Are You "Saved"?

A friend of mine, who is a Candidate for Ordination in the United Church of Canada, tells the story of when, as a teenager, she went to dinner at the home of a boyfriend whose family were Evangelicals.  My friend had grown up in the Anglican church and was unfamiliar with the doctrine of Salvation.  During dinner, the father asked her if she was, "saved".  Her immediate panicked response was, "from what!!?".

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqhvvIuIbKAhUC-mMKHaH-CVIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjannatarlit.deviantart.com%2Fart%2FGod-wants-You-To-be-saved-192626502&psig=AFQjCNGeCM4Vcx8jWOzb_kU96ebv4SJ-3g&ust=1451662913688979

Most of us are familiar with the right-wing literalist narrative of Salvation.  According to this axiom, God is a vindictive and petty legalist who holds a grudge against all of humanity because the first couple he created ate an apple he asked them not to.  Due to this "original sin", we all are deserving of eternal punishment and torment.  Now, to be fair to the less literal of the Evangelicals, some point out that the forbidden fruit eaten was the, "knowledge of good and evil", and that as such we all have, "God's Law", the understanding of what God considers as right and wrong, written in our hearts, and sin is when someone is unwilling or unable to comply, but that the rightful consequence is still death and eternal torture.  And since it is apparently impossible to comply, "for all have sinned and fallen short", that's all of us.

However, the Evangelicals point out that there is "good news".  God doesn't completely hate us.  Although this all powerful God can not violate his own legal system where any departure from his law and will is deserving of death and torment, he has a legal loophole.  Death and torture are still required, but it doesn't have to be the individual who committed the crime, there can be a substitute.  This is where the most primitive superstition of the earliest of religious ideas comes in, the blood sacrifice. God apparently will allow animals to be tortured and killed in someone's place in order to make payment against their transgressions and defer punishment in this life.  The more perfect and pure the animal being sacrificed, the better the payment.  However, animal sacrifices are only pure enough to defer punishment to the next life and will not commute the sentence to Hell at death.  For this, only the purest of sacrifices is sufficient, indeed, only God himself. 

So, apparently, the really good part of this news is that God, in the form of his Son, Jesus, allowed himself to be tortured and killed in order to fulfill the requirements of his own legalism and take humanity's punishment on himself.  But there's a catch.  This sacrifice is not universal to all humanity, but only to a small portion who cash in on the offer by performing the right ritual.  So, if you didn't know about the ritual, or chose not to perform it, or didn't perform it under the right conditions, it's still Hell fire for you.

The first condition is that you be convinced intellectually that there is a literal God, an all powerful sentient being that can read your mind and presides over an alternate reality that you experience after death.  Secondly, you must be convinced that the legal system of this narrative is also factual and that you have transgressed against it and are deserving of punishment.  And thirdly, you must be remorseful about this transgression and wish to be pardoned.  At this point, the rite consists of asking for forgiveness in the "name of Jesus" and accept his sacrifice as having made payment on your behalf.  It next involves, "asking Jesus into your heart", which to some literalists is along the line of a spirit possession similar to "The Exorcist" except Jesus doesn't take control of your body, just gives you instruction on your moral compass on God's law and acts as a shield against God's wrath.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw_5bsuYbKAhVH72MKHSVfA6AQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpulpitandpen.org%2F2015%2F11%2F09%2Fsermon-saved-by-god-from-god%2F&psig=AFQjCNGeCM4Vcx8jWOzb_kU96ebv4SJ-3g&ust=1451662913688979

Is this really the "good news" of the Gospel?  Is this what the Gospel writers were referring to when they talk about salvation?  As a young man, I was convinced of this.  Although I grew up in the United Church, I was involved in Evangelical circles.  I handed out tracts on this interpretation of Salvation in my High School and persuaded the school to allow a reformed and converted former bank robber and convict to share his testimony at a school assembly called exclusively for this purpose.  But, as I grew older and studied the Gospels, I questioned whether this was the message they presented. So, what are the Gospels saying?

First of all, we need to put the Gospels in context.  Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher who belonged to post-exilic second Temple Rabbinical Judaism.  He and his early followers saw themselves as thoroughly part of that religion and tradition and were offering what they felt was the most faithful interpretation of it.

