In our Revelation series on Sunday mornings I have been dealing with some controversial subjects hoping that instead of adding to the confusion or coming up with a clever theory that, we might come away with a helpful, thoughtful and practical insight.
The Second Coming is one of those confusing and controversial subjects. The popular view is that the world will get worse then Jesus will rapture or vacuum Christians in an instant right out of the world. After this comes the tribulation, then the second coming.
For the first 1700 years after Jesus the church did not hold to a rapture theory. This view came in as a reaction to the widespread liberal theology that didn't take anything in the Bible literally.
I'm not sure exactly how the idea came to the progenitures but the only Scriptural support given for it is 1 Thessalonians 4 and even that says nothing about a rapture but is speaking of a resurrection that will take place. Revelation also speaks of a resurrection that will take place at the full appearance of Jesus. This is why there are no biblical scholars who believe in a rapture.
So why is it that this has been sustained since the mid 1800's? Sensational theories will always have an audience especially if the theory is one that guarantees that Christians escape difficulty that is coming to the earth.
The worst part of this theory is that it teaches that things must get worse before Jesus takes his church away. Why would you and I work for a better world? This is part of the reason that the Evangelical church has been slow in getting involved in social and global causes. Finally, when it did it did much of it was done so in a bait and switch way trying to save people's souls.
In Matthew 24 Jesus speaks of his return. In chapter 25 he gives three parables as to what his followers were to do in preparation for his return. The last one states clearly that his followers are those who actually do something about the practical needs of others. These are the ones who are received into God's heaven. It is as if Jesus is actually saying that by being actively involved in making our world a better place that we don't need to worry about missing or figuring out when or how Jesus will return.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Two Witnesses
I grew up with a very literal view what is known as a Premillenial Pretribulation view of Revelation. After so much confusion on the book I, along with many others, adopted a Pan-millenial view – “I’ll know what happens in the end when it all pans out.” The problem for some is that there are not as many exact answers as they would like and yet there is a way of understanding the book that can have real time benefit.
We've been doing a series through the book of Revelation and this past Sunday we talked about the two witnesses. If you haven’t read it, read it before you read this. The popular view is that two men are going to arrive on the scene performing miracles, defeating their enemies through supernatural means. Then the beast, who is the one world leader, will have them killed and then their bodies will be publicly exposed and the whole world will see them. After three days, they will rise again.
The view above is certainly possible as are almost any number of interpretations about Revelation. Whatever one we come up with we must first agree that it would have had some meaning to the first century reader. My belief about the Bible is that it is written satisfy more than our curiosity and our need to see into the future otherwise we are no different than the religious rulers of Jesus day who did the same trying to figure out what the Messiah would be like and missed him altogether.
There are some clues as to who the witnesses are that may help us not to miss what God has for us. The first one is as I mentioned that whatever it means to us it had to mean something to these first century readers. Second, the two witnesses theme is one that is found in both testaments in the legal context. If there was a case but no witnesses, it could be tossed out. Without the forensic science of today, witnesses were the strongest form of evidence. This suggests that the two witnesses are making the claim that something is true over against something that is false. The third help we get is that they are called lampstands which is what the church is called in chapter 1 and chapter 2 and nowhere else in Rev except here in chapter 11 of the witnesses. Additionally, there were only two of the seven churches in chapter 2 and 3 that received no correction. They were good witnesses in word and example.
For these reasons it seems reasonable to consider that the witnesses are symbolic of the church. If this is true then as two witnesses they are declaring publicly before the court of the world that God’s ways are true while the Roman way of life is not. They do so by being willing to give up their lives. As representatives of the church, they are demonstrating what it means to be a good witness.
So, whether you believe that most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first couple centuries or that it is being fulfilled over the course of history or that it will be fulfilled, we can all agree that instead of craning our necks to peer around the corner of history or attempting to figure out how it took place in the first couple centuries or sitting back passively assuming that we can’t know anything for sure let’s not be like the religious rulers of Jesus day but instead, begin to live out prophesy until Jesus finally establishes his rule and reign on this earth.
