Posted by Eliza on: 02.15.2007 /
This class was about Judgment Day, resurrection, and Heaven. Stuff I don’t believe in. The class discussion was aimed at Christians. The only thing the pastor said that was applicable to me (in my current belief state) was this: “The only reason a human being will go to Hell is because you won’t believe in Jesus,” his way of rephrasing 2 Thess 1:8-9.
I’ve been mulling this topic over, & will start with general thoughts before moving on to the class report. IMO, this topic is more “touchy” than other class topics - more likely to bring out rancor between people with different beliefs. (But I could easily be wrong…or, it could be obvious & I’m the last person to realize this!)
I can imagine, when it comes to the afterlife, that non-believers must seem horribly misguided and pitiful to believers. We must seem like people who are drowning but deny it, who won’t grab the life-rings thrown to us, who are whistling Dixie even as the waters close over our heads. Even worse, it may seem like we doomed non-believers are trying to grab onto our would-be rescuers & drag them (you) down with us.
Yet to non-believers, the concern of believers for our eternal souls is unwanted and intrusive - because belief in the afterlife seems to us like wishful thinking, magical thinking, and/or misguided optimistic nonsense. (I’m not trying to offend anyone, just trying to explore how far apart Christians - in general - and atheists - in general - are on this topic. I can only report one atheist point of view, & guess at everything else.)
This may be way off base; see what you think. I’m going to hazard this guess: Discord between people of different beliefs often (usually? sometimes?) reflects issues around afterlife - how one gets there, whether it exists, whether one or both are anxious about their chances or feeling their understanding threatened, etc. Though that may not be the first thing that gets said. After all, how important is it what one believes, unless there could be a serious consequence? And what consequence could be more serious than one’s eternal fate: will it be eternal bliss, or eternal torture?
Getting back to the class: by the end, this skeptical atheist was reminded of 2 aphorisms & had one main question (none of which I brought up in class):
OK, on to the class review. Here are the topics that came up, & the discussion on each:
1. What happens when a believer dies?
The text says: At death, the soul separates from the body, which returns to dust. The soul of the believer is immediately received into Heaven.
The pastor expanded on this, mimicking blowing a handful of dust & having it disperse.
I asked something about how it would work, that people’s bodies could be resurrected if the physical part of them was dispersed all over the place? Not surprisingly, that didn’t worry the pastor, I think he basically said that wasn’t a problem for God. Interestingly, there was a LCMS brochure “What about Death and Dying” given out at this class, and it says “Our bodies rest in the grave, awaiting the final day when soul and body shall be reunited.” Well, that’s different. “Resurrection” means “rising from the dead”, it doesn’t mean “re-created from dispersed molecules that used to be in the original body” or “created anew just like the original version, which has been lost forever.” I can understand “resurrection” when we’re talking about a recently-deceased body* but this would be a different word: re-assembly, re-creation, or consolidation, maybe.
*As an aside, There are at least 6 people resurrected in the Bible before Jesus: Lazarus (in John 11, not the Lazarus in Luke 16), Jairus’ daughter (in Mark 5, Luke 8, Matthew 9), the widow’s son in Luke 7:12-15, the widow’s son touched by Elijah (1 Kings 17:22), and the child (2 Kings 4:32-35) and man (2 Kings 13:21) touched by Elisha. Yet in Acts 26:22- 23, Paul says “…I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” Did Paul mean, the first to rise from death to Heaven? Because Jesus wasn’t the first to be raised from the dead, back to life on earth.
Another aside: The LCMS brochure delves into death more than the text or the pastor did. It says that “death is not natural !” and that it’s a “horrible reality” and “the enemy we each face at the end of our lives” and “the awful curse that fell on creation through the sin of Adam and Eve…” It asks, “Why must Christians die?” and answers “our bodies are actually dead right now because of sin” (Romans 8:10). IMO, that’s quite schizoid - our bodies are dead right now, but death is a horrible enemy that we face, yet death is a necessary step before resurrection, which is presumably to be desired. And to say death isn’t natural - that requires a Christianese definition of “natural”.
