Palm Sunday

I went to church again this week with my husband and given that it was Palm Sunday, I expected to hear a sermon about how the Jewish people welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem at the beginning of the week and somehow managed to turn against him five days later; a cautionary tale about how our hearts can quickly turn against God. However, I guess our church doesn't do a Good Friday service because the sermon was centered around Jesus' painful death. The basic message was 'do you trust God in difficult circumstances?' and that Jesus had to die on the cross to pay for our sins. It was so interesting to me that this message, which really outlined the tenets of the Christian faith, made no sense to me anymore.

First, the very idea that Jesus' death is a demonstration of God's love and justice seems ludicrous. We are told that we are sinners from birth, that no matter how good you think you are, you have a deep, evil, sin-nature which eternally can separate you from God. (This is also used in the argument for the justice of having a hell, but I'll save that for another post) We are born sinful and there is nothing we can do about, and therefore all of us deserve the punishment of death. This theology creates the necessity of Jesus. Can't ever remember lying or cheating? Never committed murder or adultery? Doesn't matter; you're still just as bad as everyone else and without Jesus, you're going to die. Now, if we are born this way and can do nothing about our condition, who's fault is that? Didn't God create me? Didn't he give me this sin nature? One could argue that it's Adam and Eve's fault; that they introduced sin into the world and now we are all born this way, but if one man can doom us all without our consent, why doesn't Jesus save us all? Why must we choose Jesus but had no choice in Adam?

Second, Christians are faced with an interesting dilemma regarding sin nature and babies. I don't know of any Christian who believes that if a baby or young child dies, they will go to hell, and rightfully so. Who would tell a grieving parent that through no fault of their lost child, he or she will be suffering for all of eternity? While there is little scripture to support this, Christians recognize the cruelty and injustice of that position and since God is good, he clearly can't send babies to hell. If he can forgive their original sin without them accepting Jesus, why can't God do that for the rest of us? Also, if the next life is the only thing that really matters, and dying as a child or baby is a guarantee into heaven, why are Christians so worked up about abortion? All those babies now have a ticket to heaven whereas if they were allowed to live, they may have chosen otherwise.

Getting back to the role of Jesus, I feel that most Christians tend to flow back and forth on exactly who He was for the sake of any particular argument. Was Jesus the son of God, an offspring produced by God who is separate, or is he God who has come down to earth? When reading the accounts of what Jesus did and said, it would make much more sense if we all believed that he was a literal son of God who had privileged communication with Him. If they were the same person, why did Jesus always ask permission from the Father, and talk about how he was in his father's will? Some Christians will say either that was the human part of him (because apparently he is 100% human and 100% God, which makes no sense) that talked to the Father or it was God modeling for us how we should act. But then why, when Jesus was about to die, did he cry out "God why have you forsaken me?" Can God forsake himself? Jesus seemed to be unsure of the future or what was happening to him at the time. Was that the human side of him just taking over? Did he pretend to be in anguish for our benefit, so we would know its alright to cry out "why?" to God in distress?

The Case for Faith

Until recently, I was involved in a small group Bible study at my church. I have a few close friends who have been asking me why I haven't been showing up, but I can't imagine I'd be a good addition to the group anymore. I haven't yet "come out" as a non-believer to most of my church friends and I know if I go to this small group, I'll say something that reveals my lack of belief. I did find out, however, that they are reading Lee Strobel's Case for Faith. I had read the book several years ago and certainly wouldn't mind getting into lively discussion about it, but church small group isn't exactly the best place. I thought maybe I would find a summary of some of Strobel's main arguments and post my thoughts here.

Chapter 1- The Problem of Evil

Strobel interviews Dr. Peter Kreef, who replies with a few key arguments. One, "How can a mere finite human be sure that infinite wisdom would not tolerate certain short-range evils in order for more long-range goods that we couldn’t foresee?” He argues that since God claims to be all knowing and all powerful, he allows us to go through painful experiences because we learn from them and grow, or because He needed to accomplish something and pain was required in order for that task to be accomplished (as in Jesus' painful death for our absolvement). There are two main points in this argument I would like to address; God allows evil in order for us to grow and learn from painful experiences, and He allows evil in order to accomplish some greater good that we cannot yet see. Kreef uses the example of teaching his daughter to thread a needle; she stuck herself and experienced pain several times before getting right, but if Kreef had stepped in and prevented the pain, his daughter would not have learned. While I understand this argument for small struggles we have in our lives, I can't imagine this logic holds up for truly evil or terrible circumstances. For example, thousands of children in Africa starve to death because of drought each year; a problem which could be significantly mitigated if God would just send rain. Is God allowing this evil in order that the mothers can learn from the painful experience and trust God more? I would bet anything that a mother who has lost a child would gladly give up any character development she gained from the experience so that her child could live.

