Posted by Eliza on: 10.15.2006 /
Class was a little different this time. My 8-year-old son came with me (he was great, but his being there distracted me) and the main topic was angels — mostly fallen angels (something I’ve not read into or thought much about, so actually a bit more interesting for me, but also harder for me to follow).
There were fewer people there this time; the pastor said several were sick, and some had other commitments, but they’d be back. The student-member who had asked about Old v. New Earth creationism at the last class was not there. We sat in the back corner this time, and I couldn’t hear most of the (few) questions from other students.
One other thing seemed different to me - on several occasions during this class, the pastor made positive or accepting comments about non-Christians. I have no idea whether this was for my benefit, or would have occurred anyway. (Not that he didn’t also say we’re spiritually dead and will spend eternity in hell, but then that’s fact as far as he’s concerned.)
The class structure was: (1) review of the homework questions in the text on God and creation; (2) angels (especially fallen angels); and (3) sin.
My son and I arrived a few minutes after 7:00PM. The vicar and a woman church member checked me in & gave me my nametag; the woman tried to direct us to the child care area, down the hall (out of sight and out of earshot), but I said that my son would come into class with me, and that he’d be fine. As I was walking into the classroom I heard her say to the vicar, “Interesting!” I wasn’t sure whether that referred to having a child come into an ARE class, or to my declining the offer of child care, or what exactly. I knew my son wanted to stay with me, and that he could behave, and also I did not want to put him in a situation where a church member or another child might start talking with him about Jesus, etc - or where he might express his skeptical, atheist views to them.
(1) Child attending a conservative Lutheran Adult Education Class: My son did fine. I had told him I might raise my hand and ask some questions, but that I didn’t want him to do so. We brought a couple of books and some grapes. The refreshments at the class that night included lemon bars and frosted brownies; he enjoyed some of each. (He says his comment on the class is this: “the lemon bars were good, but the brownies were better.”) He sat quietly and read for the first 1.3 hrs, then got a little antsy. During that last 40 minutes he and I went on a bathroom break; in the hall, we passed a young (early 20’s) woman who attends the class with her parents. She told me “your little boy is being so good,” and I thanked her and said “he’s a good kid”; that’s first time any student in the class has started a conversation with me.
My son and I spent a while looking at the posters outside the Sunday School area: one each of (a) creation (actually, Earth as a paradise without humans but with a peaceful dinosaur in the background), (b) Adam and Eve (both white-skinned, brown-haired, and beautiful, looking radiant in the Garden of Eden, nude but tactfully pictured behind bushes), (c) the Fall (Adam and Eve with basic coverings made of animal skins, running from a fiery angel brandishing a sword), and (d) Cain and Abel (Cain with his harvest, looking jealously at Abel burning meat in a fragrant sacrifice; both gorgeous & the spitting image of Adam). I told him a bit about the story in Genesis corresponding to each of the posters, though with a bit of “nonbeliever’s” point of view — for example, I pointed out the dinosaur & told him some Christians thought the dinosaurs all died in the Flood. (This is the kid who asked me to ask him a science quiz question earlier that day. I said, “If someone told you the Earth was 6000 years old, would you think that was right?” He thought for a moment and said no, explaining that the dinosaurs lived ~65 million years ago, so the Earth had to be at least that old.)
Back in the classroom, he took himself to the men’s room again once, running then sliding on his knees on the linoleum to reach the door; that part embarassed me a bit, but the only people who seemed to notice were smiling. After class, I apologized to the pastor for bringing my child to class, but he said it was fine. [Since this class, my son has popped up with: "King James, like the King James version!" (when we were coming up with names with initials K.J.), and "I think those people are Christians" (when we were behind a van with bumperstickers about God and Jesus on the back). I had pointed out a few lines from the Bible here and there as they came up in class, but he hasn't said anything about those since.]
(2) Review of “God and creation.” There were 7 questions in the review of “God and creation”. The first was: “Who has revealed the true God to us?” (Answer: Christ.) I thought this was interesting as it seems to imply that Jews and Moslems are not worshiping “the true God”; my understanding is that they worship the same God, albeit with a number of important differences. (I did not ask about this.)
The 5th question had looked like a potential bombshell to me (well, I was ready to explode): “Why is it reasonable to suppose that the alarming increase of immorality and lawlessness in our time is in great part due to the teaching of evolution in our schools and colleges?”
I was prepared to bring up (a) Sodom & Gomorrah and the world just before the Flood — can’t blame the teaching of evolution for those times; (b) higher rates of divorce & teen pregnancy etc in U.S. states with higher proportions of Christians; and (c) high percentage of people in US prisons are Christians, very low percentage are atheists. But the pastor pleasantly surprised me by immediately pulling the sting out of this question, qualifying it (or saying it was overblown) and also saying “You do not have to be Christian to be a good person, to be moral”. He said “classic Darwinian evolution says there is no God”, and if there were no God then there would be (a) no eternal implications for wrong behavior, and (b) no absolute right and wrong, so we can see how relativistic morality could result in problems.
I raised my hand and said that Darwinian evolution does not say there is no God. He might have been a little irritated but he did change his comment to, “classic Darwinian evolution does not require God.” I raised my hand again and added, “Darwinism isn’t compatible with the origin of species in Genesis 1 & 2 but is compatible with the whole rest of the Bible, and in fact Darwinian evolution does not explain (or seek to explain) the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life.” He probably wanted to move ahead, but he said, “you’re right, science does not have an explanation for the origin of energy and matter” and went on.
His discussion of question 6, “What is wrong with worry?” was interesting to me. He says that we all worry, even him, but that worry means you are not trusting God — not trusting in God, or His understanding, or His power. From a Christian point of view, then, worrying is a sin. That sounded a little harsh to me, but I could follow the reasoning.
There were a few questions by students in the first half-hour, but I missed most of them. Here’s what I did catch: Somewhere in this discussion, the pastor responded to a question, saying that following the Jewish laws isn’t required for Christians, and a student asked how it’s possible to keep track of what the Bible says about what to do and what not to do. The pastor said that you have to be a student of the Bible to study the Bible (have to be at seminary, or have gone to seminary), and that most people can’t do it. Another student (a church member) asked what he thought of “the rainbow Bible”, which she had recently gotten. He hadn’t heard of it; she described it as a Bible which used different-colored type for different topics, so to find out what the Bible said about any one topic, you just had to look for type in the right color. The pastor said he’d have to see one of these to be able to comment, but warned the class a bit not to pick and choose from the Bible.
