Bruce summarizes Matthew's and Luke's versions of the Christmas story here and here. I don't think I've ever heard the two accounts separated, and it's very interesting to consider the different perspectives of the two writers. (His comment on this post is a sort of a Reader's Digest version.)
My new personal Christmas tradition is listening to Real Live Preacher's audio book "A Christmas Story You've Never Heard", which you can find at the iTunes store. It's raw and real and it really is very different from any telling of the story that I've ever heard before. His new story (the second of a planned seven) focusing on the shepherds, is available for download here.
I think Dave's got it right. This song kills me.
[+/-] Christmas Stuff |
[+/-] Caution, Wet Paint |
This blog is officially beta-ized. It took longer than I expected, and it was more frustrating than I expected, but it's done(ish), it's better than ever, and it still looks good.
I will try to refrain from ranting at length about Internet Explorer (aka "the special needs browser"). It's beyond me why anyone still uses the damnable thing. Firefox is better, and it's free. If you're not using Firefox, you're not trying.
Anyways, there's lots of exciting new stuff here. Actually, there's mostly just lots of new peek-a-boo stuff. Click on the [+/-]s for drop-down goodies! Hours of fun! Be sure to check out the Labels and Archives pages, and don't miss the peek-a-boo comments at the bottom of this post. So yes, I'm a blog geek. It's ok because it's a hobby, not an obsession or an addiction or whatever. You're allowed to waste time on hobbies.
Big props to Hackosphere, the source of most of my nifty new gizmos. No props to Microsoft.
[+/-] I Follow Apollos |
The idea of a "biblical church" strikes me as odd. If I understand the term correctly, it means something like "a church which tries to mimic those described in the bible in all ways they deem significant". The problem, of course, is that churches tend to disagree on not only which aspects of the biblical churches are significant (I still say holy kisses are a sacrament), but worse, precisely how the important things were actually done. (Did the early church have women deacons? Baptize babies? All speak in tongues?)
I see myriad problems with the desire to be a biblical church, particularly if the term is understood narrowly. For one thing, I think you'd have a hard time getting all the authors of the New Testament themselves to agree on a very precise set of church doctrines and practices. I like to think that if Peter and Paul and John and James were alive today, they might not all be members of the same denomination (not that they'd make a big deal out of it). Which got me thinking about how it would sound if the apostles went church shopping. This is how I imagine some people imagining it:
Hi there, this is the apostle Paul. I'm calling on behalf of the New Testament Writers' Association. We're thinking of relocating to your town, if we can find a suitable church to attend. Can I ask you a few questions? ... Great.
I took a glance at the statement of faith on your website, and on the whole, it looks promising. A few points may need to be clarified a bit - "inspired" can mean a lot of things, you know - but on the whole, I thought it was pretty good.
Ok, first off, you say you're a "Biblical Church". That's good. Can you explain what that phrase means? ... Yes. ... Well good. I'm glad to hear it.
Can you tell me what your church teaches about salvation? ... And at what point would you say that happens? ... Do you believe there is a possibility that a person could lose their salvation?
Can you describe for me a typical service at your church? ... And how often do you do communion? ... Wine, or grape juice? ... Yes, of course. Now, you don't use those awful wafers do you?
And how much water do you use to baptize your infants? ... Right. ... Ya, that was kind of a trick question.
Would you describe your church as charismatic? ... Do you believe the gift of tongues is still given today? ... Oh, I'm glad. ... Yes, I completely agree, but you wouldn't believe what some people do with that verse.
What is your stance on women's roles in the church? ... I see. And do they wear headcoverings? ... Under what circumstances could a women address the congregation? ... What if she was a visiting missionary?
One final thing: could you give a brief description of the end times? ... I'm looking primarily for sequence of events ... Good. ... And would that be the trumpet, or bowl judgments? ... Ok, continue. ... Hold on, what was that? Did you say after the seven years? ... You can't be serious! ... No, no, you've got it all wrong! ... No, it's no use. I'm afraid I'll have to continue my search. ... Yes, quite sure. ... I'm sorry to have bothered you. ... Alright, well, the grace of our Lord be with you. ... Goodbye.
[+/-] Exams, Hell |
I'm currently midway through writing exams, and midway through adapting my template to Blogger Beta. That these two events coincide is most unfortunate. I've been spending far less time studying than tinkering with HTML. I am nothing if not undisciplined.
If you're yearning for something to read, I suggest this new post by my good friend Filth-Man (he's really not that filthy). It's about hell (not everyone's cup of tea) and quite long, but I think it's an excellent summary of the problem of hell in biblical Christianity, and various attempts to deal with it. I intend to leave a comment at some point, but at the moment I'm up to my ears in metaphysics. I've actually got a post on a similar subject (hell, not metaphysics) in the works, but between studying, Beta-izing, and my reluctance to dwell on the subject, it's coming slowly.
[+/-] Pied Beauty |
Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
-Gerard Manley Hopkins
This is my second favorite poem ever.
[+/-] The Great Omission |
While I was working on this post, it struck me that Acts favors the word "disciple" to describe followers of Jesus (30 uses), as opposed to "believer" (13) or "Christian" (just 2). I notice that most of us today prefer the latter terms, perhaps because they sound less impressive or presumptuous. To my ears "disciple" sounds like an lofty title, fitting perhaps for a few very wise and godly people I know, but not to a half-hearted screw-up like me. "Believer" sounds like it might include those of us who aren't the best or most devoted followers of Jesus, but who can sign our names to the Apostles creed or some other list of doctrine. (Real Live Preacher thinks this is a very modern and un-biblical understanding of belief.) And "Christian" sounds like someone who goes to church on Sunday and doesn't say words like "fuck".
I know that none of these definitions are very good ones, but I've been thinking specifically about the term "believer" recently. Based on a quick look through Acts, it seems like the early church used "believer" and "disciple" more or less interchangeably. This makes me think that it is a mistake to distinguish between having faith in Jesus and following Jesus, between being a believer and being a disciple. (I think James would agree.) So I was surprised and pleased when I found much the same thing expressed on the dust jacket of Dallas Willard's delightfully titled new book, The Great Omission:
The last command Jesus gave the church before he ascended to heaven was the Great Commission, the call for Christians to "make disciples of all the nations." But Christians have responded by making "Christians," not "disciples." This has been the church's Great Omission.The book itself is a collection of previously released essays and sermons, and may be a bit repetitive, particularly for those who have already read some of Willard's books. I haven't read it myself, so I won't recommend it. But I love this idea that discipleship, not doctrine, is the essence of Christianity.
[+/-] Genocide |
I've often been troubled by Bible stories about genocide. It seems like a good portion of the Old Testament is devoted to stories about the God wiping out entire nations - men, women and children - either through the Israelites or other means. I've been told that killing the children of wicked nations was actually an act of mercy, because if they were allowed to grow up in such a corrupt society they would certainly become evil themselves, and God would be forced to judge them for their wickedness. This explanation has never sat well with me, for a number of reasons.
1. The Old Testament really doesn't include the concepts of heaven and hell. The idea of people being damned for their evil actions or unbelief is definitely post-Old Testament. And the idea of an "age of accountability" before which children are not responsible for their actions is arguably post-New Testament. So, at least from the Israelites' perspective, genocide couldn't have been about saving children from God's wrath. In fact, as far as I can tell, being wiped out is the ultimate expression of God's wrath in the Old Testament.
2. The idea that killing babies is merciful is pretty hard for me to swallow. Couldn't they have rescued and raised as Israelites? Wouldn't this have been far more merciful? Besides, this thinking would seem to support to euthanasia and the abortion of disabled babies, which I think most Christians who defend OT genocide would oppose.
3. If it was merciful to eradicate an "evil" race of people back then, is it still merciful today? Would it have been merciful to wipe out the Germans in World War 2, or the Soviets in the Cold War? If this sounds absurd in the modern world, why was it less absurd back then? (See this post.) What was it about the Amalekites and the Edomites that made them so irredeemable? Has humankind really progressed so much since ancient times, that societies were far more evil then than even the worse ones today, or that such societies were beyond help then, whereas now they often improve dramatically in just a few years? (So much for humanity being in decline.)
