Reconcilliation

Anonymous asks:

"My boyfriend's 16 yr. old daughter and I had a falling out. I have called her some nasty names in the past. Not to her face but she over heard me. Do you have a poem telling her Im sorry and I do care about her?"

Dear Anonymous,

It sounds like you've had to learn a hard lesson about finding constructive ways to express your anger and frustration. Not fun. While the two of you aren't enemies, by any means, there seem to be some ongoing disagreements. I would suggest before you talk to her or give her a note, that you spend time praying for her, or (more secularly) sending good wishes to her in your heart. It's helpful for seeing things from the other person's point of view, and a good way to be sure that disagreements are resolved in a way that is good for everyone involved. As Jesus said:

"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

Having said all that, I think it's great that you're ready to apologize, and I hope you'll be able to say things well and in a way that she can understand and appreciate and that will help you both be more kind and loving to each other. Here are a couple of suggestions that might go well with a note you write to her:

Jude 1:2
May mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.

Luke 1:78-79 is part of the story of Jesus' birth, and reminds us of the hope God gives:

By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Here's a poem from Oldpoetry.com that I think is very honest and expressive. It might be more geared toward a love relationship, but there are still good thoughts there. It's from the Lakotah tradition. I've copied over the first verse, but the entire poem is at this site.

There are time when my tongue should not move
and words should not come from within
they should remain behind the shadow of doubt
like an oceans waves they are capricious...

I hope these are helpful, and that you will be able to start your relationship with each other in a new and better place. But be sure that you give your boyfriend's daughter time and space to think through and decide for herself about whether she's ready to forgive. It's a hard place to be in, but forgiveness can't be forced.

Blessings,

Amy

Books for Studying Religion

Claire Asks:

I am getting into religion and could you suggest any books to read for the study not the practice of religions? Any good survery books or something?

Dear Claire,

Thanks for your question! I think that it would help me to know a little bit better what about religions you'd like to study, and from what angle you'd like to approach religion. However, a few books come to mind:

The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell (Haven't read, but know it's a classic)

Religious Autobiographies by Gary Comstock

Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions by Arvind Sharma (I haven't read this, but it looks like a good overview)

Finally, this book is more about a personal search for the religion that suits you best, but it might be also be interesting as a kind of overview, since it's got several different ways of looking at religious experience (I liked it a lot).

Finding your Religion by Scott McClellan

Roses and Shrines

Angela asks:

Ok - I have a question. Last week I had a retreat and it was held at Maria Stein Center (a Catholic retreat center.) I have never been completely opposed to the Catholic faith, because I am a nut for tradition - but I left with an uneasy feeling and some questions regarding their symbolism and "stuff." On to my questions- On many of the pictures and statues of Mary her sandals had roses on them - does this represent anything? Second, I visitied the "Shrine of the Holy relics" - do these shrines wig you out (cause they do me)?

Angela,

Before the printing press made mass media--newspapers, books, etc.--available to the public, most people couldn't read. People learned about spiritual things, instead, from pictures, symbolism, and the spoken word. So when the church wanted to teach about a particular saint, they gave that person a symbol to go with them to make them recognizable to the person viewing the portrait. So Saint Sebastian, who was martyred, is always shown with arrows going through his body. Saint Ambrose, who earned the nickname "The Honey-Tongued Doctor" often has a beehive nearby.

As you noticed, Mary is often associated with the rose. There are many possible reasons for this. Mary is known as the Queen of Heaven and the rose is, by parallel, known as the queen of flowers. There is also an association with Jesus, whose blood is red like a rose, and who is associated with the Rose of Sharon. In general, the rose is known as the most beautiful of flowers and is associated with love, which made it a rich symbol for imaginative connections with Mary.

To answer your second question: The old shrines with the holy relics in them don't necessarily wig me out, but I do feel like the space is different. It's a little bit like being in a cemetery--close to death and dead people--but with the difference that it's much more public, and there are usually miracles credited to whatever the saint-object is. I usually just feel like there has been a lot of prayer in the place, giving it a sense of peace and mystery, but also, maybe, some desperation.

Funeral poem

"Anonymous asks:
My dad died and tomorrow is the funeral do u kno any poems that are short that may relate to a teenage girl who was never close to her dad bc he did drugs?"

