Originally posted April 12, 2011, at Tiny Dart Frog. Republished with permission of the author.
For five Sundays in Lent my congregation and I explored heaven and hell. Most of what I focused on was the fact that heaven is often much closer than we realize.
Our topics focused on these truths:
- Being “good enough” is not what heaven is about — because none of us can ever possibly be good enough.
- Heaven and hell are often found in shared experiences.
- God’s judgment is merciful, despite the fact it is hard for us to be merciful.
- Jesus takes up residence in us, which makes us all little rooms of heaven here on earth.
- God’s home is made among humans — not separate from humans in some far off place.
About three weeks into this series I heard a song on the radio called, “If Heaven Wasn’t So Far Away,” by Justin Moore.
“You’ve got to be kidding me,” I said to Carter (my 13½-year-old son).
“What?” he asked.
“This song … I’ve just spent weeks telling people this isn’t true. He’s got a way better fan base than I do,” I responded.
“Yeah, too bad,” he said with very little sympathy for me.
“I’m going to write a letter to him and tell him this is just not helpful, and it isn’t even what heaven is all about,” I replied back to him with a lot of “grrr” in my voice.
“I’m sure that will work, Mom. He’s making money; you’re a pastor,” he said with a fair amount of sarcasm.
“Well, I still may do it just because,” I said.
At this point he looked at me like I had lost my mind, although he’s 13 — he always looks at me like I’ve lost my mind, or he’s embarrassed I’m still breathing.
So, I wrote a letter, but I can’t quite figure out how to contact Justin via his website, so this will probably do the trick.
Below is my letter — not because I think it will change anything, but because words do matter.
What we say influences how we think, and I believe that in the discussion of our faith rests something very divine and lovely, and for that, I am willing to write letters, talk to strangers and go places I never dreamed I’d go.
I couldn’t have rested or felt as if I was being faithful had I not written this letter. And — I should also say — I love country music and I think the song has a lovely tune, I just think it is theologically insufficient. Give it a listen and give my letter a read and hold them in tension … they are both dim truths and incomplete pictures.
Dear Justin,
I am writing regarding your latest single “If Heaven Wasn’t So Far Away.” It pulls at my heartstrings and I think the harmonies are enticing; however I felt compelled to write to you regarding the lyrics.
I am a Lutheran pastor who has just completed a sermon series on heaven and hell. This sermon series was implemented because so many feel as if heaven is some far off place, which cannot be experienced today.
Additionally, many of us believe heaven is just a place to get to someday in the future. This, from a biblical perspective, is not true. Heaven, as Jesus teaches, is about all that is good, lovely and right coming to live here on earth.
So, for example, in your song, you sing about taking kids to see their grandpa if only heaven weren’t so far away.
The idea behind this seems to be that the only way the kids could “know” grandpa is to physically be present with him. This, in my opinion, is not true. Children and adults know many things through love and story, pictures and memory.
It is true that the song recalls memory and all those good times, but the recurring refrain of, “If heaven wasn’t so far away,” diminishes the power of lingering memory and the fact that love continues in the here and now, even after death.
While I know this isn’t possible, if I were to re-title your song, I would call it something like, “Heaven Isn’t So Far Away” or “Heaven Lives in a Fruit Stand” because heaven is always as near as our heartbeat.
A man named Jesus hung on a cross with two criminals and at one point one said to Jesus, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus said, “You’ll be with me in paradise.”
Heaven is the “with me” part, not the dead part. That’s what I so much want people to hear. Heaven is not far away, because Jesus is not far away.
As I close, I want to also thank you for singing and writing about good, close and loving relationships. That is important in a world where we often hear about fractured relationships.
Find a link to Christine Stephan’s blog Tiny Dart Frog at Lutheran Blogs.
The danger with theologizing on song lyrics is that it's art. As such, it speaks to us all in different ways, so you end up theologizing on your interpretation of the song lyrics rather than the lyrics themselves. Lady Gaga's recent release "Judas" is a great example of this, especially since it relies so heavily on the power of the symbol "Judas".
In Justin Moore's case, my understanding of the lyrics are different. I don't see heaven as playing any actual role in the song. It isn't about heaven being far away so much as death being such a big chasm separating us from those we love and the pain of being separated from them. Less eloquently, the song is a basic and common prayer: "Oh God, it hurts so much". That's not a 'wrong feeling' or bad theology; it's a cry for mercy. From that perspective, heaven (however you define the term) is infinitely far away. That's not a matter of perspective, but the problem here. Heaven only comes to earth via Jesus' death and resurrection. As Christians, our job isn't to tell people that their cry for mercy diminishes anything, or that they're wrong about heaven being far away. It's to proclaim to them that their cry for mercy has been heard, that death's chasm has been crossed, and new life awaits them here and now. That heaven is coming here, arriving here, is here now, where it previously was not before.
