Trialogue

(92) Protection, Skepticism, Anchors, and Faith

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve and John

Part 1: Somehow Things Will Be Made Right

I recently read the book Play the Ball Where the Monkey Drops It: Why We Suffer and How We Can Hope. The book is by Dr. Gregory Knox Jones, who is pastor of a Presbyterian Church. The central issue addressed by this book has a strong parallel to the issue I started to tackle last June and July, and which I’ve been more recently trying to capture with the “Level Six” designation. And, the book just so happens to speak to the issue in about the way that I tend to see it -- so of course I see the book as being wise and insightful!
        Part One of the book is entitled “No Protective Bubble.” On page 14 of the book, there is a list of several frequently stated attempts to explain unfair suffering in the world, and in subsequent pages, Jones explains why he finds each unsatisfactory. These unsatisfactory views include clichés such as “God is teaching us a lesson”, “sin wreaks suffering,” and “suffering is a mystery” (several other views are also cited).
        Jones questions where we ever got the idea that God would protect us from pain and suffering, and recognizes on page 47 that:  “there is another problem with believing that God has a purpose for everything that happens. It makes God responsible for the tremendous amount of violence, injustice, and suffering experienced every day by people around the world. Most people find that idea repulsive and incompatible with our notion of a loving God.”
        Jones states that “I believe God is the supreme power in the universe who is continually at working seeking to persuade the world toward greater forms of beauty and harmony, but because we have freedom to make choices, God does not strictly control the events of the world…” [Because we have the freedom to make choices], God knows all the possibilities that might occur, but not even God knows exactly what will happen until it does.” We must come to a new understanding of the idea that God is “all-powerful”, Jones argues; he states that there are “some things that God cannot do.” Jones illustrates this with examples, such as a mountain climber losing his grip, or a driver falling asleep at the wheel. God cannot suddenly change the laws of gravity or take control of the wheel.
        A verbal discussion with Steve the other evening suggested that perhaps we are closer in our views on this issue than I had perceived. When you have time, Steve, I’d encourage you to read Dr. Jones’ book and see what you think. It’s not a long read, and you may find it to be interesting. And, if you generally agree with the book’s arguments, then that’ll tend to confirm that our views aren’t that far apart. If you don’t, then who knows, maybe we have some more talking to do, or maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
        John, I read and appreciate your fevered thoughts and imaginings. Your bottom line seemed to be that there are a number of possibilities that can be imagined -- as to why bad things happen -- which do not come back to issues such as man’s free will or the extent of God’s power. Among those, I note your suggestion:

Is it possible that all suffering and death is a choice made by the individual on some level… Is it possible that the thousands of people who died in New York last year each came to that end – through the long, winding roads of their independent lives – not by accident but through a level of soul-choice that we are simply not aware of in our normal human consciousness?

Perhaps a remote chance, but I’m very skeptical. First of all, I can’t conceive of anyone making this choice…  I know, I know, just because I can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it untrue… Second of all, when we all were caught by such total surprise by this attack, at what level did these people “know” that their other choices would lead to this subconsciously desired outcome? Third of all, if this was the outcome that they desired as a soul-choice, why didn’t they also know as a matter of soul-choice NOT to just recently get engaged, have children, etc. etc. etc.? And finally, if this was a matter of soul-choice, I’d like to see the evidence from their loved ones suggesting that the deceased were inexplicably drawn to work in that building. Why is it that all these people making this soul-choice also just so happened to have an interest in making their career in the world of high-powered finance and trade? That’s an interesting correlation and coincidence!
        I also note your suggestion (from Ram Dass)::

What if the next thing that happens to you is exactly the right thing to move you in the direction you need to go? What if each and every event and thought and action and reaction, the sum of which constitute your life, is part of the absolutely perfect curriculum to teach you what you need to know?

I think that this is a comforting thought, and it also may be an excellent attitude or philosophy for living life. But I’m skeptical of it nonetheless. If life provides us with the perfect curriculum to teach us, who is the teacher? That is, who guides us to the correct answers, because we sure seem to get the wrong answers a lot? Moreover, there are things that happen for which my very being cries out that these things could not be part of a perfect curriculum. For example, if you are a young child with loving parents, in what sense could the loss of those parents ever be the perfect curriculum for you? Or child abuse?
        I can anticipate that you might respond that a child abuser in a former life might, once reincarnated, suffer abuse as part of an appropriate curriculum. However, to the extent that you believe in the possibilities of the reincarnation idea, how strongly do you think that we are aware of our “crimes and misdemeanors” from a prior life when we are reincarnated? It seems to me that a reincarnation into child abuse would only work as an understandable curriculum if the reincarnated child has a very strong sense of how this “lesson” is connected to a past life. And further, I’d think we have to question in reality how effective this curriculum seems to be in imparting the desired knowledge -- as the evidence suggests that those experiencing child abuse are more, not less, likely to become abusers themselves in later life.
        I think that you both believe that a certain “edge” to my recent pieces reflects a frustration as to the lack of a fully adequate “answer” to the problem of “God is good, but bad things happen”. But actually, my frustration is with what I perceive as one of the worst assumptions that I think makes this seem like more of a dilemma than it needs to be. That is the view that all things that come to pass on earth are part of God’s plan, or are specifically-desired outcomes by God. I am frustrated with this view because I think it is faith-killing, not faith-affirming.
        Instead, I have faith that somehow, someway, sometime, all things will be made right. This is the type of assurance reported by Julian of Norwich, that “all manner of things shall be made well” :

"God showed me three degrees of bliss which every soul who has willingly served God shall have in heaven, whatever his degree on earth. The first is the glorious gratitude of our Lord God, which he will receive when he is freed from his sufferings; the gratitude is so exalted and glorious that it would seem to fill the soul, even if there were no greater bliss; for I thought that all the pain and trouble that could be suffered by all living men could not have deserved the gratitude which one man shall have who has willingly served God…"

"for bliss lasts eternally, and pain passes and shall vanish completely… suffering seems to me to be something transient, for it purges us and makes us know ourselves…"

"[O]ur Lord gently revealed words to me… And these words, ‘You shall not be overcome’, were said very loudly and clearly, for security and comfort against all the tribulations that may come. He did not say, ‘You shall not be tormented, you shall not be troubled, you shall not be grieved’, but he said ‘You shall not be overcome'."

Part 2: Skeptics and Skepticism, Anchors and Pyramids

I was in a conversation not long ago, when the statement was made to me: “All that can be said about God with intellectual integrity is that we don’t know whether God does or doesn’t exist.”

                    “All that can be said…”
                            “with intellectual integrity…”

Among the first thoughts that flashed through my mind at this point in the conversation was the thought, “I wonder (or rather, I probably don’t have to wonder!) what this person would think, if they saw how the three of us have spent all this time and all these pages trying to say some things about God.” Needless to say, the conversation didn’t engender my confidence that a sharing of pieces from our dialogue would be well-received by this skeptic.
        I can’t stay clear of thinking about that skeptical statement, however. It seems to me that at one level, the statement is correct. That is (and we’ve been through this before) the very idea of faith is that there is something about the belief that can’t be “proven”. Thus, we can’t claim 100 percent certainty that there is a God, nor can an atheist claim 100 percent certainty that there is not.
        But I disagree with the sentiment that this statement conveys – that this is the end of the matter – that there’s nothing more that can be said with “intellectual integrity”. First, for a subject matter so devoid of potential for intelligent insight (beyond “maybe there is, maybe there isn’t”), there sure has been an impressive list of thinkers that have seen fit to wrestle with the topic over the centuries.
        Second, it is possible to examine various arguments, evidence, and experiences and make our own assessment – with “intellectual” integrity as well as a dose of intuition – as to the likelihood of God’s existence, within that broad continuum from greater than zero percent likelihood to less than 100 percent likelihood. In fact, there is a body of literature out there that focuses on the question of the probability of God’s existence, and does so in a rigorous way. These works do not seek to attach a specific probability percentage – that’s not possible – but the works do seek to go beyond the probabilities of “greater than zero” and “less than 100” percent, and speak in terms of likelihood.
        Third, if we agree that our general attitudes and actions in life are shaped by our beliefs, then NOT only does it seem POSSIBLE to examine the question of God in some detail, and with intellectual integrity, it also arguably seems NECESSARY. We have a choice… Do we wish to shape our lives around the proposition that God exists (or probably exists), or not? Agnosticism, at least as frequently practiced, rejects the need to shape our lives around this basic proposition. On the other hand, if the proposition is accepted, then a variety of activities, such as worship, prayer, the concept of “having a relationship with and serving God on earth”, and communicating with our children about God, seem to make sense. Some of the major religions of the world add further seriousness to the matters of whether, and how, we orient ourselves to God, by suggesting that “our” futures beyond this life may be shaped by how we respond to these matters.
        I probably shouldn’t speak for John here, but it seems to me that the unqualified designation of John as “skeptic” in Steve’s February 16th piece is overly broad. I’m reminded of, and would like to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen here:    “Steve, you call John a skeptic, without qualification. Well, let me say, that in my day, I’ve known some flat-out skeptics. And John, Sir, is no flat-out skeptic.”
        While John expresses less than certainty in his beliefs/faith (“I believe, but help me with my unbelief”), John also says “I strongly believe in God”, and that’s come through in the dialogue. He’s incorporated his beliefs regarding God in shaping his life and actions (his meditation is a pursuit of the oneness of God, for example). Some of the ideas about God that John relates to, in fact, you (Steve) and I treat with more skepticism than he does. Does that make us the skeptical ones?
        We cannot define a skeptic, it seems to me, as one who holds dear unproven faith beliefs that differ from our own. Nor can we define a skeptic as someone who holds dear unproven faith beliefs that we consider less credible than our own. Your true skeptic (such as my conversational partner at the start of this piece) would see little value in exploring propositions that ultimately can’t be proved one way or the other, and certainly would not put any faith or confidence in such propositions. That’s not John.
        There is a need, then, I think, to be more specific about the way in which John is a skeptic. Biblical skeptic? Based on the content of the dialogue, clearly that fits. Skeptic of many Christian beliefs? That seems to fit also.
        Steve asks what is the skeptic’s anchor, and that is a good question; but since I don’t think John is an unrooted skeptic, I’m not sure it’s the right question for him.
        I really see each of the three of us as having a faith anchor. However – and here I’m drawing from an analogy I came across in one of my readings, I no longer recall which one – we may want to think of this “anchor” as more like the strong base of a pyramid. (It may have been from Bartholomew, because I do know that he wrote that the “foundation of belief is not the solid bedrock of incontrovertible evidence”, but rather a collection of various pieces which “derive their strength from mutual reinforcement.”)
        Over time, the base of this pyramid may be added to, or somewhat subtracted from. But like a pyramid, a strong faith benefits from a wide broad base, such that the structure stands, even if a few bricks are dislodged here and there over time.
        Steve’s pyramid, which points to Jesus, starts with the content of 66 different books of the Bible. To that, add the thoughts and interpretations of various orthodox Christian thinkers, both ancient and modern. To that, add the faith testimony of other Christians, and the positive impacts that he observes in sharing the faith with jail inmates. And to that, add a sense of a personal relationship with God, and a sense that the world is a reflection of God’s goodness. What I see -- and I am glad for this – is that even if Steve is someday disabused of his view of Biblical inerrancy, his faith will continue to thrive, thank you very much.
        Though I haven’t read all or even most of the Bible, I have a strong sense from what I know that I’m not going to end up with as much text from the Bible as Steve as part of the base of my faith pyramid, so I need to bring a bit more diversity into my base. Nonetheless, a belief in Jesus as an emissary of God is part of my pyramid. There are many ideas and influences from the Judeo-Christian heritage that are part of my pyramid. The thoughts and ideas of various theologians and scholars are part of the pyramid. The ways in which science points to God, in my view --and the extent to which the limitations of science expose the limitations of just reliance upon human scientific knowledge as our source of understanding -- are part of my pyramid. The wisdom and logic that seems to exist in so many places and at so many levels throughout the universe is part of the pyramid. The faith stories of historical people like Joan of Arc, Gandhi, and now even a very recent addition, Julian of Norwich, are part of the pyramid. Near-death experience testimony is part of my pyramid. And my personal experiences bring a subtle sense of God’s presence, so this is part of the base of the pyramid.
        John has roamed the farthest to construct the base of his pyramid. And, while there are some differences between what John’s pyramid points to and the point of the pyramid toward which Steve and I point, his pyramid is not anchorless. Recall that a major part of the base of the pyramid is Deist thought. (“I think I am in good company… with Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and many other icons of history”, John has said). Also recall that another major part of the base of John’s pyramid is Buddhist thought shared by millions around the planet (as John summarizes it, there are “laws of a spiritual nature, to include karma – or reaping what one sows – the importance of controlling the ego, and possibly even reincarnation.”) To that, many other things have been added to the base of the pyramid; but included within that base is a confidence in the ability of the inner self to rise up and recognize what is good and true, and recognize what is immoral and nonsense.

Part 3:  Faith and Obedience

            “…faith is being sure of what we hope for” (Hebrews 11:1)

Steve’s recent piece speaks of this definition of faith, and I’ve been reflecting on it.
        At the potential risk of beating one issue into the ground, I’ve got to note that I think this definition encapsulates a key source of differing perspectives among Christians.
        Reading the Colson piece, for example, and looking at its focus, what comes across to me is that he believes that the biggest issue for moving people toward his view of faith is to convince them that the Bible is inerrant. If only they would realize its total accuracy, they would be willing to go the route of total obedience.
        For me, Biblical inerrancy isn’t faith’s best friend, it’s faith’s worst nightmare.
        Let’s take the abortion issue for a moment. The abortion rate in the U.S. over the last few decades has been a tragedy. Churches ought to do what they can to change the climate which has made this possible.
        But what are we to make of this description of God:

“the LORD says: ‘about midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die… There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt… The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoah will refuse to listen to you – so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.”

What if this IS inerrant, true?
        Is this the God that YOU hope for?
        If you asked me “Did God really part the Red Sea?”, I’d say perhaps, although I’m skeptical. But I can say this. I would believe that God parted 1,000 Red Seas before I’d believe that the Passover story is a real reflection of God and that this is going to bring me to worship! Forget it!
        We don’t have to believe such a thing, however! Who says that the greatest ground rule is that we have to believe everything in the Bible in order to believe in anything in the Bible? I’m not letting anybody try to shut the door of faith on me like that! And, in my less charitable moments, that is what gets me completely aggravated about Christian fundamentalism! What do the fundamentals of fundamentalism have to do with Jesus’ essence? By saying HERE, this IS the rule, a lot of people are being shut out from even being able to entertain the possibility that the God -- the faith -- that THEY HOPE FOR can be found in Christianity! That certainly would have remained the case for me personally if I hadn’t finally been exposed to an alternative perspective upon the Christian faith.
        We can see the same type of emotions coming out in John. Remember, this is the guy who has said that if he could go back in time and experience one – and only one -- point in history, he would, without question, go back to Jesus’ time to see him.
        And yet, this same guy -- reading Chuck (formerly “I’d stomp on my own grandmother for Richard Nixon”) Colson’s thoughts on single-minded, absolute obedience no matter what the circumstances -- says that the attitudes expressed by Colson “are so contrary to my very nature that, though they may represent the attitudes of many good Christian people, they confirm for me that there is no possibility of my ever obtaining, or even wanting to obtain, such a faith.”
        And John goes on to say:

“… which of us would want our children to have such attitudes toward us as a father? What kind of father is it who wants his children to forever be coming to him, in single-minded obedience to his every whim?”