Dear Anonymous,

I am sorry to hear about your dad. This is a hard time for anyone, whether or not you were close to him. I'm afraid I've missed the funeral, but for someone whose life was probably not very peaceful, the 23rd Psalm could be a good choice--it talks about finding rest and peace in God's presence:

"Because the Lord is my Shepherd, I have everything I need!

He lets me rest in the meadow grass and leads me beside the quiet streams. He gives me new strength. He helps me do what honors him the most.

Even when walking through the dark valley of death I will not be afraid, for you are close beside me, guarding, guiding all the way.

You provide delicious food for me in the presence of my enemies. You have welcomed me as your guest; blessings overflow!

Your goodness and unfailing kindness shall be with me all of my life, and afterwards I will live with you forever in your home."

-- The Book (Tyndale House Publishers)

If this doesn't feel totally authentic for you, you might also try this verse from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

Finally, I have a hymn that I think is very hopeful, called "Hymn of Promise."

"In the bulb there is a flower; in the seed, an apple tree;
In cocoons, a hidden promise: butterflies will soon be free!
In the cold and snow of winter there’s a spring that waits to be,
Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.

There’s a song in every silence, seeking word and melody;
There’s a dawn in every darkness, bringing hope to you and me.
From the past will come the future; what it holds, a mystery,
Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.

In our end is our beginning; in our time, infinity;
In our doubt there is believing; in our life, eternity,
In our death, a resurrection; at the last, a victory,
Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see."

I hope these are some ideas that you might be able to use when you're thinking about your dad. I'm sorry to hear that he died, and I hope that you will be able to let go of him gently, but that you'll let yourself be upset about it if you need to be.

Prayers,

Amy

Your questions here

Hi folks,

If you've got a question, put it in the comments here. I've made some changes to so I can respond faster. Thanks!

Fishing for actual fish

Heather asks: "What do you think God says about fishing and hunting when it's not for survival (ie, you don't need to do it to eat)?"

I'm not sure how to answer this one, knowing that Heather enjoys the sport of fishing, and also knowing that I have a fishing license of my own at home and plans to get a rod, reel and some worms to the lake tomorrow morning....

Here goes: God in Genesis gave human beings the role of steward and caretaker of the earth. Fishing and hunting that keep overpopulated animal populations down, and that aren't harmful or cruel to animals fit that role of steward, in my opinion. Wasteful and destructive use of animals, however, does not. The question is: where do you draw that line?

Good question, Heather.

Early Christian Vegetarianism

Tara asks: "is it true that some early Christian communities were vegetarian?"

Short answer: It's very likely that some were, but probably not for the reasons that modern vegetarians have now.

Long Answer: I did some checking around, and it looks as though there are a few vegetarians out there who want to argue that Jesus, et. al. were vegetarian on the principle that meat is bad, animals are to be valued, etc. I find this very difficult to believe based on two pieces of evidence from the gospel: First, Jesus and the disciples were part of a fishing culture, and second, because of a story in which Jesus explains why he's not an ascetic.

In the story of the loaves and the fishes, found in all four of the gospels, Jesus and his disciples are out in the middle of nowhere, and a huge crowd of thousands has followed them there to hear Jesus talk. As it's getting on toward night, the disciples try to get Jesus to set some boundaries and send everyone home for the night. But Jesus' heart swells with compassion and he says, "Well, what kind of food do we have on hand?" There was a little boy there with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Jesus blesses the paltry offering and sends the disciples out into the crowd to hand out the pieces. By the time they're done, the whole crowd has been fed--with leftovers. Based on that story, it would surprise me if Jesus didn't eat fish.

Second, going vegetarian in those days was a spiritual practice for ascetics. If you wanted to get in touch with God through self-denial, one route was by not eating meat. Jesus, however, was more of a party animal than an ascetic. On one occasion, some ascetics confront Jesus because he drinks wine and has a good time hanging out with sinners. Jesus says, "Look, you can't mourn while the bridgegroom is still here." In other words, Jesus wasn't an ascetic, although you could see in that story the early Christians trying to explain why they were fasters (now that the bridegroom is gone) while Jesus wasn't.

So what about those early Christian vegetarians? Basically, there were a couple of reasons why you might be a vegetarian back then: first, as a spiritual practice related to fasting. By eating less, fasters have more time to contemplate God's presence. It's a mystical thing.

