A few people (that I can honestly say I have real affection for) have left Christianity and I admit to having a wide variety of feelings about it. The kind of Christianity we were all exposed to was all within the pale of your typical fundamentalist/evangelical (including charismatic) nature, of the sort that allows (or so it often felt) for only those questions that fit neatly on a workbook page and have one obvious answer. It is an excellent fit for some people—even a very healthy fit. But not for all of us, not for the some of the students and the thinkers, not for those who delight in asking questions and searching out answers. What do you do when you have questions that aren’t on the “allowed” page? And what do you do when the Official Teacher’s Answer Guide response isn’t satisfactory?
I don’t blame them for leaving. Yet I admit to feeling a deep sense of sorrow. I am not going to pretend that I don’t have my own set of doubts. In my own experience of leaving the particular paradigm of American evangelicalism, I did have to ask myself the larger questions. Is this whole thing a big made-up sham? Is there a God (or gods) at all? What is this Bible? While I roll my eyes at the Muslims or Mormons for believing in their holy books, am I just as guilty of ignoring glaring problems with my own “sacred text?”
During some months of my deconstructing journey, I read books by atheists, by agnostics, by scholars and they shared their answers to my questions. Some of those answers I gleaned wisdom from, others not. Some of the thoughts presented were easy to put aside, others still reverberate. I did not join the agnostic camp, but it was good to see their point of view. I understand, now, how someone can think Christianity is vile, even as I stand from a different vantage point.
Answering the question of whethor or not God Is (or is not), however, can’t come from books—not the Bible anymore than any other book, anymore than answering the question of whether or not I exist can come from reading a text. I think that might be where I differ from my friends who’ve left following Christ. My problem is that I am unable to leave, in the same way that, despite hair-pulling moments of extreme frustration, I could never pack my bags and leave my husband or children.
The human mind is a strange thing. I admit it, given the right circumstances, you could probably convince me that I’m actually in an insane assylum, that my family is just a figment of my imagination, as is this blog post I am typing. I would have to admit that though it seems unlikely, it *is* a possibility. The chair I am sitting on might just be a figment of my imagination. (The Matrix authors took that thought and made a movie of it). It’s possible, even Biblical, this idea that what we think *is,* may not *be* what is.
So it is with the existance of God. You could present an argument to me about how God is a human construct, and I would have to admit there is a chance that could be true. But here is exactly where I am stuck. In the same way that I delight in the faces of my family, so I delight in my God. I know that I can’t see Him or touch Him physically, and yet in an internal way, there He Is. I am unable to remember a time when He was not.
Perhaps I am an easily deluded person. It’s possible. But I cannot leave God. If He is a delusion, it’s of the impenetrable kind. I can leave all the horse manure masquerading about in His name. I can question systems and versions of how Christianity ought to look. I can question doctrines both past, present, and future. I am wildly enjoying being set free from the textbook/workbook version of Christianity. But I would never want to be “set free” from Christ.
So in that sense, even though I deeply understand why they would not find adequate answers in “the system” we were all apart of and though I am in full agreement with many of their conclusions, I am not able to understand fully how and why their journey took them in a different direction than mine. So, the truth is, I don’t understand. I cannot relate. I only feel a deep sense of loss. In my own deepest parts, whatever that place is down in the oft-avoided quiet recesses of myself, He has always been.

















Posted by Ashley on June 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
Great, honest post. Brought this verse to mind. It’s so sad to me that a ministry so wrapped up in legalism would affect people to the point of walking away from Jesus. Maybe the difference is that they were just living a religion while you (in spite of the religious acts) were growing in a relationship with Jesus. Once you know Him in that way, walking away means something completely different…..not that people don’t ever do it, I’m just saying it’s a lot bigger than just getting burnt out and turning away when you have a personal relationship going on.
I agree with you about being able to ask questions, and I think a church that discourages people from asking them is a little bit muddled in how they are seeking the Lord. I do want to encourage you that there are good, christian churches that are not like that. I’ve grown up in one and it always blows my mind when I realizes that not all churches are totally seeking to know and understand the truth about God and His word.
Sorry I’m rambling so long. Anyway, to sum up, I think asking questions is great as long as we remember one big thing; we’re not equal with God…..
