Splinter Therapy

Thomas Paine

One of my problems with orthodoxy has always been that it doesn't seem to take into account the vastness of the universe.  One of two possibilities exist - we are either God's only self-conscious creation in the universe or self-conscious beings exist(ed)/will exist on other worlds.  If the latter is true, then they are either sinless beings or they are in need of redeemer like us.  Until today, I thought I was the only person who seemed to struggle with reconciling this with our need of perfect sacrifice to simultaneously satisfy God's justness and holiness. 

Of course, there is nothing new under the sun.  I found a quote from Thomas Paine in a book I was reading this morning, The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan:

"From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate the apple?  And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Redeemer?"

It feels good to know that I am not alone in this thought even if it does come from a deist.

Satan, Job and Jesus

One of things that has always made sense to me is the rational arugment that a perfect sacrifice was needed to pay for the sins of mankind.  Otherwise it would be impossible for a God who is both perfectly holy and perfectly just to interact with sinful beings.  Thus, Jesus would have to be God Himself come to earth to live a sinless life so that he could serve the role as the perfect sacrifice thus satisfying God's requirement of holiness and justice.

While driving the other day I was thinking about the story of Job (really one of the most disturbing books in the Bible to me).  Then a thought hit me  - in the beginning of the book God and Satan have a conversation about Job.  Satan seems to not only have access to heaven but is able to converse with God; it is very clear in the story that Satan is in God's presence.  Considering what is stated in the paragraph how is that possible?  If the bible is to be taken literally and inerrantly, then Job must have come after Adam and Eve which means at the point Satan was conversing with God he was already a fallen being.  In fact, he is referred to as Satan, not Lucifer which was his pre-fallen name.  So, how is Satan, the Lord of Sin of Death able to be in God's presence? 

I am sure I am not the first one to have this thought.  If anybody has a way to navigate through this apparent contradiction, I would be interested in hearing/reading it.

The Bible

One of the pillars of evangelical doctrine is "Sola Scriptura".  It means that the Bible is THE authority for truth.  Anything that disagrees with the bible is wrong; all things must be filtered through the bible to see if they are true or not.

This doctine rests exclusively on the bible being inerrant.  Although definitions of inerrancy vary, the basic idea is that the Bible is God's Word - meaning God communicated His truth perfectly through human beings so that we could know the absolute truth about who He was and what He is like.  The Bible is simply God's perfectly communicated message to mankind, thus we can judge all truth by and through it.

I think there are definitely some issues with inerrancy which I hope to explore later, but to use the Bible as THE authority of truth is very dangerous in my opinion. 

To completely trust only in the bible as we try to apply it to our everyday lives, then the following must be true:

1. God spoke with the intention of creating the Bible; he desired to reveal himself through human language; simply, he thought the Bible was necessary.  Also, you have to believe He chose to only reveal Himself in this way to one race of people and left the other people of the world all alone to figure it out by themselves (All men are without excuse the bible says) and/or hope they interact with the Jews somehow so that they could blessed through them.

2. Men were able to perfectly hear what God said and put God’s thoughts into words completely unfiltered by their biases and human limitations.  We also have to believe that the authors of the gospels were able to perfectly record the words of Jesus even though the gospels were written decades after his death and resurrection.

3. Since none of the original writings remain, then you have to believe each successive reproduction was a perfect copy as the scribes reproduced the scriptures by hand over thousands of years. You also have to believe that these scribes did not insert their own ideas and/or rephrase sentences to meet their understanding of what was true.  You also have to wonder why some very important passages are not found in the oldest versions.  For example:  Mark 16: 9 – 19, John 7:53 – 8:11

4. You have to believe that a group of men were able to perfectly choose which books to include and exclude when deciding upon the Bible we use today.

5. The people who translated the bible into English were able to do so without their personal interpretations and biases affecting how they translated passages.

6. That the person who interpreted the bible (pastor, Sunday School teacher, author, individual reading for his/herself, etc.) was able to do so perfectly.

Layer upon layer upon layer – at least six layers deep.  Even if God did want us to have an inerrant set of writings, am I confident that what we believe the bible says is exactly in line with what God originally communicated?  It passes through a lot of human hands before we apply it’s teachings to our lives.  Everything God has ever done with man has had some error in it, why do we think the Bible would be any different?

Bottomline: even if God did originally intend to create a set of holy scriptures, and even if he did communicate his truth perfectly and completely, it is my opinion that we can not just use the bible as THE source of truth as if in a vacuum.  Christian History is full of examples of how people have incorrectly interpreted and applied scripture (burning people at the stake for claiming the earth was not the center of the universe; conversion through conquest, justification of slavery, etc.). Isn't it possible that we are missing it somehow today as well; or do we feel confident in that we have finally got it all nailed down?   We have to weigh it against other sources of truth - physics, biology, experience, logic, etc.  Once you do that, then you no longer have "Sola Scriptura". 

Jesus and Salvation - Part 5c - Dialogue

[This is part 3 of a fictional dialogue.  Part 1 was posted on 11/30.  Part 2 was posted on 1/13]

Me:  Wassup?

Opie:  Not much.  Just looking forward to the next installment of the "heretic dialogues".

Me:  Hey, that is pretty funny.  Maybe we should record these and post them on the internet or something.

Opie:  Right.  Of course, normal people would see it for the crap it was, but you might attract some kooks.

Me:  That would be great.  I like kooks.  Kooks are very interesting.  I am proud to be one myself.  If nothing else, kooks are "take the road less traveled" people.  It may be a road to a spaceship or a road to some combine in Montana, but a narrow road none-the-less.  This world would be much less interesting if the kooks weren't around.  Seriously, what we do with ourselves if we didn't have people like Tom Cruise?

Opie:  Less interesting but a whole lot healthier and safer.

Me:  True, but  I personally think it is the close-minded orthodoxy of various religions that are putting our futures at stake more-so than the Tom Cruises and Art Bells of the world.  Sure, orthodox Christianity does many good things, but I wonder how close we are to the point of diminishing returns - where it does more bad than good.  The reality is that almost all of the world's major conflicts are simply different religions thinking they have it all figured out and nobody else does. 

Opie:  You are beginning to sound like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett or even Richard Dawkins.

Me:  Very interesting you should say that.  I see them as one of my two enemies - that is, the atheists who are on a mission to convince others that God does not exist.  My fear is that there are many people in the pughs of evangelical churches who are struggling to make sense of all the same contradictions that give me trouble.  I feel as if my role in the kingdom of God is to fight for their souls; somehow I want to help them realize that it is not an either-or choice: close-minded, non-thinking Christianity on one side and critical-thinking, intellectualized secular humanism on the other.

Opie.  I see.  The continuum thing again - like we talked about last time.  It is not either-or; but your "theology" is somewhere in between - somewhere between the dot on the right and the dot on the left.

Me:  Not quite.  I think the solution is above-the-line.  It is a complete paradigm shift.  It is not simply a "shade of grey" between the two extremes.  It is a new color altogether.

Opie:  You mean like what we talked about last week; you have a whole new way of understanding salvation.

Me:  Almost.  Remember I am not saying that I subscribe to that "theory of salvation".  I am just throwing it out as a possibility. 

Opie:  It seems like a pretty weak possibility to me.  If true, then like I said last time we are all doomed.  If my experience of heaven is a reflection of the extent that my heart has been redeemed (your view of the heart, not mine), then we are all doomed.  In comparison to God we are all completely worthless - no matter how "good" our hearts become here on earth, in comparison to God, they are black as night.

Me:  I agree.  However, your comments create some additional questions for me such as, do you think that we become as holy as God at the time of "salvation" and/or when we enter heaven?  To answer "yes" seems a little absurd at best and extremely arrogant at worst doesn't it?  To think our holiness equals God's holiness at any time seems pretty ludicrous to me.  To answer "no" begs the question of how you experience any relationship with God right now.

Opie:  Somehow Jesus' death and my acceptance of him as Lord and Savior makes me completely holy in God's sight.

Me:  Again, are you made holy, or does God play some kind of illusion game with himself to where you appear holy but really aren't?  Here is another way to ask that.  Are you really holy, or is there some kind of "holiness force field" around you that protects you from God's wrath.

Opie:  The Bible teaches that we are made holy.

Me:  I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but if you are truly holy, then what is being sanctified?  If you are truly made holy at the time of conversion, and if our actions are a result of the condition of our hearts, then where does the sinful behavior come from?   Also,if at any point in time (now and/or when we enter heaven) that are you not as Holy as God, then you are infinitely less holy than God.  God's holiness is infinite; so, anything less than infinite is infinitely away from it.  In other words, if at any point your holiness becomes a point on a line between completely unholy and completely holy, then are you infinitely far removed from infinite holiness.

