Ten Essential Skills The Next Generation Of Religious Leaders Will Need

Ten Essential Skills The Next Generation Of Religious Leaders Will Need
http://religioninsights.org/articles/ten-essential-skills-next-generation-religious-leaders-will-need

Some skills are time-tested, such as listening and collaborating, but tomorrow’s religious leaders will also need to be entrepreneurial and communicate in new ways.

The U.S. religious landscape is changing and so too the old ways of doing church. Today’s seminary students will likely need to be far more creative and imaginative than older generations in connecting with members and creating community. Four experts weigh in on the 10 most essential skills the next generation of religious leaders will need. (Surprise: technological skills didn’t make the list!)

The 10 most essential skills:

1. Be entrepreneurial: In the old days, visitors were invited to attend worship services with the hope they would join. Today, clergy have to deploy a whole host of methods — from finding people through online groups to giving talks at local libraries or coffee shops. Being entrepreneurial means taking risks. Some pastors try one new approach and when it doesn’t work they label it a failure and go back to business as usual, says Lawrence Peers, director of learning for the Pastoral Excellence Network. What if they defined the new approach as an experiment and tried to learn from it?

2. Communicate theology effectively: Clergy have to speak to many people with widely diverging needs. Some don’t have a faith background and never attended church. Some are well versed in the popular distillations of recent theological trends. And some are in interfaith marriages and have gained a deep appreciation for other traditions. Speaking to all of these groups requires developing a rich vocabulary, while at the same time communicating core shared values. “The theological framework will have to be deeper and broader,” says Cynthia Woolever, a sociologist and research director of the U.S. Congregational Life Survey.

3. Have the courage of your convictions: New pastors are often afraid of speaking up for fear they may lose standing within their congregation or denomination, says Martha Simmons, president and publisher of The African American Pulpit Journal and the creator of The African American Lectionary. Simmons often sees clergy shirk controversial issues, whether it’s the treatment of women clergy or homosexuality. Her advice? “Say what you believe.” Equally important are strong core convictions rooted in beliefs. Convictions inspire, adds the Rev. Kathy Smith, associate director of theCalvin Institute of Christian Worship.

4. Collaborate: Effective clergy know how to engage their congregants if they want to move forward toward a common vision. Peers, of the Pastoral Excellence Network, quotes a colleague who says, “Clergy need the ability to play jazz, while their seminary teaches them to play from sheet music.”

5. Find mentors: No clergyperson should lead alone. Simmons says pastors often tell her they can’t find the right mentors. Her response? “Take it where you can get it.” Everyone needs a mentor, even older, experienced clergy. She adds: “We’re all going to make mistakes. But there are some mistakes we can’t afford to make. Mentors can help you not fall into ditches and lose time you can’t get back.” The Pastoral Excellence Network exists to support clergy mentoring communities across many denominations.

6. Learn to listen: It may seem obvious, but clergy spend a lot of time learning to speak. They also need to listen. Listening is even more important at a time when society has lost the art of civil conversation, says Smith. Listening well will help clergy avoid pitfalls that come when clergy don’t know the culture of the congregation and fail to honor local traditions, adds Peers.

7. Try humility: Society once accorded clergy a high social standing. That’s not necessarily the case anymore. “Authority is earned over time,” says Peers, referring to clergy. “It takes patience and diligence. Leading is a dance —sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow the leading of others in the congregation.”

8. Develop a spiritual discipline: Simmons says she often gets silent stares when she asks clergy about their spiritual discipline. Everyone says they pray, she says, but Simmons encourages clergy to develop a structured discipline that’s built into their daily lives, whether its meditation, Bible-reading or quiet time.

9. Speak to doubt as well as to faith: Ironically, talking about doubt will help faith seem more relevant, says Peers, who advises clergy to honor honest questioning. “Clergy can create an atmosphere of searching so that people don’t have to leave a congregation necessarily when they experience doubt,” he says.

10. Love the people you serve: Some clergy are so enamored by the vision they have for the congregation, they lose sight of the people. “We sometimes love the dream more than the people,” says Smith, who advises: “Spend the time to get to know and appreciate the people you’re attempting to lead.”

http://religioninsights.org/

The Guardian - Breaking the Cycle of Abuse

Early intervention is vital because signs of violent offending in later life can be identified in children as young as three. Photograph: Alamy

Breaking the cycle of abuse

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/17/breaking-the-cycle-of-abuse

Joanna Moorhead

theguardian.com, Tuesday 17 September 2013 02.00 EDT

High-profile cases have put child abuse at the forefront of public debate. Experts believe higher prevention rates depend on support for targeted initiatives replacing moral outrage

Child abuse – which has dominated the headlines over the past year as a result of the Savile inquiry and other high-profile child-cruelty cases, and which is often presented as one of the country's most intractable problems – could be reduced by 70% by the year 2030, delegates to a Guardian debate were told.