We've been doing a series through the book of Revelation and this past Sunday we talked about the two witnesses. If you haven’t read it, read it before you read this. The popular view is that two men are going to arrive on the scene performing miracles, defeating their enemies through supernatural means. Then the beast, who is the one world leader, will have them killed and then their bodies will be publicly exposed and the whole world will see them. After three days, they will rise again.
The view above is certainly possible as are almost any number of interpretations about Revelation. Whatever one we come up with we must first agree that it would have had some meaning to the first century reader. My belief about the Bible is that it is written satisfy more than our curiosity and our need to see into the future otherwise we are no different than the religious rulers of Jesus day who did the same trying to figure out what the Messiah would be like and missed him altogether.
There are some clues as to who the witnesses are that may help us not to miss what God has for us. The first one is as I mentioned that whatever it means to us it had to mean something to these first century readers. Second, the two witnesses theme is one that is found in both testaments in the legal context. If there was a case but no witnesses, it could be tossed out. Without the forensic science of today, witnesses were the strongest form of evidence. This suggests that the two witnesses are making the claim that something is true over against something that is false. The third help we get is that they are called lampstands which is what the church is called in chapter 1 and chapter 2 and nowhere else in Rev except here in chapter 11 of the witnesses. Additionally, there were only two of the seven churches in chapter 2 and 3 that received no correction. They were good witnesses in word and example.
For these reasons it seems reasonable to consider that the witnesses are symbolic of the church. If this is true then as two witnesses they are declaring publicly before the court of the world that God’s ways are true while the Roman way of life is not. They do so by being willing to give up their lives. As representatives of the church, they are demonstrating what it means to be a good witness.
So, whether you believe that most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first couple centuries or that it is being fulfilled over the course of history or that it will be fulfilled, we can all agree that instead of craning our necks to peer around the corner of history or attempting to figure out how it took place in the first couple centuries or sitting back passively assuming that we can’t know anything for sure let’s not be like the religious rulers of Jesus day but instead, begin to live out prophesy until Jesus finally establishes his rule and reign on this earth.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Mark of the Beast
We've been going through a series of Sunday sermons through the biblical book of Revelation. One of the things I said this morning was that first century Jews expected another Exodus to rescue them from Roman oppression through judgments and a clear demonstration of who belonged to God.
If you remember the story of the Exodus, the Jewish people were oppressed in enslavement to Egypt. God delivers them through a series of 10 plagues or judgments on this nation who finally lets them go.
Revelation has a similar story. During the time Revelation is written, the Jews are either experiencing outright persecution or at least disfavor and under the temptation to declare Caesar as Lord and Savior. It is in this story that the writer of Revelation sees the plagues or judgments from chapter 6 to 16 as God coming against the forces that oppress his people.
Who are his people? They are ones who have the seal of God on them. Who are the ones who are not? They are those with the mark of the beast identified as 666. While there are all sorts of modern day explanations for what this could be; it had to mean something to these readers first.
Most scholars believe that the numbers in Revelation, and really elsewhere in the Bible, are symbolic. Even the most literal interpreter of Revelation would acknowledge that the 144,000 that are seen in heaven are symbolic. Humanity was created on the 6th day according to Genesis and then God rests on the 7th. The number 6 in the Bible is used to symbolize humanity.
Put this together with what we know so far and it seems that the author is simply and yet profoundly making the point that those who yield to Rome out of fear or seduction are those who are marked as worshipping all that is humanity - greed, power, lust, etc. while those who worship God by choosing his way for life are those marked with his seal.
Certainly, there is a lot more that can be said about this and how it applies to our day today. I would love to hear from you - observations, thoughts, questions?
If you remember the story of the Exodus, the Jewish people were oppressed in enslavement to Egypt. God delivers them through a series of 10 plagues or judgments on this nation who finally lets them go.