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8
In all of our attempts to KNOW God, I just feel we can’t forget there is a big difference between things we don’t know and want to understand, and things that are just beyond our understanding. That’s why faith is so important.:)
Posted by Nathan Bubna on June 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Same for me. I made some attempts at not believing in God in college, but he was still there. I was also unable to stop caring about him. Best i was able to do was despise myself. But that only really worked when i was able to convince myself that he didn’t think i was worth his care. Kinda frustrating. Really, once he’s started working on you, i think there’s really only these choices:
1. hate him (will eventually stop working, unless you die first)
2. distract yourself to avoid the issue (you might succeed if you’re rich enough and/or do enough drugs)
3. embrace solipsism (most people are unable and those who succeed become insane and/or imprisoned)
4. deal with it and reconcile with him (honestly, it’s your best bet)
i honestly believe leaving isn’t a viable, long-term option. those that leave without options 1 through 3 were probably never really here to begin with. Paul implies this too.
The questions are always bigger
than the answers i can find
so there must be something more
than just me, myself and i
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 24, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hmm… This is so familiar. I have family that have rejected God… but really, they have rejected the religious construct of god that their abusive fathers built. Not the same thing….
I cannot leave Jesus, either. Without Him I would self-destruct – nearly did even with Him.
Posted by E on June 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Molly Aley: Navigating between the Scylla of unbelief and the Charybdis of fundamentalism, she, like Captain Kirk and the Starship Enterprise, dares to go where no man* has gone before, her hand firmly held by (or clinging to) the grace of the God who will neither let her perish nor let go of her.
* in the generic sense, of course
Posted by servetus on June 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm
While I am sure some will disagree with me, it is possible to believe in God without believing in Christ.
Posted by Andrea on June 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Molly,
I will refrain from posting CS Lewis’s Puddleglum soliloquy again, though I will admit I am itching to
Puddleglum’s honest, humble “I’m for Aslan, even if there is no Aslan to lead me” is such a perfect reflection of what my own position so often seems to be as I follow Christ, and seems to also strongly echo a large chunk of what you have posted here. A very honest post, and like Ashley above, I also thought of that verse from Hebrews as I read this. Much appreciated
Posted by Diane on June 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I am so glad that God holds on to us so that we can’t let go, even when the letting go may feel appealing. But He is always there, sometimes unbidden, but seen in a sunrise or baby’s face or a budding plant or a child’s hand in yours. His grace and mercy woo us back , gently and lovingly to the place of believing. And again, we belong.
Posted by AE on June 24, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Over the last week or so, I’ve been working through your archives, and this post seems like an apt point at which to emerge from lurking. I was raised as a Christian but as a young teenager (in the middle of two years of weekly confirmation classes, in fact) gave up on the existence of God. It wasn’t that my religious background was particularly rigid or repressive. For better or for worse, the ELCA is a pretty relaxed denomination that holds largely liberal social positions, and my family wasn’t that devout anyway. It was just that atheism felt so freeing. I’d come into confirmation with so many nagging spiritual questions that I hoped the pastor would be able to answer, but I was disappointed in that respect. I still remember exactly where I was on my hometown’s main street when I realized that the solution to my confusion was that there wasn’t a God. Consequently, I no longer had to juggle what I simply, positively knew to be true, such as the existence of gender equality, with Scripture that might be interpreted to state otherwise. Curiously enough, however, I’ve maintained a deep fascination with spiritual matters, as my dissertation on religious history demonstrates. Sometimes I wonder if my professional interests are a sign that I haven’t quite given up on God as fully as I think, but then I realize that I simply don’t have it in me to pray. Either way, thanks for sharing your spiritual journey. We seem to have so much in common intellectually, and it is good for me to see that there are intelligent, well read people out there who have looked at the same evidence yet come to opposite conclusions.
Posted by Kievas Fargo on June 24, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I rejected (or at least ignored) God for a big part of my life. He didn’t let go of me, though, as it turned out.
Servetus, it is indeed possible to believe in God without believing in Christ, IMO. There are many people who do, and they have a deeper sense of the spiritual and the sacred than some Christians I know (including, at times, myself). Yet for me, the picture without Christ is an incomplete one.
Posted by tonia on June 24, 2008 at 7:07 pm
i’m so with you molly. i’ve had my own wrestlings…mostly with the church – and i’ve been desperately angry with them…but when it comes down to it, i can’t leave Jesus.. i just know that i know He is there, and even if it is just Him and me pounding out this faith, i’ll take it.
the puddleglum quote above is perfect.