Opie:  I guess that makes Buzz Lightyear the supreme being in the universe then.  He can go to "infinity and beyond". 

Me:  Exactly.  The reality is that anytime finite beings such as ourselves get into discussions regarding infinity of any kind, then things break down very quickly.  For example, any time I think about God not being created, but existing for all eternity, my minds breaks down - it is as if somebody has tried to divide by zero somewhere in the circuitry of my head.  Lets move the conversation away from "infinite" topics and talk about real, everyday life for just a little bit.

Opie:  More than ready to do that. 

Me:  Let's start with where we are right now.  Whether or not I am completely holy in God's sight, somehow I am experiencing some degree of relationship with him right now.  I think you would say the same about yourself.  I look around and see others who clearly show the fruit of having a relationship with God.  So, regardless of which theory of salvation is correct, the practical reality is that right here on Terra Nova we are in communion with God and as a result our lives are transformed - we experience the fruit of the spirit; simply, we grow in our capacity to be gentle, patient, kind, self-disciplined, etc.  Outside of relationship with God, that is not possible.  Somehow, completely holy or not, we are able to be attached to the vine (God).

If our time in the physical world is our only opportunity to grow in our ability to hear and respond to God's voice, then, I would be content to cross over at death right now and enjoy for all of eternity the same level of relationship with God that I have right now.  Once I got there, I think I would be kicking myself for not doing more with my time on earth to grow in my relationship with him, but none-the-less, overall I would he happy that I at least get to continue at the same level of relationship that I have now.

Opie:  But you have to be completely holy to be in God's presence - not a "shade of holy", not a "degree of holy". 

Me:  Well, how are you enjoying relationship with God right now.

Opie:  That is easy.  I was made holy at the time of my salvation.

Me:  Interesting.  You and all other Christians are completely holy yet you still sin, you still have lustful thoughts, the divorce rate among Christians is the same as that of the general population.  And to be quite honest with you, many of the non-Christians I work with show much more spiritual fruit than those that claim to be Christians. 

You talk of sanctification, but if you are holy what needs to be sanctified?

Opie:  It is a mystery.  Our finite minds cannot comprehend things like this.  That is why the bible is so important.  It defines truth for us.  We can trust in things because the "bible tells us so".  I hope this doesn't offend you, but the idea that you must figure out things is very arrogant.  To even think that finite beings such as ours can eventually come up with reasoned explanations for infinite mysteries is a little self-inflated don't you think?

Me:  I can see how you would see it that way, and maybe I am rationalizing things somehow, but I think my position is one of humility.  I am being honest to myself in admitting that there are some things in the orthodox position of salvation that if true would make me question God's character and/or competence.  Since I don't question God's character or competence, then my only alternative is to think there might be some flaws in man's interpretation of things.  Simply, I am questioning man - not God.  You see, I think  it is arrogant for orthodox believers to think they have got it all figured out - air-tight doctrine.  The teaching pastor of my church actually said from the pulpit that he would be a persecuted Christian because his stance to the world was "I am right, and you are wrong.". 

But we digress.  Maybe our next conversation should move to this topic - epistemology.  How do we know what we know.  We can talk more about the bible then.

Opie:  What about the verses in the bible that contradict what you are saying.  For example, when Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and life.  No one comes to the Father but through me."  It was clear that Paul, John, and Matthew all thought Jesus was God.  In Mark, Jesus even forgives sins - who can do that but God alone?  You really have to throw out a lot of the bible in order to accept an "alternative interpretation of salvation".

Me:  Again, let's move our discussion to the Bible and epistemology for our next discussion.  We can go through these one at a time if you wish.  For now, however, let me be very clear in stating that I am NOT saying "Jesus was not God."

Opie:  Huh?  Isn't that what you have been saying this whole time?

Me:  No.  I think it is very possible that Jesus as God.  However, there are a lot of valid arguments on the other side of the aisle that he was a man who was so in communion / relationship with God that his life became an expression of who God is.  There are strong arugments on both sides, and I don't think I have to pick a side in order to be "saved.".

What I have been trying to communicate is that I just don't think it is important whether or not we believe Jesus was God.  Maybe Jesus needed to be God so that he could be the perfect sacrifice.  Great.  The universal transaction between God's holiness and wrath has been made.  For me, if that is true, then it is all behind the scenes stuff that may make it necessary for me to be in relationship with, but I don't we have to know about it or understand it for us to benefit from it.

Like I have said before, I don't think God will meet us at the door to heaven with a clipboard in hand:  "Do you believe this? .....  Good.  Come on in.".  I think we enter in relationship with God when we align our hearts with his, when we live a life in submission to him, when we grow in our capacity to hear and respond to his voice - then we are "saved.".

Opie:  Sounds like a gospel of works to me.  It is all about what you do - not what you believe.

Me:  No.  It is not about what you do.  It is about who you become.  We can not earn God's favor.  It's not about working our way into heaven.  It is not about our good deeds outweighing our bad deeds.  Faith without works is dead - not because works are necessary, but because they are an expression of a life lived in submission to God.  Works are the fruit of my heart; good works are the expression of a heart aligned with God's heart.

Opie:  I know we are moving on, but there is so much left to explore on this topic.  So much flows out of what you believe about salvation:  evangelism and the topic of other religions, the role of spiritual disciplines, the specific details the bible gives about salvation, what is heaven?, etc. 

Me:  Yep.  And the discussion is not linear - meaning one doesn't flow into another which flows into another, etc.   You really have to talk about all of these topics simultaneously to make sense of any of them.  We really could have started our talks with any of the topics you listed and eventually it would flow into all the other topics.

Opie:  Well.  I am off.  I need to get started with the rest of my day.

Me:  Later.  See you in a few weeks.  Be prepared, if you think I am crazy now, I can't wait to hear what you think about my views on how we determine truth.   You might want to go ahead and bring your stake, lighter fluid and matches.

Opie:  We don't resort to such tactics anymore.   I think Focus on the Family is working on some legislation to allow us to use either the electric chair or lethal injection to handle heretics such as yourself.

Me:  At least that is progress.  Until next time...

Jesus and Salvation - Part 5b - Dialogue

{Disclaimer:  I started this before Christmas, thus the references to Santa.  I thought about editing that part out before posting, but I thought I took some great shots at Santa Claus, and I didn't want to take those out!  So, here we go...}

[This is part 2 of a fictional conversation.  Part 1 was posted on November 30th]

Me:  Hey - nice Jesus tee shirt.  "Abreadcrumb and Fish".  I like it.

Opie:  Yea, they were out of the one I wanted.  I had trouble deciding between this one and the one that looked like a Coke tee-shirt.

Me:  Let me guess - "Jesus:  The Real Thing."

Opie:  Yep.  Pretty clever huh?

Me:  No doubt.  Those Christian clothing companies are very clever - crafty as serpents they are. 

Opie:  Smart-alec.  Well, I need to take the kids to see Santa Claus this morning; so, let's go ahead and jump in where we left off.

Me:  Ahh - Santa; The universe's other omniscient being.  Have you ever noticed that Santa is an anagram for Satan.  Things that make you go hmmmm.

Anyway, I think we were talking about God's holiness and justice.  I was about to explain another way that God's holiness and need for justice would not be compromised while at the same time making a way for us to have relationship with Him.

Opie.  That's right.  I think you said something about having to set up some bowling pins before you made your main point.

Me:  Right.  Here is the first one:  Were you aware of the "small print" in the orthodox doctrine?

Opie:  Small print?  What are you talking about?

Me:  Well, it turns out that works do matter after all.

Opie:  That goes against everything I have been taught at church, but go ahead.

Me:  According to orthodox belief, what you do determines what your experience in heaven will be like.  Grace will get you in the door, but "works" determine what your experience will be like once you get there.  Randy Alcorn has written volumes on this - see his books Money, Possessions and Eternity and Heaven.  C.S. Lewis' book, The Great Divorce explores this idea of the after-life as well.  Finally, Dallas Willard explores this concept in The Divine Conspiracy - Chapter 10:  The Restoration of All Things.

Opie:  Fine.  As long as I am in heaven, that is fine with me.  I will choose a nose-bleed seat in heaven over spending an eternity in hell every single time.