Secondly, Kreef argues that maybe God allows evil temporarily in order to accomplish something good that we cannot conceive yet. This argument is a bit of a cop-out because we can never know for sure all future outcomes of a given event. It is possible that every evil thing does somehow lead to something good, but that requires an enormous amount of trust or assumption with very little evidence. If I am expected to just believe that all the evil is part of a greater plan for good, then there should be plenty of examples either in scripture or in our everyday lives. When I look at the history of the Israelites, there certainly is plenty of evil, both committed by God's chosen people and to them. First, when God is trying to establish a nation with this people group, he commands them basically to wipe out everyone around them so they won't be influenced by their sinful ways. The entire scenario screams injustice to me, especially since we all are supposed to be born with a sin nature and God admits he chose his people through no merit of their own. So, in the grand scope of things, genocide is committed, a temporary evil in which we should later see the greater good that came out of that evil. However, throughout the Israelites' history they mostly encounter war and enslavement. Should we all be saying "Good thing God wiped out all those people groups or the Israel wouldn't be the established nation it is today."
Kreef also makes the argument that evil isn't really God's fault; its ours. He gave us the choice to sin, and therefore evil is caused by humans and God can't or won't do anything about it. First, I disagree with the assumption that if there was no evil, we would be robots with no choice and no free will. Were Adam and Eve robots while in the garden? They were allowed to live in paradise, tended to the garden and walked with God each evening. They had things to do, relationships to enjoy and things to hope for in the future (the next meeting with God, perhaps development of the garden they tended to etc.) It appears that they had the choice to engage with God (he didn't force them) but He was readily available to them if they were interested, which they were. Kreef also touches on the fact that having difficulty in life gives us something to do and that if there were no problems, we would be bored. This begs the question 'what does he expect heaven to be like?' If it is possible to exist in communication with God without sin and evil in heaven, why is that not possible on earth? A topic perhaps for another post is why did God cause all of us to be born with a sin nature? Why does Adam and Eve's action doom the rest of us? The argument that evil is caused by our sin also doesn't cover things like natural disasters. Why did God allow the earthquake in Haiti? Did hundreds of thousands of people die so that we could all go down to help and improve our character? Did God wipe out all those people because it was necessary in order to accomplish something else? If God is all powerful, why does he need to kill in order to do good?I have heard the argument that even natural disasters are apart of sin; that Adam's sin caused the world to be "broken" and set on a course that allows natural disasters, even though that wasn't God original design. That also sounds like God's fault to me. Why did Adam's sin have to be so catastrophic? God created the world and created the laws that govern it, so couldn't he have said, "It's alright Adam. I forgive you" instead of dooming the planet?

The Problem of Right and Wrong

When first investigating the arguments for atheism versus Christianity, one point that was particularly sticky for me and for both sides of the argument was the problem of morality; if we are just chemical reactions, why do we so strongly believe in the idea of right and wrong? I had always thought that God answered this question. He gave us our morals by creating the universe we live in and by giving us eternal souls. I thought that we experienced compasssion and anguish, loved and fought for justice because God's character was reflecting in us. But once I stepped away from this faith and held it in my hands instead of drowning within it, I realized that having God does not truly satisfy our desire for truth or justice (right or wrong). For example, if the only reason I am doing a kind act for a stranger is because I think God wants me to, am I really good? Or, what if God commands me to kill my children? Since God dictates what's right and wrong, is infanticide now good? I think we already have a preconcieved idea of what is good, beautiful or loving and we want God to be the ultimate incarnation of that idea. We want to love God because he is good, not because he created good. If we are only minions doing the bidding of a master, how can we claim to be moral at all? Additionally, if God created my sense of morality, shouldn't I whole heartedly agree with all of his actions and commands? I may not want to live up to his standards, but if he created my sense of justice, his actions should never violate that. Yet, all over the Bible, God does things that I strongly disagree with including commanding Abraham to kill his child. I have often been told that I God's ways are not my ways and that I just don't see the big picture yet, but there are plently of stories in the Bible that chronicle a person's entire life. Even though Job recieved all of his herds, house and had more children, I don't think what God did to him was just.

However, I don't think this lets atheists or naturalists off the hook either. From what I've read, it's my impression that the scientific position on why we have morals is that they evolved because humans had a higher survival rate in groups. Those who were born with genetic mutations for co-operation and mutual understanding were able to form communities and survive at a higher rate until the entire race was bred with morals. Which is fine, until I begin to question why I should follow them in the first place. Using the same example as above, if I were to propose killing children, what argument is there for not doing this terrible act? If the only reason not to commit a crime like this is because I would decrease the chance of propogating the species or because years of genetic selection has given me chemical reactions to feel negatively about it, then who cares? Its a terribly depressing realization that all my passions, loves and sense of justice have no bearing on truth, but instead of merely chemical reactions that I may choose to ignore. If this is true, then there is no such thing as right, true, good, or evil, but only what we as a species have collectively defined. I have a deep desire to do what is right and good because it truly is good. Is there nothing beyond our biology?

