Intolerance: lack of tolerance, especially of others' opinions, beliefs, etc: bigotry.
What are the limits to tolerance? In a major way, this word is synonymous with homosexuality, and in a more minor way, religious rights as a whole (I'm thinking in regards to Muslims here, in the context of 9/11). Often times, those who promote tolerance are accused of hypocritical behavior for a lack of tolerance towards the "intolerant." (For example, those who profess the religious belief that homosexuality is a sin).
Here's the thing. Are we intolerant if we're against racism? Are we intolerant is we're against sexism? No. The point of tolerance is to fight against bigoted beliefs. So to pull out the 'you're a hypocrite' card wouldn't work in the case of racism and sexism. Does it work in terms of homosexuality?
But this also only works if anti-gay sentiments are lumped in with racist and sexist sentiments. For many, they are, because homosexuality, like race and gender, is a part of someone's identity. I know there are those who disagree, and I know that there are stories of people who have spent years as homosexuals, and then in their words, been "healed" of that and are now heterosexual. If those people have found a sense of peace previously lacking, then I am happy for them and wish them well.
However, for every story of someone who is healed, there are ten or twenty for people who have begged to become heterosexual, and received no answer. What do we do in that case? (In an ironic note, I often wonder if the reason used to explain those stories is that the person was never homosexual to begin with. I'm sure the counterpoint is that the homosexuals simply don't want to admit the truth, and the minority is willing to expose the lie of homosexuality being natural. That reasoning is dangerous to use, though, because what if it's reversed? Try applying that to someone who walks away from a faith, whether it be Christian, a Jew, or Muslim. Is the one who walks away actually telling the truth, and those still holding the faith deluded?).
Some might say they aren't willing to relinquish the sinful lifestyle. Others might say they don't have enough faith, or haven't prayed hard enough. But now we're getting into the matter of spiritual battles, and I feel it's the height of arrogance to judge another's spiritual battle, or any internal battle, period.
Picture back on the last major internal battle you've had. How long did it last? Days? Months? Maybe even years? Say it lasted ten years. If someone came to you within those ten years, and said that since you were still struggling, obviously you were still clinging to sin, how accurate would that person be? Would that person be interpreting you correctly, or even listening to you correctly? Or would the person be using an outside criteria to judge you?
From my understanding of science and just what I've heard from homosexuals, it's not something that comes with an on/off switch. Many have wished to be otherwise. Many have struggled to be otherwise, knowing the results if they come out.
Who am I to judge their lifestyle, or what they're going through? I'm heterosexual, so I'll have no difficulties fitting into society in this regard (Well, that would also depend on what portion of society. If it's the portion that has no problem with casual sex, then I still won't fit in). I don't know what it's like to fear this kind of ostracizing. I don't know what it's like to know so much of society hates you. I don't know what it's like to wonder, in my darker moments, if I might be the next Matthew Shepherd. I don't know what it's like to be in agony over something I had no control over in the first place.
So if someone criticizes a Bible verse that condemns homosexuality, or moderates comments in a blog when saying that s/he is pluralist, it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with the people. Regardless of your stance on homosexuality, anyone who is/claims to be one is still a person. They're not a label, they're not a two-dimensional doll just sitting around waiting for you to glue the right set of clothes onto them. They're not lurking in the corner, gleefully counting down to their next same-sex encounter, or plotting to corrode the American family. They don't need another Bible verse rammed into their faces about a loving God who still hates a part of their identity. And if you truly, truly want the person to listen to you because you're afraid for their soul, then wouldn't the best solution be to listen to them, rather than using the Bible to tell them all about themself?
In all honesty, I don't care who someone sleeps with. We have bigger problems right now. The education in the US is sorely lacking. We have environmental problems. We're too dependent on oil. We've got horrible diseases that still need to be dealt with, and starvation to address. Slavery still occurs in the world. Women still lack rights in so many places. Could we maybe focus on those?
And I've got say, Christian-wise, based on the sheep/goats parable, sex won't be that high up on Jesus' list, either. He seemed more concerned with practical matters. Do you feed the hungry? Give drink to the thirsty? Give shelter to the strangers? Clothe the naked? Visit those in prison? Overall, do we see the people beneath the skin and respond?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
What last words do you want to hear?