In our modern, freedom-embracing society, the idea of “obedience” to someone or something is sort of a tough sell. To me, apparently like John, it’s not a word that conjures up very positive images.
        On the other hand, I have to also admit, that when I finished reading John’s paragraph, the following Biblical saying of Jesus came to mind: “ you must deny yourself ” (and take up your cross and follow me) .
        I spent some time juxtaposing the two thoughts: “You must deny yourself” versus Certain attitudes are “so contrary to my very nature” that I must reject them.
        While I’m not advocating obedience to dogma (as John put it) as the intended way for us, I felt like I had a better understanding of the phrase “deny yourself” than I’ve ever had before. It may be true that in some situations, and in some ways, the appropriate belief or path is “contrary” to our inclination, even to our “very nature.”
        Still, Chuck Colson notwithstanding, God doesn’t wish for us to be robotic automatons. And God is not a micro-manager of our lives. When John says that Colson’s thoughts on absolute obedience on all matters are platitudes, he is right. Obedience in all matters – do either of you, or does anyone you know of, feel like you are getting God’s clear-cut orders on what you are to do in each life situation? If so, please tell me about it, because you’re right up there with Joan of Arc, then, in your ability to hear God, and we should make you or your friend a saint right now.
        But if we don’t push things to Colson’s extremes, can we come to an understanding of “denying oneself” and “obedience to God” that is something we hope for?
        I think so. Let’s take the scenario John creates, when he asks what kind of a parent would hope for a Chuck Colson view of obedience from their child.
        Let’s modify that view. What if we “expected” obedience to the following from our child?

I expect you to obey me by honoring living things and the creation around you. I expect you to respect the dignity of all people. I expect you to share. I expect you to treat others as you would have them treat you. I expect you to listen, because we learn by listening but we rarely learn by talking. I expect you to be loyal to your friends and understanding of those who would be your enemy. I expect you to be honest, truthful. I expect you to do what you know is right even if it’s hard. I expect you to love. I expect you to contemplate realities beyond this materialistic world. I expect you to seek and try to know the essence of God.

      Would obedience to this cause our children, at times, to deny themselves – their needs, their instinctive preferences? (Probably.)
        But would the hope for “obedience” to these expectations be a bad thing?
       It seems to me that this view of hoped-for obedience comes closer to the spirit of Jesus’ message than Colson’s articulation.
        We are asked to be obedient to a vision of how we ought to be, in God’s image, not a set of cookbook instructions.
        To what are we to be obedient?

John 15:12: [Jesus said] “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you… This is my command: Love each other.”

1 Timothy 1:5: “The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

2 Jn:6: “As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.”

        “Faith”, as the Bible says, “is being sure of what we hope for.” This is the kind of obedience that I hope is asked of us. And this is what we would be asked, by the God I hope for.

   

(93) Skepticism About Certain People's Open-Mindedness!

Author: JOHN
To:  Steve and Bob 

Regarding having a “skeptic” sign hung on me, I feel like one of the characters in the comic strip Shoe, who recently said: “I can only be speechless for myself.”
        If Steve thinks I’m a skeptic, then I guess he’s never talked to a real skeptic, as I’m not even in the ballpark. In fact, the people who actually call themselves skeptics, who publish their several journals, etc, would find me precisely the kind of person they relish attacking and whose every idea they would attempt to debunk. They would pigeonhole me with the crystal gazers, comet worshippers, alien abduction freaks, spoon benders, and astrologers. In short, they would say I am too open to too many ideas and that I believe way too much. You may recall that I mentioned having a telephone conversation with an editor of Skeptic magazine, who wanted to know why I had declined to re-subscribe after a short trial subscription. My response was: “You people are all negatives and no plusses; you believe in nothing; I feel sorry for you.” He hung up on me.
        I have to reject most of the usual connotations of the word skeptic: unbeliever, pessimist, nullifidian, scoffer, cynic, defeatist. On the other hand, there are some connotations I would admit to: wonderer, questioner, freethinker, and to some extent nonconformist (though my lifestyle argues otherwise, despite Steve’s assertion that I “revel” in it). But, yeah, I’ll take those.
        That said, I do think a certain degree of skepticism is necessary regarding matters of religious opinion. I’m fairly certain Steve would agree with that, since HE appears skeptical of each and every idea I present , and I ask: where would Steve draw the line? Surely Steve would agree that one should be skeptical about such things as astrology, snake-handling, séances, faith healers, channeling, etc., all of which have pretty direct spiritual overtones. How about Christian Science and Mormonism, both of which see themselves as Christian denominations, but which the scholarly Christian book Kingdom of the Cults calls dangerous cults? Though I’m not offended by Steve’s reaction to my last piece, it does worry me that the upshot seems to be that Christianity is the only thing about which I should NOT be skeptical! Frankly, that is the sense I am getting!
        Yes, I am skeptical about Christianity and have never made any bones about that. I’m skeptical about lots of other spiritual issues and approaches as well, including some of the ones I outlined myself as “possible solutions” last time. Still, though I have been skeptical about Christianity for well over thirty years now, during that time I’ve never stopped reading, listening, thinking, considering and reconsidering Christianity! There is hardly a week goes by that I don’t either listen to a Christian apologist or preacher on radio or television (including most recently David Jeremiah and even Pat Robertson), or do some reading in the Bible or the works of various churchmen, translators, and commentators. As for Mr. Bob and Mr. Steve, I sincerely doubt that either of them will ever give another thought to the ideas I presented last time. They “tire” of them. They do not find them “credible.” I must say that if I was as dismissive of Christianity, this trialogue would have long ago become a dialogue between you two!
        But I think I do need to remind myself from time to time where Steve is coming from, which in this trialogue is basically champion and defender of Christianity. In the heat of my own “feverish” (thanks a lot, Bob) quest, I keep forgetting that unlike me (or Bob for that matter) Steve is not on a quest to find signs or ways of God. Why should he keep looking for something he has already found? So be it, and more power to him.
        I also have to deny that I was trying to bait you two or “shake you up” with ideas expressed last time. Some of those concepts truly are foundational “bricks,” as Bob calls them, of my spiritual “pyramid”. I am just as serious about them as Steve is about “God’s word” and Bob is about “God is good.” In fact, my own belief system is a mix of elements, including some of the ones I described last time, plus others that I have refrained from discussing so as not to “push” you two too far “to the extreme,” as Steve remarked. Anyhoo, I got the reaction I pretty much expected: basically Steve considers it all flaky, and Bob considers it in-credible. That’s fine. No harm done, then, to your beliefs or mine. But bear with me now as I take an alternative approach.
        Something I would be curious to know from Steve is what he thinks of all the “prophets” and seers and wise men that are mentioned in the Old Testament. Since they are referred to as such in “God’s word,” then I think I can safely assume that Steve believes they are legitimate. Oh no, you are thinking, now John’s going to launch into some skeptical debunking of these fellows. But it’s just the opposite. I think it is entirely possible, and even probable that some or all of these guys had some special (yes, perhaps God-given) gifts of higher consciousness and spiritual understanding. The truth of these gifts was no doubt recognized by the people (at least the Jewish people) of their times, and hence their thoughts and words have been respected and preserved through the ages for us to contemplate today.
        That being said, and to some degree following up on the question of whether God intervenes or participates in our present lives, I want to ask the question: is it not possible that at least a few people with the same or similar gifts have continued to walk this earth in the two millennia since Jesus’ day? I am wondering: is there something in the Jesus story that would prevent a Christian from being able to accept this possibility? For obvious reasons I would like Steve’s opinion on this, but also Bob’s because of his interest in such people as Joan of Arc and Julian of Norwich.
        Am I to believe that the appearance of Jesus on earth put an end to all that prophesy and special wisdom stuff? If that’s true, then how are we to view the great Christian icons and apologists of the last 2000 years who seem to claim or exhibit at least a smidgeon of such powers? People like St. Augustine, Francis of Assisi, and other folks who have been sainted by the Catholic church. People like Joan of Arc and Julian Norwich who claimed to see Christian-flavored visions, or to hear Christian-toned voices. Perhaps even people like Charles Colson, to whose changed life Steve appears to attribute divine intervention.
        If Christians are accepting of such people, then I would like to strongly suggest that there are some folks, whom I have mentioned before, worth investigating in the modern era. One of them is Edgar Cayce. As Bob knows (he visited the Cayce center in Virginia Beach) Edgar Cayce was a lifelong, devout, and conservative Christian who at an early age began to demonstrate strange powers of unstudied learning. Then as a young man he began doing trance “readings” concerning people’s illnesses, many thousands of such readings, a large number of which were absolutely and undeniably documented to be correct. (I challenge Bob that if he takes the time to look at some of this material, he will find them “credible.”) I will give just one example from thousands: a teenage girl who had been placed as a hopeless case in a mental institution because of very erratic behavior and psychological dysfunction. The parents, having exhausted all other avenues, came to Cayce. In a trance he revealed that the problem was an impacted wisdom tooth that was impinging on some nerves near the brain. This turned out to be correct and easily correctable, after which the child lead a normal productive life.
        Cayce at first had doubts about whether he should be doing his readings, but eventually was able to reconcile his gift with his fundamentalist religious views. In addition to strictly medical readings, Cayce also did thousands of readings that brought forth information on other things. In one of these readings, he casually made reference to a “previous life” of the sick person, and its influence on the current life. After that, many of the people who came to him asked about previous incarnations, and many of them received considerable information indicating that something like the concept of karma was in fact functioning. A number of Cayce’s readings also made reference to Christ, and I’ve read a short but interesting book collecting all these references under one cover. I don’t believe Steve would find anything offensive about Cayce’s “information,” and might well concur with all of it.
        Cayce is recognized by numerous scholars, seekers of spiritual knowledge, and even professional debunkers as the most undeniably documented “mystic” of all time. Though I was skeptical when I first began to investigate this man, I am fully convinced that Cayce was, at least part of the time, truly linked to a higher spiritual consciousness, which allowed him to practice certain powers that are usually termed “metaphysiclal.” And yet he was a conservative Christian who never changed his fundamentalist, even dogmatic, views about Jesus.
        Why am I telling (or retelling) you all this? It is my way of introducing a very sincere question: I would like to know why either of you feel that any of the ideas I’ve previously discussed herein (such as karma, reincarnation, continuous but amnesial unity with God, etc) conflict with Christianity or Christian teachings. I do not see the conflict, or why a Christian should take offense at such ideas. They do not exclude the possibility of a messianic role for Jesus in the human drama. They do not invalidate the resurrection. To me, neither do they seem to conflict with Jesus’ message, unless a narrow and literal interpretation is forced onto what is often obviously abstract language (for example, “In my father’s house there are many mansions”: How can one make much sense out of that unless it is interpreted non-literally? Moreover, I give that example because many people believe it was a reference by Jesus to reincarnation).
        I believe that such things as reincarnation and karma could exist quite comfortably within the framework of Christianity. I’m far from alone in this, as there are some who posit that Jesus spent his lost years studying with eastern masters in the orient. Some scholars have suggested that certain indications of such concepts were deleted from official scripture by the Catholic church.
        (Which reminds me: Steve, do you recognize that “God’s word” arrived in its present form only after considerable debate and editing? If so, I would be interested to know how you feel about that.).
        One theory about the Bible is that all references to the possibility of reincarnation were expurgated by the official church from the scriptural documents, because why should people listen to priests in this life if they thought they’d be coming back for another time around the track? Another theory -- about Jesus’ relation to reincarnation -- is that before Jesus, all souls had to keep being reborn until they worked off their sin, but that in Jesus, God gave man a way to step off of the ever-spinning wheel of karma through direct, unearned redemption – a sort of “get out of jail” card. (Steve, oh skeptic of all things John-ian, surely you can like that one!)
        I would also like to know why such people as Cayce (and there are others) could not be seen in the same light as some of the Old Testament prophets. I suspect that the answer is simply that they are not covered in the Bible. Well of course they aren’t – they were born later! The Bible may be a “finished” as a document, but human history has continued on for nearly two thousand years since the last page of the scriptures was actually penned. I ask again, did the appearance of Jesus for some reason end the possibility of later (if admittedly lesser) humans making spiritual contributions to our understanding, in the same way that the earlier “prophets” did? If so, why and how do you know this?
        I am particularly interested in Steve’s answers because I figure he may be able to explain the traditional Christian point of view on this. However, I also find it interesting that Robert is drawn to certain post-Jesus mystics, but shows no evidence of much interest in modern-day ones. Bob is currently reading with great interest the admittedly heart-felt confessions of a 15^th century Christian who appeared to have intense visions if not visitations concerning Jesus and God. He has also regaled us with the tragedy of Joan of Arc. I too find the thoughts of these people compelling. However, the lives that these people lived, WAY before the industrial revolution, leave a lot of be desired in terms to translating their experiences into our own times. These people may have had some pretty difficult obstacles to overcome in their lifetimes (little things like starvation, invasions of barbarians, epidemics, etc.), but frankly I would like a little guidance from the Ultimate Counselor (if indeed He still keeps office hours) on some things a little closer to home (little things like 9/11, the holocaust, nuclear annihilation, and environmental Armageddon).
        Why does Bob, for example, get drawn to someone like Julian of Norwich over Edgar Cayce or Jane Roberts? Have you done any serious browsing in that Roberts book you bought, Bob, and why or why not? If not, is it because you are “skeptical” that a “channeler” could be something other than a hoax? And if so, why would you not feel the same way about O.T. prophets? Or do you?
        If either of you accept the O.T. prophets as having a special understanding, how do you think they got it? Did God speak to them like a voice in the ear? Or is it possible that they tranced, channeled, or meditated in certain ways, just as Edgar Cayce, Jane Roberts, and other documented contemporary mystics appear to have done?
        One of the problems I have with Christianity as I perceive it is that so many Christians feel they cannot look for anything “legitimate” outside the Bible. Now, some of them may argue that they themselves are hearing the voice of God internally in some way, and perhaps they are. Does that invalidate the voice of God that is heard internally by some other people, their contemporaries, who have taken great trouble to share what they have heard with others? Do Christians fear Satan may be speaking through anyone that hasn’t passed the test of time, say about three hundred years? Do they really find the Bible sufficient to answer, directly and incontestably, all the modern vexations of this world that couldn’t have even been imagined by people fresh out of the stone age? Do they feel that God for some reason would not lower Himself to more contemporary commentary on this modern crazy world, in which about a hundred times more souls live than did in Jesus’ day? Personally, I see no reason to believe that God’s “word” is strictly limited to the Bible, or that no one since Jesus’ time can give us additional direct knowledge from the Source.