Me:  Me too; I just hope my actions are motivated by love not fear.  Anyway, in regard to heaven, there are degrees of experience; and our eternal experience is based upon what we do with our time on Earth.  Dallas Willard says that we will reign over the universe with Christ, and our responsibilities in heaven are based upon our earthly existence.

Opie:  Are you sure it is what we do, or is it what we become that allows us different experiences in heaven.  I don't think it is the actions themselves that earn treasure in heaven but the amount that our heart becomes sanctified.

Me:  You may not have realized it, but that question gets to the essence of everything I hope we talk about today. I agree with you, but people such as Randy Alcorn truly believe it is what you DO that results in each of us having different experiences / treasures in heaven. That actually leads to the second bowling pin - our hearts.  Ever read any John Eldredge books?

Opie:  Yes.  I read Wild at Heart.

Me:  I have read everything he has written.  I am a big fan.  I consider Journey of Desire to be one of the ten most influential books of my life; I bet I have read it at least 5 times.  I think he does a great job of exposing emasculated Christianity for what it is while at the same he motivates me to follow hard after God.

Opie:  But?

Me:  But, I think he is wrong on at least one point; but I don't think it is just John; from what I can tell it is orthodox doctrine.  I have always wanted to go back and do a complete run through the Bible to see if it is in the Bible or if orthodox Christianity just made assumptions when connecting the dots.  What is your reaction to this statement:  "When someone becomes saved they are given a new heart."

Opie:  I agree with that.  I know for sure that is in the Bible. 

Me:  Me too.  Here is where I disagree with Eldredge and orthodox Christianity - they conclude that the "new" heart is a "good" heart.

Opie:  Right.  When you get saved your sins are forgiven - the slate is wiped clean; you become holy in God's sight.  You have a good heart.  If it doesn't come right out and say it in the Bible, then it is definitely implied.   Why, do you think we are given a "bad" heart?

Me:  No.  I think we are given a "free" heart.  When we submit to God, we are in fact choosing to allow God to free us from bondage.  We have the ability to no longer be slaves to sin - we become free by surrendering to God.  We are a new creation not because our hearts are good, but because they are free.

Opie:  Why does it have to be either/or - why can't you say that our hearts become free AND good?  In fact, I think that more accurately describes what I believe.

Me:  I guess you could believe that, but the evidence is not in your favor.  Remember when faced with a paradox, check your premises.

Opie:  What evidence?  What paradox?

Me:  It is a question of fruit.  How can a perfectly good heart produce bad fruit?

Opie:  That one is easy.  We are not perfect - just forgiven.

Me:  You are just full of great bumper stickers aren't you?  However, I don't think you have answered the question.  Jesus said "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit".  In light of that, how do explain the sinful behavior that still comes out of people after they become saved - how do good trees produce bad fruit?

Opie:  Again, we don't become perfect at the time of salvation.  We begin the journey of sanctification.  We become more Christ-like as we grow in our relationship with God.  As we become more Christ-like our actions become more Christ-like.

Me:  What is being sanctified?  What is becoming more Christ-like within you?

Opie:  I know you want me to say "my heart", but that can't be.  My heart must be good for me to be in relationship with God.

Me:  I agree.

Opie:  Huh?  Aren't you contradicting yourself?  You just said that our hearts don't become good at the time of salvation, they simply become free.  Now you are saying that our hearts must be good in order to be in relationship with God.  Which is it?  You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth.

Me:  OK.  Here is where I try to tie the "bowling pins" together.  I don't think things are so black and white.  I don't think it is "you either have a relationship with God or you don't".  I think our relationship with God lies somewhere on a continuum. 

I think it is possible that we have a relationship with God to the degree that our hearts have been redeemed - been made good.  Here is another way of putting it.  People such as yourself believe it is black and white:  you are either saved or you are not.  You are either going to heaven or you are not.  Your sins are forgiven or they are not.  Either - or.  Black and White. 

Opie:  That is right.  The bible clearly teaches that.  Are you saying that is not correct?

Me:  No.  It may be - you just have to accept some paradoxes to believe that.  Remember, I am not saying anything definitive; I am just saying there are some alternative ways of looking at things that make at least as much if not more sense to me.   I am stating things as "I think it is possible...".  I am not saying "I am right, and you are wrong."

Opie:  Oh yea.  I keep forgetting that.  Anyway, so help me understand.  If it is not either-or / saved-not saved, then what is it?  You are either saved or you are not saved - you are either in heaven or you are not - how else can you look at it?

Me:  Let me state this first:  I don't feel like I have a complete grasp of this in my mind yet.  I have to admit things are still fuzzy in my mind on this.  I will admit that there are possible problems with this "alternative theory" that I have not considered.  If you see some, please let me know.  And although the concept seems to be coming into focus as time goes on, I still don't feel like I have the language to fully communicate what is inside my head.

Opie:  Oh, Lord.  This should be a real doozie.  I'm listening.

Me:  I think we come from aliens.  I think we were planted on earth from beings that previously existed on Mars - beings that were facing extinction but wanted to preserve life so they sent life to earth.

Opie:  Right!  Remind me to never let you get near my children.

Me:  Just joking.  Actually, I pulled that from a great movie; unfortunately, I can't remember the name - it was either Red Planet or Mission to Mars - I get them confused.

Seriously.  Here is my best attempt to explain this "alternative theory".   What if "salvation" was actually shades of grey and not black-and-white?  What if salvation was not a one time event, but an ongoing process?  What if salvation and sanctification were not different things but really the same thing? 

Opie:  Huh?  How can you be partially saved?  How can you be partially in heaven and partially out?  You can't be in God's presence - thus in heaven - unless you are completely holy; thus completely forgiven. 

Me:  Those are great questions.  I have asked those questions to myself; I feel as if there is an answer in my head - I just don't know how well I have learned to communicate it yet.  The language is still forming, but here is my best attempt to answer your questions.

Remember, the whole idea of salvation is based on us trying to meet three criteria.  1.  God's desire to be in relationship with us - even though we are unholy / sinful beings.  2.  God's holiness - he can not be in the presence of unholiness.  3.  God's justice - he can't simply excuse our unholiness, payment must be made somehow.   Do you agree with that?

Opie:  Yes.

Me:  Orthodox Christianity has found a way to meet all three of them - since Jesus was sinless, he was the perfect sacrifice for our sins.  If we believe in him (or about him - still not sure which) then his death makes payment for our sin - God forgives our sin; we become holy beings and thus can be in relationship with him.

Opie:  Yep

Me:  I know we covered this earlier, but the question is how do holy beings such as ourselves sin?  Are we holy or not?  Are we really not holy, but God sees as holy?  Those questions (and a few others) are what keep me from completely buying off on the orthodox view.

Opie:  All right.  So, are you saying the three criteria (God's desire to be in relationship with us; God's holiness; God's justice) are bad assumptions?

Me:  Not at all.  They make sense to me.  Here is my best attempt to explain this "shades of grey" theory - starting from the beginning:

1.  God has created man such that he knows in his heart that He (God) exists and that he desires relationship with us and that we are to live in submission to Him.

2.  There is a direct relationship between dying to self (take up your cross and follow me) and the depth of our relationship with God.  Degrees.  None of us have fully surrendered (regardless of what we "say" in the sinner's prayer), thus none of us have the depth of relationship with God as is possible.  Imagine a straight line - it is a line with arrows on the end, there are no end points.  Each of us - even atheists - are somewhere on this continuum.

Remember the small print of orthodoxy is that your works matter after all.  What you do determines what "treasure" you have in heaven.  I think it is more likely, that our experience in heaven is related to the degree that our hearts have been made good - not what we do, but what we have become.

Notice, this view eliminates the paradox.  It now makes sense that I still do sinful things - my heart is not fully surrendered, nor is anyone else's.  There is part of me that is still producing bad fruit.  To some degree we are all good trees and all bad trees.  We all produce good fruit and we all produce bad fruit.  I have yet to hear a good orthodox answer as to how "fully redeemed" people still commit sinful acts.  Our actions are the overflow of our hearts; so, if we committing sinful acts, where are they coming from?  Orthodoxy talks about sanctification - what is being sanctified?  If we are holy, what is left to be sanctified? 

So, in this alternative view or the orthodox view there are consequences in heaven.  If there are consequences, then God's justice is being carried out.  I pay the price for all eternity for the part of me that does not get to experience the fullness of relationship with God in eternity.  So, going back to the three criteria:

1.  God desires relationship with us - we are unholy beings.
Both views agree with this.  No conflict there.

2. God is perfectly holy and can not be in the presence of unholiness.
I don't think anything I laid out conflicts with this.

