Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Eternal Security

Ok, time to tackle a topic that's controversial even within the Christian community. Be warned, I'm going to be challenging a foundational belief of some of the largest denominations, including anyone who subscribes to the teachings of John Calvin. If this makes you squeamish, look away now. Otherwise, this ought to be a fun discussion.

The fancy title that people give to this topic is "Eternal Security". Or in other words, "Once Saved, Always Saved". What this refers to is the idea that once you accept the idea that Jesus paid the debt for the wrongs you've committed in your life, you are now the proud owner of a non-transferable, non-refundable, one-way ticket to Heaven. And nothing you can do or say will cause this heavenly ticket to be revoked.
John 10:28-30
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

This is where many people get hung up right away. If I, myself, can't do anything to lose that ticket, does this mean that, when I'm young, all I have to do is say that little prayer, accept Jesus, and then I can spend the rest of my life lying, cheating, stealing, and pretty much doing whatever dirty deed I want, and then, when I die, I'll just waltz right into Heaven? What a deal! Sign me up!!

See, for many Christians, this poses a big dilemma. One group of people looks at that and says, "No way! A person who does those things isn't a Christian! God wouldn't allow them into Heaven." This seems like a pretty sane stance, doesn't it? But hold on a minute. There's a very subtle problem with it. The problem is this: If your evil deeds keep you out of Heaven does that mean, therefore, that your good deeds get you in? That would mean that, in order to get to Heaven, you need to do good things all your life. Fortunately, the Bible debunks the "good works get you to Heaven" theory pretty soundly:
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
So, it's pretty clear that it's a gift and we don't have to do anything to "earn" it. But that still doesn't answer the question of "Christians" who live like criminals.

Let's talk about John Calvin's answer to this question a moment. His opinion was that God picks people to be "His people". If you get chosen, you will be a Christian; you don't have to do anything whatsoever, but you also don't have a say in the matter, either. This is what he calls "irresistable grace", meaning we cannot resist it. To apply this to the misbehaving Christians, it simply means that you weren't picked, because, obviously, if you had been selected, you wouldn't be behaving this way, now would you?

I'm not inclined to agree with this. I'm not saying it's dead wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me. Here's where I'll be departing from the main road and doing a little "theology off-roading". Got your helmet and goggles on? Ok, let's go.

First off, let's attack a faulty assumption that seems to be underlying this whole discussion. It's the whole idea that "If you sin, you go to Hell. Do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200." This is where the whole problem starts. If we throw all sinners into Hell, what happens when a Christian sins? Aren't they supposed to be going to Heaven? If they don't go to Hell, does that mean they are happy forever and ever and their deeds go unpunished? Hold on a second. Are we saying that God has no other forms of punishment other than the infamous "lake of fire"? Seems kinda extreme, doesn't it? It's like dropping your son or daughter off at the local penitentiary because they colored on the wall.

Here's what I believe is at the heart of the matter: Salvation is not connected to punishment. Wait, what? Doesn't that fly in the face of Christian teaching? Nope, let me explain. At the end of all things, there are two groups of people; those who are members of God's family and those who are not. God extends the invitation to all people. It's a gift. It's free. You don't have do, say, or be, anything to "be eligible to receive this limited time offer!"

I worded that last sentence that way on purpose. You don't have to do anything to be eligible to receive, however there still is one single thing you must do. You must accept it. Let's imagine that I show up at your door with a shiny new sports car. I hold out the keys and say, "It's yours! free!" You have two options; you can either accept or refuse.

But God isn't exactly offering a new sports car, now is he. What exactly is he offering? He's offering to adopt you into his family. To me, it seems very much like adopting an 18-year old. By law, the 18-year old must accept the adoption for it to be legal. The lawyers draft the papers, both parties sign, and "presto!" another family member. This, to me, is the process that happens the very first time you say that prayer and ask God to be your heavenly dad.

To expand more on my original statement, salvation is a legal process, not a punishment. But isn't that strange? Don't unbelievers go to Hell? Isn't that punishment? Well, yes and no. Let's go back to the sports car analogy. I'm there, standing with the keys in my hand. You look at me, say "I don't believe you", and slam the door in my face. The next day, you walk out your door and see your neighbor in his brand new sports car... Now, wouldn't that be agony to realize what you missed? It's the same with God. He holds out his hand and say, "Hey, come be a part of my family!" If you say no, you will then find out what it's like when God turns his back. Is God "mean" because you ended up in an unpleasant place?