4. How can we say that entire nations, meaning every single person within them, deserved God's wrath? Were there really no good men and women among them? (And if so, what has changed? Why are there no purely evil nations today?) Why would God use such a blunt instrument as war to bring judgment to evildoers? Why not just strike the guilty ones dead? Throughout the Old Testament God punishes innocent people for the sins of their neighbors or kings. How is this just?
5. There is a great deal of evidence in the OT that as the king goes, so goes the nation. Good kings, both Jewish and Gentile, lead their people to righteousness and obedience, and wicked kings lead them to idolatry and depravity, generally with very little resistance. And yet it is usually the king's subjects who bear the brunt of God's wrath. (See 1 Chron 21, especially v.17.) Why? If God felt the need to bring an end to a nations wickedness, couldn't he have killed the wicked king and replace him with a righteous one, a la Saul and David? Not only would this be more just (or at least, more merciful) but it would increase the number of righteous nations, rather than simply decreasing the number of unrighteous ones. And if God determines who becomes king (as Jesus and Paul seem to think) how can He punish the people when the leader He gives them leads them astray?
6. God makes a point of saying that the Israelites were no better than the nations they conquered, and the prophets tell us they even surpassed other nations in wickedness. But God is patient with Israel, because of a covenant made with their forefather Abraham. (Another covenant, with David, allows a dynasty of almost entirely wicked kings to rule Judah for centuries. These kings lead Judah into great evil, and the people of Judah ultimately suffer the consequences of their kings' actions. Likewise Israel is scattered forever because of their wicked kings.) If God can be patient with Israel, ultimately redeeming them and never ceasing to love them, why does he not do this for other nations? We like the idea that God loves every person equally and immeasurably. The OT demonstrates (and states explicitly) that God loved (loves?) Israel more than others. Why? Surely it is not a special genetic trait of the Israelites that they are redeemable, whereas the best possible fate for other wicked nations is to be annihilated quickly, to save their descendants from God's wrath. I think we must admit that God could have dealt much more mercifully with wicked gentile nations. If annihilation is a mercy, it is a small mercy, like that of a judiciary system which kills convicts who could be rehabilitated, and sees itself as merciful for sparing them still crueler punishments.
7. I'm not aware of any Biblical mention of genocide as an act of mercy. On the contrary, it is generally portrayed as an outpouring of God's wrath. I doubt that the author of Psalm 137 was writing out of compassion for Babylonian babies.
There are other arguments in defense of the supposedly God-ordered OT genocides, most of which I find similarly unconvincing, but which I will not deal with here. If you'd like to take a look at some of the Biblical stories of genocide and commands to carry out genocide, here are a few: Num 31, Deut 2, 7, 20, Josh 10, 11 (note v.20), 1 Sam 15, 27, Est 9. Of course circumstances differ, and some of these genocides may be easier to excuse than others (some may not even be genocides in the strictest sense) but mercy - for children or anyone else - doesn't seem to have much to do with any of these cases.
[+/-] Why Parables? |
In church the other day we looked at the three parables in Luke 15: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. What struck me about them was their differences, specifically the difference between how sheep, coins, and sons are lost and found. A sheep is a dumb animal that wanders off, a coin is misplaced by the owner, and a son rebels. Similarly, the shepherd searches for the sheep and the woman searches the coin, but the father waits for the son to return on his own. Is one parable more accurate than the others?
It's interesting that Jesus apparently told these three stories in one sitting, to illustrate the same concept. Why three stories? Why not just one? Maybe he was using repetition to reinforce one main point, and maybe we shouldn't look too closely at the details. An analogy can only be taken so far. (As a friend pointed out, we shouldn't conclude from the shepherd analogy that God intends to shear, sell, or eat us.) But how far? Maybe we should look no further than the punchline of all three parables: that God cares about the salvation of the lost more than about those who don't need to be saved.
But even this doesn't sit well us. Strangely, all three parables include a non-lost group: other coins, sheep, or a son who needed no saving, which doesn't fit at all with our theology. Also, all three stories end completely happily - every sheep, coin, and son is found and restored - which will bother non-universalists. So maybe all we can draw from these stories is that God really cares about lost people and wants them back. (Which makes it sound like everyone start off on good terms with God, and then goes astray. Even this won't be acceptable for some.)
In the light of this, it seems to me that we can't have much confidence that any given element of a parable is accurate or true. Maybe you really like, for example, the way the Father runs out and embraces his son and gives him a ring. It doesn't seem like we have any reason for thinking that this part of the story is in any sense true to life.
This makes me wonder if these stories are less like allegories and more like ink-blot tests. You see what you want to see in them, and you ignore the rest as narrative dressing. So why would Jesus so often use such an imprecise and easily misunderstood method to convey important theological truths?
I don't have a really good answer for this. (I certainly would have done it differently.) But it's interesting to me that Jesus tends to revert to storytelling when he speaks about theology, as opposed to moral issues, about which he tends to speak more plainly. Today we generally try to be as clear as possible about doctrine. We favor creeds, worded as carefully as legal documents, to stories. Jesus never gave a creed. His method seems designed to encourage diverse interpretations. I don't know exactly what to make of this. Does Jesus place little value on orthodoxy? Does he want to hide the truth from those who don't deserve it? Or is it that theological realities are so ineffable that it is better to hint at them in vague stories than to try to pin them down with the precision of a creed?
[+/-] Shane's Reply |
Those who read Jeff's comments following my recent post on The Irresistible Revolution may be interested to know that I emailed Shane Clairborne about his concerns, and he sent me a response. He said he chose to publish with Zondervan intentionally, as an act of "revolutionary subordination" (John Yoder's phrase). He didn't want to "preach to the choir", but to mainstream evangelical culture, and Zondervan was willing to publish what he wanted to say. Similarly, the cover is designed to be something that might catch the eyes of kids within the Christian subculture (Shane was once one of them). He also says they wanted his face on the cover, but "I told them that it had to look like I was hiding behind the cover, could not show over half my face... And that there had to be a collage of other beautiful faces on the inside cover as you open it up."
[+/-] Women and Defective Levites |
[+/-] The Detour |
Here's an interesting one: compare the events following Jesus' birth as recorded in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. Luke says Jesus' family journeyed to Jerusalem shortly after Jesus' birth, and went from there to Nazareth. Matthew says they first returned to Bethlehem, then fled to Egypt - a four year detour - before settling in Nazareth out of fear of Herod's successor.
That's a little odd, isn't it? Can we harmonize these two accounts? The key verse seems to be Luke 2:39:
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.This verse seems to implicitly deny the return to Bethlehem and flight to Egypt, but my NIV Study Bible tells me that Luke simply decided not to record it. So the verse could be read:
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they [went back to Bethlehem, stayed there for close to two years, were visited by Magi, fled to Egypt and stayed another two years, then] returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.This is a bit much for me, but those who need the Bible to be contradiction-free probably won't have difficulty with it. I think Luke would have to say something like "they did not return to Bethlehem, nor go to Egypt at any time, but went immediately Nazareth, where they lived until Jesus was grown" to sway those dead-set on inerrancy. It seems to me that such an explicit contradiction is unlikely to appear in any text, and if you were to interpret the texts of other religions so generously, you would find that a great many of them are also "inerrant" or "without contradictions".
Furthermore, if you insist that Luke has simply made a misleading omission here, it seems to me that you must allow for the possibility of other such omissions. This opens up all kinds of possibilities that a more straight-forward reading of the Bible seems to preclude, because anything that text does not explicitly deny could have happened. To me, this seems to defeat the purpose of having an inerrant scripture.
[+/-] The Irresistible Revolution |
This is an excellent book. I hesitate to say that Shane Claiborne has got Christianity right, or that this book represents the true understanding of Jesus' teachings - I'm becoming less confident about such statements. But I think what it advocates is a very good understanding of Christian discipleship, and I mean good in the sense of being of great practical benefit to both the practitioner and the surrounding world.
I'm starting to have an understanding of Christianity as far less about what you believe or what you feel or what you do on Sunday morning, and far more about how you live your life. (Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to understand Christianity, but it resonates with me.) And I think the way-of-life Christianity that I'm draw to looks a lot like what Shane describes here.
