Sign me up as a “New Kind of Christian”. I almost wish there were another name for it - as I don’t want to be seen as what many people think of when they describe themselves or others as Christian. I totally agree that the essence of being a Christian is love and goodness - and if that is not the manifestation of believing in God/Jesus - I am not interested. I have always said that if the Dalai Lama is going to Hell and Falwell/Robertson/Swaggert are going to Heaven - I am just going to have to learn to enjoy warm climate.
“I don’t care what the Bible says. I think sometimes we’ve worshipped the Bible and its words rather than the essence of the God of love. So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly. And I think people do that in their own hearts; they’re just afraid to say it.”
That’s an interesting clip. Jim, is the person in the clip anyone well-known? She’s quite articulate about what she believes.
I was so relieved when I watched this video. Even after 12 years since my U-turn to being a follower I always felt these thoughts were my quiet secret. Then I hear this woman saying the same thing! I never had the childhood experience she had but all of her other viewpoints are the same. I’m not so alone.
I don’t care what the Bible says. I think sometimes we’ve worshipped the Bible and its words rather than the essence of the God of love. So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible.
This is where I am going, I think…its certainly what I expressed in my posting about maturing faith when I observed that what the church has done to homosexuals does not match with my experience of God…so my conclusion is that the church has it wrong. And having come to that conclusion, I won’t step away from it. I’ve counted the cost: if I’m wrong, well…then I haven’t judged sin as sin. OK, I’m not called to judge sin anyways. Not my job. But if I’m right…man alive, we’ve been hating on Gods children in His name. That is something to turn from and renounce!
Its a scarey place to be though, because there are lots of cracpot ideas out there, lots of Jim Jones and Heavens Gates…to not have anything to really rely on except my own experience and my own assessment…oh dear. I’m going back to my books.
When I was in college I told one of my pastors that I thought I might be a universalist. He said, “Stephan, we’re all universalists. If we weren’t we’d drop everything and stand on a street corner preaching all day.”
I’m not quite comfortable saying I don’t care what the Bible says, but I think the Bible is just vague enough about Heaven and who is going there that God can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t need to tell me how He’s going to do it.
In my end days of being a christian, this was similiar to what I believed. I stopped believing in hell altogether. I felt that if god is truly love, and truly forgiveness, and if jesus died on the cross for our sins, with no conditions………….then everybody goes to heaven. That seemed like the logical conclusion for me.
When i had to reconcile satan (since i didn’t believe in hell as a tool of punishment), I imagined satan as a sulking child hiding behind the couch and refusing to come out until mom apologized for spanking him. I imagined that the apocalypse wasn’t about judging us, or punishing us, but it was about the end of a grand experiment, and it was the time that Satan would admit his wrongdoing, and ask for forgiveness, and god would let him come back.
Those were most definately the days I was most happy as a christian.
When i had to reconcile satan (since i didn’t believe in hell as a tool of punishment), I imagined satan as a sulking child hiding behind the couch and refusing to come out until mom apologized for spanking him. I imagined that the apocalypse wasn’t about judging us, or punishing us, but it was about the end of a grand experiment, and it was the time that Satan would admit his wrongdoing, and ask for forgiveness, and god would let him come back.
So are you happier now than you were at your happiest point as a Christian?
“I don’t care what the Bible says. I think sometimes we’ve worshipped the Bible and its words rather than the essence of the God of love. So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly. And I think people do that in their own hearts; they’re just afraid to say it.”
“Who is Jesus to you…. if a person is happy with their belief system, then let them be…?”
I guess I’m where I was on Lisa’a Division post… What if there is a right and a wrong…
You can think I’m brilliant or you can think I’m a total idiot… neither makes who I really am any different. So, IF Jesus is who the Bible says, aren’t we in deep crap if we follow our feelings and our beliefs unless they line up with the Bible?
This is really a fascinating discussion that may change many of our perspectives. I doubt that many of us have been thinking about this “New Kind of Christian” when we have been using the word Christian on the blog. When I say I am reluctant to be called a Christian (and I also dislike labels) I would be delighted to be called a Christian if the person in this clip (and Jim/Lisa, etc) were what people thought of when I said I was a Christian. I also doubt that this “New Kind of Christian” is what some of the Atheists on this board find difficult to take and feel a need to “take them on.” I am wondering what others - both Atheists and “Christians” think about that?
Jayson, what you described was very similar to the last thing I believed as a Christian before I moved onto having serious doubts about everything.
Lisa, I understand what you’re saying about anonymity. I didn’t realize that clip was an OTM interviewee - I thought perhaps it was some famous person sharing her beliefs, that was from a TV program, say.
Anyway, I would say that my brief universalism ‘phase’ was the best version of Christianity I ever seriously tried to believe. But I wouldn’t say I was happier then than I am now. I have a peace now I didn’t have as a Christian.
This time a year ago I was on my way to spend the next 4 hours in church, warming up and then being an instrumentalist in the Good Friday services. I’m not the least bit sorry not to be doing that this evening.
So are you happier now than you were at your happiest point as a Christian?
Great question Lisa. And to be honest…….absolutely. Even at that time, the feelings I got when I thought about that facet of god equal to what I feel now everyday about life.
It was still a rough spot in my life. I was having a difficult time reconciling the constant setbacks I was encountering with this god that I loved very much. I didn’t understand how despite loving the idea of heaven very much, why life would be so hard.
and that’s when I started becoming a deist. But even then, i kept blaming the faults in my life, my deficiencies on some cosmic force that wanted to beat me down.
It took me admitting where *I* went wrong, where I was sabotaging myself, to finally come full circle and take charge. But when I did that, it didn’t feel like I was admitting sin, it felt like I was taking responsibility.
Jeff wrote: IF Jesus is who the Bible says, aren’t we in deep crap if we follow our feelings and our beliefs unless they line up with the Bible?
I’m not afraid of being wrong, I guess, because I’m so sure the version I’ve been taught of what the Bible says has serious problems.
(But I suppose, if worst comes to worst, I can use my irremovable ‘get out of the deep crap’ hand stamp that says “saved for all eternity” on it, and ‘escape as though through flames’)
Jayson,
That is so interesting to me. Thanks for sharing.
So it sounds like you made a choice between these two things:
An image of God as oppressive
and
Taking responsibility for your own actions
Is that correct?
That is so interesting to me. Thanks for sharing.
So it sounds like you made a choice between these two things:
An image of God as oppressive
and
Taking responsibility for your own actions
Is that correct?
Well, when I was transforming into a deist, it wasn’t so much about god being oppressive, as it was about feeling that something spiritual in the universe was oppressive.
But yes, that was the decision I made at that time. It wasn’t the sole reason why I became an atheist, nor was it really a sudden shift. but it was the begining of me being willing to take the risk that there might not be a god in the universe.
And I can assure you, the passage between that belief of god and moving to one where you don’t assume he exists, is terrifying. It’s pure dread. Because you are certain that if you’re wrong, that god will create a hell for him to roast you in.
That very moment is the worst time for me being an atheist. Letting go.
And I can assure you, the passage between that belief of god and moving to one where you don’t assume he exists, is terrifying. It’s pure dread. Because you are certain that if you’re wrong, that god will create a hell for him to roast you in.
That very moment is the worst time for me being an atheist. Letting go.
This sounds like a bad place to be; between a rock and a hard spot. A terrifying position. I’d rather not believe in God too if that was my choice: Believe in an oppresive cosmic energy or don’t believe and risk damnation. Aweful.
I once made a choice when I was leaving college after my recommitment stage: I decided I had to choose between having sex and being a christian.
I chose sex. It was a dumb move to think I had to choose. I think God would have helped me work through it. I spent years just bobbing around. I think we reduce things to black and white to make decisions and complex things easier to deal with but we actually may be making life more difficult.
this video also reminds me of a quote attributed to Marianne Williamson and repeated by N. Mandela: Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
This womans honesty is very liberating for me.
Great video.
My reactions are so many, I can’t quite trace them all. Let me try.
My militant atheist side watches this video, and her body language, and I think her body language matches her theology. It’s like watching a game of theological twister. Contortion, rationalization, apology for feeling the way she does…. It’s what I kind of call the “elaborate tabernacle of belief.” Belief in God is very seldom simple. People elaborate on it. They add and add, and reassess, and add again. Then they talk about the parts they don’t like, and change that, and guild it with beautiful gold-leaf… and it becomes quite boroque.
To the point where, I really wonder was there any God under there in the first place? I know my beliefs were like that.
Anyway. I don’t like to give voice to those feelings here. The person in the video is sharing something from her heart. She’s sharing HER love for humanity, and that’ is truly humbling. It’s putting yourself out there in a way that’s so hard to do.
I think she has provocative beliefs. I think this site is ABOUT provocative beliefs. And I think, good for her! I’m really glad when people talk about their beliefs, and are honest, and straightforward, and really say “this is me. This is what I believe.
Take it or leave it, but this is me.”
I think it speaks right to the question above: how do we evaluate our own beliefs?
I honestly couldn’t do it after awhile. I couldn’t tell my true spiritual beliefs from my false ones.
I honestly couldn’t do it after awhile. I couldn’t tell my true spiritual beliefs from my false ones
Siamang
First - thanks for being our first offical guest blogger
Second - The comment you made is profound. I think the reason many Cs don’t want to hear ideas that challenge their “beliefs” is because they are afraid of having your experience. which I think is more honest than “fake” beliefs.
It undoubtedly says more about me (in the context of this group) than it does about her, but I was astounded at what claptrap this was. It that is what it means to be a “new kind of Christian”, sign me up for atheism.
But, of course, no danger of that because a “NKOC” is really not a Christian at all. They are a nice, well-meaning, caring, tender-hearted (but soft-headed) new agey “spiritual” person. Words mean things. And the word “Christian” means something. It defines a belief where the final standard for orthodoxy is the Bible. So anyone who says that, “if there is a conflict between what I think and what the Bible says, then I’ll go with what I think,” may be a nice person but they are not a Christian. (That doesn’t mean, by the way, that they are going to hell. That’s a very different issue.)
She has basically gutted the word “Christian” of any meaning at all. If it has no meaning, why be one?
BTW, I agree with Siamang on her body language. It shows that she is one poor, confused lady.
Also, just a point to Jayson: in #12 you wrote, “I was having a difficult time reconciling the constant setbacks I was encountering with this god that I loved very much. I didn’t understand how despite loving the idea of heaven very much, why life would be so hard.”
Boy, oh boy, can I ever relate to this. But I responded to my episode of suffering in a very different way because I saw it in a very different paradigm. (And this took a long time to work through so there was a lot of struggle in process.)
But the paradigm through which I interpreted that stretch was, if you will, God as Personal Trainer. Now, I have never had a personal trainer (if you saw me I wouldn’t need to say that ;-) ), but I have a good friend who does have one. He has put my friend through a great deal of suffering — diet, exercise, other kinds of discipline — in order to get him into shape physically.