Anyway, in the discussion on dust & resurrection, I asked where the soul comes from, and when it enters a human. The pastor said each soul is created anew. He said they’re not recycled and there’s not a pool of them waiting to enter into bodies (thus rejecting reincarnation and “pre-existence“). He said there were two theories on how the soul entered, either “Traducianism” in which the parents each contribute a part & the soul is created at conception, or “creationism” in which God creates the soul (at conception). He said he prefers Traducianism, but the Bible doesn’t describe which it is, so either could be the case, only God knows.
I mentioned that at least 30% of pregnancies are lost in the first trimester & wondered what happened to those souls, whose bodies were miscarried & never had a chance for infant baptism. The pastor said that he and his wife had had such a miscarriage, & I expressed sympathy. (I did not tell him that I’d had one, too.) He said that “God doesn’t tell us what happens to humans who die before birth. God knows. I don’t.” He added something about all the babies who were aborted, & I quickly tried to say that there were more miscarriages than abortions, but I’m not sure that got heard. (Later in this class, a woman assumed that I had brought this up because I wanted to know if we would be reunited in heaven with babies lost before birth. Turns out that had never crossed my mind. Especially those lost in the first trimester. More on this later.)
2. What momentous event will occur at the end of time?
The text says: At the end of time, Christ will come back to this earth. He will return visibly; in glory; suddenly, on a day known only to God, which will mark the end of the world; to judge mankind.
The pastor agreed, and also said “God is going to let the sun come up in the morning so that more people can come to Jesus.” I have heard people say that the end hasn’t come yet, for this reason. The implication has been, to me, that there is some number (or proportion) of the world’s population who need to (or should, or will) become Christian before the end. But that doesn’t jibe with the exact date already having been set, at least not in a way that still allows free will, as far as I can figure. But, whatever.
3. Upon His return, what will Christ do first?
The text says: When Christ returns, He will raise up all the dead, reuniting their souls with their former bodies. The bodies of the believers will be like the body of Christ, incorruptible, strong, perfect. (The pastor agreed, & expanded on this a bit.)
Now, I have a couple of questions about this. I did not ask these in class.
First, after resurrection, Jesus’s body was not perfect in the usual sense. It had open wounds, as Thomas could attest. Did those heal? Is it too mundane, too earthly to think that “perfect” means (in part) “no wounds”?
Second, I have long wondered, what does it mean to say that bodies will be “perfect” after resurrection? What age will people’s bodies be brought back as? Will infants still be infants, or will they be older? Will 90-year-olds still be that age, or will they be younger? How much younger? Will people who always hated some feature of their bodies find that feature perfected? People who had cosmetic surgery, or tattoos, & who felt those changes enhanced their bodies — will they still have those acquired features?
Third, getting back to the lady’s assumption that I wondered whether we/I would meet babies from miscarried pregnancies in heaven, which had actually never crossed my mind before: If those fetuses which were miscarried during pregnancy are in heaven, will they have the defects (usually chromosomal, in studies) which resulted in the miscarriage, or will those be fixed? Will they still be the size they were at the time of miscarriage, whether 16 cells or 64 cells or 1054 cells - little blobs, really - or will they have somehow grown and developed as if the miscarriage never happened? Would parents recognize them? Would it only be fetuses of Christians, or would all fetuses qualify? (I know that the Bible does not address these questions. But it seems like a natural extension from the discussion in class, that it’s possible they’ll be in heaven.)
4. What will follow the resurrection of the dead?
The text says: Having raised the dead, Christ will judge all people. His verdict will be just. The believers, body and soul, will accompany Christ into heaven. The unbelievers will be condemned to eternal sorrow, pain, and separation from God in hell. (In all our thinking on the sad and terrifying fate of unbelievers, let us remember: God is Love. He sent His only Son to the cross to save all people. To reject that Savior and His heaven is to choose the hell prepared, not for man, but for the devil and his angels.)
The pastor was clear that “Millenialism” is incorrect. (There was a handout to that effect; I didn’t see any reason to read it.) The pastor said that (a) judgment, (b) resurrection of bodies & reuniting with souls, and (c) the total destruction of this universe, will all occur “in a flash”.
