Response to Article About Evangelion (or, proof that I am a dork)

10 01 2009
(Hey. You. Don’t read this blog entry. Read the previous one about the Relevant article on Universalism. Then come back and read this one. Actually don’t. Only if you’re a dork like me and have seen the Neon Genesis Evangelion anime (wouldn’t want to spoil the ending[s] if you haven’t seen it yet, unless you want to have it spoiled). Okay then.)

So, the anime series Evangelion originally had its TV series ending, which was episodes 25 and 26 of the show. Fans were very angry about said ending for various reasons, so eventually the shows creators made a new one (a movie) called “End of Evangelion.” This dude wrote an article around 8 years ago about why the movie ending is “vastly superior” to the original one (found here) . Besides the numerous typographical errors (which I suppose I can’t fault him too much for, I’m sure I make enough of my own), he says a bunch of other stuff that really bothers me, so I decided to write a response of sorts. His stuff is in the block quotes, my responses follow each quote.

Certainly a point that can be used to split the fanbase is this issue. Which ending is better, the series or the movie? I’m surprised that not only therer are people that prefer the series ending, but people out there who actually enjoy the series’ final 2 episodes as an ending, period. Yeah, take a guess at which side of the issue I’m on.

Starting out by insulting the intelligence of those who disagree with you. Cool.

As someone who knew the series ending would be ‘out there’ purely from reputation long before I saw Evangelion, I certainly can’t relate to those who saw it unspoiled, or even worse those who watched the show on its original run. As much as I hate the TV ending, I’d probably dislike it even more if I was in that situation. Thus, I can’t say the TV ending surprised me. It was a rather well known fact in April, 2001 when I saw the ending for the first time that it was so bad that it spawned a well known film.

I agree with him on this to some degree. If I hadn’t known about the (alleged) freakish turn the series took at the end of the series, I would have almost definitely been shocked and probably a little disappointed. I also can’t imagine how shocking it must have been to those who saw it when it first aired. That doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the ending itself, though. Just because it was unexpected and off-kilter doesn’t automatically make it bad, but I suppose he explains why he considers it bad in the following paragraphs, so I’ll shut up now.

How do I begin? The TV ending is flawed at every turn. Start with it technically. Episodes 1-24 were bad enough with the stock footage but it simply goes into overdrive here. They literally drown you with the stuff. I don’t know whats worse, those ridiculous still scenes in the elevator or with Unit 01 holding Kaworu, or these episodes. Its the pure epitome of cheapness and lack of innovation. Pauses and flashing stock footage at the viewer is something a grade school student would do. But someone with as much talent as Anno? Perhaps I’m giving him too much credit.

The first time I saw Evangelion, the still scenes were some of my favorite parts in the series. Whether or not they were intentional or the result of lack of funds didn’t matter to me. I found them to be very tension-building moments that really contributed to the emotional nature of what was going on at those particular moments in the series. I found them to be unique moments that I hadn’t really seen used in any of the anime shows I’d seen before. Whether or not this makes me as unintelligent as a “grade school student” is up for debate, but I felt those moments were quite defining for the series and helped to make it stand out from the rest of the pack of anime out there.

Take, for example, the scene where Unit 01 is holding Kaworu. Kaworu has just told Shinji to kill him, the only person that has made him feel worthwhile and actually seems to like him. The scene cuts to Eva Unit 01 holding Kaworu, with Shinji left inside the mecha to decide what to do: kill what he sees as his only friend or allow him to live, most likely resulting in the destruction of all mankind. All this while an intense classical piece plays (can’t remember which it is at the moment, and I probably wouldn’t know the name even if I did). The fact that the scene freezes upon that image leaves the viewer with nothing to do except feel the tension of the scene and (hopefully) empathize with Shinji’s feelings, imagine all the contradictory thoughts going through his mind, wonder what he’s going to decide, etc.

The fact that the TV Series ending “goes into overdrive” with the stock footage I can’t really disagree with. However, these two episodes are supposed to be the depiction of the Human Instrumentality Project, where the characters’ minds are probed and their psychological issues examined for the purpose of uniting all people into some mass of “oneness” (or something). What else would be in their minds besides “stock footage”? Of course, the show’s creators could have shown stuff about Shinji that no one knew yet, but the footage shown pretty accurately shows Shinji’s messed up mind, and the fact that stock footage is used repeatedly only exemplifies his confusion and inner mental torment (although, I admit, the part of Asuka’s Instrumentality where she is shown repeatedly spouting repeated phrases is a little overdrawn).

