Respecting the Traditions

The following short essay considers “other” religions. I am privileged to be blogging with Tyler.

And now, a-hum, as we were saying…

- – - – -

This is my creed: love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

I believe in God. And since God – the lover of justice and peace and beauty – is my Lord, I take it upon myself, or perhaps take it within myself, to love justice, peace and beauty like he does.

The creed I mentioned above is worded as it is worded in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. But I do not believe that the Bible is “God’s holy word” “come down from heaven.” I believe that the Bible, religious texts in general, and religions themselves, are the work of humans, albeit  humans who have had spiritual experiences of all kinds. It’s not for me to say which experiences were “real” and which religious leaders were really touched by God. But I believe it happens: people encounter God.

The other thing about religious texts in particular and religious traditions in general is that they tend to represent the distilled wisdom of an entire eta, community or culture. This is nothing to sneeze at. I don’t think any writing is worthy of being followed blindly, of course, but there’s something to be said for the wisdom of the ages.

The creed mentioned earlier can be summed up in one word. Love. I know it in its Deuteronomy six form and Matthew 22/Mark 12 form instead of any of the other forms it has in texts and traditions around the world. These particular forms are meaningful to me because I understand where the words are coming from. I came from a culture that embraces the Bible. And, honestly, the Bible is an awesome book that has had a huge impact on my life and, incidentally, on world history.

In light of my aforestated views, however, I do not hold the Bible as the only source of “truth,” nor it’s traditional author, the Christian God, as the only “authority.” Nor indeed can an authority be identified from among the traditions.

I believe that God exists and that he is a lover of justice and peace and beauty. So, considering this, and in the absence of further specifics, I hold any text and tradition that aligns with these sacred values as equally “inspired,” and equally worthy of my respect.

Yeshua Barjoseph: The Historical Jesus

Jay and I are attempting to “resurrect” (no pun intended) our long dormant blog and breathe some new life into it. We have agreed to tackle some theological issues that we both have wrestling with over the past year or so.

While we have different kinds of personalities, Jay Howard and Tyler Tankersley share a lot in common. One of those similarities is the way we tend to approach our faith journeys. Both Jay and I are not interested in being spoon-fed preconceived doctrines that serve no other purpose other than rousing false allegience or lulling our concerns back to sleep. Instead, we seek a faith that is genuine and real. We seek a faith that is intelligent and heart-felt. We seek a faith that is spiritual and authentic.

With that in mind, I am going to try and write a short series on the life of Jesus. This first post will discuss various aspects of the life of the historical Jesus. The next four posts will cover the portrayal of Jesus in the four canonical Gospels (Mattie, Marky-Mark, Lukie, and Johnny-Be-Good).

Knowing about Jesus

One of the problems with studying Jesus is that perhaps we are all a little too familiar with him. Flannery O’Connor once said that we live in a “Christ haunted culture.” Everywhere we go in the United States, we see Jesus. Let’s face it, Jesus is big here:

-Some of the most well-known pieces of art in history have focused on portraying the life of Jesus.
-The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and the National Geographic Channel have all released documentaries discussing the life of Jesus.
-Politicians like to talk about Jesus…a lot. Every election year, Democratic and Republican candidates all like to align themselves with Jesus. Many will even list Jesus as their favorite philosopher.
-Christian retailing is a $4 billion a year business. A career path you may want to consider.

So, everybody seems to have an opinion on Jesus. We talk about “What Would Jesus Do” and we quote Jesus on billboards lining the interstate.

And if we have any doubt as to what Jesus said or did, we just pick up a Bible. And what do you know, every word of Jesus’ is in red.

We tend to treat the life of Jesus like it is this well-documented, easy-to-understand subject.

Yeshua

Many of us have this huge body of knowledge that we draw upon when it comes to Jesus.

But there are problems.

For one thing, his last name was not Christ, and his first name was not “Jesus.” Jesus is a translation of the Hebrew name: “Yeshua” (it can also be translated as: Joshua). Christ is not a name. It is a title that is attributed to the Hebrew Messiah. Yeshua would have been followed by “Bar-Joseph” (son of Joseph). So, Yeshua Barjoseph.

The primary sources we have about Jesus are pretty confusing. In the Christian scriptures there are four canonical (meaning: “ruled in”) Gospels. Most people know these: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are divided into two groups: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) and the Gospel of John.

It is an almost universal beliefs among biblical scholars that the Gospel of Mark (70 AD) was the first written. Matthew and Luke (85 AD) almost certainly had the Gospel of Mark as one of their sources when writing their stories. They follow a very similar outline of Mark, and simply add details to many of the stories found in Mark. John (100 AD) was probably written about 30-40 years after Mark, and his Gospel is very, very different from the Synoptic Gospels.

Each one of these Gospels represent a community of early Christians, and the Gospels reflect that community’s beliefs. Matthew was written to a very Jewish audience, the other three were probably written to differing Gentile groups. The Gospels were not trying to harmonize their stories about Jesus, because they were not written to be harmonized.

The Gospels are very, very different from one another. And not just on some minor points. There are some differences between them on some very major points:

-How many of the Gospels record the ascension of Jesus into heaven? Mark does not discuss it (there is mention of a possible ascension in Mark 16, however contemporary biblical scholarship has concluded that the last chapter of Mark was not part of the original text and was added at the end of the 2nd century). Not a word in Matthew. Not a word in John. In fact, only the Gospel of Luke records an ascension of Jesus into heaven. However, the author of Luke also wrote a book called The Acts of the Apostles. Acts begins with the ascension of Jesus, but the author gives two different dates. Luke’s ascension takes place the night of the resurrection of Jesus, whereas Acts’ ascension takes place 40 days later. This begs the questions: Why would Matthew, Mark, and John neglect to mention Jesus’ ascension into heaven? Why would Luke give two different dates for the ascension?

History Remembered or Theologized History?

The differences between the Gospels on the ascension of Christ, are just one of the differences between them (need I even mention the birth of Christ?).

Might I suggest that the Gospels are so very different because they are not historical accounts of the life of Jesus, but theological interpretations on his life? They are not “history remembered” but “theologized history.”

“History remembered” is what can be concluded as historical fact. Abraham Lincoln died April 15, 1865. That is a historical fact. There is no debate on whether or not it happened on this date. Almost every historian who is worth their weight has agreed that it is a historical fact that a man named Yeshua lived in the early first century. There is too much evidence; from the scores of Gospels to Josephus, it is clear that Yeshua was a real person.

“Theologized history” is inserting supernatural occurences in the midst of historical circumstances. It is a mythologized (or maybe ideologized) history to claim that Abraham Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In fact, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862 saying, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.” This is a historical fact. While it is inspiring to think of the United States President sending the Union soldiers into battle to fight the evils of slavery, that is simply not what actually happened. Is it possible that aspects of Yeshua’s life ought to be viewed the same way? Perhaps it is “theologized history” that he was born of a virgin or performed various miracles?

Truth in Christ

Though the Gospels may be “theologized histories” that does not make them any less true.

This concept is often very hard for Western thinkers to grasp. How can an event contain truth if it may not have actually occurred? Perhaps we ought to examine our concept of truth.

For example, are the creation stories of Genesis a scientific account of the formation of the universe? No. They are not. Rabbis will often refer to the first 11 chapters of Genesis as “proto-history” (sort-of history). What if the truth found in the creation narratives is not the kind of truth that can be explained through science, but with the heart? I believe the truth found in Genesis 1 is that God has a vision for a world without war, conflict, or strife. We have a vision for a world without sin. However, Adam (which is Hebrew for humanity, meaning not a literal Adam, but you and me) chose to follow his own path rather than one laid out before him by his Maker. Just because something did not actually happen, does not mean it is without truth.

