Answering Questions part 1
I had a brief conversation with someone in a Craigslist spirituality forum a few months ago. During that conversation, he (think it was a he) posted a top ten list of the things he finds frustrating about christians. Instead of being overwhelmed by the list and the experiences this person may have had with christians to lead him to his frustration, I have chosen to engage his points of frustration in the spirit of converstation rather than competition. These blogs (hopefully the next ten) will be made up of my responses. Feel free to add comments as we go along.
CYBERPERSON: You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
JUSTIN: I completely agree that we often overreact or act inappropriately when our worldview is challenged. Some of this is rooted in fear and misunderstanding. Some of this is because we, like many in our western culture, are lost on the art of conversation.
The other side of this is that, to someone who really does believe something, that belief is more than a worldview or even a belief. In fact, if someone really believes something, that thing is reality itself. In this light, to deny the existence of God to a christian is paramount to denying something like gravity to a physicist.
I would go so far as to say that any article of faith I feel comfortable letting go of in order to avoid conflict or offense is one I must not subscribe to very confidently. The conviction that at times drives christians to offense and insult is the same kind of conviction that drives the church to be responsible for nearly 70% of worldwide hunger aid. We believe that Jesus is found among the hungry and so we feed them. Unfortunately, the nature of humanity is that we must take the good with the bad.
CYBERPERSON- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
JUSTIN- I find the humor in this dichotomy as well but I think you may have missed the mark on this one. The point is that, whether through the process of evolution or by the snap of a finger, God is responsible for the creation of the world, and in particular, Humanity. Personally, I have very little problem with reconciling evolution with Gods hand in creation. I buy into a kind of theory called Intelligent Design, which more conservative brothers and sisters of mine find to be too closely aligned to the dehumanizing theory of evolution.
The feeling among many people of faith is that a purely animal definition of humanity would strip from civilization any kind of moral motivation.. In other words, if I do not have to answer to Divinity why should I modify my behavior? For the sake of my fellow man? But what makes them so special if they are simply the result of a natural process we call evolution? To a christian, the understanding that human beings are created in the likeness of God gives us a sense that if we injure those around us we are damaging the lives of ones God loves. This is, ultimately, the foundation of moral behavior and is why christians are taken aback by the idea that we are simply animals. We believe that we are far more than that. We believe we are children of the God of the universe and that we reflect that God in our very being.
CYBERPERSON: You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.
JUSTIN: To be honest, I don’t actually know many christians who “laugh at polytheists.” I think this paints a rather depreciatory picture of christians as a whole. Let’s try to make this more of a conversation. This kind of generalization/demonizing is rooted in ignorance and fear. Truth is, you don’t know many (if any) christians who actually “laugh” at polytheists. That said:
I realize that the Trinity is a bit weird at first glance. In fact, it’s a bit weird period. Then again, if Divine things were easily interpreted and understood I would personally complain that we weren’t talking about a very impressive Divinity. There are literal volumes of Biblical and extra-Biblical literature on this topic, so I will do it all the justice I can in a limited space. The best analogy I have come across is one I actually heard in an explaination of this diffictulty to a group of 5th graders. Water, ice and steam are all H2o but in different physical forms. God’s different “forms” are not actual forms, but expressions of His Being. Jesus was not the human part of God; He was fully God as a man. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is not the ghost-like part of god that creeps around earth, He is God’s presence in and to His beloved children.
Perhaps I can put it this way: Think about the Trinity as the way we can talk about the activity of God rather than thinking of God the Father sitting down to lunch with Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
This is a response to questions brought up about the last blog.
A quick overview. I have been posting snippets from a conversaton i had online a while ago. El had some great questions, as he usually does. In this case, he is responding to a bit about the christian doctine of the Trinity. El finds a lot wrong with the doctrine. For a full reading of his retort, you can read the comments underneath "Answering Questions Part 3."
With that, away we go...
CyberLance: It's not even in the Bible. You can't find the word "Trinity" anywhere in there, and you especially can't find a verse describing these different aspects of God as the "Father, son and the holy ghost." Go ahead, take a look. I'll wait. Back yet? Didn't find it? Didn't think so
Justin: Insofar as the word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in the bible, I follow you. Paul doesn’t spend much time working out these kinks, and to be honest I think the absence of such doctrinal dealings should lead people of faith away from spending so much energy battling one another as well as others about it. Other issues, such as the poor, are treated far more often. Were we to transfer the energy the church spends fighting over doctrine to dealing with social injustice, we might actually see the Kingdom in our midst, rather than just conceptualize it. That said, I think there is plenty in the Bible to justify the doctrine.
Here is where I see it first: (Gen 1:1-3).
(1:1)”In the beginning God” (there’s the one guy)… (1:2) “… and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” The word “spirit” here is the same word used for “wind” and “spirit.” My take is that in light (no pun intended) of the poetic/metaphoric nature of the passage, it is relatively safe to assume the writer meant more than “and there was literally a light breeze over the literal abyss.” And finally (1:3) “And God said…” The introduction to the Gospel of John is written with a kind of poetic tie to Genesis. Czech it out fo yosef. John begins his letter with “It was the best of times, it was the worst…” wait… that was Dickens…
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (1:1) As John continues it becomes clear that John is equating Jesus to “the Word.” He rounds out the idea (as I will) with “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made…”
In the Genesis account of Creation, God SPOKE all things into existence. By His Word life has life and shape has shape etc… in the same way, the impregnation of Mary was not by some strange sexual encounter with an angel but during what the Catholics refer to as “the Annunciation.” He was “announced” or “spoken” into Mary’s womb. I would “like” to use more “quotes.” Jesus, then, is God’s Word made human, which is a powerful and intriguing poetic image. The spoken word of God is Jesus. Jesus is the spoken word of God. (That’s kinda deep; seriously… you should be sitting down for this.)