I’ve also thought in terms of God as Football Coach. Imagine summer camp, hot days, full gear, wind sprints, up-downs, scrimages… Why? To make them hurt? No! Because the Coach wants for the players the best that there is: a Super Bowl ring.
Just a comment of yours that jumped off the page at me; struck me as interesting.
Oh, one other thing about the video I forgot to include; in my recent class on comparative religions, one of the things that each of the monotheistic speakers brought out was that Christianity was a much more difficult and complex religion than Judaism or Islam. In either of those there are things you must do and things to eschew. If you do what you should and avoid what you shouldn’t, then, by definition, you are an observant Jew or Moslem.
But Christianity does not have a list of observances and things from which to refrain. Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.
But this lady appears to want to dumb-down the complexity of Christianity by simply throwing out anything that isn’t convenient to her. That puts her in the same class (albeit a much more loosey-goosey version of it) as earlier systematic theologians. They also looked at the Bible and took what fit in their box and threw everything else away.
The one good thing she said was in the early section when she spoke of holding two truths in tension. Unfortunately, her later comments made that less than entirely credible.
It undoubtedly says more about me (in the context of this group) than it does about her, but I was astounded at what claptrap this was.
Awesome - someone who has a different POV - now we can actually have a discussion! :)
Tom, were any of the following things she said claptrap? (I’m probably paraphrasing)
Jesus understands her
God is all goodness
As a parent she can’t conceive of consigning a child of hers to hell eternally
As a parent she can perhaps think of letting a grown child make their own choice not to have a relationship - but she can’t imagine how anyone who sees God is all goodness would want to do that
And the word “Christian” means something. It defines a belief where the final standard for orthodoxy is the Bible. So anyone who says that, “if there is a conflict between what I think and what the Bible says, then I’ll go with what I think,” may be a nice person but they are not a Christian.
I missed the part where Jesus says this ;).
Where did you get that definition of a Christian from? How do you know it’s correct?
(That doesn’t mean, by the way, that they are going to hell. That’s a very different issue.)
Interesting. What causes a person to go to hell, then, if it’s not ‘not being a Christian’? Are there people who fit your definition of ‘Christian’ who you expect to go to hell (I realize you’re not the judge - I’m just asking for your considered opinion based on what you believe about God)
BTW, I agree with Siamang on her body language. It shows that she is one poor, confused lady.
I disagree - I think the primary indicator of confusion is the content of what a person says, not their body language. And I would say she spoke clearly and without equivocation; so I did not perceive her as ‘confused’.
I noticed her body language and I think that could reasonably be ascribed to the nervousness many people would feel if asked to share something personal with a camera stuck in their face (even though I’m sure the OTM staff did this as nicely as possible).
She has basically gutted the word “Christian” of any meaning at all. If it has no meaning, why be one?
I disagree - I thought she came across as finding a great deal of meaning in Jesus’ presence and example.
But Christianity does not have a list of observances and things from which to refrain.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-8) is not a list from Jesus of observances and things from which to refrain?
Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.
How does your method of figuring that out different from the woman in the video’s way of figuring that out? Does it differ?
But the paradigm through which I interpreted that stretch was, if you will, God as Personal Trainer. Now, I have never had a personal trainer (if you saw me I wouldn’t need to say that ), but I have a good friend who does have one. He has put my friend through a great deal of suffering — diet, exercise, other kinds of discipline — in order to get him into shape physically.
I’ve also thought in terms of God as Football Coach. Imagine summer camp, hot days, full gear, wind sprints, up-downs, scrimages… Why? To make them hurt? No! Because the Coach wants for the players the best that there is: a Super Bowl ring.
I respect that paradigm; it was mine too, once. Jayson’s comments intrigue me because they’re so similar to the journey I’ve been through in my own thinking. I can relate to where the paradigm can break down - for some people.
in my recent class on comparative religions, one of the things that each of the monotheistic speakers brought out was that Christianity was a much more difficult and complex religion than Judaism or Islam. In either of those there are things you must do and things to eschew. If you do what you should and avoid what you shouldn’t, then, by definition, you are an observant Jew or Moslem.
I don’t know who your speaker were, because that sure isn’t my first-hand experience of Jewish people and Judaism. I do recognize it as what some Christians conclude from reading the Bible (and being ‘taught what it means’). Do you know any Jewish people? Have you read any of their writings for yourself?
But Christianity does not have a list of observances and things from which to refrain. Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.
Isn’t that what the woman in the video says she does? Maybe she is a Christian after all ;)
But this lady appears to want to dumb-down the complexity of Christianity by simply throwing out anything that isn’t convenient to her.
Isn’t that the same thing as “Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.”, except in the first quote you make it sound like a good thing; but now you’ve reframed the same process and given it a negative spin?
With her reasoning God (as a parent) would not have sent his child to die as a sacrifice either. I, as a parent, would not want to send my son to die for crimes he did not commit.
Furthermore, she dismisses Jesus’ words easily to fit her idea of what God would do (sheep and goats comes to mind first). Basically, it seem to me, she does not accept the validity of our scriptures.
I don’t think the main reason Jesus died was so we could go to heaven. It was to reestablish a relationship between man and God. Heaven is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Having a God who is active in our daily life is “The Kingdom of God” at hand.
I may be off, but I am searching my heart, listening to my mentors and searching the scriptures for answers and corrections.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-8) is not a list from Jesus of observances and things from which to refrain?
Actually, I don’t think it is! I think it’s a way of looking at the law from the perspective of grace rather than works! For instance, the law says “No Murder” (it does NOT say “thou shalt not kill” by the way, the translations are wrong on that), Jesus says, oh yeah? I say not only that, but you can’t even HATE your brother! Eventually he gets to the real “meat” of the issue. “Seek first God’s Kingdom and HIS righteousness, and all the rest will work itself out.” (my paraphrase)
But I agree with Tom (been too busy messing around with getting ready for Easter to post till now).
The quote that stuck in my craw was this. The same thing others have mentioned
“I don’t care what the Bible says. I think sometimes we’ve worshipped the Bible and its words rather than the essence of the God of love. So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly. And I think people do that in their own hearts; they’re just afraid to say it.”
If she’s setting herself up as the judge of “goodness” then she is her own authority. Put it this way. No self respecting scientist would believe something because it made them more comfortable, would they? No, they would expiriment, test, and observe repeatable phenomena to arrive at the “truth”. Why whould we armchair theologians not seek the truth rather than seek comfort in what we wish the truth would be?
One of the essentials of “creedal Christianity” is that the Bible is the authoritative message of God. If I set myself above it in this fashion, I can hardly be REALLY called a “creedal Christian” no matter what I might want to think about myself.
Like I often say. I can call myself a tomato. It doesn’t make me one. btw, I don’t worship the Bible either, but I don’t set myself above it. Am I uncomfortable with Hell? Of course I am. I have also been uncomfortable with the existence of Pol Pot, of Mao, of Stalin, of many evil world leaders and movements. But they still existed and still exist today.
Ir,
I really appreciate your comments here. And I appreciate Tom for speaking his mind.
I can’t help but think that this ‘dumbing-down’ he accuses her of is a threat to him somehow.
Tom, It sounds like your tone is, “Wait! you’re making it look easy and it’s not. It’s hard and complicated. It was hard for me so it needs to be hard for others too. I’ve finally gotten this Christianity thing down so don’t go making it look simple.”
Of course, I’m reading all that into your comments. I could be totally off.
I was having a difficult time reconciling the constant setbacks I was encountering with this god that I loved very much. I didn’t understand how despite loving the idea of heaven very much, why life would be so hard.
and that’s when I started becoming a deist. But even then, i kept blaming the faults in my life, my deficiencies on some cosmic force that wanted to beat me down.
I find this out look expressed often enough among my Christian friends to believe it is widely held. It isn’t an outlook of empowerment, and it isn’t an outlook that will lead to much personal responsibliity for change.
What is intereting to me, about my journey, is that I never held this belief. I didn’t start out with much of a religious base - I had a mother who was mad as hell at the church (she was raised abusively in a catholic boarding school). One of the clearest and most consistent lessons she gave me was that I alone am responsible for my choices and my actions, and those will determine the course of my life.
What I did, however, once I started practicing a religion, was to give credit to God for every good thing that happened to me. I owned the bad things, but not the good.
Its easier, I think, to go back over my life and see where my skill, will, and intellect helped me transcend and triumph than it would be to look back and acknowledge my contribution to failure. I’ll admit, I’ve given God tons of credit that I earned. But there are still a handful of times, as I look back over my experience, that I believe I encountered my God. Those experiences are what I am holding on to now, as I explore the history of Christianity, and really look hard at what humanity has done to the message and mission of Christ.
Julie Marie wrote: Its easier, I think, to go back over my life and see where my skill, will, and intellect helped me transcend and triumph than it would be to look back and acknowledge my contribution to failure. I’ll admit, I’ve given God tons of credit that I earned. But there are still a handful of times, as I look back over my experience, that I believe I encountered my God.
I respect that. I also admire your willingness to take a hard look at what Jesus’ real mission and message is.
Eliza wrote:
“I can’t help but think that this ‘dumbing-down’ he accuses her of is a threat to him somehow.
Tom, It sounds like your tone is, “Wait! you’re making it look easy and it’s not. It’s hard and complicated. It was hard for me so it needs to be hard for others too. I’ve finally gotten this Christianity thing down so don’t go making it look simple.”
Of course, I’m reading all that into your comments. I could be totally off. “
What an observation and thinking, Eliza.
I like it!
(No offence to you, Tom. But, it maybe true.)
I, too, agree with Ir about how I view the lady’s body language. I’ll just add more. I think that she was not uncomfortable with what she believes, but she is uncomfortable with speaking it out to the public about it. I can totally identify with this kind of pressure and uneasyness since I’ve been around fundy Cs all of my life. (I maybe wrong with my guess with this lady’s emotion, but this is how I felt)
When I know so clearly what would some (or a majority of) Xians would think after hearing me talking about my believe (in the way this lady has expressed), I would feel hesitated and don’t know how I should make my point clearly expressed.
It is because I know how offensive and uncomfortable those audience would feel. (Surprisingly, even with the Xians on this site, we can see this phenomenon happens as well)
I would already forseen what kind of “judgement” (let alone condemnation), and objections they will have. It is with all these forseen reactions in mind that would make me feel hesitated and difficult in putting my thought in words.
I deeply appreciate the boldness and kindness of this lady in sharing so honestly with her believe with us.
Just one last response:
I read quite a number of Xians responded here questioning her choice of “ignoring the Bible teaching” if that contradicts with her image of the gracious and loving God.
However, how do you know for sure that the “principle, or teaching, or truth” of the Bible is really what God meant them to be??
Can they just be men-made doctrine?
Can they just be human interpretations?
Therefore, can we say that this lady is not objecting to God’s law, and she is just honest to her feeling and thinking which is also given to her by God the Creator?
