I did it my way

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew,
When I bit off more than I could chew,
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall
And did it my way.

Frank Sinatra was a old sinner, of that there is no doubt. But he did have an abundance of talent as a singer and actor. Many of his songs will outlive him for generations, not the least of which is the anthem-like I Did It My Way, the most covered song in history (and written, by the way, by Ottawa native Paul Anka). You can hear old blue eyes sing it at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6426242044766176794#.

The song has an appeal that I respond to, even though I equally believe with St. Paul that I can do all things only through Christ who gives me strength (Phil. 4:13). How do I reconcile being Sinatra-ish and Paul-ish simultaneously? I guess this comes from two things:

a. God does work through his people as individuals in keeping with their dispositions, talents, and circumstances. The it in 'I did it my way' is 'God's will'.
b. I'm a Sutherland. My late father, siblings and myself seem hardwired to strike out on our own, without a lot of encouragement, to do the things we value.

Perhaps this explains why my favourite Bible characters have certain common traits: ego strength, stubbornness, putting what seems right over what is popular, always getting in trouble. These include the prophet Jeremiah, governor Nehemiah, deacon Stephen, and the apostle Paul himself. My mother would have summed up her spouse and brood this way: Not always right but never in doubt.

By this time you may be wondering why I'm going through this little personal striptease. While I typically have the courage of my convictions, it's not my policy to talk about myself very much. I'm doing this to explain the modus operandi behind this series of posts that I'm publishing right now.

There are a number of people who have written about this topic that I've been exploring; i.e., membership in the Kingdom of God is the default position for people, rather than something you have to fight your way into. At neXus the name one most often hears is Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (2010) and Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in 12 Simple Words (2011).

Another is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. Wikipedia quotes Bell as follows:

In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it." You can watch Bell attempt to defend (not terribly successfully in this case) the positions espoused in this book at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA

Bell's views constitute the cover story of the April 25, 2011 edition of

Time: What If There's No Hell.

Here's where the Sinatra-ish part of me comes in. I have deliberately avoided reading McLaren, Bell, or any of the other leaders in the emerging church movement. This has nothing to do with arrogance, or not wanting to be swayed by heretics, or anything else. I have simply found over the years that I prefer to work out an issue for myself first, and look to the proponents and critics afterwards. I'm a seminary graduate, a published author who has done a lot of research, and I have a pretty good command of Scripture. I also have, as I've told you before, a lively suspicion of systematic theology which I often find constitutes shoving loose ends through a preconceived grid.

Therefore, I'm plodding my way towards conclusions that make sense to me, always ready afterward for useful critique. I find that this avoids placing arbitrary constraints around an issue, and keeps me being labeled another duped disciple of some guru or other.

For what is a man? What has he got?
If not himself - Then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way.