I saw a post somewhere about how this woman's in-law recently passed away. She thanked everyone for the prayers (for she had posted three days earlier, asking for prayers for her atheist in-law, so that he might 'know' Jesus before it was too late) and said that although they didn't know where the in-law choose to depart, the in-law was surrounded by loved ones, including her brother who "ministered to the [in-law] in the [in-law's] final hours."
Am I the only one bothered by this attitude? Because it comes across as trying to ram the in-law into heaven before it's too late. Now, I don't know the entire situation, and I'm sure they talked about more than just accepting Jesus before it was too late. But these were the in-law's last days, and the in-law couldn't speak. Why wasn't the family focused on being in the now, and remembering all the good times, and just saying how much they appreciated the in-law?
It just seems to discount the reality of death, and doesn't savor the now. It's all about make sure the person goes to Paradise after the death.
Let's reverse this: how would you feel if you had strong beliefs in one direction, and the majority of your last few days were spent listening to someone telling you why this belief was wrong? And you were about to die, and just wanted to appreciate what you had, and love your family, and be surrounded by them. You really want that to be the family member's parting memory of you?
Please, no comments about how this was for the greater good, or the woman was doing the best thing, or nothing mattered except salvation.
Am I the only one bothered by this attitude? Because it comes across as trying to ram the in-law into heaven before it's too late. Now, I don't know the entire situation, and I'm sure they talked about more than just accepting Jesus before it was too late. But these were the in-law's last days, and the in-law couldn't speak. Why wasn't the family focused on being in the now, and remembering all the good times, and just saying how much they appreciated the in-law?
It just seems to discount the reality of death, and doesn't savor the now. It's all about make sure the person goes to Paradise after the death.
Let's reverse this: how would you feel if you had strong beliefs in one direction, and the majority of your last few days were spent listening to someone telling you why this belief was wrong? And you were about to die, and just wanted to appreciate what you had, and love your family, and be surrounded by them. You really want that to be the family member's parting memory of you?
Please, no comments about how this was for the greater good, or the woman was doing the best thing, or nothing mattered except salvation.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Love your neighbor as yourself
Granted, if you don't love/like yourself that much, the subject statement takes an entirely different tone.
However, I'll interpret it in the context it was given. I've been involved in some discussions in various places in the manner of love and how it's expressed/handled/so on. For the most part, it was on the 'agape' love. In the Christian sense, demonstrated through the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus' sayings and his sacrifice. And as a way of living in general, regardless of religious beliefs (or lack thereof), 'do unto others as you would have them to unto you' is one of the best ways of living, as it forces one to put him/herself into the shoes of another and evaluate consequences of all actions.However, in terms of the 'agape' love, I was coming across a sentiment of one loves his/her neighbor because that is how one expresses love for God, or because Jesus said to do that, or because it's how we show we've changed. But I never saw the sentiment of I love my neighbor that violently disagrees with me and everything I stand for. As in, not just loving the neighbor through acting in a loving fashion, but literally loving without a an iota of hate or scorn. All you hold towards the opposing side is pure love.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people who do hold that sentiment of loving through actions and an internal mindset -- but it wasn't common in the discussions I was having. So my thing is ... is it really love if it's only in the action? Because I can act in a loving fashion to all sorts of people, while remaining apathetic about them emotionally, or even hating them. In which case, I'm loving on the outside, but not so much on the inside. Which would make me a hypocrite, because if I don't love that person in an internal way, then do I really love the person at all? I can say and show that I love the person as much as I want, but I'd be lying.*
If still holding this in a Christian sense, the crucifixion was the culmination of the 'agape' love. And that love wasn't just confined to the action. Jesus wasn't crucified while filled with hate. He internally loved them during the whole process. I'm not dismissing the actions themselves, because oftentimes it's the only way we can love someone, and it can make a great starting point. But, in the end, it looks like there has to be something deeper: a willingness on one's part love through-and-through.
So I would say that when God calls us to love a neighbor as ourself, we have to do much more than just act loving. We have to be willing to forsake everything else that might justify a negative feeling we'd harbor towards another.
As always, much easier said that done.
*This would be using the term 'hypocrite' in a rather unusual sense, because it's not along the lines of saying one thing and doing another. It's more of saying one thing and feeling another.