Second, Christians became vegetarian in an effort to avoid eating meat offered to idols. Back in those days, all the meat was offered to the gods before people sat down to eat it. Some early Christians took the attitude that it didn't matter if they ate the food since the gods were fake anyway. But others were disturbed by that practice. In this passage, Paul advises against eating food sacrificed to idols, and hence advises a vegetarian diet.

God's Grandparents

Heather conveys a question from her Sunday Schoolers-- "Does God have grandparents?"

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Since God is an eternal and uncreated being--God has always existed and does not have an origin or a source--God can't have grandparents because they would have existed before God did. There are examples I'm familiar with in Greek and Native American mythology of the gods who rule the world being born from earlier beings--parents and grandparents, and in some strands of Buddhism it's possible for a person to be reborn as a god, so presumably in that rebirth you'd have god ancestors, but in the monotheistic traditions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam--God always existed and does not have parents.

This raises an interesting issue in trinitarian theology. [Somewhat technical explanation to follow--ed.] Because classical trinitarian theology has required that the Christ be a co-equal person within the Trinity, and not somehow lesser than or subsequent to the Creator or Holy Spirit, even though Jesus is the Son of God, the two of them (and the Holy Spirit) are all uncreated and eternal beings.

CS Lewis describes it this way: you should imagine three books that have been resting on a table throughout eternity. Just because one book is lying underneath the other doesn't mean that they aren't all eternal, just that they have a particular relationship to one another--that of one supporting the other. The relationship itself, in this case, is eternal as well.

While I tend to think that trinitarian theology gets a little ahead of itself in being able to describe the very inner workings of God, and that it's nearly impossible to extrapolate something clean and logical from the Bible on the topic of God's nature, I do appreciate the importance that the trinity implies for relationship. The trinity as Christian tradition has imagined it suggests that God is not a single, lone-ranger, self-sufficient and independent force, but is in fact an egalitarian community within herself, bound together into one being by love.

Apes and Super-Apes

Our Sibling Rail Gun of Compassion, Shannon, passes along a question asked by one of her fifth-graders in all seriousness: "do you think that since humans evolved from apes, that one day apes will evolve into like super apes and take over the world?"

My first reaction is this: It seems highly unlikely to me, but on the other hand God can do whatever God wants to do. After all, the development of intelligent human life was also highly unlikely. We didn't appear until billions of years after the creation of the world, and after hundreds of millions of years of its domination by dinosaurs. What allowed us to follow in the footsteps of the dinosaurs was their being wiped out by a large meteor and the ensuing long-term darkening of the sun. Because dinosaurs were large and cold-blooded, they died off where small, warm-blooded mammals were able to survive.

Based on this example, I would suspect that if a species were to follow us as a widespread dominating species, it would probably have to be very different from us, since what could kill us off would most likely kill off the apes, too. So maybe we'd have another lizard phase. Or the dolphins might take over. Or the cockroaches might have the chance to profit from their resistance to radioactivity. It's hard to predict in advance. And the bottom line is that none of this will happen in our lifetimes, or for that matter the lifetime of the Statue of Liberty.

There are interesting theological questions behind the original one, though, that I'll look at in later posts:
1. Are humans the only animals with a divine destiny?
2. What does believing in evolution say about God?
3. Can we trust the Bible?
4. If there were super-apes, would the second amendment be useful to us? Or would Charleton Heston have to find another way to fight them?

P.S. Shannon--I suspect your 5th-grader is familiar with the Planet of the Apes already, whether or not they've actually seen it.

Your question here:

Hey folks--

What burning issues do you need addressed today? I am happy to take a crack at whatever questions you have. And I'll even try to distinguish between fact, educated guess, and opinion. So how 'bout it: ever been confused about the difference between denominations? Wanted to know who wrote the New Testament? Want to know what hermeneutics are? Drop in in the comments and I'll be happy to answer.

Best,

Amy

Belated Maundy Thursday Answer

Heather asked a week ago:

"Here's a question for your Q&A blog - what the heck does "maundy"
mean? Dictionary.com isn't much help"

"Maundy" comes from the Latin word "commandment," which refers to Jesus' new commandment to the disciples, given to them at the Last Supper. This Last Supper is what we commemorate on Maundy Thursday.

Choosing the Next Pope

Shannon asks in a timely manner: how do they pick the next pope?