However, how do you know for sure that the “principle, or teaching, or truth” of the Bible is really what God meant them to be??
That’s a good point and it is one that is worth exploring, but her statement remains…
So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly.
That in a nutshell is my issue with her statement from an “orthodox” biblical theological perspective. She has set her own personal authority above that of the Bible in matters of truth claims. She is very “strong” about this. This, I have to say, is at odds with what I’d call “creedal Christianity” Am I saying she is not a Christian? No. I am merely examining the statement she makes.
Great comments, everyone. The video only came through in 2-3 second clips for me, hard therefore to watch, but interesting.
Re body language, I think she’s revealing something very personal & isn’t used to doing that, much less on video. Her brows are more expressive than the rest of her face, are furrowed often, which may give the impression she’s worried or conflicted. Her words, smiles, and her look upward when she starts relating her discussion with God (early on) don’t fit w/ this impression.
The speaker says early on that she was raised Catholic. Later she says:
See, theology sometimes pretends to know, but we don’t know — none of us know.
Ir nudged Tom nicely on this comment of his:
And the word “Christian” means something. It defines a belief where the final standard for orthodoxy is the Bible. So anyone who says that, “if there is a conflict between what I think and what the Bible says, then I’ll go with what I think,” may be a nice person but they are not a Christian.
Tom (and others): maybe that’s what “Christian” has come to mean, but nothing (that remains) was written during Jesus’s life, by him or by others. The books of the NT were written ~30-70 yrs after his death, and the NT didn’t come together in current form until ~300 years after Jesus’s death. The first 300 years’ worth of Christians didn’t have this particular set of orthodoxy to follow (they had various oral traditions, and later various texts many of which didn’t make it into the NT). Did the first Christians, the ones closest to Jesus temporally, get it all wrong? The Bible is full of contradictions; which part(s) are true and to be followed? Which of the many Christian churches, groups, and theologians has the correct interpretation?
I don’t care what the Bible says. I think sometimes we’ve worshipped the Bible and its words rather than the essence of the God of love. So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly. And I think people do that in their own hearts; they’re just afraid to say it.”
This is the crux of what she believes. The question is, if she doesn’t trust the Bible, what is she basing her spirituality on?
The nice thing about this forum, as Ir points out, is that we can discuss our perspectives. I have to voice my agreement with Tom and Peter. What she describes is not Christianity. As Peter says, calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean it is so. Of course, thankfully, it’s not up to us to determine that.
Lisa said:
It sounds like your tone is, “Wait! you’re making it look easy and it’s not. It’s hard and complicated. It was hard for me so it needs to be hard for others too. I’ve finally gotten this Christianity thing down so don’t go making it look simple.”
I don’t think we’re saying Christianity is not simple. However, it is simply not what is expressed in the video. Being a Christian to us is just accepting God’s grace in granting us the opportunity for a relationship with him. As Tom points out, there are principles God has set up to give us the best life possible, which a Christian will recognize and strive to live by. As he says, the tricky part is figuring out how that should always play out.
I was composing & hadn’t seen the 3 prior posts. Esther, thanks but that wasn’t me! I think it was Ir. Peter and Tom, can you describe more - what about her analysis like this seems invalid to you, and why?
I believe that Jesus loves everyone, and God and Jesus is the biggest force of love in the universe. Now whether you know this Jesus or not doesn’t matter so much — because the truth of the universe is that he knows you. That’s what it means to me. I have this secret that the God of the universe is love, and he loves you, every single human being, and he won’t stop loving you no matter what you do.
That doesn’t sound so far off from alot of what Jesus said in the gospels, to my admittedly unchurched reading…
So if the Bible contradicts what I think is goodness then I will not believe the Bible. I feel that strongly.
Peter, I think what she was saying there was simply this,
“If I found any interpretations of the Bible is contradiciting to what I think is goodness, which I perceive this God is, then I’ll question the validity of this interpretation of the Bible. I will not accept this doctrine / orthodox for the time being until I find some new light with it. I will not force myself to swallow a God that in my mind contradict Himself. It just doesn’t make sense!”
Now, how does this thought become an issue with the “orthodox biblical theological” perspective?
BTW, I always have this question,
“Howcome the will of God has to be so complicatied and hard to understand and needs so many scholars to study and bring the truth out, if God’s heart is for everyone to come to Him?
Westy, can you explain some of your comments a bit more to help me understand?
As Peter says, calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean it is so. Of course, thankfully, it’s not up to us to determine that.
Who is the determination up to? How do you know when you are meeting that determination and are a Christian?
I don’t think we’re saying Christianity is not simple. However, it is simply not what is expressed in the video. Being a Christian to us is just accepting God’s grace in granting us the opportunity for a relationship with him. As Tom points out, there are principles God has set up to give us the best life possible, which a Christian will recognize and strive to live by. As he says, the tricky part is figuring out how that should always play out.
Is she not “accepting God’s grace in granting [her] the opportunity for a relationship with him”, or is she not going about it the right way? Since it can be tricky to figure out how that play out? Again, am asking for more detail to help me see…thanks!
Who is the determination up to? How do you know when you are meeting that determination and are a Christian?
Good question. But I’ve found a curious confusion in place in much of the world that says that anyone can call themselves a Christian regardless of what they actually believe, when in historical reality, defining oneself as Xian connotes an agreement with a set of doctrines best described in the apostles’ and nicene creeds.
This is something that has bugged me for years. We (thinking Xians) want our words back, in other words!
Also…
That doesn’t sound so far off from alot of what Jesus said in the gospels, to my admittedly unchurched reading…
That quote you referred to does indeed sound much like what Jesus says in the Gospels… though I would argue it is woefully inadequate…
FYI - this is such an interesting question for me - I have set up a thread on “What is a Christian” at OTM Discussion Board (shamelessly quoting several of you in the initial post!) ;)
I was afraid of this. I figured that writing would be akin to a hand grenade at a birthday party. [shrug] Sorry ’bout that.
I think God gave us our minds for thinking and our emotions for feeling. And in our society and culture there are a lot of folks who, for reasons I don’t even want to get into, have gotten it screwed up. And what I saw was a woman, a kind, nice woman, I’m sure; who is trying to think with her emotions. She wants truth to feel good. And sometimes the truth hurts. Who didn’t learn that growing up?
I won’t attempt to answer every question; too many of them. If I miss your favorite and you really want to know, remind me again.
Ir: her perspective on parenting and hell. There are a lot of things that I, as a parent, can’t imagine sending my kids to. But when our kids were growing up I told them, here is what I expect. If I ever get a call from you down at the police department, don’t expect me to bail you out. Let’s look at that. If they’re at the PD, then they CHOSE to do something that was wrong, or at least unwise. I made it clear to them that, for these purposes, my standards were the same as society’s standards. If society had condemned them to jail for what they did, I condemned them to jail for what they did. Now, at this point you’re undoubtedly glad you’re not my kid. But the point is, in jail as in hell, people get there by making bad choices and people get there by not taking advantage of the behaviors (beliefs) that will keep them out of there. God is love. But God is also just.
So, you tell me. Does Hitler or Pol Pot deserve the same eternal reward (if there is one) that you think you deserve? Either justice applies, or it does not.
Lisa, you’re totally off. ;-) Hey, that was your suggested possibility. ;-) But seriously, the notion of it being a threat to me is…off the charts. I couldn’t care less what she thinks (from the perspective of threat — she has no power to exercise a threat). No, this is entirely a matter of applying principle and logic and reason to her words. She simply doesn’t make any sense in any meaningful way.
Ir, WRT the speakers in the comparative religion series, all were university professors (from different universities) who were “trained” in their fields. One was a rabbi, one had been through seminary, though probably never a pastor, the third, was a moslem, though I’m not certain if he’d ever been an imam. All were PhDs in some branch of religious studies. Two had backgrounds in other religions than they taught. They were not hacks, IOW.
Ir, definition of a Christian. That was a shoot from the hip definition. I wanted to keep it simple. Personally, I like Peter’s reference to creedal Christianity but I didn’t want to limit it since there have been groups like the Quakers who have historically been Christian but have eschewed creeds. (Indeed, my own background in the Covenant Church eschews creeds because of their tendency toward divisiveness.) I thought about using “orthodox” but that not only limits, it is also confusing whether you mean philosohical orthodoxy or “denominational” orthodoxy. The point was, and is, that there is only one unassailable source of information about Christ for the believer: Holy Writ. As soon as you consciously reject scripture because you don’t like what it says, you have cut the foundation out from under yourself as a Christian. The word no longer has content.
Peter wrote: But I’ve found a curious confusion in place in much of the world that says that anyone can call themselves a Christian regardless of what they actually believe, when in historical reality, defining oneself as Xian connotes an agreement with a set of doctrines best described in the apostles’ and nicene creeds.
How do we know what historical reality is? Maybe historical reality looked more like today than Christians would like to believe - maybe there was a similar ‘confusion’ with many people who disagreed over what they believe all calling themselves Christians.
Tom wrote: I was afraid of this. I figured that writing would be akin to a hand grenade at a birthday party. [shrug] Sorry ’bout that.
Hey, I was bored at the party. It got more exciting when you showed up with the hand grenade :)
Ir: her perspective on parenting and hell. There are a lot of things that I, as a parent, can’t imagine sending my kids to. But when our kids were growing up I told them, here is what I expect. If I ever get a call from you down at the police department, don’t expect me to bail you out. Let’s look at that. If they’re at the PD, then they CHOSE to do something that was wrong, or at least unwise. I made it clear to them that, for these purposes, my standards were the same as society’s standards. If society had condemned them to jail for what they did, I condemned them to jail for what they did. Now, at this point you’re undoubtedly glad you’re not my kid. But the point is, in jail as in hell, people get there by making bad choices and people get there by not taking advantage of the behaviors (beliefs) that will keep them out of there. God is love. But God is also just.
Yes but what happened to Jesus bailing people out? That seems absent from what you just wrote. If God has decided to forgive undeserving people, why does God make such a big deal of “Ah, but you have to ask me the right way” - it almost seems petty. Why is murder forgivable but not saying “please forgive me” isn’t?
So, you tell me. Does Hitler or Pol Pot deserve the same eternal reward (if there is one) that you think you deserve? Either justice applies, or it does not.
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. If Jesus died on the cross to save sinners then justice is satisfied, right? So why ask what anyone deserves?
Ir, WRT the speakers in the comparative religion series, all were university professors (from different universities) who were “trained” in their fields. One was a rabbi, one had been through seminary, though probably never a pastor, the third, was a moslem, though I’m not certain if he’d ever been an imam. All were PhDs in some branch of religious studies. Two had backgrounds in other religions than they taught. They were not hacks, IOW.
Maybe they weren’t hacks - but nevertheless, a rabbi who simplistically says that all you have to do to be an ‘observant Jew’ is keep rules - well, he hasn’t even read the Old Testament, has he? It clearly has God disgusted with those who outwardly observe his laws but whose hearts are far from him.
