Tags
Caesar became the emperor of the Roman empire – possibly one of the most successful empires the world has ever known. It was strong militarily and economically. It lasted for centuries. It had major technological impacts on civilization. It brought about order and governmental practices and ideas that the world still holds onto today. When it fell, many other kingdoms wanted to be the torch bearers of Rome. Yet the idea of Caesar as a type of god persisted – someone to be emulated in deed and thought.
Caesar had many titles – Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Savior of the world. Sound familiar?
They should. These are titles that Christians have claimed for Jesus since Jesus roamed around Palestine. Throughout time though, humanity and even the church itself have wavered on this – gone back and forth as to who really is Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and Savior of the world. This wavering showed up in terms of ideas like divine right kings, the Crusades, Just War theory, and more.
Caesar is alive and well and has been over the centuries. He just shows up in different places and as different leaders through time. Caesar is a generic title for me, but has real life implications. Caesar thrives in times of anxiety, violence, anger, and fear. Caesar’s favorite pastime is war. Caesar’s way is the way the world embraces.
To follow Caesar means that the enemy must be crushed, that the enemy is not human and so it can be killed without mercy, that ruthlessness is a virtue, that violence is the way to victory, that the ends justify the means, that we are to pick up the sword, or gun, or any other weapon and follow Caesar, that might makes right, that the strong survive, that nature must be made to submit, that mercy is a sign of weakness, that Caesar is all-powerful.
But if we claim that Jesus is Lord, them Caesar is not. And Caesar’s ways are wrong, evil. They lead to death and destruction. Jesus’ ways are far different and the world doesn’t like Jesus way.
In the Gospel reading assigned for this coming Sunday, we hear this:
He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.
(Mark 6:1-6, NRSV)
The key phrase in this passage is in verse 3 – “And they took offense at him.” The people who knew him best rejected Jesus as Lord and his way. Why would anyone reject God’s way? No wonder “He was amazed at their unbelief.”
If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is King of Kings, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is Savior, then Caesar is not. If this is what we claim about Jesus, then we are called to follow his way, not Caesar’s way – ever. We are to be theologians of the cross and call the thing what it is – evil. Caesar’s ways are evil and wrong.
If we claim to be followers of Jesus, we are claiming something that the world rejects and takes offense to. And Caesar and his followers will lash out at those who claim Jesus as Lord and Savior. Caesar and his followers will attempt to crush anyone who will not take a knee in front of Caesar. Caesar and his followers will use violence against anyone who dares to claim that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not. These aren’t exaggerations – Caesar has been doing this over the centuries. Why would Caesar change now?
If we claim to be followers of Jesus, then we ask the follow questions: pertaining to government – Is this policy assisting in the unfolding of the Kingdom of God, or the expansion of Caesar’s empire? Is this policy Christ-like – Christ the King, ruler of the universe, or would Caesar be proud? Pertaining to us individually – Is what I am doing or saying Christ-like or Caesar-like? Which banner am I hoisting high in my speech and action – Jesus or Caesar?
If we claim Jesus as Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and Savior of the World, then we are to love our enemies, not kill them and crush them. Love is the only way. Peace is a way of living, not a destination that comes after you have eliminated your enemies.
If we claim that Jesus is Lord of Lords, then the means and the way of living matter more than the ends.
If we claim to be followers of Jesus, then we answer the call to pick up our cross, deny ourselves, and follow him. We will turn the other cheek when we are struck, not retaliate, seek revenge, and strike back.
If we claim Jesus is Savior of the World, then we recognize that God loves the poor, the weak, the outcast, the other and calls on us to love them also and to act when there is injustice, not sit idly by and watch people suffer.
If we claim to be a part of Jesus’s Kingdom, then we will welcome the stranger in our midst, not fear them and turn away to what for many will be sure death.
If we claim Jesus as Lord, then we are stewards of creation, not those that ravage the earth in a lustful manner.
If we claim Jesus as King of Kings, then we believe that God is merciful, offers forgiveness, and that love is the only way. These aren’t signs of weakness. They are banners of God.
Claiming Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not is not passive. It comes with an active faith that cajoles us out of our comfort zone and inconveniences us in ways we do not expect. All of this doesn’t mean that sit around passively and let the world go to hell – in order to maintain a false sense of civility, which is really just comfort for the oppressor – for Caesar and his followers. It means we are called to live in a way that is far different from the world of Caesar. Caesar was threatened by Jesus and his way – that is why Jesus was killed by Caesar and the empire.
We speak out about injustices because God cares for those who experiences injustice and likewise we act, and we are to be with them – because their loss is our loss.
We speak out when people are dehumanized and devalued, equated with animals and bugs, because it goes against the imago dei – the image of God. It is an assault on God’s family.
We speak out and act when there is violence – not responding with violence, but something far different. Something that the world doesn’t understand. We put an end to violence and the means to carry out violence. Violence is not even an attractive option and makes no sense in the way of Jesus.
We proclaim Good News. The world needs to hear Good News. But many will reject this news, reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, because they are dedicated to Caesar and his ways.
Some will hear the Good News and their lives will change. Some will reject it, preferring the path of Caesar. So what? We aren’t called to convince everyone or make everyone comply – those ways are the ways of Caesar. We proclaim and invite people into a new way of living. We can’t control how people will respond. We rejoice with those that respond and take on a new life, we weep for those that reject Jesus and his way. And we wipe the dust from our feet from those who will not receive the Good News. Who’s next? There are more who need to hear the Good News, to experience Jesus transformation, and to be invited into the Kingdom of God where Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.
Some will, some won’t, so what, who’s next.
Jesus is Lord. Caesar is not. Not by a long shot. It’s not even close.
Love it! Your post is like something ripped from the pages of N.T. Wright (a fav theologian in my neck of the woods!).
I wrote a post, which in the details will differ with yours (I think) but which ironically shares the main thrust here deeply. It’s an old one now, and best meditated on at Christmas time, but I notice it is my second most visited post ever on my site.
I would love for you to swing by at your convenience and check it out.
https://fatbeggars.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/the-gospel-of-lord-caesar-vs-the-gospel-of-lord-jesus/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great article. Right on target. I’m glad to know there are others talking about this. I love the idea of usurping Caesar. I love that no one knows Caesar’s birthday or cares about it. Great stuff.
LikeLike
“If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is King of Kings, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is Savior, then Caesar is not…If we claim Jesus as Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and Savior of the World, then we are to love our enemies, not kill them and crush them…Claiming Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not is not passive. It comes with an active faith that cajoles us out of our comfort zone and inconveniences us in ways we do not expect.”
I loved your entire excellent post and think you are right on target. Keep up the good work of helping to expand the kingdom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is King of Kings, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is Savior, then Caesar is not. If this is what we claim about Jesus, then we are called to follow his way, not Caesar’s way – ever. ”
How confident are you that this belief is true? 100?
LikeLike
I’m curious why you ask. The answer is yes, as best as I can follow through on this. I’m not perfect and fail at this like everyone else. Yet, this is the ideal that we are drawn towards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. I personally am not confident in any claim or belief 100%. What is it that gives you so much confidence in your belief?