Secondly, one needs to be aware that an afterlife was not a theme in the Rabbinical Jewish tradition that Jesus and his followers belonged to. There are only two references in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, that could be said to refer to an afterlife, Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel 12:2.  These are both references to the Persian idea of a resurrection in some future time rather than an immediate transition to another conscious reality at the point of death. Outside of the Rabbinic Literature, there is a doctrine in Jewish eschatology of Resurrection that was popular in Jesus time, where in a future age the dead will rise from their graves to live again.  This idea was closely associated with the doctrine of the Messiah and would be a ready store of allusions for the Gospel writers who cast Jesus in the Messiah role.

Judaism of the second Temple period thought of Salvation in more of a corporate than personal fashion.  The concept of Salvation was tied to the restoration of the state of Israel and rescue from national enemies.  This was especially relevant in Jesus' time with the conquest and occupation by Roman forces. The Jews of the first century expected to be rescued from foreign dominion. Looking to texts such Deuteronomy 4:32, Isaiah 40:1-2, and Jeremiah 31:27-40,  many believed that this would only occur after they suffered a purification process for past breaches of their covenant with God.  As such, they looked for an immediate earthly wrath and judgment by God on the people of Israel where, as John the Baptist put it, "every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (Luke 3:9).  This was an earthly process for the living and had nothing to do with one's existence after death.  In the Gospels, John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the awaited Messiah that would carry out this process on God's behalf.

"But one who is more powerful than I will come...His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Luke 3:15-18)

The people asked John what they should do (to be saved from this immediate earthly purification).  His answer did not involve any of the Evangelical narrative above.  He told them that, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same".  To the tax collectors he instructed that they not, "collect any more than you are required to".  To the soldiers he advised, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely". 

I would like to draw particular attention to the 18th verse of this section on John the Baptist in the third chapter of Luke.

"And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them." (my emphasis added).

So, the, "good news", in this section of the Gospels, is that there is way for the people of Israel to escape the coming earthly judgment and purification necessary before their salvation from foreign domination and that the key to this is through practicing generosity, social equality, honesty and justice.

Jesus' first public act as reported in the Gospels after his baptism by John was his reading of a passage from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”...“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:18-20) (my emphasis added).

Let's take a look at this statement.  Evangelicals have a natural aversion to anything but a literal interpretation of Scripture, but, does that method hold up here given the story of Jesus' actions in the Gospels?  If you literalize the miracle and great deeds stories of Jesus in the Gospels you could argue that he healed blind people and recovered their sight.  However, you need to put these stories in context with the literature of the time.  The accounts of almost all great figures of the time include miraculous great deed stories.  Apollonius of Tyana was said to have healed people, to have exorcised demons, and to have raised a young girl from the dead.  The emperor Vespasian was reported as curing the blind and lame.  Hanina ben Dosa, a first century Galilean, was a famous healer and a master over the demonic powers.  Even the philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras had tales of miracles associated with him that could compete with any of the supernatural events of the Gospels.  Even resurrection from the dead was not unheard of in the literature of the times.  So, either we had a plethora of people who could perform supernatural acts in the first century, or this was a common literary device and not to be taken as literal events. 

What about the other points in the statement?  There are no accounts of Jesus storming prisons and liberating the inhabitants.  There are no stories of him enacting the Hebrew, "year of the Lord's favor" where land sold to someone outside of the tribe had to be returned.  Given this, I would suggest that a more metaphorical interpretation of the statement is in order.

What things did Jesus do in the accounts given by the Gospels?  Well, aside from the accounts of his miracles and his death and resurrection, accounts which I have suggested were more about validating his importance than the crux of his purpose and message, he taught a lot and told parables.  But, it was what he taught that is key to his fulfilling of this promise claimed from Isaiah. 

Jesus shared a vision and characterization of God as primarily loving, generous and forgiving.  His parables encouraged people to look at the world, their culture and practices from this perspective.  He asserted that we need to throw off the prejudices of our culture, society, and religion, and to look at reality from this perspective, "as a child", who has yet to be indoctrinated in, "the way the world works".  This is being, "born again", moving from "darkness" to "light" and "salvation" from what oppresses us.  Jesus' "Way" sets those who are imprisoned by their culture and religion free.  It brings us "life" where there is "death" and wealth where there is poverty of spirit.  It brings "sight" to the "blind" and wholeness to the "sick".  I believe that this is what was being alluded to in the stories of Jesus' healing of the blind, lame and sick, and the resurrection of both Lazarus and himself from the dead.  This, to me, is the actual Good News of Salvation in the Gospels.