Peter - I don't disagree with you at all, however, my basic issue when I wrote this is that the perceived distance of heaven as a place or a destination is the predominant language in society. The closeness or distance often depends on my openness and in pain or suffering God can seem very far away, although God can also seem amazingly close. '
I also think, as a Lutheran, I do have a denominational bias/influence. In the sacraments I understand God to be incarnational - here now, living here now, in us now - which is a bit different than others (not right or wrong, just different) who assent more to an intellectual set of ideas or outcomes.
When it comes down to it - some glimpses of heaven or more tangible than others and...my frustration comes when I or we miss those times that heaven/God/Jesus is amazingly present on earth and we are waiting for something or someplace else.
I think we do have a disagreement here. The closeness or distance never depends on us or on our ability to be open; it depends on Christ's ability to bridge that gap alone and only. That's the Gospel. That's the promise. Even the faith that receives that Promise is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It's not about our openness; we're sinners after all. Part of that is that we will miss the Kingdom of God on this earth, that we can't see the Kingdom of God here. I agree that it is plenty frustrating. Sin is like that, though.
I do agree that Heaven as a destination is generally bad theology. That's not due to distance or our yearning to get there, though, as much as it is that the entire system of rewards and punishments is Law, which doesn't save. With the Gospel comes an abandonment of that entire system, both rewards and punishments. We don't like to let go of the reward-end of things, which is part of what keeps us leashed to the Law.
Although...it's also true that we can turn from God so that does impact our openness or closeness. We are sinners and we are also saints. I appreciate your points, but I also think in your pushing your view you are negating your original post of: it not being our job to tell people their theology is right or wrong.
God does indeed bridge the gap and... we do have choice. I can choose to deny Christ at any point.
My point was not God's closeness or distance, but our ability to recognize or accept it.
God rewards those who place their faith in Christ; God punishes those who don't. From Eve plucking the fruit, to Jesus succeeding on the cross. The whole Bible is a system of quid pro quos. If you don't accept the gospel, you will undergo the punishment required by the law. If you accept the gospel, salvation is your reward.
1. 1 Corinthians 9:27
No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the "prize".
2. Philippians 3:14
I press on toward the goal to win the "prize" for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
3. Colossians 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the "prize".
The Bible uses words like reward, prize, treasure, win, victory, punishment, loose, defeat because it is a system of rewards and punishments. The gospel only abandons the punishment not the reward. And the law only recognizes the punishment.
Christine,
My original point wasn't that we can't judge others' theology, but that it was not bad theology. We need to understand how Law and Gospel play out in the world so that we can proclaim the Gospel.
Nor do we have a choice where Christ is concerned. Specifically, we cannot choose to trust him fully in this life. The sinner-saint divide is not about the choices we make-- that we can "choose" to be saints, nor if were we truly and completely saints that we would ever "choose" to be sinners-- but about the new creation God works in us vs the old Adams and Eves that yet live within us. Our will is captivated by sin, and we need Jesus to daily free us from our sins.
davebob,
Were that really the case, there would be no material difference between Christianity and either Judaism or Islam. In Jesus, God isn't saying 'here's a new Law for you to obey', but 'here's the fulfillment of all those old Laws you didn't obey for you'. Believe in the Gospel or else is a statement of Law, and can't possibly be either a gift or free. Nor is it Good News, especially for all of us sinners who can't trust God.
Yes, the Bible does use 'reward', 'prize' and other words like that. Those statements, though are all generally Second Use of the Law (though First Use is in there as well), and not the Gospel promise itself. Keep in mind Christ's reward for his actions on earth was the cross. Also, recall the parable of the workers in the field-- they all get paid one day's wages. If the man were generous, he might have paid them all two, three or more days' wage.
If we have anything to do with earning our own salvation, that's either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.