Plenty of research exists, and more work is being carried out, that shows what could and would lead to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of maltreatment of children. The biggest difficulty is persuading not only decision-makers, but also the public, that preventing child abuse is possible, given the right steps. 

But what's needed first, participants at the roundtable debate – sponsored by the NSPCC – heard, is a shift in the way the media perceives the problem: too often, one participant remarked, tabloid-newspaper coverage focuses on a witch-hunt and not on the issues that create a culture in which abuse is allowed to continue.

The debate focused on the fact that children who are abused are much more likely to become adults who abuse (between 30% and 40% of people who are abused as children go on to become abusers themselves) – so it is vital to concentrate efforts on families that could be identified as being at greater risk of abuse.

Supporting those families would pay huge dividends in the long term because reducing the incidence of abuse in the short term would have the knock-on effect of reducing the number of adults likely to become abusers in the decades ahead.

Surprising evidence

"When you look at the evidence, what comes as a big surprise is that it's the very start of a child's life that matters most," said one participant. "By the age of three, nurses can identify those children who will go on to become violent offenders. By three, these children are 10-times more aggressive than the most peaceful children.

"As well as being able to identify the children, we can also identify their home circumstances. We know problems stem directly from not having a secure parental attachment; 15% of children in this country have disorganised attachment and they are on a pathway to being disruptive at school and going on to live lives with high levels of aggression."

These children would go on to become society's abusers, so taking the right action now would make a significant difference to levels of abuse in the future.

The problem, delegates were told, was that while Savile and individual, shocking cases of abuse, such as that of murdered four-year-old Daniel Pelka, had led to high levels of public anger about child abuse – the thrust of the reaction was still punitive. "What we're seeing is a great deal of moral outrage, but not so much interest in the targeted work that would make a real difference," one participant noted.

Stoking the flames of this reaction is a lot of the media coverage. "All the tabloids want to do is see offenders crucified," said one contributor. "So the focus of decision-makers gets drawn towards that." Another participant agreed, adding: "The great fear politicians have is of newspapers pointing their fingers [at initiatives designed to ameliorate the problems] and saying 'nanny state'."

But the good news, said another participant, was that research was well on the way to identifying which initiatives could be successful at tackling the root causes of abuse – and a £165m Big Lottery project was about to begin, aimed at pinpointing exactly which early-life interventions could be transformative.

"We don't yet have a blueprint, but we do know a lot more than many people realise about how to make a difference and how to identify people most at risk [of becoming abusers]. We're in a very good place to start working; we're on a learning path," said one contributor.

The NSPCC, which has experienced a huge surge in demand for its services in the wake of the Savile investigation, is also expanding its work in response to the increased awareness of child abuse. Its £20m Now I Know campaign to build a ChildLine Schools Service, will train volunteers to visit primary schools throughout Britain to teach children about abuse. It's about giving children the confidence to talk about abuse and equipping them to protect themselves through simple advice.

What the Savile inquiry has shown is that "stranger danger", on which past campaigns had concentrated, doesn't target the biggest problem, which is people who are trusted and known to children, and who find ways and opportunities to access them (in more than 90% of cases, children are sexually abused by someone known to them). The problem with this message, several delegates pointed out, was that by alerting children to the fact that trusted adults could be abusers, it raised the question of who could a child trust?

One positive reaction to Savile is that many parents have contacted the NSPCC to ask what they ought to tell their children to equip them with the knowledge they need. Parents are certainly looking to play their part – six in 10 report trying to have a conversation with their children about the risks of sexual abuse, although most concentrate on stranger danger, despite knowing that the real risk is closer to home.

The NSPCC's response has been its current campaign on "the underwear rule", which gives parents simple guidelines to explain to children that the parts of their body covered by their underwear are private, and no one should be asking to touch or look at those places.

There was also discussion about what adults who suspected another adult of abuse could do about it: who could they trust with their fears and what assurances could they be given to enable them to disclose their concerns?

"The worry at the moment is that people dismiss their anxieties because no one wants to think it of a trusted colleague or friend," said one participant. "There's a big fear around getting involved: people think, if I give information what will happen next? Do I have to follow it through? And we need to get the message across: 'just tell us'."

Internet safety

Alongside the importance of tackling child abuse at its roots – ie in families with problems that can be easily identified – the roundtable participants heard about a number of key areas and stakeholders who could make a difference in the battle to reduce the problem. These include GPs, especially given the recent changes in the way services are commissioned.