In my reading then, I see the Trinity within the first 3 verses of scripture. I realize this is a poetic reading of the Bible. But then, Holy Literature is very often poetic in nature. Unfortunately for you and I both, Lance, much of the “christian” treatment of scripture has been anything but poetic.
CyberLance: It wasn't until 381 CE (AD for the Christians) that it was decided that The Trinity would be official church doctrine. That's over 300 years after Jesus died! If it's such a fundamental aspect of Christian belief, why did it take so long to figure it out?
Justin: Agreed. It’s a good point, but then again, it took humanity a rather long time to shake that whole “flat earth” thing too, but it doesn’t make the “globe theory” (as I like to call it, since I haven’t seen it myself) any less feasible. In fact, I took Spanish for 3 years and never got it down, but I am nonetheless informed that it is a thriving language. I hope you are seeing my point through all the fiddle-faddle and whatnot. The time it took people to recognize something and then work out the terminology shouldn’t be factored into that thought’s feasibility.
CyberLance: The concept of a Trinity isn't even very original to Christianity, as Hinduism has one too, I believe.
Justin: Neither is the concept of Divinity. The fact that the Chinese, Japanese (and maybe rumor has it, the Swiss) caught a clue as to the multitudinous nature of God is testament to the wonderful truth that those who truly and honestly look for the Divine will find It, er… Him… er whatever. I follow with CS Lewis in seeing that the truth of Jesus does not negate the truth of Moses, Buddha, Lao Tzu etc... Jesus is the fulfillment of the truth those men uncovered on their own. Jesus is the Passover Lamb and sacrifice to Moses’ Law, the Passion that extinguishes Buddha’s desire, the Name of the Lao Tzu’s unnamable Tao. The Trinity is the full revelation of what had only partially been uncovered before.
CyberLance: Basically, once Jesus gets introduced to the scene, Christianity has a major problem. You've got somebody who's important, whose word needs to be treated as though it's God Himself talking, but he's not God. From what I've read of The Gospels, Jesus seems to be a clearly different being from God, even talking to him, and wondering why God is putting him through so much misery. "Father, why have you forsaken me?" I mean, if they're one and the same, even different aspects, wouldn't he be hip to the plan? Was he making a rhetorical question? Was the pain so darned intense that he forgot Himself for a moment?
Justin: As I mentioned in the original blogpost, I don’t prepose to understand the functionality or inner workings of God, specifically the Manhood/Godhood of Jesus of Nazareth. It has been a mystery to any and all who look at Jesus that he was God and human at once. I must say, again, that as far as I am concerned, f it wasn’t mysterious, it would be harder to believe. The issue you raise is one very few, if any, can address competently. But then again, why is Krishna blue? Why are there only 10,000 manifestations of the Tao? Why is the Divine so freaking difficult to deal with?
CYBERPERSON: Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
JUSTIN: I think this imbalance is more consumer-driven than religiously accurate. Here is what I mean: it is far easier to sell a nice, polite, considerate, family friendly God whose job is to provide for His people and keep their kids off drugs. So the American Church has constructed such an image of God and traded it in to make the selling of a certain brand of religion a little easier. The catch is that, at some point, people with brains in their heads start to notice the difference between Jesus and christianity.
They begin to recognize that this religion they got themselves into, thinking it would help them get their lives in order has led them to the feet of Jesus, who is claiming Kingship over their lives and instructing them to actively love people they would rather not deal with at all. This, in turn has made things far more complicated since peoples lives are rather messy and unpredictable; especially those in our midst with more immediate needs.
They begin to hear the story change from “what God wants to do for you” to something dramatically different. Jesus seems to be telling them that they are self-centered, overfed and that if they want to truly live they will need to share what they have with those difficult and needy people.
They also begin to see that they have trusted their lives to the hands of the very God who not only allows His children to destroy themselves and one another but also does things like drown thousands of Egyptian soldiers who were obeying orders and pursuing a group of slaves who were lawfully owned by Egypt and had run away (there was no law prohibiting slave ownership in Egypt).
This is where the moral difficulty you pointed out in really comes in. If one subscribes to any kind of Deity at all, one must face the fact that this Being is directly or indirectly responsible for some seriously jacked up crap. It is my understanding that in order to be talking about “God”, we have to be talking about a Being who functions outside of moral parameters. In other words, Divine action is not subject to judgment; instead, Divine action defines reality. The very moment we place Divinity on the docks to be weighed and measured, we are no longer talking about God, but are talking about an invention of human desire and imagination. This is, in fact, exactly where a great deal of thinking people jump ship.
The Genesis account of The Fall cuts to the heart of this issue. The serpent says of the tree’s fruit that “…when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). How is it that God knows good and evil? God does not observe good and evil as principles operating outside His Will that He must learn or subscribe to but, as noted above, defines what is good by His very action. When God moves, the Universe moves with Him and suddenly, any direction other than the one He moves in is death.
So the question is now as it was at the very beginning. Will I submit to the Divine Will or will I put God on trial and crucify him for claiming a false Kingship over my life? Eve chose to define the fruit in her hand as “good” because it was “…good for food… pleasing to the eye and… gaining wisdom” (Gen. 3:6). Or will I choose, like Jesus, to trust and obey despite feeling that there must be a better Way than that of God (Matt. 26:39). Oftentimes, atheists are the people who have actually had the courage to face this conflict in honesty and chosen the way of Nietzsche instead.