Moving along, I want to express my appreciation for Bob’s sincere attention and non-dismissive attitude toward some of the ideas I briefly outlined last time (though I am tempted to pout about his damning me with faint praise!). In reading Bob’s well-crafted objections, I realized that perhaps I failed to include a related key idea that more or less weaves all the others together. (I still don’t expect either of you to accept such ideas; nor do I necessarily. But again, the reason I bring them up is to enlarge the field of possibilities and to emphasize the use of imagination in helping people enlarge their faiths and overcome frustrations).
        The idea I failed to include is that in most of the spiritual scenarios discussed where we humans live multiple lives, the paramount feature is the period between those lives. During that “period” or “space”, the “lessons learned” and the “reasons” things happened or worked out as they did in the just-lived life are focused into a kind of understanding and acceptance that we can barely imagine on “this side” of life. On the other side, though, which is REAL, we recognize the unreality of what we now call our lives, recognizing also that even the most horrible suffering was not real but a kind of special vicarious opportunity for learning, something like how acting in a play teaches us about motivation, body language, and the variety of human emotion. According to this perspective, when someone dies a horrible death in this present life, he no more “dies” or even suffers than when a character in a mystery dinner theatre slumps in a corner and the fun begins.
        The person who “dies” as a result of a terrorist bombing perhaps gets to review not only a variety of personal emotions related to dying young, suffering physically, etc., but a larger understanding of the terrorist’s point of view, and those of his own wife and children. If the bombing victim has chosen the experience of that particular death, then his wife has chosen the experience of losing her husband in that way, the child of losing his father, etc. Some theorists of this philosophy would also speculate that all the people who died, for example, in the 9/11 disaster more or less contracted together before their births to experience something like what did happen. I have also read theories about there being metaphysical connections (pre-birth and post-death) between major groups of contemporaries (such as generations, countries, etc.) --- almost like “families” but in a much deeper sense than we can understand.
        If I can even temporarily grant this whole philosophy credence (even just for entertainment) I have no problem with what I would consider very minor “coincidental” details such as that all the victims of a disaster were in a particular career field. That’s only a matter of degree more coincidental than that everyone on the Titanic was headed for the same port.
        I know I’ve probably lost both of you there (in terms of interest if not understanding), but given the reactions I consistently get from you two about the ideas I throw out, I fear it would not be worth the necessary verbiage to go into more detail. I do have to raise the following objection to your collective attitudes, however. Both of you guys are always putting limits on God that seem very obvious to me but which you seem to handily ignore. I have to take issue with your Mr. Knox Jones, Bob: to me it is never a question of what God CAN or CANNOT do, it is a question of what he DOES or DOES NOT do. There is a big difference.
        I stand accused of various “disconnects.” Well okay, but may I lob a few stones BACK at YOUR glass houses? How is it that you are so ready to disbelieve everything I propose but are so ready to believe in a variety of pretty far out things yourselves? Steve is ready and willing to believe that God nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, turned people into pillars of salt, killed nearly every human being in a flood, spoke from a burning bush, appeared to Paul in a blinding light, brought back Lazarus from the dead, visited seven curses on the Egyptians, parted the Red Sea, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. What, he doesn’t think God could arrange for us to live multiple lives? Bob appears ready to believe that God spoke to Joan through “voices” (I ask again, why plural?) and to Julian through visitations, and sent his Son to earth only let Him die horribly. What, God couldn’t arrange for 3,000 particular people to be at the World Trade Center on September 11^th if he wanted to?
        Hey, the God I have faith in created a hundred billion stars and a million galaxies – and I know that because they’re right there for me to see with my own eyes, right here, right now.  But this God of yours evidently couldn’t have brought a few thousand people through the details of their lives to a certain fate, and couldn’t have contracted with their souls before they incarnated. And you base your skepticism about such things on what – that they are not mentioned in the Bible? Apparently you two think God couldn’t do any of the things I said last time. I have to say it again. Your God is too small.
        What I think happens is that when you read one of these ideas that comes from a non-Christian source, you tend to divorce it from God, as if I am suggesting that any of these various scenarios (reincarnation, karma, subatomic consciousness, whatever) is some other than one directed by God. Is this not the same kind of attitude that causes fundamentalist Christians to reject the theory of evolution? They interpret evolution as a Godless, purely science-based explanation, as if God couldn't work through evolution – as if God couldn’t have invented it. I say God could have invented it, just as he could have invented (and continually oversees) a system wherein billions of souls contract with God for certain type of experience, including suffering, for reasons we do not know but must have faith are just and have something to do with love.
        Lastly, I feel the need to react to Steve’s challenge: “leave the skeptic’s mountaintop and venture down into the valley of the shadow of death.” And also: “I hope you find in me the joy of a man in an interactive relationship with God.” Steven, what I am about to say is quite personal, and I beg you to please forgive me if what I say is hurtful. I do find many many admirable qualities in you which I have tried to mention before: honesty, integrity, patience, compassion, a willingness to give of yourself. But no, I cannot truthfully say that joy is something that comes to mind when I consider you. In all honesty, when I look at you in terms of your own beliefs, I do not find you a joyful person. I think I broached this topic here long ago (i.e., “what crime did you commit that you have hidden in your past?). I seem to find in you instead some kind of underlying guilt, some sense of unworthiness, to which it seems Jesus plays the role of antidote. I am not questioning whether that is as it should be – only making an observation. More to the point, I find that same guilty attitude in so many of your Christian brethren.
        As you know, I broke with the “faith of my fathers” in my late teens, and I have never been able to go back into that fold. One of the reasons it doesn’t work for me is what I feel is the overriding negativity of the whole Christian story. It begins with Adam and Eve and their “sin,” passes down through innumerable suffering descendents whose sad and wrenching tales are told in the Bible, and reaches what to me is a sad and almost forbidding apotheosis in Jesus on the cross. That the primary icon of your religion is a suffering man or man/god crucified on a cross – or even just an empty cross – says a lot about why ultimately I am not drawn to it. Further, it only strengthens this reaction in me that Christianity seems to be (as you correctly point out) the religion of the downtrodden, the imprisoned, the sick, the poor, and the hopeless.
        Now, to be fair, Christianity is also the religion that seeks to help people in such conditions. That is precisely what you are doing in your jail ministry, and again, I admire you for that, more than I can say. I admire, too, my cousins who went as missionaries to Africa, the people who run the Christian Children’s Fund, Jimmy Carter, my father the treasure/deacon at Southampton Baptist Church, and many other Christians I know and have known. And some things I don’t like about Hindus, Buddhists, and certain other eastern religions are, (1) their tendency to accept the status quo as God’s “given” that needn’t be improve upon, and (2) their tendency to seek a “nothingness” where there is no feeling at all. I reject those just as strongly as I reject the guilt and forced humility I find in Christianity.
       I am tempted to ask Bob (but I won’t – you’re off the hook) for his objective opinion of who is more “joyful,” Steve or John. But only if we could try on each others’ personal consciousness like a coat, for half an hour, could we know who is truly the more joyful. But I will assert that the faith I seek for myself is one that speaks of the endless possibilities I feel are inherent in the very idea of God. Along with that, I am drawn not so much to ideas of sin, guilt, and forgiveness, but to justice, reason, fairness, understanding, love, and yes JOY.

(94) Reincarnation, Distribution of Gifts, and Joy

Author:  STEVE
To: John, Bob Listening

Not much time to write, but here are a few scattered thoughts, mostly in response to John. Nothing profound, nothing deep, nothing creative, just a few simple responses.
        I was baiting John when I implied he was a skeptic. I don’t believe he fits the model. Perhaps he’s the antithesis of a skeptic. He seems to believe that almost anything could be true.
        On that note, what about John’s notion of reincarnation? The source I use as a guide in spiritual matters does not seem to support that notion.
        For we know that when this tent we live in now is taken down – when we die and leave these bodies – we will have wonderful new bodies in heaven, homes that will be ours forevermore, made for us by God himself, and not by human hands. How weary we grow of our present bodies. That is why we look forward eagerly to the day when we will have heavenly bodies which we shall put on like new clothes. For we shall not be merely spirits without bodies . . . (Romans 5: 1 – 3).
        After I leave this old tired body, I have no desire to learn about my mistakes. I don’t want to try again (even if I don’t remember what I learned in John’s “in-between” period). I would rather move into unobstructed fellowship and joy with my Creator. That is my aspiration upon expiration. That is what I believe lies ahead. For John, death is the gateway to further learning. For Steve, death is the gateway to undistorted union with God.
        For me, learning, which leads to wisdom, cannot fully satisfy me. In Solomon’s words, “Look, I am better educated than any of the kings before me in Jerusalem. I have greater wisdom and knowledge. So I worked hard to be wise instead of foolish – but now I realize this was like chasing the wind. For the more my wisdom, the more my grief; to increase knowledge only increases distress” (Ecclesiastes 1: 16-18).
        Yes, these are the words of a depressed man. But they ring true. Wisdom by itself does not bring joy. To come into the very presence of God – to experience his love in all his glory – that is the joy I long for!

On to another subject of John’s in the category of “what might be possible.”
        John’s question: “Is it not possible that at least a few people have the same or similar gifts . . . (of prophecy and healing as Jesus).” My answer, “yes.” Certainly Paul, Peter, John and others demonstrated the same. In fact, Jesus himself said, in response questions about his miracles, “if you have faith you will do the same and even greater.”
        There are many today who claim to have the gifts of prophecy and healing. Here’s my litmus test for determining whether these gifts are true and of God. Do their words and actions bring attention to themselves or to God? Are they seeking glory, or are they seeking to glorify God? Paul was shipwrecked on an island of superstitious folk. He was bitten by a poisonous snake and did not die or get sick. The people were amazed and fell to the ground to worship him as a god. He tore his clothes in agony and abasement at this misdirected faith. Then, he used his time on the island to explain to them the true God.
        Falwell and Robertson predicted the world would end in 2000. Not only was the prophecy false, I believe it was designed to call attention to them. In contrast, perhaps Edgar Cayce was blessed with the gift of divine wisdom. If he used this gift for the healing and helping of others, if he gave glory to God for this gift, and if he bestowed this gift without expecting riches and fame in return, then he could be exercising the gifts that Jesus promised to those with faith.

A last comment on John’s comments – and this the most personally troubling of all. “Joy is not something that comes to mind when I consider you.” Ouch! (I hope this perception is not shared by my children. If so, then maybe I do want reincarnation so I can try again with my spiritual instruction.)
        Perhaps unbeknownst to John, he hit the mark with this profound remark, “. . . I find in you some sense of unworthiness, to which it seems Jesus plays the role of antidote.” That is the essence of Christianity! We cannot approach God as his equal. We cannot approach him claiming, “I’ve lead a pretty good life,” or “I have made the most of what you gave me.” For in our heart of hearts, we know these claims are not true -- at least not every day of our lives.
        God knows we cannot be perfect, but that does not excuse our departure from his standards for thought, word, and deed. “Believe in my Son and the sacrifice he made on your behalf, and you will be restored to my intended relationship with you.” This promise is for all: the wise, the illiterate; the rich, the poor; the skeptic (Thomas) and the coward (Peter).
        When I stand before God, I am unworthy. But I know I am still accepted into fellowship with him throughout eternity. Even the slight taste of this fellowship I’ve experienced in this life brings indescribable joy! Don’t confuse some of my earthy struggles (that might cloud my demeanor some days) with the joy of my faith.

 

(95) Readings and Thoughts on Conservative and Liberal Christianity

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve and John

        I’ve been reading a lot lately. Two particular areas of focus have been Christianity in the early centuries following Jesus’ death, and some of the reading material recommended by John.
        Beginning now and in upcoming pieces, I intend to organize and present some of the ideas and arguments that I’ve come across that I’ve found to be interesting and relevant. I’ll do some analyzing and editorializing along the way, of course. But in general, these pieces are intended to serve as a reminder to myself of what I’ve found over the last few months. (Sorry, John, there’s going to be a lot of quotes). Hopefully some of the material will also be of interest to others.
        Steve, you encouraged us to read some provocative chapters in a book by Chuck Colson. A central theme of the piece was Biblical inerrancy and authority and the need for obedience to the Word. John provided some feedback about his areas of disagreement with Colson. You sort of begged off of an argument by saying that you were “looking past some of his pronouncements and porous arguments” and wondering “where did he get the desire and energy to initiate a worldwide prison ministry and write so prolifically?”
        I wonder, Steve, which of Colson’s arguments did you consider to be porous, and which convincing? I found it in general to be a pretty good and representative discussion of where conservative (legalistic) Christianity stands today. So with what in that piece do you concur, and with what do you disagree?
        I’m still interested in an answer from Steve as to what he makes of Biblical passages like Exodus 11:4-10 (where the first born sons of all Egypt are killed by God, after God hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that “my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.”) I asked “What if this IS inerrant, true? Is this the God that you hope for?”
        I’d like to further address the issues of conservative and liberal Christianity, and the issue of the Bible and Christian responses to it, before moving on to new things. I will have little to say that Steve will like or find agreement with. If you’re not in the mood for that, and want to take a pass on some reading, I can understand that. My intent is to elaborate on a side of these issues, not to irritate or disappoint Steve.

Bawer’s Stereotype of Legalistic (Conservative) and Non-legalistic (Liberal) Protestantism

        In a 1997 book, Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, Bruce Bawer wrote:

The terms conservative Christian and liberal Christian can be useful, but I will try to avoid using them here because they suggest political rather than theological orientation. Generally speaking, to be sure, the political implications are accurate… But there are exceptions; and in any event, it needs to be underscored that what distinguishes the members of these two groups of Christians is not politics but their essential understanding of the nature of God, the role of the church, and the meaning of human life. It is not an overstatement, indeed, to say that these two groups, despite the fact that they both claim the name of Christianity, have fundamentally divergent conceptions of the universe.

… it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be most succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated, conservative Christianity focuses primarily on laws, doctrines, and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer…

The table below shows how Bawer describes the typical differences that he sees between legalistic and non-legalistic Protestants. The contrasts seem to anticipate a few of the areas of pointed disagreement that we’ve seen in this trialogue.

                                         

Legalistic   Protestantism …	Non-Legalistic   Protestantism …
Sees   Jesus’ death on the cross as a transaction by means of which Jesus paid for   the sins of believers and won them eternal life.	Sees it   as a powerful and mysterious symbol of God’s infinite love for suffering   mankind, and as the natural culmination of Jesus’ ministry of love and   selflessness.
Believes   that Jesus’ chief purpose was to carry out that act of atonement.	Believes   Jesus’ chief purpose was to teach that God loves all people as parents love   their children and that all humankind is one.
Understands   eternal life to mean a heavenly reward after death for the ‘true Christians’   – the ‘Elect’, the ‘saved’ – who accept Jesus as their savior and subscribe   to the correct doctrines.	More   often understands it to denote a unity with God that exists outside the   dimension of time and that can also be experienced in this life.
Holds   that God loves only the ‘saved’ and that they alone are truly his children.	Holds   that God loves all human beings and that all are his children.
Sees   Satan as a real creature, a tempter and deceiver from whom true Christians   are defined by their faith but whom atheists, members of other religions, and   ‘false Christians’ are deceived, and whose instruments they can become.	Sees   Satan as a metaphor for the potential for evil that exists in each person,   Christian or otherwise, and that must be recognized and resisted.
Believes   that individuals should be wary of trusting their own minds and emotions, for   these can be manipulated by Satan, and that questions and doubts are to be   resisted as the work of the Devil.	Believes   that the mind is the gift of God and that God wants us to think for   ourselves, to follow our consciences, to ask questions, and to listen for his   still, small voice.
Sees   ‘truth’ as something established in the Bible and known for sure by true   Christians.	Sees   truth as something known wholly only by God toward which the belief   statements of religions can only attempt to point the way.
Reads   the Bible literally and considers it the ultimate source of truth.	Insists   that the Bible must be read critically, intelligently, and with an   understanding of its historical and cultural contexts.
Encourages   a suspicion of aesthetic values and a literalistic mentality that tends to   thwart spiritual experience.	Encourages   a recognition of mystery and beauty as attributes of the holy.
Source: Bruce   Bawer, Stealing Jesus, pages 6-7.

 If you get a chance, read pages 32 to 48 from the Bawer book sometime. Personally, I think it’s very good.

 

Should Christians Ignore Theological Differences?

        Several times, Steve has expressed a muted disdain for the “theological” aspects of the dialogue. He’s said, for example, that for him, faith is a relationship, not a religion. He has called the dialogue “amicable verbal sparring”; referred to us as having “the luxury to pontificate”; and asked “will we ever come to experience the wonder of God, simply thinking and writing about what he is like?” 
 
