredibly stressful, to step into a franchise as storied as Alien and be asked to breathe new life into it. Were you intimidated?

Lindelof: Oh yeah. Are you kidding me? It adds a tremendous amount of pressure. I came in cold from the outside, and when I first read Jon Spaihts’ draft, I sent in a draft to Ridley (Scott), and I said: ‘I think there’s some really great ideas here, but almost a little too much Alien…too much cowbell.’ So I stripped almost all of it out, chucked it out entirely, and then I looked at the tent poles in the film, where we would need those elements to come back, and put back just the right amount. It’s almost like if you go to a U2 show, what songs do they have to play to give the U2 experience? If I leave the concert and they haven’t played ‘With or Without You,’ I’m going to be ticked. There are certain songs that have to be on that set list, and it’s the same when you’re talking about an Alien film: Do you need to see a xenomorph bursting out of the human body? And how do we do it in a way that you haven’t seen before? It’s sort of like playing ‘With or Without You’ but bringing B.B. King on stage and mixing it up with an African drum circle so that it’s a familiar tune, but a whole different song.

I think it’s safe to say that you rose above the ‘Greatest Hits’ here. The people outside our screening couldn’t stop talking about it; what was it like for you, to see it for the first time with a general audience? Did you deliberately set out to create something enigmatic?

Well, that’s one of the first questions I was asking myself when I got the phone call. Ridley wanted me to read the script he was developing, and I thought: ‘Good God, why me? He must have me confused with someone else.’ But when he realized what he was looking for, he was steered towards me, and I certainly agree this is what I do: I’m driven and interested and intrigued by ambiguous storytelling. Almost do-it-yourself. Writing for Ridley, I would often ask him what he wanted to convey in a certain moment, and then I would try to avoid verbalizing that intention. I want the audience to do it themselves. So while this is harder gratification, it’s like the Friday New York Times crossword puzzle—it’s so much harder than Monday’s, but also so much more rewarding.

(MORE: Prometheus and the Complicated Art of the Prequel)

But can you ever push that too far, where it becomes too difficult to enjoy?

Well, when you get in the zone, you can easily do the Monday crossword. But in order to get Friday’s, you almost always have to collaborate with others. And the idea with the movie is that you’re going to want to find others to talk about it with. It’s really no different, if you think about it, than something like Blade Runner. Is Deckard a replicant? During this film, I found myself in the room with Ridley, literally the one person who can answers that question that I’ve been debating for 25 years. And honestly, I don’t want him to tell me. It might shatter my own theory, and having that theory, and that debate, that’s part of the fun of the film.

He’s a replicant, though, right?

I do not think he’s a replicant.

Hm. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Trust me.

(Warning: Slight spoiler ahead) At the end of the day, do you think you accomplished what you set out to do—to make something that was at once faithful and familiar, yet unique?

Definitely. This is very much Ridley Scott’s world, a universe that we’ve seen before. But he’s tried to channel as much of that into the storytelling. Take the opening of the film—it’s this mysterious being who takes this strange substance and then falls apart in front of our eyes. I say to Ridley: ‘So where is he? Is this the planet Earth or another planet entirely?’ He tells me, and then I go: ‘Okay, do you want to tell people that? Should we put up a credit?’ And he says ‘No, don’t do that.’ That’s when I knew we were talking the same language. We want people to try and contextualize, and we believe that people are seeing this for a reason, that they want to connect the dots for themselves. And I think the discussions that have erupted after seeing this movie is proof of that—this is a very, very active viewing experience.

Steven James Snyder is a Senior Editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @thesnydes. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page, on Twitter at @TIME and on TIME’s Tumblr.


Read other related stories about this:

• Prometheus Sequel: Damon Lindelof Talks Another Alien Film Hollywood Reporter
• Prometheus Movie Review: A Gorgeous Sci-Fi Thriller Associated Press
• Prometheus and Ridley Scott, Could They Revive Hollywood Sci-Fi? Washington Post

Images of Prometheus

- Go here to this link

More In-Depth Reviews

For a more thorough, expert take, see -

Richard Corliss’ comprehensive review or,

Jeffrey Kluger’s analysis of the science behind Prometheus

My Next Post

Prometheus Rebourned:

Of Xenomorphs and Mankind,

by R.E. Slater

Hellbound? A Review of Kevin Miller's Film, Popular Christian Positions and Dogmas

http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/about-the-movie/

"Hellbound?" Official Teaser Trailer



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mGfY_LyYYUg

Published on Mar 21, 2012 by HellboundMovie2012

This is the teaser trailer for "Hellbound?" (www.hellboundthemovie.com), a feature-length documentary that takes an in-depth look at today's highly contentious debate over the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. Does hell really exist, and if so, what factors determine who ends up there?