LikeLike
Well Gary, it’s really more that I trust what is in Scripture. When you read Jesus’ birth narrative in Luke, for example, you see several titles attributed to Jesus that traditionally were attributed to the Roman emperor. It is a claim that Jesus is Lord and not Caesar. Luke 2:10-11 specifically states that the messenger is bringing good news. This is something that a messenger of the emperor would have done – brought good news or glad tidings. Typically it was news of another victory over an enemy. Instead, the angelic messenger brings good news of another type – a Savior for all the people. Not just the powerful or the rich, but the poor too. The Savior isn’t born in wealth and a palace, but in a manger with the poor. Caesar was called a savior, a messiah or anointed one, the Lord. The Gospel writer rips those titles away from Caesar and attributes them to Jesus. It is in these passages and other passages of Scripture where my confidence comes from.
It is also in seeing the Caesars of this world and what they offer and how they ultimately fail and fall – every single one of them. They offer salvation and end up in failure eventually. They claim to be Lord, but eventually their power goes on to someone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But how can you be so confident that Jesus is who the Bible says he is?
LikeLike
If you are looking for me to point to some kind of irrefutable evidence, that’s not possible. But then again, that’s the case for many things. Just look at the vast majority of policies that political parties support. Even science changes over time and the evidence that is presented changes too. Politicians can point to facts and figures and twist them any way they want to match up with their beliefs.
Here’s what I’ve got, faith, a gift from God. Ultimately faith is the foundation for belief. It isn’t rational and often it doesn’t make sense.
I’ve got the Scriptures. I have seen God at work in the world and in my life. My confidence isn’t based on me and how I feel about God. I don’t believe that everything in Scripture is meant to be taken literally. There are many genres of writing in Scripture – some allegory, some history, some poetry, some pre-history, some parables, some wisdom literature, prophesy, apocalyptic literature, etc.
Here’s what else I know. That the Jesus way of life if life giving. Matthew 25:31-46 give us good instruction on how to live – to feed the hunger and thirsty, to clothe the naked, to welcome the stranger, to visit the sick and those in prison. Likewise, we are told to pray for and to love our enemies. All of these things are so needed in the world. We do them because of the love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness God has shown us. We do these things in response to share this good news with others. The world needs these things desperately and it isn’t going to get them anywhere else. As Peter said, Lord to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life.
Ultimately I can never convince you. I can’t change your mind. Faith isn’t just a mind job. It’s a life change. I will tell you this, in our congregation, we do ministry with the homeless – people who lack hope and basic resources of life. No one else is stepping up to do this. Without faith, there isn’t much reason to do this. While agencies try to do some things with the homeless, they are missing a significant part – the immaterial.
Why care for someone who cannot offer something in return? Why care for someone who is poor, homeless? Why show them love and spend time with them? Why make sure that they receive the dignity of feeling human by making sure they get showers and laundry done? Why take them to a restaurant and make sure they are feed? Why do any of this? It’s not to earn anything. It’s to show God’s love that we have received. It gives them the opportunity to encounter Jesus, just like we experience. We encounter Jesus in the homeless, they encounter Jesus in us. When we encounter Jesus, our lives are changed. When we see Jesus in others, how we interact with them changes. When we encounter Jesus, how we live changes.
This is exactly what we read about in Scripture over and over again. In the Gospels we read about how Jesus encounters people and their lives are changed. We read about how God encounters people and how their lives are changed. Do I take everything in Scripture literally – no, and no one should. It’s not a zero-sum game. It’s not a situation where if one thing in Scripture is not true, then the whole thing is false. That’s a fundamentalist way of thinking. There is mystery. There is more than just totally true and totally false. There is more than just yes or no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So of the three—faith, Scriptures, and changed lives—which is the most important reason why you are so confident of your belief in Jesus?
LikeLike
The three are deeply connected and relate to each other. I don’t see a difference between them really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is your definition of faith?
LikeLike
Good question Gary. I would define faith as a gift from God. It goes beyond knowledge of God to something deeper. You may not like my definition, and I’ll admit that it’s not a traditional definition, but it’s my definition. Faith is God opening our eyes to see God in others. To give us vision to be able to see Jesus in the other – both our neighbors and our enemies. How would you define faith?
LikeLike
I don’t use the word faith. It has a lot of baggage. It means different things even to different Christians.
What would you say to a devout Hindu woman who says that her belief in Hinduism is a gift from God?
LikeLike
I would respect her beliefs and probably ask questions about her beliefs in order to gain a better understanding of how faith. It’s not a zero sum game. It’s not about being right and showing how the other person is wrong if we have different beliefs. I would see the Hindu woman as a human being first, not a set of beliefs that needed to be fleshed out to sort what was correct and what was incorrect. If we can’t see the humanity in someone else, then what good is our own faith? If I can’t see Jesus even in a Hindu woman, then I’m missing the point of faith and God. God isn’t someone who sits around looking to see who have the wrong beliefs and then smiting them – that’s not the God I worship anyway. There are plenty of Christians who believe this way. But I think that is counter productive and in opposition to what Jesus taught. My goal with our imaginary Hindu woman would be to see her humanity, to respect her humanity, to see Jesus in here, and to take a sincere interest in who she is as a person. A person and their beliefs are not the same thing. I have had wonderful conversations with atheists because my goal isn’t to try to convince atheists they are wrong, but to understand how they come to their conclusion, and when possible to share my faith and how it impacts my life and guides my life. Luke 6:46 is a favorite passage of Scripture of mine. Jesus asks the question – “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not do what I tell you?” I don’t want to have to answer that question from Jesus. I try to live my life following what Jesus his followers to do and how to live. Matthew 25:31-46 gives us good instruction on how to live. The Beatitudes, likewise, give us instruction on how to live. Faith, real faith, isn’t about being right. It isn’t about having all the knowledge of who God is. Those are important of course. But if we don’t live out the faith, then what’s the point of it? The point of faith is to have our lives changed and to share how Jesus changes all of our lives.
Gary, what’s your story? You ask some great questions. I appreciate your questions and have spent a good deal of time thinking about them. Are you struggling with faith? Are you curious about something? I’ve spilled a whole lot about myself to you. I only ask that you might be a little vulnerable also and share something about yourself. I’m not going to yell at you or try to prove you wrong, just like I’ve written about earlier in this thread.
LikeLike
I am a former Lutheran. LCMS. One fateful day in 2014 I came across the blog of a former Christian pastor turned atheist. I was appalled by his blasphemy against my Lord and Savior. I decided I would attempt to bring this lost sheep back to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Four months later I no longer believed in Jesus as God. The evidence presented by this former pastor demolished my faith.
Back to our Hindu woman. How can you know that her faith in Lord Krishna and Vishnu is any less true than your faith in Lord Jesus?
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing Gary. I’m sorry to hear that your faith was demolished. Do you miss believing?
It sounds as though you are someone who is most concerned with making sure you get things right. Is that a fair assessment?
Regarding our Hindu woman, I have no idea if her faith is any less true. And it’s not my job to convince her. It is my responsibility to act in a Christ-like manner towards her, to show the love of Christ, to see Christ in her. This probably gets into the idea of winning souls. I take the notion that I can’t win a soul for Jesus. I don’t have that kind of power to save someone. It is God that saves, not me. That doesn’t mean that I’m off the hook from everything. It means that I receive salvation from God freely, and I respond in joy by living a Gospel-filled life, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, visiting the sick, welcoming the stranger, etc. Others will do what they will do. Others will believe what they believe.
LikeLike
I miss my friends at my former church. My deconversion essentially ended my social life since all my friends were Christians. I miss the feeling of camaraderie with my fellow parish members.
But ask any child how they felt when the learned that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not real, and they will probably tell you that they were devastated. However, they eventually get over their pain and sorrow because they realize their former belief was not real. It was wonderful while you were living in the fantasy, but now that you know the fantasy is not real, you know you have to give it up.
