Posted by Helen on: 08.02.2006 /
Some of you might recall that a couple of weeks after my article Why I don’t go to Church anymore was published, the local newspaper ran the following substantive response to it by Rev. Dean Lueking:
Going to church anyway … and why
I wrote a detailed response to him which is in today’s newspaper:
Thank you, Rev. Lueking for your kind, humble response
I pointed out what I liked. I also was honest when a) his beliefs didn’t make sense to me b) aspects of his positive picture of church seemed more like a desirable goal yet to be attained than present reality, as I reflected on my own two decades of involvement in various churches.
Comment by: Keith
1Helen,
That was a positive and productive interchange. I especially appreciated your response to his article. Your 6th point opened my eyes to something that I hadn’t yet put my finger on, and I am grateful. Thank you, as always.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
2great response helen. maybe you and the rev should think about hooking up sometime for coffee or something.
Comment by: Helen M.
3Thanks Keith!
Pam, I would like to meet him sometime.
Comment by: jim
4Nice job on the response- was it posted as an article or as a letter to the editor.
I wonder if the paper will notice the level in interest this kind of discussion draws
Comment by: Rachel
5That was excellent, Helen! The part that was the most thought-provoking for me was the following:
“God has won us back to himself through undeserved grace.” I love the part about grace. I’m not sure why there is so much focus in Christianity on it being “undeserved.” It seems to me that truly loving people just love. They don’t say, “You didn’t deserve this, by the way” because whether I deserve it is not even an issue. They can’t help loving me for who I am, in all my uniqueness, which means they can’t help forgiving me for who I am not. If God is love, as the Bible says, is it not possible He might be that way also?
That is very good point and it is something that has bothered me as well. I believe we should approach God humbly and with gratitude and repentance. But why the emphasis on what total pieces of crap we are. Maybe it’s a Calvinist thing?
The Great Awakening preacher Jonathan Edwards would tell people how much God loathed them for their sin and how they were like a nasty spider he can’t wait to shake off into the fire.
Comment by: Rachel
6Here is that line from Edward’s famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” preached in 1741:
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.
Yikes!! Large crowds would come to hear Edwards’ preaching. The story goes that often the church would be so full that they would place boards between the pews across the aisles to create more seating. And the boards would shake because the people sitting on them would tremble in fear. I know that Edwards had many converts but I wonder what kind of faith they had when it was based on fear, not love.
I’m grateful to have been raised in a different time in the church. Though I may be disillusioned with some things I was taught, the central message was always that God is love. We were told again and again from the youngest age how much God loved us and how we were his precious little children.
As a child, I had a picture hanging above my bed of Jesus as the Good Shepherd holding a little lamb. And there was a little light above the picture that they would turn on at night so I could see it in the dark. My parents always told me that the little lamb was me. (Rachel is a Hebrew name and it means “little lamb.”) Wow, I’m surprised at the emotion I’m feeling remembering that. I wish I still had that picture.
Comment by: Helen M.
7Jim wrote:
Thanks Jim – this one was posted as a letter.
I think they do notice because in an e-mail to me a couple of weeks ago the editor commented that it was neat my article had got a number of responses.
Comment by: Helen M.
8Rachel wrote:
Thanks Rachel!
The way (some) Christians understand God’s love is at the core of my problems with Christianity. I think my Christianity broke the day I decided “I’ve had it with calling something ‘love’ which I can’t understand as being ‘love’.”
Yes, Jonathan Edwards…I’m aware of that famous sermon. No comment ;)
Comment by: JG
9It is intersting how different people react to certain things. I fully take on board the comments made about undeserved grace and how this can come across. I don’t think I have ever used the phrase undeserved grace so I am not seeking to defend the use of that particular phrase.
But there is another way of looking at this. There are people who are aware of shortcomings in their life and/or mistakes they have made, things they have done wrong. They can struggle with the idea that anyone could love them – if they were aware of those shortcomings or mistakes they have made. If God knows me and knows about these things, how could he possibly love me? The Christian answer is that he does. We can’t earn his approval, he is not a hard taskmaster who will never be satisfied. We don’t have to strive to “make the grade” as if only those who achieve grade A will pass the test. When I see the phrase, undeserved grace, that is what it means to me. It communicates to me that we don’t have to strive to deserve it – and that we can’t boast that we have received it.
But what do we mean when we say God loves us? If you are experiencing extreme difficulty in your life, does it help to have someone come along, grin at you and say “God loves you” ? Then walks away leaving you in the midst of your difficulties. For me, a gospel that consists merely of the message “God loves you” with nothing else, is no gospel at all.
Comment by: Helen M.