The second half of the book gets talking a lot about politics, and war specifically, and I found it a little disappointing. It's not that I think these things shouldn't be spoken of, or that they're completely out of place with what he said earlier. But he has a few contentious points (eg. "all war is bad") which he keeps coming back to but never really supports. It was definitely thought-provoking, but not very persuasive.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent and very challenging book, and I strongly recommend it. I have a copy you could borrow, but this may be a good one to buy for yourself. For one thing, he's giving away all the profits.
[+/-] What is Truth? |
I had a chat with a Muslim guy the other day. He was very nice - friendly, engaging, passionate. He was raised as a Catholic but converted to Islam because it made more sense to him. He firmly believes that Islam is the truth, and that this will become evident to anyone who earnestly seeks truth and asks God for guidance.
This is troubling for me. The Mormon missionaries I met the recently are also certain of their beliefs, and are certain that any sincere and humble seeker will come to see the truth of their beliefs. A great many Christians believe the same thing about their beliefs. The same is true for many Atheists, many Muslims, and presumably many people of nearly any other religion. I imagine there are even Agnostics who believe that any honest, thinking person will eventually become an Agnostic. (Of course there are people within each religion who disagree.)
Most of the confident religious people I've talked to (I mean confident that they're right and everyone can know it) are not particularly troubled by this. Sure, they know that lots of people from all religious camps are just as confident, but their own reasons for confidence are so great that they can't really imagine being mistaken. I don't fault them for this, nor do I consider myself somehow beyond this elevation of personal experience over that of others. But seeing this, I can't help but be discouraged about my quest. I feel like I may be able to find some place I fit in the religious world, but to find truth? That is beyond any of us.
This whole concept isn't really new to me, but sometimes I like to forget it. To know truth is a hard dream to let go.
[+/-] John's Baptism |
From my "Wacky stuff in the Bible" file:
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"This might not strike you as strange if you're charismatic, but if you're not, it probably should. To paraphrase, Paul meets a group of "disciples" (we prefer the term "believers" - why, do you think?) and asks them if they've received the Spirit of God. The disciples are pretty sure they haven't, in fact, they've never heard of the Spirit.
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.-Acts 19:1-6
(I think the idea of being indwelt by the essence of God would sound a little odd to someone who'd never heard of it before. It would probably also sound like something very significant, and very difficult to miss - not something you'd have to tell someone about, as in "If you're a Christian you have the Holy Spirit", but something you in-your-face obvious, as in "I see you're filled with God's Spirit; you must be a Christian")
Paul's reaction is, "If you don't have the Spirit, then just whose disciples are you?" They say John's. "That explains it," Paul says, "John was all about repentance. John called people to turn from their sins because the chosen one was coming. Well good news: he's come!" Evidently these people were persuaded (persuaded how, I wonder) and were baptized in Jesus' name. Once they'd proclaimed their devotion to Jesus (Baptism, I'm told, was the official way to declare your discipleship to someone), Paul lays his hands on them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."
All of this sounds pretty weird to me. I'm not sure what it all means. But what it seems to say is that there's a difference between repentance and receiving the Spirit, and that receiving the Spirit is very palpable and dramatic. The whole thing sounds strikingly similar to what John himself says in Matt 3:11: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
[+/-] Old photo! |
Q. Hey Jacob, have you always been awesome?
A. Yes, I have always been awesome.
Sorry, I just found this in my closet and I couldn't resist. That's me on a kindergarten field trip, back when I was cute (and slightly less arrogant).
[+/-] The Great Banquet - JHV |
This is a follow-up to my previous post, "The Plan Bs". Some of my readers felt that the details of the story which I take issue with may not have been intended to be so closely examined. They suggested that we're meant to focus only on the major point of the story - seemingly that the Jews rejected Jesus - and not the details, such as which guests the host seems to prefer, and his motivation for "dragging in" his B-list guests. I think this position is valid, particularly in the light of other, more popular Bible stories, but in my view the distateful elements of this story are quite central, and it seems pretty unlikely that they would have been tossed in just to flesh out the story, particularly if the theology they insinuate was as abhorrent to the teller as it is to us.
To demonstrate how easily these ugly details could have been left out of the story or altered, I've re-written the parable:
For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited everyone in town - rich and poor, old friends and strangers alike. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, "Come on in; the food's on the table."Like any metaphor, this one surely has it's flaws and limitations, but I think it manages not to suggest anything seriously problematic about God or salvation. Would it have been so hard for Jesus to tell the story this way, instead of making salvation for the gentiles (or whoever are represented by the replacements) seem like an afterthought or a less-than-ideal plan B, only made possible by the rejection of the favored guests?
Many hungry people came, many outcasts, and many who had never met the host before. But few (not none) of his wealthy friends showed up.
Some made excuses. One said, "I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets."
Another said, "I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets."
And yet another said, "I just got married and need to get home to my wife."
Others expressed their indignation that the host would invite screw-ups, paupers and whores to a great banquet. They wouldn't be caught dead in the company of such people.
The master was saddened to hear that his friends had turned him down, but delighted to see the poor and the outcasts flocking in.
"Very well," he told his servant, "let the rejects be welcomed, let the hungry be filled, and let the snobs go without."- Luke 14:16-24 (Jacob Heretical Version)
[+/-] The Plan Bs |
This parable really bothers me:
For me this raises all kinds of questions: Is the banquet hall of God not big enough for everyone? Did God make a guest list of certain people he wanted at His table? Was this list made up of privileged people - the type who can buy property and oxen - and not "the misfits and homeless and wretched"? (This seems strange in light of what Jesus said immediately before.) Were religious Jews God's intended guests, and was the acceptance of sinners and Samaritans His plan B? (Paul seems to think so.) Did God have no interest in those who really need a good meal until His well-fed friends shunned him? Did He invite - or "drag in", another big theological issue - the poor and ragged out of kindness and love, or did He want to fill His table simply to thumb his nose at the wealthy no-shows? If there had been enough bums in the city streets, would He ever have sent his servant to those in the country? And what of those who were neither invited initially nor found in the servant's last-minute scramble?"For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited many. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, 'Come on in; the food's on the table.'
"Then they all began to beg off, one after another making excuses. The first said, 'I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets.'
"Another said, 'I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets.'
"And yet another said, 'I just got married and need to get home to my wife.'
"The servant went back and told the master what had happened. He was outraged and told the servant, 'Quickly, get out into the city streets and alleys. Collect all who look like they need a square meal, all the misfits and homeless and wretched you can lay your hands on, and bring them here.'
"The servant reported back, 'Master, I did what you commanded - and there's still room.'
"The master said, 'Then go to the country roads. Whoever you find, drag them in. I want my house full! Let me tell you, not one of those originally invited is going to get so much as a bite at my dinner party.'"- Luke 14:16-24 (Message)
On all these points the story seems dramatically at odds with our cherished beliefs and intuitions about God. I find it particularly hard to believe that the prostitutes and sinners Jesus so radically and graciously embraced are God's plan Bs, his second choices for salvation. On the other hand, such a view wouldn't be wholly at odds with scripture. What do you make of this?
I've struggled with the theology of Jesus' parables before (fleshed out here), and sometimes I wonder if I subject them to too much scrutiny. Maybe they're just crude, off-the-cuff stories meant to explain a basic point without concern for any of the peripheral details. Do you think the only conclusion we're meant to draw from this story is that God is gracious to ne'er-do-wells? Couldn't a story be told that illustrates this point without all the nasty and (hopefully) misleading details of this one?
Maybe the parable isn't about what we think it is. I know, for example, that "God's kingdom" doesn't always mean the place we go when we die, and that many Biblical statements that seem clear and straightforward to my ears are understood differently by many who are more knowledgeable than myself. And I'm sure there are many who can explain this difficult parable in the light of clearer passages, or, to be cynical, passages that more clearly corroborate our cherished dogmas. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned is that Jesus meant for his parables to confuse people.
[+/-] Phun with Philosophy! |
I recently discovered The Philosopher's Magazine Online, which includes some very exciting (to me) "games". I recommend all except "Strange New World" and the interactive philosophy quiz. The games deal with some pretty relevant and interesting topics, such as God, ethics, and consistency, and I think they'd be fairly accessible for those without a background in philosophy, although I'm probably a bad judge of that. The activities may be particularly worthwhile for those who have a feeling that philosophy is so much horse poo*, those who just want an introduction to some of the big questions it addresses, and those who think they're right about everything. Check 'er out.