3.  God is just.  He can not just simply ignore our sin. 
The view I laid out says that there consequences.  We experience relationship with God to the DEGREE that we have been made holy / sanctified. So, if by any measure I don't get to experience the fullness of relationship with God, I am suffering eternally for that.

Opie:  What size shirt do you wear?

Me:  It fluctuates - depending on what time of the year it is - right now I in between large and XL.

Opie:  OK.  I needed to know what size strait-jacket to order for you.  You are crazy - you know that don't you?

Me:  I do wonder that myself at times.

Opie:  Here is the main thing that I see as being wrong with your "theory".  If it is true, then we are all in trouble - deep, deep trouble.  In fact, even considering your theory makes me very sad.  If true, which I am quite certain it is not, but if it was then we are all doomed.  We are so far from being holy that all of our experiences in heaven will basically amount to nothing.  When comparing ourselves to each other, we can see big gaps, but when you compare any of our "holiness" to God's holiness, we are all way down on the left side of the line you were talking about - in fact, infinitely down on the left side of the line.

Me:  Yes.  You are right. However, I know it is getting late, and you need to get your kids to Satan - uhhh, I mean Santa.  Let's pick back up here next week.

Opie:  All right.  I want to tell you something first.  All joking aside.  My heart breaks for you.  I am concerned about you.  I am scared for you.  I want you to know that. 

Me:  I know, and it means a lot.  I am very scared myself at times.  I have to tell you though, it is that you or anyone else can feel any sense of love, any sense of brokenness for me or people like me that gives me hope - not just for myself, but for all of us.

Going Through the Bible

It has been a while since I posted.  I should be getting back into a normal rhythm of life this week; so, I hope to get back to posting.  In regard to my fictional conversation with Opie, I hope to continue that this weekend. 

Hold me accountable.  This year I hope to make my way - or at least make great strides - toward methodically making my way through the bible.  My plan is to just read and then comment on anything that comes to mind.  I found a bible reading plan that I am excited about - it orders the reading sequence based on chronological events in the bible.

Although my goal is to just makes notes on things that cross my mind as I read them, I hope to have an eye out for a few specific things:

1.  Write down anything in the OT that seems inconsistent with the God preached from our pulpits.

2.  List anything that I just have a difficult time taking as historically accurate (could this have been videotaped or photographed?).  e.g.  Balaam's talking donkey comes to mind, thousands of revived corpses walking around the streets of Jerusalem, etc.

3.  Record anything that seems to conflict with our modern understanding of the natural sciences, physics, history, etc.

4.  Anything that seems to be contradictory with other parts of the bible.

Of course, I hope God speaks to me as I am going through this.  I don't want this to only be a research project.

Eventually I want to get into topics regarding epistemology which will lead to posting on the bible itself.  Right now I lean toward the bible being authoritative and even divinely inspired, but in no way do I think it is inerrant.  My church recently reaffirmed the idea of Sola Scriptura - meaning the Bible and the Bible alone is our source of authority.  If anything conflicts with the Bible, then it must be wrong.  So, I want to go through the bible for myself and just make a note of things that make me question inerrancy - things that I must reconcile somehow if I am going to come back to the fold of believing the bible is inerrant.

Changing gears.  I wanted to mention a change in how I will be posting to my  blog this year.

My hope in 2007 is to blog more often.  Despite the low quality of work that I have been posting, the reality is that I have been spending a great deal of time trying to organize my thoughts into some kind of order and then a great deal of time working on the language to best express those thoughts.  In 2007, the posts are going to be more raw.  My wife does Creative Memories - if she spent a great deal of time making every page look all pretty and perfect, she would never keep up with all the photos she takes.  So, her philosophy is to just get pages done and not let the details get in the way.  That is my new strategy when it comes to this blog.  Eventually I want to condense and polish the raw material and post it another blog I recently created.  Right now I hope to do that before moving on to the next topic, but we will see.

Tomorrow, I hope to publish my thoughts on the first several chapters of Genesis.

Jesus and Salvation - Part 5a - Dialogue

For future reference the person representing the orthodox view in this post will be Opie (Orthodox Person - O.P. - get it?).  Although the questions and my responses are serious; please don't be offended, a lot of this below is tongue and cheek.  Here we go:

Opie:  Wow!  I knew you had dashing good looks and world-class athletic ability, but I had no idea that you were such a talented writer.

Me:  Don't forget about my charming personality.

Opie:  Why state the obvious?

Me:  Good point.

Opie:  It is a shame that a person of your stature, prominence, gifting, talents, personality, charm, good looks and athletic ability is going to spend an eternity in hell.

Me:  I know.  At least I prefer hot weather to cold.  I will tell Ted Haggard, Robert Tilton, the entire Catholic Church and 4/5 of all humanity you said hello.

Opie:  My first question is "Why are you doing this?"  You say that you think Christianity is a perfectly acceptable way to come into relationship with God; so, why not just embrace it and quit spending so much time exploring other thoughts.  The stakes are so high.  You have children - don't you think what you are doing is extremely dangerous and even irresponsible?

Me:  Dangerous - yes.  Irresponsible - no.  If fact, I think it is very irresponsible to not ask these questions.  I have often wondered that if it were possible, would I go back in time and swallow the blue pill instead of the red pill.  Life was much easier and less stressful before I truly opened up my mind to new ways of thinking.  The truth is that I would do a lot of things differently; there has been a lot of pain on this journey that could have been avoided if I would have made some different choices along the way; however, I would still take the red pill. 

The truth is that I had to explore this.  I had too many questions, too many splinters in my mind to be at ease with the orthodox position.  I think it was hard for me to truly trust God by believing the orthodox doctrine; it is hard to fully submit to someone if you don't trust their character and competence.

Opie:  That is shaky ground.  Really who are you to question God?  The Bible reprimands people who do this - Aren't we just clay?  Who are we to question the potter?

Me:  I am not questioning the potter.  I am questioning the clay's interpretation of the potter.  Simply, I am questioning orthodoxy not God.  In fact, it is because I don't question God's character and competence that I must question orthodoxy.  But, there are other reasons that I choose to live in Wonderland.

For the sake of integrity, I needed to ask the questions for myself.  I had blindly accepted so many of the orthodox beliefs and trusted those who handed them down to me.  My thinking was 'Hey, these are godly, loving people telling me these things.  I am sure at some point they struggled with these same questions and they obviously landed on familiar ground'.  Over time I would throw out a few of my "splinters" and I realized very few had ever asked the questions for themselves - and I am talking about pastors and elders not just pugh warmers.  I wondered, "how far back does this blind acceptance go?"  It was very scary to me to realize how many people never questioned any of this.

Also, the bible teaches us to be able to give a ready defense of our faith.  I wanted to explore the questions so that I could be prepared to answer in the event anyone ever asked me why I believe what I do - especially my children.  When I started this journey, I truly expected to land firmly in the orthodox world.  I took the red pill convinced it would be all right - that at the end of the road I would find orthodox answers that were satisfying.  I was pretty far down the rabbit hole, when I said "Uh oh.  We're not in Kansas anymore".  The problem now is that I can not go back - asking me to accept many of the orthodox beliefs would be like asking me to believe in Santa Claus.  I may be stuck in Wonderland forever.

Finally, I know you think it is impossible.  I know that you think I am deceiving myself, but I truly believe God is behind this.  I truly believe God has created me for such a time as this.  So many streams in my life have finally merged to form one river.  I have been on a passionate pursuit for 7 or 8 years to find my place in the Kingdom.  Maybe in a future conversation we can get into the specifics, but for now I can say that this journey was necessary to prepare me for what lies ahead. 

I have met God in this journey in ways that I had not before.  I am at peace in my heart with Him.  If I were to die today, I would have no anxiety about my eternal destiny.

Opie:  Man, you are long-winded.

Me:  Sorry.  It feels so good to get it out. 

Opie:  I don't mean to offend you, but come on - who do you think you are - the next Martin Luther or something?  You realize that orthodox doctrine has been around for well over a thousand years - sure it has evolved a little here and there, but the core hasn't changed.  Don't you feel a little arrogant coming up with these "alternative theories"?