If you're a child of God and you do something wrong, I think it's likely that you'll still have to account for your deeds, even if you don't get tossed into the Lake of Fire. God may not "throw you out of the house", i.e. prevent you from living with him in Heaven, but you may get spanked, or grounded, or any other punishment he sees fit. In my mind, simply walking into Heaven knowing the deeds you committed on earth will be enough of an extreme punishment. I don't imagine it feels all that wonderful to have the Creator of the Universe disappointed with you.

Now, assuming you are a part of God's family, are there circumstances that could cause you to lose your spot in this family? i.e. Once saved, always saved? Yes, I believe there is one condition where you can lose your salvation; and that is if you reject God's gift. If you package it up and send it back, you don't have the gift anymore. I disagree with John Calvin. I think God gives everyone the free will to make that all important choice. And you can resist it if you want to. The Bible is correct, no external force can separate you from the love of God and Jesus will never leave or forsake us, however, if you leave or forsake Him, you're on your own.

This means that your salvation is not tied to the good or bad things you do. You still can't earn your way into Heaven, no matter how hard you try. It also means that if you do some horrible things in life, while still maintaining a true belief in Jesus, you'll probably get into Heaven. But you may walk through the pearly gates only to see God taking his belt off.

The difficulty is that when we look at other people, we can't see into their hearts. We can't tell whether they have accepted or rejected the offer. Only God knows for sure. However, what we can see is their actions, and those tend to be a fairly accurate indicator of whether you're a part of God's family or not. You can't declare for sure that they'll be headed to the burning trash heap on Judgment Day, but you can surely assume by their deeds that they might be and warn them appropriately.

Friday, August 15, 2008

The Tough Topics Pledge

I wanted to set down in writing some of the guidelines that have been bouncing around in my head while I've been writing some of these blog postings, so you know what to expect from me and potentially other authors and also what I hope to see in the subsequent discussion.
  1. I pledge to back up the things I write with external sources whenever I can.

    Hopefully you've noticed that the blog articles so far have been sprinkled with links and quotes. I feel this is really important for the discussion to be credible. When I'm using Bible passages or information from other websites, I don't want you to just have to take my word for it; I want people to be able to go and read the whole chapter surrounding the verse I quoted, or be able to read the entire article that I'm referencing. It also lets you know that I'm doing my homework, not just spouting opinions randomly.

  2. I pledge to avoid "Christian-ese" whenever possible.

    This can be really tough at times. It's really easy to just fall back into using Christian terms and concepts as a shorthand. For example, it's much easier to just write "sin" instead of "the bad things people do", and assume that everyone understands. But many people don't really understand what these terms mean, so I think it's better to avoid them when possible. Imagine if you polled 100 people on the street what the word "grace" means. How varied do you think the answers would be? What if you asked them what it meant to be "covered by the blood of Jesus"? I mean, if you think about that one in a literal sense, it's kinda gross.

  3. I pledge to use as many word pictures, analogies, and plain language as possible.

    If you take a look at how Jesus spoke, he did the exact same thing. It seems to have worked for him, so it seems like a good model for these discussions. Contrast that to modern day preachers who get pretty longwinded on topics of theology.

  4. I pledge to be open-minded, while keeping control of the blog.

    I want there to be some heavy discussion about these topics. To that end, I don't plan on removing any comments unless they are very disruptive. This means as long as everyone keeps to the topic, maintains some class, and doesn't spam or attack people, I shouldn't have any reason to remove posts.
So those are the goals that I have so far. I may add to them as things progress. If you catch me violating them, please call me on it. If I use a word or phrase that makes you go, "what the heck is he talking about?", please comment about it. If you think that a topic needs more background information or research, please let me know. Even better, if you do your own research, go ahead and paste those links into a comment so everyone can read them.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Judge not?

"The Bible tells us we're not supposed to judge." Have you ever had someone say something like that to you? If you're a Christian, you've probably heard that more times that you can count. In particular, non-Christians like to use that line a lot in an attempt to "shut up" the Christians confronting them with the bad things they've done. In my case, I had that said to me by a mother trying to brush aside her daughter's lies and marital infidelity.

