http://www.precipicemagazine.com Precipice Magazine is an online Christian resource featuring information, dialogue and opinion about the Emerging Church. Each of the articles and authors featured at Precipice offer perspectives on the Emerging Church and postmodern Christianity. Join our conversation about Emerging Christianity as we explore the interaction between postmodern culture and the Church. Precipice Magazine is committed to reaching out in order to faithfully forge community, proclaim the name of Christ, and serve as a messenger and agent for the already and emerging Kingdom of God. Each month we\'ll discuss the issues pertinent to the Emerging Church as we seek to reach out to anyone and everyone with an invitational spirit of thoughtful faith and faithful thought. en-us Copyright 2007-08. Some rights reserved. Thu, 8 May 2008 02:15:07 -0400 http://www.rssfeedssubmit.com/rss-generator/ http://www.precipicemagazine.com/images/precipicelogo-sm.gif http://www.precipicemagazine.com 144 40 http://www.precipicemagazine.com/tony-jones-interview2.html DARREN: Okay, next question: Tony, you’ve called for this thing called “radical contextualization”- in terms of how we understand theology, ecclesiology, etc. Can you speak a little about what that means to you? I think some people, even in hearing the word “radical”, get scared. So what does radical contextualization mean to you? TONY: Well, this is probably the way that getting a PHD ruins you, because, a term like “radical” has a fairly technical meaning in PHD studies. What it does is it implies a little bit of Marxism. When I say radical contextualization, another way, I guess, one could say it is: hyper-localization. I was with some Presbyterians two weeks ago, and they were talking about doing missions trips with other Presbyterian groups from other parts of the country. And part of the thing that they were struggling with was the fact that the kids in their youth group just don’t have that much in common with Presbyterian kids from four or five states away. I mean, it’s not like they’re all Reformed. I mean, they’re sixteen! They’re not really Presbyterian just because they go to a Presbyterian Church. They’re parents might be. But even there the parents probably aren’t Presbyterian in some theological sense. So, I say, "Why don’t you do a missions trip with the Lutherans that are literally on the same block as you?" This is what blows me away. Churches are divided up by their flavors of theology. And the fact of the matter is, there are very few people still holding to those theologies. That’s why the “Reformed Resurgence” is such big news nowadays. It’s because of how rare it is! Rare that a group of people would be so completely committed to one theological paradigm, at the expense of all others. It’s kind of like those guys are the exception that proves the rule. Most people are pretty moderate about what they believe and hold to a pretty generous orthodoxy, quite honestly. I don’t think most people who go to a Presbyterian Church in America somewhere – if you pinned them down - and you asked: “Do you believe in Total Depravity?" or, "Do you believe in Double Pre-destination?" or something like that, would say “yes”. They’d be like “No. I just love this church. My kids love the youth group and I sing in the choir.” You know? So, when I speak of contextualization, when it comes to the church, one of the things that I really mean by that is that people should be a lot more concerned about where they are, than about some national body, or, some transcendent set of doctrines that they think they share with people around the planet. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/tony-jones-interview1.html Recently, on our Central Oregon Emergent Cohort blog, the always stimulating question of origins came up. Specifically, the question of origins in relation to the Creation account in the book of Genesis. You know, the whole Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design debate. Now, I have to admit, for me, this has been a resolved issue for some time now. I suppose I am surprised that some people still seem unaware of what the real issues in the debate really are- or, should I say, what they really should be. Regarding the Bible and the subject of origins, the real question is not whether or not the Bible is trustworthy- personally, I certainly think it is. The question is: what answers was the Bible - specifically, the book of Genesis - trying to answer. It is highly anachronistic of us to assume its answering the questions as we would formulate them in the 20th and 21st centuries. The Bible is inspired and authoritative- but the question of what topics the various books and genres of the Bible are trying to address is another thing entirely. When we make the Bible (or a specific book of the Bible) into something it originally was not, then it is WE who are changing it, distorting the original intent God gave through the people and cultures he spoke through. Talk about messing with your intelligent design! http://www.precipicemagazine.com/tony-jones-interview1.html Tony Jones, national coordinator for Emergent Village, recently released a new book titled the New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (click here for my review). The New Christians offers a truly insightful, unique perspective on the Emergent phenomenon and - all criticism (fair and unfair) aside - is a book that has been very well received in numerous circles. This past week I had a chance to speak with Tony about his book, the future of Emergent, and how he chooses to handle the mean-spirited criticism and misinfomation that tends to pervade the medium through which Emergent was born: the Internet. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current.html#pursuing_holiness In a few days I’m going to be interviewing Brian McLaren about, among other things, his new book Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices, which comes out later this month. Clearly this book marks a slight change in direction for Brian. Or perhaps, one could say, this book demonstrates Brian’s desire to speak, not just to global crises and potential resolutions, as he did in Everything Must Change, but also to the crises of the interior, personal kind. Of course, these crises are related. After all, we can only give away what we ourselves have become. Or to put it another way, as an old pastor of mine used to say, we can only grow the tree as high and wide as its roots are deep. Speaking of the interior life, spiritual disciplines, etc… I have recently been thinking about holiness as it relates to the emerging church conversation. Holiness is the state or quality of being holy. And how does our friendly Merriam-Webster Dictionary define holy? Here are four of the most common uses of the term: 1: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness 2: divine 3: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity 4: having a divine quality b: venerated as or as if sacred I suppose I am using the term as it applies to the quality of Christlikeness- in other words, taking on the character of God. I do sometimes grow a little concerned that we in the EC, in our pursuit of honesty, frankness, relevance, down-to-earthness, cultural congeniality, etc…, do sometimes underestimate the need to draw away, to be set apart in a very literal way (in terms of time and energy), so as to be set apart- in terms of holiness. And we cannot underestimate the degree to which Christianity is, as it was referred to in its earliest days, a way. And one has to practice this way of being in order to move forward in it. It is gleaned by no other means. There is no patch, be it a book, a podcast, or what have you, that can replace the behavioral practices needed to grow in Christlikeness. Of course, Jesus himself demonstrated this in that he often separated himself from others in order to draw near to God. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/deconstructing-certitude.html I was drafted into a conversation on certainty last week, which was ostensibly generated around the topic of fundamentalism, and I chimed in with a favorite quote: “God help me always to seek the truth.. and protect me from those who have found it” (attributed to Sir Thomas More). Later I got thinking about the connection of knowledge and power; these two are inseparable in the modern world, as Foucault and others pointed out. Those who have knowledge tend to use it to strengthen their own positions, and to impose their will on those “down the ladder.” Yes.. the whole issue connects with colonialism, the Enlightenment, and through those grids to models of leadership and change. More on that shortly. In my musings I was reminded of other renderings that capture the issue with poetic beauty. Another favorite is Walter Brueggemann.. “We all have a hunger for certitude, and the problem is that the Gospel is not about certitude, it’s about fidelity. So what we all want to do if we can is immediately transpose fidelity into certitude, because fidelity is a relational category and certitude is flat, mechanical category. So we have to acknowledge our thirst for certitude and then recognize that if you had all the certitudes in the world it would not make the quality of your life any better because what we must have is fidelity.” Quoted at the Emergent Convention, Atlanta, Georgia, September 16, 2004. Brueggemann reminds us that fidelity is far more important than certitude. Certainty is highly over-rated, and is the favorite bastion of every brand of fundamentalism, whether expressed in politics or religion. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0408.html#christianity_worth_believing It seems that every couple of days brings yet another knock at the front door, and yet another book from a friendly publisher. Some of the books that are sent for review in Precipice are a little off-topic, and others are at the heart of the conversation of which Precipice is a part. Because of this, at this point, I can’t possibly due justice to all of these new publications- though I’m sure most are well-deserving of a write-up in their own regard. An advance copy of Doug Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing: Hope-Filled, Open-Armed, Alive-and-Well Faith for the Left Out, Left Behind, and Let Down in Us All arrived via the friendly brown van a few weeks ago- and is definitely an example in the latter category. I’ll start with some initial thoughts here, with more to come in the next few weeks. I’ve been meandering my way through the book, having several others on the go at the same time, for a few weeks now. Pagitt’s book is