This is where he said, “The only reason a human being will go to Hell is because you won’t believe in Jesus.”
Then, my notes say, the pastor said, “God is going to ” but I didn’t write down the last part. So now we’ll never know! ;-)
5. What is heaven?
The pastor’s short answer: “Paradise.”
The text’s answer: Heaven is: (1) Being with Christ; seeing Christ, face to face, most intimately, and in the fullest possible measure, “knowing” Christ and experiencing Christ’s love. (2) Being like Christ — like God — pure, sinless, holy. (3) Freedom from all ills. (4) Fullness of joy; perfect worship and service to God; glory forever.
The pastor expanded that we don’t know exactly what heaven is going to be like (1 John 3:2) — and a student piped up, “But it’ll be better than this.” (This is what brought “the grass is greener…” saying to mind for me. IMO, this outlook is sad - if there isn’t an afterlife, then having lived this life as if it were only a poor prologue to be endured seems like such a waste.)
(Aside: my son John came to this class with me, as he did in class #3, as my husband was out of town. He read, and played with a Styrofoam cup from the snack table. But when the pastor started giving the above citation & said, “First, John…” my son looked up, startled, and said to the pastor with quiet trepidation, “Yes…?” — thinking he was being called on!)
The pastor was certain that heaven wasn’t going to be just getting to do the things you like to do, all the time, like playing golf. (I wrote in my notes, “Jokes. Starbucks. Lexus.” That was the level of discussion.) He was clear that this universe (& earth) will be destroyed, & a new one created, & the citations were interesting because I hadn’t paid attention to this idea before. He said that before this creation there was no time and no space, and that’s the way it’ll be again. (That does make it hard to envision what/where it could be like.)
It does seem odd to me that Adam and Eve eating fruit from the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, where God placed them in his omniscience & omnipotence, should have tainted this universe so thoroughly that it eventually has to be destroyed entirely and a new one created. (One hopes that there won’t be any such fruit tree in the new universe, or it could be the same story all over again.)
The pastor said that people’s pets won’t be in heaven, but that there will be animals. (He said he would say more about that, then didn’t. It sounds like it’d be animals as were created in Genesis 1 & 2, since this would be a new creation.) He referred to his own dog, Lady, whom he said many members knew, & I almost choked on my tea when he gave her full name: “Church Lady”. :-)
The pastor referred to Revelation 7:15 (”Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple….”) and said that he shows this to the kids in the 7th grade catechism class, tells them something like “Isn’t that great! Heaven will be like sitting in church all day!” He said something like “You should see the looks on their faces! Their eyes get really big and they nod & say “Yes Pastor’ and then I tell them I’m kidding.”
He said that all believers go to heaven, but that “God rewards with more grace, those who do more work for Him. You get into God’s kingdom by faith, but some will be honored or rewarded more than others.” He drew a dining room on the white board as an example; drew a door; drew Jesus/God at the head of the table, at end of the table farthest from the door. He gave the example of the thief on the cross getting into the room, but getting a place at the table right near that door, while Paul and Peter got seats right next to Jesus. He said there would be no difference in joy, but there would be difference in honor. Since it’s the home of righteousness, no-one will envy another. (That sounded to me like a way to try to motivate people on earth to do more for the church, in the hopes that it would get them a seat closer to Jesus in the afterlife — the better among equals. But you know by now that I’m skeptical about motives for claims like this.)
6. Since Christ has prepared so great a salvation for all — for me, what must be my high aims as long as I live?
The text says: My high aims in life must be: (1) To be faithful to Christ. He is my heaven. (2) To witness for Christ. I can’t keep the Good News about Him to myself. (3) To live for Christ. Because He loved me and gave Himself for me, let me be continually spending myself in serving Him and my fellowmen until He calls me home.
I don’t remember that the pastor got to this last item in the text. If he did, I didn’t write anything down. But by this time I was kind of worn out, & discouraged about all of the hope and energy being focused on a promise of future perfection, which imo diminishes this world - the one we have proof exists. And the one we know needs people’s hope and attention. IMO.