As soon as you consciously reject scripture because you don’t like what it says, you have cut the foundation out from under yourself as a Christian.
But what is the foundation made of? The opinions of certain people. How do we know they’re right? How do we even know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John interpreted Jesus’s life and mission correctly? Jesus didn’t (physically) write his own autobiography. That he wrote it in a spiritual sense is one more belief: it’s accepted by faith rather than being able to be proved - so it seems to me.
Thanks for the questions of clarification, Eliza. Sorry I wasn’t clear before. Here’s what I’d say to the best of my knowledge.
Who is the determination up to?
God. (Rom. 2:1-6) “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’” Thankfully it’s not up to us to judge whether another person is a Christian or not. We can definitely get an idea, and we are called to hold fellow Christians accountable, but it’s not on any one of us to judge another’s true heart.
How do you know when you are…a Christian?
The Bible implies that if you are truly a Christian you will have assurance that you are. (Heb. 10:22)
To clarify the previous latter portion, I meant only that it can sometimes be tricky to determine how to live out day to day all Christ’s principles.
Westy - thanks for replying, but I’m going to ask more & prod a bit because I don’t quite understand. Regarding the NKOC lady in the video, you said earlier,
What she describes is not Christianity. As Peter says, calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean it is so. Of course, thankfully, it’s not up to us to determine that.
And then
Who is the determination up to?
God. (Rom. 2:1-6) “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’” Thankfully it’s not up to us to judge whether another person is a Christian or not. We can definitely get an idea, and we are called to hold fellow Christians accountable, but it’s not on any one of us to judge another’s true heart.
How do you know when you are…a Christian?
The Bible implies that if you are truly a Christian you will have assurance that you are. (Heb. 10:22)
And Tom was pretty clear in his self-described grenade ;) that
I was astounded at what claptrap this was…a “NKOC” is really not a Christian at all. They are a nice, well-meaning, caring, tender-hearted (but soft-headed) new agey “spiritual” person. Words mean things. And the word “Christian” means something.
But isn’t it possible that she has felt this assurance in her true heart, from God? That Christians, or some Christians - like you and Peter and Tom - might feel that she’s not a true Christian, but - as you say - that it isn’t up to other Christians to judge whether she is or not, rather it’s up to God? (Playing Devil’s advocate here, so to speak…)
And, not for the first time, I re-read and see that the way I put it sounds like a pretty loaded question. I really am interested in hearing more about how you can tell whether someone is “really” a Christian - in this example, it would have to be from what they say. Was it solely her comment about not believing in the Bible if it contradicted what she felt, or was there more (that she said, or left unsaid)? Thanks!
How can “assurance” be such a “sure” way to measure - that is a largely evangelical invention to justfiy the rationale for “inviting Jesus into our hearts” all subjective and impossible to measure.
It is a modern invention of our overly self aware culture. We’re forced to “proof text” this since there is no overriding pattern of this idea born of the great commission marketing campaign.
All we can do is say yes I am assured and others will say no you aren’t - sounds like the same approach mormons use with the ” inner witness” deal.
Jesus focus was less about “beliefs” and internal”experiences” and more about fruit.
As Karen Armstrong stated the other day in an article “beliefs mean nothing”. I agree - they are overrated in terms of real life change- mostly just disembodied ideas people carry around in their heads with little or no life change especially in the American culture where it doesn’t really cost us anything to believe or not believe.
The only thing that matters is my life- what does it say
And yes I believe in Jesus as my savior etc just for the record but what interests me more than that is what does Jesus believe about me.
Westy wrote: the Bible implies that if you are truly a Christian you will have assurance that you are. (Heb. 10:22)
(By the way, I thought the proof-text for this belief was Romans 8:15-16 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ” Abba , Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.)
About assurance - this completely mystifies me. I mean, all assurance is, is “I am sure about my beliefs”.
So what? I don’t see any necessary
connection between being sure and being right.
Admittedly I have an ‘advantage’ in having had lots of personal experience in certainty that turned out to be erroneous, because of my journey through mental illness. Yet, I don’t think when I was ill I thought entirely unlike people who are well. The illness just made everything way more extreme. (Yeah, it was a big problem - I’m not trying to minimize it) So - I think I can draw inferences from my illness experiences that apply to everyone to some extent.
Some people seem sure about everything. I think it’s partly a personality thing. Would that mean only people with an “I’m sure” type of personality can be Christians? Is it a ’sin’ to have the ‘wrong’ type of personality? (Assurance sure is a good way to make people with less certainty in their make-up worry about whether they are ‘true’ Christians or not - I’ve observed that)
As Jim mentioned, Jesus seemed interested in ‘fruit’. His response to people who asked who he was was to tell them to look around - what did they see? What did they hear? He wanted them to figure out who he was from his actions, not from his words.
As Eliza mentioned, what about all the people who are ’sure’ about their beliefs (or lack of belief), who don’t agree with you? Where does their assurance come from? Satan?
But isn’t it possible that she has felt this assurance in her true heart, from God?
Certainly she could think she’s a Christian. Says John Piper, “What makes this agonizing [assurance] - for many in the history of the church and today - is that there are people who think they have saving faith but don’t. For example, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”
how [can you] tell whether someone is “really” a Christian?
All we can do is say yes I am assured and others will say no you aren’t…
As you say, often all we have to go on is only what someone says. As you imply Jim, the true Christian, however, should be evident by their ‘fruit’.
Ir said:
Would that mean only people with an “I’m sure” type of personality can be Christians?
I don’t think so. As Piper says, that’s why assurance is agonizing. He goes on to say, “…the agonizing question for some is: do I really have saving faith? Is my faith real? Am I self-deceived? Some well-intentioned people try to lessen the problem by making faith a mere decision to affirm certain truths, like the truth: Jesus is God, and he died for my sins. Some also try to assist assurance by denying that any kind of life-change is really necessary to demonstrate the reality of faith. So they find a way to make James 2:17 mean something other than what is seems to mean: ‘Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead.’ But these strategies to help assurance backfire. They deny some Scripture; and even the minimal faith they preserve can be agonized over and doubted by the tormented soul. They don’t solve the problem, and they lose truth. And, perhaps worst of all, they sometimes give assurance to people who should not have it.” God can shine into our hearts enlightening the truth despite the fact we are doubting, sinful, and naive people.
I don’t think this is an easy thing by any means. To doubt is human. We must refresh ourselves anew in the Gospel at those times. Piper leaves off, “What this means practically is that we should continually look to the cross and the work of God in Christ, because this is where God makes the light of the gospel shine.”
Sorry Westy- I really do understand where you are coming from and have used this approach many times myself - but can you read it and see how an outsider sees this as a non answer- it is all still subjective - it is what Siamang notices when he says we need to keep re explaining it to ourselves-
I did and continue to notice that, Jim. But I’m also really enjoying the interaction that that video provoked.
I would like to respond to Tom’s post above.
Ir: her perspective on parenting and hell. There are a lot of things that I, as a parent, can’t imagine sending my kids to. But when our kids were growing up I told them, here is what I expect. If I ever get a call from you down at the police department, don’t expect me to bail you out. Let’s look at that. If they’re at the PD, then they CHOSE to do something that was wrong, or at least unwise. I made it clear to them that, for these purposes, my standards were the same as society’s standards. If society had condemned them to jail for what they did, I condemned them to jail for what they did. Now, at this point you’re undoubtedly glad you’re not my kid. But the point is, in jail as in hell, people get there by making bad choices and people get there by not taking advantage of the behaviors (beliefs) that will keep them out of there. God is love. But God is also just.
Let’s talk a little bit about the “justice” of Hell. For my purposes, I’ll define Hell as fire and brimstone land. This is “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” Hell. I’ll call it “Big Hell,” by virtue of its large population. Not “Hell Lite” where you just are seperated from God but not roasting, or going by your own choice to be apart from God. It’s also not “temporary Hell.” This is full-blown creedal Hell.
The moral problem with “Big Hell” is this: Infinite punishment for finite sin.
Let’s say a fifteen year old is really bad. Let’s say he runs prostitutes in a war-zone, and conscripts children into the army of some god-forsaken nation. Lets say he’s as bad as a 15 year old gets. Then he dies in his sins.
Okay, he’s REALLY BAD. He’s as bad as he can be for 15 years. But he’ll be punished for that 15 years, not for 15 years. Not for 150 years. Not for 15,000 years. But for a number so large that you’ll never, ever reach it.
The stars will burn out, every single one of them, before this kid is done roasting.
Kind of a slight problem of proportionality there.
Now let’s turn to little Bessy. Bessy also died at 15. She lived a good life until she was 10. Fully a christian, and all of that. At 11 she got hooked on drugs. At 14 she supported her habit by prostitution. At 15 she took her own life.
She’ll be roasting too. For infinity years.
Infinite punishment for FINITE sin.
So, you tell me. Does Hitler or Pol Pot deserve the same eternal reward (if there is one) that you think you deserve? Either justice applies, or it does not.
Hitler didn’t torture people INFINITELY. The God who presides over Big Hell does.
Who punishes God for this extreme bloodbath?
Does Justice apply to God? If not, why not? Either justice applies, or it does not.
There is something morally wrong with a God meteing infinite punishment to finite beings.
People who see that moral wrong have a mental choice to make.
I think they always choose one of these possible solutions:
1: Hell is really only one or more of the versions of “Hell Lite”- seperation not torture, by choice not permanent, etc.
2: God’s moral laws aren’t men’s laws. (This is the ‘God is a badass, don’t question Him!’ point of view held by Pat Robertson and people sitting on piles of ammo in a shotgun shack in Montana.)
3: Hell doesn’t exist. But God does.
4: Hell doesn’t exist, and neither does this definition of God.
1) People who aren’t ‘true’ Christians can have assurance that they’re right (which means therefore that theirs is ‘false’ assurance)
2) People who are Christians can lack assurance (which means that assurance can be there but get submerged under worry, or doubt, or whatever)
and yet still claim that ‘assurance’ can be a meaningful indicator of whether we have true faith?
To me it seems like you’re saying: “when the sun is shining it’s going to be a warm day. Yes, I’ve been out on sunny days when it’s freezing cold and yes, I’ve been out on very warm cloudy days.
But nevertheless, I still believe that when the sun is shining that means it’s going to be a warm day.”
Jim and Ir, this is what I like about discussing things with you–you often cut straight to the heart of a matter. Thanks for your great observations and questions. I don’t know if I’m doing this any sort of justice, but here goes:
and yet still claim that ‘assurance’ can be a meaningful indicator of whether we have true faith?
Yes, but it is really only an indicator. A sense of assurance does not necessarily equate with salvation. In your example, the sun shining could be an indicator that it’s warm outside, but there are obviously other factors. It is possible, as you note, for real Christians to go through periods where they do not have the full assurance of hope.