*I don't want to give the impression that none of philosophy (or what we call philosophy) is horse poo. In the words of Cicero, "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it." But a lot of it's hella good.
[+/-] A Pickle for the Literalists |
The bulk of this post is an discussion of a chronological disagreement in Genesis, which may or may not interest you. You're welcome to go directly to the last paragraph if you wish - it's the part I really care about.
An interesting point was raised today in my Intro to World Religions class. We were looking at the two Creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25) and my prof mentioned that the there are chronological differences between them. In the first version, animals are created after plants, then humans (male and female together) after animals. In the second version Adam seems to be created before at least some plants, then animals are created, then Eve. The disagreement seems most clear on the matter of whether the animals were created before or after Adam. The NIV tries to reconcile the two accounts by inserting a "had" into Gen 2:19 ("Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air") whereas most translations simply say "formed". The NIV's interpretation is not impossible - the original Hebrew verbs apparently didn't have tense - but consider the context:
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now [or "so", "then", "and"] the LORD God [had?] formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.- Gen 2:18-22
To paraphrase, God notes that it isn't good for the man to be alone. The solution is to make for him a suitable partner. So either God now creates a variety of potential helpers for man and brings them before him, or God decides that before he creates Adam's helper, He'll task him with naming the thousands of birds and animals he's created so far. Which makes more sense to you?
Similarly, it is possible to understand Gen 2:5 to say that only those plants that require rain or human cultivation had not yet been created, or that they had been created as seeds but had not yet sprouted. But then it would seem that either Adam, who was in a garden full of fruit trees, spent a fair amount of time cultivating and watering crops, or after the fall, undaunted by thorns and toil, he decided to grow every kind of crop he could. Neither seems likely to me. Nor does it seem likely that God, after creating Adam, decided that he wanted him to live in a garden, and that the garden should be in a very specific location where no trees had been created, and accordingly hastened to make there a variety of trees that already existed in other areas. (The creation of a new garden at this point when the constituent trees existed elsewhere seems particularly unlikely if God is on a tight schedule, as I'll discuss in a moment.) More likely God created a garden out of new sorts of fruitful trees and crops now that man (and later animals) existed to nurture and consume them. Or more likely still, Gen 2:5-9 refers to the creation of all plants, which the other creation account places before the creation of man.
One further difficulty in harmonizing the two accounts occurs to me. Assuming that most who wish to do so will also affirm a literal 6 days of creation (which I find problematic for more reasons than I'll list here) it seems that the sixth day of creation in particular was a whirlwind of activity. God creates all land animals (1:24-25), forms Adam from dust (2:7), plants a garden and puts Adam in it (2:8-9), gives him instructions (2:15-17), notes that Adam is alone and needs a helper (2:18), and parades every living bird and beast before Adam to be named (2:19-20. A biologist might be able to guess at how many animals were named and how long it might take, but I can't see even a rush job - quite unlikely for an awestruck man seeing each creature for the first time and assessing it as a companion - taking less than a few hours). Then God puts Adam to sleep, removes a rib, forms a woman out of it, and presents her to Adam (Do you think Adam slept for only a few minutes?) who expresses his approval (2:21-23). Finally, God gives blessings and instructions to the pair (1:28-30). I don't know if it would be possible to do all of this in one day, but supposing it is, why would God be in such a hurry? Apparently because the whole of creation absolutely must be wrapped up before the seventh day in order to set an example for the Hebrews, and everything that wasn't done by the fifth must be crammed into the sixth. It seems to me that God would have planned that better.
My point in all of this is that we ought to recognize that the Bible is a very, very old document from a radically different culture. This is not to say that either or both of the creation accounts - or anything else in the Bible - is untrue (at least in the ways it was intended to be true) but such stories can hardly be expected to conform to our modern cultural and literary conventions. This means that things that might seem like distortions or tall tales to us likely didn't seem that way to the original readers. How else can you explain their acceptance of chronological disagreements both here and in the Gospels, Jude's allusions to myths, or sketchy fulfillments of prophecies in the Gospels, among other issues? Many Christians deal with all such "problem passages" by denying that they are out of tune with our modern expectations - a position which I believe to be not only indefensible but implausible and unnecessary. It seems clear to me that we should seek not to make the Bible conform to our modern expectations, but to understand it as it was meant to be understood. It is critical that we ask the question "how would the original readers have understood this text?" before we claim to understand it ourselves. And if we cannot say with certainty how the ancient Hebrew authors meant it to be understood (which happens far more often than we want it to), it is, frankly, foolish and dangerous to be dogmatic about our own understandings.
[+/-] A New Direction |
Or What's Going Down in My Life, Part 2
I think my biggest reason for suspecting that Christianity is true is the experiences of other Christians. Of course a lot of us lead very average lives and experience nothing that cannot easily be explained naturalistically. However, I've heard several stories that are much more difficult to explain - fantastic coincidences, mysterious healings, answered prayers, etc. Taken together, they make me suspect that something supernatural occasionally interacts with the lives of Christians. I don't know why this might happen, why it happens in some cases and not others, or why it doesn't happen more, but it does seem to happen.
The fact that Christian faith tends to be based in no small part on first- or secondhand experiences brings to my mind the obvious question of why people of other religions believe what they do. Do they have similar experiences? If not, what reasons do they have for believing? If so, what does this say about the truth of their religious beliefs? Or ours? And why aren't more people asking these questions? (See WGDIML Part 1.)
I suppose the biggest reason most Christians are uninterested in the experiences of others is that most of us have firsthand experiences which we believe to be of divine origin, and they satisfy most of our curiosities about God. I, on the other hand, don't believe I've ever experienced anything overtly supernatural, despite earnestly seeking such experiences. Christianity has done nothing to satisfy my longings for relationship with the divine. Naturally, this causes me to be skeptical about many claims of Christianity that most others take for granted, and to wonder whether other religions can deliver what Christians have taught me to long for. It also makes me wonder if those who speak loudly about the faults and flaws of other religions are blinded by their positive experiences with their own, and whether we're not all more or less seeking the same things and experiencing the same things and condemning the same things in others. I wonder if I was cut out to be a Christian, whether my fear and laziness have kept me from something better, or whether I've simply had too high expectations of Christianity and God, or whether I would have found what I was looking for if I hadn't given up so soon.
There aren't many things I know, but I'm confidant of this: I need to take an honest look at other religions and their adherents. I need to interact with them and worship with them. Especially, I need to hear their stories. I must do this because I need to know what's out there. I need to know whether I can find what I seek outside of Christianity before I seek further inside it. There is an aspect of Christianity that rings true to me, but other aspects do not. I cannot progress as a seeker or as a Christian without looking seriously at my other options.
This whole thing is very exciting to me. I have a bit of a plan, but I'm really not sure what all I'm going to do or where it might lead me. (I have no predetermined destination.) I'm pretty sure that God wants me to do this (as sure as I've ever been about God's will) but I'm very aware that this whole exercise could be fruitless or even detrimental without his support and guidance. If you're the praying sort, please ask that He would direct my paths on this new journey. I'll keep you updated.
[+/-] Kind of Back |
Camp is over. It was good - very good - but I'm excited to start school. I'm pretty much only taking awesome courses this year. Also, something else is happening this year that I'm quite excited about, but you'll have to wait for What's Going Down In My Life, Part 2 for that.
Speaking of which, I am trying to get back to writing again, but my blogging muscles have grown flabby it the last four months, and I'm having a hard time completing posts. But I'm working on it.
In the mean time here are some interesting things I've read recently while skimming through some of my four month backlog of Bloglines posts:
Seeker has some interesting thoughts about knowledge and beliefs here and here.
Bruce found an amusing website.
Jim linked to this very thought-provoking piece on sodomy.
And this trailer gives me chills. What I find remarkable is that it seems to neither praise nor condemn zealous Evangelicals. The movie could be awesome.