Revelation has a similar story. During the time Revelation is written, the Jews are either experiencing outright persecution or at least disfavor and under the temptation to declare Caesar as Lord and Savior. It is in this story that the writer of Revelation sees the plagues or judgments from chapter 6 to 16 as God coming against the forces that oppress his people.
Who are his people? They are ones who have the seal of God on them. Who are the ones who are not? They are those with the mark of the beast identified as 666. While there are all sorts of modern day explanations for what this could be; it had to mean something to these readers first.
Most scholars believe that the numbers in Revelation, and really elsewhere in the Bible, are symbolic. Even the most literal interpreter of Revelation would acknowledge that the 144,000 that are seen in heaven are symbolic. Humanity was created on the 6th day according to Genesis and then God rests on the 7th. The number 6 in the Bible is used to symbolize humanity.
Put this together with what we know so far and it seems that the author is simply and yet profoundly making the point that those who yield to Rome out of fear or seduction are those who are marked as worshipping all that is humanity - greed, power, lust, etc. while those who worship God by choosing his way for life are those marked with his seal.
Certainly, there is a lot more that can be said about this and how it applies to our day today. I would love to hear from you - observations, thoughts, questions?
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Anne Rice Leaves Christianity
Legendary author of Interview with a Vampire, Anne Rice has left Christianity. "As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."
"For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten …years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."
As you can imagine, this is creating a bit of stir - much of it in the Christian world being negative and yet I find it refreshing in some ways. Christianity has become like most of the world religions. It has it's laws to abide by, it's belief system, it's rituals all helpful tools to faith. But reading the different blogsites and reactions to Anne Rice reveals more ugliness than beauty. I wonder if Jesus foresaw that his followers would be more known by who and what they are against.
I find it more helpful to refer to myself as a follower of Jesus than a Christian for different reasons. My upbringing and my many conversations with other Christians have supported that if one believes certain things about Jesus and confesses other things that one is "in", "saved", "going to heaven". For me, this puts the faith on a faith system of belief (however/whoever is articulating it) rather than a faith and continued following of the person, Jesus.
What do you think?
"For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten …years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."
As you can imagine, this is creating a bit of stir - much of it in the Christian world being negative and yet I find it refreshing in some ways. Christianity has become like most of the world religions. It has it's laws to abide by, it's belief system, it's rituals all helpful tools to faith. But reading the different blogsites and reactions to Anne Rice reveals more ugliness than beauty. I wonder if Jesus foresaw that his followers would be more known by who and what they are against.
I find it more helpful to refer to myself as a follower of Jesus than a Christian for different reasons. My upbringing and my many conversations with other Christians have supported that if one believes certain things about Jesus and confesses other things that one is "in", "saved", "going to heaven". For me, this puts the faith on a faith system of belief (however/whoever is articulating it) rather than a faith and continued following of the person, Jesus.
What do you think?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Immigration and Arizona
I emailed out to the church I pastor a letter that a pastor wrote to his church regarding the New Arizona law and immigration reform. I invited response from our church was not let down. There is definitely no shortage of opinions and feelings on the matter and so I thought we could talk about it a bit here.
Some of the comments I received were more of a party line answer but many were heartfelt and relayed personal experience and fears. There were no surprises as to what the fears were. There were those who leaned on to the law of the land as being supreme while others favored compassion. Some wrestled with both in their email to me.
Overall I was impressed with the transparency people communicated how they felt and some of the driving fears and concerns they had. It made me wonder if we were to approach this issue with a bit more vulnerability and putting some weight on what truly is our concern rather than on the party line if we might make more progress in our national conversation.
Back to the seeming dichotomy of law vs compassion: How do we take seriously the emphasis the Bible puts on compassion especially for the "foreigner" among us while still being a nation with laws and one that is democratically governed?
Some of the comments I received were more of a party line answer but many were heartfelt and relayed personal experience and fears. There were no surprises as to what the fears were. There were those who leaned on to the law of the land as being supreme while others favored compassion. Some wrestled with both in their email to me.