I’m doing very well today. No regrets. I am not afraid of death. It is simply part of life. I find purpose in my life through my work and most importantly, my wife and children.
So I guess what I am curious about with you is: How much of your belief is based on historical evidence and how much is based on hope (in things not seen), personal feelings, and personal perceptions?
LikeLike
By definition, faith is belief in things not seen. Do I have all sorts of evidence about Jesus, God, faith, etc. Nope. And I would argue that it takes a whole lot of faith to be atheist as well. It is a belief system, not unlike Christianity. As much as we might like to say we are completely rational, we aren’t. Emotion, feelings, perceptions, and biases shape who we are. It certainly shapes our politics. We are all good at pointing to “evidence” to support what we want to believe. And yet, the more we learn, it seems that we know less than we did before. As I said before, I can’t convince you of anything. While I enjoy the questions you ask, just because I don’t have an answer that satisfies you isn’t going change me. You can consider me irrational if you like. I would challenge you in the sense that based on your line of questions, I don’t think the basis of your beliefs have changed that much – there is still an all or nothing belief system that I hear. Where is there room for uncertainty, doubt, mystery, not knowing, or faith if you want to call it that? We are limited creatures and don’t know everything – it is not possible for us to know everything, or even much for that matter. It’s just changed from being a Missouri Synod Lutheran to an atheist. Show me how your life has changed, even for the better, how your beliefs have improved the world and impacted others lives. Tell me how any of this has made the world a better place. You want me to prove Jesus is alive? You want me to prove the existence of God? You want me to show how everything in the Bible is literally true? I can’t. Because not everything in the Bible is literally true, and it shouldn’t be read that way. I can’t prove the existence of God. I can’t prove that Jesus is resurrected and alive. The basis of what is our final authority is not the same. While I can’t show irrefutable evidence of any of this, I also can’t dismiss 2000 years of history. I can’t dismiss how I have seen Jesus at work in the world. I can’t dismiss how I have encountered God and seen how God has encountered so many over the centuries. I can’t dismiss any of that. Call me what you will, it won’t change my belief or my confidence. I would rather be wrong in the eyes of the world and live according to the way Jesus taught, rather than be right according to the world. Paul writes about hope. I’ll gladly stand with Paul on this. Paul didn’t have the Gospels to go on when he was alive. They were verbal at that point. I’m sure some of the stories are exaggerated. Does that mean we throw the whole thing out? I don’t think so. Yet, here is Paul, who persecuted Christians, and then become one of the leading evangelists. How do you explain that? He ended up dying for this. How does that makes sense? Or Stephen – dies a martyr. How does that make sense? I know, I’m sure there is some answer to each of these questions. That’s great. I allow for mystery and the unknown in my belief system. I allow for contradictions, much in the way that Martin Luther talked about paradoxes. I allow for doubt and uncertainty in my belief. My faith has gone through many changes over the years. And like you, I also experienced pain and sorrow in those changes. Yet, this didn’t destroy the faith I was given. It made it stronger. That’s my story anyway.
LikeLike
My question is: I fully realize that we humans cannot be 100% certain of anything. All truth claims are based on probabilities. But is faith a reliable method of determining the probability of a universal truth claims? In what other area of your life would you use faith to determine a universal truth claim?
LikeLike
That’s still attempting to apply proof standards to faith, which is a contradiction of what faith is. Faith is belief without evidence. How could anyone possibly hold faith to a standard that contradicts the very essence of what faith is? That’s not a fair standard for faith, especially when faith never claims that it can prove something. Further, if what you say is true “All truth claims are based on possibilities,” then how can we know anything is a universal truth claim without making a universal truth claim based on faith? I still hear you arguing for something that I just don’t agree with – an all or nothing approach to things.
LikeLike
Maybe what we should really be discussing is how much “uncertainty” (lack of evidence, faith) for a claim we each would allow to still believe a particular claim. I suggest that the higher the cost to us (monetarily, professionally, or risk to life and limb) the less uncertainty (faith) we are going to allow in our decision.
How much uncertainty would you allow in making a decision for a one time purchase of a lottery ticket? Answer: Probably a lot. Lottery tickets are inexpensive but have a huge pay off if you win. So even though you know that the chances of winning are almost nil, you are still willing to “roll the dice” and buy the ticket (one time, at least). You are willing to believe in the benefit of purchasing one lottery ticket based on very little evidence that you will win. Your decision to purchase the lottery ticket is an act almost entirely of faith (hope in things not seen) as there is very little evidence that you will win. No one is going to criticize you for purchasing a $2 lottery ticket even though the certainty of a payoff is very, very low. Why? Answer: Because your decision to make this choice by faith is inconsequential if you are wrong.
How much uncertainty (faith) would you allow to play Russian Roulette? Someone puts one bullet into a pistol’s cylinder, spins the cylinder, and hands you the gun to put against your temple. If you pull the trigger and it is a blank, you win a million dollars. If you pull the trigger, and it is live…you are dead. Now, you have a much better chance of “winning” in this scenario than you did in the lottery ticket scenario but I will bet that you would not take this challenge. Why? The risk is just too high. Having faith in this scenario is too risky. Most sane people would consider you foolish to pull the trigger of a loaded gun against your head believing by faith that the chamber fired is empty. Using faith in this situation is simply foolish. I would bet that you would not accept this challenge without having 100% evidence that the chamber you fire is empty. You would not make this decision with even 5% faith.
So, yes, we humans use faith (belief without evidence or little evidence) fairly often. But we usually don’t make it for very important or risky decisions. Why? It is not a reliable method of evaluating important, consequential truth claims!
So why would you use faith as the method to determine your life’s purpose, direction, and goals?
LikeLike
The analogies seem a bit too simplistic to me. They assume that you can make a decision about things in a vacuum, again, going to an all or nothing approach. Decisions aren’t made in vacuums. They are made in a context, based on experiences, evidence, beliefs, and faith. How do you possibly make any decisions unless it is based on a variety of things that influence your decision? I don’t think that is possible. Just as I don’t make decisions completely based on faith either. But it does have an impact on my decision making very often – it just depends on the degree. Also, I’m not sure what harm there is in using faith as the method to determine life purpose, direction, and goals? So what if someone does and they are completely wrong about there being a God? What harm has been done to them or to anyone else for that matter? But again, I don’t think anyone uses faith as the sole method and criteria to determine life’s purpose, direction, and goals. It’s not for me. I am a second career pastor, which means that I was able to take not only faith into account, but also experience and expertise, into the discernment process. These were helpful to me to see how they work with faith.
LikeLike
Sometimes analogies work, sometimes they don’t. Was my analogy helpful in understanding where I am coming from?
LikeLike
Not really. I think our starting points are very far apart. I’m not even talking about faith here. I’m talking about the idea of binary decisions versus multiple possibilities. In each of your arguments, I only hear of the possibility of two options – an all or nothing approach. If that is the case, then I can see how there really isn’t room for faith because all it takes is for there to be one error in faith and then the whole thing collapses, leaving the other option as the only valid possibility. I don’t agree with this. I take a different approach and see there being many different possibilities, including the possibility of paradox. Maybe you could think of this as a continuum of possibilities. This allows for faith to exist even when a part of faith may fall apart because I don’t believe you throw the baby out with the bath water. I apologize if this sounds like an insult – that is not the intent, I’m just not sure how to word it another way.