Me:  In no way do I think I am the next Martin Luther.  I am aiming to the best Joel Osteen I can possibly be - just kidding.  I have posted extensively on this in the past (see posts on postmodernism), but the short version is that I did think I was crazy for a while.  I had all these crazy thoughts in my head.  However, when I realized I wasn't alone it made me open to the idea that God was moving somehow in all this.  Remember the scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind when Richard Dreyfuss is building the dirt mountain in his living room - crazy person, right?  Then, he sees the real version of the mountain he is building on the news - a mountain he never knew existed.  He still doesn't know what it is, but he knows he is drawn to it.  That is how I feel.   Am I the next Martin Luther?  No.  However, I can tell you that I feel called to help people like myself in these transitional times.  I want to help clear the path in the jungle to help others avoid many of the painful and frightening experiences I have had to endure.  The truth is that more and more people are finding the evangelical "answers" to be unbelievable and/or harmful.  A lot of these same people believe that atheism or things like Wicca are the only alternatives.  I feel like my place in the kingdom is to help people like me realize that there is a better way.

Opie:  Well, let's get into some of the specifics regarding your "theory" regarding salvation.  (read next four sentences using Saturday Night Live church lady voice):  Where to start - there are so many problems, inconsistencies, and holes - I don't know which one to choose first.  Where to start?  I don't know.  Hmmm.  Maybe.. - Jesus!).  (Back to normal voice now): I feel like you are messing with my Jesus.  If what you say is true, then it takes away the emphasis on Jesus.  I love me some Jesus - how can what you are saying be correct if by any degree you take the spotlight off of him?

Me:  You are right in one sense and wrong in another. Ironically, I actually have a much higher opinion of Jesus than I had before I started exploring things for myself.  I am not saying the spotlight should be taken off Jesus - just that we are using the wrong kind of lighting.  I think orthodoxy is using a laser pointer when they need to be using a spotlight.

Do I feel compelled to convince others that Jesus is God so that they can be saved?  No.  Basically, I think the evangelical church emphasizes the wrong things about Jesus' life.  If Jesus were walking the earth today, I think he would say, "Hey, I am strictly here to point to the Father.  You should worship the Father.  Sing praise to the Father.  Pray to the Father.  All these songs and sermons about me are very flattering, but don't forget that everything about my life is strictly to help you form relationship with the Father - don't lose that focus.  And, by the way, War Eagle!". 

Opie:  Come on, you know Jesus would be a Notre Dame fan.

Me:  Ok.  Just as long as he is not an Alabama fan!  But, we digress.  Back to Jesus.

I admit there are probably some things our finite minds will never comprehend, but I think you have to admit there are many paradoxes in the doctrine of the trinity.  However, even if the doctrine of the trinity is correct, for some reason the church only focuses on the "God part" not the "man part".   To borrow some language from a book I read*:

"If one had to present the doctrine of the person of Christ as a union of oil and water, then it (orthodox doctrine) made the best possible attempt to do so.  It is not surprising, however, that in popular Christianity the oil and water separated, and that one or the other came to the top.  Christ only appeared to be a man or looked like a man: 'underneath' he was God.  He looked like a man, he talked like a man, he felt like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up.  The supranaturalist view of the incarnation can never really rid itself of the idea of the prince who appears in the guise of a beggar."

Simply, evangelicals say that they believe Jesus was fully God and fully man. However, the emphasis is really on his divinity.  Personally, when I see Jesus as a man his life takes on more meaning to me.  His life shows me what a life lived in submission to the Father looks like.  At a minimum, I believe he "incarnated" God by living in submission to the Father.  I can look at the life of Jesus and see God's character because God lived through Jesus.  For example, Jesus did not have supernatural knowledge, but depended on God to tell him things he needed to know when he needed to know them - see the story of the woman at the well. 

In fact, if the doctrine of the trinity is correct, the only time I think the "God part" is relevant would be at the cross where a perfect sacrifice was necessary to satisfy God's wrath - and even then I think there are ways to satisfy the doctrine of God being completely holy and just even if Jesus was not God.

Opie:  Let me get this straight.  God is perfectly holy - which means he can not be in the presence of anything unholy.  God is perfectly just - which means he can't simply snap his fingers and excuse all the sin in the world.  Payment has to be made somehow.  So, as I understand it, only a perfect sacrifice could pay for all of man's sins and only once someone's sins are forgiven can they be in relationship with God.  Do you agree with that?

Me:  There are some things that keep me from buying off on this doctrine hook, line and sinker, but overall, I will say that it makes rational sense to me.  Remember that I think it is entirely possible that Jesus was God which means I am completely fine with the orthodox theory of atonement.  The difference between me and orthodox believers is that even if it is true, then I don't think it is necessary to believe it is true and/or understand it to be in relationship with God.  However, I can think of two other ways in which God's holiness and justice are both satisfied without Jesus having to be divine.

Opie:  All right - let's hear the first one.

Me:   The orthodox view states that when we become "saved" that our sins are forgiven, that God removes our sin as far as the east is from the west (never fully grasped that one), that we become as white as snow, etc.  In other words, we are seen as perfect and holy in God's eyes.  So, is it possible that Jesus was not divine, but he made himself clean before God through the ritualistic sacrifices of the time?  In other words, despite being an imperfect human Jesus could have been seen as perfectly holy in God's eyes just as we are the time of our salvation?  If so, could he not have been the perfect sacrifice to justify God's wrath?

Opie:  I see a couple of problems with that.  First, you have to remember that all of the ritualistic sacrifices used to restore the Hebrew people back to holiness before God were all grounded in the future work of Jesus on the cross.  Saying it another way, Jesus could not have been made clean before God with the ritualistic sacrifices if they were not all grounded in God Himself dying on the cross at some point.  In other words, it was the death of God on the cross that made all the sacrifices meaningful.

Me:  That makes sense to me, and I tend to agree with you.  I bring it up because I think it shows how intricate the whole orthodox atonement theory is.  In order for the orthodox atonement theory to be correct, you have to believe that the death of Jesus on the cross applied to all time - not just from that point forward.  We keep adding layers to the doctrine and if even one layer is mistaken, then the whole thing unravels.

Opie:  Ok.  Let's move on.  What is another way in which God's holiness and justice can both be satisfied without Jesus having to be God?

Me:  That will require me setting up some bowling pins first.  So, let's call it quits for today and finish our discussion at some other time.

Opie:  Ok.  Hey, you want to run some errands with me?  I am about to go pick up the latest Thomas Kincade painting and a new Jesus tee-shirt - it shows a referee crossing his arms at waist level, and the caption says "Penalty Declined".  I had trouble deciding between it and the sunglasses with the cross imprinted on the side.

Me:  Tempting, but I will pass this time.  I need to run some errands myself - running low on beer, and I need to find a new book on poker theory.  TTFN.

Jesus and Salvation - Part 4

In my last post I listed many of the problems I have with the evangelical orthodox doctrine of salvation.  Today I will try to lay out how I believe someone becomes saved.

Faith not Belief
Salvation is about faith - not belief.  When we cross over I don't think God will be standing at the pearly gates with a clipboard going through a checklist of questions:  Did you believe that Jesus was God?  Check.  Did you say the sinner's prayer?  Check.  Bonus Points:  Do you remember the date you said the prayer (i.e. became a Christian)?  Great - Check; Peter, add on the spare bedroom in this one's mansion.   I know this is a silly illustration, but the reality is that this is what evangelical doctrine teaches - you must believe a certain list of propositional truths in order to be saved.

Got It All Backwards
I think if Jesus were walking the earth today he would tell us that our doctrine is all backwards.  I think he would tell us that we have missed the point - the focus of his message - the emphasis should be on relationship with the Father not eternal salvation.  If we focus on our relationship with God I truly believe that the eternal destiny thing will work itself out - I don't believe the reverse is true.   Also, a focus on relationship is driven by love and reverence.  Many times fear (of hell) is the driving factor behind those who focus on salvation.  Which seems healthier to you - being motivated by love and respect or fear?

Relationship Through Submission
An orthodox person might argue here that salvation is required first to make relationship possible.  I argue that relationship becomes possible through submission.  I don't think an orthodox person would disagree with me, but I think they would add that submission only comes when you confess Jesus as Lord - and by Lord, they mean God.  This is where I disagree.

The spiritual journey is all about the heart.  Are beliefs important?  Yes, but at the end of the day; it is the orientation of our heart that matters.  That is where the rubber meets the road.  Satan and the demons believed the list of propositional truths that evangelicals say are required for entrance into heaven, but I don't think their future plans include gold streets and pearly gates.  So, what is the difference?  They do not have submissive hearts.