In light of this moral conflict we can see why christianity has found it necessary to construct a more palatable picture of God. It’s hard to sell a God who acts like God. It’s easier to sell a God who acts like Mom. It is this incomplete picture of God that we measure against the “atrocities of Allah” and find Allah too cruel. Then again, that might depend on who your mom is…
CYBERPERSON: While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
JUSTIN: It seems that when you use the term “Christianity,” you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Christianity is a religion, by which I mean it is the pattern of practice of a peoples’ faith. Put more elaborately, people who have chosen to follow Jesus do so in a particular way which crates a pattern. As an example, meeting with other followers in their community is part of that pattern; Reading the letters of Paul, the accounts of Jesus life and the Hebrew Scriptures is often part of that pattern as well. Praying and meditating somewhat regularly are also often part of that pattern. Over the course of the roughly two thousand years since his life, death, resurrection and ascension, the commonalities found in the pattern of Jesus’ followers has formed a kind of consensus as to what it looks like to follow Him. These common consistencies compose what we now call call “christianity.” While I have a great deal of respect for the practices of those who follow Jesus, especially as I am one of them, I also recognize that it is a dire mistake to overemphasize the pattern created in doing so. I know I risk making life too much about goals by doing this but I will nonetheless use the following analogy to describe the difference between religion and what followers often call a “relationship with God:” It is much like mistaking the steps I take toward an exit door for the exit itself. There is the exit door and then there are the steps I take to move towards it.
I only begin thus because in saying that “science, history, geology, biology, and physics” have uprooted christianity as a whole is perhaps saying more than I think you intended.
Certainly, The Church ignorantly claimed the earth was the center of the solar system and suppressed the voices of those who knew otherwise. Somehow, christians found the centrality of the earth essential to their “christianity.” Christians also got excited about the Shroud of Turin, thinking it could “prove” the reliability of Biblical resurrection accounts. So much so that when the Shroud was dated some time around the 13th or 14th century A.D., christians bent the rules of science and called the researchers liars. Again, christians felt that the archeological authenticity of the Shroud was essential to their christianity. As regards those kinds of things, I completely agree that christians tend to wrap the essentials of faith with non-essentials and that these non essentials continue to get ripped apart by sharp, critical, scientific minds. In fact, I agree that the kind of christianity that is wrapped up in scientific affirmations of its reliability is utter nonsense.
I am assuming that your reference to biology is an allusion to the Creation/Evolution issue. Assuming that it is, I will say two things in response. First, I find no real problem with reconciling evolution with the hand of God. The issue for many believers (christian and otherwise) is not so much HOW the thing got started but that there is/was/will be a Divine hand behind it all. Secondly and unfortunately, many christians have placed evolution in the same position as previous generations have held the centrality of the earth or the Shroud of Turin. But like these other issues, the mechanics of natural development are not essential to believing in Jesus and it is a tragedy that so many feel that it is.
Divinity is a subject that Science, by definition, does not touch on. I am not naïve enough to believe that science’s inability to disprove God’s existence or the Divinity of Jesus is somehow evidence in favor of those who believe. This kind of logic blows up as soon as some loony claims to have small, invisible friends in his coat pockets. No measure of scientific examination will lend weight to either the affirmation or debunking of such a claim. Similarly, foolish christians will at times attempt to move faith into the scientific realm in an effort, I can only assume, to assuage their own doubts about the validity of the supernatural. I believe that the criticism of those who continue to strip the ridiculous and base from the Divine and Revelatory is more of a favor than it is a threat to religion. It allows believers to separate what is truly real from what is only a shadow of reality, freeing us to follow Jesus as he truly is, rather than as he is as tainted by the fears and expectations of those who seek to shape Him into their desired image of Divinity.
It is a historically verified fact that Jesus was an actual person and that he had an immense influence on his world. The interpretation of the nature of that influence is a serious question, but again, interpretation of events is not the primary job of historians. What is essential to the practice of my faith is Jesus himself. It is his teaching that I submit my life to, His compassion I seek to emulate, His life, death and resurrection I believe in as the fullest revelation of the Divine.
To end on a personal note and at the great risk of being cheesy, I will say this: Through the eyes of Darwin and Huxley, I see a God who selected one galaxy form the vast universe, one solar system from that expansive galaxy, one planet from the bodies that make up that system, one species from the many who inhabit that planet, one people from among that species, and one Person from among those people through which to make Himself most fully known. While you may read this differently, I see a beautiful consistency between the activity of God and the activity of His created world.
CYBERPERSON- You define 0.01 as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99AILURE was simply the will of God.
JUSTIN- It can really seem that way sometimes. This is particularly the case if we view prayer solely as a way to get things or get things done and God as the Cosmic Bellhop. If we view prayer as a self-serving tool by which we get what we want from God, then perhaps it is true that prayer has a.01 uccess rate. But that is not what true prayer is. That is a very small aspect to prayer. Ultimately, prayer is about learning that your life is not about you. The heart of all true prayer is the prayer of Jesus who, upon recognizing what the Way of God would cost him, prayed: Not my will, but Yours be done.
Example: If I go to God in prayer and ask him to help me because I am short on money to pay the bills, I am likely asking something more specific than just help with the bills. Chances are I am asking for more money in one way or another since, in my estimation, that would be the best solution to my dilemma. I am looking for a specific solution to my problem. But what if no money comes? What if, instead, my iPod freezes and my television service rates jump another $15 because my contract ran out? How do I read this? Is it that: 1. God is a farce and my issues persist despite asking for help? Or that: 2. God is real but hes a punk. Or maybe its: 3. The money I had been spending on entertainment had been piling up while I had less room to spend it in light of my actual necessities. Perhaps God, instead of handing me more money, is teaching me to know what I really need so that I will value what I have. Valuing what I have may make me far more thankful a person. That thankfulness may lead me to become more generous and that generosity may transform me into a person who helps those who are less fortunate than myself. (I know the above example is a bit simple,.. i.e. there are more than 3 ways to read the scenario, but Im trying to keep this from being a book)
But, you might say, That would mean that I will only receive what I ask for so long as I ask for what God wants for mer. To a degree thats true, but even in asking that kind of question you would be playing the same game as before; thinking that the key to getting what you want is to want the right things. Ultimately, it would still be about what you want. Looking at Scriptural History, God is not interested in giving out what people want; He is ushering in a new Kingdom and a better Way. Prayer is one of the disciplines by which he changes the hearts, minds and behaviors of those through whom He is bringing this Kingdom. We all go to God in prayer with this very motive; we are, in a sense, led to God by our selfishness. But once we are there, like a good parent, God often disappoints our expectations in order to educate us in what is truly valuable.