Something Personal

As a new de-convert from Christianity, I haven't really come out of the closet to many people yet. My parents are very devout and I know that the notion of their daughter burning in hell for all eternity would cause them more pain than I want to think about, so I haven't told them. I also haven't said much to people at church because for the past year or so I've been teaching sunday school for the 5th and 6th grade girls. I would hate for those parents to think that I was misleading their children or filling their heads with lies, so I've just quietly resigned my post when I could no longer believe what I was teaching. Needless to say, my conversations about why I no longer believe have been few and far between. However, there have been a few people who noticed when I was upset, and as I am a terrible liar, the truth came out and I had a few discussions.

The first people I told anything to was a couple in the church whom I had gotten to know and trust. The wife wanted to tell me about her experiences, that she was so convinced that God and Jesus were true and the Bible really was the word of God because she had an overwhelming feeling that they were true and she was so filled with peace and joy she knew it had to be God. She told me about a few people she had known who had been healed of different things and after that there was really no discussion. I didn't want to stomp all over her story and clearly she gained peace and joy from her relationship with God, so I let that one go. My discussion with the husband was a little more interesting. He debated me on several points and we were able to discuss some philosophical issues. I finally came out and said that I just didn't believe the Bible was anything more than the work of man; that it defied logic to assume this was the perfect word of God and what was funny was that he couldn't really disagree. I would make a comment, he would throw a possible explanation (one that months ago may have satisfied me) and I would poke a giant hole in the possibility. What amazed me most was that at the end of the discussion, he conceded most of my points. The final statement was something along the lines of "Well I can't really argue with you, but I still have my faith..." Twice more since that discussion I have had the same response from my friends. Why is this?

I've come to realize that there probably is literally nothing you could say to a strong believer that would cause them to look objectively at their faith and acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong. Even the weakest apologetic arguments are passed along because as long as there is some answer, it will do. I can't pass judgment on anyone who feels this way because I have been there. Becoming a Christian completely defines who you are. It affects every aspect of your life in ways you didn't even realize until you start to shake it off. The process of questioning everything I knew about the world was crushing and terribly lonely. I know exactly why no one wants to question their beliefs; the cost of letting them go is too high. So why did I finally begin this stumbling journey towards what I hope is the truth?

Something personal. I could put all those questions and injustices of my faith aside as long as they didn't stare me in the face, but when it finally came time for me to watch someone I loved pass away and grapple with the idea that God would allow them to suffer for all eternity, the doors of objectivity swung wide open. I imagine it will be the same when I finally have to confront the people in my life I am hiding this from; we will have a discussion and most likely we won't understand each other. Even if I can dismantle every crumbling foundation and knock out the old boarded windows of Christianity, they will just be put back on their shaky hinges. I don't suppose anyone will be willing to let go of what they believe until they encounter something personal.

Forgiveness and Salvation

Last week, I heard a sermon about the unforgivable sin and thought you all might like to hear about it. I am still semi-regularly attending church with my husband who has patiently listened to all my questioning these past few months yet still remains firm in his faith. We go to church together about every other week, and I have to admit that the sermons are becoming more difficult to listen to.

The passage my pastor was speaking on was Matthew 12:31-32, "31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Since context is always the scapegoat when trying to find meaning in text like this, lets look at context. Earlier in the passage, Jesus had just cast out a demon from a man who could not speak or see. When the crowds were amazed that the blind and mute man was talking and had his vision restored, they began to wonder if this man was the Messiah they had been looking for. The Pharisees became jealous and whispered amongst themselves that he really must be a demon.

Even in context, this passage is incredibly unclear. What exactly is the definition of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Why can we blaspheme Jesus and the Father but not the Spirit? Shouldn't they be one and the same? What is even more pressing in my mind is not whether there is an unforgivable sin, but whether or not we need to have all our sins forgiven before we are allowed to enter heaven. This is one issue that every Protestant/Evangelical church I have attended seemed to be very clear on; the only way to heaven is for Jesus to forgive your sins. He'll forgive all of them, but you can't go in without forgiveness. Upon further examination, I'm not sure that's what the Bible teaches.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" Acts 16:31
"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:10
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—" Eph 2:8

These passages are often used by Christians to demonstrate that we are saved by grace and not works, but what is interesting is they say nothing about forgiveness. If all we need to do to be saved is believe in Jesus, is it really a requirement that we be forgiven too? There certainly are passages that could be used for either side of the argument, but what is interesting is that the other side is never discussed; the point of view that God's forgiveness is very conditional, but even if we don't get it, we could get into heaven anyway.
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
John 20:22-23 "22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matt 6:15 "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
1 Cor 3:12-15 "12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."