As Jim notes, that is what makes self-assurance a subjective indicator of salvation. The objective portion of salvation is the reality of God’s work in Christ. Says Piper, “There is a paradox here. For many people–most people, I think–the more we focus on the subjective inner workings of our own soul and the relative purity or impurity of our own attitudes and behavior, the more uncertain we become of our own assessment of our authenticity. Paradoxically the path to assurance is to shift our focus off of ourselves and onto God. Off of the subjective and onto the objective.”
God wants us to have full assurance, though, because that’s where the joy, freedom, and power of our right relationship with Him can gain full meaning.
What do you think of this anonymous video conversation approach?
Imagine a group viewing this video either during or before meeting (or never actually meeting together at all like on a blog. How could it change “small group” discussions or “book discussions”?
What other topics could this approach be used to provoke more meaningful learning?
Is it helpful that the person on the video is anonymous (to most of the audience) and how would it change the process if they were well known?
Jim, it certainly sparked discussion here, possibly because it gave both Christians and Atheists something to disagree with!
I’ve never really been one to enjoy discussion groups based on videos, but they usually show a 30 minute video with 10 minutes to discuss. Maybe something like this would work better. Short video, lots of discussion.
I think something like this almost needs to remain anonymous. As soos as the speaker is known there is baggage attached. If it is a widely respected Christian figure, then more weight is given and people might be swayed to agree against their better judgment. If it is someone viewed as a fringe semi-heretic, they would be too easily dismissed. Either extreme would kill productive discussion.
I’ve never really been one to enjoy discussion groups based on videos, but they usually show a 30 minute video with 10 minutes to discuss. Maybe something like this would work better. Short video, lots of discussion.
I agree - the length of the video is critical- I think one interesting point (maybe two) can be made in less than 3 minutes - I also think the “way” the video is produced (less talking head - more interviewish) makes a difference to the viewer as well.
I have come to the conclusion that most great learning is done as a voyeur - we like to eavesdrop - we like to pick and choose which pieces of the idea resonate and which ones we ignore - all without having to tell someone
I think we are mostly visual learners as well- it mimics real life most closely.
Other topics you would like to see initiated in the manner?
What do you think of this anonymous video conversation approach?
I definitely like it. I think it has a lot of potential. Our church has used Rob Bell’s NOOMA videos for small group discussions. They’re definitely usually thought and discussion provoking.
As for the conversational approach used above, I like the anonymous nature of it, as Stephan says. It allows the viewer to more freely feel they can disagree. It would be important to allow the freedom to disagree if a viewpoint was expressed. I do think that great discussion could be had by presenting a viewpoint and then offering people the chance to reflect on it.
Other topics you would like to see initiated in the manner?
I can think of several intra-Christian topics. Related to this forum, I’d like to see similar short interviews in which an agnostic or atheist described what they thought of God. Or perhaps from a Baha’i member. I wouldn’t mind seeing more senior/established Christian theologians share their views on tougher Christian theological issues. Most people probably wouldn’t recognize them and could discuss what hopefully would be a well-learned perspective.
What do you mean? Because the obvious answer (for an atheist) is that they think God doesn’t exist.
As an agnostic, I can probably give a somewhat more interesting answer, or at least a longer one.
I guess I was anticipating that an atheist could articulate a viewpoint on God or maybe on why they don’t find God valid. Maybe ask why do they find the Christian God _________ (insert adjective here)?
Regarding anonymity. When the identity is not revealed the emphasis is on the meaning of the words without measuring it against the persons credibility. I like that. But, I also like in the movie, “What the Bleep Do We Know” when the experts identities are revealed at the end. It lends a great reference point.
Comment by: Marty
1Sign me up as a “New Kind of Christian”. I almost wish there were another name for it - as I don’t want to be seen as what many people think of when they describe themselves or others as Christian. I totally agree that the essence of being a Christian is love and goodness - and if that is not the manifestation of believing in God/Jesus - I am not interested. I have always said that if the Dalai Lama is going to Hell and Falwell/Robertson/Swaggert are going to Heaven - I am just going to have to learn to enjoy warm climate.
Comment by: Ir
2From the clip:
That’s an interesting clip. Jim, is the person in the clip anyone well-known? She’s quite articulate about what she believes.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
3I was so relieved when I watched this video. Even after 12 years since my U-turn to being a follower I always felt these thoughts were my quiet secret. Then I hear this woman saying the same thing! I never had the childhood experience she had but all of her other viewpoints are the same. I’m not so alone.
Comment by: Julie Marie
4This is where I am going, I think…its certainly what I expressed in my posting about maturing faith when I observed that what the church has done to homosexuals does not match with my experience of God…so my conclusion is that the church has it wrong. And having come to that conclusion, I won’t step away from it. I’ve counted the cost: if I’m wrong, well…then I haven’t judged sin as sin. OK, I’m not called to judge sin anyways. Not my job. But if I’m right…man alive, we’ve been hating on Gods children in His name. That is something to turn from and renounce!
Its a scarey place to be though, because there are lots of cracpot ideas out there, lots of Jim Jones and Heavens Gates…to not have anything to really rely on except my own experience and my own assessment…oh dear. I’m going back to my books.
Comment by: Stephan
5When I was in college I told one of my pastors that I thought I might be a universalist. He said, “Stephan, we’re all universalists. If we weren’t we’d drop everything and stand on a street corner preaching all day.”
I’m not quite comfortable saying I don’t care what the Bible says, but I think the Bible is just vague enough about Heaven and who is going there that God can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t need to tell me how He’s going to do it.
Comment by: Esther
6Thank you, Jim.
Thank you for sharing this.
Comment by: Jayson B.
7In my end days of being a christian, this was similiar to what I believed. I stopped believing in hell altogether. I felt that if god is truly love, and truly forgiveness, and if jesus died on the cross for our sins, with no conditions………….then everybody goes to heaven. That seemed like the logical conclusion for me.
When i had to reconcile satan (since i didn’t believe in hell as a tool of punishment), I imagined satan as a sulking child hiding behind the couch and refusing to come out until mom apologized for spanking him. I imagined that the apocalypse wasn’t about judging us, or punishing us, but it was about the end of a grand experiment, and it was the time that Satan would admit his wrongdoing, and ask for forgiveness, and god would let him come back.
Those were most definately the days I was most happy as a christian.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
8Ir,
OTM interviewees remain nameless for now because it provides a degree of anonymity for them and a clean slate for group discussion.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
9Jayson,
I like your imagery here:
So are you happier now than you were at your happiest point as a Christian?
Comment by: Jeff
10I guess I’m where I was on Lisa’a Division post… What if there is a right and a wrong…
You can think I’m brilliant or you can think I’m a total idiot… neither makes who I really am any different. So, IF Jesus is who the Bible says, aren’t we in deep crap if we follow our feelings and our beliefs unless they line up with the Bible?
Comment by: Marty
11This is really a fascinating discussion that may change many of our perspectives. I doubt that many of us have been thinking about this “New Kind of Christian” when we have been using the word Christian on the blog. When I say I am reluctant to be called a Christian (and I also dislike labels) I would be delighted to be called a Christian if the person in this clip (and Jim/Lisa, etc) were what people thought of when I said I was a Christian. I also doubt that this “New Kind of Christian” is what some of the Atheists on this board find difficult to take and feel a need to “take them on.” I am wondering what others - both Atheists and “Christians” think about that?
Comment by: Ir
12Jayson, what you described was very similar to the last thing I believed as a Christian before I moved onto having serious doubts about everything.
Lisa, I understand what you’re saying about anonymity. I didn’t realize that clip was an OTM interviewee - I thought perhaps it was some famous person sharing her beliefs, that was from a TV program, say.
Anyway, I would say that my brief universalism ‘phase’ was the best version of Christianity I ever seriously tried to believe. But I wouldn’t say I was happier then than I am now. I have a peace now I didn’t have as a Christian.
This time a year ago I was on my way to spend the next 4 hours in church, warming up and then being an instrumentalist in the Good Friday services. I’m not the least bit sorry not to be doing that this evening.
Comment by: Jayson B.
13Great question Lisa. And to be honest…….absolutely. Even at that time, the feelings I got when I thought about that facet of god equal to what I feel now everyday about life.
It was still a rough spot in my life. I was having a difficult time reconciling the constant setbacks I was encountering with this god that I loved very much. I didn’t understand how despite loving the idea of heaven very much, why life would be so hard.
and that’s when I started becoming a deist. But even then, i kept blaming the faults in my life, my deficiencies on some cosmic force that wanted to beat me down.
It took me admitting where *I* went wrong, where I was sabotaging myself, to finally come full circle and take charge. But when I did that, it didn’t feel like I was admitting sin, it felt like I was taking responsibility.
and that’s when I started becoming an atheist.
I hope this gives a little bit of insight.
Comment by: Ir
14I’m not afraid of being wrong, I guess, because I’m so sure the version I’ve been taught of what the Bible says has serious problems.
(But I suppose, if worst comes to worst, I can use my irremovable ‘get out of the deep crap’ hand stamp that says “saved for all eternity” on it, and ‘escape as though through flames’)
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
15Jayson,
That is so interesting to me. Thanks for sharing.
So it sounds like you made a choice between these two things:
An image of God as oppressive
and
Taking responsibility for your own actions
Is that correct?
Comment by: Jayson B.
16Well, when I was transforming into a deist, it wasn’t so much about god being oppressive, as it was about feeling that something spiritual in the universe was oppressive.
But yes, that was the decision I made at that time. It wasn’t the sole reason why I became an atheist, nor was it really a sudden shift. but it was the begining of me being willing to take the risk that there might not be a god in the universe.
And I can assure you, the passage between that belief of god and moving to one where you don’t assume he exists, is terrifying. It’s pure dread. Because you are certain that if you’re wrong, that god will create a hell for him to roast you in.
That very moment is the worst time for me being an atheist. Letting go.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
17This sounds like a bad place to be; between a rock and a hard spot. A terrifying position. I’d rather not believe in God too if that was my choice: Believe in an oppresive cosmic energy or don’t believe and risk damnation. Aweful.
I once made a choice when I was leaving college after my recommitment stage: I decided I had to choose between having sex and being a christian.
I chose sex. It was a dumb move to think I had to choose. I think God would have helped me work through it. I spent years just bobbing around. I think we reduce things to black and white to make decisions and complex things easier to deal with but we actually may be making life more difficult.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
18this video also reminds me of a quote attributed to Marianne Williamson and repeated by N. Mandela:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
This womans honesty is very liberating for me.
Comment by: Siamang
19Great video.
My reactions are so many, I can’t quite trace them all. Let me try.
My militant atheist side watches this video, and her body language, and I think her body language matches her theology. It’s like watching a game of theological twister. Contortion, rationalization, apology for feeling the way she does…. It’s what I kind of call the “elaborate tabernacle of belief.” Belief in God is very seldom simple. People elaborate on it. They add and add, and reassess, and add again. Then they talk about the parts they don’t like, and change that, and guild it with beautiful gold-leaf… and it becomes quite boroque.