Now, this all gets a little harder when we start talking about death, disease etc but that doesnt mean the principle changes. Believe me, as someone who prayed his guts out that my father wouldnt kill himself and then watched in disbelief and anger when he did anyway, I understand the emotional side to this conversation. I understand what it is like to think that God did not do what he should have, especially in light of the earnestness of my prayer. But here is the hard truth: much of my desire to see God rescue my father was rooted in my fear of pain and were not noble or altruistic. Certainly, I didnt want my father to suffer, and more to the point, I wanted him to live and love life; but the truth is that what drove me to seek divine intervention was that I did not want to hurt the way I knew I would should I lose him. This, I think, is true of just about all of us. A large part, if not the main part of our aversion to tragedy is how it makes us feel. WE dont like pain so whatever makes us uncomfortable is quickly labeled unjust.
What I could not take into account at the time was that my fathers death might be the source of life for other men. Yet, only one week after we scattered my dads ashes, I sat in the living room with a friends father and told him my fathers story. This man I sat with had openly shared his suicidal thoughts with family members, including his son. Our conversation was part of the ladder he climbed out of the destructive pattern of thought his depression had him trapped in. I know its uncomfortable to think in these terms, but death is necessary for the advancement of life. We very often only learn from pain. Much of what we ask for in prayer would save us the momentary discomfort of suffering personally but would, in the long run, steal life from countless others.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, I find it disturbing that we often attack the apparent inactivity of God when tragedy strikes but seldom take as sober or critical a look at our own activity. 30,000 kids die every day because they dont have enough food or clean water. The easy thing is to ask Where is God in that? Why doesnt he do something? But what if he did? What if what he did was send you? What if what he did was give you, as well as the rest of us here in the US, so much more than we truly need that we could, should we choose to, address the hunger issues of at least that many kids if not more and still feed ourselves? As the facts have it, we throw away enough food every day (in the US) to feed those 30,000 kids as well as their families and THEN we have the nerve to say that God doesnt do enough to help.
The kind of prayer you are talking about is the childish, self-centered kind with which we can, in essence, do whatever the hell we want and then ask God to clean up our messes. That kind of prayer does not warrant an answer. True Prayer does change things, but primarily it changes the one praying.
CYBERPERSON- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.
JUSTIN-While I am sure this may be the case in certain scenarios, I'd doubt it as a rule. Nonetheless, I understand the spirit of the comment and have some thoughts.
Much of our subculture (that is, chritendom) has reduced the Gospel to something to this effect: "Jesus died to rescue me from my sin so that when I die, my sin will not prevent me from entering heaven." This is what my pastor calls Barcode Christianity. It's a brand of religious thought that overemphasizes life after death and underplays the importance of a person's role in the healing and redemption of the world while alive. Christians who have adopted this line of religious thought tend to feel that once they have "accepted Jesus" the next step is to live the rest of their lives in a kind of holding pattern, waiting for earthly life to be over so that they can receive their reward for correctly choosing Christ, which is eternal life in Heaven.
The lack of urgency this kind of religious thought produces is evidenced by the lack of knowledge you are eluding to with your question. Given the eschatological framework set by Barcode Christianity and thinking that the point of life on earth is to find the correct Savior before I die, once I have been stamped with my Jesus barcode, which grants me entrance into heaven upon my death, I don't have much reason to examine the complexities of my faith much less the responsibility that comes along with it. Often one can hear Christianity summarized with a phrase at least similar to: "All I need to know is that He loves me." While the knowledge of God's love is central to a life of faith, it has been a dramatic mistake to allow the whole of christian theology to be boiled down to John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whomever believes in him shall not perish but inherit eternal life."
Aside from the fact that words like "believe", and "eternal life" remain undefined by this sentence alone and are left to be elucidated by the rest of Scripture, this holy sound-byte, while being deeply important, represents the central event/idea of (dare I say it?) a larger story. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the centerpiece of God's activity in human History. Likewise, the "salvation" made available to the individual through this central act is the centerpiece of Christianity, but is by no means its totality.
A more well-rounded Gospel sound-byte is provided by Paul of Tarsus in his letter the the Ephesians where he writes:
"You are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in order that you might do the works he prepared in advance for you to do."
I particularly like the way Paul's sound-byte provides a context for personal salvation. I am not "saved" simply so that I can avoid Hell. I am rescued for a purpose. I am, in fact, invited to become part of the rescue effort; a partner with God in the redemption of the world; a process in which the salvation of individual lives plays a role, but again, is not the whole story. It is an incomplete (and ultimately self-centered) view of the Gospel to think that thousands of years of Jewish history, including the life, death and resurrection of Jesus find their culmination in MY soul's salvation.
The people of Israel have historically been referred to as "the people of the Book" because of the depth and passion of their study into the Torah. They believe that, as God's Chosen, they represent to the world the Way of Salvation. In other, more dramatic terms: The Torah, manifest in the lives of those who live it, is the truest, most comprehensive revelation of the Divine. Levitical Law (moral and dietary instruction) is intended to shape the Nation of Israel into a people set apart; an example for the sake of the rest of Humanity of the goodness of God's Way. Should the Way of God not be revealed, through God's people, to His world, there is no hope for peace, justice, etc…
This is the context lacking in much of contemporary American Christianity. It is far easier to sell a religion whose sales pitch is rooted in the value of my soul; a theology in which God's core motivation is how lovable I am; a religion that provides me with comfort and inspiration while asking or expecting little or nothing of me. But this is not the religion of Jesus the Christ, whether or not we name the practice of it after Him.