Comment by: Helen
1I feel for you - I’d have a hard time in a class about those things, these days.
I’d be sitting there thinking “But but but…”
I need to see what that says:
2 Thess 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
Wow, what happened to the ‘obey’ part of “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”? I might have had to ask him that, had I been at the class! Isn’t it rather egregiously ignoring that part of the passage to claim it’s only about belief?
Anyway, even aside from that strangely selective interpretation, I find ‘the only reason you’ll go to hell is if you don’t believe’ annoying because [according to this belief system] God created hell and set the rules for who goes there - so I see God as ultimately responsible. It’s as if I dug a huge hole in the road outside my house then said that everyone who drove past my house and fell into it should have paid more attention. “Only those who aren’t paying attention will end up in that hole”
Calvinism is the worst because it teaches, no-one has any choice, in fact. Everyone goes to hell except the few God chooses for heaven, which he supernaturally enables to believe in him. And Calvinists think that’s just fine, because hell is what we all deserve; so isn’t it good of God to let anyone go to heaven? Actually I’ve met nice Calvinists who do feel a bit awkward that they got chosen for heaven and so many other people aren’t chosen for it. But then they rationalize, it’s ok since it doesn’t mean they are ‘better’ than others - since it was God’s choice entirely and not based on any merit of their own.
I think some Christians do assume this, but others are more respectful. Likewise, some atheists seem to assume this about Christians i.e.
Comment by: Mike O
2Great questions, Eliza. Now I have them, too, and won’t be sleeping well for the next day or two! :)
That’s a great insight. I kind of alluded to the same thing here when I wrote about the “wierd middle ground” (starting in the 4th paragraph)
Comment by: Eliza
3Mike O - if you come up with answers, do let me know!
You said in the linked post:
I so appreciate your letting me steal your insight! :) I also really appreciate your friendly, lower-key approach to keeping us drowning folks from being left alone in the water, and not bringing up the drowning-thing every time we talk.
Both Mike O and Helen are reminding me that Christians are not all like the pastor in this class, or the students who seem to be so silently accepting it all, in the eager hope of winning the eternal lottery. I know this church does help homeless people in the community, but it’s clear that’s not the main focus, and I clearly got kind of discouraged sitting among them for so long!
Helen, thank you for reminding me that many, many Christians work to MTWABP, rather than ignoring the world and looking only to the future. Again, my perspective got somewhat warped sitting in this class. ;-)
They had to reschedule the last class, #15, which sounded like it was going to be the session where they welcomed students who decided to join their church. Unfortunately, I couldn’t come to the rescheduled class at any of the days/times they were discussing. *Sigh of relief*
Comment by: Karen
4I kind of think that life is about half as long as it should be, ideally. I really don’t find the idea of my consciousness persisting forEVER and ever and ever and ever very appealing … not just thousands of years, but millions, hundreds of millions, billions, zillions. Exhausting!
But I would like to live at least twice as long as I’m likely to (my parents both died in their early 70s). Way too many books to read, places to visit, adventures to have, cultures to learn, people to meet, ways to help others, etc. etc. to get it all done satisfactorily in six or seven decades.
Did you ever read Ella Enchanted? It’s a modern young adult novel that deals with the idea of immortality, and a very good movie version was made a couple of years ago. It’s really interesting.
Comment by: Helen
5Eliza, I’m still surprised at how different Christians are from each other. I’m very impressed you had the patience and endurance to do the whole course. I can see why you’re relieved it’s finished.
Karen, I love that movie!
Comment by: Rachel
6I completely agree, Helen.
That is a question I have asked myself many, many times, Helen. And if I were ever to lose my faith it would be over this issue. The only conclusion I can live with is that it simply isn’t going to be that way. I simply don’t believe in eternal conscious torment - I can’t.
Comment by: Rachel
7Hear, hear! Eliza, you deserve a medal for completing this assignment!