Having a submissive heart is the road to relationship.  The way I see it, a life of submission involves two things:  do whatever we can to grow in our ability to hear God's voice and to grow in our capacity to respond in faith to what we hear.  Hear and obey - that's it.   If someone is truly living their life this way (and not deceiving themselves), then I think they have a relationship with God, and if they have a relationship with God, then I think they will be saved.  I can not imagine a loving God denying a relationship with someone who is truly seeking to be in relationship with Him - regardless of their understanding of who Jesus was/is.

This view of salvation can lead the conversation down several paths.  I hope to blog extensively (as you know I can) on each topic at a future date, but here are some quick summary points of how this understanding of salvation manifests itself in other areas:

Spiritual Disciplines:  The spiritual disciplines are the things we do to live a life of submission.  A spiritual discipline is anything we do that puts us on God's pottery wheel; they are the things we do that give God permission to mold, shape and direct our lives.  They are the things we do to initiate and grow in our relationship with God - to grow in our ability to hear and respond to His voice.  So, yes - I do believe that spiritual disciplines are necessary for salvation.  At a minimum I know this brings up some questions and at a maximum some rage at my heresy.  I will go into this further in my final post on this topic.

Evangelism:  It is not about convincing someone that Jesus is God.  Evangelism for me is helping people understand that they need to live a life in submission to a God who wants to be in relationship with them and whose character and competence they can trust.

Other Religions:  Since someone doesn't have to believe that Jesus is God, I believe it is possible that people all over the world have relationship with God - people of a different religion and culture included. 

Community:  If salvation is the fruit of relationship (and not the other way around), and relationship comes from hearing and responding to God's voice, then community becomes much more critical in regard to salvation.  It is important to share our relational journey with others so that we are not deceiving ourselves into thinking we are hearing God's voice when we really aren't.  Community also gives us the benefit of learning from the journey and experiences of others.  Community is important for orthodox believers, but not for salvation. 

Eliminating Paradox:  A famous philosopher once said "By essence and nature of existence, contradictions cannot exist.  Check your premises.  You will find that at least one of them is wrong."  Also, C.F.D Moule said "It is a sacred duty for any thinking person to try to eliminate paradox".  As I see it there are several paradoxes with the orthodox view that my understanding of salvation seems to eliminate:

1.  The problem with fruit.  Jesus said, "I am the vine; you are the branches.  If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."  The bible describes spiritual fruit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  So, if you must believe Jesus is God in order to be connected to the vine, then how do we explain spiritual fruit in the lives of people outside of Christianity?  How do we explain that people of other cultures and religions even grow in these areas - e.g. become more patient, more kind, etc.?

2.  Romans 1:20 says that all men are without excuse.  The idea behind that verse is that all men have a longing for relationship with God written on their hearts - all men know in their hearts that they should submit to God. Simply, we are all born with a "God-hole" that only God himself can fill, and at the deepest level we all know this to be true.  And not only in their hearts, but someone should be able to look at creation and know that there is a God with the implication being if we know God exists we should seek to surrender our lives to His will.  IMHO, this verse implies that it is possible for all men throughout time to have been in relationship with God.  The orthodox view of salvation, however, requires that someone "confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead" before they are saved.   These two statements seem to conflict with each other to me.  Which premise is incorrect?

What's next:
In my final post on this topic I will try to unwrap my thinking a little further.  I am going to change the format a little bit - the final post will be in form of a fictional dialog.  If there are any questions you would like to see answered in the dialog, please send them my way. 

Jesus and Salvation - Part 3 - Issues with Orthodox View

Introduction
First, my apologies.  This is a very long post.  Remember, this is therapy for me; I needed to get all of this out!

Today I hope to do two things.  Address some bad assumptions that many Evangelical Christians make when I begin discussing this topic with them.  Then I want to outline some of my concerns with the orthodox doctrine of salvation.  I will offer my alternative "salvation theory" in the next post.

Bad Assumptions
Over the last few years I have had enough conversations about this topic to know that I should proactively address some bad assumptions that evangelicals make when we are discussing this topic. 

1.  I do not think the orthodox understanding of salvation in any way prevents someone from coming into relationship with God.  Millions (if not billions) of people have started into a relationship with God by following the path of salvation as I laid it out yesterday.  It works.  It is a good thing - not a bad thing.  I see my understanding of the "path to salvation" as including the orthodox path not tossing it aside.  In other words, it is "A" way to enter into a relationship with God, but not "THE" way.  To make an analogy, Newtonian physics worked for hundreds of years and even today for everyday life it works just fine; however Einstein's theories of relativity showed that Newtonian physics was "right" but not "completely right".  The laws of physics are much broader than we realized.  I think the same is true in regard to how people come into relationship with God.  Christianity is like Newtonian physics.

2.  That leads to the next bad assumption.  I do not think ALL religions lead to God.  I don't think everyone has their "own path up the mountain".  I don't think all religions and cultures are equal.  The reality is that I think most religions (including Christianity) do more to prevent someone from having a relationship with God than they do to foster it.  So, in that sense I think ALL religions are wrong - not right.

3.  I still believe it is all about grace.  You can not work your way into heaven.  There is no amount of good you can do to reconcile yourself with God and earn his favor.

Problems with Orthodox Doctrine
If I accurately described the orthodox position on salvation yesterday, then here is a list of things that make me think we should go back and look at this doctrine again.  Some of the puzzle pieces don't fit together as they should.  Here are some examples:

1.  It makes me question God's character and/or competence.
If the orthodox path to salvation is correct, then Christianity is THE only God ordained religion.  There is no other way to come into relationship with God outside of Christianity. 

If you subscribe to the mainstream doctrine of salvation, then billions of people are going to spend an eternity in endless torture and suffering.  If you have to believe Jesus was God in order to be saved, then billions of people are going to burn in hell forever without even having a chance to hear about Jesus.  And even for those who have heard, they are so blinded by their cultural lenses that they never had a fair chance of believing - everything in the world tells them that inherited religion is "the way" to God - not Christianity. 

Evangelicals believe that God chose the nation of Israel.  He would bless them and then bless the world through them.  Eventually Jesus comes along and gives more direct access to non-Jews, but I have to ask what about all the people who lived 4,000 years prior to Jesus coming?  What about the people in China, Japan, Africa, etc. who lived and died and never had any exposure to the Jewish people - never even knew they existed?

One of the biggest mysteries of my spiritual journey is why it seems that I am only one of a few evangelical Christians that seem to have a problem with this.  Everyone else seems to be all right with this for some reason.  Of all the objections to the evangelical path to salvation, this is the one thought that shakes me most.  I will admit that there may be a way to subscribe to the orthodox doctrine and reconcile this dilemma somehow, but at this point in my journey, I must admit that this one thought makes me think we (meaning evangelicals) have got it wrong somehow. 

Lord, if the orthodox plan is actually your way, then please forgive me.  Please understand it is because I believe that you are loving and that you are in control that I question the orthodox teaching.  The evangelical plan of salvation seems to contradict what I believe to be true about you.  From my humble perspective, at best it seems like there could have been a better way to bring people into relationship with yourself, and at worst it seems very unloving.

2.  The data does not fit.
If the evangelical path to salvation is the only way, then how do you explain the spiritual fruit that manifests itself in the lives of others.  The bible quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the vine.  You are the branches.  You can do nothing without me."  If that is true, then how do you explain the spiritual fruit in those outside of Christianity (which the bible defines as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control)?

Also, when you look at the writings within other cultures and religions; they seem just as profound as the Bible.  I am no expert, but when I read passages from the Tao, the Analects of Confucius, and even the modern writings of some Buddhist monks such as Thich Nat Hanh, something in my heart resonates with what they are saying.  There are some golden threads of truth that seem to keep coming up in all of them - the golden rule (stated by Confucius and Buddha 500 years before Jesus) and the act of putting to death the false self are just two of the core threads that make me think these authors were plugged into relationship with God somehow as they were writing.

3.  Why not atone for the whole world - at least those who try to submit to God even if they don't subscribe to the evangelical salvation plan?
If Jesus was the perfect sacrifice then his death could have atoned for the sins of everyone - not just those who acknowledge his as Lord.  God's justice would have been served.  However, evangelicals believe that one must confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead in order for Jesus' death to atone for their sins.  The idea is that God would never force himself on anyone - we must choose to be in relationship with him.  The logic seems sound, but here is my problem with it:

Does God not recognize that many people are just blinded by their culture to make this impossible?  Billions of non-Christians are truly trying to live in obedience to God - they are not sticking their finger in God's face and saying "I'm doing it my way.  Leave me alone".   In fact, I think you find this "my way or no way attitude" in America and in Western Europe much more than you do in non-Christian nations. 