In the same way, as we begin to look at the life of Jesus, I want to assure and remind you that I believe everything said about Jesus in the Gospels is true. It is the truth of the heart that I want to grasp, though. Not the truth of the mind.

Our conversation is sure to illicit a wide array of emotions. To those who have a firm, religious faith in Jesus, I would ask that you open your minds to a new way of looking at Jesus, the nature of God, religious faith, and the world.

To those with little to no faith in Jesus, I would ask you to open your minds to the truths that will be explored by this 2000 year old Jewish rabbi. I know it seems crazy, but I do believe that Jesus has much to say about our modern context. When he allow his radical, social, political, and spiritual message to guide our thinking it can be both challenging and inspiring.

As we look at the various aspects of who Jesus is, it is important for each of us to examine our spiritual journey and to realize that Yeshua of Nazareth has been a figure of both division and unity throughout the history of the past 2000 years. We would be foolish to think that our views (mine included) are the only way, truth, or life lived by those who follow him.

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Shouldn’t Be Ordained:

I saw this awesome list on my rss. Had to pass it along.

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Shouldn’t Be Ordained:

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Articles of Faith

PART I

“To the heights! To the heights!”
-Gregory Palamas

seekers

I am a participant in humanity’s rich spiritual heritage, seeking to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be. I am a supporter of faith and a believer in belief. I love logic. I am a fan of mysticism. But I myself I am a seeker. The task of a seeker is to reconcile his or her vision of the divine with his or her vision of day-to-day reality. This reconciliation of mystery and mundane must be done simply. A tower to heaven is of no use if it floats above the ground using elaborate devices. If these two visions cannot be reconciled, seekers theoretically must recant their beliefs or else maintain them in the face of the realities to which their beliefs supposedly apply.

Sometimes we settle for a little of both recanting and maintaining; a compromise which humbly acknowledges our human limitations but works toward belief nonetheless. My thesis here is that people who experience God are justified in believing in God’s existence and in living for him a life demonstrative of certain values including love, justice and beauty, whether in concert with an established religion or not, and whether they have a perfect answer for every question or not.

What follows, then, is a description of a belief system that works for me. It is a personal theology. It is far from unique or original or complete, but I benefit from writing it down. It contributes little, if anything, to the conversation. But I hope that at the end of the day my contribution to the Great Conversation of Life is in the form of actions rather than words, anyway.

creation

In the beginning, before God created space and matter, space and matter did not exist. I find it easy to explain space and matter in terms of the Lord creating them. This is not to say that matter’s existence is proof of God’s existence, even though it seems absurd to me to suppose that matter itself is uncreated and eternal.

If we follow the regress of “where did that come from?” questions, we may eventually end with God. But some have pointed out that it is just as logical to stop one step before you get to God, or to go further and insist that God him/herself had an origin.

Personally, if these options are equally logical, I have no problem going with the one that makes sense to me, namely; God, who creates and is uncreated, is the First Cause. The problem is that any choice one makes between these options will be arbitrarily motivated if it is based solely on this kind of cosmological speculation.

So the existence of everything might suggest the existence of God in that everything was created by him in the beginning, but everything’s existence in no way proves that everything was created by him. And if it did, it would still prove nothing about what kind of God he is, which is a topic I will address hereafter.

religions

I believe God created humankind, and not the other way round. Humans did create religions, but religions are no more inherently profane than humans. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text was written directly by the hand of God.

If this is so, you may ask, how are we to know him? For Christian theology holds that God is unknowable apart from his own self-revelation. (Please forgive the use of the masculine pronoun for God throughout. I find “him or her,” “he or she” or “it” distracting.)

I agree with theology on this point. The reason I refuse to admit Christianity’s claims to absolute or exclusive status, or any religion’s claims to such, is precisely because there is more than one religion. If there were only one faith on the market, we would have less of a contest. As it is, the multiplicity of religions is a problem.

There are other problems specific to Christianity. (Feel free to skip this paragraph. It is hard for me to write.) First, if Jesus intended to save individuals from a certain eternity of hellfire and teeth-gnashing by sending his Spirit-filled disciples out to invite the lost into a personal relationship with himself, I have to believe he would have started much earlier in human history and would have sped the process up. The fact that Christianity offers no answer at all to the question of the unevangalized constitutes a problem for Christianity’s exclusivity, not to mention its validity. I also wonder, if our eternal fate is determined by a single decision made during our time on Earth, why the time our Creator saw fit to grant us is so very short. If our lifespan is less than the blink of an eye compared to eternity, why only give us the blink of an eye in which to stumble around and perhaps strike upon the Truth? Theology says we die because sin entered into the world through Adam. But then, why start us off in the world at all? Why not start us in heaven where God is, if he wants to be with us so badly?

But let us return to the question that was raised earlier. How can we know God? What kind of God is he? This can be a difficult question.

In my brief study of religion I have found that it is usually the mystics who concern themselves with this question the most. The reformers and preachers have insight into his will. The organizers and movers, the theologians and philosophers: they know God one and all. But the sole occupation of the mystic is simply to encounter the divine presence. It is this holy obsession that drives them to the ascetic wilderness of the desert and to become the old man on the mountaintop and the mysterious woman who lives in the hermitage and has her food given to her through a small hole near the base of the wall.

Muslim sufis, Christian monks, Buddhist monks. Every religion is home to some form of mysticism, however obscure it may be. I do not intend to dwell on the similarities or difference in their respective visions of the divine: whether they are theistic or not; whether love is their centerpiece; what forms their devotion takes.

I want to observe that, as a rule, all mystics are hyphenated. One literally cannot be simply a mystic. One is either a Christian mystic, or a Jewish mystic, or so on.

I think this fact points to why humans have created religions. The consensus is that God is worthy of devotion (notwithstanding the suffering he has to answer for) but we cannot devote ourselves to an abstraction. In other words, if God has no knowable attributes, we cannot follow him. Luckily, knowledge of his attributes has been supplied to humankind of old through the teachings of the religions. For example, Christians believe in the Trinity not because this doctrine is self evident in nature but because the Church teaches it.

spiritual experience

How does belief in God take root in people in the first place? As noted above, belief in God is shallow at best if he has no known attributes. Belief in an impersonal, distant God is unsustainable. (The kind of belief that has any kind of practical life application, that is.)

My theory is that people “know” God and then they believe in him, not vise versa. We experience him first, and then we consent to his existence in earnest. It should be pointed out importantly that if we say we experience something then we presuppose that we believe in it. For example, if I say, “that music is beautiful,” it is presupposed that I believe music is being played.

So the doctrines and tenets of a religion are not the source of God’s self-revelation. Personal spiritual experience is. Through a spiritual experience one can perceive many things about God: that he is the champion of the poor; the author of morality; the owner of the cattle on a thousand hills. All God’s primary attributes can be gathered through spiritual experience.

This, I think, accounts for the origins of religions. Culturally situated people have experiences, write them down or pass them down orally, attract followers, and presto! A religion. Thus, religions are the reservoirs of the knowledge of God, but not the source. And reservoirs can be added to haphazardly. Somewhere along the way, for example, Buddha, who was a non-theist, came to be revered as a god! And Jesus, who had a message to preach, somehow became the message itself.