Comment by: Pete Strobel
8Eliza, thanks for the thorough review of this class on Heaven. I have been a Christian for over thirty years (even an expression of evangelical) but I don’t think I’ve ever shared this pastor’s position or beliefs on Heaven in even near the same way.
Personally I think it is pure presumption to describe Heaven or Hell or exactly how to get there. I think it is far less a place as a relationship: it’s far less a destination that you get to go to because of belief, and far more a metaphor for a relationship with God and others. It’s about community, not “I got mine, too bad you didn’t get yours.” Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God/Heaven in many ways. It remains a mystery for me, and at times I think about that mystery, but I’m careful not to make pronouncements about pearly gates, avenues of gold, and its membership. Some Christians will say Gandhi isn’t there because he didn’t believe Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. I say, on the other hand, as far as I can tell Gandhi followed Jesus and took his words more seriously and obediently than the vast majority of “professing” Christians. Talk is cheap. Jesus always said so.
I plan on meeting Gandhi in heaven, and a great many more supposed “non-Christians”.
What will it “look” like? Beats me. Who will be there? That’s a surprise. Will I even be there? I hope so. Why don’t I arrogantly or at least confidently proclaim the assurance that I will be there? Because I simply don’t know. There are certain promises that may or may not be correctly understood or interpreted. Do I love God? Yes. Do I love my neighbors? I endeavor to love them in tangible, caring ways. Do I love my enemies? I try to make enemies my friends so that I may love them more compassionately. Is this Heaven? I don’t see why not!
Do I have to wait for an afterlife to really embrace life? Heavens NO! Eternal life is not an afterlife. Eternal life is a quality of life, a dedication to holiness, health, happiness for others, wholesomeness and fullness of the appreciation of life. Whether it extends temporally a million years into the future, or transcends time forever is quite beyond my knowledge as well as my imagination. Like some atheists and agnostics, I don’t think this does much good, nor is it the point of following Jesus. Love and Life begins and continues now, or else it is and will be fruitless later regardless of how much later there is.
Comment by: benjamin ady
9Damn. Poor Tiger.
Here is a statement that makes no sense. How can you say “Before” ________ there was no spacetime”? I mean “before” become meaningless, doesn’t it? Anyway, my understanding based on current physics/astronomy is that it’s entirely conceivable that “before the big bang there was a big crunch, which has been mathematically modelled at some level (a news story last year), and therefore the universe could hypothetically be infinitely old.
That’s hilarious. In my experience, church ladies are frightening, and I’m guessing in that sense his dog is misnamed.
This is interesting in that he clearly realizes at one level how truly awful “sitting in church” can be.
This strikes me as an amazingly … to use a word I can’t stand … “unbiblical” position, and somewhat toxic as well. It seems like Jesus talked about … the last being the first, and the first being the last–that is, it’s a big fat tie with no winners or losers, and plus didn’t the apostles get in trouble with J.C. for thinking along these lines? I mean the whole “Who’s gonna be greatest” and “We want to be on your left and right hand when you come into your kingdom” (that last from Boanerges–the “Sons of Thunder”–one of my favorite Bible words) and Jesus was always responding to this sort of thinking and language with (my paraphrase) “You just don’t get it!”.
I also give you kudos on sitting through the class. I’m thinking you’ve sort of fulfilled your cross cultural sensitivy credit requirements for about the next billion years or so. Way to go.
Comment by: Helen
10Exactly!
Comment by: Eliza
11Well, thank you. I did learn alot, and it was a totally new kind of experience for me. But I felt sorry for the other students, and gritted my teeth alot. So does it count as cultural sensitivity? or just masochism? :(
Comment by: Karen
12I think it was a great learning experience for you, Eliza, and I also commend you for getting through it. Most welcome-to-our-church classes I’ve heard of are three to six sessions, at most. This was really a marathon!
While the doctrine and theology that this class presented is not universal, it is representative of a large (and influential - unfortunately IMO) swath of Protestant tradition. Much of what was taught resonated strongly with my own religious upbringing.