Written and directed by Kevin Miller ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," "Sex+Money," "spOILed" and "With God On Our Side"), "Hellbound?" features interviews with an eclectic group of high profile authors, theologians, pastors, social commentators, musicians, exorcists and individuals who claim to have experienced the fires of hell firsthand. The film will hit theaters across North America in September 2012 through a combination of major metropolitan area theatrical runs and special event screenings.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/about-the-movie/

Does hell exist? If so, who ends up there, and why? Featuring an eclectic group of authors, theologians, pastors, social commentators and musicians, “Hellbound?” is a provocative, feature-length documentary that will ensure you never look at hell the same way again! Coming to theaters in Fall 2012.

Hell. A shadowy abode choked with eggy, sulfurous fumes; the stench of blackened, bubbling flesh and screams of agony from souls trapped forever in a lake of fire. A vision made all the more terrifying by the fact that God–the only being who could possibly save us from such a fate–is the one who consigns us there instead.

Such depictions of hell have gripped humanity for centuries. But the traditional view of hell also presents us with a dilemma. If God is our pure, all-loving Creator, can he really allow (presumably) billions of people to suffer in hell for eternity? To many people, it seems like we can have a good God or we can have the traditional view of hell, but we can’t have both…

Some people simply resign themselves to the mystery, hoping the logic of damnation will be revealed in the life to come. Others suggest alternate views, such as Annihilationism (the souls of the damned are extinguished after the Day of Judgment) or Universalism (everyone is eventually reconciled to God). Still others become so frustrated that they finally walk away from Christianity altogether.

Is it possible we’ve gotten hell wrong? Or are recent challenges to the traditional view a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable? Featuring an eclectic group of authors, theologians, pastors, musicians and social commentators, Hellbound? asks why we are so bound to the idea of hell and what our view of hell reveals about how we perceive God, the Bible and, ultimately, ourselves.

COMING TO THEATERS IN FALL 2012!!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Commentary by Tony Jones

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/03/hellbound/

March 28, 2012

A while back, it was mentioned that Mark Driscoll was being interviewed for a documentary about Hell, being created by some of the folks who made Expelled. That documentary, now being called Hellbound, is scheduled for release in September.

Despite Driscoll’s involvement, I hear that the documentary comes closer to siding with Rob Bell.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Message from Writer/Director Kevin Miller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjHUfHNcytY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Introductory Comments and Observations

by R.E. Slater

When I first started this blog I began writing under the pseudonym skinhead but as time went on and I became more familiar with the issues that were rocking the modern day church I switched to my own name. My writing has subsequently developed as well so that my earlier posts will show a transition of topical maturity and development. Hence, my earliest posts (as seen below) will reflect a "point" versus "counterpoint" format, but over time will begin showing more my own sentiments on that particular subject as I become more comfortable with this Internet-based form of electronic medium known as blogging.

Herein I reflect on the evangelical church's modern day discussions of popular biblical topics as versus my own growth and development away from evangelicalism's doctrinal simplicities and aggressive overstatements to more of a moderating contemplation of theologic positions biblically, personally, politically, culturally, and spiritually. For it seems that today's Christianity may not be the Christianity of the Bible but one more fabricated by evangelicalism's own dogmatic preferences and personal judgments. Which makes for lively discussions but nonetheless unbiblical positions fraught with spiritual misconcerns and errant dogmas.

Hence, shock films like Hellbound? serve as reminders to Christians that perhaps not all things are as they seem to those of us residing within our very comfortable church cultures. That perhaps it is we, ourselves, who need to begin questioning everything as we once did before becoming a Christian, and begin thinking through the implications of our religious perceptions that would lend itself back to the bedrock of a biblically-orientated and spiritually-charged faith. Which is what I have attempted to do within the roll calls of this blog moving from subject matter to subject matter under the auspices of an "emergent Christian faith" that questions everything and is willing to develop better questions while not necessarily demanding complete answers in its heart felt search.

By holding to yesteryear's "evangelical Christian faith" I could not do this. It simply demanded my allegiance to a plethora of unquestioning dogmatic statements. Statements that can be misleading if not downright wrong and wrongheaded. And I suppose that after 2000 years of church history it should be about time that we of the church review all of our own positions and not hold any as sacred until we've had the time to better deduce where we are personally and corporately as the church of God. What we are saying. And how it is being perceived beyond the walls of the church. Walls that we have built very high. Very strong. And very thick. Which is unfortunate because Jesus led a wall-less life. And so should we. However, this does not mean that we devalue our church history for it is this very history that can give to us guidance and instruction so that similar misjudgments and error can be averted.

No, by utilizing church history with updated biblical studies we should be able to come to a better position of Christian statement, belief, worship, ministry, witness and community. One not closed in by religious sentiment and popular opinion but reflective towards an openness that gives hope and reality to the Christian faith. A hope that is less dogmatic. More searching and exploratory. More radical as to living out the claims of Jesus in our lives and in our church communities. Less deterministic. More real. More charged with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit long made dormant by our restrictive religious beliefs, ideologies and corporate posturings.