Anyway, back to the article…

While I enjoyed the music during the so called ‘weird’ scenes, they tend to use the lesser quality ones too much in these episodes like ‘Introjection’ and ‘Ambivalence’. Evangelion’s soundtrack was never steller to begin with, and its unfortunate that they don’t use the opportunity to use tracks like ‘Splitting of the Breast’ or ‘Mother Is the First Other’ a few more times. Contrast this with the movie. Excellent animation. Occasional use of stock footage from the series, as is to be expected in an ending, but unlike the TV ending its not the entire show. As for the music… wow. From ‘Thanatos’ to ‘Komm Susser Todd’ the movie’s soundtrack completely buries the dull monotone themes of the series that do little more than rehash the opening and closing themes. And never underestimate the use of a new ending track for the finale. It was great with ‘Blue’ in Cowboy Bebop and ‘The Story of Escaflowne’ in Escaflowne. In Eva, after the ending, something that I’d like to consider special considering its the finale, all we get is the same old boring ‘Fly Me To the Moon’ garbage. I dispised the song the entire series for the pure laziness of using it. The TV ending keeps the tradition unlike the wonderful movie where we get not one, but 2 seperate themes for the 2 ending credits.

I think I agree with this part. Those two ending songs from the movie are beyond superb (not to mention the wonderful rendering of “Jesus, Joy of Man’s Desiring” on piano [I really want to learn to play that… and the piano in general, but that’s another story]). I don’t think there’s really any way to deny that the music on the movie’s ending is better than the music on the original ending, so I’ll stop there.

I suppose what perfectly defines the pond scum that the TV ending is the resolution factor. Evangelion has a million questions presented in the first 24 episodes. What are the Angels? Where do they come from? Whats Adam? If its not the giant on the cross, than what happened to it? Whats Lillith? How is she relevent? What is SEELE’s true objectives? Why are they in such conflict with Gendou? Whats the truth behind the Eva’s? Whats Third Impact? And so on… And its not just unanswered questions. As episode 24 ended each and every character needed resolution except for poor Kaji, who was dispatched a few episodes earlier (the identity of his shooter is yet another mystery presented…) So, we finally get the ending in the final 2 episodes. And what do we get? All the answers? Half the answers? A quarter of the answers? A few answers? Maybe just one? Nope. Squat. Zilch. Nada. Everything in the series is dumped like a bad date. Angels? Who cared. Third Impact? We may have mentioned that a million times but we’ll just leave it unresolved. Eva Series? Bah, forget that was mentioned in practically every episode of the second half. Resolution is important. Without resolution something rightfully can’t be called an ending. And in the TV ending of Eva we get no resolution. We get Shinji thinking about how he should act. Nothing else. Of course supporters of the TV ending would say that none of that stuff ever mattered, only Shinji did. Bullshit! If this was a series purely about psychological studies of teenage boys, thats all we’d get. There wouldn’t be mechas. There wouldn’t be hot anime babes. There wouldn’t be religious symbolism and discussions about Third Impacts and Eva Series. Oppose this to the movie. All the resolution you could need. Third Impact, Eva Series, SEELE, Lillith, Adam, etc… are all given good resolution. Rather than just lazily flash us with shots of dead characters since we’re too lazy to do anything with them, we get proper ends to Ritsuko and Misato. And a much better final scene. Endless ‘congradulations’ or Asuka and Shinji alone in a wasteland. No, I’m not a guy who wants Asuka and Shinji together, but Asuka complaining to me for a minute is a hell of a lot better than a minute of ‘Congradulations’ repeated over and over again.

Alright, first of all, I don’t know what the writer thinks is normally associated with the psyche of teenage anime boys, but I’m pretty sure “hot anime babes” and mecha would definitely be huge parts of it (was he ever a teenage boy himself, I wonder…). While all the other technical “stuff” that happened in the series was important in furthering the plot, Shinji was the central focus throughout it all (and as far as I know, a reflection of creator Hideaki Anno himself). The story was primarily about the insecurities and psychological issues of the characters, especially Shinji. So, the creators could end the show with a half-hearted plot-fulfilling two episodes so everyone could “find out what happens,” somehow attempt to show both plot and the psychological conclusion, or go into an in-depth examination of the main character’s psyche and the Human Instrumentality Project’s effect on him. Considering the time constraints and financial issues surrounding the creation of the original TV series, I believe that what they did was the best possible option. Whether they created said ending while drunk and overtired (which I’ve heard reported somewhere) doesn’t really change the fact that the series’ original ending did offer closure to Shinji’s ever-insecure mental state of being. The flashing of the dead characters at the end isn’t necessarily because of laziness. Those shots correspond completely with the movie ending (as does Asuka underwater in Unit 02). The only reason (I believe) that these scenes weren’t expounded on more was because there wasn’t enough time and the creators probably wished to provide some sort of closure for those particular characters. After all, what was really most important was what became of Shinji and what he decided to do about his self-perception. Also, this decision is what the fate of the entire Earth hangs upon in the “End of Evangelion” movie, so to say that Shinji’s feelings weren’t completely important is bull, in my opinion. He was the deciding factor in allowing humanity to survive even with pain, instead of some fake reality where everyone is the same and united in some sort of soul glob. Shinji himself was the catalyst that led to the outcome of the entire series in both endings, not just the television one. Hideaki Anno himself implies that the show is centered around Shinji (see here [and this was asked before the start of the series]). I’ll admit that the “Congradulations” (sic) at the end were a little surreal, but the fact that Shinji was able to accept himself as he is was incredibly significant considering all he’d been through throughout the series. Which brings us to the next part…