Regarding the Jewish laws, I raised my hand and asked didn’t the Bible say in places that the laws weren’t waived for Christians, for example in Matthew Jesus says “not one jot, not one iota of the law shall pass”. He said, yes but that quote ends “until all is fulfilled”, and Christ fulfilled it. So it was only Christians after Christ that didn’t have to follow the law. (I thought, but didn’t add, Jesus and the disciples were also exempt.)
(3) Angels. We spent more than an hour on angels. I’m not going to do it justice, since so much of it was new to me. The basic idea, the pastor said, is that God sends his angels to watch over people who believe in Christ, and while the Bible doesn’t give a lot of details, it does tell us some things about angels. He talked about close calls, and “good luck”, saying he believes to his core that these are when guardian angels act to help Christians out, even though, he added, he has no proof of this. (If he hadn’t added that qualifier, I would have raised my hand and asked for any evidence that Christians have better “luck” than non-Christians, more close calls avoided. I really doubt there is any such proof. I know that I’m more likely to find out someone is Christian when he or she is in very poor health; those people seem to do worse, but that’s due to their poor health not due to their religion.) The pastor said that even if an accident or something bad does happen, God had a purpose. (My interpretation: any way any event turns out, God must have intended it that way; I think this reasoning will come up again when we talk about prayer in class #13).
He went through the origin of angels, and of fallen angels. He said that God must have created the angels on the first dayand the angels were all good when created. (Scripture from Psalms through Job and Jude was brought in all throughout this discussion.) However, at some early point (before Eve met the serpent) some angel(s) fell into sin — they were tempted from inside themselves, thinking they were as good as God. He said that Adam and Eve were tempted from outside themselves; he stressed this as an important distinction. He went through citations from scripture (from the text, & he added several) about angels.
The pastor talked about hell, stemming from Matthew 25:41 “…’Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” He wrote “Gehenna” and “Tartapos” on the white board, and distinguished between them. “Gehenna = hell”, where some people will go — in their bodies — for eternity, on the last day (the judgment day). (He said that in a future lesson he’ll tell us about how the Father and the Son know exactly which day that will be; it’s already determined.) He said that hell is empty at this point (Matthew 25:41 above). “Tartapos = Hades” is a temporary place for (a) the spirits or souls of people who die without Jesus, and (b) fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4; the chains are an anthropomorphism, because angels aren’t physical). He said that at death, the soul leaves the body and either goes to Hades or to heaven with Jesus, and that people will go with their bodies to their final destination on the day of judgment.
[I read some information on some of this online since this class. Gehenna is a Greek translation of a Hebrew name of a place, perhaps a valley or slum, that was SW of Jerusalem; in the OT, it was mentioned as a place of sacrifice, & a polluted place. It was apparently a place in which fires were continually kept burning. I can't find any mention of "Tartapos" - not a single hit when I try a Google search. It's not mentioned in the text. Does anyone know anything about "Tartapos" or a word like it, referring to Hades?] “Hell” comes from Old English & Germanic “Hel”, related to the Norse “Hel”, a…freezing cold place for the unrewarded to spend their afterlifes (and, by report on Hel’s Wikipedia page, “[Hel] is similar to Hades and the River Styx from Greek mythology, and inspired (and gave its name to) the Christian concept of Hell.” Hades was the Greek god of the dead and the Greek Underworld.]
The pastor quoted John 8:44, in which Jesus calls the Pharisees the children of Satan, and said “so much for politically correct Jesus!”
(4) Sin. The pastor moved pretty seamlessly from angels into sin. He took us through the story of the Fall, pointing out that in Genesis 2:6 God warns Adam, before Eve has been created, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (So, he stressed, Eve was not to blame!) As to why God even left this an option, he said “How do you know if someone loves you? They give you a choice.” (And gave some examples, from marriage & raising teens).
He took us through Genesis 3. The serpent in Gen. 3:1,4,5 is offering consequence-free sinning, rationalization. He said that people who say things like, “Does the Bible really say it was 6 days, or such and such” are trying to be like God. He said the Devil’s method is always the same (& this is an example of it). (Since my questions in class are like this, I again felt the finger being pointed at me, though was glad that this time it wasn’t a literal finger-pointing as in class #1.) He said that Adam and Eve covering their nakedness meant their attention was turned from God to themselves. He said, “the essence of sin is me — I’ll decide what’s right and wrong.” He said that Adam and Eve hid because they were dirty, in the presence of holiness. Of course, God knew where they were & what they’d done, & was trying to get them to confess. He gave the analogy of a mother knowing her child has taken a cookie when he wasn’t supposed to, saying “did you take a cookie?” when she knew he had. (He then went into more examples of how sinful children are, not sharing their toys, etc. I looked over at my son, but he didn’t seem to be paying attention. I don’t share the pastor’s view; I think a lot of the examples he gave are just developmentally normal behavior.) In Gen 3:12, Adam makes excuses & tried to shift the blame to Eve and to God. The pastor made several jokes about stereotypical behavior of husbands and wives during this part. (Last week, he had said: which book of the Bible proves that men should make the coffee? He brews.)
He said it’s not known why the devil appeared in the form of a serpent, and there wasn’t enough basis to determine that.
At one point, he suggested we write down Rev 20:20 (among a few citations) to look at later, about sin; I was trying to glance at all of these citations as he mentioned them during class. I was the only person to raise my hand a moment later to tell him politely that Rev 20 ends in verse 15. He looked and found what he’d meant to cite, Rev 20:2.
He said flesh takes on a new meaning in the New Testament: sin. “Even Christians still have the flesh, so can still sin.” (I did not raise my hand to point out that the dualism flesh = bad, spirit = good goes back to Platonism — a Greek concept, which was important in gnosticism. I was pretty sure that comment would not go over well.)
He talked about how the nonspiritual person can’t accept these things (1 Cor 2:14) and how the “fleshly mind hates God” (Rom 8:7; my translation says it differently: “for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God”). He said, “to be honest with you, there are some personalities of non-Christians that I like better than personalities of Christians” but said that isn’t the important point.