10JG wrote:
I take your point, JG – but for me ‘grace’ (which means simply ‘gift’) describes all of the above. The ‘undeserved’ seems to be an unnecessary precaution against an inappropriate sense of entitlement I’m not sure people would have anyway. When I get gifts I don’t go around saying “I deserved this and that’s what it was given to me – it was mine by rights!” so I don’t need anyone to correct m inappropriate sense of entitlement.
To me a gift is about the generosity of the giver. That’s the beginning middle and end of what it’s about. It’s not about the deservedness/undeservedness of the receiver. Because by definition it’s a gift, not ‘payment for services rendered’ or ‘just recompense’ or whatever else a gift is not.
I agree that God saying “I love you” then walk away when you’re in extreme difficulty is no help at all and is not good news.
I’m not sure how you got there from what I wrote…? Feel free to elaborate if you wish, JG.
Comment by: JG
11Thanks for your comments Helen. I think you are viewing the phrase as a negative with the emphasis on the “you don’t deserve this” sense of the phrase “When I get gifts I don’t go around saying “I deserved this and that’s what it was given to me – it was mine by rights!” so I don’t need anyone to correct m inappropriate sense of entitlement.
Whereas what I think I am trying to say is, it can be viewed as a positive. It is assuring people that might think they are ineligible that yes, it really is for them. In a world which is driven by the need to “make the grade”, “earn approval”, “win acceptance”, “strive to be part of the in crowd” etc etc, it is simply seeking to highlight this is different.
This discussion is helpful because it highlights how words and phrases which have a positive meaning for some can come across as negative and unhelpful for others.
“I agree that God saying “I love you” then walk away when you’re in extreme difficulty is no help at all and is not good news. I’m not sure how you got there from what I wrote…? Feel free to elaborate if you wish, JG. ”
In my comment I wasn’t referring to God saying “I love you” then walking away. I was referring to people communicating the message “God loves you” then walking away.
If we are talking about God’s gift of grace or love or whatever, the discussion becomes pretty academic if the gift doesn’t mean anything anyway or if either the gift or the giver or both are non existent.
You said: “The way (some) Christians understand God’s love is at the core of my problems with Christianity. I think my Christianity broke the day I decided “I’ve had it with calling something “love’ which I can’t understand as being “love’.” I agree with you that our understanding of what God’s love means is very important and I am simply expressing the view that the way (some) Christians think in terms simply of communicating the message “God loves you” comes across to me as meaningless and potentially patronising and offensive to non believers.
Rather than attempt to answer the question myself can I pose the question for others to answer if they want to? If there is a God, what do you think are the practical consequences of “God loving us”? What difference does it make to receive “God’s gift of grace”?
Comment by: Helen M.
12JG, thanks for your comments.
In regard to what you said – I know there are people who feel unworthy/ineligible and even then I have trouble with the part of the gospel which says “Yes, you are!” – even though it’s followed with “But God loves you”. For people who don’t feel unworthy, ‘undeserved’ doesn’t make sense; and for those who do, it bothers me that it will make sense and will confirm their unworthiness.
Absolutely. I’m reassured each time I meet a Christian who understands that :)
JG I’ll post your final questions as a separate blog entry (soon).
Comment by: Rachel
13The apostle James commented on this…
Suppose you see a brother or sister who needs food or clothing, and you say, “Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat well” – but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?” (James 2:15-16)
Comment by: JG
14Rachel, – thanks, yes, a very relevant verse.
On this question of unworthiness. Christians are often accused of arrogance. But it appears to me that what a Christian is saying – or should be saying is, I’m not perfect, I get things wrong, my attitudes are not all that they should be etc etc – I need forgiveness. And would anyone really be wrong to have such an attitude? Do we really want to discourage others from having such an attitude?
When we look at the world today, it is all too evident that things are not as they should be, people do not treat others in the way that they should. Muggings, rapes, murder, violence, bombings, etc etc. Are people worthy of God’s grace when they do such things? What sort of God would turn a blind eye to such things?
But if we say, oh, its other people that do those things, not me, then we are claiming to be better than others. We are saying, I am worthy of God’s grace but you are not. I find that unpalatable.
Take the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said to her accusers , let him who is without sin, cast the first stone. It is not a question of telling people how unworthy they are. Rather, it is challenging those who think that others are unworthy but that they are okay themselves.
Comment by: Helen M.
15JG wrote:
Nicely put, JG!
Comment by: Helen M.
16JG, I posted your final questions in comment #14 as a new blog entry, here:
What Difference Does God’s Love Make?