I’m not sure we are going to come to a common ground, or a common agreement. And that’s completely ok. I do want to say that I appreciate the questions and the conversation a great deal. I think questions like this are healthy. Debate it healthy. Doubt is healthy. Not knowing everything is healthy. I certainly don’t have all the answers.
LikeLike
So what you are saying is that it is ok to have beliefs which are partly based on evidence and partly on faith (hope)?
I agree.
When I get on an airplane, I personally have NOT inspected the plane’s engine, tires, electrical system, etc.. I make the decision to fly on an American made, American maintained plane mostly because I can look at the safety record of these planes and see that the chances of a crash is very low. (it is safer to fly in a commercial American jet than to drive a car.) However, there is no such thing as 100% concrete evidence that my plane is not going to crash. I have to hope, have faith, that it will not.
But when it comes to the claim that a man who lived and died 20 centuries of ago, came back from the dead, ascended into the clouds (and outer space??), and that he currently is the Lord and Master of the entire universe; and since he rules the universe, he rules me. And as a consequence, I must believe in him and follow his teachings here on earth in order to escape some unpleasant punishment, forever, in the after-life! I would want A LOT of evidence to believe this claim. I would not allow my belief in this claim to be based primarily on hope (faith).
So what percentage of your belief in Lord Jesus, King of Heaven and Earth, is based on evidence and what percentage is based on hope (faith)?
LikeLike
So this brings up a difference in theological belief, even within Christianity. I don’t agree with how you’ve defined Christianity – I have a different theology. It is not based on the avoidance of some kind of eternal punishment as long as I believe. That kind of god seems like he has a big ego that gets bruised pretty easily and is in need of being followed or else he’s going to throw a temper tantrum. I don’t believe in that kind of a god. I don’t think that’s good theology and I think it’s a poor reading of Scripture. It’s unhealthy too. And I think it makes God into something less than what God is – it makes God more like a human tyrant who is a narcissist. I have no interest in worshiping such a god.
The theology I follow is that God is a loving God, that God predestines those God will spend eternity with. We don’t know what happens to those who are not predestined, but I have hope for them. Further, throughout Scripture, we see that we have a God who keeps coming to humanity over and over again, and will again. We read this in Revelation 21 with God dwelling with a renewed creation. This means that in the meantime we have some responsibility to take care of the place, not destroy it. We are called to love our neighbors and our enemies. This has practical consequences in how we relate to people – both friend and foe. Matthew 25 calls on us to take care of people, which has practical application also.
What I don’t understand is why you keep hammering on how much of my belief is based on evidence and what is based on faith. I have no idea and it doesn’t bother me that I don’t know. Like I said before, I don’t think a person can talk about faith in a vacuum apart from other things. That’s why it would be impossible to determine percentages – that would be saying there would be a way of measuring faith, something that is subjective, rather than objective and provable. You can’t measure faith – at least I can’t. I don’t know how you would begin to do that. The objective and subjective are not the same thing, but I believe they can work together in assisting us to make decisions. There are times when we give more weight to one over the other and vice versa.
There are plenty of stories, especially in the Gospels of people who had been following Jesus and found what he was teaching to be too difficult, so they left him. Apparently, they were upset by his sayings, how he was challenging the status quo, challenging their ideas of who God is, etc. This isn’t new. Yet, somehow the faith continued. The faith continued during persecution and killings. The faith continued through corruption and wars. The faith continued through manipulation and abuse. And still today the faith continues in spite of the faithful often times who twist it into something that it isn’t.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply, Matthew.
You said, “The theology I follow is that God is a loving God, that God predestines those God will spend eternity with. We don’t know what happens to those who are not predestined, but I have hope for them.”
My take from your comment is that you belong to the more “liberal” branch of Lutheranism/Christianity. You don’t believe in a literal Hell, but you are not a universalist: you do not believe that the Bible teaches that everyone will get into heaven regardless of their belief or non-belief. Therefore in your belief system, it is POSSIBLE that non-believers are punished in some fashion for their non-belief. You can’t be certain.
Is that correct?
Imagine a conversation between yourself and a twelve year old child who comes to you as his pastor:
Johnnie: “Hi Pastor Matthew. I want to ask you something. My best friend and his family are atheists. They don’t believe that Jesus is God. They don’t believe in any God. If my best friend dies, will he go to Hell to burn forever, as some Christians say?”
You: That is a really difficult question, Johnnie. What we know from the Bible is that the people who God has chosen to be saved, will be saved, and will spend an eternity in heaven with God. They will be very happy and experience no pain or sorrow. However, not everyone has been selected. Some people may not go to heaven. Some people might be punished by God, maybe for all eternity. We just don’t know.
Johnnie: So if my best friend is not one of the selected, it is possible that God may punish him for all eternity?? So if you don’t know what God does with the “un-selected”, my best friend might burn forever in Hell like other Christians say??? That is HORRIBLE, Pastor Matthew! I can I sleep at night knowing such a terrible thing might happen to my best friend? How do you know that this is really true, Pastor?
You: My belief is based on my faith, my hope, in the goodness a loving God.
Johnnie: So are you telling me that you are GUESSING that my friend won’t suffer for eternity???
You: Uh, well, I prefer the word “faith”, Johnnie.
Question: Is it moral, is it right, to tell a child that an invisible superhero in the sky MAY punish his best friend for all eternity, in some fashion, simply for not believing in him?
LikeLike
Sorry. I forgot to add a very important phrase to my question, and, I’m going to delete potentially “inflammatory” terms from it:
Question: Is it moral, is it right, to tell a child that an invisible being MAY punish his best friend for all eternity, in some fashion, for not believing in him, based primarily on FAITH (hope in things not seen)?
LikeLike
That’s making an assumption of retribution, which i don’t ascribe to. I don’t see that as an attribute of God. This may get a bit difficult to explain here due to the length of how i come to that conclusion. There would be several scripture citations as well as a discussion on hermeneutics.
LikeLike
There are different ideas about the concept of hell. No i don’t believe in a place where God actively punishes people there. I do believe that separation from God is hellish, but it is self imposed torment, not punishment from God. I believe that God is love and we read the characteristics of love in 1Cor 13: love is patient, kind, etc. if God is love, then no where in the description does it say that love forces it will on people. What if God loves us so much that God honors a person’s wish to be separated from God- to get exactly what they wanted for all eternity. I don’t accept the Dante version of hell. I won’t even go into the greek on this here. At any rate, if a child came to me with this question, i would have gone down a different road with them. I would have inquired as to why they are asking. The reality is we have no idea what happens to us after we die, all we have is faith and hope and a promise.
LikeLike
Will you be honest and tell him that his friend MAY suffer “hellish” psychological discomfort for all eternity due to his friend’s refusal to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is his Lord (Master)?
LikeLike
Many atheists, including myself, believe that they live very happy lives. So in our view, the only way an atheist child is going to feel “hellishly” about being separated from your God is if your God FORCES him to feel that way. Is it possible that you are assuming a psychological reaction that you cannot prove to be true?
Why not just tell the child that we humans have no idea what, if anything, happens after death? Why plant fear in the child’s mind about POSSIBLE, impending, “self-imposed” gloom and doom for his atheist friend? And if you say you wouldn’t tell the child about the possible “hellish” suffering of his friend, why aren’t you being honest with him?
To someone who is atheist, your “liberal” beliefs are still threatening, though not as threatening as the beliefs of the fundamentalists. Who wants to live an eternity in psychological torment???