I have spoken with a number of atheists who have knowledge of the Bible and Church History. I also recognize that often, that knowledge is limited to certain aspects of Christianity. This is particularly true as it relates to the people who practice Christianity. Atheists can be very quick to reference the Crusades or the Roman Catholic Church's suppression of Galileo. Meanwhile they would be very slow to credit the Vatican for its role in preserving countless works of art that would have very likely been lost or destroyed otherwise. One might be quick to refer to Paul as a misogynist, quoting from 2 particular verses in his letters but might not be as familiar with the names of women who formed part of the foundation of the early church, or that John, in his account of the crucifixion, makes a point of mentioning the women who had not abandoned Jesus during his trial. I wouldn't want to make this entire entry about finding balances for some imaginary atheist's criticisms, but I would be remiss if I didn't make the point that, just as it is the case with uninformed Christians, any person's knowledge is shaped by his motive to know a particular subject.
Atheists have a great deal motivating them to understand, evaluate and criticize the Bible, the Church and Christianity. They know that if it is true, and that not only is there a God, but that he really was born as a man, lived, died and rose, then life takes on an entirely different shape. Suddenly, one would find himself at war with certain aspects of ones own heart, mind and body; he would no longer be 'free' in the way he understood freedom before, but would, instead, be led to submit his will to Another, believing that His Way is not just better but best.
Atheists often respond to Christianity with the same urgency as a man who has just been told that his house may be on fire. While there is a possibility that the information he just received is untrue, or that someone might have mistaken someone else's house for his, he calls his neighbors to cross check the information. Yet, as much as he might trust his neighbors, he also knows what it would mean if they were mistaken. He has to see the evidence for himself. Seeing his house from the outside, he finds some assurance in that there is no external evidence of fire. But he enters nonetheless and walks through every room of the house until he is absolutely certain. In a way, I believe many atheists know far more deeply what it might mean if all these strange things were to be proven true.
To close on a different note, I want to make clear that true Christianity is not a religion of qualifications. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Neither entry nor long-term membership is dependent upon ones knowledge of Scripture or History. People chose to follow Jesus because they recognize their need is greater than the world's ability or willingness to help. We are also people who recognize that, even with "9 months wages", we could not feed the 5000 people we are asked to feed. We are people who long to bear the weight of the 30,000 children who die of malnutrition each day and recognize that a permanent solution is unreachable, not only in light of the miles of political bureaucracy and lack of available resources, but also the selfishness and shortsightedness of humanity at heart. We are people who know we need a Savior.
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.
Allow me to begin with a quick story (as opposed to trying to stop me, which, for numerous reasons, would be very difficult if not impossible for you to do). Several years ago, while I was substitute teaching, I went to put my name on the substitute list of a private high school, having heard that some of the private schools paid more than the public schools I was currently working in. At this private school, I was handed a “statement of faith” that I was required to sign before being added to the call list. Most of the items on the list were basic Christian doctrine. Things like:
1. I believe Jesus is the Son of God
2. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God
3. I believe this whole ‘global warming’ thing is a paranoid fantasy fabricated by the Liberal Left in their fruitless crusade to make us all more “sensitive.”
Towards the bottom of the list of faith-articles I found two items in rather intriguing. The first was “I believe the earth was created in six literal days.” The other statement would have had me agree that the earth was roughly 6000 years old. I could not sign the statement in good conscience and thereby forfeited the opportunity to teach at what, I am sure, is an academic powerhouse.
While I had heard that some Christians believed these things, I had never considered the issues central to my faith. Just as I did then, I still consider both these ideas and the discussions surrounding them interesting but nonetheless rather unessential to Christianity. Nonetheless, certain somewhat influential elements in Christian media give far too much weight to these kinds of ideas. By placing such things as the age of the earth so to close to the center of our religion, we make Christianity’s middle soft, leaving the weight of the Gospel to be held up by flimsy and questionable doctrine.
I won’t do a full-blown treatment of these topics. They are covered by far more qualified people than myself. What I will do is give a brief overview of my perspective, which I hope will provide some clarity as to why I consider the age of the earth and the question of literal creation days to be non-essentials.
LITERAL DAYS:
Many of those who oppose a more poetic reading of Genesis chapter 1 would agree that…
“If the days of creation are really ‘geologic ages’ of millions of years, then the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns and suffering before the Fall.”
-answersingenesis.com
This kind of thought generally finds its Biblical roots in places such as the 5th chapter of Romans where Paul wirites:
12) Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all because all have sinned.
First of all, looking at that verse in context, Paul is specifically referring to the Redemption of Humanity. There is nothing in the previous chapter or the following few verses to provide any ground by which the idea of death not happening before the Fall can apply to animals, plants, etc…
Secondly, if there were no death before the Fall, we have a handful of other problems on our… um... hands… (…that metaphor got weird). For instance, what did animals eat if not other animals? Plants, you might say. Well sure, but eating a plant might make it hard for that plant to go on living… at least, that’s my experience, but I’m no plant-ologist.
Lastly, and perhaps most revealing, God informs Adam in Genesis Chapter 2 that, should he eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would “surely die.” How would Adam understand the connotation if He had not already witnessed death in some form? It seems to me that the death that enters the world through sin is unique to Humanity.
Also, there are some literary problems with reading the Creation account as six literal days. Not the least of which being the sun and moon (the rising and setting of which determine the 24-hour period we shape our “day” around) aren’t created until the fourth day. This shouldn’t be read as a literary mistake on the part of the writer as he tries to convince us of his “literal days” theory as much as it is a clear sign that the text is not written as a step-by step guide on “How To Create The Universe Should This One Not Work Out So Well.”