The Gospel Is Not About What Happens When You Die

The Gospel is not about what happens when you die.  I don't know for certain what happens when you die, but, our science to date has been unable to show that anything happens beyond our brain losing all cognitive functioning and our body rotting away.  A lot of study has gone into spiritualism and the paranormal over the years, but it has never been able to sustain itself as a science, and no compelling evidence of intelligence or life beyond the grave has ever been found.  However, who knows for sure.  Recent scientific theory and research has suggested that, “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” (Attributed to Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington).  Time, it is proposed, is only perceived by us to be linear.  And then there is the "spooky action" of particles that act in accordance with other particles separated by great distances.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/heaven-is-not-for-real/

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QTUFErufc1A/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wRf_Uft3--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_north,h_358,q_80,w_636/17e6kbh5dhaz4jpg.jpg

This I do know; the subject of the Gospels is not what happens when you die.  The main point of the good news is not that you will literally live forever and be spared eternal torture in the next life if you utter the correct magic incantation.  How is it good news that God finds you born worthy only of never ending punishment because of an action by your distant ancestor and will only relent in everlasting cruelty if you perform a rite revealed only to a certain segment of a single religion?   The good news is much better and more transformative than that.

So, what about all those references in the Gospels to an afterlife, you might ask.  To begin with, you have to remember that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher who belonged to post-exilic Rabbinical Judaism.  He and his early followers saw themselves as thoroughly part of that religion and tradition.  Wisdom teachers in that tradition frequently used the telling of popular stories, parables, and myths with their own twist in order to make a point, or bring a different perspective to light.

One of the best examples of this from the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, is the story of Noah, which is a retelling of the story of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, fragments of which have been found on tablets dated around 2,000 B.C., and which was also retold by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians.  This story was never meant to portray a factual account of some literal historic event.  Its importance is in the way it was retold and interpreted by the Hebrew people.  My Old Testament Studies professor, a Jewish Rabbi, contended that the main theme in the Tanakh is the Covenant between God and the Hebrew people, and that most of the Scriptures are a casting of the experience of the Hebrew people in the light of the fulfillment of that Covenant.  When Israel is defeated or under attack, undergo famine or disease, it is explained as being the result of the people or their leader falling short on their side of the Covenant.  Seen this way, the story of Noah is an explanation of why God does not finally and completely punish the Hebrew people, or humanity as a whole, for not following his ways.  According to this parable, the nature of God is such that if he ever did do this, he would only become more compassionate and promise to never do it again.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/flood-myths-who-believes-in-noahs-ark-and-why/

Secondly, one needs to be aware that an afterlife was not a theme in the Rabbinical Jewish tradition that Jesus and his followers belonged to.  After death was only sheol, the grave.  The Hebrew tradition and Tanakh is all about their Covenant and relationship with God in  life.  I can only imagine that they steered clear of any suggestion of an afterlife in reaction to the prominent place the idea held in the religion of their oppressors in Egypt.  As a result, the closest thing to an afterlife in the Tanakh is where Elijah is taken up to heaven in a whirlwind.  However, he didn't experience a life beyond death, he just didn't die.

There are only two references in the Old Testament that could be said to refer to an afterlife and these are more Persian influenced references to a resurrection in some future time rather than an immediate transition to another conscious reality at the point of death. The first is: “Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise, awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades” (Isaiah 26:19); and the second: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence” (Daniel 12:2).

Outside of the Rabbinic Literature, there is a doctrine in Jewish eschatology of Resurrection, where in a future age the dead will rise from their graves to live again.  This idea was closely associated with the doctrine of the Messiah and would be a ready store of allusions for the Gospel writers who cast Jesus in the Messiah role.

Stories and myths about an afterlife in Jesus time, however, mainly came from other religions and traditions; the Egyptian stories of the Field of Reeds where the soul went to enjoy a continued existence without sickness or disappointment for eternity, or the Greek myths of Hades where there were different planes of existence the dead could inhabit depending on how they had lived their life on earth.  The Roman city of Sepphoris, the capital of the Galilee province, a hotbed of Hellenistic culture, was only five kilometers away from Nazareth.  Jesus and his audience would have been quite familiar with the Greek stories about an afterlife.

Like the good Jewish wisdom teacher he was, Jesus used the popular stories, myths and ideas his audience were familiar with, giving them his own twist to illustrate his ideas and perception of reality. The writers of the Gospels did the same thing using allusions to these stories in their metaphorized accounts of Jesus' life and actions.  Marcus Borg in his writing uses the example of the parable of the prodigal son to demonstrate how a story in Scripture does not have to be literal in order to illustrate truths.  No one would say that because the family in the parable were not literal historical figures and that the narrative told is not a recording of actual historical events that the point it was meant to illuminate is not "true".  Many Christians, however, do not seem able to accept metaphor and allegory in the Scriptures where the text is not clearly identified as being a parable.