If you see someone about to commit suicide, do you just go ahead and let them do it, and say, "Oh well.  It is their choice."  Or do you stop them knowing that their thinking is twisted somehow and after you save them you know that they will end up thanking you later when the clouds in their mind clear up?

The Bible says in the end, "every knee shall bow".  Imagine God conversing with someone just banished to hell:

Person on way to hell:  God, I realize now how I was wrong.  Jesus was your son after all; Jesus is God; he did rise from the dead.  I see it all so clearly now.

God:  Oh well - too late.  You had your chance.  Too bad you didn't have the ability to see outside of your cultural lens while you were on earth.  Really, you are without excuse, you know; couldn't you just look at the heavens and creation and figure it all out? 

Person on way to hell:  But, God doesn't it count that I truly tried to be obedient to you. I had a submissive heart. I lived my life trying to do what I thought you would approve of.  I realize now that some of my thinking was twisted (the cultural lens thing, you know), but I think my heart was in the right place.  Does that count for anything?

God:  I know you thought you were truly following after me - trying to be obedient to me, but I am afraid that just doesn't cut it.    I am sorry; it is too late.  You had your chance (even though you really didn't).

Person on way to hell:  God, you knew I wanted to follow after you.  You knew I sacrificed so much to be what I thought was obedient to your will.  Why didn't you step in and save me? I was in a burning building the whole time, but I didn't even realize it.  Why didn't you pull me out before I died from the flames?

God:  Believe me. It hurt to see you burning in the flames, and it hurts to know that you will burn for eternity in hell, but I couldn't really force myself on you could I?  You were free to run out of the building at any time you wanted.  It is too bad that your cultural lens didn't allow you to hear the smoke alarms, see the flames or smell the smoke.  I wanted to rush in and help but then I couldn't really do that could I?

Person in hell:  I thought I lived a life full of mercy and compassion.  I thought Jesus said, blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy?

God:  I did show you mercy - you got to live on earth for a while didn't you?  You got 40 good years before I banished you to hell forever.

Person on way to hell:  So, is this it?  I am now on my way to hell forever?

God:  Fraid so.  Well, actually that may depend on your definition of forever.  You see in a few trillion years the universe will collapse on itself and then another Big Bang will happen thus setting the stage for a new cycle.  Who knows, I may press the "reset" button then.  BTW, isn't it ironic that so many Christians believe in 6 literal days of creation?  Thank goodness that I didn't require that their beliefs be correct on that one!

Personally, I just don't see a conversation like this being possible.

4.  The formula
The Roman Road to Salvation.  The Campus Crusade for Christ Four Spiritual Laws, Etc.  Basically, say this prayer (and mean it) and you will be saved.  The evangelical path to salvation is very linear - a nice and neat formula.

I have always been intrigued by the people who got "saved" in the gospels.  I am guessing that none of them thought Jesus was God.  They may have thought he was a great prophet and some probably thought he was the promised messiah, but a Jew living at that time would never have thought that Jesus was God - their religion was one of strict monotheism.  The idea of God being in heaven AND on earth would not have made sense to them.

Also, let's look at some of Jesus' own words (according to the Bible):

a.  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

b.  Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.

c.  Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God.

d.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

e.  Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Then, what about the other stories where Jesus dishes out salvation in ways that don't match up to the Roman Road of Salvation formula?  Take the example of the men who brought their paralytic friend to Jesus (some accounts have them lowering through a roof).  When Jesus saw THEIR faith, he said to the PARALYTIC, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

It appears to me that the things are not so black-and-white.  I don't think there is a formula or a linear path that "saves" someone.   In or out.  Black or white.  Saved or not saved.  I just don't think it is as clean cut as that.  Formulas and categories are part of the modern worldview; I just don't think there is a formula for salvation.  I think the church has misled a lot of people on this - it becomes very dangerous when you combine the doctrines of "the sinner's prayer" and "once saved - always saved."  I am thinking there are going to be a lot of upset people on judgment day!

5.  The evangelical salvation strategy breaks down if Jesus is not God - or does it?
I will admit I have gone done the rabbit hole the last few years.  I have read a lot of material that states a pretty good case of why Jesus was not God  - at least in the sense evangelicals believe he is.  I am sure some of these authors have a chip on their shoulder and are probably anti-Christian, but many of them seem very loving, respectful, compassionate and graceful in their writings.  They consider themselves Christians; they call themselves disciples of Christ and seem to love Jesus and try to obey his teachings (e.g. Marcus Borg, Brian McLaren, John Hick). 

Evangelical Christianity requires Jesus to be God because only God could have been the perfect sacrifice, and only a perfect sacrifice could have paid for the sins of the world.  I will post at length in the future the arguments for why it is reasonable to believe Jesus was not God.  I will briefly list those reasons below.  However, I wanted to ask another question first:

Evangelical Christianity teaches that once I become a Christian, I become blameless in God's sight.  He removes my sins as far as the east is from the west.  He forgets them.  He sees me as white as snow.  Isn't it possible that through the sacrificial rituals of the time, that if Jesus was just a man that he could have been made clean before God in this same way.  Is it possible that at some point he was made pure in God's eyes somehow - so pure that he could have become the perfect sacrifice without being God after all?*

So, if Jesus was not God does it all break down?  Should we accept Jesus as being God because we need it to be necessary for doctrinal formulas.  If you look at it objectively (as if that were possible), there are several arguments for thinking Jesus was not divine (in the evangelical sense of the word):

a.  The bible is not inerrant.  The bible is history remembered, history metaphorized, and history interpreted.  If you line up the books of the bible in the order in which they were written (Most of Paul's letters, the gospel of Mark, more letters, the gospel of Matthew, etc.) it is clear that Jesus becomes more divine over time.  This makes you think that the Christian community's beliefs about Jesus were evolving over time and they were injecting their interpretations into the story.  The gospels were written decades after Jesus' death; I am thinking the stories changed and adapted as they were passed down orally. 

b.  I am pretty convinced that the virgin birth never happened.  Considering its significance, you would think it would be mentioned more than it is.  Mark (which most scholars believe - liberal and conservative - is the oldest gospel) never mentions it.  Paul never mentions it.  Jesus' own family questions his sanity which I think would be pretty hard to do if you knew he was immaculately conceived.  Virgin birth stories shows up in many pagan myths during that same time period (the similarities are shocking - born in a cave, visited by three wise men and the gifts they bring, etc.).  This makes me think the stories of Jesus may have syncretized with gentile/pagan beliefs of the time, and on and on.

c.  There are so many paradoxes with a person being both God and man.  Can you not be omniscient, omnipresent, etc. and still be God?  Can you be omniscient and be a man?  How many of God's attributes can you empty yourself of and still be God?  How many of God's attributes can you still have and still be a man?

d.  Most scholars (including many conservative scholars) believe that Jesus himself did not think of himself as God. 

e. " But, Jesus called God 'Abba /Father'."  He told us to do the same.  Jesus called us sons of God.

6.  Fear not Love.
So much of the evangelical emphasis is on keeping people out of hell.  How many people say the sinner's prayer because they are afraid of going to hell.  I would think God would want us to submit to him out of love - not fear.  Having someone make decisions out of fear seems manipulative to me.  My current church does not play the fear card, but I can tell you that the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up played this card regularly.  Think of all the churches have a "Judgment House" as a Halloween alternative.  "Turn or burn" is still a popular message among evangelicals.

7.  The problem of the Universe.
OK.  This one is all me.  In all the books I have read, nobody seems to mention this concern, but what about the rest of the universe?  If you subscribe to the evangelical version of things, then either we are the only beings in the entire universe created for relationship with God or the other created beings are sinless and are not in need of savior.  Here are my problems with both of these.  If we are the only beings created for relationship, then either the creation of the universe is extremely inefficient or God has plans for us to populate the universe - this would require a very long term view of time meaning Jesus is probably not coming back tomorrow.  Of course, if there are other beings created for relationship they would have to be sinless.  If they were sinful beings, would Jesus have to die again?  Would Satan have to be thrown in the fire of hell forever - again?  The evangelical meta-narrative breaks down.

8.  The kingdom is now
The evangelical path of salvation pushes people to think in terms of the after-life.  I think Jesus' main message and purpose was to help us understand that the Kingdom of God is HERE NOW.  I think we have missed Jesus' main message - the Kingdom of God is not heaven; the kingdom of God is here.  The kingdom is not about pearly gates and blissful eternity; the kingdom is about relationship with God.   The reality is that nobody knows what the after-life holds.  I really don't think we will be walking down streets of gold and living in mansions.  I just don't think a majestic new Jerusalem is going to descend from the sky some day.  Who knows what the after-life is like; let's focus on the here-and-now. Let's focus on our relationship with God and let the after-life work itself out.