        Setting Aside Theological Matters Is Helpful to Experiencing Joy in Worship. On the one hand, I’d like to express sympathy for the underlying spirit of what Steve says when he asks if we can drop the theology and just experience the wonder of God. Theology does divide us. In contrast, the non-theological celebration of God… or consciousness… or “the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension but central to being”… is something that can unite us.
        The point that the non-theological celebration of God unites, but theology divides, was forcefully brought home to me recently by some recent church-going experiences. At several of my more recent trips to a somewhat more liberal Episcopal Church near our house, I increasingly felt disconnected by the weekly rituals affirming orthodox dogma. Particularly, I’m tired of standing there awkwardly while everyone mumbles their allegiance to the Nicene Creed. And I’m thinking, do I really want to part of a church where each week, I’m supposed to publicly mumble something I don’t’ believe? Has it occurred to the church officials that not everyone may wish to give lip service to the decision of some council convened in the 300s A.D. to try to define “true” Christianity for all Christians? A council which sought to settle the battle between two groups of Christians – one believing that Jesus, though uniquely holy, is not the same as God, and another group believing that Jesus is God in human form – and, in my belief, came to the wrong conclusion?
        I think that this church is well-intentioned, and the rector seems like a genuinely decent and caring fellow. The philosophy of the church is to try to create a church experience in which Christians of varying attitudes can find a home. But all of this hasn’t really been worked through, and aside from the casual attire that is permitted, it remains pretty orthodox. At a Q & A session for potential new members, for example, I asked the rector about how this philosophy of creating a home for Christians of all philosophical stripes works out in the Sunday School classrooms. If a child asks whether non-Christians can go to heaven, for example, what answer would be given? The stated answer was “I don’ know. We’d have to ask our teachers.” The unstated answer seemed to be that hopefully such a question wouldn’t come up.
        In surprising contrast, our family has been to some services at a nearby conservative Baptist church which have been – so far – pleasant, and one service was even inspiring. There has been lots of music, amazing guest soloists drawn from a large and apparently talented church membership, and messages that focus on using selected Biblical passages as a springboard for discussing some positive principles for modern life.
        While listening to the music at this church, it just seemed clear to me that this is what I like worship to be like. It’s soaking in the experience of the moment. It’s worshipping God without God being defined for you. It’s worshipping God without having doctrines constantly thrown at you that you don’t believe. Now John, you’re probably saying exactly, what’s the big deal, I could get that every week at a Unitarian service -- and I believe that to be true. But that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. My point is that this kind of experience ought to be more available at Christian churches.

        The Problem With Setting Aside Theological Differences. It would be easy for me to set aside theological differences with John. That’s because there’s nothing in his philosophy that says that people who don’t see eye to eye with him are pretty much doomed. But I’m not sure how to react when Steve suggests that we focus on the experience of God, and let the theology debate fade away.
        Is a focus on the individual’s experience of God the discussion that Steve really wants? I thought that Steve has been saying that he is uncomfortable with faith that focuses on the individual’s inward pursuit of the experience of God. We can mislead ourselves that way. Somehow I have the impression that one of the last things Steve is eager to hear would be a more detailed description by John of the inner sense of oneness with God that he experiences through meditation!
        Steve’s spiritual guide is the Bible. Everything goes back to whether the idea or belief is supported by the text, and that is a practice that I find hard to understand in the context of “faith as a relationship”, and not a religion.
        Further, it seems to me that of the three of us, Steve is the only one who strongly believes that the divine will be judging us -- and judging us upon our theology. Whether one likes it or not, the way in which Paul and Augustine and others have put their stamp upon what is now defined as Christian orthodoxy is serious business, because the supposed stakes are high. This point is illustrated nicely, I think in this little story that I came across in a book I’ve been reading that I’ll talk about more at a later time.

An Eskimo asked a missionary priest, “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?”

“No,” says the priest, “not if you didn’t know.”

“Then why,” asks the Eskimo, “did you tell me?”

        The particular content of our faith, the content of our concept of God, the content of our belief about ourselves -- and how well we act in faith upon that theology – is more critical in Steve’s belief system than in John’s or mine, it seems to me. The idea that a wide range of religious beliefs may be acceptable in God’s eyes is, in Steve’s view, a negative reflection of the “anything goes” society in which we live. We are all, Steve believes, fundamentally sinners. If we repent and recognize Christ as God and Savior, we’re okay with God. If not, we’re not okay with God. John and I or anyone else can revel all we want in what we believe to be the mystery or wonder of God, yet I think Steve believes that what we do will be all for naught if our personal theology does not change. Therefore, it seems to me, Steve has the greatest incentive to keep the theological aspects of the discussion alive, in the hope of helping his wayward friends to see the light! [Also, if Steve’s faith is correct, then his co-participants in this dialogue to this point have not produced “amicable pontification”, but rather have generated an incredible paper trail of self-incriminating documentation of heretical beliefs (albeit unnecessary “documentation” for an omniscient God).]
        A statement on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry web site sort of summarizes why it’s hard to set aside or be indifferent to legalistic Christian theology:

Answers that are in agreement with God’s word, given to unbelievers, even if they are rejected, are still true answers. The unbeliever will be held accountable on judgment day for rejecting those truths.

Or Keep The Differences in Tension?

        In July 2001, I saw a newspaper article about Dr. Reginald Fuller, age 86, who is an orthodox priest and critical theological scholar with an international reputation. He was quoted in the article as saying:

“I’ve tried to combine an honestly critical approach to the Bible and New Testament with a firm commitment to the orthodox teachings of the church. There’s always a tension between these things, but one has to live in that tension… There’s a dwindling number of people who try to hold these two things together. It always has to be in dialogue.”

But unfortunately, in the article, he doesn’t actually say why. Why is that tension good? Why must there be this dialogue?
        Rosino Gibellini, in commenting on the theology of Edward Schillebeeckx, says that “because there is a continuing Christian story of experience, the message which is transmitted must be comprehensible to men and women of today. It is not just to be accepted on the basis of an institutional authority which mediates it… Theology is called to keep open the communication between the traditional content of faith and human experience, in a constant critical correlation between the two sources, biblical tradition (first source) and our current world of experience and faith (second source).”
        Shillebeeckx, for example, points out that: “It was not Christians as such who said that slavery was an evil. The human conscience said no to slavery. St. Paul did not conclude that slavery is an evil. He could have deduced that from Christology, but he didn’t..”
        In other words, the world view of the ancient Hebrews at times – perhaps often -- must be superseded. I really believe that this is God’s intent. The human conscience has made enormous strides since Biblical times (the record of human behavior seems spotty at best in both eras). Since the Bible is a faith testimony still rooted in the human consciousness of that time, Gibellini’s point about keeping the lines of communication open between the traditional content of faith and human experience seems quite salient to me.
        Schillebeeckx indicates that reason and faith both need to be present to avoid fundamentalism or obscurantism:

Some time ago Ratzinger [enforcer of orthodox thought for the Catholic Church] said that we need to have a rather ingenuous faith, that we should not reflect much on faith… As a believer I am rational, and look for rational arguments. In that way I feel I am one hundred per cent a believer. That is not a contradiction, as some people have remarked to me. To be a believer does not mean that one is irrational. Faith is the confession of a rational person. The rationality of faith must always be explored and clarified… There is more and more need for rationality, above all to react against [fundamentalism]. The fundamentalism which is also present today in some Christian communities leads to obscurantism [characterized by opposition to intellectual advancement]. It is a great danger, because human reason is denied.

Certainly human reason and faith cannot be left to itself, because if it is, there is a danger that it will end up as sheer positivism [a philosophical doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought]. Faith develops a critical and corrective function so as not to lapse into rationalism and shut out the mystery. Without human reason faith becomes fundamentalism. Both faith and reason develop the function of mutual criticism.”

Or Seek a Reformation?

        Some more thoughts from Schillebeeckx:

“I confess the Trinity, but these speculations on relations between the three persons say nothing to me. The mystery cannot be rationalized, and when people like St. Augustine, St. Bonaventura, St. Thomas, Rahner, etc., do rationalize it, the result is that these Trinitarian theologies do not say anything about the mystery of God that is of any use to spirituality…

Human beings are in the image of God the Trinity. That is a fundamental affirmation… We are God’s representatives throughout creation… That human beings are the image of God means that humanity as such is God’s representative. Human beings are God’s image where and when they do justice, respect the integrity of the creation, practise solidarity. It can be said that where God reigns, human beings have the right to be human…

In the moment of Jesus’ death God was present, but silently. Death when God is silent is the supreme suffering. So one can trust in God even at a time of supreme silence… Jesus is the free gift of God… God is the God of all human beings, wants the salvation of all men and women, and there are intermediaries for getting to God outside Christ… If, on the one hand, the exclusivism that salvation is concentrated only Jesus is unacceptable, on the other hand I affirm the absolute uniqueness of Christ in the history of religions, arguing for the positive value of the non-Christian religions, provided that they are humane. A religion which damages and destroys human beings and human dignity is a religion which denies itself. A religion which humiliates human beings is, by definition, a mistaken way of believing in God and at the least a religion which has lost any sense of its own interpretation and contact with authentic roots…

… It can be said that the prophetic Christian religion is a religion of mystical abandonment and at the same time a religion of high prophecy committed to fighting against injustice for human liberation and happiness… the commitment against injustice is essential for us. It is where Christ himself met his match. Even on the cross the Christian sees the gratuitous, eloquent, benevolent presence of God. God does not want suffering, which is in the very structure of creation. God is for conquering evil and injustice. Human beings can will evil, but God is not checkmated by this human will. God opposes it through the mediation of human beings, who are called to struggle against evil.

        This is a radically different view of humanity’s role than the view held by legalistic Christians. But I think it’s more on-target with what Jesus’ message can mean for us today. Sometimes I feel like legalistic Christians think that we are here primarily to pass time converting people amidst the inevitable secular decay of society, until the day of judgment when the meaningless human condition passes away, and we are all either saved or damned.
        Personally, I think legalistic Christianity is dreadful stuff. The prevalency of that interpretation in American Christianity, and the quietness with which dissenting Christian views have been held, nearly kept me an agnostic for life. I am convinced that if the entire image of Christianity continues to be vested in legalism and the Bible as God’s literal world, the same will be true for many others.
        My earlier discussion of the Baptist Church that I’ve been recently attending was not meant to be an advertisement for that church. I don’t think that I’m being overly pessimistic in saying that I anticipate that the same type of theological presumptions that I find to be turn-offs -- perhaps even more so than the Nicene Creed -- will almost inevitably come to the fore at the services of this church, and make it almost impossible for me to feel like I’ve found a home there also.
        How, though, will Christianity in America experience change?
        Spong thinks that due to the entrenched nature of legalistic Christianity, “passive opposition” will never be effective. He calls for a major reformation.
        In order to see a wider availability of “choice” in the Christian church, I find myself agreeing with the idea that a major reformation within Christianity, or at least within some of the more liberal-leaning denominations, will be necessary. For many reasonable people, the full orthodox formulation just doesn’t resonate any more. And the needed reformation will have little chance within our lifetimes unless non-legalistic Christians stop pussy-footing around about the nature and content of the Bible, and more candidly address some of the major orthodox theological interpretations whose pervasive stamp makes it so difficult for many to find a Christian church that can be called home.
        On this point again, the “more liberal” local Episcopal Church my family has attended provides a symbol for me of the inadequacy of where even the “more progressive” Christian Church is today. At one point in the late fall, heading into Christmas, I attended one week, missed two weeks, and then attended again. At the first service, a guest speaker articulated some article of faith he held, but then went on to say that the belief was foolish. The sense of his talk was that believing something foolish somehow made his faith more pure.  And then at the second service, the rector was talking about certain Biblical passages, and how a literal view of those narratives seems foolish, but if so, so be it. (Because of my spotted attendance pattern, I’m sure the similarity of the content uttered by the two different speakers was not as jarringly obvious to the consistent attendees).
        And I’m thinking, is this how Christianity is going to march into the 21^st century and beyond? Rather than re-examine any assumptions or aspects of our belief system that seem foolish, we’re going to proclaim foolishness of thought as if it’s a badge of honor?
        Certainly I believe in a number of things that I can’t prove; that’s the nature of faith/religion. Undoubtedly I believe some things because deep down I want to believe them. And because of the mystery of faith, certainly some things I believe will ultimately prove to be foolish. But I don’t deliberately embrace things I think to be foolish. And holding fast to a foolish idea is not something that I would regard as a virtue.
        The message below is my paraphrase of where the Christian church too often seems to be today.

“Nothing that we have found through our advances in science, medicine, etc. are truly threatening to the core belief in God or in Jesus Christ’s role as a disciple of God. Nonetheless, even if the core belief is safe, we will continue to cling to every word uttered by the ancient Hebrews, every deed reported by the same, and every theological interpretation made by Paul and Augustine, no matter how discredited or foolish those words appear in contemporary understanding, no matter how unethical, immoral, or senseless those deeds appear today, and no matter how arbitrary and unloving those interpretations may seem to a modern people.”

Fortunately, I think that many people are fashioning their own updated take upon Christianity, rather than giving up on it. But they are doing so largely without meaningful assistance from the church.
        These thoughts take me back to the Colson piece and the Bible. I’ll take those subjects up in my next piece.


Addendum: Belief Scores

Below are my results from a quiz that John and I completed from Beliefnet.com (an internet site) back in February. This quiz asks a series of questions, and as the respondent, you indicate which of several multiple choice answers most closely fits your belief. You also have the opportunity to rate the priority which that answer has in relation to your faith. Then, the site “scores” your response, listing 27 beliefs “in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs.”

1. Liberal Protestant (100%)             15. Neo-Paganism (56%)
2. Liberal Quaker (95%)                   16. Jainism (56%)
3. Baha’I (95%)                                17. Secular Humanism (52%)
4. Reform Judaism (87%)                 18. Jehovah’s Witness (50%)
5. Unitarian Universalism (86%)       19. Scientology (50%)
6. Orthodox Judaism (71%)             20. Conservative Protestant (48%)
7. Sikhism (70%)                             21. Hinduism (48%)
8. New Thought (66%)                   22. Latter-day Saint (Mormon) (46%)
9. New Age (64%)                          23. Taoism (46%)
10. Orthodox Quaker (63%)           24. Eastern Orthodox (41%)
11. Christian Science (62%)           25. Roman Catholic (41%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (62%)     26. Seventh Day Adventist (38%)
13. Islam (61%)                              27. Atheism and Agnosticism (32%)
14. Theravada Buddhism (61%)

 

(96) Faith and Obedience, on Our Terms

Author:  STEVE
To: John and Bob

I came across a slice of Biblical history that John might find interesting. In light of Bob’s most recent piece, perhaps there is something of value in this history lesson for Bob too.
        The account comes from 2 Kings, chapter 5. There are many interesting characters in this chapter, but I’ll focus on one.
        Naaman is the general of an army opposed to Israel. He is afflicted with leprosy. However, his strain of leprosy must not be too severe, he continues to serve as commander-in-chief. Unlike others, he has not been banished to a leper colony.
        A Jewish captive, a servant girl for Naaman’s wife, has compassion for this leper general. She suggests that Naaman visit a prophet in Israel, Elisha, whom she believes can heal Naaman’s leprosy. Naaman decides to go. We’ll pick up the story from there.

“So Naaman arrived with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s home. Elisha sent a messenger out to tell him to go and wash in the Jordan River seven times and he would be healed of every trace of his leprosy! But Naaman was angry and stalked away.

“Look,” he said, “I thought at least we would come out and talk to me! I expected him to wave his hand over the leprosy and call upon the name of the Lord his God, and heal me! Aren’t the Abana River and Pharpar River of Damascus better than all the rivers of Israel put together? If it’s rivers I need, I’ll wash at home and get rid of my leprosy.” So he went away in a rage.

But his officers tried to reason with him and said, “I the prophet had told you to do some great thing, wouldn’t you have done it? So you should certainly obey him when he says simply go and wash and be cured!”