Overall I was impressed with the transparency people communicated how they felt and some of the driving fears and concerns they had. It made me wonder if we were to approach this issue with a bit more vulnerability and putting some weight on what truly is our concern rather than on the party line if we might make more progress in our national conversation.
Back to the seeming dichotomy of law vs compassion: How do we take seriously the emphasis the Bible puts on compassion especially for the "foreigner" among us while still being a nation with laws and one that is democratically governed?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Failures and Successes
The author of a book I just finished reading makes the claim that much of our fixation is on mistakes and sins and also on successes. This is how we measure our worth. This moralistic view causes us to put great weight on the failures and successes found in the Bible.
Here are some questions he raises: (I have paraphrased them and added some of my own)
What if our mistakes and sins really aren’t the focus. What if the test of life isn’t whether we will obey or disobey? What if the real test is how we respond to successes and failures? What if there isn’t a single point or moment that qualifies us as believers, as good people, as acceptable? What if the plan is for all of life’s failures and successes to be used to draw us into greater knowledge and experience of God?
The writer is very clear that these mistakes do have consequences, some very bad. His point seems to be that God is after relationship with us rather than to get us to conform our behavior. It is from the place of relationship with God that we then love people better and make less destructive decisions.
How does that strike you?
Here are some questions he raises: (I have paraphrased them and added some of my own)
What if our mistakes and sins really aren’t the focus. What if the test of life isn’t whether we will obey or disobey? What if the real test is how we respond to successes and failures? What if there isn’t a single point or moment that qualifies us as believers, as good people, as acceptable? What if the plan is for all of life’s failures and successes to be used to draw us into greater knowledge and experience of God?
The writer is very clear that these mistakes do have consequences, some very bad. His point seems to be that God is after relationship with us rather than to get us to conform our behavior. It is from the place of relationship with God that we then love people better and make less destructive decisions.
How does that strike you?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Challenge of Relationships
I'm reading this fascinating book by a great thinker of this past century, Lesslie Newbigin. He spent many years in India having spiritual conversations on faith. He has written a number of influential books including the one I am currently reading called The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.
One significant point he makes is that one cannot come to know people through dispassionate analysis. You can learn much about our world through research, analyses, discovery including coming to the conclusion that God exists. You can learn a lot about people through the above process as well. He describes this as the I-it position in which the "I" is in control or is sovereign in relation to its world.
The surprise for me was that he agrees that one can come to believe that God is real and does some miraculous things but that heading in the I-it direction will actually lead one away from God and from meaningful relationship to people.
He offers the I-You approach which takes us out of the seat of control and now puts us in the position not of discovery but of revelation. This position means that there are things being done and shown to us that come as a surprise and are not within our control. We are willing to be questioned and challenged by the other. This is how we really come to know God and people.
How does this strike you? Do you find this to be true in your relationships with people, with God? How does this play out at work? What if we were to take this posture more with God and others? Would we fare better, worse?
One significant point he makes is that one cannot come to know people through dispassionate analysis. You can learn much about our world through research, analyses, discovery including coming to the conclusion that God exists. You can learn a lot about people through the above process as well. He describes this as the I-it position in which the "I" is in control or is sovereign in relation to its world.
The surprise for me was that he agrees that one can come to believe that God is real and does some miraculous things but that heading in the I-it direction will actually lead one away from God and from meaningful relationship to people.
He offers the I-You approach which takes us out of the seat of control and now puts us in the position not of discovery but of revelation. This position means that there are things being done and shown to us that come as a surprise and are not within our control. We are willing to be questioned and challenged by the other. This is how we really come to know God and people.
How does this strike you? Do you find this to be true in your relationships with people, with God? How does this play out at work? What if we were to take this posture more with God and others? Would we fare better, worse?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Winning or Learning
Big News! The health care reform act has been passed and not without a deep political divide. As much as it is a win in the minds of some, it is also a loss in the sense of that politic divide in this country has just widened. With this bill becoming law, it has galvanized the distrust and resulting chasm among our leaders and the American people. I raise this front page news as a way to introduce a larger conversation about the way we engage in debate.