"GPs don't want responsibility for this, so there's a huge cultural job to be done with them to get them to take on the issue," said one participant. "But it would make a huge difference."

Internet companies must also be persuaded to police themselves, so that when a new product or service is developed that is likely to be used by children and young people, it has a safety check to ensure it cannot be misappropriated by an abuser.

The onus has so far been on parents, teachers and law-enforcement agents to ensure that internet products are not abused in this way. But, said one participant, recent investigations into the number of individuals (overwhelmingly men) who were suspected of internet misuse illustrates that society cannot effectively tackle the problem from that end.

"No police force in the country can cope with the number of abuse suspects who have come to their attention via the internet," said one participant. "We're going to have to accept that high-tech companies will have to up their game where child protection is concerned."

R.E. Slater - Kindred Fellowships (a poem)

Filming Heaven

The Mountain from TSO Photography on Vimeo.

Serenity, Lake Louise, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada

Kindred Fellowships

by R.E. Slater

Have you ever watched the morning sun rise
while stalking knee-high clovered fields wet in dew?

Or felt the deep rumble of dark storm cloud's approaching

shrouded within stilled airs soaked in fresh ozone?

Or witnessed a cold fog envelop a murky beach

against a restless sea moving in endless rhythm?

Or listened the wandering night sky's starry silence
upon a far hillside from setting dusk to waking dawn?

In all these things God's handiwork abounds,

written across the laden heavens,

across this good earth we live and breathe,

filling our hearts with wondrous mysteries.

Whose very lives are held so dear,

so adorned by redeeming love,

so cherished by grace and mercy,

so lost in a world so complex and feared.

We, who are the living temples of God's Word,

who tred upon the mounts of His holy creation,

who delve into the Holy's inmost sanctuaries,

impassioned by all that inspires and devotes.

We, who keep the night watches and morning suns,

who inhale the early mists of evening's lingering whispers,

who are blessed and wouldst give blessing,

who seek, and grasp, and fall, and fail.

Let us praise our heavenly Sovereign for His wisdom,

our mighty Creator for all that is good and strong.

Let us sing our Savior's wonders and mercies,

met new everyday upon the souls of men.

Let us seek harmony's peace amid grand fellowships,

giving thanksgiving for heaven's abiding love and devotion.

And for this good earth on whose fellowship we tread,

scribing a poet's inspiration to a Redeemer's heart filled with tears.

- R.E. Slater

June 6, 2014
revised June 7-8, 2014

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved

Calla Lilies along the Big Sur, Garrapata State Park, California

Huff Post - How to Prepare for Parenthood in 11 Easy Steps

How to Prepare for Parenthood in 11 Easy Steps

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bunmi-laditan/how-to-prepare-for-parenthood-in-11-easy-steps_b_5411134.html

by Bunmi Laditan, Author, The Honest Toddler: A Child's Guide to Life

June 2, 2014

Congratulations, you've decided to reproduce. For a person used to living life on his or her own terms, parenthood can be quite the shock. As with any life change, dutiful preparation can make all the difference in the world. Here are 11 easy steps you can take to prepare:

Step 1

Hire an actor to shadow you throughout your day. This person should remain no more than three inches away from you at all times. Pay them extra to sit in your lap should you attempt to get off of your feet. Bonus points if they trip you with their body when you're walking around your home. From 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., let them jump on your body.

"Can I close the bathroom door?" No. Hire someone you feel comfortable with, because they will be supervising your waste elimination process.

Every 15 minutes, make this person a snack.

Step 2

Call all of your friends without children. Tell them it's been lovely knowing them, but you're going away. Let them know you'll see them on Facebook.

Step 3

It's important that you get used to completing simple tasks while being a parent. Obtain a pair of handcuffs or a zip tie. Affix one hand behind your back. Go about your day.

Step 4

If you plan on driving while being a parent, borrow three orangutans (ask for strong-willed ones) from your local zoo. Put them in rear-facing car seats. Keep your eyes on the road.

Step 5

Cooking is a big part of raising a family. Buy a copy of Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Visit your neighborhood specialty market and acquire the ingredients necessary for her famous beef bourguignon. Spend the next eight hours cooking. When the meal is done, quickly bring it room temperature. Throw the entire pot against a wall. Clean it up.

Step 6

Parenting may slightly affect your sleep patterns. To prepare yourself for this, find the most annoying ringtone on your phone. Ask a stranger on the street to set up 2-3 surprise alarms between midnight and 5 a.m. Live like this for months. If you think you'll be tempted to complain to someone, let them know ahead of time that their only response to you should be, "This is somehow your fault."