definitely a breath of fresh air because, while it has plenty of meaty theological discourse, it’s also, very much, a testament to one man’s journey in unconvential faith. Of course, from my vantage point, front and center to the emerging conversation, unconventional is this instance is synonymous with terms such as insightful, unashamed, honest, and in-process. Describing his own faith, that many seem to misunderstand, Pagiit writes, I am a Christian but I do not believe in Christianity. At least I don't believe in the versions of Christianity that have prevailed for the last 1500 years, the ones that were perfectly suitable in their time and place, but have little connection with this time and place. The ones that answer questions we no longer ask, and fail to consider questions we can no longer ignore. The ones that don't mesh with what we know about God and the world and our place in it. I want to be very clear: I am not conflicted because I struggle to believe. I am conflicted because I want to believe differently. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0408.html#strange_expectations Not long ago I wrote about the strange expectation some people have (within Christian circles anyway), in demanding that Christians denounce other Christians if there is even some disagreement with some aspect of another person’s theology. Another strange tendency I’ve noticed grows from the same tree: it is the tendency to expect someone to spell out one’s full understanding of the gospel- in every book one writes – perhaps even in every opportunity one has to speak in any kind of public way, or face the accusation that perhaps one just doesn’t believe something anymore- even if one has written, spoken, about this belief often and, even recently. Case in point: Andrew Jones recently interviewed Brian McLaren for Next Wave. Now, as soon as I saw this coming down the pipeline I was intrigued. Why? Well, because, while both of these people are fine individuals, I have noticed that Andrew has had some strange feelings/interpretations about Brian’s most recent book, Everything Must Change. I was curious as to how this would work itself out in the dialogue. Sure enough, Andrew had some “interesting” questions for Brian. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/sacred-symbols.html We homo sapiens are a peculiar species. Beloved by God? Yes… But strange? Oh yes, indeed. And those of us who postulate on the existence of God are certainly no exception to this rule. In fact, truth be told, we are probably most peculiar of all. Not only do we hold dearly to our theological formulations – our conceptions of God, but we also hold fast to the very symbols we use to flesh out those formulations. In fact, one could argue that we’re even more fond of our symbols that we are of the invisible realities they supposedly point towards. Why? Well, because of the very fact that these symbols are the closest things we have to tangibility when it comes to matters of the Spirit. I’ve seen this peculiar adherence to certain symbols become a sticking point for many Christians. One could even say that, for many, the sacrosanct nature of these symbols – whether this is consciously admitted to or not - leads many a Christian to declare- at least inwardly- that this is the hill one is prepared to die on. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0408.html#jesus_is_speaking Not long ago I wrote about N.T. Wright’s assertion that Jesus was not primarily going about delivering timeless moral truths, but rather, was going about the task of calling 1st century Palestinian Jews to their calling as true Israel, to a commitment not directly to Torah, but to Jesus himself. This might, at first, seem like hair-splitting. But the more you think about it the more you realize its not. Many, many – in fact, most – evangelical preachers today, go about assuming that the things Jesus said to his original hearers are teachings that should be translated into teachings for today. Unless or course, there is an obvious cause not to do so; such as when cultural worldviews collide and we make the assumption that a certain teaching just isn’t transferable like other ones are. But, this begs the question: who’s responsible, or capable of, making these kinds of distinctions? And do we only exclude certain teachings – whether of Jesus, or of Paul, or some other NT author - only when we sense cultural tension? This seems a little too convenient, doesn’t it? http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0408.html#postmodern_modern_critique recently got drawn into a “conversation” about, 1.) objective vs. subjective beauty, and 2.) the soundness of traditional logic, in a local Christian blog. Notice I didn’t say local “emergent” blog. For good reason, too. This particular blog is authored by a Central Oregonian who definitely sees the world through a particularly modern lens. The blog discussion was a follow-up to a recent lecture he gave to a local Apologetics group, about the flaws of postmodernism. I jumped into the fray once this fellow started waxing modern-philosophic on some local friends. He argued for the objectivity of beauty, and then later, when we offered many example demonstrating the contextual nature of what is clearly a subjective understanding of beauty, recanted and suggested he merely meant that beauty was objective, to God. Not sure where he’s going with such a statement. Does such a statement, implying objective versus subjective value, even make sense in reference to God? Then another thread, as a rabbit trail off the first one about beauty, regarding truth/Truth. When one postmodern individual wrote in to say that he believed we can all be loved by God, even if we understand him differently, the author of this blog quickly brought the postmodernist’s attention to the (supposedly) irrefutable law of non-contradiction. Specifically, this blogger mentioned that the law of non-contradiction is fully trustworthy because it speaks to the workings of the Universe, and not to the laws of man. This is when I decided to “jump into the fire”- as it were... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0308.html#denoucement There has been a fair amount of debate and discussion recently about the issue of “denouncement”. When (if ever, and under what circumstances) is it appropriate to denounce another human being – even one we’ve had relationship with – when a person’s actions or words appear out of line. Of course, this very issue has had plenty of play in the media following the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments. Obama did a very good job (I thought) of working his way through that particularly thorny patch of the campaign trail. But even within the emerging blogoshpere this issue has arisen, and not just in relation to Obama and cohort. Tony Jones has said that John Piper asked him to denounce Brian McLaren- mainly because Brian quoted certain figures that Piper sees as “beyond the Pale”. So I guess that would be kind of like a renoucement- two steps removed. Tony responded by asking why Piper hadn’t renourced Mark Driscoll after he was particularly (and very publically) uncharitable and mean-spirited in his rebuke of people such as Doug Pagitt. Not surprisingly, Piper responded by suggesting that comparing sound theolgy and Christlike behavior is to compare apples and oranges.Piper just doesn’t realize how tired so many of us are of that modernistic, insanely, false dichotomy. He declares these kinds of things as if they make all the sense in the world; as if these distinctions should be wholly self-evident to any Christian walking the face of Planet Earth. So why is it that someone like Piper (and so many others like him) are willing to forgo all sense of human dignity (let alone Christlike behavior) when critiquing (or should I say character-assinating) people who differ over certain (even secondary) theological points? http://www.precipicemagazine.com/waiting-in-exile.html At the end of his life, lying on his death bed, it is said that Francis of Assisi said to the brothers, “Let us begin again, for as yet we have done nothing.” If I had something to speak into the emerging and missional conversation, it might be this wisdom of Francis. Let us begin again, for as yet we have done nothing. Every so often, like a clock running down, I run up against the limits of my own soul. I’m tired, or I have nothing left to give, or I want change, or I don’t want to change, or the day seems longer than my energy. Maybe I’ve hit this wall with my job, within my church, or with a friend or in my marriage. I’m tired of what is, feel inadequate for the task, and I long for a different future; but I don’t know what that future looks like, and I don’t seem to have the personal resources to get there. Sometimes I have simply failed to live and love faithfully, and I am discouraged. Let me off the merry-go-round! Sometimes change becomes the panacea out there on the rim of the future we long for. We can envision a brighter future, even an ideal one, and isn’t that what hope is all about anyway? Isn’t that the substance of Jesus prayer, “your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” We know with certainty that the kingdom hasn’t arrived, because there is too much grief and pain in this life. There is too much uncertainty, too much poverty, and too much we should have been but haven’t. And so this prayer for the kingdom becomes a prayer for deliverance. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0308.html#six_degrees I caught most of a sobering interview with climatologist, Mark Lynas, on the program “After Words” the other day. Lynas has written a book titled Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet which details our best understanding of what to expect with each degree of increase in average global temperature. Lynus starts with one degree increase and works up to six. Why stop at six degrees? Well, believe it or not, at that point - which is the worst case scenario we could face by the end of this century - we'd have what Lynas describes as a completely unrecognizable planet. While one, two, or three degrees might not seem much like us, a fragile global balance is extensively shifted as a result. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0308.html#great_awakening_wallis In the opening of his new book the Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, Jim Wallis makes note of what he sees as a changed religious/political landscape in America. That’s right. Not changing, but changed. He writes, Three years ago I wrote a book called God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. The subtitle said it all. The narrow agenda of the Religious Right was in control of the public conversation about religion and politics in America, and the secular left seemed uncomfortable even discussing “moral values”. Since then, many people have asked me what has changed. I answer: Everything. A couple of interesting questions arise here. 1.) Is this true? Has everything changed in the arena of American religious/political thinking and action? 2.) If so, how did it happen? http://www.precipicemagazine.com/new-christians-review.html Whether you’re loosely affiliated with Emergent or have a front row seat to “the conversation”, you’ll no doubt be interested in the New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier, a new book by Tony Jones, national coordinator for Emergent Village. While numerous books have been written on the topic of the emerging church (including a few critiques, some more fair than others), this book is what you might call a true insider’s perspective. And not only because its penned by Jones’, who has a considerable role and history within Emergent, but also because the book includes anecdotal reports from on-the-ground, brick-and-mortar, “caffeine-and-sconed” Emergent churches from across the United States. To be clear, the New Christians offers the most crystallized, comprehensive series of snapshots of the Emergent phenomenon offered by any author to date. Add to that the impressive writing prowess of Jones, and you’re guaranteed an informative, entertaining joyride through the life and times of an organic movement that has grown immensely in popularity, familiarity and impact over the last several years. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0308.html#context_is_king Back in the day, when I was studying biblical studies under very able-minded professors at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, one of the first expressions we became familiar with was “context is King”. It’s a simple, yet timeless perspective on biblical studies - and for that matter, any other sort of historical endeavor. Whether you’re trying to figure out why Jesus spoke in parables or why John McCain keeps saying “the next American president” so often in recent speeches, context is what you need to consider. Context frames events so as to make them understandable to those removed in time and space. In the latter case of my two examples, historical context will tell you that McCain uses this phrase - emphasizing the word “next” - because he is trying to distance himself from present Republican president George Bush. Now, many Christians (especially of a more conservative frame of mind) grow frustrated with people dedicated to getting to the bottom of a seemingly endless barrel of correct historical context. But getting to the bottom (or at least trying to) really is essential if we’re to take seriously the idea that Jesus is someone we know and understand. The less we really understand the history the more likely we are to read our anachronistic leanings into ancient sayings and events. Those critics who claim that this emphasis on historical context is just a means to re-writing our understanding of Jesus really have it backwards. We study context so as not to re-write Jesus into a mythological figure customized to our contemporary whims. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/not-seeker-sensitive.html I recently finished Blue Like Jazz, a terrific book by Donald Miller. Partly it was terrific because Miller can actually write (see below), but also because had a number of really profound insights. Really great books don't just reveal their own insights; they inspire new perspectives. Blue Like Jazz ignited me: ideas that were just smoldering embers--just the suggestion of illumination--have caught fire. One of these epiphanies is about the Seeker-Sensitive movement in American evangelical Christianity. When I first heard about Willow Creek, the pioneering seeker-sensitive church, I was excited. Here was a church that realized most unchurched people were tired of "churchy" stuffiness and bewildered by the Church-speak and idiosyncratic culture so prevalent in so many American congregations. Willow Creek's Sunday morning services were designed for people who had not (yet) professed Christian faith. Their "Believer's Service" was on Wednesday night. People who scorned the seeker-sensitive model as "selling Jesus," were, I thought, simply denying the problem that churches were only drawing people who already understood and liked church. How could anyone be content with the status quo? Recently, however, whole seeker-sensitive model has been unattractive to me. Seeker-sensitive approaches bother me. Why? http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0208.html#rising_above There’s this segment in Tony Jones’ new book where he makes note of the occasion when John Stewart went on one of these conservative vs. liberal talk shows- where the point is all about stirring up shouting matches between the hosts and guests alike- and said, “Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.” And Stewart was not being humorous. He deadpanned it because he meant it. Apparently CNN, and others, got the message. The show, that shall remain nameless, was cancelled shortly afterwards. Good on John Stewart. I think that, regardless of how we lean politically, we have to stand up and denounce these kind of playground tactics when we hear them. We need to tell people who engage in such demonization of “the other side” that we’re tired of it. That regardless of their political persuasion, such tactics are childish and hurtful to the fabric of our society. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0208.html#adopt_a_pixel While there are myriad ways to give time, money and resources to worthy causes, sometimes you come across an opportunity that represents the proverbial no-brainer. I recently posted about Kiva, which is a non-profit organization which facilitates peer to peer loans between people in the developed and developing worlds. Well, I recently came across another such opportunity. Jamie Arpin is a fellow blogger on the missional/emerging landscape. Jamie and his wife Kim, who live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, are in the process of trying to adopt a child from Ethiopia. And, with this being a bit of a cost prohibitive venture for support missionaries such as themselves, they have come up with a really simple, yet effective way for all of us to join with them in the endeavor. They’re site, Adopt-a-Pixel lets you donate towards the cause of adopting this child from Ethiopia. You can give as little or as much as you want. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0208.html#the_new_christians1 The good books just keep a-comin’ these days. I was saying to Serena last night that I don’t remember another time in my life when I’ve read so many highly impacting, well-written, hugely significant books in such a short season of time. This short list began with Brian McLaren’s, Everything Must Change, just a few months ago. And then came N.T. Wright’s, Surprised by Hope. And now, to make it a trilogy of sorts, comes Tony Jones’, the New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. Sometimes, having just finished an excellent book (or a good movie for that matter), one is almost inevitably set up for disappointment when the next one rolls along. But that’s definitely not the case on this occasion. After having recently finished Tom Wright’s excellence manifesto of Christian hope- and loving it, I find Tony’s, the New Christians is a really wonderful, really timely, really well-crafted assortment of emergent/emerging ideas, history, and frontline insights. I dropped Tony a short note late last night to say that I am really enjoying his book. I made note of the fact that it’s not just the subject matter that moves me, but also the writing itself. I really resonate with this style of writing. For those hoping for a discussion of postmodern philosophy, Enlightenment project impact, the modernly-inspired religious right/left divide of the 20th century, its all here- in spades. But so too are plenty of on-the-ground antidotal tales and personal intuitions from a guy who has been living on the proverbial frontier of which he speaks, for over a decade now. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/surprised-by-hope.html N.T. (Tom) Wright is well known as one of our era’s most prolific and well respected New Testament scholars. Not only is Wright appreciated in the academic, biblical studies community, but, with his effective rescue of the Bible, and thus of the message of the gospel itself, from the fangs of modernism, he’s also a star- of sorts - amongst the Emerging/Emergent crowd. In his latest work, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, Wright pulls together and distills his work of the past two decades in one compelling, concise, immensely impacting and far-reaching book. Surprised by Hope addresses what, to Wright, is a two-sided coin of Christian hope. The first kind of hope is related to what we can expect, in this incarnation, before bodily death. The second kind of hope deals with “the hereafter”, and what we can expect on the other side of that chasm. Understanding Christian hope in its fullness, Wright argues, also helps us to reframe our very mission as followers of Christ. http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0208.html#surprised_by_hope2 If heaven is not a peaceful hereafter populated by puffy clouds and harps-a-plenty, then, what is it? According to Wright, Heaven, in the Bible, is not a future destiny but the other, hidden, dimension of our ordinary life—God’s dimension, if you like. God made heaven and earth; at the last he will remake both and join them together forever. And when we come to the picture of the actual end in Revelation 21-22, we find not ransomed souls making their way to a disembodied heaven but rather the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, uniting the two in a lasting embrace. Isn’t it interesting how different metaphors can seem, depending on what you assume them to be referring to? If one sees Heaven primarily as a “place”, then it seems rather bizarre to imagine some giant, golden city descending like some massive alien mother ship from the clouds. Well, maybe it doesn’t seem bizarre to some… But it does to me! But if, on the other hand, you see Heaven more as a co-existing dimension, then imagining a fusion of the two seems much more credible. And recent advances in subjects such as String Theory make this possible future seem only all the more probable. Don’t you think?