So Naaman went down to the Jordan River and dipped himself seven times, as the prophet had told him to. And his flesh became as healthy as a little child’s, and he was healed! Then he and his entire party went back to find the prophet; they stood humbly before him and Naaman said, “I know at last that there is no God in all the world except in Israel...“

Here’s what strikes me in this account, and parallels I see in our friend John. (I know, John, I’ll oversimplify, but bear with me.) And as I think of these parallels, perhaps they apply to Bob too.
        Naaman is told to go wash in the Jordan River, which makes no sense at all – it defies (his) reason. He expects a more spectacular event, or even the “laying on of hands” by this wise sage Elisha. But a “reasonable” or understandable cure is not provided. In the past, John has expressed his desire to hear directly from God, “perhaps if he spoke to me directly, then I would place my unwavering trust in him and this Christianity.” “Or, if God would give me direct answers to my prayers, with irrefutable proof that it is He who answers, then I will believe.”
        Then, Naaman’s reasoning takes another tack. “Well, if I have to wash in a river, there’s far more worthy ones than the Jordan of this despised nation Israel.” John, “there’s more worthy (perhaps intellectually stimulating) ways to access God than through Jesus – or at least ways equally as worthy.”
        Now here’s where Naaman and John (and Bob) appear to part company. Naaman decides to go to the Jordan as Elisha suggested. He steps out in faith, even though it makes no intellectual sense to him. John, on the other hand, decides to go looking for other rivers. Bob doesn’t go looking for other rivers; he stands at the door of Elisha’s house, hoping to discuss a solution that makes more sense.
        It appears there is another fundamental difference between Naaman, John, and Bob. Naaman has a deep-seated human need; he’s seeking a cure to his leprosy. That need is so great, it prompts him to cross his intellectual hurdles. Spurred by the advice of his friends, Naaman seems to say, “Okay, I’ll give this Jordan a try.” John and Bob have deep-seated desires to know more about God, but are they coming to him with other needs they expect him to meet?
        So what leads to Naaman’s healing? First, faith. He finally believes that Elisha might be telling the truth. Second, obedience. He just doesn’t believe the Jordan might provide healing, he steps into the water. But remember, that was not his first reaction. He was angry at the seemingly foolish suggestion. It seems, however, that his trust in the messenger (Elisha) outweighed his anger and reluctance.
        Was Naaman miraculously healed, a reward for his faith and obedience? Or was there something in the Jordan that would “logically” provide healing, even though it was well beyond his reasoning and understanding? Perhaps the Jordan drew minerals from a watershed that provided a chemical correction to the type of leprosy he suffered?
        Now we come back to John and Bob’s major sticking point, “I cannot embrace this Christian faith if it requires me to check my reasoning at the door.” You guys want to understand first, then you will believe. What if God intends the reverse order in our relationship with him? What if he wants us to believe first, then he will provide understanding? This takes me all the way back to the genesis of my assertions in this trialogue. Our contribution in the divine-human relationship is faith. It is faith that pleases God. Then, He will respond to our faith by meeting our needs, including the need for understanding.
        Bob’s notes on Schillbeeckx struck a resonant chord with me – especially the last words of this quote. “Faith develops a critical and corrective function so as not to lapse into rationalism and shut out the mystery.” There is a mystery and wonder to God that cannot be fully understood in this life. Just thinking about the mystery of God provides me with joyous anticipation – I have much to understand! Throughout this life and into the next, what joy there will be in unwrapping this magnificent gift! I believe (have faith) that God will gradually grant understanding – and that I will begin to appreciate and love Him more as I understand him more.
        But let’s not forget the other part of this Schillbeeckx quote. “Without human reason, faith becomes fundamentalism.” I would take this even farther. Without human reasoning, faith becomes a cult. I see neither narrow-minded fundamentalism nor a destructive cult in God’s simple message.

“Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Believe in him and you will be saved.”  “Step into the Jordan and you will be healed.” It doesn’t make (human) sense, but it has worked for many. And slowly but surely, God is helping me to understand why. Perhaps one day, He will help me to better articulate my reasoning to the two of you.

(97) Some Thoughts on Biblical Inerrancy

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve and John

        Steve encouraged us to read some chapters from a book by Chuck Colson entitled Loving God. I think that those chapters provide a reasonable representation of where legalistic Christianity stands today. The Colson piece is a good vehicle, I think, for underscoring some of the major areas of difference between what many legalistic and many non-legalistic Christians believe, particularly regarding the Bible.
        One of the central themes of the chapters given is the idea that the Bible is God's Word and is to be obeyed as such. A key Colson claim, made on page 56 of the book, is that:

€"The Bible's power rests upon the fact that it is the reliable, errorless, and infallible Word of God."

        I'd like to examine that contention over the course of several pieces.
        Since a lot of what I am going to say about the Bible in the following pages is pretty "negative"€ stuff, I want to state a few things up front.
        I think that there are two views out there that define fairly extreme poles of thought about the content of the Bible.
        At one of these extremes, there are those who sincerely believe that the Bible is nothing but myth and superstition and contains almost nothing of value for 21st century man.
        On the other hand, there are people who sincerely think that the Bible is the error-free word of God that is consistently wonderful, moral, and reliable in its teachings. One letter to the editor I saw in the newspaper expressed this perspective well, stating that: “[So and so] is just wrong. He needs to read his Bible from beginning to end. He will discover the purest and most beneficial moral code known to man.”
       I personally don'€™t think that either of these extremes can hold up to scrutiny.
        The Bible as a whole deserves to be taken seriously. I am happy to stipulate from the outset of any discussion that the Bible (more so the Gospels, and less so the Old Testament and the letters of Paul) has got positive aspects.  In fact, I go back to the excerpt from Bawer's book that I recently enclosed, and the quote in it from Huston Smith:

"Jesus began with [those] particulars. He spoke of mustard seeds and rocky soil, of servants and masters, of weeding and of wine. These specifics gave his teachings an opening ring of reality; he was speaking of things that were very much a part of his hearers'€™ worlds. But having gotten them that far, having roused in them a momentum of assent, Jesus would then ride that momentum while giving its trajectory a startling, subversive twist. That phrase, "momentum of assent"€™, is important, for its deepest meaning is that Jesus located the authority for his teachings not in himself or in God-as-removed but in his hearers' hearts. My teachings are true, he said in effect, not because they come from me, or even from God through me, but because (against all conventionality) your own hearts attest to their truth.

        Smith makes an important point. It's the parts of Jesus'€™ message to which the hearts of any age attest that represent the attractive element of Christianity. Though penned a couple thousand years ago, it's those words that still ring true to the hearts and minds of a modern people that are most likely to be the Words of God.
        But an awful lot of the Bible -- and, I would argue, all of it non-essential stuff for Christian faith -- registers in just the opposite way. Some of these authors, if inspired by God, appear to have been only dimly so inspired in what they thought and wrote. The Old Testament authors in particular are unable to live up to the standards set by Jesus, and why should we even expect that any of the Biblical authors could? I come back to some quotes that Steve identified for us earlier in the dialogue.

"€œI don't mean to say I'€™m perfect. I haven't learned all I should even yet."

(Paul, in Philippians 3:12,13)

"We can see and understand only a little about God now, as if we were peering at his reflection in a poor mirror; but someday we will see him in his completeness, fact to face. Now all that I know is hazy and blurred, but then I will see everything clearly, just as clearly as God sees into my heart right now." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

        Paul considered himself to be an outstanding follower of Jesus. But reading these words, to me it seems clear that Paul would be quite surprised to see his writings established as and claimed to be the inerrant words of God. His views here, I think, are very much in kindred spirit with non-legalistic Christianity. That is, human beings, even the Bible writers, can only attempt to point to the truth, and can only seek to help us experience God.
        Marcus Borg's book Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally is an excellent treatment of this subject. He speaks of Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible (unless the language is clearly metaphorical), and a second group of Christians who are less clear about how they see the Bible than they are about "how they do not."€
        The Bible as the "€œreliable, errorless, and infallible Word of God"? I don't think that the Bible even comes close to meeting that needlessly stringent test. But some, apparently, think that it must, or else the whole Christian enterprise is questionable.
        When I read the Bible, what I see are the works of writers who though inspired by their faith are still not able to escape their time-bound conventions, stereotypes, prejudices, and hatreds. The limitations of the messengers, however, doesn't have to kill the message.
        To examine this issue further, I propose that we look at science first, which has forced some small but important concessions by those claiming Biblical inerrancy. Then, I propose to examine two larger issues: Biblical morality, and the defense of the Bible's inerrancy by its apologists in the face of its apparent self-contradictions. The defense of the Bible'€™s inerrancy is in some ways more illuminating than the contradictions themselves, for it is my thesis that in their zeal to defend the Bible from its contradictions, the inerrancy apologists end up shredding the very claim they are making. To cover this ground, I'm going to take a couple of pieces.

Science Has Forced a Small Concession by Those Claiming Biblical Inerrancy: Not All Biblical Words Can Be Taken Literally

        With regard to science, it's clear that some of the claims made throughout history by Biblical literalists based on a literal reading of the text are clearly in error. Based on its reading of the Bible, the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his view that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the other way around. And the Earth's fossil record clearly demonstrates that "a day" in the Biblical creation story could not possibly be a 24-hour day. The Scopes trial in the 1920s did not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is correct; but it did shred the notion that the Biblical account of the creation can be taken literally in all of its particulars. Bishop Spong'€™s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (Chapter 3, "The Pre-Scientific Assumptions of the Bible"€) is a good treatment of the subject of the Bible and science.
        Colson doesn't spend much time on the topic of scientific knowledge and its interaction with the Biblical inerrancy concept. He touches on it briefly by defending the Biblical texts that refer to the Sun rising in the sky:

"Remember, too, that any author writes so his readers can understand. When critics attack the literal truthfulness of Scripture by citing language like 'the sun rose', they are ignoring basic rules of literary communication. Of course the sun does not rise; the writer is simply communicating in terms he and his contemporaries understand. Even in our enlightened age, of course, TV weather forecasters still give the times each day for sunrise and sunset."€

        That argument, of course, sounds reasonable if we don'€™t know that much about the Bible. But if we do, we know that the assumption of the Sun's movement across the sky is far more deeply embedded in the stories than an imprecise use of language to express the concept that persists to this day. As noted In the Spong excerpt I provided:

"Joshua ordered the sun to stand still in the sky so that the slaughter of the Amorites by the Israelites might continue to occur without the interruption of nightfall (Josh.10:12,13). Ignoring the rather dubious reason for such a miracle and the tribal hostility that made Israel assume that the killing of the Amorites was God's holy cause as well as theirs, this account is still not something our modern minds can accept. The sun cannot be ordered to stop, for it is not journeying through our sky."€

        Even today, many legalistic Christians are having difficulty coming to all of the conclusions that mankind has inevitably had to reach based on scientific findings. My Quest Study Bible, for example, still tries to cling at least a little to the notion that "€œa day" as described in the Creation account may be a 24-hour period, while reluctantly acknowledging that it may not be. It states that "the 'days' of creation could be either a figure of speech or literal 24-hour periods", and goes on to valiantly assert that chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are nevertheless "€œan orderly narration of what took place."
        (I would like to note that some arguments that seem plausible have been made to reconcile "€œBiblical time"€ in a non-literal sense of the word "day"€ with the earth's known fossil record. Gerald Schroeder, who has reputable scientific credentials, addresses this in the book The Science of God).
        I think that legalistic Christians are cautious in acknowledging that the word "day" in the creation story might really be something other than 24 hours because they realize that although this appears to be a small concession, it is an important one. It's important, because if we acknowledge that the Bible cannot always to be taken literally, then some key questions arise. For example, how do we know when it was "intended"€ to be taken literally, and when it was not intended to be taken literally?
        Some believers in Biblical inerrancy therefore have staked out the claim that it'€™s the teachings of the Bible that are inerrant. That's why I think it's important to turn next to the Bible's teachings, or Biblical morality. Colson provides a good entry-way into that issue, but talking about a debate in which his opponent made the assertion that "The Bible teaches us to kill."  Let's look at that assertion next.

Does the Bible Teach You to Kill?

        I want to focus on Colson’s ideas, the substance of what he says in Steve’s excerpt, and not take shots at him as a person. Still, it’s hard not to notice Colson’s gratuitous description of his debating opponent, Madelyn Murray O’Hair (page 56 of Colson’s book). Colson wants us to be sure to know that Ms. O’Hair was “angrily spitting invectives”. She “contorted her face”. She “made obnoxious gestures.” She “glibly quoted Scripture”.

        All of these descriptions were sort of irrelevant to Colson’s main point, which seemed to be that he defeated his opponent in this debate by taking along his Bible, and demanding that she show him where within it was the support for a point “she shouted” – that “The Bible teaches you to kill.” The tide of the debate was turned, Colson reports, and the power of the Bible was vindicated, when she refused to touch the Bible.
        In old-fashioned schools of debate, though, it’s content and not theatrics that defines the winner. And Colson’s piece never confronts the accuracy of O’Hair’s seemingly offensive claim. Colson probably counted on the fact that the intended audience for his book would summarily dismiss the claim also, as he does not bother to further elaborate on the substance of the issue.
        It’s common knowledge, of course, that the Bible portrays GOD (sometimes personally, sometimes acting through subordinate angels) as frequently intervening in earthly matters to kill human beings. One of the books that I read over the recent hiatus in the dialogue this year has an appendix, in fact, that compiles or documents these Godly interventions. In addition to instances where the human death count at the hands of God (or God’s angels) is not quantified -- for example, the Passover, when all first-born Egyptian babies were killed… and the Flood, which reputedly destroyed most of humanity at the time… and the numerous instances in which the Bible merely indicates that God killed “many” or “destroyed” a particular city or village… -- the appendix lists 12 incidents in which the number of people killed by God is quantified in the Bible. The body count from these 12 incidents totals to 496,023, which must have been quite staggering given world population levels in those days. The biggest single Godly slaughter that is quantified in the Bible and reflected in the appendix is from 2 Kings 19:35 (“That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning – there were all the dead bodies.”)
        But the fact that the Bible reports that God kills people in large quantities is a different point than saying that the “Bible teaches you (human beings) to kill.”
        My curiosity was piqued. To research the matter efficiently, I turned to two of the books of the Bible that I considered to be the likeliest of sources (if any were to be found) for this distasteful claim (Deuteronomy and Leviticus).

"God's Word" from Deuteronomy and Leviticus

        Question: What does the Bible say that we should do to those who worship other Gods than the God of the Hebrews?
        Deuteronomy 17:2-7 says that they shall be stoned to death. Specifically, if a man or woman:

“has worshipped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death… You must purge the evil from among you.”

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says that “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods”… show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. You hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death…”

Deuteronomy 13:12-16 says that “If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ (gods that you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.”

        With all the discussion after September 11 about whether Islamic scriptures promote tolerance or advocate violence against others of different faiths, I don’t really recall much being said about how the Bible handles similar issues. The preceding seems sufficient to conclude that Deuteronomy doesn’t exactly counsel the live-and-let-live approach that we might hope for regarding people of other faiths, however.
        But Deuteronomy and Leviticus do not counsel that the killing is to only be directed at those who may worship other Gods (or who may ask us to do so). Here’s some other examples of times when the Bible teaches (counsels) killing:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.”

Similarly, Leviticus 20:9-10 says that “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death… If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbor – both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:14 says that “If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.” Leviticus 20:27 says “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Conclusion About the Bible Teaching Man to Kill: Certain Passages of the Bible Contain Laws or Instructions from God on When and How to Kill

        Hey, even atheists deserve to have their statements judged on their merits, and not based on a dissection of their personal neuroses. The single substantive point made by O’Hair that Colson chose to identify and challenge is baldly stated, but literally accurate. There is evidence for O’Hair’s point.
        One can certainly argue that her statement could (and should) have been more qualified. The statement that certain books of the Bible have passages that teach us to kill would have been a more carefully drawn assertion. Clearly there are many places in the Bible which counsel the opposite, such as the Ten Commandments and many of the teachings of Jesus.
        One might also wish to quibble with the use of the word “teaches” – perhaps O’Hair should have said “instructs” or “directs” us to kill under certain circumstances. However, it is hard to argue with the use of the word “teach” here, when “God’s Word” states not only when but how the killing is to be done.
        Thus, I think that we have to rate Ms. O’Hair’s statement as an assertion that is demonstrably true or accurate (insofar as it goes).