He pretended there was a dead man on the floor, and showed how ridiculous it would be to try to find out what drink this man would want on a Starbucks run (there’s one across the street; he has mentioned it in each class). He said there are 3 kinds of death: physical, spiritual, and eternal, and said (to the class) “I hope you can receive this.” He said that in spiritual death, the person cannot respond. (Of course, I am one of those people, in his worldview. I find it kind of offensive to be called “dead” just because I don’t believe the same things.). He said, “Can a poisonous plant bear a nonpoisonous fruit? No.” — the point being that we sin because we are sinful (because we are all descended from Adam and Eve), not the other way around (we aren’t sinful because we sin). The plant analogy was not a question to the class; otherwise, I would have pointed out some examples of plants that are in part poisonous but in part edible. (There are a number of fruits which are edible, but which have poisonous seeds: including peaches. Rhubarb leaves contain dangerously high levels of oxalic acid, but the stems are edible. The fruit of the mayapple plant is edible when ripe, but its unripe fruit, and all other parts of the plant, are poisonous. Potatoes and tomatoes are edible, but their green parts are poisonous. (I realized after class that his comment comes from Luke 6:43 For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit…”)
At any rate, he went to the white board again and wrote: (1) Original sin, (2) Actual sin (a) commission (b) omission; he said that people think of actual sins of commission as sins, but forget the others (that is, not loving thy enemy). But, he said, if we didn’t have original sin, we wouldn’t have actual sin, and original sin is why we have to be “born again” — not just act moral. He interpreted Genesis 3:15 (God saying to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel”) as meaning that Jesus would bruise Satan’s head, and Satan would bruise Jesus’s heel (head being more important than the heel, thus Jesus came out of the encounter ahead - even though he was crucified). I had never heard this interpretation before; I always read “he” there as meaning “man”. The pastor cited 1 John 3:8, “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”
The pastor thinks that in Genesis 4:1, Eve might have thought that Cain would be the saviour, saying that the Hebrew makes it sound like she is saying “I have brought forth the Lord” rather than “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man” (NIV). He asked if anyone had any different translation than the NIV Bibles provided in class; I was the only one to raise my hand (I brought my ESV Bible). He had me read Eve’s quote in Genesis 4:1, but it wasn’t that much different (”I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord”). He said, oh well there were some other translations that sounded more suggestive; I looked at several versions in an online Bible later, but they all read about the same.
The class went a bit over time. After class, 3 student-members and I picked up the Bibles (many hands making light work). My husband called from Minneapolis right at the end of class, his travel plans having been bolloxed by a blizzard, so I told the pastor (and my son) about that & we were the last ones out of the room. Outside the building, the student who had been there last week when I talked with the pastor about Intelligent Design caught up with me and started the second conversation I’ve had with another student, saying something about “Darwinism.” I don’t remember the specifics of that conversation (didn’t have pencil & paper to take notes) but the gist is that he thought I was wrong, maybe there have been examples of microevolution but macroevolution has never occurred, and “survival of the fittest” is an unpleasant thought. I responded pretty cheerfully that we haven’t had enough time to observe macroevolution (and might not have enough time to do so), and that “survival of the fittest” is a misrepresentation of “natural selection”, unless you mean the species most “fit” for one particular niche in a habitat. I said that Darwin didn’t use “survival of the fittest”. (I said Thomas Huxley originated that term, but actually it was Herbert Spencer, my bad.) The student actually seemed kind of mad at me, but not prepared for a full-scale debate.
The next class is on the Ten Commandments (part 1 of 2). I may miss most or all of it, as there’s a dinner meeting for my work that night.
Comment by: Rachel
1Arrgh! That is not a question; that is an inflammatory statement! I’m glad to hear that he qualified it somewhat.
I’ve never heard of Tartapos in my life, not in study of the Bible or of Greek mythology. I’ve always been taught that Gehenna was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem.
That would irritate me big time! I have to say, Eliza, you are an extremely tolerant person. I have a world view that differs from this pastor’s considerably less than yours does and I don’t think I could stand to be in this class. Although perhaps it’s different when you are there as an observer/reporter.
Corny Christian humor. Groan.
Sounds like he may have read Phillip Johnson’s book “Darwin on Trial.”
Thanks for another thorough report, Eliza!
Comment by: Eliza
2Rachel, thanks for reading my “class report” - I know they’re awfully long, but there is really alot crammed into each 2-hr session!
Now that you mention it, Rachel, I’ve heard that too.
I looked at Matthew 5:22 (…Anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell) in an English-Greek side-by-side translation & it does use “Gehenna” as the word translated as “hell.” I’m not sure how one is supposed to know whether the author meant it to refer to “Gehenna, the burning place outside of Jerusalem” or to “hell”. (I didn’t have the energy to look up any more NT references to see their context, or to see which Greek word was used!)
I suspect it is quite different to listen to this, coming from such a very different belief-set; it makes the teachings and the teacher’s comments pretty theoretical for me, when the topic is an area for which I don’t have any correlating belief. For example, nothing in my beliefs correlates with angels, The Fall, or hell; whereas with creation, I do have correlating beliefs that don’t match & so I get more irritated with listening to that discussion.
I haven’t kept track of specific class members, but my guess is that several non-members have attended for 1 or 2 sessions & may not be back…
Comment by: Eliza
3Found it, I think. 2 Peter 2:4 uses “tartarwsaV” (that’s the transliteration; translated as: “cast to the deepest abyss”; see here). Here’s an online discussion from 1999 regarding the possible meaning of the Greek verb “tartarow” as used in 2 Peter (& apparently nowhere else in the NT). Wikipedia describes Tartarus as a deity and a place in the underworld in Greek mythology & says the JW’s translate 2 Peter 2:4 as saying the angels who sinned were thrown “into Tartarus” (again, the only place it appears in the NT).
Comment by: NCxian
4I agree, and apparently this works both ways, Rachel. Conservative Christians who come to this site (Mike O, most recently, I think), find it interesting to talk with the atheists and disturbing to talk with liberal Christians.
Thanks, for the report Eliza. I’m processing!
Comment by: Helen
5Hi Eliza, thanks again for all the detail and insight!
I had a quick look at this last night and was going to say that that word for hell referred to in class is probably Tartaros/Tartarus with an ‘r’ not Tartapos with a ‘p’. But it looks like you discovered that already.
One of the first things I wrote after having doubts was about how it didn’t seem to me that the doctrine of hell matched what Jesus says in Matthew, Mark and Luke’s gospels. It’s here: The Doctrine of Hell
It’s interesting that your son has made a few comments since the class. It could open up some interesting conversation between you that he went. He might have felt privileged to go to “Mom’s class” even though it got boring after a while.
I think you made the right choice not leaving him in the child care. He probably would have been the oldest one there and bored. And this way, whatever he heard, you heard too - so if he refers to anything you’ll have a better idea what he’s talking about.
You could have said, “if you have any questions ask me after and if I don’t know the answer I’ll ask the teacher for you.” But it sounds like you have the sort of relationship where he knows he can ask you questions. Anyway it sounds like he tuned a lot of it out - I’ve noticed children are quite good at doing that when adults are going ‘blah blah blah’.