I used to believe in the deity of Christ. One day during that part of my life, Mormons came to my door. Mormons come to everybody’s door eventually. I always listen to them politely, take their literature, and sometimes I ask them a question or two. Once, I asked them how we could know that the Book of Mormon was from God. Their reply disturbed me. “Read the book of Mormon,” they said, “then pray, and see if God doesn’t confirm its word in your spirit.”

“Wow,” I thought. “I’ll be darn if that isn’t the same thing Christians say about the Bible. . . . Good thing Mormons are wrong and Christians are right.”

Spiritual experiences can’t confirm the truth of any particular religion. If a nonreligious person wanders into a Christian church, we can hardly expect them to experience Nirvana. All the songs are about Jesus. Nor will a Buddhist who has never heard of Christianity spontaneously experience Jesus during mediation.

On the other hand, though, experience is what counts. For example, if someone has a spiritual experience of Jesus during worship or while reading the New Testament, I acknowledge that they are, in fact, justified in their belief that Jesus exists. Justified belief is different from knowledge. To use philosophical jargon; it has a less exalted epistemological status. I am not too perturbed by this. In an elementary Philosophy of Religion textbook you can find a discussion of all the arguments for the existence of God and the counterpoints, and all the arguments against his existence and the counterpoints. I tire of the debate and conclude that an “exalted” conclusion is pretty hard to come by. It is possible that God exists and it is possible that he does not. Philosophy as I understand it does not tell me a whole lot more about the question of the existence of God.

In any case, I have never read the book of Mormon and never gave God the chance to confirm its words in my spirit. I have read the Bible multiple times, but I have rarely had spiritual experiences through it. That is because books are not my gateway to such experiences. As it turns out, nature is.

Every human being is capable of spiritual experiences. Religions usually teach that we have to be in a certain state of mind or heart, as with the mystics described above, but there are, of course, exceptions to this. Sometimes God must be sought with “the whole heart.” Sometimes he is found of those who did not seek him. In both cases I believe God is behind any genuine spiritual experience.

No two people experience God in the same way. Some people’s pathway to spiritual experience is reading texts. Other pathways include nature, service, intellect, contemplation, and music. I should also note that what I am calling spiritual experience Christians tend to call worship. (The word “prayer” can also have some of the same connotations.)

belief

Why believe that God is behind such experiences? Why can’t such experiences be the fruit of complicated human psychology? Well, they certainly are the fruit of complicated human psychology, just as our existence is the fruit of complicated human evolution. The question really is, as always, why believe in God?

The nature and content of the experiences convinces me. I understand spiritual experiences as God’s self-revelation.

Let me return to the music example used above. If I have never heard of music before and I suddenly hear music being played then I will believe in music and I will be justified in my belief. But I will know nothing about music other than what I hear. In the same way, I know nothing about God other than what I can gather, but I am justified in my belief because of the experience.

Now, admittedly, this argument does not work for proving the existence of God. As we know, religious epistemology is a much-debated field. Experience can’t prove God, but it can indeed justify belief in him; so we are talking here about justified belief rather than knowledge. I perceive God to be a lover of justice, a lover of beauty, a lover of goodness, a lover of love, a lover of his creation, a lover of people, a lover of me. I believe in this God.

I have experienced him a number of times. For example, I have experienced him while sitting on a wooden bench in a field that had been specifically designated as a “sacred space.” I have experienced him while resting on the side of an Ozark mountain in a state forest. While watching a worm journey across a sidewalk. Singing a song. Accidentally stepping on a dead bird.

There is a limited range of things that can be legitimately discerned about God in this way—this limit is, I think, ethically important. I can’t go on TV and say God wants you to give me money. The reason I believe in God and not in Jesus, even though I have had spiritual experiences as a Christian, and despite Lewis’ correct understanding of the obstinacy of belief and the logic of personal relations, is my exposure to the work of skeptical scholars of religion. I do not think the historical record sufficiently validates the Christian narrative. For example, I think Jesus did not say all the things the gospels say he said.

faith

My system perhaps catches on a double standard here. Some may say that reason does not validate the exalted status I give to justified belief just as I do not think the historical record validates Christianity.

“Reason” does not confirm it, but when we say reason in this sense we really mean critique, and critique can’t determine what is true and good but only what is not true and not good. As I read recently in an academic journal, “…If the essay didn’t conclude that a discourse was faulty, the reviewers would try to make the essay say that. Only critique is acceptable academic practice, because only contradictions and omissions can be certainly demonstrated.”

I know we can gather no demonstrative “proof of God” through the arts or the sciences. But where these sorts of knowledge turns up inconclusive, not negative but inconclusive, spirituality is found to be a deep pool.

I contend that reason is to logical cognition as spiritual experience is to mystical awareness. In other words, “reason” and “spirituality” are analogous. In my experience, spirituality is as much a part of the human condition as any other cognition or sensation. So what is an individual to do when he or she feels God pressing in upon him or her? Are we to consider ourselves too sophisticated to believe in God? We could think ourselves too sophisticated, but there is no mandate of any kind that says we should. Instead, this can be where faith comes in. As Anne Lamott has said, the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.

For me, faith is not some sort of religious parody of reason. Nor is reason merely critique.

I think belief in God is very often a basic belief for people, not based on any deeper belief. (We have a number of such basic beliefs. For example, the belief that our physical senses are reliable, or that we are loved.) Faith is what we call it when we believe, and we can’t prove it, and we can’t reasonably be asked to.

I acknowledge that we cannot deduce through spiritual experience whether God is Yahweh or Allah or the Great Spirit. I am fully confident, though, that what we can know about God through experience, abstract or structured as it may be, is more than enough to occupy us. God as I have experienced him at times is both overpowering and intimate.

lord

Only when one experiences God will he or she perhaps be motivated to call him “Lord.” The term Lord indicates that a conceptual leap has taken place from an impersonal God to a personal one. This leap is fueled by an experience.

And it is a supremely intuitive leap. I know intuitively, for example, that this God who is disclosing himself to me is transcendent. And he must have some reason, some purpose for his dealing with me.

In fact, the term “Lord” indicates that he has a will, insofar as lords generally have a will for their people to accomplish. This will of his is evident from his perceived attributes. In short; if I call him Lord then I myself am to love justice, beauty, goodness, love, creation, and people just as he does. No command or commissioning ceremony is necessary. In this way, to believe in the Lord is to receive a mandate for action.

As discussed above, belief in an impersonal, unknowable God is unsustainable. Again, we can’t know him if he is unknowable; if he were just plain unknowable then claiming to “know him” in a justified way wouldn’t even be a matter of “faith,” but would plainly be impossible. I will now add that to believe in (that is, to experience and believe in) a personal God is to believe in Lord. The point is: either God is unknowable, or he ignites one’s life. (The third option is, I suppose, that he is knowable but that one doesn’t know him.)

Of course, one may observe quite rightly that people can live these values out without any help from God. I agree with this completely. We all act under our own volition. I think the Lord is happy with right actions no matter who performs them. And more than just actions—it is true that the Lord pondereth the heart.

prayer

So, religion is not properly conceptualized as a set of propositions to be understood, consented to and defended. Religion is a set of purposes to be lived out.

Purpose is a big theme. I can see why some people believe that humans have evolved too far for their own good and have sadly developed a need to look for purpose where there is none.

I do think that people expect a lot from the universe. We tend to optimistically assume that there is a way through every problem, an end to every maze. The religious especially think that if a Creator put everything in place for a purpose then there must be a way through every labyrinth. In short: we hope.