I think for someone who came into it with no almost familiarity for the specific theology nor the mindset, but an interest in learning more about it, the class went a long way in giving you some insights and answering a lot of the questions you had before the class.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
13Hearing you describe all this conservative theology has made me aware of just how far my own beliefs have come from those with which I was raised. I am still a Christian, and still believe in what I would call the core, orthodox beliefs of the Christian faith - and yet there’s not much in what this pastor teaches that I would wholeheartedly affirm. It makes almost as little sense to me these days as it does to you. And yet, I know that only 10 years ago or so I would have probably agreed to most everything this pastor taught without question.
I guess I’m just grateful that between now and then I discovered a “new” way to be a Christian (which is really just an “old” way that has sometimes been ignored or forgotten by certain branches of the faith).
BTW, I’m sure you’ve already figured this out Eliza, but the kind of Lutheran church that you took this class from is considered one of the most narrow and fundamentalist branches of Lutheranism out there. They even put some independent fundamental Baptists to shame. They represent an extreme wing of the church, and not even the mainstream of conservative evangelicalism. I commend you for walking so boldly into such a lion’s den… but I also wonder what your impressions would have been if you had attended a catechism class at more liberal or progressive church. Howabout it? Ready for another round?! ;)
Comment by: Eliza
14I didn’t know they were that conservative - I might not have gone the first time if I had known! (Explains why my “Impeach Bush” and “Question Authority” T-shirts didn’t seem to go over well…just kidding!)
There seem to be several Alpha courses offered at nearby churches, but the ones I’ve found started up in late January, and the start dates of the next round don’t seem to be posted yet. I emailed the pastor of an emergent church in town to find out whether they’ll be offering one (as the Alpha website says) - that church meets in a coffee shop & a theater, looks like it’d be quite a different experience from the LCMS course. (Not that I’m necessarily eager to give up 10 evenings again. But learning new stuff is interesting.)
I’ve gone to the first of 3 Bible study sessions at my UU church (I joined!) & plan to report on that experience once all 3 are done. (Let’s just say it’s been, um, different from the conservative Lutheran course…)
Comment by: Doreen
15hi Eliza,
I have many of the same questions you do. My partner and I were just talking about bodily resurrection this week and wondering “which” body - our falling apart now bodies, the bodies we have at death, or our more youthful bodies?
I even have questions on the 1st question: what happens when a believer dies? Define “dies”? Dead-dead, as in coroner dead. Brain dead? I believe some individual’s souls start to pass over before physical death.
Thanks again for all your conversation around these classes.
Comment by: Karen
16Cool, Eliza. I look forward to hearing about the UU bible study course. Perhaps you could also include some thoughts about what you like about the UU church and why you decided to join?
My dad was an agnostic Jew who was somewhat estranged from his family because he moved to California (he was raised in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn) and married a Christian. Since my siblings and I were raised as Christians, I was always uncomfortable around my Jewish relatives (who all treated me very nicely, by the way).
When I first started questioning Christianity, I did a little research on Judaism. Now I’d like to go back and get a better grounding historically and theologically in Judaism, just because it is/was the religion of so many of my relatives and because - like you said - learning new things is fun.
I may take a temple course this summer on Judaism for non-Jews. If I do, I’d be happy to share some reactions here, if folks are interested.
Comment by: Rachel
17Yes, I would be very interested, Karen.
And I’m looking forward to your next report as well, Eliza.
Comment by: benjamin ady
18Eliza,
So if you are done now, are you planning to let the pastor know about our shadow class over here? Megan and I were batting this idea around the other night, and couldn’t really come to any conclusions (not that we’d *do* that on our own–it would feel like a breach of your and CatE’s trust, somehow). On the one hand, it seemed like from our perspective (like if we had been *teaching* the class) getting to see this whole thread of posts and replies would be invaluable to us. On the other hand, we are very different from this pastor, and it struck as as possible he might see it as a betrayal or something, and do him no good at all. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Comment by: Helen
19Karen, I’d love to have you write about the Jewish course here, if you take it.
Eliza please do continue to share your ‘cross-cultural’ experiences here.
Benjamin, it’s up to Eliza but I would think the best thing for her right now is to have a break from interacting with the pastor who taught the class. Which is less likely to happen if she or someone else tells him she’s written about the class on here.