[+/-] Truth and the Deification of Doctrine |
Or What's Going Down in My Life, Part 1
I've been tinkering on this one for over a month, and it still seems awkward, rabbit-traily, and inaccurate. I feel like I'm grasping at something significant but slippery, and I'm having more difficulty than usual making it coherent, either in my head or in writing (this is especially true of the latter half of the post). With this post especially (but also with everything I write) please remember that I do not claim to dispense truth, only my own subjective, poorly conveyed, transient opinions. I publish this post because it is partially out of this quaggy pool of pontifical ponderings that I have come to a fairly significant decision, which I will divulge (hopefully more lucidly) in What's Going Down, Part 2. Anyway, here it is.
A lot of Christians like to talk about truth - how we know the Truth about God, eternity, salvation, and even specific points of doctrine, how you too could discover these truths simply by thinking honestly, reading the Bible, and praying, and how those who persistently disagree with us are running from the truth or twisting the truth or denying of the truth. Many Christians (by no means all) seem to regard themselves as not only genuine seekers but genuine finders of objective, indisputable, God-given truth on a fairly broad rage of topics, and seem to think that those who disagree do so only because they are not honestly seek truth.
I believe that the majority of such Christians are far less open to truth than they think they are, at least when it comes to their foundational religious beliefs. (I do not fault them for their less-than-unqualified pursuit of truth - a common weakness, from which I am by no means exempt - only for being dishonest about it.) Let me explain why I believe this.
It seems to me that if a person - Christian or otherwise - were genuinely interested in the truth about God, she would be eager to look honestly at many different religions, rather than trusting just one set of experiences (even her own). Please note that looking honestly at different religions doesn't mean merely asking your pastor about them or reading books debunking them by Christian authors. Until recently I was afraid to do more than this, and I sense that many Christians are similarly hesitant. We seem to have gotten the idea that to honestly, humbly and open-mindedly consider other religions is tantamount to treachery.
I believe this fear of other religions comes from having personified our beliefs about God, or perhaps even mistaken our beliefs for God himself, and consequently imagining the examination of contrary beliefs to be a form of idolatry; unfaithfulness toward our word-and-concept deity. (As if it is even possible for a creed or doctrine to accurately and sufficiently represent God!) I contend that we owe no allegiance to our religion. To God, certainly, but not to any doctrine or religious sect. A Christian who after honest consideration becomes a Muslim is no more a traitor, a sinner or an apostate than a Muslim who for honest reasons becomes a Christian, a Liberal who becomes a New Democrat, or a Virtue Ethicist who becomes a Utilitarian.
(It may be hard for some to imagine honest enquiry leading someone away from Christianity. Suppose, if you must, that they are mistaken or deceived, and that God will later reveal their error to them. The point I hope you will agree to is that it is possible for an genuine seeker to come, even temporarily, to a different conclusion than you have, and that to do so is no sin. Moreover, if a person feels called to examine his beliefs and seek truth, it would be not only irrational but wrong to refrain from seeking out of fear of incurring the wrath of God.)
The personification (or deification) of doctrine is utterly devastating to the honest pursuit of truth in which so many Christians claim to partake. Moreover, it leads to deceit and hypocrisy when as evangelists we expect members of other religions to subject their beliefs to greater scrutiny that we are willing to subject ours. Most Christians expect non-Christians to critically examine their believes and be willing to reject them if disproved, and yet many feel that to subject Christianity to the same honest scrutiny is unnecessary, or even wrong. I believe that we (all humans) must be willing to drop our allegiance to any doctrine about God, however foundational, should we be convinced of its falsehood. If we cannot do this we are worshippers not of God but of theology, and this is idolatry regardless of whether the doctrines we worship are true or false!
I'm not saying it's wrong not to completely and unreservedly pursue truth, nor am I saying that I do this better than most, nor that Christians in general do this worse than most. (I write exclusively about Christians simply because I know very few non-Christians; something, I think you'd agree, which is unhealthy both for a Christian and for a truth-seeker. I mean to correct this.) I believe there are much more important things than pursuing truth, and some people are perhaps better off for not pursuing it. Someone whose life was transformed by becoming a Christian (or a Hindu, or an Atheist) is unlikely to have much doubt about the truth of his beliefs, and little interest in scrutinizing them. I rejoice for those who are so uplifted, challenged, and changed by their current beliefs that they have no desire to look into any alternatives. I only ask that such people recognize that although personal experiences can give one great confidence, great joy, and a great many other things, they rarely (if ever) given access to exclusive, objective truth. So unless your spiritual experiences include receiving an infallible, essential creed from the hand of an angel, it is probably wise to avoid being dogmatic about the theological inferences you draw from them.
[+/-] In Lieu of Substance |
I do have big important things to say, but I haven't quite finished saying them yet. (I do a lot of editing.) I'm hoping to be finished the big "What's Going Down in My Life (Part 1?)" in a week or so, but in the mean time, here's some pictures of me jumping off a bridge.
Apparently this is the biggest bungee jump in the world. So, you know, if you're there you've got to do it, right?
Btw, does anyone know how to turn a dvd movie into something internetable? I don't think I have the right gadgets.
[+/-] Say It Ain't So |
I will keep this short. Not because I have little to say, nor because I think the matter I'm addressing is of little significance, nor because I've finally learned the importance of brevity (someday, perhaps), but because I'm rushing off to camp again tomorrow, and I have little time to spare.
Consider this passage: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:5-6)
Assuming that you're as disgusted with what this verse seems to say as I am, can you please explain to me how God is not saying here that he punishes children for their father's sins?
[+/-] The Way It Will Have To Be |
I'm back from Africa. I didn't find God, I'm sorry to say. I think I may have been in the wrong part. (It's a big continent, you know.) Hopefully I'll get to do a more thorough search some day. I'm also going to camp in a couple days, which is where I often feel, if not exactly close to God, at least most favorably disposed to him.
I'm starting to wonder again if there's something wrong with me. I mean, I know there are a lot of things wrong with me, but I'm wondering if I suffer from some deep and crippling soul-illness as a result of my personal inadequacies and sins. I have long been aware that I do not see what others see (or think they see) spiritually, but for the most part I've come to accept that I live in the dark. But then every once in a while I wonder if the problem is that I'm just blind, like the dwarves in "The Last Battle".
If I am saved by grace alone, saved from and in spite of my sins, and if I am saved for relationship with God, is it possible that my sins still keep me from the relationship both God and I desire? And is it possible that my sins could still bind me while other's sins do not?
I do not claim to be worthy of relationship with God. I know myself too well for that. I know how sinful I am, and how undisciplined. When I sought God, years ago, I sought impatiently, inexpertly (though not, I believe, insincerely). If you say I sought too briefly, too imperfectly, too greedily or proudly or lazily to expect results, I will agree. But I know that if I mastered myself, overcame my desire and impatience and doubt and human frailty and devoted every breath and thought exclusively to the pursuit of God, I could never merit the intimacy with Him that I seek and so many Christians claim. As a seeker of God I deserve nothing, but which of us deserve more?
I have never heard from God, but then, I seldom speak to him. If there's any spiritual value in Bible reading I doubt I'll ever discover it - I hardly read any more. Worship for me tends to be hollow and tiresome. Tongues, healings and anointings look fake to me, even farcical. And while I could still force myself to attend services, read the Bible daily, even pray, my faith and hope are spent. I could drag myself through disciplines and routines, but I cannot believe that they will bring me to God.
It's not that I don't want to believe, it's that I am no longer able. My choice is to perform a spiritual charade and be miserable, or to ignore God (or at least my desire for him) and be at peace. If I choose the latter, I can continue to strive towards goodness and love. If I choose the former, I will be not only unhappy but ineffective. (Even thinking about this again makes me feel sick, and if I dwell on it I quickly become self-absorbed and self-abusive.)
I haven't entirely given up on earthly intimacy with God, but I am done pursuing it. If it is to happen, God must take the first step. That is the way it will have to be, because my faith is gone.
[+/-] Introspection |
This post was originally published at Save Africa '06.
