Tomorrow is Valentine's Day* and it made me start thinking about something that I think needs to be clarified for some Christians.
Valentine's Day is, of course, the holiday on which we celebrate love. Believe it or not, there are some Christians who oppose celebrating Valentine's Day because they say it has pagan roots, the same reason these Christians give for not celebrating Christmas and Easter. These Christians oppose birthday celebrations for the same reason. While I understand their reasoning I believe they are quite mistaken to oppose birthday celebrations or holidays like Valentine's Day because of their pagan origins.
It's true that Scripture tells us that God doesn't want His people to worship Him with heathen practices. That's why I agree with those "anti-holiday" believers who have a problem with Christmas and Easter. Those holidays are about actually worshiping God with pagan "holy" days, and that's wrong. Scripture tells believers not to worship the one, true God the way pagans worship their false ones. I understand applying that principle to things like Christmas and Easter, but it's misguided, I feel, to apply it to things like birthday celebrations and "neutral" holidays like Valentine's Day.
Yes, birthday celebrations and holidays like Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are rooted in paganism, but they are not celebrated today as ways ofworshiping God. Rather, these things have come down to us as customs. And that's the key. Worship and custom are two very different things.
Worship is how we relate to God, how we honor and praise Him in certain sacred settings. Custom is how we live our lives. Of course, if we are God's people then we will live our lives differently from unbelievers in many ways, but that doesn't mean avoiding everything in life that has pagan roots. In fact, we can't avoid everything in life that has pagan roots because paganism permeates human civilization.
Take the days of the week, for instance. Five of them are named after pagan deities. In English, four of those deities are Germanic and one is Latin. Tuesday is Tiuw's day, Wednesday is Wotan's day, Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Freya's day, and Saturday is Saturn's day. The other two days of the week, Sunday and Monday, are named after the sun and moon, which were worshiped as gods by pagans. It's the same with the months of the year. Six--January, February, March, April, May, and June--are named after pagan gods or goddesses. Two more--July and August--are named after Roman emperors worshiped as gods.
So where does this leave believers if we are to avoid all things pagan? Are we not to say the names of the days of the week or the months of the year? Are we guilty of worshiping false gods if we do say those names? What about eating the main meal of the day at noon, a practice that I've heard has pagan roots? Should believers who live where that's the custom eat their main meal in the morning or the evening instead? How far is avoiding all things pagan supposed to go?
I think everyone can see that paganism touches all aspects of life and that avoiding it all together is just impossible. And that shouldn't be believers' goal. Rather, we should be discerning, as befitting followers of Christ, and make rational distinctions between acts of worship and mere custom. We should understand that we can celebrate a birthday, or Valentine's Day, or eat our main meal at 12 pm without accepting whatever pagan religious beliefs undergird those things. We must not use pagan religious practices to worship God. But participating in pagan-derived customs which do not involve worship is perfectly ok. So go ahead and attend that birthday party, send that Valentine's Day card, and eat your dinner at noon. God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you do. He's saving those for the real sinners.
*I started this post on February 13.
Showing posts with label Doctrinal Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doctrinal Issues. Show all posts
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Does God Really Hate "Fags"?
On Wednesday March 2 the Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could picket outside the funerals of soldiers killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. The father of one such soldier had sued the Church for infliction of mental anguish when Church members picketed his son's funeral.
In case you don't know, the Westboro Baptist Church--and I use the word "church" loosely here--is that group infamous for its website God Hates Fags. The "church" protests outside the funerals of fallen soldiers, hailing their deaths as a sign of God's judgment on America for tolerating homosexuality. The "church", as it website's name suggests, believes that God hates "fags". But is the Westboro Baptist sect right? Does God hate "fags"? In a word, no.
Do not misunderstand. The Bible does condemn homosexual behavior as sin. Any church that says otherwise is, to put it bluntly, lying. But God doesn't hate "fags", or homosexuals, which is the correct, non-pejorative term. There are many things in this world that displease God, and He is angered by continuous, unrepentant indulgence in them. The Lord will punish such willful sin, eventually. This punishment often takes the form of national calamity such as economic collapse or defeat in war. God punishes sin, but that doesn't mean He hates the people who commit the sin. If the sinners repent and turn to His ways, God will forgive even the most wicked of them and save their souls.
The Gospel of John says, famously, that "...God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That "whosoever" includes gay people; it even includes the hate filled heretics of Westboro Baptist. To be sure, once we have believed in Christ we are obligated to submit our lives to His will, living as He commands and not as we wish. This includes our sexual lives. However difficult it may be for homosexually inclined people, they must live out their sexual lives as God commands. If they sometimes fail and do what God forbids, forgiveness and a second chance are available to them just like everyone else. Nowhere in Scripture is their sin considered so heinous as to put them beyond redemption. Telling people they're beyond salvation when they're not is a far worse sin than finding intimacy with someone of the same sex.
So, to reiterate, the Westboro Baptist cultists are wrong. God does not hate "fags". He doesn't hate any human being. He does hate sin, though, and if the Westboro Baptist fanatics keep on slandering God's name with their outrageous distortion of His character and Word, they will discover that there's a special place in hell just for them. And the "fags" in heaven will laugh.
In case you don't know, the Westboro Baptist Church--and I use the word "church" loosely here--is that group infamous for its website God Hates Fags. The "church" protests outside the funerals of fallen soldiers, hailing their deaths as a sign of God's judgment on America for tolerating homosexuality. The "church", as it website's name suggests, believes that God hates "fags". But is the Westboro Baptist sect right? Does God hate "fags"? In a word, no.
Do not misunderstand. The Bible does condemn homosexual behavior as sin. Any church that says otherwise is, to put it bluntly, lying. But God doesn't hate "fags", or homosexuals, which is the correct, non-pejorative term. There are many things in this world that displease God, and He is angered by continuous, unrepentant indulgence in them. The Lord will punish such willful sin, eventually. This punishment often takes the form of national calamity such as economic collapse or defeat in war. God punishes sin, but that doesn't mean He hates the people who commit the sin. If the sinners repent and turn to His ways, God will forgive even the most wicked of them and save their souls.
The Gospel of John says, famously, that "...God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That "whosoever" includes gay people; it even includes the hate filled heretics of Westboro Baptist. To be sure, once we have believed in Christ we are obligated to submit our lives to His will, living as He commands and not as we wish. This includes our sexual lives. However difficult it may be for homosexually inclined people, they must live out their sexual lives as God commands. If they sometimes fail and do what God forbids, forgiveness and a second chance are available to them just like everyone else. Nowhere in Scripture is their sin considered so heinous as to put them beyond redemption. Telling people they're beyond salvation when they're not is a far worse sin than finding intimacy with someone of the same sex.
So, to reiterate, the Westboro Baptist cultists are wrong. God does not hate "fags". He doesn't hate any human being. He does hate sin, though, and if the Westboro Baptist fanatics keep on slandering God's name with their outrageous distortion of His character and Word, they will discover that there's a special place in hell just for them. And the "fags" in heaven will laugh.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Jesus Defined Marriage
The issue of gay marriage is quite contentious in our country. This contentiousness was highlighted by the recent controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean's support for traditional marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Miss Prejean's commitment to traditional marriage is believed by some to have cost her the Miss USA title. It has also made her the object of rabid scorn. Miss Prejean's courage and grace in the face of vitriolic condemnation is an inspiration but it might leave some people wondering if she's right to base her stand on the Bible. She is.
There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.
Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?
There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.
Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Real Brothers, Real Sisters
When Dan Brown's controversial book "The Da Vinci Code" was published many people were outraged over its assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not only married but had a child. Apparently, that notion bothered people not only because it posits a sexually active Christ but also because it implies that there are descendants of Jesus alive today. While there's little or no Biblical evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else, there probably ARE descendants of Jesus alive now, albeit indirect ones. Why do I say this? Because Jesus had brothers and sisters. I know; I just wrote something that a lot of Christians will vehemently disagree with. For them, the idea that Jesus had siblings is as repulsive as the idea that He was married. But if you believe the Bible you can accept no other conclusion but that Jesus was the oldest of at least seven children.