Another thing I couldn’t stand about the TV ending is the final message. Shinji has worth as a person and doesn’t need the mecha to find happiness. Hello!?!?!? Anno, where you watching the same series as I was during the first 24 episodes? If anything, episodes 1-24 prove without a shadow of a doubt that Shinji is a worthless individual that gets all his success and happiness from the Eva. Lets list them. Shinji gets to be with his father again because of the Eva. Shinji gets that all important congradulations from his father because of the Eva. Shinji makes friends with Touji and Kensuke because of the Eva. Shinji gets to live with a babe like Misato because of the Eva. Shinji no longer has a boring life with his teacher because of the Eva. Shinji meets the person he loves more than anything else, because of the Eva.

Just because Shinji has good things happen to him because of the Eva, does not mean that it has to be his ultimate source of happiness. Shinji is not worthless because he doesn’t have the Eva to give him worth, he’s worthless (if anyone can truly be called that) because that’s how he perceives himself. Even when he gets all of this awesome stuff, he still sees himself as worthless when anything goes wrong or he fails. The change didn’t need to come from his circumstances, but from how he perceived himself as a human being. What happens during the Instrumentality Project is the culmination of all the emotions and insecurity that Shinji felt throughout the first 24 episodes of the series.

Shinji is always portrayed as a pathetic person without the Eva. Look at episode 4. Shinji sleeping in the movie theater like a homeless person or sitting on the subway forever because he runs from the Eva. Then we reach the ending. And what does that tell us? That Shinji does have worth! That the mecha isn’t important! Well if that was the case, then why the hell did you contradict it in every single one of the first 24 episodes!??!?

Are you kidding me? Shinji was the one who thought his only source of worth was the Eva. It’s not like a narrator announced throughout the show that “Shinji Ikari is worthless without the Eva. Just look at the poor bastard!” When he was in the movie theater, he saw a young couple making out and sat there insecure and most likely feeling sorry for himself. This probably only added to his self-hatred after having been emotionally torn apart from his experiences in the Eva. It’s not like the creators wanted us to see Shinji as worthless, he was the one who wrongfully thought so.

Okay, now that I’ve beat that topic into the ground, I’ll finish this up.

Now the movie certainly doesn’t portray Shinji in a good light, with him masturbating in front of Asuka or being pulled around like a baby by Misato. But atleast he’s in character in the movie. He’s not running around being congradulated for nonscensical reasons.

What? What’s your point? He’s in character in both of the endings. He makes the same choice both times. He chooses to live his life in reality, regardless of how much pain that brings him. He’s congratulated because he’s able to accept himself as a person. Even though the movie ends on a more depressing note, the message is still the same. Shinji has decided to face and accept the world as it is, and he has learned to accept himself as well.

Two endings versus each other. One is End of Evangelion. A great movie that resolves the TV series nearly flawlessly while also providing great animation and intriguing music. Personally one of my favorite anime movies. The other is the TV ending. A pure example of why Anno can’t get it done when it comes to crunch time. Folding completely under pressure. Excuses don’t cut it with me. Worst anime ending in the history of the medium in my opinion. Argument over.

Wow. “Argument over.” I guess I lose. Oh well.

Personally, I’m not sure which ending I like better (for a while, it was the original one, but the last time I watched the series, which was in November and December, I think I liked the movie one better), and I was not trying to argue that the television ending is unequivocally better in all ways (as the writer does for the movie), only that it has its merits as well as the movie ending. To call it the “[w]orst anime ending in the history of the medium” is absurdly harsh. But, hey, to each his own, I guess.





Relevant Magazine Article(s?) on Universalism…

3 01 2009
Those of you who read Relevant (and my notes/blog) probably knew this was coming, right? ;) I know I probably seem to have a one-track mind, but really, I do have other interests.