Anyone who is upset with an eight year old running then sliding on his knees to the door needs to chill out, imo ;-).
Bear in mind that at this point probably all he is doing is assuming whoever told him the dinosaurs lived ~65 million years ago is trustworthy and so he’s rejecting what contradicts that.
A Christian eight year old taught young-earth creationism would do the opposite: if asked whether dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago he/she would say “God only created the earth ~50,000 years ago so that’s not possible”
I think it’s probably key how parents react when children get old enough to start questioning the authority figures/sources those children assumed were trustworthy when they were younger.
I’m glad he said that about the personalities of non-Christians. On the other hand, I think him saying “that isn’t the important point” highlights one of the big problems with conservative Christianity, because - why isn’t it “the important point”? To me what he calls ‘personality’ is actually something people have a lot of control over; I’d rather call it ‘character’. We have predispositions but we can temper them. Why would it “not be the important point” to God whether we do or not? How can a Christian think that “love your neighbor” and “pray for those who persecute you” and other such things have nothing to do with what the pastor referred to as ‘personality’?
You should find it offensive, imo. I think it’s just as offensive as calling people who aren’t Christians ‘lost’. It’s incredibly arrogant to say that only Christians can understand the things of God (but the Bible says it, so Bible-believing Christians are going to echo that too - I think all he said about ’spiritually dead’ was taking from writings ascribed to Paul)
What he said about Genesis - such as ‘he’ in Gen 3:15 meaning Jesus - is the common teaching of conservative Christians. It makes sense to me that - going with the story as written - Eve might have thought her first child was the ‘he’ God was referring to.
My favorite Genesis comment by a Christian is one I’ve rarely heard; I think it’s true: there is a nuance in the Hebrew not often brought out in the English translations that when Adam saw Eve for the first time he said “At last!!!”
Yes, I’ve read this sort of comment about little children in conservative Christian parenting books - I find it very distasteful when they talk about children and infants as sinful and selfish because they do what they need to to survive, like cry loud if they have needs. I agree that projecting back on children what we might call overly self-focused behavior in adults is inappropriate.
I’m glad he did that. I only wish there was not such a disconnect in his belief system that he can do that and the next minute cite doctrine & beliefs which are anything but positive and accepting of people who aren’t Christians - and he doesn’t see any contradiction in that.
Oh - I just learned an interesting bit of history about the church Rev Lueking pastored. I already knew it’s an independent Lutheran church. Evidently it was Missouri Synod but under Rev Lueking’s leadership they left the MS. It was a painful and difficult process that went all the way to the Supreme Court because they wanted to keep the church building and the MS wanted to keep it too. That shows (imo) how strongly some Lutherans who want to stay Lutherans also want to separate themselves from the conservatism of MS teachings and doctrine.
Comment by: Helen
6NCxian wrote:
I wonder if this is because it’s more frustrating when people who self-identify with the same label as us disagree with us strongly.
Comment by: NCxian
7I think so. Plus it makes you have to think through your own beliefs harder, which sometimes causes a dissonance inside your own head, which can give you a brain ache! Not one of us lives with a perfectly consistent set of beliefs, IMO. I think as we mature in our understanding of reality, we constantly reinvent ourselves, but the old “us”es hang around in there to say, “yeah, but”.
Comment by: Pastor David
8We’re back up! Thanks for fixing the glitch!
I had a nice long comment, but lost it when the site problems started … Now if I can just remember …
Comment by: David H
9I learned abut Tartaras or Tartarus as the other term for hell. It is Greek. You can find out more at this url http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/3184/Tartarus.htm
One of the key things noted there is that old testament and new testament references to hell use different words. Sheol is a Hebrew word used for “hell” in the OT. It is quite a different concept than the fiery pit for eternity that is commonly accepted by Christians. Sheol is the Hebrew underworld and is where dead people go. Most basically it is death or the grave.
Tartarus is used just once in the NT and the site referenced above says it is spoken about as a place for rebellious angels. Basically the word means confinement or a prison.
The other word original word translated as Hell in our modern Bible is Ghenna. That refers to a garbage dump outside Jerusalem where refuse was burned. I have long wondered if physical burning (which Christians are very hung up on) was the key concept behind the reference Jesus made to this place. I wonder
because a salient issue with the actual Ghenna was that it was outside the city. It was a place of separation.
I’m not a big one on the fires of hell. I figure is God is true love and some people choose to be separate from that, it could be painful enough for eternity.
Comment by: Rachel
10One of the popular sayings that I find very annoying is “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” Which I basically take to mean “I going to be just as much of an ass as the next guy but I’m saved so I’m still better than you.”
Comment by: David H
11I have heard many different explanations of how Jesus fulfilled the law. Some conservatives read it to mean that Jesus was the first man to follow the law completely — thus he fulfilled it. The problem then comes that if we are to follow in his footsteps then we must strive to fulfill it in exactly the same way (i.e. try to live perfect lives).
My misgivings about that view come because immediately after saying that he came to fulfill the law, Jesus goes to great lengths saying how hard it is to truly keep the law (don’t get angry, don’t think lustful thoughts, etc.) and unless you keep the whole thing then you haven’t kept any. Interestingly though, he says if you break even a single law you will be “least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” So it’s not all bad. Better to be a beggar in heaven, right.
But perhaps, if read in the context of the surrounding passages (especially the Beatitudes and subsequent explanatory verses), the fulfillment or completion of the law referred to by Jesus is something far different than just him claiming that he did everything right.
Comment by: David H
12Just a couple of thoughts on original sin. And please forgive my use of the word sin here.
I learned only a couple of years ago (thanks to a book by Philip Yancey) that Judiasm does not concur with the concept of original sin. That doctrine is “Christian” and is an extrapolation or understanding of things in the Bible that are not implicitly stated. I find myself leaning toward the Hewbrew understanding, stated as the following in Wikipedia:
The Jewish view is quite simply that people choose to sin, therefore they are sinful. At times when I have spoken on the subject, I have said that every sin is the original sin. Every time I chose to do something selfish it is just as significant in the eyes of God as any act of Adam’s.
I also wonder about the “curse” (Gen. 3:14-19. Some translations of the Bible have God saying “I will cause” all the bad things to happen. Others have God saying because of what you did these bad things will occur. One version posits that God punished Adam and Eve for being rebellious. The other that bad things would occur as a consequence of their choice not to trust him.