So, does the Bible REALLY say that? Well, she didn't exactly quote chapter and verse and I'm not certain if she's ever read the Bible on her own, so we'll have to guess at the verse that she was referring to. The most commonly quoted verse comes from two places:
Matthew 7:1-2
"1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Luke 6:37
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

So, what does this mean? Is this a simple command that all Christians should just plain not judge anything?

Well, before we talk about that question, what does it mean to "judge"? Well, if you look the word 'judge' up in the dictionary, the word refers to quite a large range of behavior, from the very personal 'to form an opinion or estimate' to the very formal ' to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person)'.

Obviously, unless you're a local magistrate, you have no power to pronounce a legal sentence on someone, so I think we can safely include that one in the realm of 'things we shouldn't do'. But what about the other end of the spectrum? Does this statement by Jesus imply that we can't even form an opinion in our minds? When people quote this verse, this is typically what they are after; they want to prevent you from denouncing what they have done or are doing wrong. I mean, after all, wouldn't that be 'judging'? And didn't Jesus himself say not to do that?

But this is silly. What kind of society would we be living in if no one was allowed to distinguish between right and wrong? Did someone take something of yours? Don't you dare call him a thief; that would be judging. Did someone intentionally tell you something that was false? Don't you dare call her a liar; that would be judging. And so on. The fact is, we have a firmly established moral code in society that manifests itself in the justice system. When the nightly news reports that someone stole millions of dollars and fled to a foreign company, everyone immediately makes a judgment call in their heads, "that was wrong". Why? Because stealing is wrong. It's only the person who committed the offense that screams "don't judge me!".

Beyond the basic societal moral code, Christians have a extended guide for discerning right and wrong, in the form of the Bible. When someone does something that violates teaching of the Bible, we are well within our prerogative as Christians to condemn that act as wrong. Why? Because we aren't judging; the Bible has already done that for us. If someone tells a lie, it's not because I have declared it wrong, it's because the Bible has declared it wrong; I'm just applying it. In fact, one of God's commandments is that we are to judge, provided we do it fairly.

The problem is that people only read up to the comma. "Do not judge,... Ok, let's stop there". In doing so, they totally miss Jesus' point. Jesus' point was about hypocrisy, not the act of judging. His point was that if you put yourself in judgment of another person's deeds, you had better make darn sure that you're not guilty of the same thing, because you will be measured by the same measuring stick. This, for example, is the reason we don't elect convicted felons to serve as judges in our court system.

The verse is simply being twisted to suit people's needs. But it's not a ban on distinguishing right from wrong; it's a warning as to how you go about it.

So, what if you are guilty of the same offense? When I was talking with this person about how her daughter had lied to her and everyone else, her defense was, "Yeah? Haven't you ever lied?" You know what? I have lied in the past. Am I proud of it? Of course not. So, does that mean that I am no longer qualified to label lying as "bad" or "wrong"? Whenever someone lies to me, I just have to accept it, because somewhere in my past I myself lied? That's ridiculous. Whether I'm guilty of lying or not, lying is still wrong. Not because I 'judged' it to be wrong; because God did. He's the one who set the standard; not me.

However, before we get all high and mighty and start denouncing the evil of the world, we need to go back to Jesus' words, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." What 'measure' am I using? Am I expecting people to live by the standard that I put forth? No, my 'measure' is the Bible. So, this means that when I call people to account for their actions according to the Bible, I, myself, will be called to the same accounting. No surprises there; I'm planning on that happening.

I point at the extra-marital affair and say, "That's was a horrible, destructive, and despicable act. It was wrong." Can I do that? Sure, God calls us to drive out evil. Is it judging? It sure is, but not by a standard I created. Do I realize that the same measure will be applied to me? I do. I say, bring it on. When I'm judged at the end of my life, cheating on my spouse will not be on the list of charges. Will lying be on that list? Yes it will be. Am I worried? Not really. Why not? Well, it has to do with atonement, but that's another topic entirely.