THE YOUNG EARTH
Young Earth theorists work backwards from birth and death dates of Biblical characters to establish the earth’s age as roughly 6000 years. One major problem is that if we throw out the science by which the earth is generally dated, we also through out the science that has proved the Bible to be a reliable source for archeology, which in turn, underscores the reliability of the Bible to have accurately dated the births and deaths of those persons to begin with.
Second and lastly, the theory of a Young Earth hinges on the process of creation taking place rather quickly… let’s say about six days, give or take a day off. On the other hand, if the universe (or the earth alone for that matter) was formed over millions of years, then the door not only closes on the Young Earth theory but also is opened for evolution to take place. So then, this theory rests on the shoulders of another questionable theory, which is just bad planning; almost like developing hundreds of thousands of homes along the largest fault-line in North America. I mean, who would do that? (big hint: California)
The Bible makes no clear case for either the Theory of Evolution or a Literal Day Creation, for a Young or Old Earth theory or the Theory of the Lone Shooter, for that matter. That is not Scripture’s purpose. It is not a science text. The Word of God is the text in which His People learn to discern God’s character, His Justice, His Mercy as well as His Plan. Insofar as this is the case, my subscription to any of the above theories neither bolsters nor diminishes the Gospel’s role in my life. I am part of a long history between God and Humanity; I am a sinner in need of a Savior; That Savior is Jesus and He is accessible to me because of His Father’s Grace: That same Grace will continue to be the source of my life as I am made an offering to my world in the likeness of Jesus; that is what the Bible tells me.
If the good folks over at AnswersInGenesis.com want to tell people that by believing something other than they do about Creation we are “undermining the foundations of the Gospel” I would only warn them that they are wading into some very dangerous waters. In a letter to the church in Galatia, Paul wrote of these kinds of people:
As we have said before, so I now repeat, if any one proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed. (Gal 1:9)
The men Paul is writing about in the above passage wanted to tack onto the Gospel certain things that did not belong; Specific religious requirements (most often including circumcision) that disallowed certain kinds of people access to the Gospel of Jesus. How different is it to require of people that they believe specific scientific theories in order to be sure of their salvation?
Now, I haven’t laid out the most comprehensive argument here, but that was not my intention. I only wanted to make somewhat clear that I don’t have to walk away from the Bible should I disagree with the Young Earth/Literal Creation Day theorists. My faith remains entirely intact. The sad truth is that much of the effort on the part of Christian media to make a “literal day” or Young Earth argument is motivated by a fear of evolution. We really don’t want to be related to fish, it seems. It also seems that to some Christians, being created in the image of God means our being created must have happened in “this” or “that” particular way and not another. When we let fear dictate the way we see our world, we end up with something less than the truth, and more tragically, something less than God.
CYBERPERSON: You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
JUSTIN: I will begin with something that seems a bit out of context, but was my first thought upon reading your question: I take issue with the thought that Christianity, as one religious product on the market, has to compete for shelf space with the other religions. As if, by giving any credit to Taoism, one is devaluing Christianity; sort of an all or nothing approach to comparative religions. There is a middle ground (for lack of a better term) to be found between the asinine thought that all religions are the same and the arrogance of saying that only my religion gets it right. Elsewhere I have written that I dont so much believe that Jesus is better as I do that Jesus is complete. In other words: The life, death and resurrection of Jesus fulfills the Taoist, Buddhist desire to attain wholeness in the Divine; or the Jewish, Muslim desire to be sanctified and holy in Gods sight. As I said, this may seem somewhat out of context, but I hope to come back around to this very point before I am done.
More directly, I believe that the similarities between religions and the pattern of similar stories in mythology, both modern and ancient, are like a fingerprint of the Divine in culture. What I mean is this: If there is a Divine Source behind creation, wouldnt it make sense that as we craft religions, doi so as best we could from our most comprehensive understanding of creation and its order, including the human heart/psyche, that our work would reflect the original Work? Wouldnt there be at least some reflection of the Divinity that ordered creation in our creation? I think it works much like a master study in an art class. Students working from a classic work like Monets Lilys will paint pieces that are made up of both their own tendencies but mostly the distinctive elements of Monets original work. Similarly, bands often reflect their influence as they create their own style. Countless bands can be caught almost blatantly mirroring the Beatles. John Mayers guitar style is distinctly reminiscent of Stevie Ray Vaughn. Ashlee Simpson well the analogy only works to a degree Point being: If it is the God who created the world we are seeking after, then, as we see Him in His Work and then shape our religious understanding around those glimpses, wouldnt there be some similarity in the stories we tell to explain the Divine?
Allow me to admit that this is by no means an original thought. In fact far better men than I am have far more clearly articulated this same thought: In the same way that Antoni Gaudi, artist and architect, spoke of his creative inspiration by saying that All forms are present in nature first, C.S. Lewis, philosopher, professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature writes, in an essay about a very similar question as the one at hand The pattern is there in Nature because it was first there in God transpositions of the Divine theme in to a minor key. Lastly, Pat Robertson, a prominent member of the Christian Right, is quoted as saying There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore. This last quote might be rather out of context but its funny as hell.
Religious creativity is generally rooted in either a search for Divine Essence or a necessarily limited understanding of it; We are either looking for God and creating patterns, practices and stories as we do so, or we see God and that vision inspires us to live out these patterns, practices and stories. In fact, I think that the very myths and legends you reference in your question have their value, not in their relation to one another, (as if common consensus were at all the measuring stick of value; Lindsay Lohans record went platinum) but their relation to the common truth(s) from which they derive and to which they point. As a Christian, I believe the same God who is responsible for creating a universe teeming these truths and patterns, for instance the cycle of life and death in nature, has revealed Himself, at a particular moment in a particular place through a particular people, and ultimately, in a particular Man, whose death is the seed of eternal life. It is in this historical revelation that myth and history find a strange and wonderful balance. Better yet, in Jesus Christ the estranged siblings Myth and History find themselves to be one and the same.