In the Nov./Dec. issue of Relevant Magazine (a Christian magazine that is geared toward Christian twenty-somethings and has articles on everything from music to movies to theology to how to decorate your apartment), there is an article entitled “The Rising Tide of Universalism” (pretty scary-sounding, right?). The article takes a look at both Unitarian Universalism and Christian Universalism.

The article begins with a short description of Bishop Carlton Pearson, a minister who eventually came to believe in what he calls “The Gospel of Inclusion.” You can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson

The first section in the article is entitled “Salvation for All?” and starts out [All bold emphases within the article quotes are mine unless otherwise noted.]:

Universalism, or the belief that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God, is neither new nor novel. Early church fathers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria held to universal salvation, although it was later deemed heresy at the fifth ecumenical council in 553 AD.

What the article failed to mention (as it would probably help to defeat it’s entire argument) was that the majority of the early church believed that God would eventually restore all people to Himself (read the sections “Bible Threatenings Explained” and “ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF HEATHEN ORIGIN (Greek mythology)” at http://www.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html#1 for more information. Although the sentence “That heathen invented this doctrine is undeniable” is a little iffy considering the fact that it is denied by the majority of modern Christianity, the article is a good, if brief, introduction to the likely fact that most early Christians believed in Universal Restoration. For a [much] more detailed description [one that I haven’t gotten around to reading yet], check out the following book [fully available online]: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html ).

The article then gives a short description of Unitarian Universalism which seems accurate enough, but considering the fact that I’m not that knowledgable about Unitarians, I’ll refrain from commenting on it.

The article then goes into a short description of Christian Universalism:

Unlike the UUA [Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations], there is also a smaller but growing movement among people who hold to universal salvation while still attempting to maintain that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ.

(That’s not condescending at all, is it? Haha. Sorry… continuing: )

As opposed to Unitarian Universalism, which is an interfaith view that doesn’t elevate Christ above other great religious figures, Christian Universalism holds that Jesus Christ is the fullest expression of the character of God who offers salvation to everyone-even if they don’t actually receive it.

This is where the articles starts to become a little bit off. Barely halfway into the article, and Christian Universalism has already been largely misrepresented (for the sake of this particlar blog entry/facebook note, assume that I’m not a Christian Universalist. I’m only defending what most of them believe). Christian Universalists do not believe that receiving God’s salvation is unnecessary. They simply believe that everyone eventually will receive it, whether in this life or not.

The article just gets more confused from there. The next section, entitled “The One and Only,” only serves to prove that the writer has not done sufficient research about the beliefs of most Christian Universalists:

Clearly, there is a mammoth difference between Christianity as Scripture describes and the Christian Universalist’s variation. And it is not simply a matter of preference; it is a matter of Scripture. “Anyone who affirms universalism has a problem with biblical authority and ultimately with Jesus, Peter and Paul,” says Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Seminary and author of A Theology for the Church. “The Bible provides no theological support apart from special revelation, and nothing that would support the anonymous and eventual views. That is more the wistful musings of liberal theologians.”

In order to refrain from writing a thousand-word rebuttal to this paragraph, I’m going to try to limit myself to a couple Bible verses spoken by the aforementioned Biblical men where the Scripture certainly appears to agree with Christian Universalism (henceforth abbreviated by CU):

Jesus: John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (The article actually quotes this verse later on as one used by Christian Universalists to defend their beliefs).

Peter: Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Paul: I don’t even know where to begin with Paul, there are so many clear-cut examples where he boldly states (or at least implies) the Restitution of All Things that it’s mind-blowing that I ever missed it before, but here’s a good one:
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

I’m not sure what Mr. Akin means by the “anonymous and eventual views,” but if he’s trying to imply that the majority of Christian Universalists are “liberal theologians,” he couldn’t be more wrong. The founder of the tentmaker.org site (a site dedicated to Christian Universalism) is a conservative Christian, as are a great deal of the people who post to the site’s message board. In fact, the only major difference between most Christian Universalists and the modern Evangelical Christian is the belief that God will eventually save all people (remember, I’m talking about most Christian Universalists, not necessarily myself). Most would agree with just about all the other doctrines of modern Evangelical Christianity, such as the virgin birth, trinity, authority of Scripture, etc. To say that there is a “mammoth difference” between the Christian Universalist’s “variation” and Scripture’s Christianity is to not look at the entire picture (especially considering the aforementioned verses). Alright, more on Scripture later. Moving on…

Darrel Bock, New Testament scholar and author of Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ, agrees with Akin that Universalism fails to understand the core message of the scriptures. “If a person says they embrace Jesus and the revelation from God about Him in the Bible, which is our only real access to what He taught, then to believe everyone is saved denies fundamental parts of Jesus’ message and warning,” he says.