Concluding Rant
Shouldn't we be focusing on our relationship with God now?  Shouldn't that be our primary concern - our #1 passion?  Shouldn't we doing everything we can to grow in our ability to discern God's voice and grow in our capacity to respond in obedience?  Seriously, shouldn't we be so radical about aligning our lives around growing in our relationship with God that those around us think we have gone nuts?  Let's be honest - the evangelical church looks just like the world.

In my circle of friends and family, everyone is concerned about my eternal destiny - am I saved or not?  They are not concerned if I have a relationship with God - they are concerned that I am going to spend eternity in hell.   See the difference?  Shouldn't we be focusing on growing in our relationship with God.

I am not trying to be critical here, but for the sake of being completely open, I do get frustrated at the lack of passion evangelical Christians seem to have about their relationship with God.  I have been in several small groups over the years.  On occasion we will "check-in" and see how everyone is doing in their relationship with God.  Without fail, almost everyone says "I don't feel close to him right now", or "I am not hearing his voice", or "I am having trouble finding the time to spend with him", or "My relationship with God feels so dry right now", etc.    I understand that we all go through seasons and that all relationships wax and wane, but EVERY single time that EVERY small group I have been a part of has checked-in like this, these have been the responses.  Who knows - maybe it is just my small groups - maybe I am the problem!  Very likely.

The point is that Evangelical doctrine pushes people to think this way.  The combination of the "sinner's prayer" and "once saved - always saved" takes the pressure off.  I mean it doesn't really matter what we do here, the slate gets wiped clean once we die.  "I will just live my life in response to the world - no need to be intentional with my time"  "Who cares how we treat the earth and use our natural resources; God is going to restore creation at the 2nd coming of Jesus anyway."  "I know I should be more intentional about my relationship with God, but I know his grace is sufficient".  Every evangelical gives lip service to this dilemma - it is not as if it goes unnoticed, but the reality is that nothing changes. 

How long do we continue to live like this before we realize something is not right?

I am posting on this topic now because my wife and I are meeting with our pastor.  My shift in thinking has shifted and has created some concerns (which I completely understand).  But here is what is frustrating - my wife is much concerned about my salvation than she is my day-to-day / year-to-year relationship with God.  I know the two are intertwined, but the difference in emphasis is huge.  She is not so much motivated by my ability to grow in relationship with God as she is with the concern of my spending eternity in hell (and taking our children with me).  We are more concerned with eternal destinies than we are that people don't seem to growing in their relationship with God.  Shouldn't we be focused on the relationship and let the eternal destiny thing work itself out?  I think we have got it all backwards.

In my next post I will lay out my "alternative view of salvation" and how it addresses the concerns listed above.

* (see #5 objection above) [For the sake of presenting both sides, I have heard a great reply to this from one of my evangelical friends.  He said that Jesus had to be God and that the sacrifice of him as God was good for all time - both past, present and future.  It was the sacrifice of Jesus as God that made all the ritualistic sacrifices of animals meaningful.  I have to admit that makes sense to me.]

Jesus and Salvation - Part 2 - The Orthodox View

Introduction
Evangelical Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on how one gets into heaven.   If an evangelical Christian asks you if you are saved or born again, they are attempting to learn if you have taken the necessary steps to get into heaven once you die.  Today I will attempt to describe from an evangelical perspective how someone becomes saved. 

Foundational Assumptions
First, there are some assumptions made (of course, not ALL evangelicals subscribe 100% to ALL of the statements below - there are subtle nuances to all of these in different evangelical circles):

1.  God desires relationship with us.  He wants to save us.

2.  God is completely holy.  He is perfectly good and righteous.

3.  God is completely just.  There are no loopholes in God's systems of justice.  Payment / retribution will always be made for what justice is deserved - in one of two ways (the sinner pays for his sins by eternal suffering in hell, or God allows Christ's death to make atonement for someone's sin)

4.  We are all born into such a state that we are doomed to hell from the moment we are born.  Without exception we are all born into Satan's family.  Only if we are adopted into God's family will we be saved.  Simply, we all need salvation.

5.  God never forces himself on anyone - everyone is free to accept or reject him.

6.  Once saved. Always saved.  You can not lose your salvation.  Once you are part of God's family there is nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.

7.  Despite what TV and Hollywood believe, you do not get into heaven by being good.  There is no amount of good deeds one can do to earn their pass into heaven.  Without exception, nobody does enough good to get into heaven.

The Heavenly Scales of Justice
Here is the dilemma.  God desires relationship with us, but because of his holiness and our sinfulness that is impossible.  Unfortunately, being a just God, he can not simply excuse our sin - payment must be made.  The heavenly scales of justice must be balanced.  Once justice has been served relationship with God is possible.

For thousands of years the scales were balanced through animal sacrifice.  The sins of God's people were symbolically placed upon an animal (called the scapegoat) which was then slaughtered to make payment for the sins placed upon it.  This ritual was simply a placeholder until the arrival of Jesus.  God sent himself to earth through the person of Jesus to become the scapegoat for our sin.  To be the perfect sacrifice, he had to be sinless.  Since all humans are born into sin, Jesus must have been God.

Scales Not Balanced For Everyone
Jesus' death on the cross, however, does not pay for the sins of everyone - only those who confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead.  Simply, God will not force himself on anyone.  A pastor who was/is very influential in my spiritual journey once said, "God will not force his love on us.  We have a term for forced love; we call it rape."  God will not rape us by forcing us to accept his path to salvation.

Making the Transaction - The Sinner's Prayer
Most evangelicals believe that the judicial transaction takes place when someone prays the  "sinner's prayer".  Once someone says the "sinner's prayer" God supernaturally allows for Jesus' death to make payment for their sin - thus balancing the heavenly scales of justice.   Here are four examples I pulled off the web:

"Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you.  I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you.  Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again.  I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer.  I invite Jesus to become Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward.  Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life.  In Jesus' name I pray, Amen".

"God, I know that I have sinned against you and am deserving of punishment.  But Jesus Christ took the punishment that I deserve so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven.  With your help, I turn away from my sin and place my trust in You for salvation.  Thank You for Your wonderful grace and forgiveness - the gift of eternal life!"  Amen!"

"Lord Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God.  Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins.  Please forgive my sins and give me the gift of eternal life.  I ask you in to my life and heart to be my Lord and Savior.  I want to serve you always."  {"asking Jesus into your heart" reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes:  A doctor was examining a little girl.  He put a stethoscope up to her chest and said, "Now be quiet - I need to see if I hear Barney in there.  The little girl replied, "Silly.  Barney is on my underwear.  Jesus is in my heart!"}

"God, I know that I am a sinner.  I know that I deserve the consequences of my sin.  However, I am trusting in Jesus Christ as my Savior.  I believe that His death and resurrection provided for my forgiveness.  I trust in Jesus and Jesus alone as my personal Lord and Savior.  Thank you Lord, for saving me and forgiving me!  Amen!"

Grace Not Works
After 35 years in evangelical churches I would be amiss if I did not clearly point out one last truth; it is implied above, but it is so often misunderstood in our culture, that it needs to be directly stated:   You can not earn your way into heaven.  There are no amount of good deeds you can do to balance God's scales of justice.  One sin (and we all have at least one) is enough for eternal damnation - no amount of "doing good" will make retribution in God's eyes.  God's path to salvation is a gift; you can not earn it.  It is by grace that one is allowed into heaven.  The gift becomes yours if you say (and believe it when you say it) the sinner's prayer.

Once Saved - Always Saved
Finally, if you sincerely say the "sinner's prayer", then you become saved.  Once you become saved, there is nothing that you can do to become "unsaved".  Once saved - always saved.  Of course, if someone eventually goes back to leading a sinful, rebellious, self-serving life then they must have never really meant the prayer when they said it.  God will not lose any of His sheep.  If a sheep is lost, then he was never really a sheep to begin with.

I think I have covered most of the evangelical doctrines of salvation and the logic behind them.  Please email me with anything you think I have misrepresented or you thought was confusing and/or misleading.

Stoke Up The Fire Pits For Me
In my next post I will try to address some concerns and questions I have regarding the evangelical doctrine of salvation and Jesus' role in it.  I will also offer some alternative ways of thinking about how a relationship with God is possible.