All of this is simply to say that there is still considerable debate even in Christian circles about the stuff surround the “fall.” And, as is too often typical, many denominations insist their doctrine is the only possible reading of those things. It just seems to me there is an awful lot more room for conjecture on this stuff than there is with evolution (as just one example).
Comment by: David H
13I know I have gotten quite wordy on this subject, but one of the other questions I have had regarding Adam and Eve was whether the apple (pomegranate or whatever) was the key to their fall. Or could the issue have been broken trust?
Adam and Eve had known no other sentient being than God for their entire existence. As the Bible puts it, this God had never hurt or betrayed them in any way. In fact, he was the giver of all things. Despite that, when the “snake” shows up — a being not responsible for their creation or the giver of anything — what do they do? They accept his word over God’s.
I have also wondered if Adam decided to eat the fruit because his wife told him it was good or because he was afraid of losing Eve. In Gen. 2 God says that if Adam eats of the fruit he will surely die. Gen. 2 folows that with the “birth” of Eve, which both God and man saw as quite important. So did Adam eat the fruit to avoid separation from his wife? What would have happened if Eve ate, but Adam refused?
Just questions and thoughts.
Comment by: Eliza
14Pastor David,
I hope it comes back to you!
Helen,
Hurray, the comments are working!
Thanks for the link to your essay on The Doctrine of Hell. I found it very interesting. (It would be interesting to bring up some of your ideas in my class…! But I won’t.)
Regarding my son: when I told him not to raise his hand & say anything, I was remembering vividly the meeting he attended with me on 3/14/2006 (at my work). He raised his hand and wouldn’t put it down, even though I whispered repeatedly that he could ask or tell me whatever he had to say. Finally, my colleague who had the floor called on my son…who proceeded to tell everyone it was “Pi Day” (3.14, as in the irrational number which relates a circle’s diameter to its circumference) & explain about pi. I didn’t want a repeat of that kind of announcement in this class - I’m sure it would have been interpreted as a child sinning!
Thinking about this some more, I’ve come up with an analogy which makes this less offensive to me. It’s as if we “spiritually dead” have tuberculosis - we might be reasonable people, but you wouldn’t want to get too close to us, or let your flock too close to us, or let us cough on you (air our ideas), lest we expose you - and we infected people really should do something to get rid of the tuberculosis. Others may point the way, & try to assist, but we really have to agree to that help. (Ignoring the fact, there, that treatment for tuberculosis can be legally compelled - oh, well, there are limits to any analogy!)
Comment by: Eliza
15David H, thanks for your comments - glad this topic was one you could get “into”!
Good point (but it also sounds like a pretty unpleasant place).
I’ve heard this before, but one question might be this: would separation from God for eternity seem all that different to people who had not “known God” on earth?
The Jewish perspective on the status of the soul at birth, and the source of sin, is interesting, especially since Genesis is part of the Torah (right?). Was it really so long after Adam & Eve that their legacy in this regard was recognized??
And one more thing - I’m reminded, David H, by your delving into the narrative of the forbidden fruit - I was struck that this was the first story from the Bible that the pastor teaching this class took us through - up till that point, the Bible had been used to supply one line from here and one line from there, unsettingly discontinuous for me. I hope he delves more into narratives in upcoming weeks.
Comment by: Julie Marie
16awwww..how could you help but smile? He had something important to share, and share he did.
Comment by: Helen
17Eliza, along with Julie Marie I was thinking, how could anyone who knew it was ‘Pi’ day not share something so interesting? ;-)
And - since it was a work meeting, perhaps it was the most interesting comment made there (unless your work meetings are more interesting than mine tended to be) Even if it wasn’t I expect people enjoyed the moment and it brought a breath of fresh air into the room (except maybe for you since you were anxious about his behavior and what he would say).
I think you were wise to discourage him from saying anything in the class, however, in case it bothered the teacher.
Comment by: Eliza
18Turns out several people commented later that my son’s mini-lecture was the most interesting part of the meeting - goes to show, we need to invite a child to each of our meetings to liven them up a bit!
After David H’s comments on Jewish beliefs on sin & my response on Genesis being in the Torah, I dreamed last night that Genesis is in the Torah but isn’t at the beginning. I think it’s quite safe to say, that is the first dream I have ever had about the Torah! (Or Genesis.)
One more thing - Sunday night, I emailed the pastor teaching this class to ask about Tartapos/Tartarus, & whether there were other references to it that he knew of, perhaps in early Christian writings. Haven’t yet heard back yet, will post here if/when I do.
Comment by: Pastor David
19Time for our Greek lesson:
Tartaroo (the verb) occurs only once in the NT (2 Pt 2:4), the noun does not occur at all.
Tartaros is not a synonym for Hades. In Greek mythology, T is below Hades, and is a place of divine punishment. It was used with this meaning in Jewish apocalyptic literature (Job 41:24, Enoch 20:2). I did not find any references to it in the earliest Xn lit. The only reason I really see to use it, is to get in a reference to the fallen angels of 2 Peter.
When Hades is meant, it is what the writers used. the Greek word Hades occurs 10 times in the NT. Hades is generally a more neutral term, meaning a sort of holding place for the dead until the resurrection. It is, at times, used as a synonym for thanatos, death. In some early Xn lit (post-biblical), it does take on the meaning of a place of punishment.
As late as Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen (late 3rd cent), Hades was still being used in a predominently nuetral way.
Gehenna has its roots in Hebrew - not Greek - culture. It is, as others have said, the valley of Hinnom, south of the city of Jerusalem. It was, at various times, a trash heap and a place where vagrants would make their home. At times, the trash would catch fire, or be set on fire. It would burn almost without end (plenty of fuel) and stink like you wouldn’t believe.
References to Gehenna are almost never neutral, but usually related to divine punishment.
The theological issue is that the Jewish understanding of the afterlife was still evolving in the 1st centuries bce/ce. The belief in an immortal soul was not common among the Jews (although, along with other Hellenistic thoughts, it was creeping in). However, a bodily resurrection was becoming more and more common. The question: if your soul is not immortal, what happens to it between death and resurrection? That is where the idea of Hades grabbed hold, as a sort of post-mortem holding tank until the resurrection.
The issue as a translator, is that there is no great way to render gehenna. If you refer to the place, modern readers won’t bring to mind the images of fire and punishment. If you refer to hell, modern readers won’t bring to mind the physical place. Gehenna brought to mind images of both.
Sorry to get a little off-topic.
Comment by: Pastor David
20Yes, original sin is foreign to Judaism. The idea, expressed in a variety of ways, was kind of floating around in some Jewish and early Christian circles. It was Augustine of Hippo who brought these various ideas together and expressed a doctrine of original sin.