So what references to these stories from other cultures and religions about an afterlife were made in the Gospels?  There is the example of Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke.  In this parable, the rich man and Lazarus both die and experience an afterlife where they are judged and sent to different planes of existence dependent on how they had lived their life on earth like in the Greek myths of Hades.  This is obviously a parable and shows up in Luke among a collection of parables.  It doesn't make sense to interpret it as Jesus giving a science lesson on the actual workings of what happens when people die.  The point being illustrated is that wealth and luxury are not rewards from God to the righteous and that failure to look after the poor and suffering is worthy of punishment (at least, that's how I interpret it).

Awhile back I read, "The Meaning of Jesus", co-authored by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, a former bishop of Durham in the Church of England. In this book, Wright argues that popular Christian thinking about the afterlife is all wrong and that the correct theological view would be that we don't go to heaven when we die, but are "asleep" until the Resurrection and heaven comes down to earth.  He expounds on this further in his book, "Surprised by Hope".

To me, resurrection is not the main message of the Gospels, but a literary device to, on the one hand affirm the legitimacy of Jesus' teaching by linking him to the popular messianic doctrine of the time, and on the other hand act as a metaphor for the "new life" found in following his teachings.  The earliest Gospel written, the Gospel of Mark, originally ended with a young man in a white robe telling the women visiting Jesus' tomb that Jesus had risen and gone ahead of them into Galilee.  The subsequent verses about Jesus' appearances to the disciples are not found in the earliest manuscripts.  This further suggests to me that Resurrection was not the main message, but a device to validate the message.

The main message is Jesus' revelation of the character of God, what is legitimate and right, as primarily loving, generous, tolerant and forgiving, and that new life awaits those who emulate those qualities and put their trust in them.  Seeing the world through this perspective is sight to the blind and walking in the light.  This is life everlasting with the actions flowing from this spirit affecting the lives of others and bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth well after the death of the body.  "Waking" to this reality is the true resurrection and is not about what happens when you die.

I Don't "Believe" In Climate Change

I have a love/hate relationship with the word, "believe".  I'm sure you have heard people being asked if they, "believe", in climate change.  Well, I don't.  I am in agreement with the consensus of scientists and academics in the field of the validity of a climate model that the scientific process shows best fits the data and research collected to date that suggests that we are in a period of accelerated change that will have a large affect on sea levels and weather over the next couple of decades and that this acceleration is due in part to human activity.  I am not particularly devoted to this model as it currently stands.  I wholly expect that as more research and data comes in that it will be revised and expanded, or that possibly a new theory that better fits the data will create a better model as decided by study and debate in peer reviewed academic literature.  That's science.

http://www.allposters.ca/-sp/The-X-Files-I-Want-To-Believe-Print-posters_i9095787_.htm

The reason why I don't like to use the word, "believe", in this context is due to the religious colouring and definition that it has been given by Christian Literalists.  The word, "believe", has come to be associated with stubborn devotion to a conviction or idea as factual in the face of all evidence and facts to the contrary.  In fact, the more the conviction is contradicted by the evidence of reality, the more holding it is seen as being a virtue.  Convictions like; the earth is only 6000 years old, humanity appeared fully formed with no ancestors on October 23, 4004 BC, or that a catastrophic global flood occurred in the year 2304 BC.  Used in this way, the word, "believe", is the antithesis of rationality and has no place in any discussion of science.

Christian Literalists also use the word, "believe", as a weapon to legitimize their own narrow interpretation of faith and exclude others.  The question, "Do you believe in the Bible?", or, "Do you believe in God?", is interpreted by them as involving whether a person accepts myths, metaphors, and allusions in the Christian Scriptures, meant to express important truths, as being historically true and factual, as things that could be verified by data and physical evidence, as things that can be subject to quantification, measurement, and experimentation.  If it is not factual, then to them it is not "true".  Those who do not accept this view, do not have a legitimate faith in the Scriptures, or in God, by their definition.  The sad thing is that in only accepting the literal or factual as "true", they often miss the real truths that these stories were meant to express.

This interpretation of the word, "believe", as associated with physical evidence and factuality, only came about relatively recently in response to the scientific revolution towards the end of the Renaissance period and into the late 18th century.  Before that period, the meaning of this word was primarily associated with relationship, who you put your trust in, or gave your allegiance to.  You, "believed", in your nation, your king, or your leader.  This is the interpretation of the word that I have a love relationship with.