The other day Pete happened upon an advertisement for an evening with Phillip Yancey, and I forced everyone to go. Nothing he said was particularly interesting to me, except that his next book, due in September, will be about prayer, and if it really does anything. (I think the title is something like "Prayer: Does it Really Do Anything?") That's kind of exciting for me because I've been thinking about prayer a fair bit recently. I suppose I've been having a bit of a crisis of faith. (This happens to me every so often.) I'm trying to decide whether I really believe in Christianity or if I just say I do because things are easier that way. It's been about nine months since I decided that what one believes is more or less irrelevant, and all that really matters is how one lives. (Hence I claim to be a Christian not because of anything I think or feel, but because I try to follow Jesus in loving people and be selfless. Real Live Preacher argues for this kind of Christianity.) But now I’m wondering if Christianity is more than just a title you can give yourself. Besides being raised in a Christian home and associating with Christians, in what way am I like Christians? I don't read my Bible or pray regularly, in fact I don't even like or understand the Bible and prayer a lot of the time. I've never felt close to God. I don't see God at work in the world or in human lives. I'm drawn somewhat to the life and message of Jesus, but is that alone enough for me to call myself a Christian? I'm not sure what I think about his divinity, his resurrection, miraculous power, etc. (nor do I particularly care), and I know I don’t believe that one must accept these things to escape eternal damnation. I enjoy the perks of calling myself a Christian (community and the opportunity for service) but maybe it’s dishonest.
Not sure what all of this has to do with South Africa. I guess I came here partially because I want to see God at work powerfully and openly, and people tell me Africa is where he does that. Maybe I'm in the wrong part of Africa. Or maybe I'm eating too much steak and thinking too much about the Oilers. But I was at this Yancey thing and they were talking about a prison in South Africa where these people started a Christian ministry and the inmates were transformed and the murder rate plummeted and BBC sent a crew to report on it. I think when I heard that I realized I don’t believe this kind of thing is miraculous at all (good, certainly, and perhaps influenced by God, but not miraculous). This makes me sad.
I think Church is really built on shared experience. A bunch of people can work and worship and fellowship together because they have the same beliefs, and they have the same beliefs largely because they have the same experiences. I wonder if it’s really possible for someone like me who doesn't have those critical beliefs and experiences to be a full member of the club. No matter how much I like the Oilers, no matter how good I feel when I go to their games, no matter how much I want to be a part of the team, I will never be an Oiler, because I suck at hockey. Maybe there’s nothing to be done about that.
[+/-] New Digs |
1. African internet sucks. Sucks.
2. My blogging for the next two months is likely to be done here. The short version is everything's going good so far. I'm starting to miss people.
[+/-] I'm Going to South Africa |
I'll be there for two months, leaving May 1. (Good gracious, that's tomorrow!) Shortly after returning I'll be going away to camps for the bulk of July and August. I'm not sure how much Internet access I'll have during this time. In the blogging-est case scenario I'll publish weekly-ish updates packed with exciting stories and pearls of wisdom. (Which would actually be pretty good for me. The astute reader will notice I haven't posted in over two weeks (I blame exams) and my wisdom is a bit hit-and-miss.) It's also quite possible that I'll be pretty scarce for the next four months. I recommend signing up with Feedblitz or Bloglines (in the sidebar) to be notified if and when new content appears.
It's a little bit scary to be going away to a strange and somewhat dangerous country for two months with a couple other guys not renowned for their good sense. Normally a don't do things like this, which is probably part of the reason I decided to go. I figure it's time I stepped outside my comfort zone and did something scary and awesome.
At this point the hardest thing about the trip for me is that it means missing the remainder of the playoffs, in which my beloved Oilers may actually win a series (or more!) for the first time in nine years. It doesn't help that our second round opponents, should we advance, would probably be the Calgary Flames. If you don't immediately understand the significance of a second round playoff series between the Oilers and the Flames, there's nothing I could say that would fully communicate the sense of loss I'm feeling right now. And while I'm sure this will be a wicked trip, if the Oilers win the Cup and I miss it I will probably never recover.
To summarize, I'm gambling two months, thousands of dollars, and more than three rounds of hockey playoffs that this will be a good and meaningful and challenging trip. I would appreciate your prayers, if you're the praying sort.
But someone once told me God is in Africa, so maybe I'll get to talk with him myself.
[+/-] Pain Revisited |
Devout readers will remember my recent series on the problem of pain (parts I, II, III & IV), which is essentially the question of how gratuitous suffering can exist in a world governed by a powerful and loving God. In discussing this problem with Christians I've often been reminded that God cannot be judged by human standards. The Christian concept of God is a being so great in knowledge, power and love that his actions and motives cannot possibly be understood my mere mortals. Inevitably, any attempt to judge such a being by human criteria will be insufficient and inaccurate. "God has a reason we can't understand" is the answer to any unanswerable question, and no divine act is to (seemingly) monstrous to be excused by our ignorance. This is certainly a powerful defense, but what is it's price? Sam Harris (truthdig.com) makes the following observation (thanks to the Questioning Christian):
If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God's goodness in the first place.
I think he makes a good point. It doesn't seem possible to prove that a good God does not exist based on human experience, knowledge, and logic, but if theists wish to dismiss the argument on these grounds, they cannot then turn and offer their own empirical proofs in support of a good God.
But it seems that we do this all the time. Every week in my church people stand up and proclaim the goodness of God as it is evident in their personal life. No one qualifies these testimonials with the reminder that we don't understand God and it's quite possible that the things he does that seem good to us are actually evil. Nor should they.
I believe these experiences - apparent answers to prayer, encouraging thoughts, etc. - are good and valid, and I'm glad for the encouragement they seem to bring. But it's one thing to let your perspective and your experiences to encourage you; it's quite another to use them to persuade others of the validity of your beliefs. Debate and evangelism have their own set of rules.
We have a choice: either we can debate the existence of God using empirical evidence (recognizing that we cannot be certain about our conclusions) or we dismiss all such evidence. We cannot present our experiences as substantiation of God's goodness and not give credence to counterexamples.
[+/-] Whatever Befall |
This is a story I wrote two years ago for a Bible School project. The writing is a bit embarrassing now (as all my old writing is) but for some reason I've decided to dredge it up and post it here, maybe because I've finally thought of the right ending for it (the last two lines). Two years ago I was struggling with many apparent intellectual problems with my Christian faith and wondering what might happen if I became utterly convinced that Christianity was irrational. This story was an attempt to put myself in that place and see what comes of it. Here she is:
I awoke in a place and time unfamiliar to me. My surroundings were hazy. My mind was muddled. I cannot say how long it took me to become fully conscious, or if indeed I ever was more than half awake, for my senses never regained their normal sharpness. My first coherent thought was that everything was wrong. I was not in my car. I was not in the hospital, or in my home, or any place familiar to me. Indeed, I doubted very much that my current location was familiar to any who walk upon the Earth. I came slowly to the realization that I was dead. Yes, that fit with what I knew. The icy roads, the blare of horns, the dimly remembered sirens and the dull pain. I recalled vaguely the perception of a comfort and warmth, and the rather detached feeling of my body giving in to oblivion. I was dead.
Far from clarifying the situation, this realization further compounded my confusion. I was not on Earth, at least, I felt only dimly the sensations associated with normal physical existence. My limbs felt leaden, my senses were dimmed, and I seemed to be in a thick fog. The ground beneath me was shifting, like fine sand, but I hardly felt its impression. Gravity, light, and sound were nearly muted. I noticed with some interest that I was not breathing, nor did I feel the need to. My heart, I perceived, was not beating. Yes, I was dead.
I soon gave up straining to move or interact with my environment. There was nowhere to go, nothing to see, and movement seemed to grow less natural by the moment. I concentrated on thinking. My mind, at least, still seemed sharp.
The questions returned. What was going on? How did I come to this place? Had I somehow become trapped or misplaced? Where was God? I became almost frantic in my frustration. How could this happen? Surely… no, this is not heaven. It could not be. But neither, I hastened to add, was it Hell. This was neither a place of torment, nor a glorious new dwelling. It was not the great reality that I had previously seen only as a dim reflection. If anything, this place was the dim reflection. It was almost nothingness. It was barren and shapeless, devoid of both pain and pleasure. What had become of me?
At least I still had some remnant of my emotions, though I reflected that this situation would have caused me exponential fear and frustration in life. My life. Perhaps that was the key. Had I done something to void my salvation? Had I doubted too much? Questioned too deeply? I had thought intermittently about my inevitable death, and yes, I had doubted my acceptance into paradise, but how could this have shaken my eternal security? I reviewed my knowledge of the Bible's teachings.