However, I'll interpret it in the context it was given. I've been involved in some discussions in various places in the manner of love and how it's expressed/handled/so on. For the most part, it was on the 'agape' love. In the Christian sense, demonstrated through the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus' sayings and his sacrifice. And as a way of living in general, regardless of religious beliefs (or lack thereof), 'do unto others as you would have them to unto you' is one of the best ways of living, as it forces one to put him/herself into the shoes of another and evaluate consequences of all actions.However, in terms of the 'agape' love, I was coming across a sentiment of one loves his/her neighbor because that is how one expresses love for God, or because Jesus said to do that, or because it's how we show we've changed. But I never saw the sentiment of I love my neighbor that violently disagrees with me and everything I stand for. As in, not just loving the neighbor through acting in a loving fashion, but literally loving without a an iota of hate or scorn. All you hold towards the opposing side is pure love.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people who do hold that sentiment of loving through actions and an internal mindset -- but it wasn't common in the discussions I was having. So my thing is ... is it really love if it's only in the action? Because I can act in a loving fashion to all sorts of people, while remaining apathetic about them emotionally, or even hating them. In which case, I'm loving on the outside, but not so much on the inside. Which would make me a hypocrite, because if I don't love that person in an internal way, then do I really love the person at all? I can say and show that I love the person as much as I want, but I'd be lying.*
If still holding this in a Christian sense, the crucifixion was the culmination of the 'agape' love. And that love wasn't just confined to the action. Jesus wasn't crucified while filled with hate. He internally loved them during the whole process. I'm not dismissing the actions themselves, because oftentimes it's the only way we can love someone, and it can make a great starting point. But, in the end, it looks like there has to be something deeper: a willingness on one's part love through-and-through.
So I would say that when God calls us to love a neighbor as ourself, we have to do much more than just act loving. We have to be willing to forsake everything else that might justify a negative feeling we'd harbor towards another.
As always, much easier said that done.
*This would be using the term 'hypocrite' in a rather unusual sense, because it's not along the lines of saying one thing and doing another. It's more of saying one thing and feeling another.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Lighting the world with salt.
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5: 13-16)
These are some very interesting verses. We'll often hear Christians say how we are called to be the light of the Earth, or the salt of the Earth. The problem is that if the verses are interpreted in that light (no pun intended), then it becomes a future event. After salvation in the right way, a Christian is then the light and the salt.
But that's not really what the verses are saying. Jesus says these things very early in Matthew, and before the crucifixion. What's more, he's speaking to his disciples and a crowd. The crowd which later marvels at Jesus's teachings when he was done speaking. And Jesus is speaking in the present tense. It can easily be interpreted that Jesus is saying what everyone is right now -- the light of the Earth, or the salt - and that no one should hide it. The crowd falling into those categories has nothing to do with their spiritual status. Rather, Jesus is almost trying to wake everyone up to what s/he already is. The crowd must simply embrace it, and live that life. They must let that light shine forth before men, so everyone can glorify their Father in heaven (which leads to another point. The crowd was already the children of God, even though they hadn't said/believed the right things).
Now, it can be argued that these words only applied to the disciples. The problem then is if that's the case, then the concept of sinning through lust or hatred can only apply to the disciples, too. And the crowd is excluded from that judgement. But Jesus was speaking to the crowd. So wasn't everyone in that crowd already the light of the world? And simply blinded to the fact?
These are some very interesting verses. We'll often hear Christians say how we are called to be the light of the Earth, or the salt of the Earth. The problem is that if the verses are interpreted in that light (no pun intended), then it becomes a future event. After salvation in the right way, a Christian is then the light and the salt.
But that's not really what the verses are saying. Jesus says these things very early in Matthew, and before the crucifixion. What's more, he's speaking to his disciples and a crowd. The crowd which later marvels at Jesus's teachings when he was done speaking. And Jesus is speaking in the present tense. It can easily be interpreted that Jesus is saying what everyone is right now -- the light of the Earth, or the salt - and that no one should hide it. The crowd falling into those categories has nothing to do with their spiritual status. Rather, Jesus is almost trying to wake everyone up to what s/he already is. The crowd must simply embrace it, and live that life. They must let that light shine forth before men, so everyone can glorify their Father in heaven (which leads to another point. The crowd was already the children of God, even though they hadn't said/believed the right things).