I know that many people have a problem with this particular doctrine, wanting to believe that people are casically good. I don’t fault anyone that. But, this is the one doctrine that I have never had any struggles with …I’m with CS Lewis on this one … original sin is the one teaching that the church has emperical evidence for. I don’t know haw anyone can look at the 20th century and say, humans are basically good.
Comment by: David H
21I don’t believe Judaism argues that people are basically good. It seems their theology is that every person is both good and evil. Every choice you make is what, at that moment, decides your basic nature. Thus if you persue selfish desires more than anything else, then you are essentially a selfish person.
It has also occurred to me that if God is outside time then every sin has occurred at exactly the same moment for him. In other words, every sin I commit in this life happens simultaneously with Adam and Eve’s original one.
The whole point of original sin seems to be that since humans are inherently evil, then they automatically need a savior. However, if no one can live their life without (for want of a better word) sinning, then they still need a savior. Jesus told more than one person that they could be saved by keeping the entire law, but he also set the bar for that so high it was clear that would be very difficult.
Also, many Protestants believe that children who die go to heaven because they have not reached the age of decision. How can that be if there are inherently evil?
Comment by: David H
22The basic reasoning is that if you knew there was something really good that you couldn’t have it would be much worse than if you didn’t believe that good thing even existed.
On earth some believe there is God and others don’t. There is essentially no empirical evidence either way. It is a matter of faith.
Christian belief says God isn’t just good, he is the essence of goodness. Also, God isn’t love the way we understand it, which often has a component of selfishness. God is supposed to be a love that won’t stop and will value each person for what they are, not what they (or anyone else) wishes they could be.
I know I am skipping many things with which some would take issue. However, if God is something like that and, after death, you came to know that was true. I would imagine that separation from such a being would feel a bit worse than knowing that you lost the winning $300 million Powerball ticket. Especially if that separation would last for all eternity.
Comment by: David H
23If there is a perceived increase isn’t it just as likely to suppose that it because of the greater numbers of people in the world. Population and life pressure are also known sociological causes of increased “crime” and “immorality.”
I find this comment often annoying at least in part because it is my father who often makes the comment. The immoral acts he committed while younger (back when this was still a moral, God-fearing nation) apparently aren’t a factor because he wasn’t caught or they were officially ignored.
Also, having gone to places like Vietnam and read extensively about the sociological effects U.S. involvement has had on other societies, I find it a peculiar argument to be made by Americans. Our sevice people (and to a lesser extent their French predecessors) exported a level of immorality to South East asia that continues to ripple through the fabric of that society (Cambodia is number 1 in the world for the child sex trade). Our gift to them.
I have a different theory. It is that the falling morality (if it is occurring) in this country is primarily due to the rise of Christian fundementalism. The attempt to define Christian law and then force everyone to live it, while at the same time making a mockery of the essential Christian concept of loving your neighbor has eroded the fabric of US society because people innately know that the supposed followers of Jesus don’t practice what they preach.
Comment by: Eliza
24Pastor David, no need to apologize! Delving into the etymology & history of words is great. Regarding this:
How would you translate the verb? (”Cast into the deep abyss” as in the side-by-side translation I found? Or, do you know of a different translation, or different nuance?)
There’s at least one place in Revelation where “Hades” seems to refer to someone or something that can move - I think it’s something like Death on a horse and Hades right behind him. The other references suggest it’s a place, with gates or doors (as I recall from my reading a few days ago).
I’m being facetious here, but how about using “Iraq” as a modern equivalent?
Comment by: Pastor David
25Eliza,
Thanks for your kind words.
That is difficult, because it only occurs in one place (there is no opportunity to compare how it is used in a variety of contexts). Literally, something like “to hold captive/bind in Tartaros” but that is kind of useless without an understanding of what Tartaros is. In further reading, Tartaros is where the Titans are bound and punished when the olympians, led by Zeus, overthrow them. I would not refer to “a deep abyss” as that would more likely come from the Hebrew words sheol or tehoom, and the greek word Hades.
Long story short, probably something like “To hold captive in hell” or maybe “to imprison in the place of punishment.”
Yes, at the opening of the 4th seal (rev 6:8) a horse comes forth with a rider named “Thanatos,” and “Hades” follows with him. The word Hades actually originates in the name of the god of the dead. It then comes to refer to the place of the dead by extension. It then, used by people unconnected to the “god of the dead” become re-personified as death.
Not only is Hades often paired with “death” (Thanatos, as in revelation) to two seemed to be used almost interchangeably at times. In a number of places in the NT where the most trustworthy manuscripts read thanatos, there are varient manuscripts that read hades.
As a translator, I would avoid the word “hell” because it has become such a loaded term. BUT were I to use it, I would translate Gehenna and Tartaros as “hell.” Thanatos, sheol, and Hades, I would just call death, or the place of the dead, or something to that effect.
Comment by: Paul
26Thanks Eliza - another great report. I am really glad that you are still going, that your son had one of those cool floors to skid on that churches seem to do so well (how many knees did i wreck on my sunday best pants as a kid :) and that you keep sticking your hand up! It is so good to have you engaged and I hope it is helping not only the pastor but your fellow classmates.
On the Q of hell I recently did quite a long detailed post here which basically says our image of hell is based more on dante than the bible. Altho i have to say i didn’t come across anything on tartapos to add to your further insights in (3) and Helen’s in (4). My take on hell in the NT though was that the message was primarily directed at disciples not those outside of the faith but it’s all covered in me post.
Comment by: David H
27Interestingly, most of what Christian tradition says about angels is based on the book of Enoch, which is a relative newcomer for modern Bible readers. The book was apparently well known around the time of Jesus because both he and the Apostle Paul quote from the book. However, it was lost at some point during the life of the early church and didn’t show up again until travelers in Ethopia happened upon a copy of it in the 17th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
Comment by: Eliza
28Paul, thanks for that link to your post on hell - very interesting & informative! I’m interested that you & Helen have written about hell, but when I cruised around a Christian bookstore for a while this afternoon, I barely found anything. (They had C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, and some honking big theology textbooks, each with one chapter titled something like “Judgement”, containing a few pages on Hell.)
David H, thanks for the information on the Book of Enoch - very interesting. 1 Enoch apparently dates to after Malachi (but before Jesus and Paul); it’s said to be more “Christian” than “Jewish” in its themes & language (but fragments of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Do you know what (& where) Jesus and Paul quoted from the Book of Enoch (or where to find out)?