I was talking with someone yesterday who had recently begun attending our church and she commented on how the church she had just left did things differently and for whatever reason, it tweaked me just a bit. Luckily, I remembered this profound and yet obvious perspective and here it is: I don’t have to have everyone agree with me in order to accept them.
Another way of saying it is that, I can distant myself from my ideas and see others ideas as distant from them – not being mine or their identity. This way, I can respect and enjoy the person while seeing our ideas as second in level of importance and as something that will change over time, anyways.
To develop this a bit further, instead of speaking in absolute terms, I describe my current thinking based upon my present knowledge of the subject and the lens through which I see things. This has been hugely helpful for me because then I don’t corner myself and then have to defend my idea to the death because I started out with an absolute.
By the way, I didn’t change my style of dialogue because I wasn’t good at it. Actually, I’m pretty good at debate especially in the area of religion, the Bible, doctrine, and theology. I have won many debates and yet lost myself in the process and others – not to mention the opportunities to have learned more and grown as a result.
I guess my question to you is if you also have a sense that the way we are talking about issues that matter from the top down seems ineffective largely because it is about winning rather than truly learning. I would love to hear your thoughts on how we can better converse in the workplace, home, and social life about faith, politics, and a million other hot button issues that arise on a daily basis.
I was talking with someone yesterday who had recently begun attending our church and she commented on how the church she had just left did things differently and for whatever reason, it tweaked me just a bit. Luckily, I remembered this profound and yet obvious perspective and here it is: I don’t have to have everyone agree with me in order to accept them.
Another way of saying it is that, I can distant myself from my ideas and see others ideas as distant from them – not being mine or their identity. This way, I can respect and enjoy the person while seeing our ideas as second in level of importance and as something that will change over time, anyways.
To develop this a bit further, instead of speaking in absolute terms, I describe my current thinking based upon my present knowledge of the subject and the lens through which I see things. This has been hugely helpful for me because then I don’t corner myself and then have to defend my idea to the death because I started out with an absolute.
By the way, I didn’t change my style of dialogue because I wasn’t good at it. Actually, I’m pretty good at debate especially in the area of religion, the Bible, doctrine, and theology. I have won many debates and yet lost myself in the process and others – not to mention the opportunities to have learned more and grown as a result.
I guess my question to you is if you also have a sense that the way we are talking about issues that matter from the top down seems ineffective largely because it is about winning rather than truly learning. I would love to hear your thoughts on how we can better converse in the workplace, home, and social life about faith, politics, and a million other hot button issues that arise on a daily basis.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Centered and Bounded Set
At the church I pastor, we had a leadership meeting last Sunday night where we talked about this theory called the centered set and bounded set. I drew a circle to represent the bounded set and then for the centered set, I drew a dot and a bunch of arrows represent people at different distances some aiming toward the center and others away.
Centered set thinking, as I understand it, has a center toward which people aim their respective lives, while the bounded set has to do with a set of beliefs or commonalities around which communities form. A bounded set for a church might be their doctrines, ethnic or socioeconomic similarities, or political view. (By the way, this theory applies far more broadly than the church). A centered set church would argue that Jesus is the center and so instead of say preaching about what one must believe, its emphasis would be on following Jesus.
This conversation, as you can imagine, was vibrant with both moments of "ah ha" and some push back. Being the ultimate example of centered set thinking, I blasted that they all must agree with being a centered set person. Kidding aside and hopefully point made, even in our conversation about this, a centered set tone is one that allows for a wrestling through the topic.
We very briefly touched on how this applies to proselytizing or evangelism. The the bounded set, I feel the pressure of getting you to acknowledge the basic doctrines as an outsider and then if you do, then I feel relieved and even excited that you are now "in". In the centered set way of thinking, I no longer have a hard line for those who are in or out. A couple blog posts ago, I told you about my conversation with the Jehovah's Witness and how comfortable it was. In part, I attribute it to the sense that I didn't know where his arrow was pointed. Even though he didn't believe in Jesus the way I do, who knows if the arrow of his life isn't in some way pointed to him.