Now, it can be argued that these words only applied to the disciples. The problem then is if that's the case, then the concept of sinning through lust or hatred can only apply to the disciples, too. And the crowd is excluded from that judgement. But Jesus was speaking to the crowd. So wasn't everyone in that crowd already the light of the world? And simply blinded to the fact?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Second Coming, only not really related.
This post is going to be more along the lines of wondering out loud, so it might be scattered. Or, depending on one's perspective, more scattered than usual.
It was sparked by a post in another blog, in terms of what Christians should do here and now for social justice, environmentalism and so on. One thing that has always intrigued me about a fanatical approach to the Second Coming. This approach would be summed up in people instigating wars to fulfill a prophecy that has to happen before Jesus comes back, or people very gleeful over the thought of Jesus tossing millions into hell without anyone feeling a sense of compassion. One could say this is an exaggeration, but in a later book in the Left Behind series where Jesus is dividing up the sheep and the goats, such a thing does happen. It involves the human who was helping the anti-Christ, and Jesus orders to angels to drag this man to the lake of fire. The man starts screaming for mercy, and all the 'sheep' that are watching don't have a problem with it. I did, because I started to picture the scene, and then tried to reconcile it with the Jesus from the Gospels. This man knew he was wrong at this point, that he had been on the losing side and was about to be tortured for an eternity.
But I digress. And on a side note, I haven't really read the Left Behind series. I started the first book out of curiosity, but the lack of writing ability alone deterred me. I peeked into the book that detailed Jesus actually here, which was the scene above. It was repulsive, especially if this book is read by children.
And I'm still digressing, and shall circle around my point now. One thing that's always bothered me about an approach where efforts don't matter period is that it tends to excuse a lot. One is no longer held accountable for one's actions, because it doesn't matter. So long as that person feels appropriately bad and asks for forgiveness the right way -- such as the Sinner's Prayer -- one is assured a place in heaven. You can treat the poor with disdain, you can abuse the earth, but if you hold the right beliefs, you're set.
I highly doubt it works that way. Efforts do matter, and it goes along the lines of 'faith with works.' There are people who say that we can trash the environment beyond belief, because when Jesus returns, everything will be new and sinless. The problem is, if someone feels justified in treating the Earth like a giant trash dump, why then would God welcome someone into heaven after that person dies? Regardless of one's view on Earth, it was still created by God (Christian viewpoint, atheists would disagree). It was given for a specific purpose, and with specific commands. Even if the Earth is flawed and fallen now, shouldn't some measure of dominion and respect still be given? If I give a child a simplistic doll that is dented and a little dirty, and the child then proceeds to abuse that doll beyond belief, why would I then proceed to give the child a doll in pristine condition? What has the child done to prove that s/he can handle the pristine doll when the child treated the simple doll with disdain?
Shouldn't the same policy work in terms of heaven? If God has given us life and people and this planet, and we turn around and say, "Nothing I do here matters so long as I have the right beliefs," then do we really get into some sort of paradise? I can't help but feeling those that await the Second Coming with a warlike fervor might be in for a rude awakening. If they're already mistreating what God has given, why is God going to give them something better? This isn't going along a sense of entitlement, in that someone behaved better and thus has 'earned' heaven. But nor can someone go around saying that they'll get into heaven and yet behave in a horrible fashion. It almost seems that those who speak out against environmentalism are behaving in an entitlement fashion, because they won't suffer the consequences. They're 'in.'
I realize that no one is going to behave perfectly 100% here. But there is a difference between closing one's eyes and starting the countdown to heave, and actively trying to live out God's will here and see some of the goodness here -- and screwing up at certain points along the way. Even though Paul states about salvation through grace, it's also very clear that people will be judged based on works. And works are evidence of God's grace working through someone's life.
It was sparked by a post in another blog, in terms of what Christians should do here and now for social justice, environmentalism and so on. One thing that has always intrigued me about a fanatical approach to the Second Coming. This approach would be summed up in people instigating wars to fulfill a prophecy that has to happen before Jesus comes back, or people very gleeful over the thought of Jesus tossing millions into hell without anyone feeling a sense of compassion. One could say this is an exaggeration, but in a later book in the Left Behind series where Jesus is dividing up the sheep and the goats, such a thing does happen. It involves the human who was helping the anti-Christ, and Jesus orders to angels to drag this man to the lake of fire. The man starts screaming for mercy, and all the 'sheep' that are watching don't have a problem with it. I did, because I started to picture the scene, and then tried to reconcile it with the Jesus from the Gospels. This man knew he was wrong at this point, that he had been on the losing side and was about to be tortured for an eternity.