Prayer is an expression of hope. I cannot write a treatise on hope, nor on prayer. But I can think of nothing more reviled by popular atheists than hope, so I will put my two cents in. I love hope. I do not know if “intercessory prayer” “works.” But I believe in the prayer of petition, privately. I don’t argue about it. I won’t defend this belief against skeptics. I have experienced answered prayers. I pray. And I love it when people pray for me or with me. I pray to “the Lord.”

- – - – -

PART II

“The glory of God is man fully alive”
-Irenaeus

compendium

I would like to make a few other observations about God. These observations will perhaps be more devotional or overtly religious in nature than the preceding has been. I will elaborate (in a round about way) on the following statements. God delights in his creation like an artist enjoys his or her art. This delight requires no participation from the creation. But part of that delight does come from being known by his creation, and his delight is even more full when his creation acts according to his nature. I want to discuss these things. As I do, I will also discuss why God seems so hard to get.

otherness

Many people insist that if he exists at all, God is silent. The seeker looks around and justly asks why God is so hard to find. Many have ventured answers to this question, and none that I know of are completely satisfactory. I will here venture my best guess. This guess is informed by the Christian tradition I swim in (if you haven’t noticed), so be warned.

I do not know why God created us—or anything—at all. I believe God is “wholly other,” so whatever he might have had in the way of something we would identify as a motivation is certainly unfathomable. The most precise thing we can say is probably that he felt like it. Despite what Christian theology says about the perfectly self-contained nature of the community of the Trinity, I suspect that if God had a motivation it would be something like what we would call the longing of loneliness.

But he did not just set out to create humans. If that were the case, he largely overdid it by creating the cosmos so big and us so small. God surely delights in his entire creation and not just in Homo sapiens. God has a lot to delight in, especially if he is a lover of beauty. We have a responsibility therefore to preserve the little part of creation that God has put us on, because he undoubtedly loves butterflies, trees and the tide. Destroying any of it would be a shame.

I guess it is for butterflies to figure out why God created butterflies. Why they have to be worms before their glory is revealed. I bet they’re not even curious, really. I bet they know. Lucky for them. Maybe it is humankind’s unique curse to care about the whys. In any case, it is my own existence and relationship with God that I wonder about now. And I’m sure God knows that I wonder.

free will

The first thing God had to create was otherness. As I said in the very first paragraph, I believe God created space and matter. I don’t think God himself needs space to exist in. Space probably came before matter, or else they were created simultaneously. Otherwise, where would God put the physical objects he was making?

In order to create at all, that which God creates has to be other than himself. I am not among the panentheists. I think that our very createdness is what makes it possible for God to seem distant in the first place.

Besides our physical otherness from God (he is “other” than us locationally), we are also volitionally other. That is, he gave us the capacity to have a will of our own. It makes sense to me that he would do this. If he did not—if our wills were merely extensions of his—what would he have succeeded in creating? Just more fingers on his righteous right hand, and still nothing to hold in it.

So free will was a part of the plan. The fact that we have free will, and the observable results of it, is part of why I gather (through reverse engineering) that God was lonely-esque when he created us. If he wanted something, he could easily create it. If he wanted something from somebody, he would have to create something and somebody. And if he wanted something given to him spontaneously by somebody, that somebody would have to have free will to choose or not choose.

I can see someone scoffing at the vanity or selfishness of God. “He wants something given to him spontaneously indeed!” But isn’t our own human desire for companionship a perfect example of this? We all want somebody to like us. We wouldn’t force them to like us even if we could, because that would defeat the point. So if we have this deep desire for unconstrained love, and if God “created us in his image” at all (whatever that means in the face of God and humankind being “other”), then we can see that free will was a necessity.

The problem with free will is that it makes evil possible. For example, God loves justice, we are to love justice too, but we are not compelled by heaven to act justly. It is a central doctrine of Christianity, though, and of many religions in some form or another, that “sin separates us from God.”

I now want to address something I could not address until now. Earlier I said, “the consensus is that God is worthy of devotion (notwithstanding the suffering he has to answer for)…” I now want to say the few words I have to say about evil.

Lots of people have tried to address the problem of pain. There is no comprehensive answer that I know of to the theodicy problem. But to me it makes sense to say that suffering is, at least in small part, a side effect of free will. This does not explain why death happens. It doesn’t explain a lot of things. But to me it helps explain the existence of much of the evil in the world. And it is a fairly standard conclusion among contemporary Christians. It explains how ax murders can exist and persist in the construct of God’s good creation. I do not think it explains how hurricanes and tornadoes can exist, though. Those are not the result of human free will. They’re a result of the air we breathe. It seems to me that God created the world, not just humankind but the whole world, and then, to facilitate free will, he turned it loose. So I would not say, for example, that the world is on auto pilot heading toward a certain conclusion. It’s more like God let the reigns go, but we’re still caught in his gravitational pull and orbiting.

distance

All this also drives home for me the sense of distance that even the very faithful sometimes feel in relation to God. There is no literal hole in the sky that lets all people everywhere look up into the throne room of heaven. No call to prayer sounds three times a day from the clouds around the world. We and God are other.

But I think he likes being known. In some ways it is hard for humans to accomplish this knowledge. In some ways it is very easy.

It is hard because he is other. I got married less than a month ago. My wife is my best friend. Several months ago I asked a married friend of mine what marriage is like. He talked about how he sometimes forgot that his wife is another person. I didn’t understand what he meant until last week. My wife and I were leaving the art museum. I opened the car door for her while we were in the middle of a conversation so that she could get into the car. She got in and I shut the door and walked around to the other side, but I kept on talking as though she could still hear me. Only about half way around the car did I realize that our conversation was paused, so I stopped talking. That was strange.

My beautiful wife and I are one, but she is also “other” from me. We have known each other since middle school. We love each other very much. But I suspect that there are some things about me that she will never understand and some things about her that I will never get. Sometimes it feels like we are the same person. Sometimes it seems like we are from different worlds.

Even among two devoted humans, perfect knowledge of each other is not easy to achieve. How much more mysterious would the relationship between God and human be? I think that God knows us, and as some of our own poets have said, “we too are his offspring.” Even so, plugging into God can just be hard.

On the other hand, it can be really easy. I believe that God does not need religion to reach a person. Take a camping trip. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Take up yoga. Find your pathway to experiencing God. (If you have a mind to. If not, what the heck are you doing reading this?)

As for those of us who are religions: since God has not come down to set the record straight about which religion is the closest to the truth, I have drawn the conclusion that he is prepared to work with all of us. He is humble enough to be called by whatever name.

I know nothing about interfaith dialogue. I know that wars start over religions and that proselyzation is awkward. Let the Christian remain a Christian, I say. Let the Buddhist remain a Buddhist. Let the non-theist remain non-theistic. And let the convert-making religions keep trying to convert one another. Evangelization is a big part of many religions, and you can’t just change a religion because you want to (although I can think of a few people throughout history who might take issue with this statement…) Religions are more or less static in their essence and are slow to change in the way they are practiced (Though this could be argued). Still, I think the evangelization strategies and faith manifestoes held by religious establishments should be as up-to-date, informed and as open-minded as possible.

the last things

As for the theological problems that individuals (or even societies) sometimes find themselves presented with, the only rule of thumb is “to each his own.” I have found that what is troublesome to one person might not be troublesome to another. For example, some Christians may wonder whether God will deal kindly with those people whom the Church was not able to reach before they passed away. Some may not wonder about that at all. Moreover, different people are satisfied by different answers. We are not dealing with math questions, after all. One may say, “God will judge them righteously” and leave it at that. Some may say fine, but then why is evangelism necessary? Why the Great Commission? As many people may answer that it is God’s will to spread the kingdom of his Son.