This mostly has to do with the mistranslation of the Greek words αἰών and αἰώνιος, normally translated “eternal,” “everlasting,” “forever,” “forever and ever” etc. The more accurate translation according to Christian Universalists and many Greek scholars would be words such as “age,” “age-during,” and “to the age of the ages,” etc. Go to this site: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html for a book about this particular translation issue (another article I haven’t gotten around to reading yet) . Whether this is true or not makes no difference when one considers that this issue is not even mentioned in the article! Certainly the author must have known that translation issues factored into this debate! Why did he completely ignore it? But I’m getting ahead of myself. Again, moving on…

Furthermore, Universalism is irreconcilable with many critical scriptural lynchpins. For example, if God will eventually save all, the New Testament’s emphasis on evangelism is confusing at best. More importantly, if Jesus’ life was simply a wonderful example of how we must live, the cross becomes unnecessary. “To believe everyone is saved denies fundamental parts of Jesus’ message and warning,” Bock says. “In many ways, it risks making the cross very irrelevant, as well as the message Jesus taught and and commissioned the apostles to preach and write about to the world.”

Evangelism is confusing if God is allowing the fate of all humanity to rest on the shoulders of those he deems worthy of spreading his message to others. Christian Universalists believe that some people are ordained to be part of the “first-fruits,” others will be brought into the fold later.

1 Corinthians 15: 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

At the end, the entire kingdom will be delivered to God, which includes every human being. Does this make evangelism irrelevant? Absolutely not. God is completely in control of everything, including who is saved (which is everyone according to CU). He allows Christians to be a part of his “restitution of all things” by giving them a purpose, that is, preaching the gospel to others. This would be devastating for a lot of Christians to accept because they feel that their entire purpose in life is to work for God to prove their worth to Him instead of with Him and other Christians to bring His love into the world.

As for the cross being unnecessary if all were saved, I’ll post something I wrote in a previous note:

“As for the death of Christ on the cross, I say this: Imagine purchasing a 100-acre field full of a crop of corn. You’ve worked for many months in order to save up the money to buy this field, and finally you shake hands, sign contracts, etc. and are given the rights to the field. However, the next morning you wake up to a phone call. The voice on the other end says, “We’re sorry to tell you this, but there was a fire in the field you purchased last night. We’ve only been able to salvage 10 acres of it.” Would you be satisfied with that? Would you be able to say, “Well, I purchased it, but it’s too bad that most of the field had to be lost.” No! You would ask for your money back! You didn’t get all that you paid for!

If God sent His only begotten Son Jesus to die on the Cross, and it was unsuccessful in saving a vast majority of the human race, then God has not gotten all that He paid for. What a tragedy that Jesus died! He has failed to complete the work which he set out to do! This belief in no way trivializes Jesus’ death. It was absolutely necessary. If it succeeds in accomplishing it’s task, how does that make it unnecessary?”

Jesus being unable to save a majority of mankind through His sacrifice on the cross trivializes his death many times more than if He is successful in saving everyone.

[I]n reality, the chasm between Universalism and Christianity on judgment and grace is not one of degree but of definition. “What is amazing about grace is that it completely removes the huge debt of sin we rack up before God and transforms us into a new way of life where we can be what God created us to be, not simply go on as we were,” Bock says. “A savior who confronts me about the realities about myself and my utter need for God does me a favor. And I can love Him with all my heart because He has literally given me a new lease on life.

Um… uh… okay. I see nothing in that paragraph that most Christian Universalists would disagree with.

Indeed, one must make several scriptural leapfrogs in order to arrive at Universal salvation. First, there is Jesus’ assertion that “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me” (John 14:6, TNIV, emphasis added). Then, there was Paul’s statement that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) And 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ.” The list rolls on and on in support of one central truth: Salvation is attained only through faith in Jesus Christ.

*sigh* Christian Universalists do not disagree with those Scriptures. In fact, most of them agree with them wholeheartedly. The issue is not that Jesus is or isn’t the way, the truth, and the life (both “normal” Christians and Christian Universalists believe He is), but whether or not all people will eventually come to saving faith in Him. CU simply allows for the possibility that God will work on a person until they are ready to accept Him, whether in this life or in the ages to come.

The next section is entitled “Tough to Swallow.” The third paragraph begins:

The Christian message […] can be a tough message to swallow in a world where inclusivity is king. We live in a culture where Little League baseball associations mandate that every child gets equal playing time and every opinion is considered equally valid. “Sometimes it seems like the only remaining taboo is intolerance-you can do and believe anything as long as you don’t tell someone else they are wrong and dare to believe you have found a universal truth,” [Ed] Stetzer [Director of Lifeway Research] says. And his work at LifeWay Research supports that claim.