Comment by: Jerry
17Helen,
I promised I would post my questions in the propewr section so here goes…
In your article, you make the statement that:
I am curious how you arrived at the conclusion that God is unable to “figure out how to save most of humanity from eternal torment.” Can you tell me what the thought process was that lead you to this conclusion? What is it based on? And what would God have to have done differently to pass your evaluation of Him? Thanks for being so open and honest about this.
Comment by: Helen
18Hi Jerry,
I appreciate your curiosity but I can only comment briefly in response to what you asked – it would take way more time than I have to try to explain the thought processes which led me to where I currently am.
I did try to write some of them down some months ago – you’re welcome to read what I wrote at that time:
My Story: the questions which didn’t have the right answer
Anyway, briefly, as I said – it’s not so much that I’ve arrived at settled conclusions. It’s more that I ran down the list of all possibilities and wasn’t happy with any of them. In response to your question, I don’t understand how a loving God could stand a universe in which most of the people he created went to hell. I have a hard enough time with the idea that one person I care about might go there – and I didn’t create that person myself. I don’t know why God wouldn’t have chosen not to create people rather than create them knowing they’d go to hell.
I vastly prefer universalism – the idea that God saves everyone.
I also prefer God not existing at all to God creating people most of whom will end up in hell.
Whatever response you have, I expect I’ve been there already and found it didn’t work for me. I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about these things over the last five or so years and it didn’t really get me anywhere (except out of church and away from my previous beliefs) – which is one reason it’s time for me to stop going around in those same mental circles and focus on the way I’m living my life.
I still might believe in God but I have major problems with God as presented to me by evangelical Christianity.
Helen
Comment by: Jerry
19Wow. That sounds suspiciously like evasion. :-) Translation? “I don’t want to hear what you have to say, Jerry!” (lol) Not exactly conducive to honest, open-minded discussion. I know you probably didn’t mean it like that (at last I hope not) so I will forge ahead.
He can’t. That’s what Jesus was all about. I think your view of Christ is too small and you are missing the significance of what it cost Jesus to make sure no one ended up there. Put it this way, the reality of Christ’s suffering on the cross makes The Passion look like a Barney episode. Scripture is clear that God would stop at nothing to rescue us. It isn’t that God is “unable” to save us, as you put it. We are unwilling to be saved.
The one thing, however, God refuses to do is to force Himself on anyone. I like the way G. K. Chesterton put it: “Hell is God’s great compliment to the reality of human freedom and the dignity of human choice.” Heaven, for the person who desperately wanted to avoid it, would be worse than hell itself. To be forced to remain in the presence of God for all eternity when you spent your entire life trying to get away from Him is nothing short of rape.
The dilemma is that in this life we can reject God but still enjoy His residual goodness; clean air, sunshine, good friends, family, warmth, love, light, peace, comfort, etc. We think we can reject God and still enjoy life without Him even in eternity. The only reason hell is hell is because it is totally devoid of God and any residual goodness that might flow from Him. Because God so respects human freedom He allows people to have exactly what they have always wanted their entire lives — a life completely free of His presence. But also free from anything else that His goodness provides.
I believe that the “torment” is all internal. All the imagery of flames and worms and gnashing teeth and outer darkness are all figurative descriptions of the horrible self-inflicted suffering that comes from realizing you are forever cut off fom goodness and everything that goes with, and it was your decision. Whatever else hell is, I believe it will be a place of horrible, agonizing regret.
“I don’t know why…” Remember, just because you don’t know something doesn’t make it unknowable. To be honest, I find this idea far more disturbing than the idea of hell. It reveals a complete misunderstanding of the intrinsic value of human life. I wonder how our athiest friends feel about this. Is it really better to never have lived and be robbed of all the amazing, incredible, wonderful things life holds in store for us just because some will choose to reject God?
You have to remember the real victim in this scenario is God. The common misconception is that hell is a torture chamber set up by a vengeful, self-absorbed God to punish everyone who won’t do what He wants. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s God gently saying, “Okay, if that’s the way you want it. I’ll leave you alone. But you’re not going to like it.” He agonizes, His guts churn, His heart breaks. But as dreadful as His agony is over those who willingly reject Him, even greater is His joy for those who choose Him. So much so, that he weighed the risks of laying His heart out there for us to either embrace or crush, and thought it was worth it. That, to me, says a lot about how much He values us. I think the problem is we don’t value ourselves enough.
I don’t understand everything about God. And hell is a bitter pill to swallow even for the most devout. But I don’t want a God I can figure out. A God I could explain wouldn’t be worth worshipping. In your article, your whole evaluation of God is based on your speculation, imagination and emotions. But scripture says “The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful.” So how can you trust it to give you an accurate picture of who God is? We can’t just downsize God because we’re uncomfortable with Him. Your God, to borrow a phrase from J.B. Phillips, is too small.