In time perhaps she will decide to tell him; or perhaps someone connected with him and not connected with CatE will somehow discover the write-ups on here and tell him.
I think you’re right that it’s far from certain he would appreciate and/or make constructive use of the feedback.
Comment by: Eliza
20I’ve been thinking about it along the way, and am back at my original inclination - I’m not planning to let the pastor know about the class reports here, or this site. In part I think I don’t want to rock the boat, but also:
(1) I decided to take the class, in part to learn & in part to practice sitting in a room full of Christians (a new experience for me) - the class offered both to satisfaction. Noone from this church asked me to take this class, nor did anyone ask for any feedback or comments at any point (including on the “survey” at the end of this class - it was a one-page form about whether you wanted to join this church, or were a member of another church). At no time did anyone indicate interest in hearing how any of the students ‘reacted’ to the class. The goal is to present LCMS views/teachings, not to adjust the curriculum to make it palatable to more people. (If I were a journalist attending ‘undercover’ with the purpose of writing an expose, for some reason, then I would contact him to get his point of view, & let him know before publication. But I don’t see any reason to think of these class reports in that light.)
(2) The brochure announcing the class was redesigned while I took the class, by the vicar. A copy of the updated brochure was sent to our house as part of a mass mailing; it is clearer in conveying the purpose of the course (to teach Lutheran views, though it doesn’t spell out that they’re a conservative branch of Lutheranism). There’s less focus on “questions” and more focus on “answers”. The examples given of questions addressed in each class have been whittled down, to take out the “does God exist?” kind of questions, & focus on the “what do Lutherans believe” kind of questions. I don’t know whether these changes were made because of my involvement in the course, but the timing suggests it’s possible.
Regardless, it seems to me that this is the main suggestion I would have had for the pastor - to more accurately advertise the course in the mailing. Not to change the content or style of the course. (Though I still do think it would be a huge favor to the students if someone would update the text, written 30 yrs ago - not to change the ideas, just to modernize the language of the questions and conclusions.)
Comment by: Eliza
21Karen - it would be very cool to hear your experiences.
My office mate and her husband decided to “become more Jewish” after their kids were born, so now they observe all of the Jewish holidays, & she has Fridays off to prepare for the Sabbath, takes time off from work at all of the important holidays (but also covers for the rest of us at Christmas, etc). She considers herself atheist, but likes doing this for the sense of tradition and community. (I think we have to come up with another name for someone who is beyond-agnostic, yet does participate in regular worship - “a-theist” doesn’t quite seem to be accurate…)
Comment by: Karen
22Eliza:
Hemant interviewed the folks behind the Bright movement and they make that exact point, which I hadn’t considered before and found interesting.
from Friendly Atheist.com:
Comment by: Eliza
23Karen, thanks for pointing out Hemant’s interview with the co-directors of the Bright movement- very timely, as he posted it today!
Comment by: Steven Carr
24Paul never answered the Corinthians the way the pastor did when he said it was not a problem for God that the body turned into dust and dispersed.
In fact, Paul simply trashed the idea that resurrected beings were made from the dust that corpses dissolve into.
‘The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven’.
The Jesus-worshippers in Corinth had real problems with the idea of corpses rising.
They didn’t seem to have any examples of corpses rising from the dead to compare Jesus resurrection with.
I’m sure that (like the Pastor) they had no problem with God being able to resurrect corpses scattered into dust, if that was what God had wanted to do.
Paul doesn’t have to defend the idea of corpses being reformed from dust, and Paul takes for granted that the Corinthians believed God formed Adam from dead matter.
So the problem for the Corinthians must have been that they knew that the corpse of Jesus had *not* been resurrected.
As Jesus was a god, it would have been easy for him to live on in spirit form.
But they were not gods, they only had bodies, and bodies turned into dust.
Paul reassures them that they will get a spiritual body , not made from dust.
Problem solved , as far as Paul was concerned, who regarded the Corinthians as foolish for thinking that dust was even supposed to be reformed.