Step 7

A huge part of parenting is constant worry. Smart parents-to-be will get themselves used to living life with moderate to severe anxiety. Hire a skywriter to spell out your full name, social security number, home address and blood type over the nearest maximum security prison yard.

Step 8

Start watching children's television programming. You might hear a popping, crackling noise in your head. Don't be alarmed -- that's just the sound of your brain melting.

Step 9

You may be gifted a child who wants to sleep with you. Joy! Practice co-sleeping by having a carpenter craft a special bed for you. Tell him you want it one third of the width of a standard twin bed. Don't use a pillow or sheets. If this is too costly, you can also just sleep curled up in your bathtub.

Step 10

Turning your car into a parent-mobile is easier than you think. All you need are:

18 individual non-matching socks

6 clean diapers in three sizes

2 balled-up pee pee diapers (you can find these in your community dumpster)

6 cups of random crumbs

1/2 cup of strawberry jam or any sticky substance

18 broken toys

2 handfuls of confetti

2 empty juice boxes

changes of clothes for 10 children

Mix these items together on your lawn, being careful to get the jam on everything, then throw it all inside your car and mix thoroughly. Drive around in shame.

Step 11

Visit your local thrift store and buy 10 large garbage bags of clothes. Dump them in your living room. Bring in the orangutans and start folding. Enjoy.

You're now ready. Good luck.

*Bunmi is the author of The Honest Toddler: A Child's Guide to Parenting. This is a humor book, please calm down.

The Parent Rap by Bluefish TV

Relevant Magazine - Top 10 Relationship Killers

The biggest threats to watch out for in your marriage.

Top 10 Relationship Killers

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/top-10-relationship-killers

by Debra K. Fileta

June 5, 2014

Debra K. Fileta is a Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in Relationship and Marital issues. She is the author of the new book True Love Dates (Zondervan, 2013). Visit www.truelovedates.com and follow her on Twitter to get your dating questions answered and to learn more!

“We’re getting a divorce,” she explained, with a look of disappointment on her face.

Her tone of voice changed as she tried to look on the bright side. “But it’s for the best. Things haven’t been working out for the past few years. We’re just too different.”

Her words echoed in my mind for hours after our conversation ended. I thought about the list of differences my husband and I possess. We are so different in so many ways. Could it really be possible that a couple can be “too different” to have a thriving marriage? The thought didn’t sit well with me.

As a Professional Counselor, every day I see couples who come into therapy with their marriage on life-support. But their struggles often have nothing to do with the trauma of affairs, addictions or abuse. Instead, they are dying a rather slow and painful death.

Phrases like, “We’re too different” or “We’ve grown apart” or “Life has just gotten the best of us” sound so innocent, yet are extremely lethal.

There are so many factors that can get in the way of a good marriage, but often, they are the small, unnoticed things that make their way in. In order to make sure our marriages survive and thrive, here are some relationship killers every couple should be on the lookout for:

1. Family Priorities

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS LIVING IN NEUTRAL, BECAUSE DRIFTING HAPPENS THE MOMENT WE STOP MOVING FORWARD.

The top relationship stress for most couples has little to do with their relationship and much to do with the relationships they are surrounded by. The role of your parents, in-laws, siblings and friends all shift the moment you say “I do,” because when you join together as one, you’ve chosen to put your spouse above all others. Too many marriages are struggling simply due to a lack of priorities—finding themselves pulled by everyone else in every which way, except toward each other. Healthy marriages learn to choose one another above all others.

2. Lack of Communication

It’s true that the average couple invests in quality conversation only a few minutes a day. It’s easy to let life get busy and stop connecting with the one you love. But there’s no such thing as living in neutral, because drifting happens the moment we stop moving forward. Take the time to connect and communicate with your spouse often.

3. Stress

It’s so easy to take our stress out on our spouse. We can get into the habit of holding things in until we’re in the safety and comfort of our home, and then we explode. From financial problems, to illness, job-loss and grief, healthy couples allow their stress to pull them together, by relying on each other, sharing it with one another and carrying the load together.

4. Technology

I read a blog post recently about a guy getting a divorce ... except this guy chose to divorce his phone. But it makes sense, because so many of us carry this dangerous relationship killer right in our back pocket. In the world of technology crazed, iPhone carrying, Facebook posting mania, it’s no joke that we find our time slipping away into the inanimate instead of investing it into the intimate. Unplug, disconnect, shut down—and invest in your spouse.