The challenge for us is to have the courage to face God as he is, not as wish Him to be. That will most certainly mean facing doubts, struggling with hard to accept truths, and being deeply troubled by what we find there. But that is a good thing! It’s what we would expect from a God who is really there. I have experienced His goodness enough to trust His heart through the difficult times, even when it seems like He’s mean.
Good luck in your search for the real God, Helen. He is a revealer, not a concealer. Don’t let anyone discourage you. Don’t settle for easy answers. And don’t let yourself get too comfortable with who you think God is. Then you can be sure you haven’t found Him yet.
Comment by: Helen
20Hi Jerry,
Thanks for your response and for giving me the benefit of the doubt although you thought I might have been being evasive.
Now you’ve laid out your beliefs, I can see that, as I anticipated, I have been there and it didn’t work for me.
Here’s my bottom line problem with your theology. It results in you saying things about people who aren’t Christians which I think are wrong and unfair and hence disrespectful.
I’m sure you wouldn’t say them if you didn’t believe them — but I can’t believe them because they go against the first-hand testimony of thoughtful people I know.
You wrote: “God so respects human freedom He allows people to have exactly what they have always wanted their entire lives — a life completely free of His presence.”
When someone says “I lack sufficient evidence to believe in any god” I take them at their word. That’s what the thoughtful atheists I know say. If I agreed with you I’d be calling them liars or saying they’re so unaware that they have no clue of their real motivation for not being believers. Both of those options are too disrespectful for me to contemplate.
Wow, what a selfish argument. Maybe I WOULD choose to never have lived if me living necessitates eternal suffering for others. I mean, I wouldn’t know the difference would I, if I had never lived? Whereas if I do live they eternally suffer.
But actually that wasn’t what I meant. I didn’t mean don’t create anyone. I meant, don’t create the people who are going to go to hell. God knows everything, right, so he knows who would reject him if created. Why not just not create those people and only create people who will go to heaven?
You might say he couldn’t have done that – but you don’t know that for a fact, do you? “That would be a belief, not a known fact.
True.
But I think everyone else’s is too. Otherwise why don’t they all agree? You’ll never persuade a Calvinist that God doesn’t choose people for salvation. Why? Who is right? If neither of you is evaluating God based on speculation, imagination and emotions why don’t you agree with each other? Is the Bible that unclear that it leads two people who aren’t using their speculation, imagination and emotions to different answers? Or are you the one who is being objective and every Christian who disagrees with you has fallen prey to being influenced by his/her speculation, imagination and emotions?
See, to me it’s your God who is small. Your God can only watch as a great number of people Jesus died for go to hell — because there’s nothing he can do about it. That doesn’t seem like a big God, to me. He certainly doesn’t seem omnipotent if he can’t save people from an eternity of suffering. In what sense is he omnipotent anyway if he can’t even do that?
No worries there ;)
Thanks for caring enough to try, Jerry.
Comment by: Jerry
21You’re quite welcome, and I want you to onw that I greatlt y repsect and enjoy the exchange. But I guess my primary problem is with your repeatedly insisting that God is “unable” to do anything. Becomiong a human being and personally dealing with our sin in the most horrific way imaginable isn’t “doing nothing.” That’s what I meant by a small God.
I would answer that the Bible is clear about certain non-negotiables that make up essential Christian theology, such as Christ’s atoning death, universality of sin and seraration from God, the resurrection, etc. But there are negotiables that Christians have the freedom to interpret differently. Calvinism doesn’t bother me because a God who is big enough to be three persons and yet one God is big enough to allow both predestine and free will choice. Besides Romans makes it clear that predestination of the elect is based on God’s foreknowledge not on violating anyone’s free will (chapter 8 or 9, I believe).
Hope you have a great vacation. I’m about to go up to Yosemite with the family next week so I will check in when I get back.
Comment by: Helen
22Jerry wrote:
Thanks Jerry.
It’s interesting you should say ‘the most horrific way imaginable’ because it seems to me that eternity in hell might be more horrific than whatever Jesus endured for a finite length of time – however horrific that was.
But anyway, the point on which we disagree is whether people who reject Jesus could have chosen otherwise. You (I think) believe they could have, therefore Jesus did something for them and they rejected it. I cannot agree that people who do not believe could simply make themselves believe and so I cannot agree that Jesus has done anything significant for them, since they are not going to derive any benefit from anything he may have done.
But they evidently aren’t non-negotiable since there are many people who call themselves Christians who reject some or all of them.
You and some other Christians can only say they are non-negotiable because you draw a line and say “unless you agree these are non-negotiable you’re not a Christian”. That’s circular reasoning.
Thanks – it was great. I hope you have a wonderful week with your family in Yosemite.