The death of Pope John Paul II is of course a sad event for everyone. He was often a figure of controversy, but at the heart someone who was not afraid to stand up to the evils both of totalitarian regimes and capitalist excesses. He will be missed.

The basic process for electing a pope is this: A maximum of 120 elector cardinals gather at the Vatican to deliberate and choose a new pope. This discussion can go on for a long time; now that the electors are put up in very nice living quarters, there may be less of a rush to decide on someone quickly. These electors were chosen by previous popes, and for the most part were chosen by Pope John Paul II. As a result, he will have had considerable influence over who is chosen next. However, the decision is not by any means certain.

The number of votes required for agreement is a 2/3 majority, but Pope John Paul II introduced a new rule in 1996, which says that once votes have been taken 30 times, an absolute majority (half plus 1 vote) can elect the pope. Discussions are secret, so we probably won't have the chance to read through the minutes. Of course you probably wouldn't want to, anyway--my guess is that they'll be in Latin.

Footwashing

Tara asks:
hey Amy, here's the usual seminary trick question, inspired by the Maundy Thursday service today: Why is foot-washing not a sacrament like communion or baptism?

A very good question--I was wondering that myself. It seems that footwashing is not a sacrament at least partly because of the obvious issues--it's very personal, is logistically complicated, and is not always aesthetically pleasing. However, it used to be that the Mennonites, Amish, and other Anabaptists did practice footwashing as part of the communion service.

There were some retired Church of the Brethren pastors at my footwashing service (a friend refers to them as "left-wing Amish") and they told about how when they were young everyone would gather from around the countryside on Easter weekend for the Love Feast, which was communion and wine and lots of other food, and also included footwashing. Communion took place, however, only once or twice a year--Maundy Thursday and World Communion Sunday. The change to just bread and wine was gradual, but some people still refer to it as "Bread and Cup Communion" as opposed to the full service.

Aside from the aesthetic and logistical problems with footwashing, I'd say there are at least four other reasons that it did not become a Christian sacrament:

First, the situation in which it is originally used is fairly specific to people who wear sandals all the time and who expected to have their feet washed as part of a formal banquet. This doesn't translate well to cultures where people don't customarily wash feet.

Second, while the custom of drinking blessed wine and bread was a longstanding religious ritual in ancient Israel, footwashing did not carry with it a similar symbolic weight of connection to Passover or any other Israelite tradition.

Third, footwashing was not as widespread as communion among the early Christians--it is only described in John, and so the communities from which the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke came were not practicing this ritual from the very beginning, making it all the more unlikely that it would later become a sacrament.

Finally, John uses Jesus' act of footwashing as a prefiguring of and symbol for his death on the cross. It's not clear from the story whether when Jesus says "also wash each other's feet" that he means it literally or symbolically.

I will say, though, that footwashing is an excellent ceremony for occasional use--it is a good way to experience in powerful ritual the call to service that Jesus makes on Maundy Thursday.

Terri Schiavo's soul

Tara asks:
"Moreover, her parents say, depriving Schiavo of nutrition and water is something that she as a Catholic would object to. 'We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even to jeopardize her immortal soul,' said the parents' attorney Gibbs." I know you're no Catholic scholar, but please explain to me how this last sentence has any theological truth to it. The idea that God would punish her is.....appalling, to say the least.

From what I understand, the basic premise of the lawyer's statement is that if Terri were to voluntarily end her own life by choosing to have her feeding tube removed, that would be an act of suicide. Because suicide means killing a living being--yourself--it is considered in Catholic theology mortal sin, and because you can't repent of it before you die, you will have that sin on your soul when you come before God for judgement. I'm not sure if they still believe in Purgatory, but the idea there was that your leftover sins would be purged from you through painful torture until you're purified of them. The trick, really, is to confess and repent all your sins right before you die so you won't have to burn them off in purgatory. :-) And, the bigger the sins, the longer it takes to get rid of them. Once they're gone, though, you get to go to heaven. Mortal sins, however, cause immediate damnation if they're not repented of, and suicide is one of them. (Incidentally, so is missing Mass on Sunday)

Some things that don't make sense about the lawyer's assessment of Catholic doctrine:
1. Terri won't actually be the one making the decision to end her life, so she wouldn't be guilty of suicide.
2. She's had communion several times according to one article I was reading. (It was about someone complaining that he couldn't put food in her mouth because it's a choking hazard, but who had been giving her "spiritual" communion for many years) This suggests that she is in a state of grace.

