There’s a great story about the earliest church–Peter’s in jail and about to be executed. The church is having round the clock prayer for his safety. Late one night the prayer meeting is interrupted by the arrival of a stranger at the gate. The servant who answers is so surprised that she leaves the man there and runs back to tell the prayer group.
Peter’s at the gate! She declares and everyone thinks she’s nuts. “How could it be Peter–he’s in jail; that’s why we’re praying for him.”
What strikes me is the humor of this whole event. Peter is anxiously knocking at the gate, the servant girl is telling the pray-ers that the answer is waiting outside, and the pray-ers are certain that God surely wouldn’t be able to answer their prayers in this way.
It’s a great story.
It occurs to me, however, that if it were only a story, Peter wouldn’t have to be kicked awake by the angel (really, that’s what happens), the girl wouldn’t haver forgotten to let him in, the church wouldn’t have so obviously doubted their own prayers and everyone would have come off looking a whole lot better.
It’s just one of those ’stranger than fiction’ moments that helps me to remember that the Bible accounts are way too awkward to be someone’s fabrication. Score one for revelation!
Victor
The category of truth–is it still a viable concept? 
“You have your truth; I have mine.” Truth isn’t an objective reality. “There is a tree in front of us.” “No, I don’t believe in trees.” Is either right or wrong?
Yes. Either there is a tree there or there isn’t. Both perceptions of reality can’t be right at the same time. It doesn’t matter what ‘my truth’ is or what ‘your truth’ is the tree is, or isn’t.
Does God exist? This is exactly the same thing as the tree. It can’t be true and untrue at the same time. It’s not ‘my truth’ vs. ‘your truth’. It’s just true or not true. Most people believe in God. Like 95% of Americans.
But what kind of God do we believe in?
If God has no objective reality; only the projection of my own God-wish, then whether or not he exists is completely irrelevant. Who cares!
But if there is the category of truth–a tree is or isn’t there at this particular point on the space-time continuum–then God can’t be simply what you or I want him to be. He is–interestingly God actually calls himself “I AM” the Being One. And since God has objective existence.
Which means, obviously, that some things about God are true. And, some things about God aren’t true.
And there’s the rub. We simply don’t like anyone telling us what God is like–maybe not even God himself. Why? Because I have to accept him on his terms instead of shaping him according to my preferences. (Do you see where I’m headed?)
Since God is what he is I am faced with the (unpleasant?) necessity of fitting myself into his reality instead of fitting him into mine. I can no longer be God. I’m stuck with being subordinate to him. He’s God and, therefore, I’m not.
It’s a long way down from the throne of heaven to earth. But it beats living in a slowly imploding fantasy.
There’s actually a site on the internet called godhatesfaggot.com. I want to start a site that says, godhatespeoplewhohatefaggots.com, but that wouldn’t really be accurate either. What is a shame is that the gay community generally believe the Christian community is against them.
But this is unbiblical. God isn’t against anyone–Jesus hung out with prostitutes, lepers, even tax collectors! So I don’t think he’d want his church to hate anyone. In fact I’m quite certain of it. Nor do I believe he’d want his church to absolutely write off a group of people.
But here’s where it gets really messy. We so identify ourselves with our behavior that it’s hard to think of someone independent of how they live. And, because of this difficulty, it’s really hard to believe that God can still love us even when we’re not living like he tells us to.
I also think that there’s a difference between homosexual inclinations and homosexual activity–and that distinction is all important. Maybe if we did a better job at loving the person, they would be more willing to hear what we have to say about behavior.
What do you think?
Among the many things that Christians bicker about is the age of the earth. There are those who say it’s very old–not at all incompatible with the broadly accepted time lines. Others say it’s got to be no more than 10,000 years old. You see, smack dab in the middle of the 17th Century, James Ussher added up the ages of all the people listed in the Bible, factored in a little Greek and Roman history and decided that the earth was created on the evening preceding 23 October 4004 B.C. Granted, the guy was a serious scholar, but his conclusion was just that: his conclusion; not biblical revelation. Scholars today recognize that the list of ‘begats’ has gaps in it, so the internal data in the Bible is insufficient to give a chronology of creation.
It’s just not a big problem for God. He knows when he set things in motion and since he didn’t give a date in the Bible it must not have been all that important to him. Unfortunately, some very well-meaning Christians have been mislead into thinking that loyalty to Ussher is the same as loyalty to the Bible. Somehow, they would tell you, if you don’t trust the good Bishop Ussher, you must not trust God.
The second point of departure–as if Christians needed something else to argue about–is how long is a day? Often a day is 24 hours, but sometimes it’s longer like it was in The Day of the Jackal; or like when the Bible talks about A Day of Vengeance. People who know a lot about Hebrew (the language the first part of the Bible was written in) has a lot less words to describe time periods than English. So it’s not being a naughty Christian to accept the possibility that day could mean a period of time–sort of like today.
So it seems like to me, the really important thing is how did the earth come about, not when. It seems a bit silly to bicker about something the Bible doesn’t worry about, when there’s a ton of evidence supporting the idea that the earth isn’t an accident.
What do you think?
Peace.
Victor
Why do religious people get so upset when other people start connecting with God? I’ve seen times when God was obviously present–people made commitments, the music was rocking everyone was happy, but someone, or two, start looking for stuff to complain about.
I had a sociologist explain it to me like this: When a church starts growing, new people start showing up and it creates a social disequilibrium at an almost preconscious level. The new faces are a little threatening but since everyone knows you should be happy when new people come to church, you can’t just come right out and say, “I don’t like all these new people in my church.”
It’s a dilemma. So instead of accepting the fact that having new people around is uncomfortable, the uncomfortable person has to look for something more ’spiritual’ to blame. “The service it too long; there’s not enough Scripture, there’s too much Bible reading, the music’s too loud, the sermon’s too vague….”
That way we can maintain the illusion of self-righteousness while ’sanctifying’ our selfish preferences. It’s a convenient way to keep ourselves as the center of the universe while convincing others that we have legitimate ‘concerns.’
Maybe he’s right. Maybe that’s all it is. But it seems like it might be more–it feel like evil to me.
Peace.
I was kinda sad the other day when I read that the Vatican decided to make a real clear statement about who’s the church and who’s not. In my own particular branch of Protestantism my wife and I have spent the last couple decades trying to calm down those Protestants who are sure that Catholics think Mary is a god and statues are idols. I really like to look for common ground. So when it’s reported that we’re not really churches and pastors aren’t really allowed to offer communion–it makes me sad.
I think it just reinforces the stereotype that Christians are a bunch of spoiled kids fighting over each other’s toys. Seems like if we could just keep the Person of Jesus Christ at the center of discussion this other stuff wouldn’t be so important.
Sometimes i think the greatest impediment to finding Jesus are people who claim to have ‘found Jesus’. Nietzsche said: “the last Christian died on the cross”, and Mark Twain said: “If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.” I think religion has subverted the Jesus movement, and misinformation about what a Christian is, has poisoned a lot of hearts.
Some questions (please respond):
- Is the idea of church a lost cause?
- Is it inevitable that whenever a group of Christ-followers get together they’re going to sour the freedom that Jesus tried to bring?
- What is the essence of an authentic Christian and what makes him or her any different from those who don’t claim to be Christians?
- Is the church a lost cause–what should it look like/feel like if it were what it’s supposed to be?
Recent Comments