In the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth He is described as being Mary's first son, first as in other sons followed. The Gospel of Matthew provides the names of Mary's other sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Mary's daughters--Jesus's sisters--are not named but they are mentioned in the plural, so we know there were at least two of them. Later in the first Gospel--Matthew 12:46--Mary and Jesus's brothers are mentioned as wanting to speak with Him while He was preaching to a crowd. Jesus's brothers and sisters are also mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and in at least two Pauline letters, clearly showing that Christ was not an only child. So, with all this Scriptural evidence attesting to the nature of Christ's family, why do many Christians reject the fact of His siblings? Answer: the unBiblical doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that Mary never had sex, but remained virginal all her life. Clearly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters that doctrine crumbles. How, then, do the Catholic and Orthodox churches explain, or explain away, the references to Christ's siblings? The most popular explanation is that the brothers mentioned in verses like that of Matthew 12:46 are spiritual brothers. But this doesn't make sense. First of all Jesus, as mentioned above, is described as Mary's first son. If He was the first, then Mary had at least one more. Secondly, Catholics and the Orthodox never take the word "mother" in Matthew 12:46 and similar verses elsewhere to mean anything but a literal mother. Why, then, should the word "brothers" in those passages be interpreted as spiritual? Here is Matthew 12:46:
While Jesus was still speaking to the crowd his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to talk to him.
Clearly, from the context of the above verse "brothers" is a literal term. The men waiting with Mary to speak to Jesus were her sons, His siblings. Some Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept that the "brothers" in this passage are Jesus's literal, not spiritual, brothers but deny that they were Mary's children. Instead, they claim that the men were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Unfortunately, the Bible does not support this claim. NOWHERE in Scripture is Joseph described as having any wife but Mary. And Scripture says that Joseph did "know" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is false and needs to be discarded by anyone seriously committed to Biblical truth. Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple; they had sex with each other and conceived at least six children after Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed girls were Jesus's siblings. They were His real brothers and real sisters and, in all probability, their descendants are walking the earth today. Imagine that. Relatives of Jesus alive today. That's way more cool, and way closer to what Scripture actually says, than a specious doctrine of phoney "purity". Mary had sex; she had children. Get over it.
In the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth He is described as being Mary's first son, first as in other sons followed. The Gospel of Matthew provides the names of Mary's other sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Mary's daughters--Jesus's sisters--are not named but they are mentioned in the plural, so we know there were at least two of them. Later in the first Gospel--Matthew 12:46--Mary and Jesus's brothers are mentioned as wanting to speak with Him while He was preaching to a crowd. Jesus's brothers and sisters are also mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and in at least two Pauline letters, clearly showing that Christ was not an only child. So, with all this Scriptural evidence attesting to the nature of Christ's family, why do many Christians reject the fact of His siblings? Answer: the unBiblical doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that Mary never had sex, but remained virginal all her life. Clearly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters that doctrine crumbles. How, then, do the Catholic and Orthodox churches explain, or explain away, the references to Christ's siblings? The most popular explanation is that the brothers mentioned in verses like that of Matthew 12:46 are spiritual brothers. But this doesn't make sense. First of all Jesus, as mentioned above, is described as Mary's first son. If He was the first, then Mary had at least one more. Secondly, Catholics and the Orthodox never take the word "mother" in Matthew 12:46 and similar verses elsewhere to mean anything but a literal mother. Why, then, should the word "brothers" in those passages be interpreted as spiritual? Here is Matthew 12:46:
While Jesus was still speaking to the crowd his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to talk to him.
Clearly, from the context of the above verse "brothers" is a literal term. The men waiting with Mary to speak to Jesus were her sons, His siblings. Some Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept that the "brothers" in this passage are Jesus's literal, not spiritual, brothers but deny that they were Mary's children. Instead, they claim that the men were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Unfortunately, the Bible does not support this claim. NOWHERE in Scripture is Joseph described as having any wife but Mary. And Scripture says that Joseph did "know" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is false and needs to be discarded by anyone seriously committed to Biblical truth. Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple; they had sex with each other and conceived at least six children after Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed girls were Jesus's siblings. They were His real brothers and real sisters and, in all probability, their descendants are walking the earth today. Imagine that. Relatives of Jesus alive today. That's way more cool, and way closer to what Scripture actually says, than a specious doctrine of phoney "purity". Mary had sex; she had children. Get over it.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
The Trinity Explained...Sort Of
If you're like me the doctrine of the Trinity has always befuddled you. The idea that God is one Being that exists in three Persons is confusing, to say the least. It also always seemed a little contradictory to me. How can Christians be monotheists yet believe that three separate beings are God? How can three be one? I've finally hit upon a way to explain the Trinity that works; an explanation that's both spiritually and intellectually satisfying, at least to me. I've come to think of the Trinity as a set of divine identical triplets. Before you accuse me of blasphemy or stupidity, hear me out.
My main sticking point with the doctrine and concept of the Trinity has always been that three is more than one. When you have two or more of something you can't call it one, unless you're dealing with identical multiples. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the members of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--are three beings who are one in essence. And it's that "oneness of essence" that makes them one God. But they're still three Persons, so how could they be one in any way? Answer: they're identical triplets.
Think about it. Identical multiples are called that NOT because they look exactly alike, but because their DNA is 100% the same. Thus, while identical multiples consist of two or more separate people, their genetic essence is the same making them, genetically speaking, one person. This is how you can have two, three, or four separate individuals who, beneath the skin, are actually the same person. This is how you can have the Trinity. This is how Christians can believe that three persons are God while remaining true monotheists. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God because their "genetic essence" is the same. This essence is what defines them, not their existence as separate beings.
This is how I understand the Trinity. An image of God as a set of divine, identical triplets may offend some people. I understand that. But I think it's more offensive to be unable to give a reasonable explanation of a key Christian doctrine. Pratically every church I've ever attended did a terrible job of explaining the Trinity. This contributed significantly to my divine discontents. Realizing that there are instances in the physical world where two or more beings are really one helps me to grasp this fact in the spiritual realm. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost really are one God. They are triplets. Understand?
My main sticking point with the doctrine and concept of the Trinity has always been that three is more than one. When you have two or more of something you can't call it one, unless you're dealing with identical multiples. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the members of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--are three beings who are one in essence. And it's that "oneness of essence" that makes them one God. But they're still three Persons, so how could they be one in any way? Answer: they're identical triplets.
Think about it. Identical multiples are called that NOT because they look exactly alike, but because their DNA is 100% the same. Thus, while identical multiples consist of two or more separate people, their genetic essence is the same making them, genetically speaking, one person. This is how you can have two, three, or four separate individuals who, beneath the skin, are actually the same person. This is how you can have the Trinity. This is how Christians can believe that three persons are God while remaining true monotheists. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God because their "genetic essence" is the same. This essence is what defines them, not their existence as separate beings.
This is how I understand the Trinity. An image of God as a set of divine, identical triplets may offend some people. I understand that. But I think it's more offensive to be unable to give a reasonable explanation of a key Christian doctrine. Pratically every church I've ever attended did a terrible job of explaining the Trinity. This contributed significantly to my divine discontents. Realizing that there are instances in the physical world where two or more beings are really one helps me to grasp this fact in the spiritual realm. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost really are one God. They are triplets. Understand?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Grace
Here is a beautiful poem written by Denna who blogs at Two Little Darlings (she's in my blogroll). I asked her if I could put it on God and Me and she said yes. I love this poem because it affirms the Biblical truth that God supports and strengthens us in the bad times rather than always keeping us out of harm's way as the phony prosperity gospel asserts. So here's "Grace"; I hope you like it as much as I do.
God has not promised skies always blue,
flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God has not promised sun without rain,
joy without sorrow, peace without pain.
But God has promised strength for the day,
rest for the labor, light for the way;
Grace for the trails, help from above,
unfailing sympathy, undying love.
Isn't that beautiful?! What a warm, gentle, and lovely way Denna chose to speak Biblical truth to a Christian community too often looking for divine quick fixes to life's problems. I just hope Christians are listening.
God has not promised skies always blue,
flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God has not promised sun without rain,
joy without sorrow, peace without pain.
But God has promised strength for the day,
rest for the labor, light for the way;
Grace for the trails, help from above,
unfailing sympathy, undying love.
Isn't that beautiful?! What a warm, gentle, and lovely way Denna chose to speak Biblical truth to a Christian community too often looking for divine quick fixes to life's problems. I just hope Christians are listening.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Why Not Married Priests?
I want it known from the beginning that I'm not anti-Catholic. I believe that Catholics are Christians and I DON'T believe that the Pope is out to take over the world with the Illuminati. However, I was raised Protestant and many things about Catholicism do baffle me. One of those things is the prohibition on married priests.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
YOU Are The Saints!
Perhaps because it's the Christmas season I've been thinking about saints. I've been reading a little about St. Nicholas, the inspiration for Santa Claus, and while he seems to have been a genuinely good man the historical devotion paid to him, and other saints, proved disturbing to me.