In Jesus we have a living, breathing, dying and once again living symbolism: both metaphor and its literal application. Jesus is both allegory and the meaning alluded to; both parable and ethic; all in the same way that he is both God and Man. It is the God-Man essence of Jesus that gives Myth its root and History meaning.
Were that there was another way to say this; one less easily misinterpreted as religious arrogance, but I am not an intelligent enough (or diplomatic enough) man to do so. That said, here is my best shot at a bottom line: The Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women you begin your question with are actually shadows of the Divine Reality which is finally and fully realized in the allegory, the myth, the parable, the story and the history of Jesus Christ. This is why a true Christian should embrace the symbolic and mythical traditions of history as supportive of and even supplemental to the Christ-story.
(
huge clarifying thread)
CYBERPERSON: You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
JUSTIN: Nuh-huh Do not. Hmph. (stomps away and wipes nose)
Actually, with your question you point at a considerable gap between contemporary American Christianity and the teachings of Jesus; namely, the centrality of the Afterlife. This is a point worth spending some time on, which I will momentarily. But you also make a rather serious error in measuring Christianity in terms of tolerance and love. Both tolerance and love are rather more complicated ideas than your question allows for and I think you missed the mark on both of them.
Lets look at the first bit or your question first since it was the first bit
HEAVEN AND HELL
For many people, Christianity is a kind of gateway to Heaven. In fact, the primary benefit advertised by Christians over the course of our religions evangelical history has been exactly that, by becoming a Christian, one could avoid Hell and, instead, live knowing that death meant entry into Heaven; by which I mean, of course, an eternity of skiing perfect, un-groomed powder runs with all your friends and then relaxing in the spa. Heaven, in this scenario, becomes a kind of reward for answering correctly the question: Which religion is best? (as well as looking distinctly like Aspen).
This teleology is, first of all, blatantly self-centered and, secondly, un-Biblical. First, By placing the afterlife at the center of Christs teachings and positing Heaven as a reward, Christians have stripped the Gospel of its heart; appealing to survival instinct rather than calling humanity to something deeper, nobler and more pressing than saving ones own skin. Theres nothing much of nobility or honor in subscribing to a religion in order to take care of ones self. We are quite capable of doing that on our own without having to ask for Divine assistance. In the human brains system preferences, under ethics, the operating systems default setting is self preservation. True religion calls a man outside himself and transforms his life. False religion appeals to his desires and sells him what he wants.
I have sometimes even heard well-meaning preachers refer to the present life as dress-rehearsal for the real life, which is to come. But the devaluing of our time here on earth is soundly un-Biblical. In fact, far from being clear as to any kind of heavenly requirements, the Jewish scriptures are hazy at best when it comes to life after death. The moral and behavioral framework of the Torah was laid out, not as a blueprint for the life that qualifies one for heaven, but quite the opposite. Gods instructions are tied to Divine blessings and curses that had nothing at all to do with a persons soul after death. A perfect example of this is found smack dab in the middle of the Ten Commandments themselves:
Honor your father and your mother so that you may live long in the land the Lord is giving you -Exodus 20:12
In the New Testament, Jesus spends very little time laying out any kind of requirement for entry into Heaven. In fact, the more I look at the instances in which Jesus does spend time teaching on the Afterlife, I notice a quite revealing pattern: He almost always brings the teaching or discussion around to responsibility and action in life as we already know it. For instance, in Matthews Gospel, Jesus speaks with a young man who outright asks him Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? (I hesitate somewhat to use this passage in that Im not altogether certain the writer is referring to the afterlife. Nonetheless, here is the conversation that follows:)
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. -Matthew 19:16-22
Jesus destroys this young mans hope for a formula to live by. He wants to do X and Y to be sure that he gets Z; (This is the formulaic brand of religion too many well-meaning Protestants communicate to the world.) Jesus fields his expectations and brings responds with a question of responsibility to the poor. It is almost as if he is hinting at the question How does your morality affect your world? Providing a different context for the moral life; One that is not framed by a desire to get to Heaven, but rather, the transformation of my world here and now.
In a separate teaching recorded in Matthew, perhaps the most recognizable of its kind, Jesus paints a picture of the Judgment, teaching that the Son of Man will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And what does the Son of Man use as a standard of Judgment? What is it that separates one group from the other? Surely, if one were to ascribe to popular Christianitys gospel, the sheep are on their way to receive eternal reward for choosing the correct religion. Instead, its something else.
I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me Matthew 25:34-40
Again with the poor. What is this guy just obsessed with people who dont have enough to live on? Sheesh. It seems that often, when Jesus approaches the subject of the afterlife, He makes a point of turning the conversation to responsibility and action (specifically to the poor) rather than allowing his listeners to frame their moral motivations with the self-centered desire to be approved by God and live an eternity of eating ice-cream for lunch (double scoops chocolate mint waffle cone).
What you point out with your question is popular Christianitys deviation from Christs intention. We have centralized the Afterlife and made our religion about getting in. We have, in turn, made getting in about thinking the right things theologically or even doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Christs teachings are far more comprehensive and nowhere near as formulaic or self-centered as those of popular Christianity. While Heaven does appear in Jesus teachings, it is not the point. His Kingdom is the point; in which Justice takes center stage and His People arent waiting for Heaven for things to be set straight. You are right to criticize.
TOLERANCE AND CONVERSATION (that sounds like a good album name)
As I mentioned earlier, I really do think you missed the mark regarding your definitions of both tolerance and love. I would agree with you that I dont think Christianity is tolerant in the way you seem to define it. But you seem to believe, along with a great many in our culture, that tolerance has something to do with not believing very ardently in anything. That to believe one is right or, heaven forbid, to believe someone else is wrong is intrinsically intolerant. I wholeheartedly disagree. To believe other than the man next to me is not intolerant. To hold differing political opinions than my neighbor is not intolerant. On the other hand, to refuse an open discourse with either of them regarding our different worldviews is intolerant. To disallow certain perspectives or voices from the common table of cultural conversation is intolerant. I dont have to accept an idea as bearing equal weight as those that form the foundation of my own worldview to be tolerant. In fact, I can even find certain ideas foolish and still be tolerant.