Nothing. I know it, I’m sure. There is no way this could happen. I’m clearly not in heaven, nor in hell, nor do I the vaguest idea how I came to be where I am. My theology does not allow for this sort of thing. I am a human being, made in the image of God. He knit me together, he knows my coming and my going, and is familiar with all my ways. He knows the number of the hairs on my head. I trusted in him. I placed my soul in his hands! My name was written in the Book of Life – how could it have been erased? How could I become misplaced? Was I lost in the cosmic bustle of a God too absorbed in great matters to notice the fall of one small sparrow? No – unthinkable. My God could not do such a thing. And yet here I am, a faded wisp of spirit wavering on the edge of nothingness. Where is God?
Perhaps I was wrong. Yes, it's obvious now – I've been deceived. Those preachers were fools, speaking of omniscient God and his ways, as if they knew the pattern of the universe. That book I read – always out of obligation, always out of duty and vague commitment – I saw now that it must be nonsense, the ravings and ramblings of the delusional hangers-on of a dusty lunatic, broken by toil and love and driven by mad courage. Foolish, contradictory nonsense, as I now saw. Jumbled and fractured by two thousand years of copying, two thousand years of bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, tweaking and twisting to pad it’s own pockets. How many years had I played their game! Lying to myself, beating my intellect into submission to my frail, grasping heart. Only idiots and fanatics degrade themselves thus, doting on a fickle heart at the expense of an honest mind. If I had only scraped the mud from my eyes I would have seen this sham for what it is: flimsy and foolish. But blindly I swallowed the lies, longing for a fairly-tale ending to a flawed life. My mind, had I allowed it, would have seen the madness of such a hope. What in life suggests such a happily-ever-after? The worse a man’s circumstances, the more his heart longs for heaven, and the more his head tells him it is absurd. I am a fool.
(In this way I brooded for some time – or so I supposed, for time is a tough guess in this place – but presently I quieted myself, and put my mind to work.)
I suppose I am now an atheist. I like the sound of that – it sounds like books and great buildings and the power of the human mind. An atheist is strong, proud, alone. An honest and discerning being, undaunted by the honey-lies of idealistic religion. Alone. Alone and unafraid. How fitting – indeed, natural – that I should be one: I who am certainly and truly alone.
But no, it was not true. I cannot make this claim, for I am neither great nor proud enough. I am low, wretched. No! Not wretched – too close to the groveling humility of the self-abased slaves of religion. (To think that I was once one!) Not wretched, but not great. I am a man, just a man, neither worm nor god, and I cannot claim the lofty crown of the intellectual atheist. My mind, too great for the degradation of religion is yet too small for the bold defiance of atheism. I am a man – what can I know? My mind is my greatest, my only asset, but it is insufficient for such a task as finding god. Such things surpass me, and I would be no less a fool to deny transcendent god as to confirm him. Besides, my current state of being is perhaps as far removed from atheistic nothingness as from Christian paradise. I see that the proud, defiant atheist is as much in the dark as the smug, slavish zealot. There is only one thing for a man to be (especially a man such as myself, doomed to this absurd semi-being.) I am an agnostic.
I know my limits. I make no outrageous claims, for who am I to speak of God? Perhaps there is such a being, or perhaps not, but it is beyond my skill to say. The one glaring clarity in my present state is that no one on earth knows a thing about the "life to come". Each religion and creed is proved equally wrong by my inexplicable limbo. But I do know beyond all doubt that the gentle Jesus of my youth is a fraud. I have the loneliness of an atheist with the lowliness of a religious lackey. The worst of both worlds, I suppose.
But this is odd – my heart betrays me. Treacherous, idiot heart! How can you, my downfall, the traitorous ruin of my honest mind, how can you yet interfere with me? How can you yet whisper your sweet poison in my ear? Fool! I would rip you from my chest with my own hand if only I could end your slanderous hope. What are you saying to me? Shut up! Shut up about your Jesus – I want no part in him. I trusted him, and look where he's left me! You were always on his side, and even now you have the gall to come gloating in my ruin! How dare you trust! How dare you cling to the shambles of that fairytale hope when all logic screams against you?
(I am furious now. My body is numb, but my mind howls and froths at my idiot heart. I strain against this maddening voice lodged in the core of my being, which even now speaks softly of a gentle shepherd and his lunatic love.)
How fallen I am! It seems that my years of mindless trusting have formed a habit so deep that it defies the cold facts of my monstrous new existence. I remember now, to my shame, how many times my heart-driven madness led me to beg safekeeping from that Jesus. How as a child I had lain in bed and wept with fear, swearing my life and strength to him if he would but give me peace. How as a young man driven by passion I had bound myself to him again and again, vowing to serve him forever, pleading him to seal me in his service. I need no explanation for my predicament – I have drilled my enslavement into my own mind over long years of devotion. I had made Jesus my identity, grafting him into my bones and spirit, and even now, with all his promises proved to be dust and gravel, I am stuck fast in eternal submission to him. I am not my own being. I have surrendered myself and am held fast to Jesus Christ, whether he is a god or a devil or merely a tortured fool like myself.
I am humble – if not in temperament yet still in status. I am truly a wretch, as I said so frivolously on earth. Who could be more wretched then a man who has seen his devastating blunder so clearly, yet chooses – no, is compelled – to continue in it? Was there ever such a wretch as I, driven in my heart to madness, crawling in the slime of psychosis yet aware of my state and appalled by my helpless abasement? Jesus, oh Jesus. (How shameless am I to call that name!) Jesus! Lord, Lord! Have mercy on me Son of David!
(At some point I come to feel that there are two voices in my head, and they are having a great argument. There are no words to explain such a thing, but I fell like a spectator in my own mind, listening to my two natures – doubt and faith – struggle for dominance.)
"Stop it! Have you no pride? You're only degrading yourself further."
"I waited patiently for the Lord; he turned to me and heard my cry…"
"Idiot. You still cling to your dreams? All right, let's wait and see if he'll hear you."
"…He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire."
"Go on! You're a coward and a fool. But we've got time. Let's see if your God will save you."
"Why, O Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?"
"Always your faith is mixed with doubt. Perhaps that's why he abandoned you."
"But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength."
"Oh give it up! You make me sick with your sniveling."
"How long, Oh Lord? Will you forget me forever?"
"Forget it! You're a worthless, abandoned wretch! He does not love you!"
"Be merciful to me, Lord, for I am faint."
"Ha ha! I see it now. Isn't it obvious? We're in Hell."
"He will never leave you nor forsake you."
"Open your eyes! You are forsaken! You have been cast into Hell, and you'll rot here forever!"
"Oh God!"
"You can think, fool. What is Hell but separation from God?"
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
"That's right fool. You're finished. You are forsaken and you're prayers will not be heard."
"My God, my God…"
"He never loved you. He's always lied to you. He has betrayed and ruined you!"
"God! God! Oh Jesus, please!"
"He hates you! You are an object of his wrath! You are the plaything of a sadistic, unjust God."
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
"And who are you, you sub-human muck, to speak for him?"
"Oh God."
"Now be silent, slime. Shut your filthy mouth and rid your heart of that cursed hope."
"Who are you?"
"Who am I? You know who I am, wretch."
"You tempt me. You are Satan."
"Close, wretch, very close. I am you."
"How can that be?"
"Think, wretch. You are schizophrenic – all Christians are. You have added to your natural doubt and evil a grimy facsimile of goodness and hope. Do you wonder that you cannot function? You are at war with yourself! How can you maintain your sanity?"
"I can win. I can overcome you…"
"No! No, you fool! Look at yourself! Look at your festering soul! The whole universe reeks with your evil. Your sin and doubt are a plague that infects all creation and brings decay and death to everything it touches."
"But he loves me."
"No, he doesn't. Look around you. Think."
"I've looked. I've thought. It makes no difference. My heart is steadfast, and no amount of truth or reality can change my convictions."
"You are a fool."
"Oh hush. We've established that long ago. I can't help it, so I'll just have to live with it."
"You're just like every religious freak who ever lived. Every true Muslim or Hindu or Mormon or worshipper of Baal thinks as you do."
"You're probably right. But I can't help it."
"You are forced to think the way you do, as they are."
"Perhaps. Who can say?"
"Your precious God chooses a few to believe the truth, and the rest to rot in Hell."