The Broader Significance of the Issue About the Bible and Killing: Biblical Morality Old Testament Style, and “God the Cosmic Meany”

        The primary problem with the Bible isn’t with matters such as whether or not “a day” was intended to mean 24 hours. The big problem (to me) is that so much of what the ancient writers had to say is morally tone-deaf. I do not exaggerate when I say that it is hard for me to imagine that there is anyone out there in the 21st century who can read portions of the Old Testament, process the words and what God is supposedly doing and commanding, and what is supposedly happening, and still come out with the view that they even HOPE that the Bible is inerrant, let alone think that it is.
        One legalistic Christian apologist has dubbed this type of argument the “Yahweh the Cosmic Meanie” argument, and said that it is:

“Argument by outrage. ‘Why should God be allowed to do what we can’t and what He tells us not to do? Why do the innocent have to suffer because of the actions of the guilty?’, referring to the standard as primitive, barbaric, etc. We can expect little else from those who think that there is no life beyond their narrow view in the first place, and who do not recognize the right of God to do with his creation as He pleases, but for the Christian, the matter is resolved with a single thought: If the innocent cannot die for the sake of or under the punishment of the guilty under God’s justice, then the sacrifice of Christ could not be permitted either. The principle established thereby is far, far more important than our puny lives…”

        I think it’s disappointing that the writer assumes that all those who see a “Cosmic Meanie” in some of the literal descriptions of the Old Testament must be individuals who think there is no life beyond. But I respect this fellow for at least being aware that the “Cosmic Meany” issue exists, for injecting a bit of humor into the issue with this sarcastic label, and for hitting on the one point that I see as a small but inadequate Biblical defense. Basically, that point is “Why do we think that the same standards or moral values that apply to us do and ought to apply to God?” Perhaps the strong and certain establishment of the relationship between God and the Hebrews was so important in God’s eyes, for example, that it did “justify” the slaughter of many who held other beliefs.
The issue, though, really isn’t God’s right to do with his creation as God pleases. The issue really is “Do we think that these particular accounts of God’s behavior are real, and real reflections of what God DOES DO with God’s creation?” Moreover, my concern is not only about what God reportedly does that we’re told not to do, but also about the morality of what God reportedly has told us to do and not do.
        We each have to make our own call, of course. But Yes, I do feel some outrage when I look at some of the things that are supposedly required in some of these old books and try to contemplate the words as the true words or desire of God – for then, or ever. It seems to me that the portrayal of God’s actions and commands in parts of the Old Testament is incredibly incompatible with Jesus’ portrayal of God, and the values of love and forgiveness.
        Chapter 2, “Raising the Issues”, from Bishop Spong’s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism) hits on some of these same issues (Biblical morality and Biblical inerrancy). As is so often the case, I find him to eloquently express the same type of conclusions that I tend to come to. Here’s one statement from that larger excerpt that I’d like to particularly highlight:

“A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart cannot finally adore.”

        That first sentence above from Spong is such a key point.  A LITERAL BIBLE PRESENTS FAR MORE PROBLEMS THAN ASSETS.   
        To consider these issues further, let’s turn next time to the Book of Judges.

The Book of Judges: All of It Is God’s Word?

        Steve Allen wrote two volumes discussing the Bible. The books consist of essays or commentary organized alphabetically based on key words – such as the names of the books of the Bible. In many of these essays, Allen takes a book from the Bible, and describes the action in the text in modern, easily understood terms, but along with his tough editorial comment on the text.
        I had intended to provide an excerpt giving Allen’s overview of certain stories from Judges. However, I decided that the Biblical content as described by Allen was more graphic and gruesome than I wished to include within the bounds of this dialogue. Allen’s overall perspective on the book, however, can be summarized by his reaction to 19:30 where the reader is urged to consider the story, “take advice, and speak your minds.” Allen says, “I speak mine when I say that to classify such an ancient horror story as in any sense spiritual or divine is to make a mockery of the terms.”
        Instead, I’m including a toned-down excerpt, a discussion  from the Oxford Bible Commentary regarding Judges, followed by some of the closing comments from Allen on the lack of literary beauty in the book.

The Oxford Bible Commentary:

“As with virtually every biblical book, Judges confronts the modern reader with much that seems offensive or repugnant: the bloodthirsty violence of heroes such as Ehud; the sacrifice of a daughter to God by Jepththah; the rape, condoned by her husband, of the woman in Judges 19, her murder, and subsequent dismemberment. How does one engage such texts? One might disassociate oneself from the Scripture and conclude that ancient Israelite culture is not our culture, their world-view not ours. A person who does not consider himself within a more continuous line of biblical tradition for cultural or religious reasons might attempt to appropriate selectively, appreciating Jephthah’s appeal to criteria of just war (11:12-27), the Israelite’s condemnation of the evildoing at Gibeah, their heroism in confronting better-armed enemies. In this commentary, we attempt to stand at some critical distance from the ancient representations in Judges, nevertheless emphasizing with their authors and audiences. We have to imagine a world in which human sacrifice is not unthinkable, even while we, like the voices of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, condemn it. We must also consider the possibility that the ancient Israelites were self-critical and unsure; their frequent enquiries of God portrayed in Judges, and their need for, but distrust of, leadership being evidence of inner tensions and self-doubt concerning the nature of human action and the moral underpinnings of received literary tradition.”

From More Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality:

“These chapters of Judges cannot even boast of the slightest literary beauty – that partial though utterly irrelevant defense given for certain other unedifying portions of the Old Testament. Such faint illusion of beauty as exists is attributable entirely to the reaction, conditioned by several centuries of experience, of modern English-speaking peoples to the resonant beauty of their own language as spoken in an earlier, more formal age. The phraseology has so often been employed in the form of old prayers, solemn oaths, sonorous poetry, and Shakespearean drama, that it creates the illusion of beauty whether the actual content is charming or not. But re-read the chapters of Judges – and others in the Old Testament – with the single purpose of discovering literary eloquence and one will be forced to realize that there is little trace of it. The writing is, in fact, even more pointlessly repetitive then modern mid-century Marxist rhetoric, inept in many details and obscure in others.”

        When I read that, I felt like standing up and applauding. So many times I’ve listened to a selected reading in church (which, once completed, is described as “the Word of God” or “the Word of the Lord”), and I’ve felt like the little boy at the parade wondering if he’s the only one who sees that the emperor [in this case, certain Biblical text] is wearing no clothes. I look around me in church at the blank or reverent faces, and think “Am I the only one who heard the substantive content of that and sort of processed it? Could we have – I don’t know – the auditory equivalent of slow-motion instant replay on that? Maybe some power point slides we could go over? Because the content I thought I just heard was revolting! Wasn’t anyone else paying attention?” But I think Allen hit it exactly on the head, in terms of the dynamic that goes on. The resonant beauty of our language, as spoken in an earlier more formal age, creates the illusion of beauty whether the actual content is charming or not. Thank you, thank you, Steve Allen !

 

(98) Further Thoughts on Inerrancy

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve and John

Legalist Christian Explanations of Biblical Contradictions Negate the Claim That the Bible Is “Errorless, Reliable, and Infallible”           

        When legalistic Christians assert the Bible is inerrant, reliable, and infallible, I understand them to be saying that the full Bible (the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament) contains no errors, mistakes, or critical oversights in its contents, and that the content can be taken literally (aside from clearly metaphorical poetry).
        However, in the course of trying to find plausible excuses for particular Biblical shortcomings, Christians who engage in apologetics seem to end up undermining the claim of Biblical reliability that they are seeking to support. They address specific shortcomings with arguments that involve a lowering of the standards to which they actually hold the document. This enables them to achieve a rational rebuttal at the “small picture” level while failing to notice the damage they have done to their “big picture” claim. What follows is an overview of three example areas in which apologists lower Biblical expectations.

1. The Gospels Are Not Expected to Consistently Render Facts, Including Key Details About Pivotal Moments in Christianity.
        One example of a lowering of expectations is to excuse the entire category of errors that are commonly known as “errors of omission.”
        To explain, if the Bible were the word of God, it seems reasonable to me to expect that the document would contain precise and consistent renderings of events, particularly for pivotal moments. Yet it does not. For example, clearly the stated discovery of the empty tomb is one of the most pivotal moments in the Jesus story; and the claim that the tomb was empty due to the resurrection of Jesus has fed the growth of the Christian religion. Yet the Gospel accounts lack precision as to who went to the empty tomb. John 20:1 says that “early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb” (one woman goes to the tomb). Matthew 28:1 says that “After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb” (two women go to the tomb). Mark 16:1 says that “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices… just after sunrise, they were on their way” (three women went to the tomb). And Luke 24 says that “the women who had come with Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb” and “It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this (the tomb is empty) to the apostles” (more than four women were at the tomb).
        This is not the rendering of such a pivotal moment that I would expect if we were in fact dealing with a document that is fully God’s Word, with human authors serving basically as scribes of God’s dictation. It is a rendering that one might expect from human authors, none direct witnesses of the events described, writing after 40 to 70 years have elapsed from the events described.

2. Some Inconsistencies Are Explained Away as Copyist Errors.
        To defend the Bible from other apparent inconsistencies, apologists have argued that although the Bible was copied as faithfully as humanly possible, errors were made. It is only the original document that is without error, not the Bible we have today, they say.
        An illustration of the point here is one of the best-known stories in the Bible that pertains to one of the most significant characters in the Hebrew Bible – King David. According to 1 Samuel Chapter 17, David single-handedly and heroically slew “a champion name Goliath” who had a spear shaft that was “like a weaver’s rod.” Unfortunately, 2 Samuel Chapter 21 states that someone other than David killed Goliath: “In another battle with the Phillistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” 1 Chronicles 20, though, states that Elhanon killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath, and not Goliath. At least one of the three Bible books cited appears to be in error regarding the killing of Goliath.
        Based on Chronicles and the desire to see David as a hero, the apologist can argue that some copyist made a mistake in 2 Samuel. The scholarly Oxford Bible Commentary has a slightly different take on the matter, seeing Chronicles as an obvious attempt to harmonize the text. Kenneth C. Davis, in his book Don’t Know Much About the Bible: Everything You Need to Know About the Good Book But Never Learned, is a little less cautious in his answer to the question of who killed Goliath. He writes:

“Probably not David, who may have killed another Philistine who was later called Goliath. The King James translators of 1611 tried to cover up the discrepancy by inserting the words ‘brother of’ before the second mention of Goliath, but older texts don’t bear that version out. In other words, after David was famous, the authors of the Hebrew scriptures may have tried to dress up David’s military exploits with a few embellishments.”

        The point, though, is that if the Bible we use today were a document of error-free divine authorship, then we would not have good reason to wonder the extent to which the David story has been humanly embellished in the Bible.

3. Some inconsistencies are addressed by relaxing the extent to which the text is taken literally.
        In Luke 14:26, Jesus is quoted as saying that “if anyone does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
        This teaching seems to be at odds with the Ten Commandments as well as Jesus’ teachings to love one another. The Christian apologist can argue that the teaching should not be taken literally, that hyperbole and exaggeration may be used in teachings to make a point. But this would see to be a position of the Bible’s critics, not its defenders. Isn’t this a dangerous idea for those who do not want any ambiguity in their religion? Who tells us when Jesus is exaggerating for dramatic effect, then, and when he’s not? How do we know? What do we do if the gospel writers themselves don’t see eye to eye on what was said or meant?
        Elaine Pagels has pointed out that Matthew “softens what, according to Luke, Jesus had said about hating one’s family.” She goes on to say that this was part of a pattern with Matthew, noting that Matthew:

“not only apparently changes words and injects phrases [to Luke] but goes further, deliberately juxtaposing Jesus’ more radical sayings with more moderate sayings on the same theme… Matthew gives the reader the impression that Jesus’ message and the movement he inspired need not place extreme demands upon every believer, but only upon would-be spiritual heroes – those who want to follow Jesus’ commands to ‘be perfect’ (Matthew 5:48).

        The situation, then, appears to suggest that Matthew himself didn’t find the Gospel of Luke to be inerrant in its account of what Jesus had said. But, if we believe Luke, then it appears that Jesus must have had a very harsh standard for discipleship with him.

In Summary
        So let’s see what we are left with …
        The Bible can’t be expected to provide a consistent testimony regarding who was present at one of the most important events in Christian history…
        The text can’t be taken literally, even the teachings of Jesus… Hyperbole or exaggeration may be used in the teachings to make a point.
        And finally… the versions of the Bible that we have in front of us today are not inerrant, only the original document that we don’t have. We know for a fact that the Bible before us today has errors. But we have no way of knowing where, how many, or what sorts of errors were introduced between the original documents and the texts available today. All we have is an assertion that the changes probably weren’t significant, because the documents were copied as faithfully as humanly possible. (We’ll get into that issue, when we examine the changes that the copyists made in the differing Bible texts that are available today. But that will have to wait for another day).
        Maybe it’s just me… but let me ask a question.
        Does this softened position regarding the Bible bear any resemblance to the concept of perfection that the words inerrancy and infallibility connote? Is this the concept of inerrancy that Biblical literalists or the average person in the pews thinks of when the claim of Biblical inerrancy is made? I don’t think so.

But Hasn’t God Protected the Bible from Adulteration or Loss?

        My Quest Study Bible indicates that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Most scholars don’t think this.
        The idea that Moses and Moses alone wrote these books does get to be a little tough to believe, considering that the last book of the five says near the end that:

        “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab.” (Deuteronomy 34:5.)
        How did Moses write that?
        My Quest Study Bible doesn’t say, it doesn’t ask the question. But some Christian apologetics say, oh yes, Moses wrote it. He knew that he was dying when he was in Moab. He anticipated his own death, and wrote it in then.
        Well, that might work okay if we didn’t go on to read Deuteronomy 34:6, which says that Moses was buried in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor:

“but to this day no one knows where his grave is.”

        So who is this unknown interloper who came in and added these words to Moses’ sacred text?

        Mark is believed to be the first of the Gospels to be written. My Quest Study Bible does acknowledge that we don’t know how this Gospel ends. My Bible includes Mark 16:9-20, but notes that the “earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The earliest manuscripts end with the women fleeing the tomb. My Quest Study Bible says:

“it is possible that the original ending of Mark was lost, perhaps torn off the end of a scroll. It’s also possible that Mark ended his story with v.8, showing that the disciples were still afraid and confused, unable to grasp the truth of the resurrection.

        But since that ending seems to leave the Gospel hanging, without describing any actual resurrection appearance of Jesus, by the middle of the second century A.D. someone apparently added a more complete conclusion.”
        What we have now are three endings to Mark. We have an ending at 16:8. We have something called “The Shorter Ending of Mark”, which adds two sentences. And we have “The Longer Ending of Mark”, which adds verses 9 to 20.
        But nobody’s sure how it’s really supposed to end.
       
        So there are some questions as to how effectively the Biblical content has been protected.
        If we going to nonetheless claim that it’s remarkable that we have access to these ancient texts, and that this must be an indicator of some divine protection, then we need to be consistent in exercising this view.
        Because it’s also remarkable that we now have access to the Gnostic Gospels. These writings were lost for 1,600 years, and were relatively unknown until recent years. They were discovered unexpectedly in the Egyptian desert in 1945. Right with the end of World War II, here we were, modern man suddenly given a “new” set of gospels. If God has protected the Sypnotic Gospels, how well God has also protected the Gnostic Gospels, keeping them safe until a time when they might be fully appreciated!
        Some Gnostics thought that they had access to the earliest Christian teachings. For example, according to Elaine Pagels, one of the major Gnostic groups claimed to have:

“access to the secret teachings of Paul, the ‘deeper mysteries’ that Paul reserved from his public teaching and taught only to a few chosen disciples in secret. Other Gnostics claimed to know the secret teachings of Jesus himself – teaching only hinted at, they said, in the New Testament gospels but revealed more fully in such secret writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Dialogue of the Savior.”