Bottom line; if a theological quandary is a practical problem for you, deal with it. Read books and follow the rabbit hole. If it is not, don’t worry about it.

I say this because I realize that I pick and choose the problems I will really engage, too. For example, I believe in God even though people die. That’s something that some men and women greater than me have found they cannot do. I just say to myself, “wonderful things happen, too.” And that works for me. I’m sure many people would be frustrated with me for “refusing to face the facts.” I would like to have a conversation with those people. It is hard to find people who like talking religion around here.

Besides, I believe in mystery even as I believe in reason, as I think all seekers must. Some great truths are like huge boulders encrusted with precious stones. You want to run up to them, lift them up, and put them in your pocket. Some people try and get discouraged and worn out right away. But some people content themselves with gazing at the stones and examining their facets.

Speaking of mystery, I must close by wondering whether there is an afterlife. I hope there is. In fact, I even believe there is based on hope. If there is a bad afterlife I think it is ceasing to exist. The good afterlife will be characterized by increased closeness to the Lord and increased fullness of life. As for eschatology, I don’t know. If there is to be an end of the world then I’m sure it can come to pass without my say-so.

If so, haste the day. Until then, find us about thy business, oh Lord.

“To the heights, to the heights!”

- – - – - – - -

For information about references and quoted material, send me an email.

the freedom of the quasi-apostate

Tyler’s post on hell awhile back was thought provoking. The thing that has stayed with me the most from it, though, was a comment that somebody left.

“…My question is this: where does the picking and choosing stop? … My overall point is that you carry great weight with your actions, maybe even more than you are aware of. And, as Uncle Ben told us a long, long time ago, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’”

The comment from which this quote has been excerpted is heartfelt, reasoned and good. I do not know the man who left it personally, but I have the highest respect for him based on our no doubt mutual love of Spiderman. The following paragraphs containing my unsolicited responses are stated straightforwardly but are to be understood as only my opinion.

First, where does the picking and choosing stop? Where indeed? The short answer is: it stops much later than any of us in the faith community would like it to. But actually, it’s not picking and choosing at all. The phrase “picking and choosing” makes it sound arbitrary.  I think a better question is, “Where does the picking and choosing start?”

I reject hell on, among other things, the suspicion that Jesus did not actually say very much of what the gospels say he said about hell. This is not a matter of picking and choosing. It’s a matter of studying the texts critically. Now please let me be clear: I have NOT verified this suspicion of mine; I have no authoritative research articles to show. Nobody ever seems to get the “final word” in the field of history, anyway. So I might be wrong. But my point is that it is a matter of correct/incorrect, not of picking/choosing.

Picking and choosing starts after we take stock of what we have to choose from and what we don’t have. Where it ends is a more subjective matter, I admit.

- – - – -

As for the actions of a spiritual role model carrying great weight, this is a harry matter for me. Uncle Ben was right. And a businessperson has an ethical responsibility to set a good example for his or her Protégé. Professors are obliged to teach up-to-date information. A mail delivery person has an ethical responsibility to train new postal workers well, to teach them relevant federal laws, and so on.

But what does ethics say to the spiritual role model?

He or she is obligated, probably by contract if he or she is a church employee, to abide by, and teach, the doctrine of whatever denomination is involved. This is their code, and they must abide by it just as the teacher and the mailman are obliged to abide by code.

But these codes are all different. Teachers have no clause in their contract about rain or snow or sleet or shine. Class is frequently canceled due to weather–but I’m glad the mail gets delivered all the same. Likewise; postal Workers are not tempted to plagiarize papers. They deliver papers. There need be no clause in their contract about getting fired for plagiarism.

So, is there a clause in the religionist’s code about questioning or rejecting a doctrine? It would seem so; Throughout history such presumptuously questioning clergy have been unceremoniously dismissed from their posts.

I can understand this. Church should be a safe place for faith. Nothing remotely challenging to the soul or to the intellect must be found there. Right? Romans 14:21 says that it is better for everyone not to do anything that will “cause your brother to fall.” Or, if you like the KJV; anything ‘whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’”

The implication of this verse in this case is that talking about religious doubts may destroy the faith of someone else.

But I think that it is possible for two people to talk openly about faith without upsetting faith. One does not automatically destroy the faith of another by talking about one’s own doubts. Furthermore, the underlying principle behind Paul’s words in Romans 14 is love. Do nothing that would offend charity. (That is to say, do nothing that would be unloving.) There is absolutely no reason why anyone would think that open-minded questions catigorically offend charity.

- – - – - -

But why must you talk about doubts at all, Jay?

For a long time I didn’t talk to anybody about my own private thoughts about God and religion. I was a leader in my community of faith. I still haven’t talked to many of the people in the college bible study group I led about my current leanings. And I don’t feel compelled to. But I have talked to several of my close friends, some people in the bible study group and some people who are not in it.

Why talk about doubts? The natural human longing for self disclosure, I guess.

I graduated from college and no longer lead a bible study group, by the way. Convenient timing.

(I realize I’m doing more in this post than responding to a comment about hell. I’m not talking so much about what I believe, but about what I’ve learned from the journey.)

I feel that everyone has their own mind and their own relationship with God. We are a community, yes, but everyone must stand on his or her own feet.

I really don’t think we are doing people favors by harboring and coddling delicate faiths. In fact, in my case, I was being dishonest! Pretending I believed things that, though I once believed them, I believe them no longer. (I can’t put my finger on exactly when these changes in my belief took place.)

We can influence people. We ought to try to influence people for the better! But ultimately everybody is responsible for making their own decisions.

I believe it is best for a leader to be discerning in who (and how) he or she talks [to] about unorthodox leanings. It is important to be gentle. We must all act responsibly with what influence we have. And there are times when it is best to avoid the hairy issues altogether and focus on the “basics.”

But, I believe that faith can be made stronger when communities of faith make space for the intellectually honest questions that people might occasionally have. They’re not evil, the questions nor the people. We do well to make space and encourage people to occupy that space! After all, faith is good. How could openmindedness be its enemy?

Presidential Biographies

This is perhaps beyond our agendum, but I think it’d be fun to put a recommended presidential reading list together. May not read them for a long time, but at least there’s joy in list making.

Below is a list of the presidents. I put an entry next to the first several. I know there’s more than one must-read bio per person. My strategy is to take the presidents in chronological order, and read one per person. Otherwise I’ll read the most interesting ones first and be left with a bunch of Taylors and Hoovers, and I’d be reading forever and ever. 44 books is task enough for me…

p.s. I’ve noticed that there’s a “Signiture Series,” an “American Presidency Series,” an interesting looking series by “Biographiq,” and many more. I have avoided books from any of the above because I am not familiar with the series. I’m not really familiar with any of them; I have relied heavily on Amazon’s rating system. Finally, chronological snobbery has biased me toward newer books.

- – - – - – - – - – -

1.GeorgeWashington, 2005. His Excellency, by Joseph J. Ellis.
2.JohnAdams, 2009. Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage, by Edith Gelles
3.ThomasJefferson, 1998. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph J. Ellis.