This blog is about my "divine discontents" and one of my pet discontents is Christians doing or believing things that are not in the Bible. One such thing is this veneration of saints.
Through out Christian history there have been people who showed exceptional devotion to God and the life He would have us live. There is nothing wrong with holding such people in high esteem and encouraging the faithful to emulate them. But when people celebrate feast days, make pilgrimages to saints' shrines and pray to saints as if they were God something is terribly wrong.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE true God and that worshipping anything besides Him is idolatry. Yet, for hundreds of years the Catholic and Orthodox churches have promoted the virtual worship of human beings they call "saints". They've taught millions of their unsuspecting members that the veneration of saints is an integral part of the Christian faith. It's not.
Saint worship is left over, "Christianized" polytheism. It was a way for the early institutional church to deal with "converted" pagans who didn't really abandon their desire to worship multiple gods. Giving such people Godly heroes to venerate in place of their pagan deities may have seemed like a positive way to satisfy their polytheist urges but it can backfire on the church. When folks realize that practices and doctrines they've been taught all their lives are not in the Bible it can obliterate the authority of the church and discredit the entire Christian message. So this whole saints issue is serious business.
The church needs to follow the Bible's teachings on saints. According to the Good Book the saints are ALL the believers. Every person who sincerely believes in God and Jesus Christ is a saint. Look at yourselves in the mirror, Christians. YOU are the saints! That's what the Bible says. The only canonization process is believing in Christ and living life His way. Do that and you have instant sainthood. What you don't have is people praying to mortals as if they were gods.
Once Christians understand just what Biblical sainthood is they should strive to be worthy of the label. Being a saint is a lot harder than worshipping one. But once they fully realize who they are I know the believers will step up to the plate.
This blog is about my "divine discontents" and one of my pet discontents is Christians doing or believing things that are not in the Bible. One such thing is this veneration of saints.
Through out Christian history there have been people who showed exceptional devotion to God and the life He would have us live. There is nothing wrong with holding such people in high esteem and encouraging the faithful to emulate them. But when people celebrate feast days, make pilgrimages to saints' shrines and pray to saints as if they were God something is terribly wrong.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE true God and that worshipping anything besides Him is idolatry. Yet, for hundreds of years the Catholic and Orthodox churches have promoted the virtual worship of human beings they call "saints". They've taught millions of their unsuspecting members that the veneration of saints is an integral part of the Christian faith. It's not.
Saint worship is left over, "Christianized" polytheism. It was a way for the early institutional church to deal with "converted" pagans who didn't really abandon their desire to worship multiple gods. Giving such people Godly heroes to venerate in place of their pagan deities may have seemed like a positive way to satisfy their polytheist urges but it can backfire on the church. When folks realize that practices and doctrines they've been taught all their lives are not in the Bible it can obliterate the authority of the church and discredit the entire Christian message. So this whole saints issue is serious business.
The church needs to follow the Bible's teachings on saints. According to the Good Book the saints are ALL the believers. Every person who sincerely believes in God and Jesus Christ is a saint. Look at yourselves in the mirror, Christians. YOU are the saints! That's what the Bible says. The only canonization process is believing in Christ and living life His way. Do that and you have instant sainthood. What you don't have is people praying to mortals as if they were gods.
Once Christians understand just what Biblical sainthood is they should strive to be worthy of the label. Being a saint is a lot harder than worshipping one. But once they fully realize who they are I know the believers will step up to the plate.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Was Jesus Necessary?
In this season when we celebrate the birth of Christ, to many the Savior of the world, I thought I would write a post on a question I've had for a very long time: was Jesus necessary?
In orthodox Christian teaching, faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, to be considered right before God. Yet the first part of the Christian Bible seems to contradict that doctrine from begining to end. In the Old Testament, as Christians call it, numerous people from Abel to Noah to Abraham to Moses and many more are called righteous, often by God Himself. They had an intimate relationship with God without "knowing the Lord". In short, they were saved. This has always perplexed me.
If Christian teaching is true, and no one is saved apart from Christ, then everyone who lived before Christ died eternally lost. But if pre-Jesus people could be and were saved, then Jesus was unnecessary. Really, what would be the point of sending Christ if salvation was already obtainable? And the Old Testament clearly reveals that it was.
Some Christians might argue that salvation by faith is the same in the Old and New Testaments and point to the NT Book of Hebrews as proof. In that epistle is the famous Roll Call of Faith where OT heroes and heroines are lauded for their unwavering commitment to God. The problem for Christians is that the people on the Roll Call of Faith had faith in God NOT Jesus, who hadn't come in their time. Yet they were righteous enough without Christ to be praised in the NT. So I ask again: was Jesus necessary?
I once posed this question to a nice pastor. I asked him how was it possible for people to be saved before the coming of Christ. His answer was that Christ's coming, death, and resurrection had already happened in God's mind so, for pre-Jesus people, believing in God was believing in Christ. I'm still disappointed at how lame that answer was. I expected more from a pastor.
So I still have the question: was Jesus necessary? If you take the OT seriously then the answer is no, Jesus wasn't necessary, at least not for salvation. He may have fulfilled other Messianic requirements, but saving souls couldn't have been on the list because righteousness was already obtainable. I realize that's a big monkey wrench in Christian doctrine. People could be righteous before Christ? That changes everything! Yes, it does. But if your heart is to follow the Bible you will happily change to align yourself with it.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. My understanding of Old Testament righteousness may be incomplete. The people of that time may have been lacking something that only Christ could give. In that case, Christ would indeed be necessary. A big part of me really hopes He was.
In orthodox Christian teaching, faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, to be considered right before God. Yet the first part of the Christian Bible seems to contradict that doctrine from begining to end. In the Old Testament, as Christians call it, numerous people from Abel to Noah to Abraham to Moses and many more are called righteous, often by God Himself. They had an intimate relationship with God without "knowing the Lord". In short, they were saved. This has always perplexed me.
If Christian teaching is true, and no one is saved apart from Christ, then everyone who lived before Christ died eternally lost. But if pre-Jesus people could be and were saved, then Jesus was unnecessary. Really, what would be the point of sending Christ if salvation was already obtainable? And the Old Testament clearly reveals that it was.
Some Christians might argue that salvation by faith is the same in the Old and New Testaments and point to the NT Book of Hebrews as proof. In that epistle is the famous Roll Call of Faith where OT heroes and heroines are lauded for their unwavering commitment to God. The problem for Christians is that the people on the Roll Call of Faith had faith in God NOT Jesus, who hadn't come in their time. Yet they were righteous enough without Christ to be praised in the NT. So I ask again: was Jesus necessary?
I once posed this question to a nice pastor. I asked him how was it possible for people to be saved before the coming of Christ. His answer was that Christ's coming, death, and resurrection had already happened in God's mind so, for pre-Jesus people, believing in God was believing in Christ. I'm still disappointed at how lame that answer was. I expected more from a pastor.
So I still have the question: was Jesus necessary? If you take the OT seriously then the answer is no, Jesus wasn't necessary, at least not for salvation. He may have fulfilled other Messianic requirements, but saving souls couldn't have been on the list because righteousness was already obtainable. I realize that's a big monkey wrench in Christian doctrine. People could be righteous before Christ? That changes everything! Yes, it does. But if your heart is to follow the Bible you will happily change to align yourself with it.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. My understanding of Old Testament righteousness may be incomplete. The people of that time may have been lacking something that only Christ could give. In that case, Christ would indeed be necessary. A big part of me really hopes He was.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
God and Mammon
I just heard last night that six televangelists are being investigated for possible financial shenanigans. The evangelists are Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn, Eddie L. Long, and a married couple surnamed White (sorry, I can't remember their first names). I have mixed feelings about this.
Our modern society is schizophrenic about wealth. We have a love/hate relationship with money and those who have more of it than we do. Entertainers and sports figures are generally worshipped for their money. They're presumed to have done something to deserve it. Wealthy businessmen and preachers, on the other hand, are held in contempt. They're presumed to have done something unethical to get their riches. This is neither fair nor rational. I hope the above mentioned televangelists weren't targeted for investigation based on this double standard.
But it's not only society that's double minded about wealth, the Church is too and has been from the beginning. Over the centuries there've been ascestics who shunned all material comfort and Popes who lived in the lap of luxury. Mother Teresa lived her life in self-imposed poverty while nondenominational preachers invented the "name it and claim it" doctrine that supposedly ensure their followers material success. And no matter how rich or poor individual Chrisitians were the Church as an institution as always been tremendously wealthy.