So this whole idea that Christians should not judge is hogwash, invented by people who want to redefine what right and wrong is in order to justify their actions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there aren't "grey" areas, where it's difficult to tell right from wrong. In fact, that's why I started this blog; to talk about those areas. So, if you have one, suggest it and we'll all tackle it. But, in general, right is right and wrong is wrong and no one, Christian or otherwise, should be attacked for upholding what is right.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Winning the Lottery

I just read an article about how a group of scientists are running computer simulations and finding that the conditions the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."

So, as I understand the prevailing theories in the realm of "science", for our planet to be where it is and made the way it is, is a one in million, wait, no, one in a billion, no, still too small.. trillion? Ok, it's an extremely small chance that our earth should turn out the way it is. So, in all the vastness of the universe, sits a small anomaly called "Earth". On that small anomaly, according to scientists, another vastly improbable event occurred; things were "just right" and the very first life formed. But it was just a simple chance happening in the span of uncountable years. It's something we can't even reproduce as hard as we might try. But it didn't just form and die out, no, another chance accident happened, and then another, and then another, and so on, until now, where a blue and green ball sits in the vastness of the universe. It's blue and green now, because it's teeming with plants and animals and humans and insects and more life forms than you can count.

And scientists look at this and say, "Well that sure was lucky!".

It causes me to wonder, when these scientists, when they were going to college for their PhD's, did they sleep through the class on statistics and probability? Almost every human being has an intuitive sense for probability and chance. If you don't believe me, think about this for a moment: Imagine I show you 20 nickels. I then tell you I'm going to go into the next room and flip them and see how they land. I then go into the next room and close the door. Time passes. An hour goes by. Two hours go by. You finally get bored of waiting and go find something else to do. The next day, I come find you. "I'm done, come look!", I say. I bring you in to the other room and there sit 20 nickels, all with heads facing up.

What would your reaction be? Do you believe me? I would dare say most people's reaction would be something on the order of "No way. You just gave up and set them that way." Why is this? Why can't we accept that it just happened to fall that way? I mean, there is a small chance that it could have happened that way, right? I believe it's because we have an instinctive sense about chance and probability and we also are able to recognize when there is an outside force acting on the situation and causing events to happen.

You might say, well, maybe I just got lucky and it did just happen that way. According to chance, every time I flipped the coins I had a chance, however small it may be, of it coming up all heads. Or maybe you might say, if I kept flipping and flipping, for days, months, maybe even years, I'd eventually get an 'all heads' combination. Ok, now what if I mixed up the coins again and started flipping again and then, after, say, 8 hours I come back to you and said, "I did it again! Come look!". Would you believe me? Why not?

How about this: What if it was announced that someone won the lottery? Sure, people win the lottery all the time. What if that same person won the lottery a second time? What about a third time? Any sane person would look at that and say, "No possible way. It was rigged". Or, in other words, someone caused it to happen that way.

So, what does this have to do with current scientific theory? Well, we "won the lottery", so to speak, with the placement and composition of our planet. Then we "won the lottery" again when a single life form formed by random chance. But here it get's more complicated. That single cell life form did one very important thing. It died. Now, unless you believe that single cell happened to form with a way to reproduce itself, and it did so before it died, we're back to square one. We've got to "win the lottery" again and hope that this time it forms with some way of reproducing itself, so we can get this whole evolution thing underway. People seem to ignore the fact that, for the theory of evolution to work, there have to be many, many generations over a long span of time. That means that, that simple life had to form (a thing that we can't even cause to happen) over and over and over again.

Despite the sheer impossibilities involved in these theories, it is amazing to me that the 'scientists' who believe in these theories still look at religious people and sneer at their ignorance when they suggest that someone might have had a hand in creating the world we see today.

According to their thinking, maybe they should be buying lottery tickets.

Monday, August 4, 2008

The Unreligion

One consistent trait that I keep seeing in Atheists is that they react strongly to being called a religion. On the surface, it seems to be a valid point, but I'd like to examine it a bit further. On an Internet forum, an example that someone gave, resonated with me because I could relate to it. He told a story of sitting around with a bunch of guys and the topic of discussion turned to favorite football teams. As they went around the table, they each named the team that they supported. When the question reached the person relating the story, he told them he didn't have a favorite football team because he just didn't find football interesting. I can relate to this story; I don't mind going to the occasional football game, but if you asked me which team I support, I really couldn't give you a convincing answer. It would probably be either Michigan State or University of Michigan, mainly because I live in Michigan. As to which one I would pick, well, it would probably change to match the favorite of the person I was talking to, to avoid getting razzed for picking the wrong one.
 