Probably the best known verse in the New Testament that mentions belief is John 3:16:

For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The original Greek word in this passage for "believes" is  "πιστεύων ", or pisteuōn.  This same word is translated in other passages as, "trusts", "have faith", "entrusted", and "remain faithful".  Strong's Greek defines it as the following:

4100 pisteúō (from 4102 /pístis, "faith," derived from 3982 /peíthō, "persuade, be persuaded") – believe (affirm, have confidence); used of persuading oneself (= human believing) and with the sacred significance of being persuaded by the Lord (= faith-believing).
http://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm

So, what is the meaning of, "believes", in the context of the John 3:16 passage?  Some Christians take it to mean that one must hold the conviction that Jesus is literally a supernatural being who is all knowing and all powerful, and that being convinced of this is one's ticket from being eternally punished and tortured in the afterlife.  Much of this comes from later Christian baggage and would not have been the interpretation that the writer of the Gospel or his readers would have understood.  To this audience, "God's Son", was a title that referred to someone having legitimate authority, someone who was felt to be, "anointed by God as his chosen leader and representative".  This is the title that was used for Israel's kings and for the expected messiah.  Son of a god was also the title Caesar used to legitimize his authority.  We also need to couple this with the understanding that to the early Christians at the time of the Gospels the name of Jesus and his teaching were interchangeable.  They called themselves followers of, "The Way".  Jesus, as the teacher of this Way, was seen as its personification and his name was substitutable with the teaching he represented.  Seen this way, believing in Jesus, the Son of God, means affirming as legitimate and trusting in the teaching of Jesus.  In the time and place of the Gospel, this would have meant rejecting as legitimate the Roman philosophy of the rightness of power through military dominance and violence, or the doctrine of the Pharisees (remember these words were addressed to Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees) of Holiness and "salvation" through the careful observance of religious laws, and instead endorsing a teaching of Truth through emulation of a God characterized as primarily loving, generous and forgiving.  Believing in Jesus means turning away from trusting in military force and violence, or wealth and social status, as what we find legitimate, and having confidence in love, generosity, and peace as truth.  What you are persuaded is factual or literal is beside the point when you are persuaded to live in this spirit.

A God With No Name; The Problem With Personification

On Boxing Day, we had friends over and the conversation turned to politics and religion (we have those kind of friends).  One of the topics was our incredulity at the discrepancy between some Christian politicians' and religious leaders' fervent devotion to the figure of Jesus and a practice of hate mongering and violence that would make Jesus question why he ever left the tomb: GOP candidate, Gov. Chris Christie's, boast that he wouldn't be afraid to start World War III, Donald Trump's rhetoric about limiting the travel of Muslims and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, the GOP candidates' rabid assertions during the debates that the U.S. should carpet bomb the Middle East and purposely commit other war crimes without regard to the lives of innocent civilians including children, the Christian leader who recently prayed from the pulpit of his megachurch for God to kill all the gays, the enactment of laws to restrict women's health services and aide to the poor...the list just keeps going on.

Our conclusion was that they have somehow divorced the figure of Jesus from his teaching and actions.  They have created an idol of Jesus in their own image totally at odds with the attributes portrayed in the Gospels. That's the danger of personifying God; literalism can detach the figure from the very qualities it was created to represent.

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/republican-jesus-AATTP-250x160.gif

The image of God is an anthropomorphizing of how we believe the, “world works”, what is valuable and laudable, what should be defended and what should be discouraged. God is a personification of what we believe is truly legitimate, noble, powerful and worthy; what we see as reality and the fundamental nature of, “the Universe”, and our place and role in it. It is the representation of these abstract qualities in a human like form.


When the chemical manufacturing process at the plant where I work was not behaving as expected, a Chemical Engineer friend of mine would like to quote George Box, "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". The anthropomorphizing of God is a good model. But, when overly literalized it can become detached from the very abstract qualities and concepts it was meant to embody and becomes no longer useful.


I believe the ancient Hebrews, surrounded by cultures with multiple gods and idols, were aware of this danger and that this may have somewhat inspired their concept of God, the God with no name. In the Exodus story, the writer has Moses ask God who it is that has sent him and God replies, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”. It is from this phrase that YHVH, or Yahweh, became the personal name of God in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures. Later, in the Priestly Era, even this was replaced with the title, Jehovah, meaning, "The Lord", with the personal name seen as too holy for anything but very special use.