So how should Christians feel about wealth? I think it's simplistic to use Jesus' famous saying about a camel, a rich man, and the eye of a needle to build a doctrine about wealth. Many Christians do this, apparently thinking that one verse is the beginning and end on what the Bible says about wealth, but it's not. We tend to forget that Jesus didn't have a New Testament. For Him, the Old Testament was the entire Bible. That means that nothing Jesus taught could contradict what was in the OT. What does that have to with doctrines about wealth? Plenty.
In the OT there were many rich people who served God. Abraham was rich. His nephew Lot was rich. Jacob started out modest but ended a wealthy man. The same was true of King David. Solomon, David's son, was incredibly wealthy. Job was given riches by God not once but twice. What all of this means is that God doesn't have a problem with people being rich. There is no teaching in the OT that wealth is intrinsically bad. Jesus' camel, rich man, and needle saying has to be seen in that light.
Jesus was actually talking about faith, not money, in His saying. He was warning His listeners against putting their trust in money instead of God. He was warning them against idolatry. Rich people are more susceptible to idolizing money for obvious reasons, but the poor can also make a god out of wealth. Poor people can spend their entire lives yearning for money rather than God. They can commit crimes to get money, just like the rich. The idea, popular among liberal Christians, that the poor are inherently saintly is erroneous.
Equally wrong is the popular conservative idea that God wants Christians to prosper. Now I believe that God always wants the best for His children, but the "best" isn't always material abundance. We all like to think that if we were rich we'd be wonderfully generous and retain our faith in the Lord. God knows us better. He withholds wealth from many of us for our own good. God will provide our necessities but there's no guarantee we'll get more than that. That's why Paul taught Christians to be content with what they had.
How Christians should view wealth can be confusing. Part of the confusion can be cleared up by simply following the Bible instead of certain preachers. There were rich people who were faithful to God and there were poor people who were faithful to Him. One group isn't more "in" with God than the other. Yes, the Scriptures treat the poor with more sympathy than the rich. But that's because poverty can make people more vulnerable to abuse and victimization. It's not because poverty makes you holy. The way to be righteous with God is the same for rich and poor alike. There is no salvation by class in the Bible. If we would accept that truth the Church would be much better off.
Our modern society is schizophrenic about wealth. We have a love/hate relationship with money and those who have more of it than we do. Entertainers and sports figures are generally worshipped for their money. They're presumed to have done something to deserve it. Wealthy businessmen and preachers, on the other hand, are held in contempt. They're presumed to have done something unethical to get their riches. This is neither fair nor rational. I hope the above mentioned televangelists weren't targeted for investigation based on this double standard.
But it's not only society that's double minded about wealth, the Church is too and has been from the beginning. Over the centuries there've been ascestics who shunned all material comfort and Popes who lived in the lap of luxury. Mother Teresa lived her life in self-imposed poverty while nondenominational preachers invented the "name it and claim it" doctrine that supposedly ensure their followers material success. And no matter how rich or poor individual Chrisitians were the Church as an institution as always been tremendously wealthy.
So how should Christians feel about wealth? I think it's simplistic to use Jesus' famous saying about a camel, a rich man, and the eye of a needle to build a doctrine about wealth. Many Christians do this, apparently thinking that one verse is the beginning and end on what the Bible says about wealth, but it's not. We tend to forget that Jesus didn't have a New Testament. For Him, the Old Testament was the entire Bible. That means that nothing Jesus taught could contradict what was in the OT. What does that have to with doctrines about wealth? Plenty.
In the OT there were many rich people who served God. Abraham was rich. His nephew Lot was rich. Jacob started out modest but ended a wealthy man. The same was true of King David. Solomon, David's son, was incredibly wealthy. Job was given riches by God not once but twice. What all of this means is that God doesn't have a problem with people being rich. There is no teaching in the OT that wealth is intrinsically bad. Jesus' camel, rich man, and needle saying has to be seen in that light.
Jesus was actually talking about faith, not money, in His saying. He was warning His listeners against putting their trust in money instead of God. He was warning them against idolatry. Rich people are more susceptible to idolizing money for obvious reasons, but the poor can also make a god out of wealth. Poor people can spend their entire lives yearning for money rather than God. They can commit crimes to get money, just like the rich. The idea, popular among liberal Christians, that the poor are inherently saintly is erroneous.
Equally wrong is the popular conservative idea that God wants Christians to prosper. Now I believe that God always wants the best for His children, but the "best" isn't always material abundance. We all like to think that if we were rich we'd be wonderfully generous and retain our faith in the Lord. God knows us better. He withholds wealth from many of us for our own good. God will provide our necessities but there's no guarantee we'll get more than that. That's why Paul taught Christians to be content with what they had.
How Christians should view wealth can be confusing. Part of the confusion can be cleared up by simply following the Bible instead of certain preachers. There were rich people who were faithful to God and there were poor people who were faithful to Him. One group isn't more "in" with God than the other. Yes, the Scriptures treat the poor with more sympathy than the rich. But that's because poverty can make people more vulnerable to abuse and victimization. It's not because poverty makes you holy. The way to be righteous with God is the same for rich and poor alike. There is no salvation by class in the Bible. If we would accept that truth the Church would be much better off.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Thoughts on Forgiveness, Part 2
I'm back to continue my thoughts on forgiveness. When I signed off Wednesday I had made the point that forgivenss doesn't make everything alright like so many Christians say it does. I believe that with all my heart. Forgiveness has limits and that should be admitted by believers; it doesn't make everything ok.
Yes, forgiveness can liberate people from the grip of toxic emotions and give them a new lease on life, but only if it's part of a larger process. It doesn't do that all by itself. The belief that it does has, I suspect, left a lot of hurting people sitting in pews all across America and the world, people who don't dare admit their true feelings for fear of appearing unChristian and/or getting chastised by their "caring" pastors and Christian friends.
Why do so many Christians believe that forgiveness is a panacea when the Bible no where says it is? I think it may be because of a discomfort with the emotion of anger, a discomfort that is itself unBiblical. A lot of Christians believe that anger is a sin; the Bible does NOT teach that! The Bible tells us to be angry but sin not, making a clear distinction between anger and sin. Jesus got angry at the Pharisees and at the moneychangers in the Temple. If getting angry is a sin, then Jesus was a sinner and, therefore, can't be the Messiah, who is supposed to be sinless. So Christians need to dump this false and harmful doctrine that getting angry is sinful and follow what the Bible actually says.
Another reason I think Christians believe forgiveness is a cure-all is the false "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine. Simply put, this doctrine states that Jesus came to earth to give us health, wealth and happiness, and if we're not healthy, wealthy, and happy it's because of some secret sin in our lives, usually unforgiveness. Forgiveness is the ticket to God's blessings, to heaven on earth; unforgiveness blocks the divine gravy train. So, many Christians are "forgiving" people just to have access to the Cosmic Genie, also known as God. This is a sad state of affairs indeed.
By turning forgiveness into The Answer To All That Ails Us, Christians can end up being quite cruel to hurting, victimized people, even without meaning to. More than once I've heard tv preachers demean the feelings of wronged people. "You don't have a right to be angry!" "Who are you to judge anybody?!" "If you don't forgive, you're worse than the person who hurt you!" I've heard tv preachers say these, or similar, things without the slightest comprehension of the damage they were doing to a lot of people in their congregations.
The worst thing you can do to someone who's been hurt is to invalidate their feelings. Hurt and anger are natural and thoroughly appropriate reactions to being wronged, and they don't go away just by chanting the spell, "I forgive you". If Christians really want people to offer--and benefit from--truly genuine forgiveness, the first step is to agree with the injured person on both the depth of the injury and the rightness of his "unChristian" reaction to it. In other words, validate his feelings. Stop expecting instant forgiveness, and stop condemning when it's not forthcoming. And PLEASE stop telling people that forgiveness heals!
The idea that forgiveness causes emotional healing is, perhaps, one of the most deeply ingrained doctrines in the Church today. And I think it's one of the most unhealthy doctrines to dump on injured people. As I've said before, anger, hurt, and the desire for revenge are natural human feelings, but no matter how natural they are they can become horribly destructive if not handled properly. Teaching people that simply saying, "I forgive you", will banish these potentially deadly emotions from their hearts and minds is a gross disservice. These feelings need to be worked through, and the process can be long, hard, and messy. The end result, though, is an emotional healthy person who's ready to forgive. That's right; forgiveness can be and, if the truth were told, usually is the RESULT OF healing, NOT the means to healing.
That goes against virtually everything Christians today are taught about forgiveness. But Christians need to start thinking outside the box--not outside the Bible!--on what forgiveness really is and how to achieve it. Christians are commanded to forgive. If they really want to obey their Lord they should look at every possible means to do so and dump whatever doesn't work.