The difference between the two items in the Little League baseball analogy is that the children who are given less playing time or don’t make the team aren’t tortured forever. It’s not a simple matter of inclusivity or exclusivity. It’s a matter of whether or not God will allow people to suffer for eternity for not making the right choice out of a billion possible ones.

Followers of Christ must come to realize that our message can unite in supernatural ways, but it can also be terribly divisive.

(No way, I never noticed that there were hundreds of denominations within Christianity. What a shocker. [I apologize for the sarcasm.])

If this doesn’t sound right, check out Jesus’ words in Luke 12:49-57 when He says He didn’t come to bring peace and warns that Christianity would cause division even within families. “Jesus told us that Christian truth would be divisive,” says David Wells, author of Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World. “He said it will divide families, and that is what has always happened. When people hold up as the norm that something cannot be true if it divides, it tells us how far they are drifting from a biblical understanding.”

Pardon me. [*goes outside and screams at the top of his lungs in frustration*] Okay, I’m good now.

Are you kidding me? You don’t think Christian Universalists realize that truth can be divisive? Seriously? When I first let my Evangelical Christian parents know about my changing beliefs (which don’t necessarily always line up with CU, by the way), do you think that it helped to unite us more in our beliefs? NO! Of course truth (or one’s perception of it) is divisive! That’s not the issue! The issue is whether or not God will torture people forever for not choosing Him the right way! (Oddly enough [*ahem*], eternal torture is not explicitly mentioned once in the article).

Okay, only a couple more paragraphs, I’ll try to get through this:

By its very definition, “salvation” assumes that one is being saved from something. Though it can be unpopular in our culture, the message that salvation is found exclusively through faith in Christ is the only one that Scripture supports. But this message is not one of judgment and doom. It is one of humble hope.

Again, most Christian Universalists would have no problem agreeing with the previous paragraph.

Alright, last paragraph:

“We should be as committed as Christians to making such efforts in our presentation of Jesus’ message-the difficult bits as well as the nice parts-because that is offering genuine help to those in dire need, a need every human shares,” Bock says [sic]. “If we were more humble about our dire need for God, we just might cling to Him more tightly.” Now that’s a salvation worth having.

Most Christian Universalists would not disagree that Jesus’ message contained “difficult bits,” but an eternity of suffering and pain should probably conjure up a more explicit word than “difficult,” no? Once again (I promise I’ll stop saying this soon), the major difference between CU and Evangelical Christianity is that of the duration of punishment (or “correction,” as CU likes to use), whether it is eternal or temporary.

One of the biggest problems I see in this article is that the issue of mistranslation and tampering with texts and religious bias and [etc., etc., etc.] is not even brought up in the article. That is the biggest point of contention between Evangelical Christians and Christian Universalists! Not whether or not Jesus is the only way to salvation! It is utterly baffling to me how the writer of this article did not see the need to bring up this problem somewhere in the article. Most Christian Universalists don’t have a problem with Scripture, they have a problem with the way that men have handled it throughout the years, and all that they’ve done to (in the Christian Universalist’s eyes) pervert its message. To claim that Christian Universalists have a problem with the claim that Jesus is the only way to salvation is to show yourself to be completely ignorant of what they actually believe. Maybe Unitarian Universalists have a problem with it (again, I don’t know that much about them), but Christian Universalists (on the whole) definitely do not.

Somewhat ironically, 24 pages later in the same issue of this magazine is an article called “The Pain Behind the Perfection: One Woman’s Struggle to Overcome Abuse.” Before I start describing it to you and quoting parts of it, I want to make clear that I am not saying that all Evangelical Christians are like this woman’s father and the Christians she knew. I’m merely using it as an example to make a point (or two) which I will get to later. It begins:

“When I was just a little girl, I learned quickly how to be afraid of God.”

I grew up in a seemingly Christian home. My father was a evangelical fundamentalist and devout Bible reader. He covered the walls in his bedroom with handwritten Bible text and commentaries, he taught kindergarten Sunday school at the church and he ensured that I behaved as a proper Christian girl should. I wore dresses, not pants (I didn’t own a set of jeans or shorts), and wasn’t allowed to pierce my ears. Makeup was a mortal sin, and cutting my hair was a sign of rebellion. Movies were simply not acceptable, and Christian rock (but not too hard) was my only acceptable vice. I was at church every time the doors were open, and was so consistently there that I won the perfect Sunday school attendance award eight years in a row.

[…]

My father used God as a weapon: psychologically, emotionally and physically. He would rape me while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. He would hurt me while singing Christian hymns. His words were knives that sliced through me, words straight from the verses of the Bible: words of wickedness, sinfulness, rebellion, punishment and the promise of hell.