Atheists compare themselves to this example. They just don't believe in anything, they say, so they're not a religion. Sort of like a person who doesn't own a motorcycle can't be called a biker. But they're not entirely correct. Now, granted, depending on how you define the word 'religion', you could say that Atheism is not a religion, since it doesn't have any organization, no rules, etc. However, I maintain that it is STILL a belief system. Maybe you could use this analogy when talking about Agnostics, but not Atheists, or at least the ones I'm exposed to on the Internet. What they're they're ignoring is that a negative viewpoint is still a viewpoint.
 
Let's compare it to politics. Let's use Barack Obama as an example. I can choose to not 'believe in' and support Obama. In fact, I can abstain from voting completely. That would be most like an Agnostic, who, in effect, says, "I don't really know or care one way or another". This could be considered a truly neutral, non-political stance. However, despite me not voting, the election will still take place, someone will still win, and whoever wins will have an effect on the country I live in. This is the same with the football example; even if I decide I don't care to support a particular team, one of them is still going to win the Super Bowl.
 
I could, however, choose not to 'believe in' Obama in an entirely different way; I could actively campaign against him. Note, I didn't necessarily say campaign for the other side, just campaign against him. I could go out into public forums and proclaim that Obama is a bad choice for the country and try to actively persuade people to NOT believe in him. Does this sound like a neutral, non-political viewpoint to you? Of course not; it's very political. Even though it's a negative belief system, it's still a belief system.
 
Let's pause here for a moment and check the definition of the word 'religion'. A quick click over to dictionary.com lists the definition as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
 
There are certain questions that we face in life and our answers to those questions form our belief system. There are at least four major questions that form the foundation for a belief system. "Where did we come from?", "Why are we here?", "Who decides what's right and wrong?", and, finally, "What happens when we die?". The whole purpose of religion is to attempt to provide an answer to those questions. Christians have very specific answers to those questions. Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists do also. Unless you're a true Agnostic in which case you answer all those questions with, "I don't know and I don't care". That means that Atheists have their own answers to those questions. Their answers could very well be, "evolution", "because random chance spawned us", "a societal contract determines right and wrong", and, finally, "we just decompose". But all of these answers, even though they are negative and contradict all established religions, still form the basis of a belief system. And that is what is at the heart of a religion.

What is this?

I thought I might start out this blog with an informal purpose statement.
 
I've been looking for a place to tackle the hard questions in Christian life for some time now. I've found that the average church tends to be much too busy explaining the fundamentals of Christianity to new Christians. Don't get me wrong, this is a wonderful thing; people need to hear the good news. But for me, I've been a Christian long enough that I've heard the same basics over and over and it feels like I'm stuck in first grade sometimes. I also wonder sometimes if pastors are afraid to tackle hard topics because Christians don't always see eye to eye on these things and they don't want to rock the boat, so to speak. I hate to think of it, but maybe they don't even know the answers themselves.
 
I've tried putting a bible study/small group together to achieve this goal, but it has never turned out quite right. There are several factors that stand in the way: Many people don't want to spend time thinking about it and doing research; they would rather have someone else do the work and then teach it to them. That works fine in church settings, like Sunday School or the weekly sermon from the pulpit, but that's not what I'm after; I don't need it spoon-fed to me. In other cases, people wouldn't mind doing the work, they just don't have time to spend doing research, much less get together on a regular basis. And the final problem is that, in order to get some sort of deep discussion going, people need to feel comfortable enough with the people around them that they can admit that they're struggling for the answers themselves.
 
So, here I am on the Internet. There's no need to plan regular meetings at someone's house; people can read and post anytime they want. Anyone who's looking for quick and easy, fill-in-the-blanks bible studies can just keep right on surfing to some other site. And, while it is publicly available for everyone to see, there's a degree of anonymity on the Internet that I hope will help keep discussions as honest as possible.
 
I also intend to turn this into a "team blog", meaning I want to add more people than just me that can post articles here and keep the discussion civil and on-topic. If you're interested in participating, please contact me and let me know.