I will be posting on this subject again later. I'm not finished with forgiveness, and forgiveness isn't finished with me.
Yes, forgiveness can liberate people from the grip of toxic emotions and give them a new lease on life, but only if it's part of a larger process. It doesn't do that all by itself. The belief that it does has, I suspect, left a lot of hurting people sitting in pews all across America and the world, people who don't dare admit their true feelings for fear of appearing unChristian and/or getting chastised by their "caring" pastors and Christian friends.
Why do so many Christians believe that forgiveness is a panacea when the Bible no where says it is? I think it may be because of a discomfort with the emotion of anger, a discomfort that is itself unBiblical. A lot of Christians believe that anger is a sin; the Bible does NOT teach that! The Bible tells us to be angry but sin not, making a clear distinction between anger and sin. Jesus got angry at the Pharisees and at the moneychangers in the Temple. If getting angry is a sin, then Jesus was a sinner and, therefore, can't be the Messiah, who is supposed to be sinless. So Christians need to dump this false and harmful doctrine that getting angry is sinful and follow what the Bible actually says.
Another reason I think Christians believe forgiveness is a cure-all is the false "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine. Simply put, this doctrine states that Jesus came to earth to give us health, wealth and happiness, and if we're not healthy, wealthy, and happy it's because of some secret sin in our lives, usually unforgiveness. Forgiveness is the ticket to God's blessings, to heaven on earth; unforgiveness blocks the divine gravy train. So, many Christians are "forgiving" people just to have access to the Cosmic Genie, also known as God. This is a sad state of affairs indeed.
By turning forgiveness into The Answer To All That Ails Us, Christians can end up being quite cruel to hurting, victimized people, even without meaning to. More than once I've heard tv preachers demean the feelings of wronged people. "You don't have a right to be angry!" "Who are you to judge anybody?!" "If you don't forgive, you're worse than the person who hurt you!" I've heard tv preachers say these, or similar, things without the slightest comprehension of the damage they were doing to a lot of people in their congregations.
The worst thing you can do to someone who's been hurt is to invalidate their feelings. Hurt and anger are natural and thoroughly appropriate reactions to being wronged, and they don't go away just by chanting the spell, "I forgive you". If Christians really want people to offer--and benefit from--truly genuine forgiveness, the first step is to agree with the injured person on both the depth of the injury and the rightness of his "unChristian" reaction to it. In other words, validate his feelings. Stop expecting instant forgiveness, and stop condemning when it's not forthcoming. And PLEASE stop telling people that forgiveness heals!
The idea that forgiveness causes emotional healing is, perhaps, one of the most deeply ingrained doctrines in the Church today. And I think it's one of the most unhealthy doctrines to dump on injured people. As I've said before, anger, hurt, and the desire for revenge are natural human feelings, but no matter how natural they are they can become horribly destructive if not handled properly. Teaching people that simply saying, "I forgive you", will banish these potentially deadly emotions from their hearts and minds is a gross disservice. These feelings need to be worked through, and the process can be long, hard, and messy. The end result, though, is an emotional healthy person who's ready to forgive. That's right; forgiveness can be and, if the truth were told, usually is the RESULT OF healing, NOT the means to healing.
That goes against virtually everything Christians today are taught about forgiveness. But Christians need to start thinking outside the box--not outside the Bible!--on what forgiveness really is and how to achieve it. Christians are commanded to forgive. If they really want to obey their Lord they should look at every possible means to do so and dump whatever doesn't work.
I will be posting on this subject again later. I'm not finished with forgiveness, and forgiveness isn't finished with me.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Thoughts on Forgiveness, Part 1
Well, here I am. Returning at last to my blog about God and God and me. Sorry for the long delay; I promise I won't be gone so long again!
As some of you may recall, I don't consider myself a Christian but, rather, a Christianist(see the post "Christianism" to learn what a Christianist is). Why am I not a full Christian? I have a lot of problems with some of Christianity's teachings and this post with deal with one of those.
Everyone knows that one of the central teachings of Christianity is forgiveness. I understand why Jesus would teach his followers to forgive, but I have a problem with making forgiveness a commandment. I've often felt that Islam's teaching on forgiveness was more realistic. In Islam, if memory serves, forgiveness is encouraged as the superior response to a wrong but it's not commanded; you can choose to not forgive those who've hurt you and still be right with Allah. Of course, in Christianity you're taught that if you don't forgive others God won't forgive you. I have a problem with that.
I'd like to say right off the bat that I've never been seriously hurt by anyone. Oh, people have made me mad and done things to me that at the time seemed like the crime of the century, but in hindsight I realize that those "crimes" weren't so bad. So I don't have any personal experience with hardcore forgiveness. I admire people who truly forgive those who've hurt them in truly horrifying ways, but I also understand people who don't, and it's always bothered me that God apparently doesn't understand them.
God, who can understand someone committing the most egregious evil, can't-- or won't-- understand the victim's unwillingness to forgive. In God's eyes it's worse to be unforgiving of evil than it is to actual commit evil. At least, that's the God portrayed in Christians' teachings on forgiveness, and I just can't swallow that.
Yes, I know that God loves everyone and that He makes His rain to fall on the wicked and the good alike, but surely God can't be so cold as to not understand the anguish of someone who's been horribly victimized and how that anguish can make forgiveness out of the question, at least initially. Surely God understands that pain, grief, hate, and rage are normal reactions to being wronged, reactions for which no one should be condemned. Yet, when I listen to Christian pastors on tv or radio talk about forgiveness, or read Christian books on the subject, I'm always struck by how judgmental they are toward those who haven't, can't, or just won't, forgive.
I remember watching Joyce Myers--I hope I spelled her last name right--on tv several years ago, strutting across the stage delivering a blistering sermon against unforgivers. Her attitude was so smug and self-righteous I wanted to puke. As she condemned those who hadn't forgiven their victimizers I wondered just how quick she'd be to forgive if she'd been hurt the way some of the people in her audience might have been. Rather than offering victimized people compassion, understanding, and a helping hand to lovingly guide them to forgiveness, she virtually opened the doors of hell and pushed them in!
Another tv preacher, one of my favorites, also said something about forgiveness that completely turned me off. John Hagee, whom I usually agree with, once said that if you don't forgive instantly and completely you're not a true Christian. When I heard him say that I was stunned. As with Joyce Myers I felt, and still feel, that Pastor Hagee's statement was totally devoid of compassion for the victims of evil. Forgive instantly?! And if you don't you're not a true Christian?! If the police came to Pastor Hagee's house and told him his son had been shot by a mugger, I seriously doubt if his first response would be, "Forgive him Father, he didn't know what he was doing." Yet Hagee, in effect, told his flock that that should be their first response.
I don't care how saved people are, giving forgiveness to the bad guy isn't going to be the first thing they do after they're hurt. Oh, they might say the words, but their hearts will be in the hurt, in the rage, in the grief, in the hate. That's only human, and that's ok. But too many Christians are telling people it's not ok. They're telling them to just say the three magic words, "I forgive you" and--presto!--all's right with the world. But that's not true; it's just not true!
Unfortunately, I've run out of time on the library's computer. I will be returning tomorrow or Thursday to finish my thoughts on forgiveness. Sorry for the interruption.
As some of you may recall, I don't consider myself a Christian but, rather, a Christianist(see the post "Christianism" to learn what a Christianist is). Why am I not a full Christian? I have a lot of problems with some of Christianity's teachings and this post with deal with one of those.
Everyone knows that one of the central teachings of Christianity is forgiveness. I understand why Jesus would teach his followers to forgive, but I have a problem with making forgiveness a commandment. I've often felt that Islam's teaching on forgiveness was more realistic. In Islam, if memory serves, forgiveness is encouraged as the superior response to a wrong but it's not commanded; you can choose to not forgive those who've hurt you and still be right with Allah. Of course, in Christianity you're taught that if you don't forgive others God won't forgive you. I have a problem with that.
I'd like to say right off the bat that I've never been seriously hurt by anyone. Oh, people have made me mad and done things to me that at the time seemed like the crime of the century, but in hindsight I realize that those "crimes" weren't so bad. So I don't have any personal experience with hardcore forgiveness. I admire people who truly forgive those who've hurt them in truly horrifying ways, but I also understand people who don't, and it's always bothered me that God apparently doesn't understand them.
God, who can understand someone committing the most egregious evil, can't-- or won't-- understand the victim's unwillingness to forgive. In God's eyes it's worse to be unforgiving of evil than it is to actual commit evil. At least, that's the God portrayed in Christians' teachings on forgiveness, and I just can't swallow that.