5. Selfishness

Marriage is one huge, ongoing, life lesson in “unselfishness.” And we’ll either allow the experience to make us better—or we’ll grow bitter. Putting someone first is an incredibly hard task because our flesh is wired to choose self.

Each time we say yes to ourselves, we’re saying no to our marriage, because marriage is not about Him vs. Her, it’s about We vs. Me.

6. Unforgiveness

Forgiving and forgetting are not one in the same. When we fail to realize that, we will hold on to our hurts for a very long time. And eventually those hurts begin wreaking havoc on our lives from the inside out. But forgiveness is not about excusing the other person, it’s about freeing ourselves to receive healing from the God who forgives us time and time and time again.

7. Loose Boundaries

We tend to think about offensive play in marriage, forgetting that defensive strategy is just as important. We can be doing all the right things, while still failing to keep out the things that are harmful. Draw a circle around your marriage, and protect it by guarding your emotions, your interactions, and the way you spend your time.

8. The Past

The most paralyzing thing we can do for our relationship is to define our spouse by their past, rather than by who they are in the present. The past may impact our lives, but it will only control our present if we allow it to. It’s important to be real with one another about our pasts, but more important, to respect one other’s pasts by seeing what God is doing in the life of our spouse here and now. Forget what is behind so that you can move toward what is ahead.

9. Dishonesty

THE MOST PARALYZING THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR RELATIONSHIP IS TO DEFINE OUR SPOUSE BY THEIR PAST, RATHER THAN BY WHO THEY ARE IN THE PRESENT.

Why is a small lie just as dangerous as a big lie? Because they both have the same impact on intimacy. Honesty in marriage is like the chain that holds you together. Removing one link or 10 links does the same thing: it causes separation. If you’ve made mistakes in your relationship or have been hiding things from your spouse, now is the time to seek truth and confession; because a relationship riddled with dishonesty is no relationship at all.

10. Pride

“I am my biggest marriage problem” is the theme of Paul Tripp’s work in the field of relationships. To be able to look in, then, is the greatest step toward nourishing a relationship—to be aware enough to recognize and restore your flaws and shortcomings before fixating on those of your spouse. But the sting of pride can make that really hard to do. It’s so much easier to point the finger and to shift the blame. But the moment you let go of your responsibility, you’ve let go of your relationship—because no matter what the issue at hand: it always takes two.

It’s time to consider where you’ve let your guard down before these sly intruders make their way in. May God continue to give you the wisdom to recognize these patterns and to lookout for the “small stuff” by protecting, nourishing and prioritizing your marriage.

This article was originally posted at truelovedates.com.

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 1

When Considering Hell, Which Position is

the most consistent with Divine Love?

Introduction

For myself, conditionalism (annihilationism) seems the most appropriate when considering the love of God. Why do I say this? Consider the following...

God is holy. God is good. God is love. But the greatest of these is love. Love is how God makes one holy and good through Jesus. Not of human will but divine.

God's love cannot be preached enough. All Christian doctrine must proceed on God's love. All missions of the church must go at this sublime thought. No other church dogma must be higher than the grace of God. And all church doctrine must revolve around this one thought.

The holiness of God is meaningless without the grace of God. The goodness of God has no affect if it isn't bathed in God's atoning grace. Holiness without grace is austere. It proceeds in judgment first, last, and always. Goodness is without effect if not given in love. It is wholly utilitarian and bare of God's mindful relation to His creation if not met in love.

The love of God is the most sufficient descriptor of the Christian faith, of God Himself, and God's relationship to His creation. None else may proceed above this thought.

- R.E. Slater, June 2, 2014

Three Views of Death

When considering the Christian view of death, we might think of these views as second-tier doctrinal discussions. The two most popular views are (i) eternal conscious torment (ECT) and (ii) universalism, and the very similar Catholic concept of purgatory. To these is mine own personal view of annihilationism (here termed conditionalism but inferring conditional immortality) for reasons that have been stated in past documents (do a Google search of Relevancy22 or read through the "hell" section on the sidebars).

However, as second-tiered doctrinal discussions, these may also be deemed Christian theologoumenon referring to theological statements or concepts which are made in the area of individual opinion rather than upon doctrinal authority. Primarily, the "authority" perceived within Scripture is usually the most "popular view" of hell within a given society or culture at the time of its usage. However, it is only authoritative based upon the prejudice of public opinion towards the idea of death at the time of its discussion.

But for myself, annihilationism (or conditionalism) seems the most appropriate biblical view to hold in consideration of the love of God, as opposed to the two more popular views. Which is an odd thing to say when thinking of God's love and then thinking of a mortal soul's immortal loss and destruction. Which is why the concept is referentially linked to the idea of conditional immortality. An immortality that is linked to one's actions, life, and circumstances, as well as to a sovereign God's wise judgment and outreaching love seeking for redemptive completion.