Is it moral, is it good, to frighten innocent children regarding “scary” beliefs that you believe primarily by faith (hope)?
LikeLike
Go back and read what I wrote. I said that I believe that God loves us so much that God would honor someone’s desire to be separated from God for all eternity. That’s a self-imposed decision, not God tormenting someone. Like Luther, I believe we have the ability to reject God, but not choose God because of our sin and brokenness. My discussion with the child would be truthful. I don’t know what exactly happens and I never said that I would try to scare the child into believing. I would talk about what we have been promised as to what it means to spend eternity with God. Not doing that would frankly be not doing my job. As for my “liberal” beliefs being threatening to an atheist, I can’t control what someone feels threatened over – it’s subjective. I’m not forcing anyone into this belief system. And I’m proclaiming a God who throws hissy fits when someone doesn’t comply mindlessly either. I’m saying that God loves us so much that God would honor our desire to be separated from God for eternity. To me that sounds like hell. To you that might sound like peace. Ok.
Taking a step back, before I even went down this road and I had a 12 year old asking me about this, I would be asking some questions – why do you want to know? What brought this up? I’d want to get an understanding of the context in which they are asking. It could very well have nothing to do with eternity. Good pastoral care would try to find out what the underlying issue is – which may not be the expressed question. In my mind, there isn’t much difference with this and doing a baptism for a stillbirth baby. Theologically it makes no sense. However, it is good pastoral care for the parents who are grieving. Being right isn’t always the best path, or the most important. My goal with the 12 year old wouldn’t be to beat them into submission with the correct information, but rather to care for them and to show them love. That is the most important thing. That doesn’t mean lie to them. That means love them. Jesus even said that the two greatest commandments center on love. We center on love because that is who God is. God is not some old white guy with a long beard sitting in a judges chair waiting to destroy everything or catch everyone sinning so that He can smite everyone.
When there is discussion about the afterlife, it is based on the premise that we don’t know, and that we have been promised certain things. That is what faith offers – hope and promise.
As for planting fear in a child’s mind about possible impending self-imposed gloom and doom for his atheist friend, I would say that what I’m offering is actually more loving than you might realize.
If you believe that you are happier without God, great. More power to you. I believe God will honor that. Who wants to live an eternity in psychological torment? I don’t think anyone does, which is why I have an obligation to share the promise God offers, how I see God alive and living in our midst and changing live. Accept it or reject it. I certainly can’t force anyone into anything.
Here is my question for you – is the goal of atheism to be free from threats? Is it comfort? Because regardless of belief or not, feeling threatened will continue in many ways. Being comforted will always be lacking. We aren’t the center of the universe. I don’t appreciate fundamentalist theology and find it rather destructive, yet it persists. I just choose to reject it and move on with life. I know fundamentalists who think I’m condemned to hell – the Dante style hell because of what I believe. I frankly don’t care and don’t feel threatened by their beliefs because I think they are full of crap. It’s not my job to try and convince someone who is dead set on their beliefs – I can’t. I also don’t expect everyone to agree with me and that doesn’t threaten me either. All I can do is live the way that I am called, share what I know and believe with those who want to engage, and love people regardless of their response.
LikeLike
Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding of your position, Matthew. If you believe that your God does not inflict any punishment whatsoever on non-believers, I have no real issue with your belief system. It is innocuous. Your supernatural belief gives you hope, peace, comfort, and purpose. Since this belief is not used to threaten others, on the surface it is harmless. The only thing I would say is this: Would the people of the world, as a whole, be better off without supernatural beliefs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are welcome Gary. Your last question is very interesting – maybe the most interesting question of all. Of course we have no idea of the answer to that question. My suspicion is the answer is no though. I base this on a few things. First, as a generalization humans seem to be wired to some degree towards a belief in something bigger than themselves. We can see this in ancient burial sites going back thousands and tens of thousands of years. I remember reading something a while back about an old bog where a person’s body was found and the evidence pointed towards some kind of burial tradition which likely carried with it a belief system. Very fascinating. What is it in humanity that would orient us towards this? I don’t know. While religion and belief have been used in violent ways throughout history, we can’t deny that non-faith beliefs and systems have also created death and destruction throughout history. Whether there is faith or not doesn’t seem to matter, humans seem bent on tribalism and all that goes with it. Without supernatural beliefs, I would argue there would be less care for the least among us – the outcast and those on the margins. Often care for the homeless, the poor, the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and those in prison comes from religious people who are driven to do such work because of their religious faith. Of course, I acknowledge that those without faith do the same thing as well. I just think there are more organized efforts often through faith oriented organizations. Lastly, the question that I’m sure you are asked most often is something along this line – without faith, what is our morality based on? Of course, one could argue that even with a faith basis, humans seem to ignore the faith morality pretty easily – ie mass shootings in recent weeks are great examples – done by people professing Christian faith. One more thing – we would have to define what “better off” means. And that’s probably where many of my answers stem from – I start with a definition or belief about what better off means and I am tilted in a certain direction regarding it. To me, as a whole, I see the world as better off with these beliefs. I don’t equate all beliefs as equal. In fact, many religious beliefs are very destructive and we would be better off without them – ie Rapture theology, Fundamentalism, the current beliefs around Evangelicals, etc. But I try to find a silver lining in everything and it my hope that the destructive theologies of the world come to an end so that the more loving aspects of theology can be lived out. We are called to be peacemakers, not condemners who judge others on who is going where and suffering what after they die. Each time I hear a pastor or Christian proclaim destructive theology, it saddens me greatly to see the faith that I adhere to being used and abused for the sake of control and power. Christianity isn’t about seeking out power over others. It is about empowering those without power. It is doing what the world won’t do – love one another. It is seeing Jesus in others – especially out enemies. It is self-emptying for the sake of the other. It is hope filled. It is invitational. It changes lives. That’s what I cling to. That is what faith has given me and calls me to share. That is what it is all about. Gary, as a Christian pastor, I want to say I am sorry to you that the church failed you, that it proclaimed a message of fear. I want to say to you that I am sorry on behalf of the church for not sharing the Good News with you. I am sorry that the church has been destructive throughout time. I can’t change the whole church. I can only ask for forgiveness. The theology I embrace tells me that we are invited to join Christ every day in the baptismal call of life, death, and resurrection. We are to die daily so that we may be raised anew. In many ways, I think the church needs to die – the institution specifically, so that the movement of Jesus can be freed from the shackles of institutionalism that prevents so many Christians from living a life of what it really means to follow Jesus. The church has been so concerned with the survival of the building that it often loses sight of the people. It focuses on the power and the status quo, rather than on what it is called to – empowering, dying daily, encountering Jesus so that lives can be changed. This is the work I am called to.
Gary, I really appreciate your conversation. It has been wonderful. If it is not offensive to you, I pray that you may be blessed. I look forward to more conversations.
LikeLike
” Without supernatural beliefs, I would argue there would be less care for the least among us – the outcast and those on the margins. Often care for the homeless, the poor, the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and those in prison comes from religious people who are driven to do such work because of their religious faith. ”
Have you evaluated this claim regarding the care of marginalized classes of people in countries with low rates of religiosity (Scandinavia, Japan, for example) compared to countries with high rates of religiosity (the United States)? How do these countries fare in caring for the poor compared to the United States? I think that would be an interesting study.
“…without faith, what is our morality based on?”
This is a very interesting issue. Atheism offers no guidance on morality as atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. I would suggest that democratic, secular humanism offers a wonderful alternative to the many, different, often contradictory moralities of the world’s dominant religions.