Yes, I know that God loves everyone and that He makes His rain to fall on the wicked and the good alike, but surely God can't be so cold as to not understand the anguish of someone who's been horribly victimized and how that anguish can make forgiveness out of the question, at least initially. Surely God understands that pain, grief, hate, and rage are normal reactions to being wronged, reactions for which no one should be condemned. Yet, when I listen to Christian pastors on tv or radio talk about forgiveness, or read Christian books on the subject, I'm always struck by how judgmental they are toward those who haven't, can't, or just won't, forgive.
I remember watching Joyce Myers--I hope I spelled her last name right--on tv several years ago, strutting across the stage delivering a blistering sermon against unforgivers. Her attitude was so smug and self-righteous I wanted to puke. As she condemned those who hadn't forgiven their victimizers I wondered just how quick she'd be to forgive if she'd been hurt the way some of the people in her audience might have been. Rather than offering victimized people compassion, understanding, and a helping hand to lovingly guide them to forgiveness, she virtually opened the doors of hell and pushed them in!
Another tv preacher, one of my favorites, also said something about forgiveness that completely turned me off. John Hagee, whom I usually agree with, once said that if you don't forgive instantly and completely you're not a true Christian. When I heard him say that I was stunned. As with Joyce Myers I felt, and still feel, that Pastor Hagee's statement was totally devoid of compassion for the victims of evil. Forgive instantly?! And if you don't you're not a true Christian?! If the police came to Pastor Hagee's house and told him his son had been shot by a mugger, I seriously doubt if his first response would be, "Forgive him Father, he didn't know what he was doing." Yet Hagee, in effect, told his flock that that should be their first response.
I don't care how saved people are, giving forgiveness to the bad guy isn't going to be the first thing they do after they're hurt. Oh, they might say the words, but their hearts will be in the hurt, in the rage, in the grief, in the hate. That's only human, and that's ok. But too many Christians are telling people it's not ok. They're telling them to just say the three magic words, "I forgive you" and--presto!--all's right with the world. But that's not true; it's just not true!
Unfortunately, I've run out of time on the library's computer. I will be returning tomorrow or Thursday to finish my thoughts on forgiveness. Sorry for the interruption.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Teach Your People
The uproar over the movie "The Da Vinci Code", and the book on which it's based, has revealed what I think is a great weakness in modern American Christianity.
In case you don't know, "The Da Vinci Code" proposes that Jesus Christ was married to, and had a child by, Mary Magdalene, and that the bloodline of said child is the real Holy Grail. This truth was murderously suppressed, the book goes on to suggest, by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. Oh, and Christ didn't die on the cross, either, according to the book.
Apparently, many Christians who've read "The Da Vinci Code" have had their faith damaged, if not destroyed. And these aren't new Christians, but people who've been in the faith for years. That's why there've been calls to boycott the movie, and a rash of books by pastors and other firmly committed Christians trying to debunk the "Code". But how could the faith of people who've been in church many years, maybe even all their lives, be so vulnerable to a book? Because the clergy has abandoned it's responsibility to teach the people; that's the great weakness in modern Christianity.
Turn on just about any "Christian" tv program, or pick up just about any "Christian" book these days, and what you'll get is some spiritualized version of motivational speaking. It's all about how being a Christian will get you out of debt, save your marriage, put you on the fast track to success, and make you thin, to boot. There's practically nothing about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and the historical proof for those doctrines. Thus, the average churchgoer today can tell you the "Biblical" principles of prosperity but not a thing about the Council of Nicea. So, when a book comes along claiming that Jesus' divinity was decided by vote at said Council, under pressure from Roman emperor Constantine; that gospels telling the real story of Jesus were suppressed by the church; that Jesus didn't die on the cross; and that the Holy Grail is the sacred bloodline of Jesus' child, today's average Christian is a sitting duck for disillusionment.
It doesn't matter how long you've attended church. If you weren't taught the historical truth of Christianity you have no defence against "The Da Vinci Code" or any other attack on the
faith. And it's the responsibility of the clergy to teach their people. The loss of faith of so many Christians in the wake of Dan Brown's book can be laid directly at the feet of derelict clergymen. Preaching wealth, health, and happiness instead of teaching hard facts in support of the faith, they've shirked a duty as sacred, in God's eyes, as the role of parent. They are supposed to be God's generals, but they've sent His troops into battle with no armor and no weapons. Every soul lost because of "The Da Vinci Code" will be laid at their doorstep. I wonder how many of them take that seriously, or even realize it.
Hopefully, some clergy will see the folly of their ways and repent. Maybe they're repenting already, and showing it by writing those debunking books mentioned above. If the church is going to keep true Christianity intact, this has to happen. May God let it.
In case you don't know, "The Da Vinci Code" proposes that Jesus Christ was married to, and had a child by, Mary Magdalene, and that the bloodline of said child is the real Holy Grail. This truth was murderously suppressed, the book goes on to suggest, by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. Oh, and Christ didn't die on the cross, either, according to the book.
Apparently, many Christians who've read "The Da Vinci Code" have had their faith damaged, if not destroyed. And these aren't new Christians, but people who've been in the faith for years. That's why there've been calls to boycott the movie, and a rash of books by pastors and other firmly committed Christians trying to debunk the "Code". But how could the faith of people who've been in church many years, maybe even all their lives, be so vulnerable to a book? Because the clergy has abandoned it's responsibility to teach the people; that's the great weakness in modern Christianity.
Turn on just about any "Christian" tv program, or pick up just about any "Christian" book these days, and what you'll get is some spiritualized version of motivational speaking. It's all about how being a Christian will get you out of debt, save your marriage, put you on the fast track to success, and make you thin, to boot. There's practically nothing about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and the historical proof for those doctrines. Thus, the average churchgoer today can tell you the "Biblical" principles of prosperity but not a thing about the Council of Nicea. So, when a book comes along claiming that Jesus' divinity was decided by vote at said Council, under pressure from Roman emperor Constantine; that gospels telling the real story of Jesus were suppressed by the church; that Jesus didn't die on the cross; and that the Holy Grail is the sacred bloodline of Jesus' child, today's average Christian is a sitting duck for disillusionment.
It doesn't matter how long you've attended church. If you weren't taught the historical truth of Christianity you have no defence against "The Da Vinci Code" or any other attack on the
faith. And it's the responsibility of the clergy to teach their people. The loss of faith of so many Christians in the wake of Dan Brown's book can be laid directly at the feet of derelict clergymen. Preaching wealth, health, and happiness instead of teaching hard facts in support of the faith, they've shirked a duty as sacred, in God's eyes, as the role of parent. They are supposed to be God's generals, but they've sent His troops into battle with no armor and no weapons. Every soul lost because of "The Da Vinci Code" will be laid at their doorstep. I wonder how many of them take that seriously, or even realize it.
Hopefully, some clergy will see the folly of their ways and repent. Maybe they're repenting already, and showing it by writing those debunking books mentioned above. If the church is going to keep true Christianity intact, this has to happen. May God let it.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
A Married Christ?
Ask conservative Christians how they feel about marriage and they'll tell you it's a good thing. More than that, it's a sacred thing, invented by God Himself in the Garden of Eden. That's why such Christians are fighting tooth and nail against the legalization of gay marriage. Such a move, they fear, would destroy the very meaning of the God-ordained institution and must be opposed at all costs. Yet, if you ask these same marriage-devoted, conservative Christians if Jesus was or could've possibly been married, they'll react as if marriage was one of the seven deadly sins.
Jesus married?! It's blasphemy to even suggest such a thing! You're not a true Christian! Liberals have taken over the church! There's no way Christ was married!
Why do people who claim to believe that marriage is a good, even sacred, thing react so negatively to any suggestion that Jesus might've been wed? In a word, sex.
Despite the Bible's positive view of sex, most conservative Christians have mixed feelings about it, to say the least. For centuries, the orthodox Christian teaching has been that Jesus was fully God and fully man. To believe otherwise put you in the heresy camp, yet most orthodox Christians today are uncomfortable with a Jesus so human that He could've had--gasp!--sexual feelings. But let's think about this rationally.
In the Bible God never calls sex bad. He restricts sex to men and women in marriage and harshly condemns sex outside of that relationship, but He never calls sex itself evil. All you have to do is read the Song of Solomon to see how approving of sex, in it's right place, God is. So, if God didn't think sex was intrinsically evil, and if Jesus was God incarnate, then it stands to reason that Jesus also didn't object to sex itself. Thus, if Jesus was married there would've been nothing sinful about it.