For the essence of Christianity must be re-examined yet again as can be seen by the many articles contained in this blogsite www.relevancy22.blogspot.com searching for a greater openness of reflection, orientation and direction. And though I try to give guidance on the various topical issues facing the church, overall I have ultimately left this task to the reader to ask better questions of her/himself, of their church, and even of God Himself. For I am confident that God can cause us to better hear Him through His Word as we seek Him in our daily lives and livelihoods. And though this blogsite attempts to give a basic framework from which to begin these tasks it does not necessarily provide any final answers so much as to point us towards more helpful solutions that may work within the postmodern transition of today's emerging church and that of our emerging Christian faith. A faith that must come out from the wilderness of dogmatic religiousity, modernism and bonded service to a promise land of milk and honey. And even though this land may be filled with giants that would give evangelical Christians pause from attempting so bold an attempt, even still does God command us forward into His promises that He is there in this postmodern land of good things. Hence, we begin the task of  deconstructing and reconstructing a faith that should be criticized, critiqued and even categorized because of its many current forms and posturings. But a faith that ultimately must lead to spiritual health and transformation, personal development and growth, that cannot come unless it be willing to submit to God's Spirit in our lives.

Consequently, I give below a partial list of current discussions under the topics of "Hell" but with the allowance that I have grown spiritually through each separate response and find in their totality a basic awareness of today's more popular perceptions while admitting a more open response of inquiry through each submission. Rather than requiring definitive statements on each subject matter I am more willing to allow God's revival of my spirit and attitudes by releasing Him from mine own doctrinal prejudices when they have been found to be less than biblical, less than helpful to His overall message of love and salvation in our lives. At times discussions here will be academic. At other times inspirational and devotional. Or even personal commentaries from guest blogs that I consider helpful to our emergent journey. It is a small attempt to re-orient us back to the contemporary message of Jesus for our 21st Century. And though we bear an old message apparently it needs reframing and revising to our 21st Century ears long grown dull and unconcerned with the message of the Gospel jangling in the background but making no headway in our hearts.

Consequently, I have marked in red those articles which may be more helpful than other articles but would advise the reading of each (perhaps date wise, beginning with the oldest first). Overall, I suspect that our modern understanding of hell will be transformed into a postmodern conviction of heaven and earth becoming joined together in this life. Joined by our conviction that God is real and reaching out to all men everywhere through the work and ministry of Christ Jesus our Savior and Lord. That our choices matter. And that they matter in ways that we cannot even begin to fathom or understand within the universal design of the Kingdom of God come to Earth through us, the church. That with those choices (or, lack of choices) come consequences of our of acts and actions as sublime as the air we breath and as revolutionary as the breaking in of the Spirit of God upon the kingdoms of men. And if the article is too long, or too short, or too technical or even uses words that are too big then move on to the next. My favs will be highlighted.

At the last, this life matters. This time in which we live matters. Even our choices matter. They matter because everything and all things are related and spiritual and as much earth-bound as they are heaven/hell-bound. For the question isn't one of destiny to either heaven or hell but of the transformation of the earth to be more heaven-like and less hellish and more focused upon bringing God's redemption into the very fabric of the cultures and societies of man. Ultimately this task will be that of the Returning Christ as the coming King-of-Kings, but until that time we live and breathe, work and act, minister and preach a hands-on gospel of submission, repentance, redemption, transformation, and Spirit-empowerment until our King returns to divide and conquer man's kingdoms; judge and condemn sin and death; and incorporate God's will upon this Earth.

This present moment counts. And it begins now. So let's us serve then as gracious prophets and priests of God's almighty rule in this present day and hour. Serving in love and goodwill, peaceably and without prejudice, to any man or woman lost in this wicked world of sin and death such as we were before Christ came to our heart wooing our spirit and nurturing our soul with love and mercy. For our prejudices and unloving spirit can withhold the gospel even now when voicing exclusionary dogmas and doctrines, though laced with good-intentions as obedient servants to God and Scripture.... A gospel message that can be a confusing - even ostracizing - message to the world of men beyond the walls of the church if we do not let go of our many self-righteous statements and fears, church laws and undimming barriers. Barriers grown large even to our very selves when living the Christian faith through our own biases and fears and man-made religion. Even as Jesus rebuked the priests of His day when they used the Law to withhold God's grace and love from His people, let us not do the same with the Gospel of Christ as the church of God.

R.E. Slater

June 20, 2012

LIST OF TOPICS ON HELL

(Red - articles more pertinent to subject title)

		View	The Origin of Sin, Hell, and Universalism				2/29/12
		View	What does the resurrected Jesus say about the afterlife?				11/8/11
		View	Is There a Protestant Purgatory?				8/18/11
		View	LOST in Purgatory? Parts 1 & 2				8/16/11
		View	NT Wright - What Is Hell Like? Does It Even Exist?				6/27/11
		View	The Biblical Doctrine of Hell 2				6/7/11
		View	The Biblical Doctrine of Hell 1				6/7/11
		View	No Pleasure in the Death of the Wicked				5/6/11
		View	McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 5				4/11/11
		View	The Many forms of Hell				4/1/11