I think where I ultimately disagree with the official Catholic view of this situation is in its assertion that committing suicide is a sin that causes damnation. God can choose to forgive anything, and while suicide suggests a deeply damaged relationship with God, it doesn't mean that God has stopped loving a person, or that the person has completely forsaken God. To my mind, suicide is more tragedy than sin. Similarly, the death of Terri Schiavo's body is more the final tragedy in a series of tragedies than it is a sin of any type.

Grieving

Shannon asks:

"a friend and i were talking the other night about how both of us had very christian grandfathers die and grieving was really frowned upon during the service. it was all, they're in heaven now, etc. and so it made me think is this is evangelical protestant thing to frown on grief and other emotions in general (esp. negative emotions like depression, anger, etc) or is this a thing of church history through the ages? if so, where did that come from? i know the verse that says "we do not mourn like those who have no hope," but there needs to be an adequate place for grief. so just wondering your thoughts on that matter."

Shannon, I might go more along the lines of the "evangelical protestant thing to frown on grief and other emotions in general" in explaining this one. I don't have a lot of background information on other cultures, but I read an interesting book a few years ago about western attitudes toward death in the middle ages, etc. You might be interested to know, for example, that before our modern medicine started taking over the deathbed, when people died they were usually surrounded by their family. They would feel death coming, and would make a speech--their final testament--and then lie there and wait until they died. This isn't always how people died, of course, but if you were fortunate enough to die peacefully, this would usually be the way. Now there is more a distance and mystery around death, I think, as we move away from the land, from nature, and people die more often in hospitals or nursing homes rather than at home.

I know people who say things like "I don't want anybody to mourn for me after I'm gone," and I understand the sentiment--they don't like to be the cause of someone's pain. But on the other hand, that's a little like asking people not to love you or miss you when you're gone. If I had a great friend who moved to the other side of the country for her dream job, I'd be happy for her, but I'd still miss her. The funeral, in other words, and the time of grieving afterwards are for the people left behind, not for the person who has died, so they should be places where people can experience and work through the pain of the loss.

In addition to the impulse to cover up or hide pain, though, I think there's also an attitude that children can't handle loss. I don't know how old you or your friend were when your grandfathers died, but there may have been some of that attempt to shield children which is, in my opinion, usually an attempt by adults to shield themselves from their own emotions.

Cheap grace

Duckie reminds me of a question from my other blog:

Isn't that a philosophical failing of the "grace of god," though? If one believes in divine forgiveness, that a god will give a person grace for any action, no matter how repugnant, where is the moral/ethical door that bangs shut before one sins boldly? Christianity sometimes appears to let people off the hook for the consequences of their action (unless you're only reading Old Testament, that is, then there's a whole lotta smiting going on).

Thank you for a very thought-provoking question. I'll start by making a quick distinction: there is a difference between experiencing/accepting the consequences of doing something wrong, and the experience of forgiveness and reconnection with God. For example, just because I've asked for and received forgiveness from God doesn't mean I shouldn't go to jail for stealing a car. Part of the tradition (albeit sometimes under-emphasized) is making right what you have done wrong in some way. Not that that somehow earns the forgiveness, but it is part of the process.

And there is a different limit on forgiveness that I personally find very challenging--that if we expect forgiveness from God, we also need to forgive other people for what they do to us.

But your larger question about the grace of God ultimately reminds me of a story from the Old Testament--the book of Jonah. It starts when God calls Jonah to go and warn the people of Ninevah about the impending divine smackdown. But Jonah doesn't want to go because Ninevah is the conquering oppressor and is a mortal enemy of Israel. The best analogy I can come up with at the moment is if one of Sadaam Hussein's Baathist followers were to start praying for mercy and blessings for Washington, DC.

Jonah gets the call, leaves his house, and starts moving...in the opposite direction from Ninevah. The part of the story you're probably familiar with happens now. Jonah catches a boat to the western end of the world, but God kicks up a huge storm. Jonah admits he's the cause of it, and tells the sailors to throw him overboard, which they do. The storm clears immediately, and Jonah is swallowed by a giant fish of some kind that takes him back east. There he is vomited up on shore in a most dignified manner.