But I digress. And on a side note, I haven't really read the Left Behind series. I started the first book out of curiosity, but the lack of writing ability alone deterred me. I peeked into the book that detailed Jesus actually here, which was the scene above. It was repulsive, especially if this book is read by children.
And I'm still digressing, and shall circle around my point now. One thing that's always bothered me about an approach where efforts don't matter period is that it tends to excuse a lot. One is no longer held accountable for one's actions, because it doesn't matter. So long as that person feels appropriately bad and asks for forgiveness the right way -- such as the Sinner's Prayer -- one is assured a place in heaven. You can treat the poor with disdain, you can abuse the earth, but if you hold the right beliefs, you're set.
I highly doubt it works that way. Efforts do matter, and it goes along the lines of 'faith with works.' There are people who say that we can trash the environment beyond belief, because when Jesus returns, everything will be new and sinless. The problem is, if someone feels justified in treating the Earth like a giant trash dump, why then would God welcome someone into heaven after that person dies? Regardless of one's view on Earth, it was still created by God (Christian viewpoint, atheists would disagree). It was given for a specific purpose, and with specific commands. Even if the Earth is flawed and fallen now, shouldn't some measure of dominion and respect still be given? If I give a child a simplistic doll that is dented and a little dirty, and the child then proceeds to abuse that doll beyond belief, why would I then proceed to give the child a doll in pristine condition? What has the child done to prove that s/he can handle the pristine doll when the child treated the simple doll with disdain?
Shouldn't the same policy work in terms of heaven? If God has given us life and people and this planet, and we turn around and say, "Nothing I do here matters so long as I have the right beliefs," then do we really get into some sort of paradise? I can't help but feeling those that await the Second Coming with a warlike fervor might be in for a rude awakening. If they're already mistreating what God has given, why is God going to give them something better? This isn't going along a sense of entitlement, in that someone behaved better and thus has 'earned' heaven. But nor can someone go around saying that they'll get into heaven and yet behave in a horrible fashion. It almost seems that those who speak out against environmentalism are behaving in an entitlement fashion, because they won't suffer the consequences. They're 'in.'
I realize that no one is going to behave perfectly 100% here. But there is a difference between closing one's eyes and starting the countdown to heave, and actively trying to live out God's will here and see some of the goodness here -- and screwing up at certain points along the way. Even though Paul states about salvation through grace, it's also very clear that people will be judged based on works. And works are evidence of God's grace working through someone's life.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Absolute Truth
This post doesn't refer to every single person who holds the Bible inerrant and infallible. It's simply written in reaction to the behavior of some who hold that view.
There are a variety of reasons why I don't hold the Bible to be 'without error.' I don't mean that the writers deliberately lied -- at least not as that time-frame would refer to as 'lie.' But they did lack a lot of knowledge in terms of science and just the universe in general.
Anyway, one of the other reasons is because very often, it comes across as though inerrants don't listen to those who aren't Christian: and this pretty much covers ever area. Those in another religion, those who are just spiritual, those who are agnostic/atheists (either were something else and become that or used to be Christian and are now that or those who were just always that), those who don't believe every aspect of conservative Christianity.
A very common reaction to those who aren't Christian is that they're actively rejecting God and blatantly living in sin. And no matter what the response is, the fundamentalist inerrantist )shorted to FI) rejects your answer, for the FI knows you better than you know yourself. Essentially, the FI isn't listening to anything you say, but rather interpreting you through the Bible.
The catch to that answer is twofold: 'actively rejecting God.' One, that assumes that everyone is agreeing on the concept of God. Now, for me, if God is defined Biblically as Spirit, Light, and Love, among other adjectives, then actively rejecting that concept of God becomes incredibly difficult. Most people gravitate towards the light. Many prefer to live a life of love, and if dwelling in love means dwelling in God ... then don't most people dwell in love? A friendship or a marriage or being a parent -- those do require the greatest type of love there is, a self-sacrificial love.