A similar reluctance to anthropomorphize God is seen in the prohibition against idols. The Hebrews are told, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". As a result, I believe that the Jewish people gained a much less restrictive and more encompassing concept of God.


All models are wrong, but if we need to put a face to God, for me the person of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by the Gospels is the best possible and one the world could sorely use. A brown skinned Middle Eastern man who spent the first years of his life as a refugee and lived in a conquered nation occupied by the world superpower of the day. This man, who characterized God as primarily loving, generous and forgiving, taught that we should love our enemies and do good to those who want to harm us. He often extolled the virtues of those outside his own religion, tribe, and nationality. When arrested for the trial where he was later executed he did not resist and even healed one of the soldiers struck by one of his followers. This to me is the true face of Jesus and the true face of God. To me, the representations of Jesus by right-wing hate and fear mongers are false idols made in the image of their makers.

Franklin Graham needs to be "born again"

The Christian Evangelist and sometime GOP candidate, Franklin Graham, recently trashed an Atheist Billboard, and then said that Christianity Is “Not About Being Good”.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/13/franklin-graham-trashes-atheist-billboard-then-says-christianity-is-not-about-being-good/

Given the obscene salary he demands as "CEO" of the tax exempt charity, Samaritan's Purse, which begs for the widow's mite, I have to say that his practice certainly is consistent with his words.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-franklin-grahams-salary-raises-eyebrows-among-christian-nonprofits/2015/08/18/023ce940-45f2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html?tid=ss_fb

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-christians-collide-over-televangelist-franklin-graham

http://cdn.charismanews.com/images/archives/stories/BGEA-bible-money-cash.jpg

I think there are a number of Right Wing Christian Leaders who need to be, "born again".  No, I'm not talking about reciting some magic incantation where you, "invite Jesus into your heart", and swear life and allegiance to some church's characterization or image of Jesus (which I believe in some circles has him riding bareback on a dinosaur carrying an assault rifle).  I'm sure they have all done that.  No, I'm talking about Jesus' assertion that we need to throw off the prejudices of our culture, society, and religion, and look at reality from a fresh perspective, "as a child", who has yet to be indoctrinated in, "the way the world works". Fundamental to this process is Jesus' invitation to look at Reality, the World, the Universe, God, from the perspective he shared in his teaching and actions.  In Jesus' world view, the universe is characterized by extreme love and generosity.  It is unbiased, caring, forgiving, kind, inclusive and tolerant, and "womb like".  When you start from this perspective, then Jesus is truely, "in your heart", the centre of your being.  The kingdom of heaven rules when we are, "born again" in this fashion.

Are the Muslim and Christian God the same?

A teacher at an evangelical Christian college who announced that she is wearing an Islamic headscarf as part of her Advent Worship has been suspended from the school.  In a Facebook post alongside images of her wearing the headscarf, she said it was her duty to love others and quoted Pope Francis saying that Muslims and Christians ‘worship the same God’.

http://www.farrahgray.com/evangelical-christian-college-professor-vowed-wear-hijab-holidays-declared-muslims-christians-worship-god-suspended/

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?  Pope Francis has affirmed that we do, and, given what we know about Jesus from his teaching and actions as portrayed in the Gospels, I believe Jesus would as well.



To me the question makes as much sense as asking whether Christians and Jews worship the same God, or whether the different denominations and sects that make up Christianity worship the same God; Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and multiple others.  We all have a slightly different image and characterization of God and what God requires of humanity.  We all hold some scripture in common in our canons but not all of it.  We all trace the origins of our faith back to Abraham.  However, most of us would agree that we all, "worship the same God".

For Christians, the question should come back to what we think Jesus would say.  Of course in Jesus time on earth neither Christianity or Islam existed.  Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who belonged to post-exilic Rabbinical Judaism.  He and his early followers saw themselves as thoroughly part of that religion and were offering what they felt was the most faithful interpretation and way of living it.  This interpretation was not thought of as a separate movement or religion until much later. But there was a form of Judaism in Jesus time that was considered separate from his own, the Samaritans, and I believe that his teaching and actions towards the people of this group can give us some insight into this question.

Like Christians and Muslims, Rabbinical Jews and Samaritans traced their origins to Abraham and Moses, shared some scripture as canon while not others, and had different characterisations of God and what God expects.  It is thought that the split occurred with the Babylonian exile with Samaritans comprising those who were not taken to Babylon.  With the return from exile, some of those who had remained viewed the returnees as having corrupted Judaism while away.  While those who returned viewed the others as having been unfaithful for having intermarried with non-Jews.  Their canon diverged. The Samaritans accepted only the first five books of the Bible as canonical, and their temple was on Mount Gerazim instead of on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. The Samaritans were also geographically separated from the Rabbinical Jews who would go out of their way in travel rather than be contaminated by passing through their territory.