4.JamesMadison, 1991. The Last of the Fathers: James Madison & The Republican Legacy, by Drew R. McCoy
5.JamesMonroe, 2007. The Life Of James Monroe, by George Morgan
6.JohnQuincyAdams, 1998. John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life, by Paul C. Nagel

7.AndrewJackson, 2009. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham
8.MartinVanBuren, ---
9.WilliamHenryHarrison, 2007. Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy, by Robert M. Owens

10.JohnTyler, 2006. John Tyler, the Accidental President, by Edward P. Crapol
11.JamesKnoxPolk, 2009. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America, by Walter R. Borneman
12.ZacharyTaylor, 1993. Zachary Taylor : Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest, by K. Jack Bauer

13.MillardFillmore
14.FranklinPierce
15.JamesBuchanan

16.AbrahamLincoln
17.AndrewJohnson
18.UlyssesS.Grant

19.RutherfordB.Hayes
20.JamesGarfield
21.ChesterArthur

22.GroverCleveland
23.BenjaminHarrison
24.GroverCleveland

25.WilliamMcKinley
26.TheodoreRoosevelt
27.WilliamHowardTaft

28.WoodrowWilson
29.WarrenHarding
30.CalvinCoolidge

31.HerbertHoover
32.FranklinD.Roosevelt
33.HarrySTruman

34.DwightD.Eisenhower
35.JohnF.Kennedy
36.LyndonJohnson

37.RichardNixon
38.GeraldFord
39.JamesCarter

40.RonaldReagan
41.GeorgeH.W.Bush
42.WilliamJ.Clinton

43.GeorgeW.Bush
44.BarackH.Obama

Apostle Paul: Feminist or Misogynist?

A few years ago I wrote an essay on my increasingly changing views concerning the prospect of women serving in church ministries. To be quite honest, I wrote the essay basically for myself, but I wanted to post it on the internet in the hopes that it would foster healthy discussion. What began as a small exercise in theological self-examination, turned into a full-fledged religious debate. The essay elicited 108 online comments! Those who commented were divided between those who felt women made just as capable ministers as men, and those who were vehemently opposed to the idea of women in any sort of ministry position. One of the figures that was at the head of the debate was that of the Apostle Paul. Various passages from Paul’s epistles were cited by both sides as defense for their positions. Some felt that Paul welcomed the leadership and ministry of women, and felt that women could serve any role that a man could within a Christian community of faith. Others felt that Paul was adamantly opposed to women in Christian ministry. So which is it? Was Paul a radical feminist, or was he ardently supportive of the patriarchal family systems of his day?

There are some passages from Paul’s writings that are used to support the idea that women should not take leadership positions in Christian ministry. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul seems to lay out a case for why he does not allow women to teach or have authority over a man. He writes, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (Timothy 2:13-14). Another passage that is often cited by those with the most conservative views towards women in ministry is found in Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth. Paul writes, “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) These two passages have been used for centuries to display Paul as ardently affirming and encouraging the patriarchal paradigms that existed during his time. However, there is some serious doubt as to whether that is Paul’s intent at all.

First of all, many scholars do not even classify the pastoral letter of 1 Timothy as being of Pauline-authorship, casting serious doubt on if 1 Timothy is representative of Paul’s views at all. Dr. Anthony Campolo, Christian author and speaker, comments on this specific passage:

“A casual reading of these verses does indeed seem to forbid women from even talking at church meetings, let alone be ordained as ministers. Yet the same church leaders who use this text to keep evangelical feminists out of formal church leadership are seldom inclined to fire all the female Sunday school teachers, youth directors, and Christian education directors from their staffs. They know all too well that church programs would fall apart without women.”

In regards to the passage from 1 Corinthians, there are some scholars (such as William O. Walker) who suggest that these verses are post-Pauline interpolations. Scholars argue that since 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are found in two different locations in varying manuscripts, they may actually have been interpolated into the text. However, other scholars reject this notion.

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III does not believe the Corinthian passage is an interpolation, yet also does not feel it is meant to guide gender roles in the church today. Witherington argues that labeling Paul as either a feminist or chauvinist is an anachronistic approach. Instead, he argues, “Paul plays with the social cards he is dealt, but he seeks to slip some new cards into the deck and to rewrite the rules for those who play the game in his communities” (The Paul Quest). Witherington further argues that Paul’s writings must be viewed within the context of his own culture, not the contemporary one. “We must consider the social effect of Paul’s remarks in his own culture, not in our own culture, if we are to assess whether he was a reformer or a traditionalist in regard to women and their roles” (The Paul Quest). For Witherington, one does not have to label the Corinthian passage as an interpolation in order to feel it must not be taken literally and applied to today’s churches. He argues that Paul’s advice is meant to be applied to that time, and Paul is not necessarily supporting the social constructs and gender roles of his time.

Having discussed that Paul’s view are not misogynistic as some interpretors have suggested, we now turn to actually defining Paul’s views on women. In his letter to the church in Galatia, Paul writes, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Clearly to Paul in the body of Christ there is no longer racism, classism, or sexism. However, Witherington argues that the meaning of the phrase “male and female” within this verse is not necessarily speaking of diminishing the differences between the genders. Instead, Paul is affirming that within the new social order of the Christian church, neither men nor women were to be obligated to marry. Therefore, women could feel free to assume different roles other than wife or mother. When women’s role was expanded beyond these roles, women were free to become traveling evangelist or even preach in local assemblies.

In fact, within Paul’s letter there are references to women being co-workers with Paul in his ministry. Paul actually lays out some criteria for how women should dress when they “pray or prophecy” (1 Corinthians 11:5) which of course can mean preaching. In Philippians Paul references a dispute between leaders within the church, including some women leaders (see Philippians 4:2-3). Paul calls Phoebe the deacon of the church in Cenchreae near Corinth, and she may have even been the bearer of the letter of Romans to the Christians in Rome (see Romans 16:1). The word that Paul uses to describe Phoebe’s role is the Greek word diakonos, and it is the same word that Paul uses to describe himself in 1 Corinthians 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 3:6. Paul commends a wife-and-husband ministry team named Priscilla and Aquila calling them his “fellow workers” (Romans 16:3) and in his first letter to the Corinthians Paul notes that a church actually meets in the home of Priscilla and Aquila (see 1 Corinthians 16:19).

At the end of Romans, Paul mentions two people who are “prominent among the apostles” (Romans 16:7) and who actually spent time in prison with Paul. They are Adronicus and Junia. Pauline scholar Wayne Meeks, believes that Adronicus and Junia may have been from the same hometown as Paul, which is Tarsus. The New Revised Standard Version denotes them as “relatives.” Whatever Paul’s connection it is clear that he feels a special bond with these two. Junia and Adronicus have historically been accepted as apostles. In fact, the Byzantine church used the names of Adronicus and Junia in a liturgy celebrating married couples who serve God with one another. One interesting thing about the name Junia is that many versions of the Bible translate the name as Junias, despite the fact that most scholars agree it should be translated Junia. Uncomfortable with the implications of a female holding one of the highest offices in the church, the mostly male translators of some Bibles render the name towards the masculine. In Romans, Paul uses Junia’s Greek name (Iounia) in the accusative sense, Iounian. A slight change in the accent markings (inserting a circumflex over the last vowel) changes the name to the male Iounias which translates in English to Junias. However, there is a huge problem with this. Junias is a hypothetical name. In all the ancient literature and inscriptions we do not find Junias anywhere. However, Junia is a common name in Roman literature, occurring literally hundreds of times. This would be the equivalent of attempting to make the name Brittany into a male name. That Junias was changed to Junia was the work of men who were uncomfortable with the idea of a woman apostle. When men start imposing translations on the Bible that line up with their theology, they are walking on some very thin moral ice.