Posted by Kathryn on June 24, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Well, this seems to be my week for de-lurking. Well said. I’ve been wrestling with the church for awhile now, mostly regarding hard complementarians and denominational divides (I mean that as two separate issues). I’ve thought I’m a complete mistake, I’m insane, we’re all insane, the world isn’t here…. but underneath it all I love Jesus and don’t want to leave Him. I’m starting to look forward to the day when I don’t see “a poor reflection as in a mirror”, though I also imagine I’ll feel amazingly foolish as things start to make sense. But that’s ok.
Posted by madame on June 24, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Molly,
There are so many unbelievers lost in church! I have been one.
I KNEW there is a God. I KNEW I was supposed to be grateful for the death of Jesus on the cross. But somehow that didn’t give any new meaning to my life. Life was just life. I still felt the same, did the same things, struggled in the same way…
I can say I’m still working my way out of that non-identity. I have felt like leaving many times.
My struggles with God, His Word, and peoples’ interpretation of it, have helped me understand that a lot of people aren’t exactly “in rebellion” if they tell me they just can’t accept it. It helps me pray for them.
Posted by teachergirl on June 25, 2008 at 6:05 am
Madame wrote:
“I KNEW there is a God. I KNEW I was supposed to be grateful for the death of Jesus on the cross. But somehow that didn’t give any new meaning to my life. Life was just life. I still felt the same, did the same things, struggled in the same way…”
I am so there right now. I’m just tired…tired of going through the motions. I don’t feel changed at all and I hate that I am struggling with the same things over and over. I KNOW God is there. I am unable to let go of that. I KNOW Jesus is real. But beyond that I’m pretty much stuck.
I’m finding it a lot easier to understand why people walk away from Christianity.
Posted by E on June 25, 2008 at 8:12 am
“I am so there right now. I’m just tired…tired of going through the motions. I don’t feel changed at all and I hate that I am struggling with the same things over and over. I KNOW God is there. I am unable to let go of that. I KNOW Jesus is real. But beyond that I’m pretty much stuck.”
That is one of the arguments that [Eastern] Orthodoxy makes for itself vis-a-vis Evangelical Protestantism, and that converts to EO declare: I.e., Orthodoxy has a system and Tradition that for hundreds/thousands of years has learned and known and shown tried-and-proven methods (tested and expressed in the lives of the martyrs and the Saints, and in the rigors of monasticism) that “work” to help people make the journey to sainthood and Christlikeness that is the road of salvation. They have explanations and answers for the struggles of the Christian life, because they have explored it in depth and in detail and over generations and generations in the life and worship of the church and the faithful.
YMMV.
Posted by TheNormalMiddle on June 25, 2008 at 8:15 am
Forgive me if this is bold—but I think sometimes we get so caught up on the Jesus part of the Trinity, we forget the big-ness and awesome-ness of GOD the Father. I tend to focus more on God than I do Jesus (although I do believe Jesus is the Son of God and I do believe in the Trinity fully). This makes some Christians uncomfortable.
I don’t know why, but it is just easier to for me to focus on God and the vastness of Him. Maybe it is my Jewish background from ages past? I dunno.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 25, 2008 at 9:24 am
I have found a shift in myself over the last few years where my focus is more on the Father than Jesus. I’m not sure, but maybe that is what Jesus wants? He was/is all about the Father and reconciling us to a relationship with Him…
Posted by Atlantic on June 25, 2008 at 9:59 am
Is the Holy Spirit going to get a look-in here?
Posted by TheNormalMiddle on June 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
Atlantic, good point
I think sometimes churches miss out on the Holy Spirit too. One thing that really draws me to Catholicism is how the entire Trinity is included, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Some protestant churches are so very focused on Jesus that the other two parts of the Trinity are not taught and somewhat pushed aside. (not intentionally, mind you)
Posted by E on June 25, 2008 at 10:21 am
TNM:
Well, if it’s the Trinity you’re looking for, you don’t want to leave the Orthodox Church out of your searching, because it’s emphasis on the Trinity in its liturgy and prayers, etc., puts all other communions to shame, Roman Catholicism included.
Posted by E on June 25, 2008 at 10:23 am
Drat!! I made the hated “contractive its for possessive its” mistake in my last post, a sin for which there is no forgiveness either in this age or in the age to come. Fie on me!!
Posted by TheNormalMiddle on June 25, 2008 at 10:48 am
E–
I live in the boonies and there isn’t an Orthodox church within reasonable driving distance. I think the closest one is 45 minutes away…one way….