To the point where, I really wonder was there any God under there in the first place? I know my beliefs were like that.
Anyway. I don’t like to give voice to those feelings here. The person in the video is sharing something from her heart. She’s sharing HER love for humanity, and that’ is truly humbling. It’s putting yourself out there in a way that’s so hard to do.
I think she has provocative beliefs. I think this site is ABOUT provocative beliefs. And I think, good for her! I’m really glad when people talk about their beliefs, and are honest, and straightforward, and really say “this is me. This is what I believe.
Take it or leave it, but this is me.”
I think it speaks right to the question above: how do we evaluate our own beliefs?
I honestly couldn’t do it after awhile. I couldn’t tell my true spiritual beliefs from my false ones.
Anyway, that’s another discussion.
Comment by: Rick
20Thanks for posting the video Jim, that was sweeeet.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
21Siamang
First - thanks for being our first offical guest blogger
Second - The comment you made is profound. I think the reason many Cs don’t want to hear ideas that challenge their “beliefs” is because they are afraid of having your experience. which I think is more honest than “fake” beliefs.
I think there are ways thru that place as well
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
22It undoubtedly says more about me (in the context of this group) than it does about her, but I was astounded at what claptrap this was. It that is what it means to be a “new kind of Christian”, sign me up for atheism.
But, of course, no danger of that because a “NKOC” is really not a Christian at all. They are a nice, well-meaning, caring, tender-hearted (but soft-headed) new agey “spiritual” person. Words mean things. And the word “Christian” means something. It defines a belief where the final standard for orthodoxy is the Bible. So anyone who says that, “if there is a conflict between what I think and what the Bible says, then I’ll go with what I think,” may be a nice person but they are not a Christian. (That doesn’t mean, by the way, that they are going to hell. That’s a very different issue.)
She has basically gutted the word “Christian” of any meaning at all. If it has no meaning, why be one?
BTW, I agree with Siamang on her body language. It shows that she is one poor, confused lady.
Also, just a point to Jayson: in #12 you wrote, “I was having a difficult time reconciling the constant setbacks I was encountering with this god that I loved very much. I didn’t understand how despite loving the idea of heaven very much, why life would be so hard.”
Boy, oh boy, can I ever relate to this. But I responded to my episode of suffering in a very different way because I saw it in a very different paradigm. (And this took a long time to work through so there was a lot of struggle in process.)
But the paradigm through which I interpreted that stretch was, if you will, God as Personal Trainer. Now, I have never had a personal trainer (if you saw me I wouldn’t need to say that ;-) ), but I have a good friend who does have one. He has put my friend through a great deal of suffering — diet, exercise, other kinds of discipline — in order to get him into shape physically.
I’ve also thought in terms of God as Football Coach. Imagine summer camp, hot days, full gear, wind sprints, up-downs, scrimages… Why? To make them hurt? No! Because the Coach wants for the players the best that there is: a Super Bowl ring.
Just a comment of yours that jumped off the page at me; struck me as interesting.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
23Oh, one other thing about the video I forgot to include; in my recent class on comparative religions, one of the things that each of the monotheistic speakers brought out was that Christianity was a much more difficult and complex religion than Judaism or Islam. In either of those there are things you must do and things to eschew. If you do what you should and avoid what you shouldn’t, then, by definition, you are an observant Jew or Moslem.
But Christianity does not have a list of observances and things from which to refrain. Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.
But this lady appears to want to dumb-down the complexity of Christianity by simply throwing out anything that isn’t convenient to her. That puts her in the same class (albeit a much more loosey-goosey version of it) as earlier systematic theologians. They also looked at the Bible and took what fit in their box and threw everything else away.
The one good thing she said was in the early section when she spoke of holding two truths in tension. Unfortunately, her later comments made that less than entirely credible.
Comment by: Ir
24Tom wrote:
Awesome - someone who has a different POV - now we can actually have a discussion! :)
Tom, were any of the following things she said claptrap? (I’m probably paraphrasing)
Jesus understands her
God is all goodness
As a parent she can’t conceive of consigning a child of hers to hell eternally
As a parent she can perhaps think of letting a grown child make their own choice not to have a relationship - but she can’t imagine how anyone who sees God is all goodness would want to do that
I missed the part where Jesus says this ;).
Where did you get that definition of a Christian from? How do you know it’s correct?
Interesting. What causes a person to go to hell, then, if it’s not ‘not being a Christian’? Are there people who fit your definition of ‘Christian’ who you expect to go to hell (I realize you’re not the judge - I’m just asking for your considered opinion based on what you believe about God)
I disagree - I think the primary indicator of confusion is the content of what a person says, not their body language. And I would say she spoke clearly and without equivocation; so I did not perceive her as ‘confused’.
I noticed her body language and I think that could reasonably be ascribed to the nervousness many people would feel if asked to share something personal with a camera stuck in their face (even though I’m sure the OTM staff did this as nicely as possible).
I disagree - I thought she came across as finding a great deal of meaning in Jesus’ presence and example.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-8) is not a list from Jesus of observances and things from which to refrain?
How does your method of figuring that out different from the woman in the video’s way of figuring that out? Does it differ?
I respect that paradigm; it was mine too, once. Jayson’s comments intrigue me because they’re so similar to the journey I’ve been through in my own thinking. I can relate to where the paradigm can break down - for some people.
I don’t know who your speaker were, because that sure isn’t my first-hand experience of Jewish people and Judaism. I do recognize it as what some Christians conclude from reading the Bible (and being ‘taught what it means’). Do you know any Jewish people? Have you read any of their writings for yourself?
Isn’t that what the woman in the video says she does? Maybe she is a Christian after all ;)
Isn’t that the same thing as “Christianity has principles and you have to figure out, in any given situation, which ones apply and which ones take prcedence.”, except in the first quote you make it sound like a good thing; but now you’ve reframed the same process and given it a negative spin?
Any comments, Tom? Anyone?
Comment by: john
25With her reasoning God (as a parent) would not have sent his child to die as a sacrifice either. I, as a parent, would not want to send my son to die for crimes he did not commit.
Furthermore, she dismisses Jesus’ words easily to fit her idea of what God would do (sheep and goats comes to mind first). Basically, it seem to me, she does not accept the validity of our scriptures.
I don’t think the main reason Jesus died was so we could go to heaven. It was to reestablish a relationship between man and God. Heaven is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Having a God who is active in our daily life is “The Kingdom of God” at hand.
I may be off, but I am searching my heart, listening to my mentors and searching the scriptures for answers and corrections.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
26Ir writes
Actually, I don’t think it is! I think it’s a way of looking at the law from the perspective of grace rather than works! For instance, the law says “No Murder” (it does NOT say “thou shalt not kill” by the way, the translations are wrong on that), Jesus says, oh yeah? I say not only that, but you can’t even HATE your brother! Eventually he gets to the real “meat” of the issue. “Seek first God’s Kingdom and HIS righteousness, and all the rest will work itself out.” (my paraphrase)
But I agree with Tom (been too busy messing around with getting ready for Easter to post till now).
The quote that stuck in my craw was this. The same thing others have mentioned
If she’s setting herself up as the judge of “goodness” then she is her own authority. Put it this way. No self respecting scientist would believe something because it made them more comfortable, would they? No, they would expiriment, test, and observe repeatable phenomena to arrive at the “truth”. Why whould we armchair theologians not seek the truth rather than seek comfort in what we wish the truth would be?
One of the essentials of “creedal Christianity” is that the Bible is the authoritative message of God. If I set myself above it in this fashion, I can hardly be REALLY called a “creedal Christian” no matter what I might want to think about myself.
Like I often say. I can call myself a tomato. It doesn’t make me one. btw, I don’t worship the Bible either, but I don’t set myself above it. Am I uncomfortable with Hell? Of course I am. I have also been uncomfortable with the existence of Pol Pot, of Mao, of Stalin, of many evil world leaders and movements. But they still existed and still exist today.
Just my $.04
Comment by: Lisa
27Ir,
I really appreciate your comments here. And I appreciate Tom for speaking his mind.
I can’t help but think that this ‘dumbing-down’ he accuses her of is a threat to him somehow.
Tom, It sounds like your tone is, “Wait! you’re making it look easy and it’s not. It’s hard and complicated. It was hard for me so it needs to be hard for others too. I’ve finally gotten this Christianity thing down so don’t go making it look simple.”
Of course, I’m reading all that into your comments. I could be totally off.
Comment by: Julie Marie
28I find this out look expressed often enough among my Christian friends to believe it is widely held. It isn’t an outlook of empowerment, and it isn’t an outlook that will lead to much personal responsibliity for change.
What is intereting to me, about my journey, is that I never held this belief. I didn’t start out with much of a religious base - I had a mother who was mad as hell at the church (she was raised abusively in a catholic boarding school). One of the clearest and most consistent lessons she gave me was that I alone am responsible for my choices and my actions, and those will determine the course of my life.
What I did, however, once I started practicing a religion, was to give credit to God for every good thing that happened to me. I owned the bad things, but not the good.
Its easier, I think, to go back over my life and see where my skill, will, and intellect helped me transcend and triumph than it would be to look back and acknowledge my contribution to failure. I’ll admit, I’ve given God tons of credit that I earned. But there are still a handful of times, as I look back over my experience, that I believe I encountered my God. Those experiences are what I am holding on to now, as I explore the history of Christianity, and really look hard at what humanity has done to the message and mission of Christ.
Comment by: Ir
29I respect that. I also admire your willingness to take a hard look at what Jesus’ real mission and message is.
Comment by: Esther
30What an observation and thinking, Eliza.
I like it!
(No offence to you, Tom. But, it maybe true.)
I, too, agree with Ir about how I view the lady’s body language. I’ll just add more. I think that she was not uncomfortable with what she believes, but she is uncomfortable with speaking it out to the public about it. I can totally identify with this kind of pressure and uneasyness since I’ve been around fundy Cs all of my life. (I maybe wrong with my guess with this lady’s emotion, but this is how I felt)
When I know so clearly what would some (or a majority of) Xians would think after hearing me talking about my believe (in the way this lady has expressed), I would feel hesitated and don’t know how I should make my point clearly expressed.
It is because I know how offensive and uncomfortable those audience would feel. (Surprisingly, even with the Xians on this site, we can see this phenomenon happens as well)
I would already forseen what kind of “judgement” (let alone condemnation), and objections they will have. It is with all these forseen reactions in mind that would make me feel hesitated and difficult in putting my thought in words.
I deeply appreciate the boldness and kindness of this lady in sharing so honestly with her believe with us.
Just one last response:
I read quite a number of Xians responded here questioning her choice of “ignoring the Bible teaching” if that contradicts with her image of the gracious and loving God.
However, how do you know for sure that the “principle, or teaching, or truth” of the Bible is really what God meant them to be??
Can they just be men-made doctrine?