        Regarding the Gnostic writings as a whole, Pagels has written that:

“… Whether these writings – or which of them – contain authentic teaching of Jesus and his disciples we do not know, any more than we know with certainty which sayings or teachings in the New Testament are authentic. What the discovery certainly does offer, is extraordinary insights into the early Christian movement.”

        The Gnostics, Pagels writes:

“objected to being told what to think and how to behave. Although they agreed that the first step toward becoming a Christian was to accept the faith and receive baptism from the bishop, these Christians wanted to go further. They yearned to become spiritually ‘mature’, to go beyond such elementary instruction toward higher levels of understanding. And this higher awareness they called gnosis, which means ‘knowledge’ or insight.’”

        Gnostics did not share a single ideology. Not all were Christians, but many were. Some of the Gnostic Christians believed in some ideas that are dear to John’s heart -- for example, reincarnation. Also, their idea was close to John’s idea that we are God. Pagels said that Gnostic interpreters share the Hindu conviction that the “divine being is hidden deep within human nature, as well as outside of it.” A Gnostic idea is that there is a divine seed or spark within each of us. According to some Gnostics, the Adam and Eve story is about humanity falling into ordinary consciousness and losing contact with its divine origin.
With regard to scriptural interpretation matters, anyway, the Gnostics were the forerunners of non-legalistic Christians. Elaine Pagels writes that “when gnostic and orthodox Christians disagreed, each reached back to the Scriptures that they revered in common, and each claimed the Scriptures’ support.” However, Gnostics did not interpret the Bible literally:

“Certain Gnostic Christians suggested that such absurdities [problems they had with the story of Genesis in a literal sense] show that the story was never meant to be taken literally but should be understood as spiritual allegory – not so much history with a moral as myth with meaning. The Gnostics took each line of the Scriptures as an enigma, a riddle pointing to deeper meaning.”

        The Gnostics apparently just drove orthodox Christians nuts! They knew the scriptures, and they were WAY more imaginative than modern-day non-legalistic Christians! Pagels quotes from one orthodox Christian leader of the time, who complained that:

“every one of them generates something new every day, according to his ability; for, among them, no one is considered mature [or ‘initiated’] who does not develop some enormous fictions.”

        As a result, Pagels says:

“Gnostic Christians neither sought nor found any consensus concerning what the story meant but regarded Genesis 1-3 rather like a frugal melody upon which they could continually improvise new variations”.

        Anyway, perhaps the Gnostic Gospels were divinely PRESERVED AND PROTECTED until recent years expressly for the edification of modern legalistic Christians. Perhaps they were preserved and protected so legalistic Christians could see that non-legalistic Christians like me, and even heretics like John, may have a few good ideas.
        So Steve, would you like to borrow a copy of the Gnostic Scriptures today, or wait till next week?

The Stakes Attached to the Claim of Biblical Inerrancy

        Colson asserts that:

“On this assertion [that the Bible is the infallible Word of God] the Christian faith stands or falls, for if the Bible is faulty, so is our faith.”

        I just do not see the validity of this concern. I’d like to ask Colson, “if the Bible is faulty regarding [WHAT?]” then our Christian faith is “faulty [HOW]”? Does he really mean to imply that if the Bible has some or even numerous errors, then our faith would necessarily be faulty in any (every) regard? I think that this is a foolish position! All of the text in the Bible is not so interconnected that it is like a stack of dominos or a house of cards, where all items fall if one item goes. If it were true that Jesus never existed, or ceased to “exist” after death – as a spirit, soul, or resurrected body – then yeah, perhaps the Christian faith starts looking sort of pale. But there are rather few Biblical “assertions”, I’d argue, which absolutely have to be true or else the whole point and the very existence of Christianity gives way. To say that Christianity falls if the Bible isn’t error-free is folly, in my opinion.
        Given that so much of the Bible addresses matters that are not essential to supporting Christ’s existence, divine connection, or resurrection, I cannot agree with the proposition that Christianity stands or falls based on the total inerrancy of the entire Bible.

Conclusion: The Understandings of the Bible Writers Are “Too Small” to Define Our Understanding of God for All Time

        The Biggest Problem I Have With the Inerrancy Claim Is That If the Bible Were Inerrant, Then (to borrow J.B. Phillip’s phrase) “God Is Too Small”
        If I felt less certain that the Bible IS ERRANT, then I would spend time praying that IT IS! I will be frank as to why. Besides the GOOD stuff (mostly focused on Jesus), there are portions of that work – the faith testimony of an ancient people – that are just plain repugnant. There is stuff in there that is just plain absurd. The notion that ALL of the words of the Bible represented THE WORD of God at any point in time seems like a very depressing thought.
        When I say that some of the stuff is just plain absurd… John’s already said that he thinks that some of the big miracle stories, like the ark and the flood, or the parting of the Red Sea lack literal credibility (or the parting of the Sea of Reeds, some scholars think they may have been a mistranslation here).
        But at least these were grand scale interventions, potentially worthy in scale (if not morality) of a Creator’s involvement. What about some of the absurd smaller interventions? Consider these.
        In Genesis 32 : 22-32, Jacob is alone one evening, and a man comes and engages Jacob in an all-night wrestling match. This man could not overpower Jacob, so he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip “so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.” As it turns out, this man, the wrestler who showed up in the wee hours of the morning, was God.
        In Deuteronomy 25 : 11-12, God instructs that “if two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” Isn’t this absurd? How frequently did this scenario unfold? Have you ever heard of a woman breaking up a fight between two men (one her husband) by grabbing the other guy’s testicles? I sure never have. And, while I assume that it must have happened at least at some point(s) back then, can you imagine God saying, “Hold on a moment! I can’t believe what that woman just did! We can’t have that! I must give them a law!”
        In 2 Kings 23-25, some children (or “youths”, depending on the translation) twice made fun of Elisha’s baldness. They said, “Go on up, you baldhead! Go on up, you baldhead!” Elisha then performed a miracle. He called down a curse upon the children in the name of God. As a result, “two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the children.”
        I do not understand how Bible study groups all around the country can go over the Old Testament material and say yes, all or almost all of this really seems like the Word of God, I really want this to be the Word of God, and I really love these words of God. How in the world is that accomplished? I will grant that the Old Testament description of God -- if fully accurate -- indicates that God is awesome in power, is actively involved in human affairs, and is to be feared. But IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO JESUS, God as perceived by the ancient Hebrews is often petulant, vengeful, bloodthirsty… I could go on.
        I have some serious reservations about the notion that God created beings who are imperfect… knew omnisciently that they would prove to be imperfect… and then is constantly surprised, shocked, enraged, and provoked to violence by even relatively modest displays of that imperfection. But that is the Old Testament view of God. I don’t think that God held this view and wrote it into the text!
        I think that the claim of Biblical inerrancy fits into a relatively small category of religious claims that are fiercely held but are also demonstrably false. And, the falsity of this claim is a positive finding – it is a good thing for Christianity, and a good thing for mankind!

(99) Elisha & Naaman, and An Affirmation

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve and John

Elisha and Naaman

Elisha: Don’t be too proud or angry or skeptical to try this solution. Have faith that there is something of value in this approach. I want you to go to the river seven times, so that you can demonstrate that your faith is not just some passing fancy.

Naaman: How far into the water do I need to go?

Elisha: I just said bathe in it. You don’t have to go out until the water is up to your neck and you feel in danger. You don’t have to defy reason and good sense and go in until the water is over your head, and wait for a miracle to save you. Just bathe in it. Let the waters lap against you, and watch what sticks to you and salves your wounds.

Naaman: Are there some points in the river where the healing quality of the waters is strongest? How long shall I bathe? What techniques should I use to bathe? Do I need soap? Shall I be alone, or shall I go with others?

Elisha: I don’t need to tell you that. You’re seeking some detailed prescription from me now, some set of rules to follow to get the healing. I’m not into that. The healing comes from the faith, not the rules.

        There are different ways of bathing in the River Jordan. Maybe some go in three feet deep, others five. Maybe some use Ivory Soap, while others use Coast.

        Just bathe. Let the waters lap against you. The waters of the Jordan aren’t perfectly clean. But it’s the good stuff in the waters that will stick. See what sticks to you, and what salves your wounds.

        I’ve been bathing, Steve. Maybe we’re just in different spots in the river, using some different techniques. Elisha doesn’t mind.

My Affirmation of Christian Faith

        My Christian faith is not an affirmation of literal Biblical content.

        It also is not forever fixed, but hopefully may grow, as my understanding and life experience grows. It’s different in exact content (but not so much in spirit or intent) from what it would have been at the start of the dialogue:

        God exists, and loves us. We are in God’s image.

        God, or a divine spark, may be present in us all, but was uniquely present in Christ.

        Jesus was a real human being with a special, mysterious, and timeless relationship with God. In life, this special relationship was demonstrated in Jesus’ selfless love for other human beings. In spirit, he is a point of access to God for those who so choose.

        There is a symbolic power in Jesus’ death. That death is open to many interpretations, but its power is timeless.

        Our lives are a gift, with cosmic purpose and meaning, infused with freedom, intended to be lived with love.

        Our souls, like Jesus, are eternal.

(100) Our Goal: Union with God?

Author:  STEVE
To Bob and John

I can’t keep up with all Bob’s recent pieces, but I’ve been busy wading through the Bruce Bawer excerpts. Surprisingly, I find much to like in what Bawer writes. In fact, if Bob’s reason for sharing this section is to better illustrate and articulate his own faith, then I have much in common with Bob – and perhaps with John too.
        I underlined many Bawer statements (just as I underline sections of the Bible to which I can particularly relate). Here’s a punch line from Bawer I found particularly appealing. Could it be a statement that both Bob and John can embrace? Bawer refers to the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to find the lost one:

“This passage provides a splendid summary of the way in which I came to understand Christianity: as a grateful and loving response to the love of God. And perceiving that love and allowing it to penetrate my marrow was not a matter of closing my eyes and taking a ‘leap of faith.’ It was a matter of opening my eyes and seeing something before me that I could not deny.”

Bawer also notes:

“…Jesus, more than anyone who ever lived, at once modeled God’s love for us and the way in which God wanted us to love him and one another. Jesus showed us that a life lived in love is an abundant life, and he came, as he told us, to bring us more abundant life.”

While there is much more that I would like to repeat from Bawer, it’s time to do some of my own thinking and writing. Follow along, and see how long you can stay on this path with me. Perhaps we’ll travel on this path together longer than you might first imagine.
        In the past, we’ve have much disagreement about “theology”, the “how to” reach God. I’d like to go back to square one, and see if we agree on the end result, or the goal of our life with God.
        In simplest terms, it seems the spiritual goal of man (that transcends all other goals) is union with God. This is my goal. Is it the same for the two of you?
        How are we united with God? Through love. Love him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength – and love your neighbor as yourself. Demonstrate your love for God by loving those around you -- even your enemy, as we are taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
        Notice I did not say my spiritual goal was Heaven. I do not walk on the path with those who are convinced that if you believe the right things, you go to Heaven, and if you don’t, you go to hell. I’m also not on the path with those who are convinced that if you are good (enough), you go to Heaven, and if not, then down you go.
        Perhaps you’re wondering, I thought Steve was convinced that if you don’t believe in Jesus, then you can’t get to heaven through this one and only door. Let me try to explain.
        Jesus saves us. This is not some mystical statement, nor some dogmatic theological key that fits Heaven’s door. Here’s how I understand him. I equate “saves” with “unites.” He serves as the best model of God’s love for us, and the best example of how we should love others. He unites us with God. The more I love like him, the closer I become to God. Jesus unites us. More on this concept in a moment, but let my digress by contrasting with what doesn’t save us. Hopefully, you won’t see theology/dogma in my remarks, just practical experience.
        Can I achieve union with God by being good enough? If I follow the 10 Commandments and all good human laws, will I win a place in Heaven? No! It is impossible to win God’s favor by being good enough. There is something in our human nature that is self-centered, even if you benevolently define it as self-preservation. Let’s pick up the dialogue between Jesus and a young man. (You don’t need to believe this is a literal account to catch the point of the story.)
        A young man asks Jesus, “what must I do to be saved?” Jesus leads with, “follow the law.” The man replies, “I have kept all the commands since my youth.” Jesus looks at him lovingly, “then go and sell all that you have and follow me.” The man turns away sadly, for he was rich. This man was given a choice: demonstrate God-like sacrificial love, or continue his claims he was good enough. God did not reject (or judge) him; he rejected God. (I would like to get into Bob’s questions about God’s judgment, but we’ll save that for another time.) Jesus tried to “save” that man (unite him more closely with God by giving him the opportunity to love the poor). Unfortunately, the man tried to save himself, and failed. He gave up on his quest to be united with God, because he believed the price was too high.
        If following all the laws won’t unite us with God, what about believing the correct theology? Nope, won’t work either. If I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but do not demonstrate love for others, then I will not be saved (united more closely with God). Whoa! Is that Steve speaking such heresy? Let’s take a closer look at my interpretation.
        There are references in the New Testament something to this effect: even the demons believed Jesus was the Son of God. Clearly, what they believed didn’t matter, for they were attempting to pull others away from God. Uttering the mantra “I believe Jesus is the Son of God”, by itself, does not draw us any closer to God.
        However, if we believe that Jesus’ life and death best illustrate God-like love, then it is the attitude and motivation that follows which saves us. We are saved (drawn closer to God) when we thankfully try to follow his example. Even if you don’t believe Jesus was saving you, he certainly attempted to help all he encountered, even those who eventually called for his torture and execution. Following this model would draw you closer to God, and in that sense, Jesus’ example could save you from a self-centered lifestyle and unite you with God.
        There is also a mysterious aspect of this saving/uniting with God. Left to our own devices, we cannot compel ourselves to demonstrate sacrificial love. But God grants us a portion of his nature (His Holy Spirit) to enable us to live more lovingly and draw more closely to Him.

“I pray that out of his glorious, unlimited resources he will give you the mighty inner strengthening of his Holy Spirit. And I pray that Christ will be more and more at home in your hearts, living within you as you trust in him. May your roots go down deep into the soil of God’s marvelous love; and may you be able to feel and understand, as all God’s children should, how long, how wide, how deep, and how high his love really is; and to experience this love for yourselves, though it is so great that you will never see the end of it of fully know of understand it. And so at last you will be filled up with God himself.” (Ephesians 3: 16-19)

Quite the goal for our spiritual lives. Good works and right theology won’t get us there. Thanks, Jesus, for the demonstration of God’s love. Thanks, God, for the mysterious inner strengthening that enables me to follow in his footsteps. Thanks for such a simple path toward closer union with you – partially now, and more completely after I pass from this physical body.