LikeLike
I haven’t evaluated it, but I also know that given the history of the nordic nations, we can’t ignore the influence that faith has played there. Lutheranism has a strong foundational influence in the Nordic. It was Luther who set up welfare and education in Germany and had an influence on those things for other Lutheran reformers. Even without faith, I would argue that Lutheranism has had a huge impact and influence on why they continue to be oriented towards care for the poor. I spent a year in Finland during seminary and saw the influence first hand. I can’t speak about Japan. I think part of our problem in the US is more foundational in nature – our nation was founded on the belief of mistrust. We don’t trust one another or our government, so we create systems that enhance that belief. It’s hard to care for people when you don’t trust them. Secular humanism isn’t without its problems also – which is true of all belief systems. As a Lutheran, I start with Luther’s low anthropology – that people are bent towards evil in their natural state. I don’t start with the assumption that people yearn for goodness and morality. It that were so, our world would be very different. Secular humanism, while a nice ideal, breaks down because the need for laws to compel and control people’s behaviors and beliefs. It’s an ideal to shoot for, but how is that any different than what I’m suggesting “real” Christianity is? I don’t think there is much difference.
LikeLike
Secular humanism is liberal Christianity without the supernatural beliefs (superstitions, in my view).
Altruistic behavior is frequently seen in other mammals. I don’t believe that modern humans need belief in an invisible god (superhero) to be altruistic. Japan has no history of Christianization, yet the poor and the sick seem to be well cared for in that society.
I believe that religion was probably a necessary step in human development. But now its time to step to another level. Altruism minus superstitions.
LikeLike
I’m wondering if Shintoism, Buddhism, and other Eastern religions have been an influence on the altruistic nature of their culture.
LikeLike
I have a great deal of respect for Lutheranism and even Luther for breaking Rome’s monopoly of power of Europe. However, Luther was a deeply flawed man. His bigotry toward the Jews, based on his understanding of the Christian holy book, is partly to blame for Hitler’s crimes. Lutheranism and Catholicism are very good at helping the poor and needy, but so is Hamas. Altruistic behavior does not excuse the evil inflicted on the world by religion’s superstitions.
LikeLike
Luther was a deeply flawed man. No doubt. Anti-Semitic too. And those teaching have been renounced by Lutheran bodies. He was also a man of his times. Communism also has its roots in atheism. Should we blame atheism for Communism and the devastation that it wrought on the world?
LikeLike
“we would have to define what “better off” means. And that’s probably where many of my answers stem from – I start with a definition or belief about what better off means and I am tilted in a certain direction regarding it. To me, as a whole, I see the world as better off with these beliefs.”
I would suggest that a world where everyone based their beliefs on reason, science, and democratic, secular humanism would resolve many of the conflicts in the world. Women would not be seen as inferior as is the case in much of the Islamic and Hindu world. Contraception and family planning would be accepted through out the world, reducing overpopulation and the strains that multiple pregnancies have on poor women. The abandonment of taboos on eating certain foods due to religious superstitions would help to ease hunger. Gay people would not suffer stigmatization and discrimination simply due to whom they choose to love. Such outrageous practices as genital mutilation of young girls would be abandoned. To me the list of benefits for the people of the world would be practically endless!
LikeLike
“Christianity isn’t about seeking out power over others. It is about empowering those without power. It is doing what the world won’t do – love one another. It is seeing Jesus in others – especially out enemies. It is self-emptying for the sake of the other. It is hope filled. It is invitational. It changes lives. That’s what I cling to. That is what faith has given me and calls me to share. That is what it is all about.”
Liberal Christianity is on the face of it, very kind, very compassionate, very giving. Liberal Christianity does a lot of good in the world. Most atheists, including myself, recognize that. But here is something to consider: Is it possible that liberal Christians give cover of social respectability to fundamentalist religious beliefs and therefore, fundamentalist religious practices, practices which encourage sectarianism, tribalism, discrimination, and even violence? If all liberal Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. dropped all supernatural aspects of their beliefs and simply followed the humanistic teachings of their religion (the Golden Rule), that would strip fundamentalists of social acceptability and respectability. They would be seen as ignorant and foolish minority; laughed at and scorned for believing in invisible ghosts, goblins, and other ghouls. Their children would be ashamed to admit to their friends that their parents are so silly and superstitious. Fundamentalism would die out.
So what about a form of Christianity that follows the wonderful humanistic teachings of Jesus, the man…and drops all supernatural beliefs in Jesus, the omnipotent, magic working superhero???
LikeLike
I don’t accept this argument from the standpoint that it sounds like blaming good Christians for bad Christians. I don’t blame good Muslim for bad Muslims. I don’t blame good white guys for bad ones who go around and kill people. I don’t blame good politicians for bad politicians, etc.
The problem with the end paragraph is that while Jesus would be a wonderful humanistic teacher, he’d also be a liar because it would contradict what he said about himself. How could he really be all that wonderful if he’s a liar?
LikeLike
Human beings can be “wonderful” but mistaken. I do not believe that Jesus was a liar. He sincerely believed that he was God’s special messenger, the Messiah. Jesus was not the first nor the last person to believe he is special.
LikeLike
It’s hard to accept that though when I look through the Gospels and see Jesus talking about being equal with the Father, Jesus claiming to be God’s son, claiming a kingdom not of this world, Jesus using the phrase “I am” over and over again. Yes, there were many messiahs before Jesus and after Jesus. Either Jesus is God’s son or he’s a lunatic. One answer gives reason to follow him, the other doesn’t just make Jesus crazy, but anyone else who would follow him if he was a liar.
LikeLike
What is interesting is that the Jesus of the Synoptics seems very different from the Jesus of John’s Gospel. Is it possible that the high christology of John is theological or literary hyperbole (fiction)? If it is, then isn’t it possible that Jesus never claimed to be God, only the messiah, the son of God?
LikeLike
Of course it’s possible. It’s also possible that it is accurate as well. But even in the Synoptic Gospels, there are claims of divinity attributed to Jesus and by Jesus. Start with Mark 1:1 and you see this “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Even from the start of this Gospel message we get the indication that Jesus isn’t just a special person, but is beyond that. The greek word here means Good News or Gospel, which would have been used when Caesar was proclaiming something. It was Caesar who proclaimed Good News about some war or something of that nature. In the baptism we hear the declaration of God claiming Jesus as God’s son and to listen to him. In Mark 2:5 we hear about Jesus forgiving sins. This upsets the Pharisees and temple leaders because they know that only God can forgive sins. In 3:11 we have an encounter with a demon who proclaims who Jesus is. In ch. 7, Jesus changes the dietary laws – again only something God would be able to do. in ch. 10 with the conversation with the rich man who calls Jesus good, Jesus says, why do you call me good, only God is good. In ch.14 you have Jesus proclaiming “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” This is of course a reference to Daniel 7 and Jesus laying claim to this title.
LikeLike
Is it possible that Jesus believed that he was divine in some sense but not God the Creator? Is it possible that he believed that he was the Messiah, the king of the New Israel, anointed by God in his baptism by John, and thereby embued with divine powers? Anointed kings of Israel were sometimes were referred to as “the son of God”. Is it possible that he pronounced the forgiveness of sins (in the name of God) similar to a Lutheran pastor pronouncing the forgiveness of sins in the divine service?