Can they just be human interpretations?
Therefore, can we say that this lady is not objecting to God’s law, and she is just honest to her feeling and thinking which is also given to her by God the Creator?
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
31Esther writes
That’s a good point and it is one that is worth exploring, but her statement remains…
That in a nutshell is my issue with her statement from an “orthodox” biblical theological perspective. She has set her own personal authority above that of the Bible in matters of truth claims. She is very “strong” about this. This, I have to say, is at odds with what I’d call “creedal Christianity” Am I saying she is not a Christian? No. I am merely examining the statement she makes.
Comment by: Eliza
32Great comments, everyone. The video only came through in 2-3 second clips for me, hard therefore to watch, but interesting.
Re body language, I think she’s revealing something very personal & isn’t used to doing that, much less on video. Her brows are more expressive than the rest of her face, are furrowed often, which may give the impression she’s worried or conflicted. Her words, smiles, and her look upward when she starts relating her discussion with God (early on) don’t fit w/ this impression.
The speaker says early on that she was raised Catholic. Later she says:
Ir nudged Tom nicely on this comment of his:
Tom (and others): maybe that’s what “Christian” has come to mean, but nothing (that remains) was written during Jesus’s life, by him or by others. The books of the NT were written ~30-70 yrs after his death, and the NT didn’t come together in current form until ~300 years after Jesus’s death. The first 300 years’ worth of Christians didn’t have this particular set of orthodoxy to follow (they had various oral traditions, and later various texts many of which didn’t make it into the NT). Did the first Christians, the ones closest to Jesus temporally, get it all wrong? The Bible is full of contradictions; which part(s) are true and to be followed? Which of the many Christian churches, groups, and theologians has the correct interpretation?
Comment by: Westy
33This is the crux of what she believes. The question is, if she doesn’t trust the Bible, what is she basing her spirituality on?
The nice thing about this forum, as Ir points out, is that we can discuss our perspectives. I have to voice my agreement with Tom and Peter. What she describes is not Christianity. As Peter says, calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean it is so. Of course, thankfully, it’s not up to us to determine that.
Lisa said:
I don’t think we’re saying Christianity is not simple. However, it is simply not what is expressed in the video. Being a Christian to us is just accepting God’s grace in granting us the opportunity for a relationship with him. As Tom points out, there are principles God has set up to give us the best life possible, which a Christian will recognize and strive to live by. As he says, the tricky part is figuring out how that should always play out.
Comment by: Eliza
34I was composing & hadn’t seen the 3 prior posts. Esther, thanks but that wasn’t me! I think it was Ir. Peter and Tom, can you describe more - what about her analysis like this seems invalid to you, and why?
That doesn’t sound so far off from alot of what Jesus said in the gospels, to my admittedly unchurched reading…
Comment by: Esther
35Peter, I think what she was saying there was simply this,
“If I found any interpretations of the Bible is contradiciting to what I think is goodness, which I perceive this God is, then I’ll question the validity of this interpretation of the Bible. I will not accept this doctrine / orthodox for the time being until I find some new light with it. I will not force myself to swallow a God that in my mind contradict Himself. It just doesn’t make sense!”
Now, how does this thought become an issue with the “orthodox biblical theological” perspective?
BTW, I always have this question,
“Howcome the will of God has to be so complicatied and hard to understand and needs so many scholars to study and bring the truth out, if God’s heart is for everyone to come to Him?
Comment by: Esther
36Sorry, Eliza.
I checked and it was a comment by Lisa.
Comment by: Eliza
37Yes, it was Lisa.
Westy, can you explain some of your comments a bit more to help me understand?
Who is the determination up to? How do you know when you are meeting that determination and are a Christian?
Is she not “accepting God’s grace in granting [her] the opportunity for a relationship with him”, or is she not going about it the right way? Since it can be tricky to figure out how that play out? Again, am asking for more detail to help me see…thanks!
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
38Eliza writes
Good question. But I’ve found a curious confusion in place in much of the world that says that anyone can call themselves a Christian regardless of what they actually believe, when in historical reality, defining oneself as Xian connotes an agreement with a set of doctrines best described in the apostles’ and nicene creeds.
This is something that has bugged me for years. We (thinking Xians) want our words back, in other words!
Also…
That quote you referred to does indeed sound much like what Jesus says in the Gospels… though I would argue it is woefully inadequate…
Comment by: Eliza
39FYI - this is such an interesting question for me - I have set up a thread on “What is a Christian” at OTM Discussion Board (shamelessly quoting several of you in the initial post!) ;)
http://off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/viewtopic.php?p=1857#1857
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
40I was afraid of this. I figured that writing would be akin to a hand grenade at a birthday party. [shrug] Sorry ’bout that.
I think God gave us our minds for thinking and our emotions for feeling. And in our society and culture there are a lot of folks who, for reasons I don’t even want to get into, have gotten it screwed up. And what I saw was a woman, a kind, nice woman, I’m sure; who is trying to think with her emotions. She wants truth to feel good. And sometimes the truth hurts. Who didn’t learn that growing up?
I won’t attempt to answer every question; too many of them. If I miss your favorite and you really want to know, remind me again.
Ir: her perspective on parenting and hell. There are a lot of things that I, as a parent, can’t imagine sending my kids to. But when our kids were growing up I told them, here is what I expect. If I ever get a call from you down at the police department, don’t expect me to bail you out. Let’s look at that. If they’re at the PD, then they CHOSE to do something that was wrong, or at least unwise. I made it clear to them that, for these purposes, my standards were the same as society’s standards. If society had condemned them to jail for what they did, I condemned them to jail for what they did. Now, at this point you’re undoubtedly glad you’re not my kid. But the point is, in jail as in hell, people get there by making bad choices and people get there by not taking advantage of the behaviors (beliefs) that will keep them out of there. God is love. But God is also just.
So, you tell me. Does Hitler or Pol Pot deserve the same eternal reward (if there is one) that you think you deserve? Either justice applies, or it does not.
Lisa, you’re totally off. ;-) Hey, that was your suggested possibility. ;-) But seriously, the notion of it being a threat to me is…off the charts. I couldn’t care less what she thinks (from the perspective of threat — she has no power to exercise a threat). No, this is entirely a matter of applying principle and logic and reason to her words. She simply doesn’t make any sense in any meaningful way.
Ir, WRT the speakers in the comparative religion series, all were university professors (from different universities) who were “trained” in their fields. One was a rabbi, one had been through seminary, though probably never a pastor, the third, was a moslem, though I’m not certain if he’d ever been an imam. All were PhDs in some branch of religious studies. Two had backgrounds in other religions than they taught. They were not hacks, IOW.
Ir, definition of a Christian. That was a shoot from the hip definition. I wanted to keep it simple. Personally, I like Peter’s reference to creedal Christianity but I didn’t want to limit it since there have been groups like the Quakers who have historically been Christian but have eschewed creeds. (Indeed, my own background in the Covenant Church eschews creeds because of their tendency toward divisiveness.) I thought about using “orthodox” but that not only limits, it is also confusing whether you mean philosohical orthodoxy or “denominational” orthodoxy. The point was, and is, that there is only one unassailable source of information about Christ for the believer: Holy Writ. As soon as you consciously reject scripture because you don’t like what it says, you have cut the foundation out from under yourself as a Christian. The word no longer has content.
Well, that’s probably more than enough for now.
Comment by: Ir
41How do we know what historical reality is? Maybe historical reality looked more like today than Christians would like to believe - maybe there was a similar ‘confusion’ with many people who disagreed over what they believe all calling themselves Christians.
Comment by: Ir
42Hey, I was bored at the party. It got more exciting when you showed up with the hand grenade :)
Yes but what happened to Jesus bailing people out? That seems absent from what you just wrote. If God has decided to forgive undeserving people, why does God make such a big deal of “Ah, but you have to ask me the right way” - it almost seems petty. Why is murder forgivable but not saying “please forgive me” isn’t?
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. If Jesus died on the cross to save sinners then justice is satisfied, right? So why ask what anyone deserves?
Maybe they weren’t hacks - but nevertheless, a rabbi who simplistically says that all you have to do to be an ‘observant Jew’ is keep rules - well, he hasn’t even read the Old Testament, has he? It clearly has God disgusted with those who outwardly observe his laws but whose hearts are far from him.
But what is the foundation made of? The opinions of certain people. How do we know they’re right? How do we even know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John interpreted Jesus’s life and mission correctly? Jesus didn’t (physically) write his own autobiography. That he wrote it in a spiritual sense is one more belief: it’s accepted by faith rather than being able to be proved - so it seems to me.
Comment by: Ir
43(trying to fix italics)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
44Good questions Ir
Comment by: Westy
45Thanks for the questions of clarification, Eliza. Sorry I wasn’t clear before. Here’s what I’d say to the best of my knowledge.
God. (Rom. 2:1-6) “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’” Thankfully it’s not up to us to judge whether another person is a Christian or not. We can definitely get an idea, and we are called to hold fellow Christians accountable, but it’s not on any one of us to judge another’s true heart.
The Bible implies that if you are truly a Christian you will have assurance that you are. (Heb. 10:22)
To clarify the previous latter portion, I meant only that it can sometimes be tricky to determine how to live out day to day all Christ’s principles.
Comment by: Ir
46Thanks JIm
Comment by: Eliza
47Westy - thanks for replying, but I’m going to ask more & prod a bit because I don’t quite understand. Regarding the NKOC lady in the video, you said earlier,
And then
And Tom was pretty clear in his self-described grenade ;) that
But isn’t it possible that she has felt this assurance in her true heart, from God? That Christians, or some Christians - like you and Peter and Tom - might feel that she’s not a true Christian, but - as you say - that it isn’t up to other Christians to judge whether she is or not, rather it’s up to God? (Playing Devil’s advocate here, so to speak…)
Comment by: Eliza
48And, not for the first time, I re-read and see that the way I put it sounds like a pretty loaded question. I really am interested in hearing more about how you can tell whether someone is “really” a Christian - in this example, it would have to be from what they say. Was it solely her comment about not believing in the Bible if it contradicted what she felt, or was there more (that she said, or left unsaid)? Thanks!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
49How can “assurance” be such a “sure” way to measure - that is a largely evangelical invention to justfiy the rationale for “inviting Jesus into our hearts” all subjective and impossible to measure.
It is a modern invention of our overly self aware culture. We’re forced to “proof text” this since there is no overriding pattern of this idea born of the great commission marketing campaign.
All we can do is say yes I am assured and others will say no you aren’t - sounds like the same approach mormons use with the ” inner witness” deal.
Jesus focus was less about “beliefs” and internal”experiences” and more about fruit.
As Karen Armstrong stated the other day in an article “beliefs mean nothing”. I agree - they are overrated in terms of real life change- mostly just disembodied ideas people carry around in their heads with little or no life change especially in the American culture where it doesn’t really cost us anything to believe or not believe.