Posted by E on June 25, 2008 at 11:26 am
For those who want to hear from Ex-Xians why they left, a good book is:
Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists by Edward T. Babinski (Editor)
I loaned my copy to a local apologist, and never got it back
The Editor, Edward Babinski, is currently agnostic, not atheist. He has a Website (and his “testimony”) here:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.html
Posted by Adam G. on June 25, 2008 at 11:50 am
Thank you for putting those thoughts down. My own blog came about after the worst year of my life, and was in part an attempt to put things back together again. I’m now a long way from where I was, and hope never to return there again. It isn’t that I doubted that God exists (I don’t think, my memories are a bit hazy) but that I essentially went into “safe mode” and was a sort of agnostic for a time. A very unhappy agnostic. C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright brought me back.
Posted by joannek on June 25, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I’ve come across your blog through Missional Mommies and found myself reading quite a few of your posts. I really appreciated your discussion of the uniqueness of Ana and Israel…I also have 3 unique children…one of whom may be Israel’s secret twin lol. You’re welcome to take a peek at my little blog http://joannek.wordpress.com/ and get to know me a little. I’ve really appreciated you’re posts, and realize our spiritual jouneys have a lot in common. Thank you for having the courage to put your out there for the benefit of people of all unique personalities, journeys and backgrounds. I have also done a lot of reading from other perspectives, especially in the past year, and also can’t leave Christ (not that I want to) but the process he’s walking through me with is a bit challenging. I am currently reading Walter Wink’s “The Powers That Be” and it has had an impact on my parenting…because everything seems to be tested out in that realm doesn’t it? It’s where the heart hits the road for me. Have you read that one…any comments? Again, thanks for sharing…it’s been great to read such thoughtful insightful stuff.
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 9:12 am
Btw, I editted this post a little bit the other day, because I royally screwed up a sentance, making it seem as if I thought that only NON-thinkers would be happy as evangelicals, and I emphatically do NOT think that!
Sheesh. I added a “some,” because for those who’s questions and answers do not end up fitting within the pale of evangelical thought, it is obviously not a good fit. That sentance now reads:
It is an excellent fit for some people—even a very healthy fit. But not for all of us, not for the some of the students and the thinkers…
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 9:13 am
Hey, I posted a comment to you, Joanne, and to you, Adam, and to others…where’d it go??? Urgh!
Posted by K on June 26, 2008 at 11:21 am
While I am sometimes frustrated with the people in the church and wish for all the squabbles, cultural blinders, materialism, sin-masquerading-as-righteousness, etc. ad infinitem to be fixed, no matter how my heart aches at the hypocrisy that shuts out the lost, when I consider the alternative of believing I see that the last little bit of hope I have IS in God. If I turn away from that, what hope is there? I would truly be lost then.
Posted by K on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 am
E-
It’s interesting to read your opinions on EO. I’ve never been to an EO church, so I really can’t say much about it. However, one of the elders of our evangelical church grew up in the EOC regularly attending all his life and he never chose to follow Christ until about 7 years ago after getting to know our pastor and seeing something in him he’d missed in church all those years (he’s in his 40s).
In fact, we have a lot of former Catholics in a our church, as well as this former EO family. On the other hand, some of our members’ adult children after growing up in the evangelical churches have chosen to go to more liturgical churches. It makes me wonder if part of it is as simple as personality as well as the search for something that’s not just our parents’ faith, but a faith and personal connection all our own.
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 11:59 am
K:
I sometimes think that people are like icebergs – i.e., you only see and interact with a small part of them, even if they are your spouse or child or parent. So I suspect the reasons people leave one communion for another, or for several others in series, are probably complex but also probably often tied to personality or personality conflicts within and without. Or maybe its all predestined.
My comments about the EOC are more for purposes of information than endorsement. I can understand why Orthodox Christians and Catholics become Evangelical Protestants and why the reverse happens as well. I’ve been in both camps.
Perhaps some people would revise Judy Collins’ song to read:
I’ve looked at church from both sides now
From East and West and still somehow
It’s church’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know church at all
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 11:59 am
The EO really attracts me for a variety of reasons, but there are some things that just…ugh, I don’t know…I was just on the Russian Orthodox site for Alaska and enjoying myself and then got to reading some of the Q and A and it was talking about how women can never go through the partition where the eucharist is located…altar boys, the priest, sure, but never women. Despite the fact that they honor women in many ways (heck, doesn’t get a lot higher than the Theotokos, right?), there’s always that part added, it seems, in almost every Christian tradition…the part where just *being* a woman makes you not worthy in some way to represent God.