LikeLike
Of course it is possible. But some of these are not exactly the same though either. At the time of Jesus, no one could pronounce the forgiveness of sins except the high priest after offering the sacrifice once a year in the holy of holies. Jesus wasn’t doing that. He swiped the job from the high priest in doing this. And only God could do something like that. It’s not the same as a Lutheran pastor pronouncing forgiveness of sins. I am not the one forgiving people their sins. I am saying the words that God offers and it is God who is doing it. I am doing it because of the authority given to me by the church. Jesus didn’t have authority from the temple to do such a thing. Yet he did it.
Yes, annointed kings of Israel were referred to as the son of God. But none were referred to as Son of Man, like in Daniel 7. We also have Jesus being equated with a priest in the order of Malchizidek. There is debate about what that means. Looking at the Hebrew, you can see that this is more of a title than an actual person – a priestly king. None of the kings of Israel also served as high priest.
As for the first question – how did Jesus see himself as divine but not God the creator: This gets into the understanding about the Trinity – three person in one. They have roles and characteristics, if you will. They are not the same, but they are at the same time the same essence and being. Jesus says I and the Father are one. That’s a union of persons.
LikeLike
“Jesus didn’t have authority from the temple to do such a thing. Yet he did it.”
“Yes, annointed kings of Israel were referred to as the son of God. But none were referred to as Son of Man, like in Daniel 7. ”
“As for the first question – how did Jesus see himself as divine but not God the creator: This gets into the understanding about the Trinity – three person in one. ”
Every new religious sect or cult comes about from someone doing or believing new interpretations of the old religion. Again, if Jesus felt he was special, I don’t think you can prove that he didn’t invent new rules for his new “way”.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with the fact that he did things in a new way. This is shown often in the Gospels when Jesus is quoted as saying, you know…, but I say to you…
LikeLike
While I agree with many of the outcomes, I don’t see people using reason and science to make decisions now. Climate change is science, yet Americans seem convinced that it is a crock. Reason is like common sense – not very common. What would possibly move people towards those things?
LikeLike
I would bet that the largest group of Climate change-deniers rests with fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. If this is true, isn’t it quite likely that their opposition to this science is at least partly based on their supernatural beliefs?
LikeLike
Of course it would be. I don’t doubt that at all. But should we throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people are wrong in their theology? The same argument could be applied to politics and elections. Because some people have some really bad ideology, should we throw out elections all together?
LikeLike
Gary, I just want to say right now – thank you. I absolutely love this kind of deep conversation. I know we don’t see eye to eye, bit the conversation is respectful (forgive me if I have come off insulting in anyway and am blind to it-that is not my intent). I don’t get to have these kind of deep conversations with many people and when i do, it is energizing. I love to learn how people come to their conclusions. I believe people come to their conclusions for what are very good reasons. This is why my goal isn’t to convert you. I don’t believe i have the power to do that. All i can do is share what i believe and live it out. I really wish you were near by, i think we’d have some fascinating conversations over some beer. My concern isn’t with being right, but living in right relationship with God, myself, others, and the rest of creation. It is in living that our true beliefs and what we really value come out. It is my hope that my faith comes through in how i love more so than what i say. Or as James states, faith without works is dead.
LikeLike
Hi Matthew. You come across as a genuinely good and kind person. If I lived near you I would enjoy a beer and face to face chat, but, I am on the other side of the country. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who knows. Maybe some day
LikeLike
So even though you do not believe it is probable, would you agree that it is possible that Jesus did not believe that he was the Creator God; he believed that he was simply a special messenger from God, the Messiah, the future king of Israel, imbued by God with supernatural powers?
LikeLike
Of course it’s possible. Although “simply” seems a bit small for someone who was a special messenger from God, the Messiah, the future king of Israel, imbued by God with supernatural powers.
LikeLike
So is it possible that the entire Christian religion is based on a false interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels and a high christology in John that was more hyperbole than historical?
LikeLike
Of course it’s possible.
LikeLike
Matthew: If you were to evaluate your beliefs in Jesus as Lord and Creator (of the universe) based solely on objective evidence, how confident are you that it is true, 0-100%?
LikeLike
We’re back at the beginning. I don’t accept the premise that objective evidence is the sole foundation for making decisions or levels of confidence in why anyone believes what they believe. We aren’t robots. Sometimes I make decisions about things that are not related to theology or faith that go against the evidence present and they turn out to be the right decision. Should I go against my gut in those situations? Also, it’s hard to argue for objective evidence when humans are not objective. You and I can look at the same thing and describe it differently. Does that mean there is no truth at all – No, I’m not arguing that. I just don’t think we can compartmentalize everything in order to make decisions. How does one make a decisions about something without a consideration of who they are, their experiences, their gut, the evidence presented, knowledge, etc.? I just don’t see humanity as purely rational and objective. And I don’t know that it would be a good thing if we were.
LikeLike
We all make “gut” decisions. Do I love that person? Do I like that sport team? But when it comes to universal truth claims, is your “gut” a reliable method of evaluating the veracity of these important issues?
LikeLike
It’s not the sole decision maker, for sure. I believe that foundational truth claims are always up examination in a variety of ways. I am often questioning my faith in a variety of ways. I think that is healthy. It is not healthy to move something beyond question. Hence, we’ve been having a long conversation because I think questioning beliefs is important and I am open to that.
LikeLike
Let me give a more detailed response. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable and rational for you to believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the universe was most probably created by an intelligent Creator. I think it is reasonable and rational for you to believe that the earliest Christians truly believed that they had seen Jesus alive again. It is reasonable and rational if you were to believe that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion and lived long enough to visit his friends (we know of others who survived crucifixion such as Josephus’ friend).
What I do not see as reasonable and rational is using your “gut” to believe that a man who lived and died 20 centuries ago is alive and well today, that he is the omnipotent master of the universe; and that he is intricately involved in the day to day activities of Christian believers.
People believe all kinds of crazy things with their “gut”. I can believe with my gut that while I sleep at night, my “spirit” space-travels to distant planets for a nighttime stroll. Our “gut” may be reliable for picking a lover, a favorite sports team, or whether to take the right or left fork in the road, but to build your entire life around your “gut” seems extremely irrational to me.
That is why I asked you, Matthew, what percentage of your God belief is based on objective evidence. If you can say that your God belief is based overwhelmingly on historical evidence and objective evidence, I would say that you have a rational belief. But if your belief is primarily based on your “gut” (your feelings), I would strongly encourage you to consider just how unreliable feelings can be.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying. As I mentioned in the previous message, my gut is only one part. Often it isn’t the main thing – as you say, it can be pretty unreliable, sometimes though it is spot on. This gets us back to the idea of faith, which is not the same thing as a gut feeling. Faith isn’t rational by definition. It is believing something that is unprovable. Yet, here I am, exactly in that situation. Faith doesn’t come through reasoning our way to faith. It comes as a gift from God. And no, often it doesn’t make sense and isn’t rational. Loving your enemy is not rational to the way the world operates. Caring for the outcast, the weak, the sick, etc doesn’t make sense and isn’t rational to a world that believes that the strong survive and that the ends justify the means. These are the things that I believe and live out because of this faith. While I respect secular humanism and atheists who practice compassion, I find the practice of it without faith to leave many questions of why. I haven’t heard a satisfying answer of why anyone would live a moral life with compassion and care for the least of society. Maybe I’m just missing something – I’m open to that. What is the foundation for selfless care of someone else, especially someone who can never repay you for your kindness, without a foundation of faith? Why is kindness and caring for the least of society a value for someone without faith? I’m not saying that it isn’t, I’m just asking for reasoning for such a thing. I know of atheists who are very caring and compassionate, but can’t really express why beyond the idea that is it benefits humanity and makes everyone’s life better. But without faith, what does that matter? Without a foundation of faith, why care for others at all beyond how you can benefit from the relationship? Please understand that from a Lutheran perspective, we don’t do these things in order to gain anything from God or anyone else, but in response to what God has done in our life and so we response because we are empowered to do so, to share Good News with others, and to live congruent with our beliefs about God and what Jesus commands us to do.