So Jonah goes to Ninevah, walks for a whole day to get into the center of the city, and says one sentence: "God's coming after you for all your sins!" and walks out again to sit on a hill and watch the destruction. The people of Ninevah hear what he says, and they take it to heart. Everyone dresses in repentance clothing: sackcloth and ashes (even the animals) and the lowliest to the highest lie around weeping and fasting and begging God for mercy.

God hears this and takes pity on the city of Ninevah, and decides not to smite them after all. Which pisses Jonah off, no end, since A. he hates the Ninevites, and B. this means his prophecy is now not true, and his prophetic reputation is shredded.

So God has a little volunteer tree/weed thing grow up overnight to shade Jonah from the hot sun while he's sitting on the hill. Which Jonah likes very much. And then the next day, God sends a little worm to eat at the root of the plant to kill it. Which again pisses Jonah off. He yells at God "Why don't you just kill me now?" To which God replies: "Look at you! You're getting all worked up over a little plant that grew up in a single day. Don't I have a right to be gracious to the hundred thousand people in Ninevah, not to mention all the plants and animals there?"

Christian Unity

Tara asks:

Given the differences in theology,etc. between the numerous Christian denominations, where do you think the Christian Church (as a whole) should put its emphasis? I mean, is there a space for Christian unity and if so, what would it look like?

Tara, I very much like an image from 1 Corinthians, where Paul describes the church as being like a body. Some people are the eyes, some are the feet, and so on. I think that denominations are similar in that way--they serve different purposes in the larger body, and make it possible for more people to fit in right somewhere.

It's an interesting question, though, where the entire church should be bending its energies. Whether it should be or not, the church today is wrestling with the many changes in culture and society that have come about as the result of modern science, sociology, psychology, and history, and the challenge to hierarchy presented by modern thinking. The big gay question is the most recent outgrowth of this: the gay rights movement is an extension of feminism, which was made possible by the industrial revolution. Life and culture are shifting very rapidly compared to, oh, say, Western Europe from 800-1200AD. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, medieval scholars). And you'll notice that homosexuality is an issue, if not a ridiculous preoccupation, with most denominational bodies in the US, just as ordaining women was about 20-30 years ago.

What this means is that the church is working hard to stay relevant. This is necessary work--a kind of developmental task that can't be avoided--but unfortunately it pulls us away from our core tasks: teaching, worshipping, serving, sharing the gospel, building community. And it's a distraction from our work serving the vast numbers of the poor, globally, as well as the spiritually hungry right here in the US. The Christian Church as a whole is called to love God and neighbor. I realize this is a very general statement, but hey, I'm quoting Jesus so I should be able to get away with it.

Ask another question!

Hey folks,

Along with your run-of-the-mill theological debates, this blog is also open to answering questions using outside "slave labor" experts. Feel free to submit questions on:

Law
Ornithology
Meterology
Film
Music
Basics on Investing

Of course none of it will be "professional" advice, but you're not paying for it either! Put it in the comments box and let's keep talking!

Christ and the Bible

Angela also asks:
"How do you have faith in Christ if you don't believe that all scripture is true?"

Well, it is possible--here is what my approach is:

1. Scripture--The Bible is a collection of stories about Jesus and how he affected the people around him. It was written by humans and is not a perfect document, but God can use it as a tool to teach us. That doesn't mean God always does this, or that the Bible is universally and totally reliable (as I discuss below), but it does mean that the Bible has been and continues to be an important way God speaks to us.

2. Tradition--Looking to how our forbears in faith have followed Christ is another way that God can speak to us. There is a tendency, with too strong an emphasis on the Bible, to priviledge some sections of our tradition over others.

3. Reason--For me, this is what pulls the disparate parts together--we use reason to balance scripture, tradition, and experience, and to critique them. These different witnesses won't always be in harmony, and reason helps judge which ones are more persuasive at any given time.

4. Experience--This is the source of authority that I find most persuasive. And I have met Christ in my personal experience--in the actions of church members and other caring Christians, and in times of reflection, prayer, and worship. I can read about Christ in the Bible, but what makes a real difference to me is encountering Christ personally, whether through the Bible or other sources.

Scripture and Truth

Angela asks:
Question, you state "Just because it's in scripture doesn't mean it's true," can you elaborate on this a bit more?