Proponents of the kind of tolerance you want from Christians seem to (dare I day it) believe that to believe anything absolutely is a fault. But people who call that tolerance wouldnt know real tolerance if it burnt down their church. What you are wanting is not, after all, tolerance. What you are asking is for a kind of philosophical subjectivism: a mindset that, if you truly subscribe to it, would render your exercise in criticizing Christianity meaningless. Why would it matter that popular Christianity was such a mess? Even you, simply by pointing out the things you have, seem to believe that there is a way to conduct ourselves as human beings and that many Christians, in the name of our religion, deviate from that way. There is no avoiding this sense that there is some right in the world. It is what drives us at our core. True tolerance should allow us to discuss and debate our differences in understanding these core ideas rather than neuter ideas in order to limit the intensity of the debate.
NICENESS AND LOVE
Lastly, I understand, from your perspective, that to announce to someone that they have strayed form the way that is best and that they are unable to rightly govern themselves is not nice. Unfortunately, from the Christian perspective, the above statement is true of every human being on earth. In light of this, the loving thing to do is tell them. Much the same way as you would be remiss were you not to tell a friend that he is on fire. Of course, were a person on fire, chances are, they would know without your having to tell them. But that is the strangeness of the human condition: There are many things that would seem obvious about our behavior and its consequences that we nonetheless ignore. Over-eating, drug abuse, the ridiculous gap between the wealthy and poor etc we seem to have this astounding propensity for self-destruction.
Perhaps, then, the analogy of the burning friend is not so ridiculous. It is, in fact, exactly the burning friend who thinks the accusation that he is on fire is such a joke. Wouldnt I know if I were on fire? he asks. But that is just the point. He doesnt. And though I may seem unkind to pursue the subject with him, particularly in that he is done hearing from me about it, the truly loving thing to do is to forsake niceness and throw water on him.
The way you frame your question makes it seem to me that you are equating Love with niceness. At the least, you seem to be making niceness the primary quality of love. As if saying that someone is loving is the same as saying that he is nice; or that to tell someone they are wrong is unkind and, therefore, unloving. I definitely part ways with you here. Niceness is, well nice and all, but love is something far more powerful, far more beautiful. That is, at least as the Bible defines love. Christians themselves have made too much of niceness as the evidence that Jesus lives in our hearts. But this is what is written about love in the New Testament:
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life or us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. -1 John 3:16
The Bible defines love with the image of Jesus on the cross. An act that, to say the least, is severely lessened by calling it a niceness. The Christian understanding of Christs death is that it was (and is) an unmotivated gesture of immeasurable sacrifice. God chooses to act on behalf of Humanity in order that Humanity can have eternal life. (While this is not widely accepted outside Biblical circles, it is the foundation of a truly Christian idea of love). God, by nature, does not need anything (not even money for a new building) and does not personally benefit from the redemption of Mankind. So then, why does God create at all? Why does God act at all? Because He chooses to.
A friend of mine named Greg, during a trip to Monrovia, Liberia was walking with a man he had met only a few days before. During the walk, this Liberian man (without so much as an American dollar to his name) told my friend he wanted to make him a full-length traditional Liberian dress. The gift was worth nearly a months wages and, knowing this, Greg was overwhelmed by the offer. Greg asked the Liberian man Why would you do that? What the man said in return was striking: You are my friend. I want to. That is a picture of the kind of action that is the mark of Christian Love.
God acts because he chooses to, and this pure act is what the Bible identifies as Love. Thomas Aquinas describes the action of God as pure act, highlighting Gods lack of motive. This is what the writer of 1John means when, only one chapter later he writes: God is Love (1 John 4:16). In a sense, the writer answers the above question about why God acts by saying Because that is who He is. Why does God act lovingly? Because He is love.
To act in love, then is to act in step with God; selflessly; for the sake of another; for the benefit of ones friends, ones world. This is something far greater than niceness. Niceness doesnt bind a marriage together. Niceness doesnt bring justice to oppressed people. A man does not offer his life as a sacrifice in the name of niceness. Niceness does not call a people to give their time and money so that the tables of economic balance are set evenly for each human being regardless of the place they are born. Love, on the other hand does all these things and then some. But it is not always nice. Love does, in fact, kick down doors and turn tables over when things are not right.
It almost goes without saying that Christians can often be overzealous, offensive or unkind. But such meatheads as show up at gay pride parades with signs reading you are all going to hell and whatnot are an accurate representation of the Christian message to the same degree as David Hasselhof is an accurate representation of American music. The message about going to hell is overemphasized to say the least. The message of Jesus Christ is an invitation to life, not a ticket out of death. It is an invitation to purpose, meaning, hope, joy and peace. It is an invitation to live out of the knowledge that you are accepted by the Creator of the universe and dont need to look like one of the Bowflex models in order to feel good about yourself. It is an invitation to offer yourself as a living sacrifice for the benefit of humanity; to be a part of setting things right and ushering justice to a world more and more devoid of it; to know that you are part of something more than yourself and that every day you live is a day in which there is that much more Heaven on earth. It is an invitation to a life of Love.
I actually do find the Christian message more loving than any other religious narrative precisely because a follower of Jesus is called to Love the way Christ did (remember 1John 3:16). Deeper than niceness. Deeper than making people feel good about themselves. A Christian is called to Love in a way that puts food in empty stomachs and defends the cause of the oppressed; real mercy for real needs. A Christian is called to work and give and sacrifice so that we can live on earth as it is in heaven. Even if that means pissing a few people off.