LikeLike
” I haven’t heard a satisfying answer of why anyone would live a moral life with compassion and care for the least of society. ”
Answer: Self interest. I might one day be down and out and in need of compassion. If I behave altruistically now, which hopefully will encourage those around me to act altruistically, which in turn will affect those around them to act altruistically, etc, etc., hopefully if and when I need help, society at large will be altruistic and I will be cared for with compassion and dignity.
I will respond to the rest of your post shortly.
LikeLike
Our ancestors use to club each other over the head just for a scrap of meat, similar to the behavior of wolves and dogs. Over thousands of years, we have learned that cooperation and altruistic behavior, in the long run, is in OUR best interest.
LikeLike
True, but it also seems that we rarely follow this route. Our current state of affairs is more focused on scapegoating, fear, and anger. One could argue that it is being done from a faith perspective, but frankly, I don’t identify with the same faith that the Evangelicals do who are supportive of everything that is going on. I think it is a fraud of religion.
LikeLike
Sounds like you are relying on a hope…without objective evidence to support it.
LikeLike
“As I mentioned in the previous message, my gut is only one part. Often it isn’t the main thing – as you say, it can be pretty unreliable, sometimes though it is spot on. This gets us back to the idea of faith, which is not the same thing as a gut feeling. Faith isn’t rational by definition. It is believing something that is unprovable. Yet, here I am, exactly in that situation. Faith doesn’t come through reasoning our way to faith. It comes as a gift from God. And no, often it doesn’t make sense and isn’t rational.”
If I understand you correctly, your belief that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago and is currently the Lord and Master of the universe is based on evidence AND faith, with faith defined as believing something that is unprovable. Would it be wrong to characterize your God belief then as based on evidence plus hope in the reality of things that are unprovable?
You have said that we all use this form of hope (faith) everyday, such as when we fly an airplane. We have a lot of evidence that American made and maintained commercial airplanes are safe: We have evidence of the plane manufacture’s safety record. We have evidence of the airline’s safety record. We have evidence of the pilot’s safety record. This evidence is in most cases undisputed. But in addition to all this evidence, our decision to get on the plane that particular day will also be based on at least a small amount of hope/trust that a rare, unforeseen event will not occur which will cause the plane to crash. That is rational. What would be irrational is to get into a plane that some non-pilot hobbyist had just put together by reading instructions from off of the computer. There is sufficient evidence to take a small step of faith in the first situation, but not in the second, right?
Now, what does this analogy have to do with your God belief?
The evidence for the central claims of your God belief are NOT undisputed. In fact, they are highly disputed by many very intelligent, highly educated people. The majority of the people in the world do not believe that a first century corpse came back to life and then ascended into the clouds where it now reigns as the King of the universe. The only people (or at least the overwhelming majority of people) who believe this claim are Christian believers. So why should anyone else accept your God belief based on highly disputed evidence and hope in things unprovable???
Do you see my point, Matthew? Is your method of evaluating the core belief of your life reliable if it is based on nothing more than highly disputed evidence and hope?
LikeLike
Why do you assume that I expect others to accept my belief in God? Given how some Christians act, I highly doubt many Christians actually believe either. Otherwise they would be acting far differently in the world. The early church grew because they acted differently based on their beliefs and people came to the faith out of curiosity. Today, at least here in the US, many Christians believe that the world revolves around them, that the church deserves a privileged place in society, and act nothing like the early Christians.
LikeLike
Do you teach the children in your church to believe in the resurrected Lord Jesus, ruler of heaven and earth, as something that they can be certain is true or as something that is disputed? Do you teach the children in your church that because this issue is disputed it is something that they should study and investigate themselves when they get older when they are capable of coming to their own rational conclusion as to the veracity of this claim? Or do you tell little children to believe this disputed claim “by faith”?
If you tell the children in your church to believe in the resurrected Lord Jesus by faith, is that being honest? Are you brainwashing children to accept YOUR belief based on your word that it is true when in fact it is a very disputed claim, at best an opinion?
LikeLike
This goes back to the idea of rejecting fundamentalist belief thinking of all or nothing. What I teach is what we believe. What I teach is that faith doesn’t come through us and our reasoning. What I teach is what is promised and hoped for. What I teach is what we know to be true also. I’m not brainwashing. I can’t force anyone to believe anything. We do far more brainwashing of people when it comes to beliefs about the nation and politics than the church does about Jesus.
Why is it so important to you that everything must be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt? Or else it must be rejected? We don’t do this with politics and about America. We don’t do this with science even. We don’t it in our daily lives. We don’t do it in relationships. We don’t do it with our work. I can think of no other area of life that requires proof beyond the shadow of doubt. I can certainly be wrong. Why is my belief such a threat? Why is teaching anyone else the belief system that I have such a threat? I don’t force anybody to believe anything. I simply do what you are doing right now – share the belief, how it has impacted my life and the lives of others, and what it hopes and promises for the greater good.
LikeLike
I believe that supernatural beliefs (superstitions) are dangerous. Superstitions are the cause of much of the world’s suffering. Even the seemingly innocuous superstitions (not walking under a ladder, not stepping on a crack in the sidewalk) perpetuate the belief in supernatural forces, which defy reason and science.
How would you react to a grown man telling you that his belief in Santa Claus gives him great comfort and peace. He tells you that he telepathically talks to Santa Claus every day and Santa Claus telepathically answers him and gives him advice on his life. This man teaches his literal children to communicate with Santa Claus too.
You may present “the Gospel” as opinion to adults, but do you do the same with little children? If you are telling little children that your supernatural beliefs are true (facts) that is indoctrination.
I have two children ages 10 and 8. I never tell them that gods do not exist. I tell them to make their own decisions on the existence of invisible beings. I tell them that what ever they choose to believe, they should have good reasons and evidence to believe it.
LikeLike
I would disagree with the idea that superstitions cause much of the world’s suffering. I would argue that the pursuit of power and the desire to be right have caused more death and destruction than anything else.
Also, Superstition is not the same thing as faith. Superstitions can be shown to be verifiably false. If you step on a crack, you can show that your mother’s back isn’t broken, everytime.
Faith is far different. It can’t be proven or disproven. Ultimately, we aren’t going to agree on this or on what is of ultimate importance.
LikeLike
I have enjoyed our conversation, Matthew. I got more contentious with you than I intended. My goal is to encourage people to think about the reliability of the methods they use to determine truth claims. I am trying to avoid “attacking” beliefs directly. Sometimes I slip up and do just that, however.
You sound like a genuinely good and compassionate human being! The people of the world are lucky to have you in it, Matthew!
Peace and happiness,
Gary
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, I also appreciate the conversation. Don’t worry, I never felt attacked. Believe me, I’ve been in heated conversations about things like this before.
I appreciate the compliment. I’m just trying to live out the beliefs I hold. I wish you will Gary. And if we ever happen to find ourselves on the same side of the continent, I hope we have the opportunity to meet in person. I think it would be a great time!
Peace to you also.
Matthew
LikeLike