Angela, thanks for the chance to explain this more in depth. It has a lot to do with how I view Scripture, its interpretation, and the kind of truths that it has to offer.

First, let me talk about truth a little bit. There are facts, and there are deeper truths about how the world works and what people are really like. And while the Bible gives us a lot of information about the history of our faith, it is not, and is not intended to be, factually correct in the modern sense. This is where we run into conflicts between the modern interest in facts, and attempts to squeeze the Bible into a genre it was never intended for--as science and history textbook.

So, for example, the story of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke:

Both writers have a problem to solve, which is that Jesus was from Nazareth, but according to prophecy the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew solves this problem by having Mary and Joseph start out in Bethlehem, but then having them flee to Egypt for a couple of years, after which they returned to Israel but settled in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, creates a census that would force Joseph to bring his pregnant wife to Bethlehem. They return to Nazareth after the birth.

Luke's version
Matthew's version

Which version is factually true? Probably neither one--Jesus was from Nazareth, and travel in those times was extremely hazardous and expensive, so it's not very likely that a pregnant woman (Luke's version) would travel miles over desert land for a census, or that a family of little means (Matthew's version) would be able to afford a trip to Egypt.

But both of these stories have a different kind of truth to them--Jesus brought hope and a new kind of kingdom to the people of Israel, symbolized by his birth in Bethlehem. Jesus was persecuted for this, and had the stature and authority of Moses, as Matthew's story suggests. And Jesus was born under humble circumstances, as in Luke's story. These stories are not strictly factual, but they give us insight into the meaning of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection.

Catholic Church and Birth Control

Rob asks:
Why does the roman Catholic Church refuse accept the use of birth control. I beleive that is a major disservice to all the people on the planet. Overpopulating our great earth is a serious issue, that needs to be addressed.

Rob, the official church teaching on birth control, as I understand it, is a part of a consistent commitment to preserving life and the openness to its possibilities. Preventing conception with any type of contraception is prohibited based on this principle. Also prohibited: abortions, the death penalty, and suicide.

I think what you're also asking here is why the church would have this type of a policy when in some cases it seems to lead to more human misery rather than less. To be fair to the church, I think that they want to maintain consistency of thought and teaching, and are idealists who want to encourage people to only have sex within the bounds of marriage and only when they are ready for children. I don't think their intention is to create human misery or to force people to have unwanted children.

The church also teaches that there is a "unitive" dimension of having sex--i.e. it brings people closer together emotionally and spiritually. My own opinion is that this dimension is equally important and relevant, and can be an independent motive for having sex, without the need for openness to having children. As you say, it's important when acting on these ideas to keep in mind the practical consequences of refusing people birth control--overpopulation, unwanted children, etc.

Hell III

Meister asks:

I think it is a flawed perception to recognize that people can only be loving, good people through god, and in that way, make their heaven on earth. I think there are plenty of people who strive toward being loving and good in their everyday life, without any belief in god, or any hope of eternal reward for it. Is it so much less to want to be good and loving for good and loving's sake, rather than for eternal life or out of fear of hell and damnation? Does that mean that one's life has less of a purpose than one who finds goodness and grace through god?

This is a good question--my answer is that eternal life is a gift from God, not something that is earned. To think about it another way, eternal life is something supernatural, and therefore we need to have it given to us by a supernatural being.

I'm not saying "be a good person so that you'll go to heaven." It's impossible for anyone to be good/perfect all of the time. And even if we could, that wouldn't make God love us anymore than she already does.

I agree with you that there are plenty of people who strive to be loving and good without any belief in god, and I am not going to be the one to say "stop this meaningless pursuit of good deeds!" I think truly selfless good works will probably persist after we are gone in the way they continue to ripple in others' lives.

But if that connection with God--eternal life--is a gift to be accepted from God and we choose not to accept it, God won't force it on us.

Hell II

Eric asks:

So there is no Hell? Hell is ceasing to exist?

Personal opinion or supported by scripture?

Scripture's witness is varied as far as hell is concerned. The Old Testament has a conception of hell called Sheol, which is a kind of shadowy non-existent existence. When people die, they continue to exist as memories, but aren't able to praise God, or take action. I've heard it described as being similar to the ancient Greek concept of Hades.