But the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married, some might argue, so that proves He wasn't. No, it doesn't. All that proves is that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married. The Good Book also doesn't say that Jesus wasn't married. So if you're going to argue from silence, you have to admit that said silence gives as much "proof" to the other side as it does to your own.
Some Christians might reject a married Christ as a way to fight against neo-Gnostic attacks on the Christian faith like the ones in the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. I understand that view, but the best why to fight attacks on the faith is with reason and truth. And the truth is that we just don't know the marital status of Christ. The Bible doesn't tell us, and maybe it doesn't because that information is irrelevant to Christ's mission and our response to it. Think about it: if Jesus was married, and even had children, what difference would that make to His death and resurrection? None at all. Sure, some people may be uncomfortable at the thought that there could be physical descendants of Jesus living today but you know what, there already are descendants of Jesus living today! They are the descendants of His brothers and sisters. So Jesus' bloodline is alive on earth right now, if only indirectly.
All and all, I think any Christian who really believes that marriage is a good and sacred thing shouldn't feel upset at any suggestion or hint that Jesus might've been married. Afer all, if Jesus was married, and if He really was God, then He was simply partaking of the holy sacrament He Himself ordained.
Jesus married?! It's blasphemy to even suggest such a thing! You're not a true Christian! Liberals have taken over the church! There's no way Christ was married!
Why do people who claim to believe that marriage is a good, even sacred, thing react so negatively to any suggestion that Jesus might've been wed? In a word, sex.
Despite the Bible's positive view of sex, most conservative Christians have mixed feelings about it, to say the least. For centuries, the orthodox Christian teaching has been that Jesus was fully God and fully man. To believe otherwise put you in the heresy camp, yet most orthodox Christians today are uncomfortable with a Jesus so human that He could've had--gasp!--sexual feelings. But let's think about this rationally.
In the Bible God never calls sex bad. He restricts sex to men and women in marriage and harshly condemns sex outside of that relationship, but He never calls sex itself evil. All you have to do is read the Song of Solomon to see how approving of sex, in it's right place, God is. So, if God didn't think sex was intrinsically evil, and if Jesus was God incarnate, then it stands to reason that Jesus also didn't object to sex itself. Thus, if Jesus was married there would've been nothing sinful about it.
But the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married, some might argue, so that proves He wasn't. No, it doesn't. All that proves is that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married. The Good Book also doesn't say that Jesus wasn't married. So if you're going to argue from silence, you have to admit that said silence gives as much "proof" to the other side as it does to your own.
Some Christians might reject a married Christ as a way to fight against neo-Gnostic attacks on the Christian faith like the ones in the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. I understand that view, but the best why to fight attacks on the faith is with reason and truth. And the truth is that we just don't know the marital status of Christ. The Bible doesn't tell us, and maybe it doesn't because that information is irrelevant to Christ's mission and our response to it. Think about it: if Jesus was married, and even had children, what difference would that make to His death and resurrection? None at all. Sure, some people may be uncomfortable at the thought that there could be physical descendants of Jesus living today but you know what, there already are descendants of Jesus living today! They are the descendants of His brothers and sisters. So Jesus' bloodline is alive on earth right now, if only indirectly.
All and all, I think any Christian who really believes that marriage is a good and sacred thing shouldn't feel upset at any suggestion or hint that Jesus might've been married. Afer all, if Jesus was married, and if He really was God, then He was simply partaking of the holy sacrament He Himself ordained.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother?
I was watching the 700 Club last night and Pat Robertson answered a question from a woman who's mother had abandoned her and her siblings when they were children. The mother was now popping in and out of her children's lives every few years, usually to ask for money. The woman's question was did she have to honor such a mother; Mr. Robertson said yes. I'm not comfortable with that answer.
I know that the Bible commands us to honor our parents. I understand the need for that commandment, but sometimes I think people think that gives parents the right to treat their children any way they chose without consequence. Pat Robertson seems to fall into that category. No, Mr. Robertson has never advocated child abuse, and he has strongly counselled abuse victims not to have any contact with unrepentant parents. Still, he seems to believe that children generally don't have the right to hold their parents accountable for any negative or even destructive thing the parents have done to them. Mr. Robertson's answers always seem to include the mantra, "She/he is the only mother/father you've got", the implication being that any wrong they've done or are still doing needs to be overlooked by the child(ren). I think that's going too far.
The commandment to honor one's parents isn't given in a vacuum. There are many other commandments people are to obey, and no where in His Word does God say that these commandments don't apply between parent and child. Yes, parents are due a certain amout of respect simply by being parents. None of us would be here if our parents hadn't decided to have us and care for us in our youngest years. Yet, parents also owe respect to their children because the children are not just their children but also their fellow human beings. Thus, all the commandments governing how we must treat our fellow man apply to parents as they bring up their children.
For example, the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. In the New Testament Jesus showed that "neighbor" meant any human being, especially one in need. Doesn't "neighbor", then, include one's children? And if parents abuse their children, abandon them, manipulate them, use them for selfish gain, haven't they violated the second commandent? And shouldn't such parents expect a dip in the honor they receive from their children?
Or what about the commandment not to have any gods before God? If we tell children to give their parents blind, unquestioning honor, and the obedience that goes along with it, are we not telling them to treat their parents like little gods? Are we not making them guilty of idolatry?
We are told in the Bible to honor and obey governmental authority, but that commandment isn't absolute, even in the New Testament. Cruel, unjust governments or laws are disobeyed with God's approval several times in the Bible. Why do we think it's any different with cruel, unjust parents? It's not. Children are not obligated to honor or obey abusive, cruel parents. And for the parents who aren't abusive, children do have the right to hold them accountable for the wrong things they may have done in the process of bringing them up. After all, the consequences that destructive or negligent acts can have on a person don't vanish just because the perpetrators of the acts were his parents.
Parents must realize that they are accoutable before God to treat their children as the fellow human beings they are. If they do that, they will reap a bounty of honor in this life and the next. That's how Mr. Robertson should answer the next question he gets about what's due deadbeat parents.
I know that the Bible commands us to honor our parents. I understand the need for that commandment, but sometimes I think people think that gives parents the right to treat their children any way they chose without consequence. Pat Robertson seems to fall into that category. No, Mr. Robertson has never advocated child abuse, and he has strongly counselled abuse victims not to have any contact with unrepentant parents. Still, he seems to believe that children generally don't have the right to hold their parents accountable for any negative or even destructive thing the parents have done to them. Mr. Robertson's answers always seem to include the mantra, "She/he is the only mother/father you've got", the implication being that any wrong they've done or are still doing needs to be overlooked by the child(ren). I think that's going too far.
The commandment to honor one's parents isn't given in a vacuum. There are many other commandments people are to obey, and no where in His Word does God say that these commandments don't apply between parent and child. Yes, parents are due a certain amout of respect simply by being parents. None of us would be here if our parents hadn't decided to have us and care for us in our youngest years. Yet, parents also owe respect to their children because the children are not just their children but also their fellow human beings. Thus, all the commandments governing how we must treat our fellow man apply to parents as they bring up their children.
For example, the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. In the New Testament Jesus showed that "neighbor" meant any human being, especially one in need. Doesn't "neighbor", then, include one's children? And if parents abuse their children, abandon them, manipulate them, use them for selfish gain, haven't they violated the second commandent? And shouldn't such parents expect a dip in the honor they receive from their children?
Or what about the commandment not to have any gods before God? If we tell children to give their parents blind, unquestioning honor, and the obedience that goes along with it, are we not telling them to treat their parents like little gods? Are we not making them guilty of idolatry?
We are told in the Bible to honor and obey governmental authority, but that commandment isn't absolute, even in the New Testament. Cruel, unjust governments or laws are disobeyed with God's approval several times in the Bible. Why do we think it's any different with cruel, unjust parents? It's not. Children are not obligated to honor or obey abusive, cruel parents. And for the parents who aren't abusive, children do have the right to hold them accountable for the wrong things they may have done in the process of bringing them up. After all, the consequences that destructive or negligent acts can have on a person don't vanish just because the perpetrators of the acts were his parents.
Parents must realize that they are accoutable before God to treat their children as the fellow human beings they are. If they do that, they will reap a bounty of honor in this life and the next. That's how Mr. Robertson should answer the next question he gets about what's due deadbeat parents.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Once Saved, Always Saved?
One of the things that has always bothered me about Christianity is the doctrine of once saved, always saved. Simply put, this doctrine claims that once you sincerely say the sinners' prayer and accept Jesus into your heart you're permanently saved; nothing you do from then on can unsave you.