Peter,
You say “with the Gospel comes an abandonment of that entire system, both rewards and punishments”
My point is that the bible in its entirety (including the gospel) is a system of rewards and punishments. There is no other way to proclaim the gospel to another human being without some form of reward / punishment context. Be it good vs. evil, bad vs. good, heaven vs. hell; I could go on and on. For one human to comprehend any kind of instruction from another, there has to be some reason “why” that person would take the time to listen to the instruction in the first place. And that reason is the expectation of some personal benefit or reward. By definition, all instruction or teaching has to offer some form of value or it will be just worthless idle talk. The gospel does not abandon this concept. Why would anyone believe in the gospel if in the end it doesn’t have at least some form of benefit or reward for them? Tell me how you would convince an unbeliever of why your world view is better than his, without the use of some form of reward / punishment language. It can’t be done. As soon as the unbeliever asks why they should believe, you will have to offer some answer from a reward / punishment context. There must be some value (reward or escape from punishment), for a motivating factor in the gospel, or you might as well clack rocks together; you will get the same outcome. This reward / punishment concept transcends religion into the very fabric of every living thing on earth. It can't be arbitrarily abandoned.
You say “the entire system of rewards and punishments is law and does not save”.
But God created this system, as evidenced in the Bible, for a reason. If there is no reward / punishment, there is no heaven or hell. And if there is no heaven or hell, there is no devil, and there is certainly no need for Jesus. So it does save by default. Without this system, either no one would be saved....or everyone would be. Either way there would be no distinction in Christ, and no need for the gospel.
This system has always been, and will always be in effect until Christ returns.... and probably after.
You say "believe in the gospel or else is law and can't possibly be a free gift".
Unless you are taking a position of universal salvation, the gospel has no power to save on its own. It is a free gift. But even free gifts have to be accepted. There has to be a giver and a receiver, or the gift loses its significance and is not even a gift. How can it be call a gift if there is only one participant in the transaction? And what good is the gospel to those who won't believe it?
davebob,
Law and Gospel are two different ways of dealing with humans, not two sides of the same way of dealing with humans. Yes, God created the system of rewards and punishments, but that's covered by the Lutheran code word "Law". Do good, get rewarded, do bad, get punished. All of that is Law, not just the 'don't do this or else'. As you observe, we don't escape that in this life, and what's more, our failure to live up to the Law is why God kills us. Law is God's creation, and as such, the Law is good. But it is also so good that it must destroy us evildoers.
The Gospel is something entirely different. It is that Jesus goes to the cross and gives us forgiveness of sins freely, even though we deserve punishment. No longer does the old system of rewards and punishments matter because you can't use that old system to somehow get Jesus to give you a reward nor does how well you do under the old system matter. Nor is Jesus obliged to hand out rewards; there isn't a system by which we can get ahead or win at all... note the parable about sheep and goats.
I really don't understand what you mean by suggesting that "the gospel has no power to save on its own", as the Gospel is exactly what does save. Yes, the Gospel does need to be received, and it is received through faith. That faith itself is a gift from God, so even that isn't really up to us, as it is created in the hearer upon encountering the Gospel Promise. It's all up to God, which is hard for us to take. To those who do not trust the Gospel, or don't see a need for the Gospel, it is indeed useless.
Peter,
Yes, Jesus goes to the cross and gives us (rewards us) forgiveness of sin freely. But then you go on to suggest that after the reward is given that we can't use the old system when we need to somehow go back to Jesus and try to get another reward? Why would we need to get saved twice?
Jesus will save all who beleive in him. That is the promise and the system by which we all can get ahead and win.
The sheep believe, and the goats don't. another example of the reward system.
You say that you don't understand what I'm mean by 'the gospel has no power to save on its own", then you go on to make my point that "yes, it has to be received". Then you go back the single participant theory where Gods does it all.
If it is all up to God, why isn't the whole world Christian? Why doesn't God save us all? What does God's work our hands mean?
@Christine @Peter
I think its important to engage with societal art, even if there is a risk of contextual differing interpretations. Likewise, as part of the process, clarity is key, and I think Christine did a great job of explaining where she was coming from. As a result, the reader can make the call. Case in pt, imagine if folks had engaged medieval understandings of hell ie Dante's inferno.
@Davebob
God does it all, albeit such is a mystery. Perhaps it might be beneficial to read the second Council of Orange, or more recently the Lutheran dialogs over the corporate absolution of non-believers from the mid-late 1800's. The background discussions can be incredibly helpful.
Ron,
I thought our God gave us a free choice. I never thought He was a cosmic brain washer, programming people into loving Him. I always thought He persuaded us with His passion, love and sacrifice. I thought He asked us to put on His yoke because His burden is light. Is this who God wants as His special people; people who would have otherwise turn from him lest He did it all?
What of the many millions of people leaving the faith; is this God’s work too? If God has done it all, how is it possible that men are responsible for there sin?
No, I will continue to believe that whereas there is nothing we can do to gain salvation, we do have to accept and believe in our Lord, or we are lost.