Once again, I found myself in a conversation with a lady and her boyfriend at Panera. Our conversation started out with the obvious, rain. I mentioned that we were having some leaks at our church. She asked me about the church and off we were to a 30 minute conversation about faith. She hadn't been to church in years but found that she was desirous of a community to do faith with. The centered set idea, though I didn't use that phrase, caught her attention quite a bit and found it to be something she really liked and asking about service times and so on.
I don't know if she will visit or not but it sure was an enjoyable conversation on faith. It makes me wonder how many more unchurched folks would consider faith or church on those terms. I also wonder how the bounded and centered set thinking strikes you.
Centered set thinking, as I understand it, has a center toward which people aim their respective lives, while the bounded set has to do with a set of beliefs or commonalities around which communities form. A bounded set for a church might be their doctrines, ethnic or socioeconomic similarities, or political view. (By the way, this theory applies far more broadly than the church). A centered set church would argue that Jesus is the center and so instead of say preaching about what one must believe, its emphasis would be on following Jesus.
This conversation, as you can imagine, was vibrant with both moments of "ah ha" and some push back. Being the ultimate example of centered set thinking, I blasted that they all must agree with being a centered set person. Kidding aside and hopefully point made, even in our conversation about this, a centered set tone is one that allows for a wrestling through the topic.
We very briefly touched on how this applies to proselytizing or evangelism. The the bounded set, I feel the pressure of getting you to acknowledge the basic doctrines as an outsider and then if you do, then I feel relieved and even excited that you are now "in". In the centered set way of thinking, I no longer have a hard line for those who are in or out. A couple blog posts ago, I told you about my conversation with the Jehovah's Witness and how comfortable it was. In part, I attribute it to the sense that I didn't know where his arrow was pointed. Even though he didn't believe in Jesus the way I do, who knows if the arrow of his life isn't in some way pointed to him.
Once again, I found myself in a conversation with a lady and her boyfriend at Panera. Our conversation started out with the obvious, rain. I mentioned that we were having some leaks at our church. She asked me about the church and off we were to a 30 minute conversation about faith. She hadn't been to church in years but found that she was desirous of a community to do faith with. The centered set idea, though I didn't use that phrase, caught her attention quite a bit and found it to be something she really liked and asking about service times and so on.
I don't know if she will visit or not but it sure was an enjoyable conversation on faith. It makes me wonder how many more unchurched folks would consider faith or church on those terms. I also wonder how the bounded and centered set thinking strikes you.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Materialism, Progress, Capitalism
Before I launch into my new post, I want to add another thought to my conversation with a Jehovah's Witness.
What was pretty new for me in this conversation with a JW was that I was honestly interested in how he understood faith. In the past I had assumed that I already knew everything because I understood their doctrine and could present it as well as they could but I didn't know why they believed it or how they understood faith in God.
The change for me was that I saw this person as a person and not the embodiment of an institution against which I was to fight. He did not represent an overly religious parent, a former abusive, rule-based church, that I was still rebelling against. The other change for me was that I no longer saw my faith as a set of beliefs, superior, more intelligent, more evolved than the rest or more importantly, as the way to heaven.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
My buzzer went off at our condo at about mid morning on Saturday, which never happens. I buzzed my mystery guest in and went to the door totally curious at who might be visiting. A well-dressed gray haired man holding a magazine approached me tentatively offering it along with his scripted intro line.
This Jehovah's Witness began with some questions about faith and then he launched into his mini sermon as I listened patiently. When he then asked if I agreed, I answered nonargumentively about the the way I see things. In fact, I was so comfortable with him because I didn't feel the need to convince him otherwise which I think put him at ease, too. I truly enjoyed him as a person and felt that perhaps there was something we could learn through our conversation.