Comment by: Eliza
29Found this pair (different translations), seems to be the only direct quote of 1 Enoch in the NT:
1 Enoch 2:1 Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.
Jude 1:14-15 [14] Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, [15] to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
There’s alot of weird stuff on the internet about the Book of Enoch. This looks useful for comparing some of Jesus’s phrases with similar sayings from the Book of Enoch. And from the end notes to that article comes this comment:
Comment by: David H
30Like much from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Enoch has some strange stuff in it. I have found it interesting in the little reading I have done, but many these days are becoming almost obsessive about the book. There is nothing in its pages that proves Jesus was the Christ. General scholarship these days descredits its pre-flood authorship.
For me, it just isn’t important to my faith. People can tell me all they want about heaven and angels, but that doesn’t change a whit what needs to be done on earth. If there is a heaven full of bright, shinning beings then I suppose I’ll see it eventually (gotta get to the Grand Canyon first).
Comment by: Mike O
31Back in #4, NCxian said
Interesting observation. I hadn’t thought of that, but yes, that seems to be the case. For example, I’ll get more irritated by Jim or other Christians I disagree with than I ever would Eliza. Probably because I don’t expect to agree with Eliza. Interesting.
From #5 …
OK, serious question … I don’t get that. Assume for a second that the pastor is right. If that’s true, and if man has a spirit and you don’t believe in that, what’s wrong with saying you’re spiritually dead? Is there a better euphamism you’d rather he use? I mean, from his perspective, it’s neither derogatory nor insulting. It’s just true. If man has a spirit, and he is aware of it and you aren’t, I don’t see the problem (from his perspective).
Also from #5 …
I don’t understand the problem. Your beliefs are contradictory, so why can’t he see good in you, yet also believe you are wrong? The only way to remedy that would be to morph/change his beliefs to match yours, and that’s not the goal here. I thought the goal was to learn what he believed?
In #10 …
That’s not it at all. Christians are supposed to aim for perfection, but since that’s not possible, we all fail (sin). And if we are truly a Christ follower, doing our best to get it right, we’re forgiven for where we fall short. Yeah, some of us are still asses, but we’re not supposed to be. But hey, there are plenty of asses who aren’t Christians, too.
In #12 …
That’s why I’m glad the Bible says we’re saved by grace, not a full and complete understanding of all the complexities and mysteries of God. Most of this stuff makes no difference in the long run, and we’ll find out when it’s over what God meant. We Christians need to let a lot of this stuff go, man. It makes for interesting discussion and it’s good to ponder, but geez. But nothing more. There are core issues, yes. But a lot of this stuff is little more than interesting fodder for discussion.
In #15 …
I think it would. Assuming there is a God as defined by Christianity (unimagineable love and goodness, etc), in hell you would be aware of Him and what you are missing, while here on earth, you’re not.
In #23 …
Oh, so that’s what it feels like to be blamed for the downfall of a nation. I don’t care for it much, either.
Comment by: benjamin ady
32May I be allowed to post a longish George Macdonald quote (from here)? His take on hell is the only Christian one I know of with which I can cope…
Yet a time will come when the Unchangeable will cease to forgive; when it will no more belong to his perfection to love his enemies; when he will look calmly, and have his children look calmly too, upon the ascending smoke of the everlasting torments of our strong brothers, our beautiful sisters! Nay, alas! the brothers are weak now; the sisters are ugly now!
O brother, believe it not. “O Christ!” the redeemed would cry, “where art thou, our strong Jesus? Come, our grand brother. See the suffering brothers down below! See the tormented sisters! Come, Lord of Life! Monarch of Suffering! Redeem them. For us, we will go down into the burning, and see whether we cannot at least carry through the howling flames a drop of water to cool their tongues.”
Believe it not, my brother, lest it quench forgiveness in thee, and thou be not forgiven, but go down with those thy brothers to the torment; whence, if God were not better than that phantom thou callest God, thou shouldst never come out; but whence assuredly thou shalt come out when thou hast paid the uttermost farthing; when thou hast learned of God in hell what thou didst refuse to learn of him upon the gentle-toned earth; what the sunshine and the rain could not teach thee, nor the sweet compunctions of the seasons, nor the stately visitings of the morn and the eventide, nor the human face divine, nor the word that was nigh thee in thy heart and in thy mouth-the story of Him who was mighty to save, because he was perfect in love.
Comment by: Helen
33Benjamin - so, MacDonald basically suggests that the worst of the worst will go through a finite time - purgatory, I suppose - of ‘learning’ what they didn’t learn on earth; and then they will be ready for heaven for the rest of eternity? Did I understand what you quoted correctly?
If so, I actually think this is implied by the parable (?) Jesus shared about the rich man who sent to torment and the poor man who went to heaven. Because the rich man, in torments, has very quickly become less selfish - he begs Abraham to let the poor man go back to the living and warn the rich man’s brothers to do what they need to to avoid the torment he’s now in. The rich man, in torment, is already thinking of others. So to me, he is in a learning process which should get him out of there. I know Jesus didn’t say that, but, does it really make sense to think people who have learned to be unselfish will be tormented forever, nevertheless? I don’t think so.
It’s also interesting that MacDonald references the ‘farthing’ verse. Because I’ve heard Christian teachers assume that “You won’t get out until you’ve paid to the last farthing” (that was a 1/4 of an old English penny, btw - a tiny unit of money)” means people will never get out of hell. But it doesn’t actually say that - what it actually says is they won’t get out until they’ve paid their total debt. And why would that debt be infinite?
(Yes, I know there are other verses that say people go to hell forever. My current view on that is that maybe the Bible contradicts itself.)
Hmmm…I guess the subject of hell pushes my buttons…
Comment by: David H
34C.S. Lewis, who is often quoted by conservative Christians, didn’t necessarily believe that the issue of salvation is decided during our earthly existence. He wrote at least once that people may be given a final choice when they at last stand before God. Then their choice will be whether to spend eternity with that being or in separation.
In his book “The Great Divorce,” (published in 1946) Lewis writes of people taking a bus trip from an endless grey town where the sun never rises to a beautiful pastoral place. Each person on the bus is met by someone who has already arrived in the “country.” A Bishop who gets off the bus is met by an old colleague. During their discussion, the college chum asks: “Where do you imagine you have been?”
Not a very orthodox view. Lewis said of this that he believed heaven and hell begin in this life. When we leave our bodies we continue to exist in the place we chose during life. But it is possible we may be allowed to change our mind even after our bodies have died.
MacDonald has an uncredited cameo at the end of the book. There Lewis has him espouse the view that when Jesus descended to hell (an event that occurred outside of time) he brought out every occupant willing to go with him.