Consider what one universalist recently said to me: "Certainly there are children who die before they reach the ambiguous and unscriptural 'age of accountability.' As are there plenty of people living into their adult years who are incapable of understanding so they don't have the ability to respond to the Christian idea of salvation. Then there are people who never hear the Word of God, or are victimized in such a way that they could never respond positively...."

My response was to flatly state that this is what is meant by the sovereign wisdom and gracious judgment of a loving God who wishes to bring all creation into reconciliation with Himself. However, with regards to the Christian concept of accountability - as versus sin and evil (including the idea of antinomianism, referring to lawless living) - the Bible is clear that all men everywhere are held to the act of redeeming this life now as it is. Not later.

By this is meant that we are to:

• avoid wickedness, treachery, lying, unrighteous anger, debauchery, idolatry, murder, and on, and on, and on.

• That we are held accountable for our acts of morality and ethics towards others - and even towards thoughtless use of nature itself.

• That we are therefore to provide a goodness, a kindness, a gentleness towards all men and women and creation.

• And that there will be an spiritual accounting for these acts both in this life - as in death itself - while preaching Jesus' forgiveness for all sins made, committed, or affected.

• And finally, that none are beyond the forgiving reach of God's grace and mercy.

More importantly, all things - both in the heavens and in the earth - will be reconciled to the redeeming God of the universe as respecting human free will. Even the human will refusing submittal to  God's divine will and rule. But if, for all these many reasons and more, a human soul steadfastly refuses to redeem life, or to live in a lifestream of redemption (I am trying to speak ambiguously here to allow the fullest, least formulaic, least creedal, idea of God's gracious redemption in Christ), than that soul may continue to experience a mortification of body-and-soul until at the last, even in death, its mortification continues until extinguished completely by that soul's wont-and-will.

This then is fullest meaning of the word death. Within this meaning is the idea of destruction, annihilation, and cessation of life altogether. It is the opposite to the word life which bears the idea of blessing, continuity, community, redemption, and shalom. And it goes with God's forbearance (or allowance) at our insistence to die completely apart from His love and fellowship against the full weight of His persistence (or insistence) for the redemptive life of His creation.

Tenants of Annihilationism

So then, what does the concept of annihilation communicate then?

• It allows the fullest freedom of the human will to have its final say of abandonment from God, self, others, and creation (up-wards, in-wards, out-wards, eco-wards).

• It allows sin its final affects of separation (or death) in all these four areas.

• It allows divine justice to justly condemn sin will permitting divine love to give everything away to save the sinner from death's destruction and abandonment.

• It sees hell's final estate as one of extinguishment where divine wrath upon sin, and divine anguish for the sinner (by God and by loved ones for the sinner), finds completion and end.

• It grants a period to the end of the divine sentence of creation. A conclusion to the eternal play of salvation.

• It fulfills the testimony of Scripture re sin, death, life, and salvation. That sin will have its judgment. And that salvation will be completed even if by sin's annihilation. That is, even in death will God's word be attested as true, and sinful man be allowed to fully die in all the many senses of that word.

• And, it grants an eschatological completeness to divine creation and recreation. That in no realm of heaven will sin reign or be found. Even in hell itself, which will be put to a final death and destruction.

To me, the view of annihilation seems the most consistent with divine love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness, human freedom, and divine sovereignty. If I didn't follow this conclusion than I would have to move to a universalist, or purgatorial, position of death, which is inconsistent with the biblical demand for sin's judgment, payment, and need for redemption IN THIS LIFE.... Although I will grant to universalism its emphasis upon living a redeemed life NOW and not later, to the public at large, they would not be so attentive to this Christian idea and warning of "redeeming the time," preferring instead to mouth the mantra of Invictus:

Out of the night that covers me, 

Black as the pit from pole to pole, 

I thank whatever gods may be 

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

I have not winced nor cried aloud. 

Under the bludgeonings of chance 

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears 

Looms but the Horror of the shade, 

And yet the menace of the years 

Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate, 

How charged with punishments the scroll, 

I am the master of my fate, 

I am the captain of my soul.

- William Ernest Henley

For myself, and apparently within the testimony of Scripture itself, God is saying that it is now - in this life - that we have the time to throw off sin and evil. To become reconciled to our Redeemer-Creator. To be reconciled with mankind and creation. Not later. Not in the next life (or death) to come. But now. Scripture is very clear in this warning to do all that one can to be ready for God and for death. That it is important how we live our life to come by how we live our life now. And to truly fear not living this life salvifically without the divine redemptive help and agency of our Savior God who is very Life Himself in all His councils and very being.