"You may be right."
"And it appears that he has chosen you for Hell."
"So be it."
"Oh shut up, you arrogant, sanctimonious parrot! You talk big, but I feel your anger. You're filled with rage against him."
"I was. I often am. But I'm done with that now."
"You're afraid."
"No, I'm not. You know I'm not, and you know why."
"Do I? Humor me."
"I am not afraid because I trust him. It doesn't matter if he doesn't care, or if He doesn't exist. I trust Him and I love Him, and I can do nothing else. So who cares whether I'm in Heaven or Hell? All I can do is trust, and the rest is up to Him. And if He forsakes me, what concern is that of mine? I'm just his creation, and He can do with me what He wishes. But if I spend the rest of eternity in Hell, does that excuse me from loving and trusting Him?"
"You are mad. You are absolutely out of your mind. Fine, I give up. I cannot reason with you. I'm leaving forever."
"No, that is a lie. You'll be back, and we'll have this same argument again and again. The specifics will be different, but you'll never stop fighting me – unless my Lord comes for me and purges you from me forever."
"It will never happen. You will never be rescued, and I'll never give up. I had you so close to breaking, and you can't hold out forever."
"I suppose I couldn't, in my own strength. But God, it seems, has got a hold of me, no?"
"You're wrong and you're crazy. Good riddance, fool."
(Time passes, in the shifty way that it passes in this place. I reflect.)
This place is not so different from Earth. The distractions are stripped away and the laws of nature are muffled, but the laws of my heart and mind remain the same. And like Earth, the times of rebellion and doubt are quite similar to the isolation and fear of Hell, and the times of contentment, obedience, and surrender are not unlike the great communion of Heaven. I do not know if my Lord will ever come for me and take me from this place. I do not know if he even exists, or is merely the invention of my hope-sick soul. But I do not worry. I trust him. And it seems to me that I cannot do otherwise.
May I reach heaven's joys oh bright heaven's sun
Heart of my own heart whatever befall
[+/-] Judge For Yourselves |
This made me laugh (thanks to Steve F). In my opinion, there is exactly one legitimate reason for not allowing women to be ministers in our culture, namely that the New Testament explicitly forbids it. While this isn't a big deal to me personally, I recognize that there are many people who for very good and honest reasons feel that such Biblical commands still apply to us today. As long as they follow these commands gracefully and apply their principle of interpretation consistently I won't argue with them.
But I probably will argue with them if they try to explain why this is still a good idea. I've heard all sorts of sweeping generalizations about the genders that attempt to explain why women ought not to "teach or have authority over" men. As far as I'm concerned, none of them hold water. (See the parody linked at the start of this post.) But as long as they can admit that their practices are based on their submission to the authority of scripture and not some empirically discernible and eternally applicable principle ("the very nature of things"), I certainly understand and respect their position.
My final caveat would be that if you're going to take Biblical authority seriously and you want to make judgments about what is and isn't cultural, it seems to me you ought to make an effort to understand the culture these commands originated in. And whether you're a traditionalist or not, if you want to tell other people that what they're doing is wrong because the Biblical laws regarding homosexuality or head-coverings or what have you very definitely are/aren't cultural and therefore don't/do still apply, you'd better be absolutely certain you know what you're talking about.
Case in point: a Messianic Rabbi explains his historical understanding of the passage that requires women to wear head-coverings here. I'm certainly no expert on first century Jewish culture, so I have no idea whether he's right. (And frankly, it's not a big issue for me.) But it annoys me that of all the Christians I've talked to who feel strongly that head-coverings are not cultural and must still be worn, none of them seemed to have any knowledge of the purpose and practice of head-coverings at the time of Paul's writing.
But perhaps I've just talked to the wrong traditionalists, or asked the wrong questions. I would be grateful if someone who disagrees with the Rabbi's understanding of head-coverings in the first century could present a historically informed argument for the timelessness of this command.
[+/-] Amazing Grace |
There was once a young man who demanded his inheritance from his father and then moved to a distant land and squandered it on parties and prostitutes. He became so poor that he could no longer feed himself, and the only job he could find was feeding pigs, for which he was payed so little that even the pig slop looked good to him.
He soon realized what a fool he'd been and remembered his father, who was a kind man and generous to his workers. He wondered if he should return home. Of course he would not ask his father to accept him as his son, but perhaps he would have mercy on him and hire him to work in his fields. But whenever he thought of his father he was filled with shame and fear, and could not bring himself to go home.
Then one day as he was sitting in the mud with the pigs he saw his father approaching. Fear and guilt gripped him, and he could not meet his father's eye. But his father bent down in the mud and touched him.
"My son, why have you not come home?"
The son looked up, sorrowfully. "I was afraid. I was ashamed. I didn't think you'd want to see me again."
"You were wrong. Every day I've stood at my window and waited for you to come home. Even though you despised me, shamed me, turned your back on me, I have always been your father, and I have always loved you and longed to forgive you. If you had come home I would have run out to meet you. I would have given you a new robe and a ring, and I would have embraced you and kissed you and celebrated your coming with a feast. We would have rejoiced together as if you were dead and had come back to life!"
The son looked at his father in wonder. "You would do that for me? Even now you would forgive me for all I've done?"
The father shook his head. "No, I said I would have forgiven you, but I will not forgive you now. Since your birth, and despite all your faults and failures I have loved you, but my love has ended. All these years you could have returned to me - even yesterday I would have embraced you as a son - but not today. I've come to tell you that on this day I disown you and I withdraw my forgiveness and my love. I am no longer your father; you are no longer my son. Do what you will - beg, starve, die in the streets. I care less for you than for these pigs, even less than for the slop you feed them or the mud you're sitting in. Whatever remorse you may now feel, however much you may long for my forgiveness, until the day you die you will never again speak with me or enter my presence."
And the father turned his back on the one who was once his son, and left him in the mud with the pigs.
I have a great difficulty believing that God's forgiveness expires when we die. If it's true that God's love and compassion and mercy are vastly greater than (or even comparable to) those of any human, it's inconceivable to me that he would eternally banish those who die before repenting.
"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed."
"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands."
[+/-] Good Things I've Read Recently |
This is an interesting perspective on fasting and Lent. For the record, I believe there's value in giving things up and I think it's good that people in my very un-Catholic circle aren't afraid to adopt this tradition. But I like that even in Old Testament Judaism these rituals are secondary.
This is what I think about knowledge of God from personal/religious experience. Thanks to Bruce for articulating it.
Real Live Preacher questions the validity of the "slippery slope" argument here.
[+/-] New Features |
"Jacob, you're blog is great. It's so thought-provoking, so well written and relevant. I'd love to read it all the time but I just don't get around to checking too frequently, and you're not the most consistent poster. Can you make it easier for me to read?"
Heck yes I can. The keen-eyed among you may have noticed that the "Archives" box in my sidebar has been renamed "Archives, Etc.". This in itself something to get excited about, but the changes don't stop there! Inside said box I've added a google searcher-thing, an email subscription feature, and a drop-down menu for my monthly archives, along with a pretty bloglines button. All to make life easier for my beloved readers. Let me explain why these things are good.
If you're a devout reader of many blogs, bloglines is still the only way to go. If you want to keep tabs on dozens of blogs (some of which are updated daily, others semi-annually) without regularly checking each one, bloglines will do this for you. It'll tell you who has new posts and let you read them all in one place. It's beautiful.
If you only read this blog and you'd like to read consistently but you don't want to/forget to check frequently for new posts, Feedblitz is your friend. Provide your email address and get Twenty Feet delivered hot and fresh to your inbox whenever I get around to writing something.
If you want to read about specific subjects or find an old post you really liked (I'm probably just talking to myself now) you can google search this blog from the sidebar too. Results are a bit sketchy, I think mostly because I recently switched domain names. But I'm working on that.
If for some reason you want to browse through my monthly archives, you can still do so through the nifty little drop down menu. It's just that they no longer take up half the sidebar.
If you're envious of my new toys and want to add them to your own blog, let me know and I'll tell you how. Or if you're at all good with code you could just check out freshblog, where you can find all these hacks and more!
And if you don't care about any of this, I hope to publish something more meaningful within a couple days.
0 comments
Post a Comment