But what may be most important from this and other writings by Lewis is his belief that we as humans can’t really understand the nature of the transaction between God and man, because that takes place between an eternal God and our eternal soul. Right now our temporal existence and physical form get in the way of that understanding.
Many Christians would consider Lewis’ thoughts on this subject to be heretical. Which leads me to an anecdote.
My mother attended Bob Jones University in the early 1950s. Dr. Bob Sr. invited Lewis to speak there because Lewis was considered the foremost Christian apologist of his day. However, prior to Lewis’ arrival a discussion arose because Lewis smoked and drank. Both practices were teribble sins according to Dr. Bob Sr. (of course, he also thought relationships that crossed racial lines were sinful).
So how could the school allow such a guy to come speak, since that might send the wrong message to the youth attending there? So Dr. Bob issued a statement allowing that even though Lewis was on friendly terms with both tobacco and alcohol, he probably was still a Christian.
Apparently Lewis personal habits were a bigger problem than his beliefs, at least for Dr. Bob. The Bible may or may not contradict itself. But Christians constantly do.
Comment by: Helen
35David, I noticed that too, about The Great Divorce - that the ’second chances’ never seemed to end; God never entirely removed the option for people to get out of hell if that’s what they wanted.
I’ve noticed that the attitudes about drinking alcohol among conservative Christians vary from country to country. I don’t think I met any Christians in England who pushed total abstinence from alcohol the way some conservative Christians do here. Perhaps that’s because this is more a culture tending to excess. English people tend to do things more moderately so perhaps alcoholism never got to be such a problem there that parts of the church decided they needed to advocate total abstinence.
Comment by: David H
36I think the abstinence stance in the US has less to do what curing an ill than fitting an agenda. Alcohol can certainly be a problem, but for many of the early American advocates it was a platform for growing an organization or political career.
I have a friend who is a recovering alcoholic. I never drink around him, but I don’t hide the beer in my fridge either. The former would be unhelpful, the latter a lie. He hasn’t had a drink in years, but he doesn’t believe that alcohol is bad — just that it is bad for him. The apostle Paul seemed to take that perspective in some of his writings.
Taking the extreme position seems counter-productive to me. Say I preach abstience, but everyone close to me knows that I am incapable of love. My rigorous position convinces me that I am a good man, but it convinces everyone who knows me that I am a liar.
As for “The Great Divorce,” I think Lewis like MacDonald believed there to be some limit on the second chances, but that limit has more to do with us than it does with God. Also, in the end, the crux of that choice somehow occurs outside the temporal box known as human life.
Comment by: Rachel
37Mike, I agree that no one can be perfect and that Christ offers us grace regardless of our failings. But the saying “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” which is usually broadcast on bumperstickers and lapel buttons for non Christians to see, seems to me to be saying something more like this:
“Don’t hold me accountable to the standards of my faith because after all, I’m not perfect. In fact I’m probably not any kinder or more loving or more giving than anyone else but that’s not the point because I’m right and you’re wrong. So you should want to convert to Christianity because it is the right way. And if I’m setting a bad example and that makes you not want to believe in Christ, well that’s not the point cause I’m not perfect after all.”
And we can always throw in another standby Christian phrase, “Don’t look at me; look at Jesus.” Another escape clause I can use if my behavior and lifestyle are a crappy testimonial for Christianity. I can insist to those around me that Christianity is true even if I’m a total jerk. But that’s just stupid! That’s not the way things work and we all know it.
It would be like if I walked up to my friend and said, “Hey, I’m selling this great herb and vitamin blend and it is awesome! It will make you more healthy and energetic than ever. You gotta buy some. I’ve been taking it myself for years.” And my friend looks at me and I’m literally dragging myself across the room like I’m completely exhausted and my skin is all pale and sickly and I have dark circles under my eyes. She’s gonna say, “No thanks.”
Well, of course there are, but that’s not the point. They aren’t the ones who are selling something, we are! Not that I like the analogy that sharing our faith with others is like selling a product, actually I strongly dislike that analogy. But if we Christians want those around us to be drawn to the Way of Jesus, then how we live and how we behave matters. As Brian McLaren says, “They don’t care if we are right; they care if we are good.”
Of course we can’t be perfect but we also shouldn’t go around being self-righteous jerks, smug in the knowledge that we are “right” and that’s all that matters. And I guess the saying “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” which I grew up hearing over and over, has come to me to represent exactly that attitude.
Comment by: Bro. Bartleby
38I was thinking, we say ‘Christian’ but what does that really mean? The Eskimos, or Inuit, have many words for snow, here are a few:
’snow (in general)’ aput, ’snow (like salt)’ pukak, ’soft deep snow’ mauja, ’snowdrift’ tipvigut, ’soft snow’ massak, ‘watery snow’ mangokpok, ’snow filled with water’ massalerauvok, ’soft snow’ akkilokipok, ‘ice snow’ sikko, ‘bare ice snow’ tingenek. So do denomination names serve the same purpose? Even within denominations, it seems each ‘Christian’ has his or her own flavor, so are we left with adjectives to pinpoint each flavor, such as wild-eye fundamentalist Christian? Maybe it is best that each of us is unique, and so to our beliefs, so as long as we are within the Christian ballpark, and not outside the foul lines, then perhaps we can call ourselves Christians without any qualms about meeting the stiff-necked requirements of some other human. Just some thoughts.
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Comment by: NCxian
39Bro Bartleby, have you been reading Justo Gonsales? (He uses the ballpark/foulline analogy in A Concise History of Christian Doctrine, which despite its dreary name is a great read!).
Comment by: Bro. Bartleby
40No I haven’t read Justo Gonsales, but I will keep the name in mind for the next time I browse for books. And I heard the ballpark/foul line analogy several years ago, so long ago that I have forgotten who spoke those words. Perhaps Justo himself? Would not that be delightful if at some time I did speak with Justo and then he was a chance encounter, and only now I learn who he is. Now back to baseball, the wonderful thing about baseball is that you have the two foul lines that begin at home plate, yet they extend to eternity, and likewise the outfield has no limits, that is, the fence or wall but delineates a homerun, but that fence or wall is merely the beginning of where a home run begins, but in theory, the outfield also extends to eternity, for a ball hit one inch over the wall is a homerun, ten feet over the wall is a homerun, 100 feet over the wall is a homerun, 1 mile over the wall is a homerun, 1 million miles over the wall is a homerun …
I love baseball.
So too Christianity when one views the outfield extending for eternity.
Comment by: ncxian
41Nice image!