The second 'fold' is blatantly living in sin. Most of what Paul lists as not the fruit of the Spirit are feelings/actions that most people don't enjoy having: adultery, hatred, wrath, strife (probably even idolatry, because part of worshiping something that's unhealthy is the power it holds over you). Now, if living in those feelings while in the moment, one can feel perfectly justified. But for the most part, when someone no longer hates a brother, or lusts after someone/something, there's a tremendous amount of joyful freedom. So even 'blatantly living in sin' really doesn't fly, when I consider most people I come in contact with.
If the rebelling-against-God/blatant sin isn't the response, then the answer is usually that the non-FI doesn't know how to correctly read the Bible, or is eager to look for reasons why to discount the Bible, or trying to force God to work according to someone's terms. But that again gets lumped into the 'not listening' category. For many people, trying to work the Old Testament events around a all-loving, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful God (or just trying to work it around how Jesus claims God is) doesn't work. Israel had a tribal mindset for much of the Old Testament -- thus, God is portrayed with tribal God behavior. I truly believe that if that type of behavior were shown to belong to an infinite God in *any* other setting, it would be enough to discount the Old Testament as divine/infinite. But it's part of an "inerrant, infallible" text, and so must be true. To a non-FI, or even a non-inerrantist, that comes across as an excuse, and that too many things have to be twisted into reasons why the Bible is inerrant. To a FI, the other person is simply hiding in sin, or unwilling to face sin, or ... something. Which brings us back to the non-listening aspect.
Another reason why I don't hold to inerrancy is that it can be an incredibly dangerous position. In the past, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, acts such as the Inquisition, and holding women to a second-class citizenship. Today, most consider all of those to be immoral acts, and would say that all occurred through a mis-reading of the Bible. That's fine. But all those acts were, in general, committed by people who held the Bible to be without error, and to act otherwise was to go against the word of God. If that was the case even 150 years ago, what is being held today as 'without error' that is actually just as immoral? Even the argument that reading the Bible while humbly asking God to do His will will lead to a moral act doesn't work, because those who supported slavery did believe that they were following God's Will -- and to fight against slavery was to be in rebellion against God.
So ultimately, that is why I don't hold the Bible to be inerrant or infallible. Because if I did, it would strip me of my ability to listen, or to understand why someone does not follow the Bible. It would be much to easy for me to lump anyone who is not like me into a category to be dismissed -- and that's already too easy to do most days. It could also run the risk of stripping my ability to make moral judgements. That can come across as arrogant, yes, but I've seen all the damage inerrency has done, historically. I do believe good can come from the Bible -- I've had good come from the Bible. I know inerrants online who are devout Christians who would never do anything immoral, and do understand why others have problems with Christianity. It just seems that they are on the rare side, too often.
It's simply important to 'test the spirits,' and consider the cultural context in which the Bible was written.
There are a variety of reasons why I don't hold the Bible to be 'without error.' I don't mean that the writers deliberately lied -- at least not as that time-frame would refer to as 'lie.' But they did lack a lot of knowledge in terms of science and just the universe in general.
Anyway, one of the other reasons is because very often, it comes across as though inerrants don't listen to those who aren't Christian: and this pretty much covers ever area. Those in another religion, those who are just spiritual, those who are agnostic/atheists (either were something else and become that or used to be Christian and are now that or those who were just always that), those who don't believe every aspect of conservative Christianity.
A very common reaction to those who aren't Christian is that they're actively rejecting God and blatantly living in sin. And no matter what the response is, the fundamentalist inerrantist )shorted to FI) rejects your answer, for the FI knows you better than you know yourself. Essentially, the FI isn't listening to anything you say, but rather interpreting you through the Bible.
The catch to that answer is twofold: 'actively rejecting God.' One, that assumes that everyone is agreeing on the concept of God. Now, for me, if God is defined Biblically as Spirit, Light, and Love, among other adjectives, then actively rejecting that concept of God becomes incredibly difficult. Most people gravitate towards the light. Many prefer to live a life of love, and if dwelling in love means dwelling in God ... then don't most people dwell in love? A friendship or a marriage or being a parent -- those do require the greatest type of love there is, a self-sacrificial love.