To be confident that in all things - even in death itself - that God will reconcile all things to Himself, even if to allow death - in the fullest sense of its meaning - to descend upon the shades of resolute souls too proud in their sins and hate. Misappropriating, misinterpreting, or unwisely misunderstanding, the steady guidance of God in the affairs of this life. Still, for all three Christian positions here mentioned, we do each rest upon the forgiving mercy and all gracious judgment of our loving God and Savior.

Conclusion

So then, to sum up the position of conditional immortality or annihilationalism:

• The life we have now is the life we have for God or for sin, for life or for death.

• That the time we have in this life is enough for God to effect His will and for us to respond regardless of our human circumstances (cf. synchronicity).

• That it is unnecessary to slip into death for further redemption to take place (contra universalism).

• That it forces the real issue of time for this life now, and not sometime later, after death (contra purgatory). 

Interestingly, this timeful position of annihilation is in parallel thought with the ECT position regarding the importance of the human act before God in this life now - for good or for ill. To not put that act off until later because what we do now matters before God, man, and creation itself. A thorough universalist will say the same thing though the worry here for that position is that life's extenuating circumstances may not allow God enough time for His redemption to occur. That it may have to be after death for God's redemption to occur. 

But with the accompanying view of Christian synchronicity (as mentioned above), whatever life's unfairness or extenuating circumstances, God will redeem fairly and wisely. That the life  we have now is enough for God to effect his will - and for us to respond - regardless of (or in spite of) our personal situations. I think this gives a truer view of God's sovereignty and the importance of our human responsibility towards obedience to God's affective will.

But the least tenable position for me is the ECT position. It is the least gracious. The least complete in terms of eternal redemption. And the most eternally vindictive by God; by the redeemed who wish to pursue eternal judgment and not forgiveness; and, even by the sinner themselves who are held in eternal agony/torment without recourse to any kind of salvific ending. For an ending each resolute sinner must be allowed his or her's free willed soul.

R.E. Slater

June 4, 2014
update June 6, 2014

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

continue to -

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 1

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 2

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 3

Amazon Link

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

Old and Current Views of Hell (1/2)

Old and Current Views of Hell (2/2)

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

Book Blurb

Most evangelical Christians believe that those people who are not saved before they die will be punished in hell forever. But is this what the Bible truly teaches? Do Christians need to rethink their understanding of hell? In the late twentieth century, a growing number of evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, and philosophers began to reject the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell in favor of a minority theological perspective called conditional immortality. This view contends that the unsaved are resurrected to face divine judgment, just as Christians have always believed, but due to the fact that immortality is only given to those who are in Christ, the unsaved do not exist forever in hell. Instead, they face the punishment of the "second death"-an end to their conscious existence. This volume brings together excerpts from a variety of well-respected evangelical thinkers, including John Stott, John Wenham, and E. Earl Ellis, as they articulate the biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments for conditionalism. These readings will give thoughtful Christians strong evidence that there are indeed compelling reasons for rethinking hell.

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

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

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/04/rethinking-hell-evangelical-conditionalism/#disqus_thread

by Scot McKnight

June 4, 2014

Comments

The beat continues, the beat that persists in probing one question: Is ECT (eternal conscious torment) the most consistent view with the Bible and with theology? Or, the beat keeps asking, Is it possible that maybe conditionalism (annihilationism) is the most consistent? I have pushed this topic on this blog a number of times because the books are worthy of consideration and the issues continue to press against what many of us believe. I’m not convinced yet by the arguments of the conditionalists, but I am convinced conditionalism is a legitimate option for those who want their theology anchored in the Bible.

The most recent beat is by C.M. Date, G.G. Stump, and J.W. Anderson, Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Eugene: Cascade, 2014), with a potent foreword by the excellent scholar, John Stackhouse, Jr.. A couple clips from John’s foreword:

To this day, I have wondered why Christians prefer — as many seem to do — believing in eternal conscious torment (ECT). [This is a topic in itself, one worthy of someone to take up seriously -- with the tools of the social sciences in hand.]

Wouldn’t it be great to be able to believe that God did not keep the damned on a spit, rotating forever in the flames of eternal hellfire?

Wouldn’t it be a relief not to think of the saints getting on with with joyful business of the Age to Come without expending considerable energy trying not to think about their loved ones writing in everlasting agony?

Wouldn’t it be reassuring not to have to try to bend one’s mind and, worse, one’s heart into a shape that could somehow give glory to God for afflicting people forever, that could somehow call majestic what seems obviously monstrous? (xii).