This version of Christianity is certainly divisive, isn’t it? Does this make it any more true or right? I can’t understand why Mr. Wells thinks divisiveness is such a positive quality. It should rather be seen as a somewhat necessary evil. Christians should seek for unity with all people, not just those that agree with them. Jesus did not say, “Go out and be intentionally divisive” (and, yes, I do realize that He said that He Himself came to bring division, but the Bible says that God’s responsible for all the division/evil/struggle in the world anyway, so it’s not like He’s encouraging His followers to cause strife in the world). A message like Jesus’ is going to be divisive simply based on human nature and human desires.

The father in this case was the dedicated “Christian” during this woman’s childhood. His family was divided because he was a sick man who perverted his Christian beliefs to the point where he felt justified in sexually abusing his daughter. It’s one thing if Christianity is divisive because people simply want to live selfish lives and care only about themselves. It’s quite another thing if it’s divisive because of misrepresentations by Christ’s followers. There are innumerable reasons why people don’t want to become Christians. It’s not simply because they are “evil” or are living according to the “natural sinful man” (or whatever your favorite Christian terminology is).

The author of the article goes on to say that while in high school, she attended a Bible study run by an ex-marine youth pastor, who made the teens stick to a strict regimen every day. She says:

The few times I did something wrong-the times I didn’t run the mile in the time allotted or didn’t know my Bible verse-the pastor brought out an old heavy wooden board. He would pull down my pants in front of the entire youth group and swat me several times with it while quoting verses about temptation, Jesus’ blood sacrifice, the redeeming of wickedness and the fires of hell. The stinging ache of the physical injury was less painful than the crumpling of my heart. I would fill up with tears that I couldn’t cry (it wasn’t “Christian”), and my inner soul would feel even more unloved, more unsatisfactory and helpless.

[…]

I was sent to a Christian college, and things did not improve. Run by the same senior pastor and his staff who ran the church, the attitudes and beliefs were the same, even in this institute of higher learning and older students.

[…]

…I became even more utterly desperate and uncontrollable. I started talking about suicide with anyone and everyone who would listen, not just with people I trusted… I started to wonder if if perhaps it hadn’t been my fault from the very beginning-that God had known who I was and insisted on the abuse as punishment.

This is the part where some loving, Bible-believing Christian from the college comes along and shows her the true love of God, right? Not even close. These “Christians” were likely too busy avoiding “living in sin” and condemning those who did to notice the serious emotional problems this woman was going through instead of loving her for who she was and showing her how to get help.

Eventually the school staff noticed her behavior, and their solution was to hold a meeting with her to decide what she and the staff needed to do:

The counselor went on with words I will never forget. “I am asking that none of you listen to her thoughts of suicide. If she begins to talk like this, inform me immediately. I am insisting that you never talk alone with her in your office, in your classroom, even in the hallway. Do not be alone with her… ever.”

[…]

“Also,” I heard the counselor say to me as I came back to the moment, “you have to go to therapy in order to stay in school. We will kick you out if we discover you are not going.

This counselor cared nothing for this woman’s personal problems, only for the outward appearance (sound familiar?) of her school and its students. Instead of this enforced therapy helping her, it simply drove her futher into despair.

I became a shell. Hopeless that my future would ever change, filling my father’s sexual needs, I didn’t care about anything anymore. The self-injury I had been doing since I was younger increased. The idea of God was nothing more than a horrible man with a giant penis in the sky, a man who loved to punish girls for their disobedience. I felt I would never be loved, and I stopped even hoping for it.

Eventually, the author wound up “living next to a wonderful lesbian couple,” through whose influence she “learned about the compassionate God, the God who treated all people equally, the God who didn’t punish” (imagine that, learning about the love of God from homosexuals. I thought their only motives were to corrupt our children and ruin our country…). Later, she joined a Christian group called Youth Specialties and has been able to get back on her feet after all her struggles. She closes the article with the following paragraphs:

I still struggle daily with doubt and indecision, with fear and despair, with suicidal thoughts and with deep memories. Some days I am so depressed I can’t get out of bed or speak to anyone. This is still a part of who I am. Of where I have come from. Of what I have survived.

It’s true really-I’m stumbling toward faith. It’s not an easy path, and it isn’t a well-traveled one. But I have learned to pray one sentence throughout my days, my struggles, my rage, my sadness, my disbelief and my confusion.

“I believe. Help Thou, oh God, my unbelief.”

Now, imagine that this woman’s struggles, rage, sadness, disbelief, and confusion had led her to decide that Christianity was a crock and that God really was just “a horrible man with a giant penis in the sky… who loved to punish girls for their disobedience” or that He didn’t exist at all. What person with one ounce of compassion in their veins would blame her for rejecting such a God (or any God, for that matter)?