The second 'fold' is blatantly living in sin. Most of what Paul lists as not the fruit of the Spirit are feelings/actions that most people don't enjoy having: adultery, hatred, wrath, strife (probably even idolatry, because part of worshiping something that's unhealthy is the power it holds over you). Now, if living in those feelings while in the moment, one can feel perfectly justified. But for the most part, when someone no longer hates a brother, or lusts after someone/something, there's a tremendous amount of joyful freedom. So even 'blatantly living in sin' really doesn't fly, when I consider most people I come in contact with.
If the rebelling-against-God/blatant sin isn't the response, then the answer is usually that the non-FI doesn't know how to correctly read the Bible, or is eager to look for reasons why to discount the Bible, or trying to force God to work according to someone's terms. But that again gets lumped into the 'not listening' category. For many people, trying to work the Old Testament events around a all-loving, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful God (or just trying to work it around how Jesus claims God is) doesn't work. Israel had a tribal mindset for much of the Old Testament -- thus, God is portrayed with tribal God behavior. I truly believe that if that type of behavior were shown to belong to an infinite God in *any* other setting, it would be enough to discount the Old Testament as divine/infinite. But it's part of an "inerrant, infallible" text, and so must be true. To a non-FI, or even a non-inerrantist, that comes across as an excuse, and that too many things have to be twisted into reasons why the Bible is inerrant. To a FI, the other person is simply hiding in sin, or unwilling to face sin, or ... something. Which brings us back to the non-listening aspect.
Another reason why I don't hold to inerrancy is that it can be an incredibly dangerous position. In the past, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, acts such as the Inquisition, and holding women to a second-class citizenship. Today, most consider all of those to be immoral acts, and would say that all occurred through a mis-reading of the Bible. That's fine. But all those acts were, in general, committed by people who held the Bible to be without error, and to act otherwise was to go against the word of God. If that was the case even 150 years ago, what is being held today as 'without error' that is actually just as immoral? Even the argument that reading the Bible while humbly asking God to do His will will lead to a moral act doesn't work, because those who supported slavery did believe that they were following God's Will -- and to fight against slavery was to be in rebellion against God.
So ultimately, that is why I don't hold the Bible to be inerrant or infallible. Because if I did, it would strip me of my ability to listen, or to understand why someone does not follow the Bible. It would be much to easy for me to lump anyone who is not like me into a category to be dismissed -- and that's already too easy to do most days. It could also run the risk of stripping my ability to make moral judgements. That can come across as arrogant, yes, but I've seen all the damage inerrency has done, historically. I do believe good can come from the Bible -- I've had good come from the Bible. I know inerrants online who are devout Christians who would never do anything immoral, and do understand why others have problems with Christianity. It just seems that they are on the rare side, too often.
It's simply important to 'test the spirits,' and consider the cultural context in which the Bible was written.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
... Grace did much more abound.
Romans 5:20 could have an interesting spin on it: "Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Basically, this is saying that no matter what and how strong sin 'abounds,' grace is there and stronger.
For the concept of hell, that's where all the unrepentant sinners would go (by conservative Christian views). Therefore, hell would also be thriving with sin. But the verse above seems to say that no matter where sin is, grace is also there. Nothing can separate people from the grace of God, so shouldn't God's grace also be located in hell, since there'd be a lot of obvious sin there?
Now Paul also does go on to say that simply because grace is more 'abound' does not mean that people go on gleefully sinning to make grace more prevalent, and that those who are dead to sin should not go on sinning.
However, I see no reason why that doesn't mean that God's grace "stops" at the gates of hell, or isn't in hell. It's never unavailable. Sin can't stop it, no matter what. Grace is stronger, in all locations.
For the concept of hell, that's where all the unrepentant sinners would go (by conservative Christian views). Therefore, hell would also be thriving with sin. But the verse above seems to say that no matter where sin is, grace is also there. Nothing can separate people from the grace of God, so shouldn't God's grace also be located in hell, since there'd be a lot of obvious sin there?
Now Paul also does go on to say that simply because grace is more 'abound' does not mean that people go on gleefully sinning to make grace more prevalent, and that those who are dead to sin should not go on sinning.
However, I see no reason why that doesn't mean that God's grace "stops" at the gates of hell, or isn't in hell. It's never unavailable. Sin can't stop it, no matter what. Grace is stronger, in all locations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)