Despite the fact that the New Testament refers to numerous women holding high positions in the early church, passages out of two of Paul’s letters are taken out of context and used to support a misogynistic ideology. This frame-of-mind has existed in the Christian church ever since:

-The Seventh-Day Adventists do not ordain women, despite the fact that their denomination was founded by a woman. Their beliefs are largely based on the prophecies of Ellen G. White, and she is considered one of the SDA church’s primary founders.

-In the 19th century churches within Maine and Wisconsin were pastored by women, because no men were willing to do it. However, those very churches that are still in existence today condemn the ordaining of women in church leadership positions.

-In the Southern Baptist church in which I was raised, we supported a female missionary to Kenya. Her duties included: leading Bible studies, organizing church services, and leading prayer vigils. Imagine my surprise when I came to the realization that my church thought she was good enough to teach African men, but would not allow her to lead a group of male, white, Missourian Southern Baptists.

The issue of women in ministry comes down to defining the role of the Bible in creating social rules and mores for our contemporary culture. It is important to remember that the world of Paul was (much more than our culture) a male-dominated, male’s world. The more conservative parts of the Middle East are closer to the early Christian culture than the Western culture is. Witherington comments, “Unless one is willing to presuppose that whatever exists in a given culture is right and a manifestation of biblical values, it is necessary to ask to what degree patriarchal culture represents the biblical version of human society” (The Paul Quest).

The Bible is not meant to be treated as a moral code for every problem societies face. Instead, it is meant to introduce us to the God that leads us to the right decisions in the right situations. Therefore, we must avoid anachronisms in approaching the writings of Apostle Paul. Paul is neither a blatant misogynist or an ardent feminist; he was a man of his time. Yet, he rebelled against the notion that women were second-class citizens and could not contribute to the to the ministry of the Christian church in the same ways as men.

Thoughts on Hell

A professor friend of mine and I were discussing theology the other day, and I was explaining how some of my views on certain subjects has been changing and shifting. We talked about concepts like pre-destination and stuff like that, when I mentioned hell. At the mention of hell, he smiled and said, “Isn’t it funny how Christians are so open to having differing views on the grace of God? Yet, hell is something you just can not mess with.”

I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. Hell is one of those subjects that people get so passionate when discussing. It has become such a staple within Christendom, and one of our “golden calves” (and I fully anticipate some lively discussion from this post).

First of all, I grew up reading my Bible and thinking of hell in a pretty straightforward way. Hell is a place full of fire and brimstone with eternal suffering and torture. It is a place where sinners are punished for eternity, with no chance of escape. At some point someone explained to me that hell was “eternal separation from God.” It was the final resting place for souls who refused to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And, believe me, in some ways I retain that understanding of hell. I really do. However, I also know that our English translations of the Bible are interpretations in and of themselves. Whether we are talking about the King James Version, the New International Version, the Scholar’s Version, or the Message, they are all English translations of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic that the Bible is written in. Think about it: why do people who go to seminary still learn Hebrew and Greek? Because our English translations are not perfect. Therefore, when we examine an issue like hell, it is not enough to just do a biblegateway.com search for the word “hell.” As with most things in theology, the issue is a lot more complicated than that.

“Hell” in the Old Testament

In many of our English Bibles, the word “hell” is the translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which occurs 65 times in the Old Testament. In Hebrew theology Sheol is the “abode of the dead”, the “underworld”, or “pit”. It is very important for us to remember that Sheol was not a place of eternal punishment; rather, it the common eternal destination for the unrighteous and righteous alike.

We sometimes like to think of the Bible as having the same message throughout the entire thing, and I do not think that is the case. The Bible was written over thousands of year by scores of different writers. I think if we try to act like the theology of the people who wrote Genesis and the theology of the people who wrote Revelation are harmonious, we make the Bible ridiculous. Doctrine, practice, ritual, and theology all are evolving concepts throughout the Bible.

There a couple of passages (such as Daniel 12:2) that seem to indicate a kind of everlasting contemptuous existence. However, it is important to remember that the Hebrews had been greatly affected by the Persians as this point. The Persians had a very structured view of the afterlife that included a good place and a bad place for the dead. All of a sudden, you start to get this concept being included within Hebrew theology.

Some people see that and lose hope. The idea that the Hebrew faith could be influenced by another religion makes them lose hope in God. Others tend to view this as God’s way of introducing the concept of heaven and hell to the Hebrews. Still others, put their heads in the sand and just deny history. It is up to you on how to interpret these concepts. Personally, I see God working through other cultures and religions to bring about the theology that is believed today.

“Hell” in the New Testament

One of the words in the New Testament that often gets translated as “hell” is the Greek word Hades and Sheol are two very related concepts. They are both generally just the “abode of the dead” as opposed to a place of eternal punishment. They were simply where people go when they die.

Hades is referred to as the underworld (Matthew 11:23), “the bottomless place” (Romans 10:7), and “the lower parts” (Ephesians 4:9) and is used 10 times in the New Testament.

Since the influence of the Persians (or work of Jehovah, depending on your outlook) there are a few passages in the New Testament that use the word Hades as a place of punishment. One of which is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as found in Luke 16. In the story, Jesus tells of how there was a rich man who refused to feed a poor named Lazarus. In the end, the rich man goes to hell. More on that concept later.

Another concept that is associated with hell in the New Testament is the word Gehenna, which was actually a town dump that Jesus would have been referring to in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense.

One really interesting thing to note is that while many Christians associate the word Hades with hell, if you choose to be that literalist, the Bible promises that hell will be destroyed. In Revelation 20 it says, “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” Hades is destroyed?! This lake of fire thing is a concept that is borrowed from Egyptian eschatology. The “lake of fire” is mentioned only four times, and all four times are in the easy-to-understand book of Revelation.

Reflections

Please believe me, I am not rejecting the idea of a hell. I reject the notion that there is no such place or state as hell in existence. Jesus spoke with too much regularity about a place of judgment and darkness for it to not be real.

At the same time, though, I know that Jesus also regularly spoke in metaphors, similes, and often used hyperbole. In my opinion, when Jesus talks about hell we are meant to take Jesus’ comments about judgment very, very seriously, but please remember that there is a massive difference between taking a passage seriously, and taking it literally.

Whenever Jesus mentions hell, people tend to take that literally. They treat it as if Jesus is providing a physical description of hell. They take him completely at his word. However, Jesus as says that if your right arm causes you to sin, you should cut it off. And if your eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out. Now, was Jesus trying to provide a literal description of how best to avoid temptation, or was he speaking in a powerful hyperbole in order to convey the seriousness of sin? Clearly the latter.

What boggles me is that sometimes we don’t actually take the time to look at what Jesus is actually saying about hell. Whenever Jesus mentions hell we latch onto his words and like to use it as evidence for the existence of a physical place. However, have you ever taken the time to look at who Jesus says is actually going to hell:
-Those who call their neighbor a fool (Matthew 5:22)
-Those who lust after others in their own hearts (Matthew 5:27-30)
-Hypocritical religious leaders (Matthew 23:1-36)
-Those who are not good stewards of the gifts God has given them (Matthew 25:14-30)
-Religious people who refuse to help the poor and disenfranchised (Matthew 25:31-46)

Nothing is said in these passages about other religious to even people who are “lost”; in fact, most of what Jesus says about hell seems to be saved for the defiantly religious!

Yet, I do believe in hell.