@Ron - your Dante's inferno is such a great example..just as Purgatorio has shaped our views on Hell. There's a book called "Sinning Like a Christian" by Will Willimon which is a nice pairing in realizing how society does shape how we think. I'm all for theological musings, but at some point it's so important for us to realize that theology is influenced by society (whether we like this or not) and we, as people who are in the church, must have some real to say to society and not talk only in theological terms, but theologically through common language.
@Davebob -
I think we have each 'picked' a piece of our arguments to cling to and I am not sure that the point made by Ron is that you don't have free will, but rather that God, in Jesus, has done the work that we cannot do. We do have choice, but the mystery is that (at least in my opinion) the divine piece in us does cry out to God. As we see constantly, we do not listen to that piece in our beings very well. It's the sin part of us all.
And, just as a personal point, even though I believe and accept Jesus Christ and love him with as much of my heart as I can on any given day, I'm still lost quite often. God seems quite able to use my being lost as a means of finding me (and not just me, but all people and quite honestly creation).
Sometimes I remember, especially in all these types of discussions is that we all ultimately met at the foot of the cross...where God is faithful, even when we are not.
@Ron I agree that we need to engage in art and culture, but we need to engage with an eye to the Gospel.
@davebob Why the whole world isn't Christian is due to sin and the nature of the theology of the cross. I don't know whether God does or does not save us all, but I do know that we have the authority to proclaim the Gospel promise for everyone and anyone who will hear it. As I understand "God's Work, our hands", it means that God works through us and that it is God's work, not ours being done.
Also, what Jesus is doing on the cross is not properly a reward. A reward is something earned. Rewarded for good behavior, or rewarded for capturing the criminal. Rewards all presuppose acts which merit them. What Jesus does on the cross is not a reward-- it is a free gift, given to those who most decidedly do not merit it.
Your Gospel sounds a little bit different from mine. "Jesus will save all who believe in Him" is not the Gospel. In fact, that's a Law that damns all of us because none of us can believe enough on our own. "God will give mercy to sinners (ie those in open or closed rebellion against God) on account of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection." is what I understand the Gospel to be. Good News to sinners.
Hey Christine,
Yah, I think I am about where you are. There are many good Christians who believe in universal salvation (no need for Christ) but for some reason they shy away from just saying it.
Hey Peter,
So sin and the nature of the theology of the cross keep people from becoming Christians? And I suppose that’s all Gods work too?
If it’s all God’s work He will have to save us all; because He is all good. Or do we have a randomly selective God who picks winners and losers like lottery ping pong balls?
Why would we need to help our all doing God by proclaiming the gospel? That seem futile to me. We know that all God would have to do is appear on Larry king Live for about 2 minutes, and the whole world would become Christians. Now that would be all God’s doing.
Who called Jesus work on the cross a reward? Believers get an undeserved reward because of that work.
So Jesus’ free gift is given to those who decidedly do not merit it? Yahoo! That means all of us! We are going to heaven! Thanks for clearing that up. Quick, go tell the Jews and the Muslims so we can end these wars!
“Jesus saves all who believe in Him” those are not my words. It’s not my gospel. I got it out of the Bible.
Let me get this straight: “Jesus saves all who believe in Him” is a law that damns us all because none of us can believe enough on our own. So now that we are all damned, what can we do? Answer: believe in Jesus so we can become undamned. But wait, that’s a law that damns us because we will never be able to believe enough…. I guess any effort to believe in Jesus is futile. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. It sounds like your gospel would be much simpler without the whole believe in Jesus thing.
@davebob
It sort of appears you are somewhat describing Calvin's double predestination with the no free will at all view, but its a bit more subtle that than. Despite Calvin's view that God picks and chooses, I don't know any Calvinist's who would say there is no need for Christ, the great commission, or that hell doesn't exist. I'm not a Calvinist nor I have I studied it enough to really do justice to it, more than the superficial overlay.
Ultimately its a mystery, Calvinists with no free will on one hand, Arminians with a bit of free and a "must accept Christ" view that seem close to what you hold on the other, and Luther's view in the middle. Luther was so much in the middle election wise that its ambiguous, as likewise is scripture (at least in his view). Such ambiguity was one of many factors which led to splits in US Lutheranism in the late 1800's.
Personally I'm drawn to the very logical Missourian view of single predestination, ie no free will to accept, but free will to reject. Yet, I'm not totally convinced, as such requires a fair bit of man's logic and reasoning outside of scripture which I find pretty bothersome.