When I am speaking about death as being the end of life, this is mostly the image I draw on.

I recognize that there are stories from the New Testament about "the outer darkness" and other forms of punishment, but I tend to take them with a grain of salt, because I don't think they fit in well with Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God. If you don't have eternal life from God, what will live on to be punished?

If anything, though, I think Jesus' stories about hell suggest that rich people are the ones with the bleak future. For example, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, it's Lazarus who goes to heaven and the rich man who goes to hell. Who's rich? you might well ask. I'd say: most Americans, as in, anyone who's not living on a dollar a day and can afford to buy bottled water and extra shoes. Just a theory--something to think about.

Hell

Follow-up question from Shannon: "so do you believe in hell? the whole question of salvation really intrigues me."

If God is all-powerful and just, then people who do bad things will have to be punished--which is what hell is about. (Of course, all of us do bad things, so I'm not rooting for that one, personally) On the other hand, if God is totally merciful, then some people will get away with horrible crimes scot-free, which would not be fair to the people who try really hard to be good.

Of course, this assumes that "being good" doesn't have any intrinsic rewards, and that we're all basically in it for the life of luxury after death, or else to avoid the fiery hell full of demons with hot pokers.

My take on it is this: developing a relationship with God, and experiencing the eternal life God offers are rewards in and of themselves. Prolonged exposure to God changes our perspective so that we want to be loving, good people, and we will be transformed by gratitude and joy, rather than fear or greed.

So to answer Shannon's question: I say no. I think that the price of disconnection from God is death, which is to say, ceasing to exist, not going to a place subject to torment by demons. If you don’t have eternal life, there is nothing that will continue after you die. People who focus on the material things of this world—power, money, etc.—and don’t develop a relationship with God will lose everything they worked so hard for. As one T-shirt I've seen says, “whoever dies with the most toys, still dies.”

While it means your life didn't have a larger purpose, I think ceasing to exist at death would be a demonstration of God’s mercy compared to other options. Without life, there is no suffering, even though there is also no joy. And you're not forced into a relationship that you didn't choose.

Heaven, on the other hand, is full communion with God, which begins in this life and continues into the next. By valuing who and what God values, by taking time to expose ourselves to God through spiritual disciplines like prayer and study, and by allowing God's Spirit of love and generosity to invade us, we can have heaven on earth.

First Question! Universal Salvation

Hooray! Shannon has asked the first question. And it's nice and complicated and asks for my opinion. How can I resist? Here it is:

what do you think of universal salvation? that's asking more for your opinion than just a question with a set answer, but i'm still curious, so i thought i would ask.

There are several stages to this question. First of all, some of you may be asking: "What does she mean by universal salvation?" The idea behind universal salvation is that God saves all people, not just the ones who believe in a particular thing or act a certain way. For more on this see: If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Phillip Gulley and James Mulholland

Second: What is salvation? I believe that salvation is not the same thing as getting into heaven and sitting on clouds playing harps... er whatever. Salvation is having a new life--eternal life--and becoming part of God. It's something mysterious that begins while we're alive, and continues after we die. This eternal life--participation in the realm of God--is a gift from God.

Finally: Do I believe in universal salvation? I don't--I think it ties God's hands as much as demanding that Jesus be the only possible path to God.

Free will is key here. God loves us but does not force us to be in relationship. If all people are saved, then there is no choice, and the relationship is one of control of us by God, rather than freely elected love.

Ultimately I believe the key to salvation is not ethics, behavior or belief, but a relationship with and connection to God. But this isn't a connection we earn or initiate--God comes to us first. Our response--accepting that love and responding to it--is what begins the ongoing relationship and allows eternal life to well up inside of us. Those who don't choose it simply don't continue in that life after they die.

Call for volunteer experts

If you don't have a question, but have an area of expertise, let me know. Right now, Tara has claimed "legal" consultant, and Meister is an expert in post-1980's films. So if you're ready to volunteer, step up!

Also, still accepting questions, and I will allow anonymous posting as soon as I can figure it out on the template.

New blog

From time to time my lovely Heather will call me on the phone with a question, such as, "Do Episcopalians have dioceses?" or "Have you ever heard of this denomination?"

Now, in a special offer to the blog-reading public, I am making this service available through a fancy new blog.

Got a question? Stick it in the comments section: I'll copy and re-post.