I tend to agree with the oft-quoted C.S. Lewis. Go and check out his little allegorical book called The Great Divorce. In the book Hell is a dark city where people willingly stay to live their lives devoid of hope, joy, or fulfillment of any kind. C.S. Lewis said, “I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”

God does not send anyone to hell, in my opinion.

We send ourselves there. We spend our lives refusing to allow God to work in us, and God provides a place where we can be devoid of him.

C.S. Lewis also said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says: ‘Thy will be done.’”

Cryptoreligion?

Cryptoreligion?

I think this whole topic of psydoreligion vs. cryptoreligion is so interesting. In this post I want to make one point about cryptoreligion.

Cryptoreligion means hidden religion, yes. But I think the term should not be thought to imply that cryptoreligions are shams in exactly the same way that psudoreligions are shams.

I mean, someone could argue that religious people have a right to object to the psudoreligions of others, especially if the psydoreligion is the religion of the authentically religious person. For example, Christians may easily say, “Those people go to church, but they’re not really Christians.”

But it seems to me that a cryptoreligion is just some unspiritual thing one does religiously. If religion is ultimate concern and ultimate concern is lifestyle (as I argue in the previous post), then one’s cryptoreligion really is their ultimate concern. It’s still a sham, but at least they’re not saying they’re something they’re not, like the psydoreligious practicioners.

We can’t take away people’s cryptoreligions–their cars, their jobs, or their obsessive waterfowl hunting--except perhaps through evangelical conversion. If the person is decidely “unreligious,” then we really can’t point our fingers and say, “That workaholic doesn’t go to church.” Why should they? If, for example, an “unreligious” person who religiously gets up before the crack of dawn to hunt waterfowl all day were to go to church instead just because Christians told him to, that would be a case of giving up a cryptoreligion for a psudoreligion! If I had to choose one or the other, I’d rather have a cryptoreligion!

The waterfowl hunter’s ultimate concern might not get him through the pearly gates. That’s another topic. I just want to point out that the term cryptoreligion denotes an actual ultimate concern–albiet an unworthy one–whereas psydoreligion does not.

In closing; Tyler talked about the guilt this subject can bring on for Christians. I add that even a decidely-athiest waterfowl addict can benefit from rethinking his/her life.

Ultimate Concern

In the previous post, Tyler’s discussed ultimate concern. He talked about what ultimate concern is not, and ended with a question.

Tyler pointed out that guilt (and dissonance) is generated when Christians practice self-examination and find that their professed religion is a psudoreligion, or that they actually have other things–cryptoreligions–that rank higher than their Christianness.

In this post, I want to address the following question: what IS the “proper” ultimate concern for a Christian to have?

I’ll approach it this way: Let’s say that a certain person’s ultimate concern is to fulfill the teachings of Jesus. Let’s call this certain person Archibald. What is the object of Archibald’s ultimate concern? Is it:

• A certain way of life?
• Jesus?
• Or his interpretation of a set of sayings?

I will treat these options in reverse order.

I will argue that “a certain way of life” is the object of Archibald’s ultimate concern. I will further argue that every person’s ultimate concern is, one way or another, a certain way of life.

- – - – - – - – - -

1) his interpretation of a set of sayings

All readings of the scripture are interpretations. All of our understandings of scripture are meditated through our various lenses. Thus it is not as easy as it first appears to “just believe the bible”. We all have our interpretive lenses, whether we are conscious of them or not. The suspicion that people somewhere might disagree with us is a learned instinct, it does not come naturally. As we know, interpretations differ. Generally, that’s okay with me. Everybody has their own personal theology.

Is this Archibald’s ultimate concern?

Let’s assume that Archibald, our hypothetical person, has a working interpretation of the Genesis narrative, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, Revelation, the whole nine yards. We’ll call his interpretation “x.” It might be x1 or x2 or x3 or x4… There are many different interpretations that he might hold, and for our purposes it does not matter what the details are. He holds his view, and he lives by it.

But this should not be considered his ultimate concern. A frame of mind makes a very unhealthy ultimate concern. Because then Archibald’s religion is about maintaining, explaining and defending a set of propositions. This kind of religion is dull.

Also, depending on Archibald’s ability or willingness to adapt his beliefs, I think this kind of religion leads to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is to religion as dry wood is to fire. There’s nothing particularity combustible about it, so long as you keep all sparks and open flames away from it.

Obviously, fundamentalism and religion are not synonymous. There is a lot of wood in the forest that is not dry; namely, wood that is not dead. But perhaps this is taking the analogy too far.

What we can say is that Archibald’s interpretation of scripture is well and good, but that it is hopefully not his ultimate concern.

- – - – - – - – - -

2. Jesus

What about Jesus? If Jesus’ teaching ought not be one’s “ultimate concern,” surely the Lord himself may qualify.

We know that having a person as an ultimate concern can be problematic. Christian theology says that nobody in the world is worthy of our total devotion except for Christ.

Is Jesus, then, Archibald Christian’s true ultimate concern?

Personally, I find myself compelled to ask whether we are we are talking about the Jesus of History or the Christ of Faith. As for the Jesus of History; I suppose it is safer to have a historical figure for an ultimate concern rather than a contemporary figure. Contemporaries can fail you. They’re unpredictable. But Jesus is almost legendary. Like Batman. He stands for something, and he always will.

And this is why I believe that what Jesus stands for is the thing that qualifies as the rock bottom ultimate concern for a Christian.

Even if we are talking about the Christ of Faith, I do not think that his ultimate concern was himself. I am even prepared to argue that Jesus’ ultimate concern was not God. Jesus’ Father-in-Heaven was the reality that informed all of Jesus’ actions. His ultimate concern, however, was the Kingdom of God.

- – - – - – - – - -

3. A certain way of life

Jesus taught his followers to pursue a peculiar way of life. His teaching style was not point-by-point. He did not, for example, lecture about the implications of his having a physical body. He told stories. “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’…” His stories illustrate the Kingdom.

Jesus’ “program,” if I may call it that, entails a specific vision for the world and a specific way of getting there: the Kingdom of God and “kingdom come,” respectively (if ambiguously).

Now–to arrive at an understanding of “the Jesus way of life,” (number 3) Archibald first needed an understanding of Jesus (number 2). There is more than one way of understanding Jesus, but Archibald only needed one. And this understanding probably came from his interpretation of scripture (number 1).

So, what is his ultimate concern? I argue that it is a system of considerations which comes to a head in the form of his lifestyle.

- – - – - – - – - -

Ultimate Concern = way of life

Every human being’s ultimate concern not only shows through their way of life, but IS their way of life.

Let’s look at Archibald’s case. God is a reality that informs  the Christian lifestyle. Bringing God glory, or knowing him more, or serving him, or all three, is the mission. But these are all issues of lifestyle; lifestyle is the object. All of these goals about our relationship with God are intricately fuzed to our lifestyle and cannot exist apart from it.

The question of what motivates a lifestyle is, I think, another matter entirely. We certainly would not ask what motivates our lifestlye and call that our ultimate concern. For many practicing Christians like Archibald, the motivation would be faith. But faith is not an ultimate concern. It is too abstract. It opperates to far in the background.

If asked, I think Archibald would say that God is his ultimate concern. But my analysis–submitted for your consideration–leads me to conclude that “a certain way of life” is the object of Archibald’s ultimate concern.

To conclude, I’ll ask a question: Isn’t every person’s ultimate concern their lifestyle?

This would expalin why a person feels every nuance of his/her lifestyle so deeply.

Please Critique/elaborate! I could be way off.

j