(101) What Christians Are Asking Me to Believe

Author:  JOHN
To:  Bob and Steve

I cry unfair, UNFAIR! Bob has pulled a fast one on us, Steve! It is obvious to me that Bob, while pretending to be too busy to keep the trialogue going, was in fact secretly preparing multiple pieces and putting them on the shelf until a vast armada had been accumulated. Then, claiming that they had all come to fruition in a matter of a few days, Bob released them upon us poor unsuspecting standers-by like a horde of vicious barbarians, hoping by force of stampede to crush us into oblivion under the sheer weight, number, and magnitude of his words, thoughts, excerpts, surveys, Xeroxed pages, and complex examples.
        Well, I have to give him his due. I did find some of this very interesting stuff, once I committed myself to the task of reading the long articles forced on me, and got past the first few pages. Some parts of your stuff were quite stimulating and thought-provoking and, for me anyway, confirming of a number of budding but half-baked [mixed metaphor alert] thoughts I had been having over the past couple months.
        Although I’m afraid this may disappoint Bob, I don’t feel particularly moved to respond to his mass attack with a similar amount of material. That is partly because, probably to no one’s surprise, I am pretty much in agreement with the vast majority of points raised by both Bob and his sources about the errancy of the Bible. Yes, I say errancy, because rather than disputing the assertion that the Bible is inerrant, I now state unequivocally and have previously so stated that the so-called HOLY Bible is FULL of various kinds of errors and other shortcoming. So, herein I feel no need to reiterate and support Bob’s sources’ points one by one; I feel free to dwell, rather, on only those points and ideas I would like to either take further or raise objections to.
        First, I must confess that I am somewhat surprised at the amount of time and words spent on the Biblical inerrancy issue. That Bob has felt the need to go through such an extended and complex exercise (though with his usual diligence and persuasive result) makes me think that heretofore Bob and I were possibly not so much in the same camp on this as I had supposed (what an awful sentence). I long ago settled this issue for myself, with a help from Spong, Thomas Jefferson, and several others, and I guess I had just assumed that Bob had already trod the same path. Then again, perhaps my assumption was true, and Bob in fact did this in order to force Steve to pay attention to this issue. Was that your strategy Bob? If so, I will be curious to see if it works.
        Anyway, though a lot of the inerrancy discussion was, as far as I was concerned, preaching to the converted (so appropriate and ironic a cliché cannot be passed up), I found parts of it hilarious. I found Bob’s demolition of Colson’s arguments quite convincing; too bad it was not Reverend Bob up on that stage with Colson instead of M. O’Hair.
        I was also interested to see the material about the Gnostics, about whom I have done a certain amount of reading myself. Hey, if ever Steve wanted a phrase to put me down in this trialogue, he could use that quote Bob supplied from Pagels (actually a complaint from an orthodox Christian) about Gnostics feeling compelled and obligated to generate “enormous new fictions” each day.
        Bob’s inerrancy excerpts from Spong reminded me of why this man is so high on my whole-life respect list. That a high “official” of a Christian denomination could fearlessly go to such places, and express himself so sincerely and effectively, has always been a source of amazement to me.
        However, playing devil’s advocate (again, can’t pass that up) for a moment, if I were a semi-legalistic Christian, my response to all this might be twofold. First, I might argue that with Jesus, a whole new covenant was created between God and man. This argument could be used to dismiss the repugnancies of the Old Testament as “old covenant stuff” that we don’t even need to concern ourselves with any more since the coming of the Christ. (After all, Jesus apparently used this approach himself, saying things like “the Torah says so-and-so, but I say so-and-so.”
        Second, I might argue that if there appear to be inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in the New Testament, then they are undoubtedly in there because God wills it to be so, for reasons we mere mortals cannot understand, but that they no doubt serve a higher purpose (for example, to refine or test our faith). This is the whole problem with trying to argue rationally about a faith-based issue – the believer can always retreat into “mystery” or “human ignorance,” if not “the work of the devil in the reader.”
        I am actually somewhat reluctant to put Steve in the legalistic camp, and I am pretty certain he himself will refuse to be pigeonholed. I have heard him say or write that we are missing the point when we examine the individual words and fail to listen with our hearts. I’ve thought about this a good bit, regarding Steve, and I sometimes conclude that Steve’s attitudes toward the Bible actually have a pretty strong mystical if not “magical” quality. I tend to think that Steve believes the Bible has special powers, something that might be described as incantatory, and if that is true then our duty is simply to read and let God work His magic on our hearts through what we read, whether we fully understand how that is happening or not.
        I also have to raise an objection to the chart Bob supplied comparing the legalistic to the non-legalistic Christians. Now I don’t know how much of that chart is Bob’s and how much is an accurate summary of the source material, but I have to say I don’t think many Christians of any ilk would agree that the entire left (legalistic) side of that table describes them. It seems to me that for such a dichotomy to be useful, a lot of Christians would have to agree with each side of it. But I fear that even Christians who admit they are “conservative” or “fundamentalist” would object to being included on the left side of that chart, particularly the last couple of points.
        I found it quite interesting that Bob has been disappointed in the “liberal” Episcopal church and surprisingly impressed with the “conservative” Baptist church. However, I suspect there are a number of reasons for this. As far as the Episcopalians go, it can be argued they are just one step removed from the Catholics, at least historically speaking, so it is not surprising that their services do, or still do, contain various oaths and creeds that Bob finds dogmatic. And as for the Baptists, this denomination was founded on several principles that were surely thought of as revolutionary in their day: that each person was free to read and interpret the Bible independently, that no pope or priesthood was necessary as a go-between twixt people and their God, that each congregation – though affiliated with a larger denomination – was independent and free to explore its own philosophy to a certain degree, etc.
        However, I will be interested to see if Bob’s initial conclusions hold up over time. I think it is possible that each of these churches functions one way on its surface and another way within the individual consciences (consciousnesses?) of the rank and file members. In my own experience, Episcopalians tend to be more highly educated and more liberal on social issues. I suspect that many of them go through the motions of reciting their creeds, etc., while either placing no value upon them or privately disagreeing with them. It may even be that the church hierarchy keeps these things around precisely because they fear their flocks becoming too liberal. I think it probable that Baptists as a group would be found much more conservative on social issues, and that there will be considerably more far-right-wingers (socially, politically, and spiritually) in any given Baptist church than in any given Episcopal church.
        Having said that, I hasten to add that in both denominations, every congregation is different. There used to be a distinction between high-Episcopal and “low” Episcopal, with the former, I think, almost indistinguishable from Catholicism. I wouldn’t know if that still exists or, if it does, which end of the spectrum Bob’s church tends toward. Also, Bishop’s Spong’s essays and memoirs demonstrate that there is much disagreement among Episcopalians over such issues as homosexuality, the role of females in the church, racial intermarriage, etc. As for Baptist churches, they have pretty much been forced to decide whether they are “moderates” or “fundamentalist” churches (no one uses the word “liberal” in the same sentence with Baptist), because of the well-publicized infighting at the (Southern) Baptist conventions over how “God’s word” should be approached and related issues. It is my understanding that a goodly majority of Baptist churches are on the conservative side, but the whole dispute has made many Baptists gun-shy about such issues, with the result I think that they avoid having to come down definitely on some of the very issues Bob is most interested in. I can tell you that the local Baptist church my father is much involved with has allied itself with the moderates and rejected the fundamentalists. Anyhoo, I hope Bob will keep us informed about his personal excursions into churchery, a word I think I just made up.
        I found the pages of Spong’s This Hebrew Lord Bob shared with us interesting and quite moving in places, but they also reminded me that ultimately Spong always seems to leave me a little short of where I hope he will take me. He is the master of explaining what is NOT true about Jesus and the “gospels.” His scholarship and analysis seem to me objective, incontestable, and convincing. But when it comes time to explain what he really does believe and how that belief can be operationalized in everyday living, I seem to always perceive a sort of abstract “gushiness” in him that appears out of character with his scholarly side, and I really don’t know how to react to it. I wish he could be more concrete, for example, about what he thinks happened to the disciples after Jesus was crucified, and about how he thinks we should view the person or spirit of Jesus NOW (if at all), as opposed to Jesus’ undeniably abiding influence through time.
        In reading Bob’s materials, something that has been bothering me all through these exchanges came at last to the surface and showed itself plainly to me. (Steve isn’t going to like this one bit). Put simply, I find I cannot accept the idea of “worship.” Nor can I accept the connotations that go with the word “savior.” Something in me rejects the notion that God wants us to “worship” either himself or Jesus, or to look upon Jesus as “saving” us from “damnation.”
        I can accept the concept of a God who appreciates gratitude, in the sense of appreciation for the free will that has been granted us. I keep returning to that – free will – as the key or foundation of everything we consciously know about God’s relation to us. There is no doubt that we have free will -- the fact that we can murder each other is proof alone. We are free in fact to ignore, if we choose to, the creator of the universe we live in, a universe full of choices from which we create our lives. No greater gift can be imagined than this package of miracles God has given each of us, which includes our consciousness (including self-consciousness), our independent bodies, this beautiful planet, and all the animals and people we come in contact with. Our personal histories are the record of all the free will choices we make (within the context of our cultures and birth circumstances).
        But I need to return to my problems with Jesus. As I mentioned to Bob recently, I have just re-read the book of Matthew. So the two “gospels” I have read through most recently have been Matthew and before that, John. And I have to state honestly that although there is much of interest there for me, there is also much that I find disturbing. What I find of interest are the passages relating to the power of belief (a.k.a. faith), to forgiveness, to not judging others, to overcoming social barriers, etc. I read these passages and a voice inside me says “yes, this is what Jesus would have said if he was anything like what Christians believe him to be.”
        What I find disturbing about both John and Matthew are the words attributed to Jesus that to me seem to border on arrogance, narcissism, and petulance. I find it disturbing in the same way that Bob finds disturbing, in the Old Testament, certain descriptions of God (those having to do with vengeance, violence, arbitrariness, etc.). I find myself rejecting Jesus’ stating that he is the only way to the father, just as I reject that idea when a present-day Christian states it. I have to conclude that such passages were added to the Jesus story by his followers in their efforts to form and sustain their church around him.
        I recall, too, that I have previously had this kind of reaction to passages in Acts and other post-crucifixion books. For example, the story (where is it Steve?) of the couple who sell some property and give a lot of the proceeds to the church, but keep back a certain amount of it for themselves. If you recall, both of them are struck dead on the spot when one of the disciples calls them on it. I have a hard time processing this kind of event. It doesn’t jive with the “seventy times seven” level of forgiveness that Jesus espoused.
        I also have a difficult time with passages that imply an impending Armageddon, before which God (or is it Jesus?) will separate the sheep from the goats (the elect from the damned?) and “two brothers working side by side in the field, and one will be taken up, the other will be left”, etc. This is doubly hard for me to take, since these passages are usually accompanied by language implying these “end times” were thought to be right around the corner in 30 a.d. If I really try to accept such ideas, I am led to the VERY scary thought that perhaps the Kingdom of God has come and gone and we are an unworthy crew left on board this slowly sinking ship, we just don’t realize it (i.e., we are a race left to evolve in hell). I certainly don’t want to believe that!
        Perhaps at some point I will be more specific and quote some of these passages (as we all know Bob would be doing right now if this were coming from him). But for now I want to just note my concerns in passing, and go forward with reading the other two “gospels.”
        OK, I think I’m coming full circle now before I make my exit. Bob spent a good deal of time giving examples of tiny to medium-sized contradictions and other errors in the Bible. My objections to the New Testament seem on a different plane altogether. That little voice inside me is saying:

Okay, let’s see if I understand this. I am being asked to accept that a man and some events that are absolutely critical to my ultimate well-being in my present and future life came and went nearly 2000 years before I was born. I am being asked to accept that a few thousand people got to witness this man and these events first hand 2 millenia ago, but neither I nor the other 7 billion people now on the earth are allowed to have any such opportunity, because there never was nor will there ever be in anyone’s life another such special messenger from God. That being the case, I am being asked to study some documents written by people who may or may not have actually been with this Jesus, documents that may not have even been written until 50 to 100 years after he died, and my salvation is going to depend on my understanding and making sense of these documents, even though they appear to be full on contradictions, omissions, obvious political agendas, and descriptions of certain events that can only be compared with fairy tales and myths. In fact, I am to believe that these documents are “God’s word,” that He certainly would have made sure there was and is no error or other problem with them, and that any problems I might have with them are my own fault and evidence of my lack of faith. I am being asked to have absolute faith in the person described in these narratives regardless of the fact that I have not seen or heard any of this stuff with my own eyes and ears, nor have there been any answers I can detect to any prayers I might have been sending up for the last 50 years, nor has either this man or his “father” appeared to participate in the world since the events described.  And if I can’t bring myself to accept all this as true, and further to accept that God wills it all to be just this way, then I am doomed to eternal damnation.

I don’t think so.

Okay, but actually I don’t want to end after all on such a negative note.  So here is a little addendum. As you know, one of the people on my all-time respect list (right up there with Bishop Spong, Wavy Gravy, and Ram Dass) is Garrison Keillor. His radio monologues very frequently touch on spiritual topics. I was particularly moved by his monologue a couple weekends ago, and I want to share it with you in summary form, even though I can’t do it justice here, because it really brought home a point to me (on the positive side, Steve!) regarding Christianity.
        In this story, Pastor Lundfest of the Lake Woebegone Lutheran Church is sitting in his church office late one night, unable to work on his sermon because he is racked with guilt. He has realized that he has become strongly attracted to a woman in his congregation. He is happily married and has no intention of acting on his urge, but he believes he has sinned in his heart and he is not right with God. Further, an old memory has come to haunt him of some harsh words he once said to his daughter, now off in college, which he now regrets. These two thoughts keep interrupting his work and making him miserable.
        Across the street at the Catholic church (which Keillor calls Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility!) his old friend Father Ungent is also at work on his sermon. He notices the light across the way and picks up the phone to see what his old buddy Pastor Lundfest is up to. They have the usual this-and-that conversation, and then gradually Pastor Lundfest begins to tell the priest what has been bothering him. The priest at first makes light of the Pastor’s concerns by way of comforting him, saying “Is that all?” etc.
        I cannot duplicate Keillor’s marvelous telling of this story, but what happens is that Father Ungent suddenly realizes that Pastor Lundfest really is having a serious spiritual crisis. His compassionate response is to gracefully go into the stance he normally would take when hearing confession from one of his own parishioners. And he ends up saying the very specific “Catholic” words that his church gives him authority to say as a delegated agent of the Christ, telling Pastor Lundfest that honest confession has been heard, and that he is forgiven, and should go and sin no more. In turn, Pastor Lundfest realizes what his friend has done for him, and feels the lifting of his burden, just as a Catholic is supposed to feel when his priest absolves him.
        Again, I haven’t done justice to this story. Hearing Keillor tell it moved me nearly to tears. The thing that struck home with me is the confession/forgiveness business, and how very Christlike a thing that truly is. I am one who has frequently looked upon the Catholic church with contempt, because so many things about that church to me seem wrongheaded. Until I heard this story, my impression of what goes on in the confession boxes of Catholic churches had always given me the creeps. But this story made me reconsider and realize that this uniquely Catholic mechanism (though dangerous in some ways because of the spiritual power it puts in human hands) very possibly does continue the work of Jesus on earth down to this day, and is intended to serve those who need it and can benefit from it.
        It also reminded me of Steve’s very good point that if one’s God is too abstract, then one loses the comforting aspects that one would find in a Christ or Christ-like figure that one can turn to almost as to a parent.
        Steve has found and shared with us another story from the Bible that speaks to the issue of faith. Although I agree with his point in principle, it is hard for me to imagine a way to operationalize it. As Steve seems to suggest, perhaps I must suffer some malady or misfortune of the magnitude of leprosy in order to be willing to set aside my doubts or other obstacles to faith. And yet, I do have faith; it is what we each have faith IN that remains in question. The object of Steve’s faith is Jesus, and I have no problem with that. As I have said before, I think it quite possible – probably even -- that this Jesus will welcome Steve into his “next life.” I also think it quite possible that Jesus may sit Steve down and correct some impressions that Steve has of Him about which Steve has drawn a wrong conclusion, but which conclusion is a rather foundational element of Steve’s earthly faith.
        Imagine that one day on our way to Byrd Park for Steve’s biweekly thrashing of me on the tennis court, we are crushed beneath the wheels of a garbage truck whose driver was talking on a cell phone. We suddenly find ourselves in the great waiting room up there, anxious about who will be calling us in for a shakedown. If that were truly the case, then I am willing to bet everything (because from Steve’s point of view that’s exactly what I am doing) that it will be Jesus who sits down with Steve. And after a great deal of praise for the kind of man Steve has been and the kind of life Steve has led, I am betting that Jesus will inform Steve that, nevertheless, all that stuff about Jesus being the only avenue to “salvation” was not Jesus’ words or idea at all, but some human idea and a wrong one.
        I am doubtful that Jesus will be the one who greets me, but I try to be open to that idea. If he does, then he will undoubtedly be less complementary about my life and probably have a many more things to correct regarding my impressions about Him. But again I am willing to bet it all that He will not have to correct my impression that there are many ways to get into “heaven,” and some of them have nothing to do with Jesus.