But Stackhouse has enough Bible in his spine to know that “Wouldn’t it’s” will not be sufficient for theology. So he says,

Now, maybe, of course, the traditional view of ECT is right. If it is, if ECT is truly what the Bible teaches, then I’ll do my very best to believe it and teach it. I won’t like it, but that doesn’t matter: I love God and I trust him above my own reason and experience and more intuition. Despite whatever might be the theological sophistication I have acquired over the years, if the Bible says it, I’ll believe it, and that settles it (xiii).

The book collects singular pieces and can be an exceptional textbook for anyone who wants to study this topic seriously. The essays are by Peter Grice, Glenn Peoples, Edward Fudge, Stephen Travis, John RW Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, BFC Atkinson, EE Ellis, RG Bowles, HE Guillebaud, AC Thiselton, PE Hughes, H Constable, CD Marshall, NG Wright, RG Swinburne, Kim G. Papaioannou, LeRoy E. Fromm, the Evangelical Alliance, Roger Olson and Ben Witherington III.

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

What is evangelical conditionalism?

Conditionalism refers to the biblical doctrine of conditional immortality, which holds that God alone possesses immortality innately and therefore any other being who is immortal (imperishable, deathless) is so extrinsically, that is, as the result of a positive act of God. No other being, human or otherwise, whether by creation or resurrection, possesses immortality innately but only as God’s specific gift.

Anytime the New Testament mentions immortality in connection with human beings, there are three contrasts which bear out as true: (1) that immortality is ascribed only to the redeemed and never to the damned, (2) that it is a gift of God in the heavenly body and never the natural body, and (3) that it is always in reference to the whole person and never a disembodied soul or spirit.

Conditionalists believe that since the damned are not immortal and never will be, they will actually perish in hell (annihilation). This is the punishment referred to in the Bible as destruction, by which one will perish in the lake of fire, the second death. Some Christians suppose that everyone innately has an immortal soul, redeemed and damned alike, which God will not or cannot destroy. But Jesus implied otherwise, saying that we should fear God because he "can destroy both soul and body in hell" (gehenna).

Immortality is a gift bestowed by God upon his children. To receive this crown, a person must belong to Christ. Such is the condition of this conditional immortality. And this conditionalist view is evangelical insofar as it is understood and articulated within a framework of evangelical Christian orthodoxy.

So this view, then—evangelical conditionalism—is what we explore and commend at Rethinking Hell, whereby we examine how those who do not belong to Christ will be resurrected to face both judgment and the punishment of their destruction in the lake of fire, "the second death."

What is annihilationism?

On the one hand, conditionalism emphasizes what awaits the redeemed, namely, eternal life and immortality. (See What is evangelical conditionalism?) On the other hand, annihilationism is about what awaits the damned, namely, the eternal punishment of destruction in hell. Such is their perishing, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the whole person.

There is some debate among evangelical conditionalists regarding finer eschatological details. For instance, some believe there is a consciously experienced intermediate state between physical death and judgment day, and others believe the intermediate state is not consciously experienced.

All evangelical annihilationists believe that the damned (those who do not belong to Christ) are raised bodily from their graves at an appointed day of judgment and are then finally punished?they perish with finality, suffering the eternal punishment of destruction in hell.

Why is it controversial?

Conditionalism can be controversial for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it has been affirmed historically by a minority of Christians, while the majority of the church has believed and taught the traditional view of hell since at best the time of Augustine. Furthermore, until the recent rise of conditionalism among evangelicals, it was popular to dismiss the final annihilation of the damned as a doctrine believed and taught only by pseudo-Christian cults (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.) and Christian denominations which some consider questionable (Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.).

It can also be controversial because there have been some outspoken evangelical proponents of conditionalism who have given the impression to critics that this view was arrived at on more sentimental grounds, as if they had interpreted scripture through a fallen sense of justice and a humanist view of love. Other proponents of conditionalism have represented arguably questionable views such as open theism and anthropological physicalism (or some other variation of monism, mortalism, or soul sleep), or denied substantive evangelical doctrines like the inerrancy of scripture.

For these reasons and perhaps others, conditionalism is a controversial view. But the climate is changing and an increasing number of evangelical lay people and professionals are becoming convinced of this view. And there are critics who suggest that it may be affirmed by a majority of evangelical scholars. But conditionalists come from a variety of backgrounds and theological positions; one can find conditionalists on virtually every side of virtually every theological debate within evangelicalism.

Continue to website to read additional topics on:

• Reasons
• Misconceptions
• Scriptures
• Proponents

http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/