However, Jesus, as portrayed by the Gospels, did not condemn or criticise them, but taught that they should be accepted and treated them as having equal access to God.  He made a Samaritan the hero of his story illustrating how to live out God's command to love our neighbour.  The Samaritan woman at the well asks him directly which religion is "correct" and his response is that God's true followers will worship him in spirit and truth.

Given his teaching and actions, I would have to surmise that Jesus would affirm that a religion that counts himself as one of their prophets worships the same God as himself.

Do Not Fear Me Because I am Christian

http://usuncut.com/news/mosque-firebombed-people-inside/

Please do not fear and hate me because I am Christian.  Please do not burn down my place of worship, or gather outside it in angry gun toting mobs to demonstrate that my kind are not welcome among you.  Do not insult or assault members of my family if they wear symbols of our culture and faith so that we are afraid to leave our homes.  Do not scrawl graffiti on my place of business disparaging my faith or send me death threats.

I know that there are those among my faith that have given you cause to feel threatened and unsafe.  The majority of mass shooters are right-wing christians and you are seven times more likely to be killed by one of "our" terrorists than one of some other faith in the U.S..

Sociologists of religion classify the religion of DAESH (ISIS) as separate from Islam.  But, unfortunately, the Klan, the Westboro Baptists, the wackos at Waco Texas, Jim Jones' Koolaide stand, and that christian congregation in northern New York State who recently beat two boys to death persuading them to, "confess their sins", all fall under the umbrella of christianity.

We hold the distinction of being the most violent and hate filled people in history.  We are responsible for the bloody wars of the Christian Monarchs of Britain and Europe, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, and the kidnapping, enslavement and deaths of millions of people from Africa, as well as the extermination of millions of Indigenous people while stealing their territories.  Some of us tried to exterminate the Jews in Germany while others of us denied them refuge when they tried to flee.  We instigated two world wars as well as providing arms for most of the wars today with some in our camp actively promoting nuclear war as a means to hasten Jesus' return.

Our supporters and self proclaimed, "champions of the faith", include the Crowned Princes of Europe, Hitler, Jerry Falwell Sr. and Jr., Fred Phelps, David Duke, Jimmy and Tammy Bakker, Rush Limbaugh, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump (but probably not with any sincerity, more a christian supporter of political opportunity than anything).

I find all this violence and hatred committed by people who claim to be followers of Jesus almost beyond belief.  Christianity is a religion of peace, or at least the teachings and actions of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels are ones of peace.  This is a Middle Eastern man who lived in a land occupied by an oppressive foreign power.  While some of his people called for violent rebellion, he taught that we should love our enemies and do good to those who would try to harm us.  When guards came to to arrest him for the trial that led to his execution, he refused to allow his followers to harm them or resist.

Believe it or not, there are those among us who take this man's teaching and example to heart and strive to live by this spirit.  So, please do not judge us all by the actions of the many.  Please do not fear and hate me.

A Sad Ironic Echo In The History Of The Middle East

As conservative right-wing "Christian" politicians and leaders in the West call for increased military action and bombing in the Middle East to exact peace, I am struck by the sad irony of this echoing of history. 

In the beginning of the First Century, Rome was the world superpower occupying the Middle East enforcing peace through violent military force for the political and economic stability necessary for exploitation. The oppression of these lands then, like today, was legitimised to the people through religion.  In the day of Rome it was done through the Imperial Cult, a state religion focusing on their ruler, Caesar.  Julius Caesar was formally deified as "the divine Julius".  His adopted son, Augustus, became known as, “son of the divine Julius”, or, “son of the god”. Much was made of the “Pax Romana”, the Roman Peace, a period of relative peace throughout the lands occupied by Rome imposed through brutal military force.  In territories like the Middle East, this was accomplished through military bases or garrisons and through the employment of client kings like King Herod in Palestine and similar to the use of puppet dictators by Western powers in modern history like the Shah of Iran, Iyad Allawi, Husni Mubarak, and Tunisia’s ruling elite.  Caesar was hailed as the, “Prince of Peace”, and propaganda monuments were set up in the occupied territories announcing the “gospel”, or good news of his military victories.