On the surface, this idea sounds good; it sure makes God appear loving. He places no demands on our behaviour, all He's looking for is an emotional acknowledgement of His Son's sacrifice. Great! The problem for me is it's just too easy.
But the Gospel is that easy, Christians will say. It's man-made traditions that have complicated it. Ok, fine. But where does behaviour or, dare I say it, works fit in? The problem is this: if we're saved forever once we say the sinners' prayer, why not live any way we want to afterwards?
Modern Christians are constantly condemning the rampant sin in today's society. Yet they seem totally blind to how the "once save, always saved" doctrine undermines their anti-sin struggle. If our salvation can't be lost by anything we do, then there's no reason not to do anything we want once we're saved. Christians will counter that we're saved from sin, not to sin. But if that's true, then doesn't salvation obligate us not to sin? And if that's true, then doesn't willful, unrepentant sin cancel our salvation? And if such sin doesn't cancel our salvation then, I ask again, why not sin boldly after we're saved?
Some Christians might say that after salvation we should behave in certain ways, i.e. not sin, because our behaviour is the outward sign of our salvation to a non-believing world. Unbelievers love to accuse Christians of hypocrisy and challenge them by pointing to all the bad things done in Christ's name. Consequently, Christians must strive to bring honor to Christ's name by living as He did when He was on earth. So, not sinning is about protecting Christ's name, not about protecting our salvation. I can buy that to a certain extent, but it still seems to me that behaviour--works--should play a part in keeping, if not receiving, salvation.
Suppose someone sincerely says the sinners' prayer and accepts Jesus into his heart. For several years after that he lives a Christian life. Then, bad things start happening to him. His business goes bust; his wife leaves him; his child gets cancer. All of this causes him to question God and to start living less and less like a Christian. Finally, he gives up on God completely and commits to living however he wants to, regardless of how sinful it may be. He's still living that way when he dies. Am I to believe that this person will go to heaven just because, years earlier, he gave his life to Christ? The "once saved, always saved" doctrine says he will. My heart says he won't.
On the surface, this idea sounds good; it sure makes God appear loving. He places no demands on our behaviour, all He's looking for is an emotional acknowledgement of His Son's sacrifice. Great! The problem for me is it's just too easy.
But the Gospel is that easy, Christians will say. It's man-made traditions that have complicated it. Ok, fine. But where does behaviour or, dare I say it, works fit in? The problem is this: if we're saved forever once we say the sinners' prayer, why not live any way we want to afterwards?
Modern Christians are constantly condemning the rampant sin in today's society. Yet they seem totally blind to how the "once save, always saved" doctrine undermines their anti-sin struggle. If our salvation can't be lost by anything we do, then there's no reason not to do anything we want once we're saved. Christians will counter that we're saved from sin, not to sin. But if that's true, then doesn't salvation obligate us not to sin? And if that's true, then doesn't willful, unrepentant sin cancel our salvation? And if such sin doesn't cancel our salvation then, I ask again, why not sin boldly after we're saved?
Some Christians might say that after salvation we should behave in certain ways, i.e. not sin, because our behaviour is the outward sign of our salvation to a non-believing world. Unbelievers love to accuse Christians of hypocrisy and challenge them by pointing to all the bad things done in Christ's name. Consequently, Christians must strive to bring honor to Christ's name by living as He did when He was on earth. So, not sinning is about protecting Christ's name, not about protecting our salvation. I can buy that to a certain extent, but it still seems to me that behaviour--works--should play a part in keeping, if not receiving, salvation.
Suppose someone sincerely says the sinners' prayer and accepts Jesus into his heart. For several years after that he lives a Christian life. Then, bad things start happening to him. His business goes bust; his wife leaves him; his child gets cancer. All of this causes him to question God and to start living less and less like a Christian. Finally, he gives up on God completely and commits to living however he wants to, regardless of how sinful it may be. He's still living that way when he dies. Am I to believe that this person will go to heaven just because, years earlier, he gave his life to Christ? The "once saved, always saved" doctrine says he will. My heart says he won't.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
A "Good" God
By now everyone's heard of Pat Robertson's comments about Ariel Sharon and the uproar they caused. For those who don't know, Mr. Robertson quoted the book of Joel where it says God has enmity against those who divide His land, and implied that Mr. Sharon's stroke might've been divine judgment. I actually saw the episode of The 700 Club, Mr. Robertson's tv show, where he made his remarks and I know they were misconstrued, perhaps deliberately so, by the media. What really fascinated me though, was why people reacted so viscerally to what Mr. Robertson said, or what they thought he said. I think I have an answer. People don't want a just God; they want a "good" one.
Most people don't want a God who has standards and holds people accountable for breaking them. This is true even of most self-identified conservative/evangelical Christians. I heard a few of them on Bill O'Reilly's radio show the day after Mr. Robertson made his statement. They expressed outrage and/or embarrassment over the remarks and were keen to distance themselves from them. "My God is a good God" was the general attitude of these Christians, "good" apparently meaning that God doesn't punish people or even have rules the breaking of which could lead to punishment. But if that's the kind of God they worship, they don't worship the God of the Bible.
The God of the Bible is good, but He also has commandments and moral absolutes. Our postmodern culture rejects moral absolutes in favor of moral relativism in which nothing is really wrong. It seems many Christians have absorbed that postmodern spirit but rather than admit it try to "Christianize" it by saying that God is "good", i.e. permissive and non-judgmental. Consequently, He would not have punished Ariel Sharon with a stroke because He doesn't have a standard of right and wrong. It's utterly astounding to me that people can call themselves Christians and read the Bible yet totally miss that the God thereof judges people and nations. What do they think the Flood, or the plagues on Egypt, were all about if not judgment for wickedness?
But, comes the usual protest, I don't want to know, let alone worship, a God who could flood an entire civilization or kill a nation's first born. That's cruel! So, they want a "good" God who lets evil reign unchallenged. Another favorite complaint, usually lodged by atheists, is that God can't exist or be good when there's so much evil in the world. God has to do something about evil before I'll believe in Him, these people say. But when God does do something about evil they call Him cruel! Sadly, confusingly, many Christians are in this camp. These people, believers and unbelievers alike, want to have their divine cake and eat it, too. They want a "good" God who, by their definition, can't judge people or intervene in human affairs to punish evil, yet they demand "doing something about evil" as proof that God exists! Talk about a catch 22.
I think a lot of people who claim to be Christians need to be honest with themselves about what they really believe and then realize they have to make a choice. They can have their "good" God who smiles indulgently at everything they do, or they can have the Biblical God, who doesn't. They can't have both. Lets hope they choose the true one.
Most people don't want a God who has standards and holds people accountable for breaking them. This is true even of most self-identified conservative/evangelical Christians. I heard a few of them on Bill O'Reilly's radio show the day after Mr. Robertson made his statement. They expressed outrage and/or embarrassment over the remarks and were keen to distance themselves from them. "My God is a good God" was the general attitude of these Christians, "good" apparently meaning that God doesn't punish people or even have rules the breaking of which could lead to punishment. But if that's the kind of God they worship, they don't worship the God of the Bible.
The God of the Bible is good, but He also has commandments and moral absolutes. Our postmodern culture rejects moral absolutes in favor of moral relativism in which nothing is really wrong. It seems many Christians have absorbed that postmodern spirit but rather than admit it try to "Christianize" it by saying that God is "good", i.e. permissive and non-judgmental. Consequently, He would not have punished Ariel Sharon with a stroke because He doesn't have a standard of right and wrong. It's utterly astounding to me that people can call themselves Christians and read the Bible yet totally miss that the God thereof judges people and nations. What do they think the Flood, or the plagues on Egypt, were all about if not judgment for wickedness?
But, comes the usual protest, I don't want to know, let alone worship, a God who could flood an entire civilization or kill a nation's first born. That's cruel! So, they want a "good" God who lets evil reign unchallenged. Another favorite complaint, usually lodged by atheists, is that God can't exist or be good when there's so much evil in the world. God has to do something about evil before I'll believe in Him, these people say. But when God does do something about evil they call Him cruel! Sadly, confusingly, many Christians are in this camp. These people, believers and unbelievers alike, want to have their divine cake and eat it, too. They want a "good" God who, by their definition, can't judge people or intervene in human affairs to punish evil, yet they demand "doing something about evil" as proof that God exists! Talk about a catch 22.
I think a lot of people who claim to be Christians need to be honest with themselves about what they really believe and then realize they have to make a choice. They can have their "good" God who smiles indulgently at everything they do, or they can have the Biblical God, who doesn't. They can't have both. Lets hope they choose the true one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)