I could tell when he became uncomfortable with too much agreement or when whatever I said didn't fit with his experience as a JW because he would loop back into his presentation which included: Jesus having been created and therefore not God; the trinity being a lie; the end of the world; only 144,000 making to heaven; and a few other things.
I found it strange to be one on one with a person who insisted on going back to a monologue. Curious, I asked him if what he was doing was trying to convince me and others of his beliefs and that if I believed what he believed, then I was "in". He agreed that this was for the most part true so I thought I would frame the difference in how I understood faith.
For me it was more about following Jesus because, no one could ever really do enough good to get to heaven. I asked him if he noticed any pattern in the way Jesus spoke to people. Jesus seemed to deal with heart issues not offering a new set of beliefs or even specific rules. Instead, he was inviting people to follow him as the new way to God.
He pushed back a bit and suggested that I must have beliefs that I try to convince people to also believe. I told him that I didn't think that people had to believe the same doctrines I held or to believe them in the same way I do in order to get to heaven. For me it was, again, about following Jesus.
How does this strike you?
This Jehovah's Witness began with some questions about faith and then he launched into his mini sermon as I listened patiently. When he then asked if I agreed, I answered nonargumentively about the the way I see things. In fact, I was so comfortable with him because I didn't feel the need to convince him otherwise which I think put him at ease, too. I truly enjoyed him as a person and felt that perhaps there was something we could learn through our conversation.
I could tell when he became uncomfortable with too much agreement or when whatever I said didn't fit with his experience as a JW because he would loop back into his presentation which included: Jesus having been created and therefore not God; the trinity being a lie; the end of the world; only 144,000 making to heaven; and a few other things.
I found it strange to be one on one with a person who insisted on going back to a monologue. Curious, I asked him if what he was doing was trying to convince me and others of his beliefs and that if I believed what he believed, then I was "in". He agreed that this was for the most part true so I thought I would frame the difference in how I understood faith.
For me it was more about following Jesus because, no one could ever really do enough good to get to heaven. I asked him if he noticed any pattern in the way Jesus spoke to people. Jesus seemed to deal with heart issues not offering a new set of beliefs or even specific rules. Instead, he was inviting people to follow him as the new way to God.
He pushed back a bit and suggested that I must have beliefs that I try to convince people to also believe. I told him that I didn't think that people had to believe the same doctrines I held or to believe them in the same way I do in order to get to heaven. For me it was, again, about following Jesus.
How does this strike you?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What About Hell?
A friend of mine, who is agnostic, challenged my faith by throwing the hell question at me. "Joel, you believe that a loving God would send someone to hell to suffer for eternity with no possible way out?" He continued, "What possible finite sin could deserve infinite punishment"? and then he went on to give examples of all sorts of sins and infamous evil persons such as Hitler, which of course was easier to emotionally understand eternal punishment for, but for the many others average "sinners" the math didn't add up.
I must admit that this was a toughy for me because in my own heart I couldn't see doing this to someone and yet the Greatest Lover was able to. Ouch! Theologians across the spectrum mostly agree that God's goodness is the root of all theology. I did think about this a whole lot because if God is not good then my whole faith crumbles.
Furthermore, how I see the goodness of God then informs my attitude towards people. My own experience is that when I encounter the love and goodness of God on a deeper level, I feel more compassion and affection for those around me. So, for me this question has meaning?
Can God be good and send people to hell? Do you have a different way you'd like to frame the conversation? Other thoughts....
I must admit that this was a toughy for me because in my own heart I couldn't see doing this to someone and yet the Greatest Lover was able to. Ouch! Theologians across the spectrum mostly agree that God's goodness is the root of all theology. I did think about this a whole lot because if God is not good then my whole faith crumbles.
Furthermore, how I see the goodness of God then informs my attitude towards people. My own experience is that when I encounter the love and goodness of God on a deeper level, I feel more compassion and affection for those around me. So, for me this question has meaning?
Can God be good and send people to hell? Do you have a different way you'd like to frame the conversation? Other thoughts....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)