The only thing that matters is my life- what does it say
And yes I believe in Jesus as my savior etc just for the record but what interests me more than that is what does Jesus believe about me.
Comment by: Ir
50(By the way, I thought the proof-text for this belief was Romans 8:15-16 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ” Abba , Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.)
About assurance - this completely mystifies me. I mean, all assurance is, is “I am sure about my beliefs”.
So what? I don’t see any necessary
connection between being sure and being right.
Admittedly I have an ‘advantage’ in having had lots of personal experience in certainty that turned out to be erroneous, because of my journey through mental illness. Yet, I don’t think when I was ill I thought entirely unlike people who are well. The illness just made everything way more extreme. (Yeah, it was a big problem - I’m not trying to minimize it) So - I think I can draw inferences from my illness experiences that apply to everyone to some extent.
Some people seem sure about everything. I think it’s partly a personality thing. Would that mean only people with an “I’m sure” type of personality can be Christians? Is it a ’sin’ to have the ‘wrong’ type of personality? (Assurance sure is a good way to make people with less certainty in their make-up worry about whether they are ‘true’ Christians or not - I’ve observed that)
As Jim mentioned, Jesus seemed interested in ‘fruit’. His response to people who asked who he was was to tell them to look around - what did they see? What did they hear? He wanted them to figure out who he was from his actions, not from his words.
As Eliza mentioned, what about all the people who are ’sure’ about their beliefs (or lack of belief), who don’t agree with you? Where does their assurance come from? Satan?
Comment by: Ir
51It’s better than you think.
Comment by: Westy
52Eliza wrote:
Certainly she could think she’s a Christian. Says John Piper, “What makes this agonizing [assurance] - for many in the history of the church and today - is that there are people who think they have saving faith but don’t. For example, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”
As you say, often all we have to go on is only what someone says. As you imply Jim, the true Christian, however, should be evident by their ‘fruit’.
Ir said:
I don’t think so. As Piper says, that’s why assurance is agonizing. He goes on to say, “…the agonizing question for some is: do I really have saving faith? Is my faith real? Am I self-deceived? Some well-intentioned people try to lessen the problem by making faith a mere decision to affirm certain truths, like the truth: Jesus is God, and he died for my sins. Some also try to assist assurance by denying that any kind of life-change is really necessary to demonstrate the reality of faith. So they find a way to make James 2:17 mean something other than what is seems to mean: ‘Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead.’ But these strategies to help assurance backfire. They deny some Scripture; and even the minimal faith they preserve can be agonized over and doubted by the tormented soul. They don’t solve the problem, and they lose truth. And, perhaps worst of all, they sometimes give assurance to people who should not have it.” God can shine into our hearts enlightening the truth despite the fact we are doubting, sinful, and naive people.
I don’t think this is an easy thing by any means. To doubt is human. We must refresh ourselves anew in the Gospel at those times. Piper leaves off, “What this means practically is that we should continually look to the cross and the work of God in Christ, because this is where God makes the light of the gospel shine.”
Comment by: Jim Henderson
53Sorry Westy- I really do understand where you are coming from and have used this approach many times myself - but can you read it and see how an outsider sees this as a non answer- it is all still subjective - it is what Siamang notices when he says we need to keep re explaining it to ourselves-
Comment by: Siamang
54I did and continue to notice that, Jim. But I’m also really enjoying the interaction that that video provoked.
I would like to respond to Tom’s post above.
Let’s talk a little bit about the “justice” of Hell. For my purposes, I’ll define Hell as fire and brimstone land. This is “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” Hell. I’ll call it “Big Hell,” by virtue of its large population. Not “Hell Lite” where you just are seperated from God but not roasting, or going by your own choice to be apart from God. It’s also not “temporary Hell.” This is full-blown creedal Hell.
The moral problem with “Big Hell” is this: Infinite punishment for finite sin.
Let’s say a fifteen year old is really bad. Let’s say he runs prostitutes in a war-zone, and conscripts children into the army of some god-forsaken nation. Lets say he’s as bad as a 15 year old gets. Then he dies in his sins.
Okay, he’s REALLY BAD. He’s as bad as he can be for 15 years. But he’ll be punished for that 15 years, not for 15 years. Not for 150 years. Not for 15,000 years. But for a number so large that you’ll never, ever reach it.
The stars will burn out, every single one of them, before this kid is done roasting.
Kind of a slight problem of proportionality there.
Now let’s turn to little Bessy. Bessy also died at 15. She lived a good life until she was 10. Fully a christian, and all of that. At 11 she got hooked on drugs. At 14 she supported her habit by prostitution. At 15 she took her own life.
She’ll be roasting too. For infinity years.
Infinite punishment for FINITE sin.
Hitler didn’t torture people INFINITELY. The God who presides over Big Hell does.
Who punishes God for this extreme bloodbath?
Does Justice apply to God? If not, why not? Either justice applies, or it does not.
There is something morally wrong with a God meteing infinite punishment to finite beings.
People who see that moral wrong have a mental choice to make.
I think they always choose one of these possible solutions:
1: Hell is really only one or more of the versions of “Hell Lite”- seperation not torture, by choice not permanent, etc.
2: God’s moral laws aren’t men’s laws. (This is the ‘God is a badass, don’t question Him!’ point of view held by Pat Robertson and people sitting on piles of ammo in a shotgun shack in Montana.)
3: Hell doesn’t exist. But God does.
4: Hell doesn’t exist, and neither does this definition of God.
Comment by: Ir
55Westy how can you agree
1) People who aren’t ‘true’ Christians can have assurance that they’re right (which means therefore that theirs is ‘false’ assurance)
2) People who are Christians can lack assurance (which means that assurance can be there but get submerged under worry, or doubt, or whatever)
and yet still claim that ‘assurance’ can be a meaningful indicator of whether we have true faith?
To me it seems like you’re saying: “when the sun is shining it’s going to be a warm day. Yes, I’ve been out on sunny days when it’s freezing cold and yes, I’ve been out on very warm cloudy days.
But nevertheless, I still believe that when the sun is shining that means it’s going to be a warm day.”
???
Comment by: Westy
56Jim and Ir, this is what I like about discussing things with you–you often cut straight to the heart of a matter. Thanks for your great observations and questions. I don’t know if I’m doing this any sort of justice, but here goes:
Yes, but it is really only an indicator. A sense of assurance does not necessarily equate with salvation. In your example, the sun shining could be an indicator that it’s warm outside, but there are obviously other factors. It is possible, as you note, for real Christians to go through periods where they do not have the full assurance of hope.
As Jim notes, that is what makes self-assurance a subjective indicator of salvation. The objective portion of salvation is the reality of God’s work in Christ. Says Piper, “There is a paradox here. For many people–most people, I think–the more we focus on the subjective inner workings of our own soul and the relative purity or impurity of our own attitudes and behavior, the more uncertain we become of our own assessment of our authenticity. Paradoxically the path to assurance is to shift our focus off of ourselves and onto God. Off of the subjective and onto the objective.”
God wants us to have full assurance, though, because that’s where the joy, freedom, and power of our right relationship with Him can gain full meaning.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
57Westy thanks
Subject shift
What do you think of this anonymous video conversation approach?
Imagine a group viewing this video either during or before meeting (or never actually meeting together at all like on a blog. How could it change “small group” discussions or “book discussions”?
What other topics could this approach be used to provoke more meaningful learning?
Is it helpful that the person on the video is anonymous (to most of the audience) and how would it change the process if they were well known?
Comment by: Stephan
58Jim, it certainly sparked discussion here, possibly because it gave both Christians and Atheists something to disagree with!
I’ve never really been one to enjoy discussion groups based on videos, but they usually show a 30 minute video with 10 minutes to discuss. Maybe something like this would work better. Short video, lots of discussion.
I think something like this almost needs to remain anonymous. As soos as the speaker is known there is baggage attached. If it is a widely respected Christian figure, then more weight is given and people might be swayed to agree against their better judgment. If it is someone viewed as a fringe semi-heretic, they would be too easily dismissed. Either extreme would kill productive discussion.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
59I agree - the length of the video is critical- I think one interesting point (maybe two) can be made in less than 3 minutes - I also think the “way” the video is produced (less talking head - more interviewish) makes a difference to the viewer as well.
I have come to the conclusion that most great learning is done as a voyeur - we like to eavesdrop - we like to pick and choose which pieces of the idea resonate and which ones we ignore - all without having to tell someone
I think we are mostly visual learners as well- it mimics real life most closely.
Other topics you would like to see initiated in the manner?
Comment by: Westy
60I definitely like it. I think it has a lot of potential. Our church has used Rob Bell’s NOOMA videos for small group discussions. They’re definitely usually thought and discussion provoking.
As for the conversational approach used above, I like the anonymous nature of it, as Stephan says. It allows the viewer to more freely feel they can disagree. It would be important to allow the freedom to disagree if a viewpoint was expressed. I do think that great discussion could be had by presenting a viewpoint and then offering people the chance to reflect on it.
I can think of several intra-Christian topics. Related to this forum, I’d like to see similar short interviews in which an agnostic or atheist described what they thought of God. Or perhaps from a Baha’i member. I wouldn’t mind seeing more senior/established Christian theologians share their views on tougher Christian theological issues. Most people probably wouldn’t recognize them and could discuss what hopefully would be a well-learned perspective.
Comment by: Rorgg
61>I’d like to see similar short interviews in which
>an agnostic or atheist described what they thought
>of God.
What do you mean? Because the obvious answer (for an atheist) is that they think God doesn’t exist.
As an agnostic, I can probably give a somewhat more interesting answer, or at least a longer one.
Or do you mean, what do they think of the literary God of the bible? Or as viewed by some particular sect or religion?
Comment by: Westy
62I guess I was anticipating that an atheist could articulate a viewpoint on God or maybe on why they don’t find God valid. Maybe ask why do they find the Christian God _________ (insert adjective here)?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
63Great idea Westy - I get where you are coming from
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
64Regarding anonymity. When the identity is not revealed the emphasis is on the meaning of the words without measuring it against the persons credibility. I like that. But, I also like in the movie, “What the Bleep Do We Know” when the experts identities are revealed at the end. It lends a great reference point.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
65Maybe we’ll do this once this conversation has run it’s course.
Anybody intersted in knowing the identity of the woman in the video?
Comment by: skikid
66Heck yeah!
Comment by: Lisa
67Go for it, Jim! Tell ‘em.
I can’t stand it any longer.
Comment by: Lisa
68And tell us a little about her background.
Comment by: skikid
69Hmmmmm… should we guess?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
70Go ahead Lisa- You’re the blog leader. Maybe you should link people to her stuff to read as well on the OTM site
Comment by: Ir
71Lisa, tell us, tell us! :)
Comment by: Stephan
72Can’t you see the suspense is killing us!?! Just tell us already!!!
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
73ok ok,
hold on.
Comment by: Julie Marie
74thanks for sharing that inspirational quote, Lisa W.