In response to this dominant and pervasive doctrine of god sanctioned power through military might, a rag tag group in occupied Palestine offered a subversive view that was the antithesis of their Roman oppressors.  Their leader, a rural backwoods Rabbi of no standing, delivered a message of peace through love and non-violence.  He taught that God blessed the meek, not the powerful, and that we should love our enemies and do good to those who want to harm us.  He stated that those who want to be leaders should be the servants of all rather than the oppressors.  His followers subverted the Roman doctrine of the divine right of power through violence by expropriating the Roman symbols and language.  Their leader, Jesus, was the true, “Son of God”, and, “Prince of Peace”.  They called the books they wrote about their leader and his teachings by the Greek word, “euaggelion”, from which we get the word, “Gospel”, which was the same word used by Roman propaganda in the area proclaiming the good news of Caesar’s military victories.

The sad irony is that many modern adherents to the religion that descended from this movement now play the role of Rome and Caesar rather than that of Jesus and his followers.  Jesus’ subversive message of peace through love and generosity rather than violence seems to have been totally lost on them.  They have become the oppressors instead, using military power and violence to exploit others.  To top the irony off, they often try to justify it in the name of a man who taught the exact opposite.

I Believe In God, Just Not That One

I am always a bit hesitant in my answer when someone asks me if I “believe in God”.  I believe quite fervently in God, and always answer in the affirmative, but know that in many cases I haven’t answered the real question that the person was asking.  My self-identity and world view are quite closely tied to my faith and devotion to God.  However, my concept of God does not include a literal sentient being that is all powerful and all knowing.  I don’t endorse the idea of a being that literally created the universe and presides over some parallel existence where the “souls” of the dead continue to reside with their memories and personalities intact and able to sense the physical universe and perform cognitive functions without the benefit of their physical bodies.  I, like the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, have a concept of God that has little to do with what happens after we die. 

So, let me tell you about my concept of God.  The concept of God through the ages has been one where we subscribe what we believe is truly legitimate, noble, powerful and worthy; what we see as reality and the fundamental nature of, “the Universe”, and our place and role in it.  How we characterise God is how we believe the, “world works”, and what is valuable and laudable, what should be defended and what should be discouraged.  God is a personification of these things, the representation of these abstract qualities in a human like form.

Being part of the mainstream Protestant Christian tradition, my concept of God is informed, but not limited, by the Gospel writers in their telling of the teaching and action of Jesus of Nazareth.   From the Gospels I take a non-literal, figurative and literary understanding of God.  Jesus’ teachings and actions characterised God, what is legitimate and fundamental, as primarily loving, generous, impartial and forgiving.  He spoke about social justice, inclusion, and peace.  For him, the “kingdom of heaven” exists among us when we respect his Heavenly Father’s “authority and will” by acting out of this spirit. 

One of my favourite sections from the Gospels comes from the 21^st chapter of Matthew where, in response to the chief priests and elders questioning of his authority, he tells them a parable about two sons.  At the request of their father to work in the vineyard, one son says he will not go, but changes his mind and later does, while the other initially says he will go, but in the end does not.  When the chief priests and elders identify the first as doing what his father wanted, Jesus responds with one of my favourite verses, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did.“   And what was John’s, “way of righteousness”?  "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." (Luke 3:11).

To me, one of the most beautiful, fitting, and right metaphors in the New Testament is the casting of this man as the Incarnation of God, as the “Divine Son of God”.  This title of course has many layers and nuances of meaning.  It was partially a subversive jab at Caesar who was called the son of a god and whose imperial cult had stories of his divine birth.  It was also a reference to the Jewish tradition of calling their kings and their expected messiah, “god’s son”, with the early followers of the Way of Jesus affirming that his was the true interpretation of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple.  The early Gospel of Mark has little to no mention of Jesus being divine, but the later the Gospel, the more this apologue gained traction, with the latest Gospel, the Gospel of John, using it as a full blown theme.  However, to me, Jesus as the incarnation of God, is one of the best allegories I know of what is True and Legitimate, and one that I believe in with all my heart.

I don’t begrudge anyone a more literal interpretation of God, or Jesus as the Son of God.  As long as that interpretation leads them to act in the spirit of Jesus’ teachings and characterisation of God, I have no problem with them and count them as a compatriot, “For whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).   I do have a problem with those who claim to be followers of Jesus who preach hatred and violence in direct contrast to his teaching.  To these, I recommend my earlier passage from the 21^st chapter of Mark about who is in the lead in entering the kingdom of God.