Would Jesus?

Would Jesus allow her to be sent to Hell to be tortured forever (or “separated for eternity,” whichever method of eternal consequences your particular denomination prefers)? Would Jesus be loving in granting her what she’s always truly desired- separation from Him for eternity (which I’ve heard implied by a pastor before)? Does this woman seem at all desirous of eternal separation from God in this article? Is anyone? Christians like to say that once you see Jesus as He really is, you cannot reject Him, He is too perfect and holy and loving. He is everything that someone could want in a friend, or a parent, or any other number of relational analogies. Therefore, can anyone truly wish to be separated from God eternally? If we really believe that God is as great as we say He is, then how can we think that anyone who sees Him for Who He really is would ever reject Him? It is my belief that people cannot reject God. They can only reject their illusions (or delusions) of Him. People reject what they see God represented by: they think He will take their fun away, He hates people who disobey Him, He only loves a select few, etc. If anyone currently seems to be rejecting God, it is because God has not yet revealed to them Who He really is. It is my opinion that the vast majority of Christianity has God wrong (due largely to our desire as human beings to see people get their “just desserts” or to feel special or better or more “chosen” than others). Christianity is so absolutely full of “God loves you, but…”s that I’m somewhat amazed at how I used to be able to rationalize such a God as all-loving.

Or, perhaps this woman was supposed to utilize her “free will” to choose God despite all of the terrible things that had been done to her. Was it her free will that led her to God? Was her will even free at all? Was she supposed to wake up one morning and say to herself, “Well, despite the fact that I’ve been told my entire life that God is like this, this, and this, I realize that all the authority figures that have shoved this message down my throat since birth are wrong and God is actually a very loving Creator who doesn’t take pleasure in punishing His children.” How can one who is raised with such perverted, distorted views of God possibly have the free will to discover for herself Who God really is? How is it even her choice? The only reason, I believe (and I’m sure she would agree with me were she to ever read this), that she discovered how loving God really was was because He, through various circumstances in her life, brought her to the place where she was able to accept such a belief about Him. It wasn’t because of her own wisdom or her ability to see through “the lies of the wicked one.” Only God has the ability to bring healing to someone who has gone through intense personal suffering in whatever way and at whatever time He sees fit.

The exclusivity mentioned in the first article would certainly have ensured that this woman would not have “made it into the club” had she not “received Jesus as her Savior.” Try telling someone who has gone through the immense suffering that this woman has gone through at the hands of Christians that she will go to Hell if she does not accept Jesus as her Savior and see how successful your ministry attempts are. See if it causes her to respect and love Jesus more, or if it drives her into incurable despair. You say, “No, we would show her Christ’s love,” and I have no doubt that you would. But what do you do when she questions whether God will forgive her if she chooses the wrong religion? What if she decides that Christianity has caused too much pain to too many people throughout the centuries? How could you possibly respond to a person like that without the answer sounding trite or canned or completely illogical to her?

God reveals Himself to people in many different ways. To say that the only way to experience God is to believe exactly what every other Christian believes (as if all Christians believe the same thing) and pray a formulaic prayer (“repeat these words after me”) is to put God in the most confining of boxes. One of my favorite Christian writers, Charles Slagle, wrote an article about how God revealed Himself to him in the form of a dog. ( You can read it here: http://sigler.org/slagle/newpage3.htm [I love this quote: “I hate you, God! You’re full of empty promises and even more full of cruel threats! I hate life! I wish I had never been born! When You condemn me to eternal fire, don’t You DARE say ‘I never knew you.’ Don’t You dare. Because I will tell You, with all Heaven and hell as witness, that You could have known me. I will remind You of all the nights like this one when I cried out to You!” Kind of hits hard, doesn’t it?] ) God is a personal God. He meets people where they are. God comes to them. He does not give people a 70-year time limit and then say, “Ah, well, good try, but you didn’t find me in time. Into the eternal flames of Hell you go.” He is much more understanding than that, and if Christians believed in a God that is all-loving and never fails, they would be much more successful in convincing others to come to Him.

If you’ve read this entire thing, then you are a fantastic, amazing person who deserves a prize, but will not get one. Forgive me if I seemed overly bitterly sarcastic at points, it’s not my purpose to offend, just to get my point across (I still need to work on that). I swear that I don’t think that I have God, life, and love completely figured out. I’m simply trying to find Truth just like everyone else. Even if you believe everything that I reacted against, I still love you :) I just hope that someone who reads this will be able to get something out of it, even if they don’t completely agree with me.