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm
And now I’ve gone and used possessive its when I meant contractive it’s.
Aarrgghh!!
“Or maybe it’s all predestined.”
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The Romanian Orthodox lead the women through the altar during a church dedication (and maybe even after baptism and chrismation?). It ruffles the feathers of Russian and Greek Orthodox, but it’s their tradition, even though it’s considered to be a deviant tradition.
Yes, the altar in Orthodox churches is a men-only place, likely inherited/adopted from the Levitical instructions for priests.
The iconostasis separating the clergy and the altar from the people was a later development in the church, and it evolved from a simple railing or so to the elaborate wall of icons you now see.
Re: the EOC and women. Besides the veneration of the Theotokos (”Mother of God” = Mary, a title confirmed for her at the Council of Ephesus in 431 in opposition to Nestorius’s preferred title of “Christotokos” = mother/bearer of Christ), St. Mary Magdalene is called “Equal-to-the-Apostles” because she was the first to preach/proclaim Christ’s resurrection. In the East she is NOT associated with the woman caught in adultery. Jesus cast 7 demons out of her, but she was not a prostitute.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Interesting discussions – going to divert the thread back to the Trinity. I earlier said that my focus has shifted from Son to Father in recent years. That doesn’t mean the Son is not prominent. And also, the Holy Spirit is prominent. I talk to Him sometimes, too. He is (as are they all) ever present with me – consciously felt. It is just that the one in the lead, so to speak, is the Father. =D
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I personally am not sure which one is which, as in whether or not I speak with one differently than the other, or speak with one more than I do any of the others. In the deepest part of me, I can’t really say that I feel there is a distinction. I believe in a distinction because the Scripture indicates that there are three distinct persons. But as to my own experience, I would have to admit that when I “experience” Christ, I’m not sure if that experience would be any different if the title of the One I’m relating to was changed to Father or to Spirit. When I picture a Good Shepherd, for example, I don’t picture the Spirit or the Father as any less of a Good Shepherd than the Son is. Does that make any sort of sense? Hence I use the term, God, a lot, as it means all three, to me, anyways.
I want to go to the Shack too, Eric. Not the B-52’s variety, unless they have a lot of those good 60’s drugs. I’m feeling the need to disassociate from reality today.
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Speaking of ’60s drugs, Albert Hofman died April 29 of this year at the age of 102.
For fun, if you have NetFlix or can otherwise get it, rent the DVD of Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher (2005) and make sure you also watch the Special Features/Extras. There’s enough there for another 1.5-hour movie about him. Without him there arguably would be no Vineyard Christian Fellowship or Calvary Chapel denomination of churches, and you never would have heard of John Wimber or Chuck Smith. But because he had homosexual proclivities and eventually died from AIDS, those two churches have erased his history from their stories.
It’s fascinating stuff, and moreso if you lived during any of the Jesus Movement era.
Posted by joannek on June 26, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Sorry that your post (to me) dissappeared…oh well. Thanks for making the attempt.
Posted by Marcia on June 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm
…the big-ness and awesome-ness of GOD the Father
Eh. I wish I could be impressed.
“And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked of Him” (1 John 5:14, 15).
Molly, you, and many of my family and friends, prayed at my request for something that was clearly, unequivocally in the will of God.
The opposite happened.
So this verse is, plainly, not true. And what happened to me after I realized that the Bible itself isn’t true is that I started looking at the verses through the eyes of those who aren’t Christians.
It’s not as though I hadn’t done it before; in my work as a neonatal nurse I see the evidence of God’s indifference on a daily basis. If he exists, he sure doesn’t care about the least of these, regardless of what the Bible may say.
After my own irrefutable disappointment in the word, though, I started thinking about Darfur. And Rwanda. And, say, Germany during the Holocaust.
And I kept thinking about the unbelievably numerous amount of young girls who, after being forced to watch their loved ones die in any number of awful ways, were raped and tortured and sent to their deaths, and, according to the Bible, then on to Hell, because they weren’t “Christian.”
And I thought about looking into the eyes of even ONE of these girls, and telling them that I worshipped a God who could , with a wave of his omnipotent hand, have changed their fate–spared their family, kept them from being raped and unspeakably tortured—but, you know, chose not to, because it wasn’t part of his plan.
And I thought about then telling them that not only did I worship this God, but I loved him.
As they sat in hell. For eternity.
And I realized that, to me, it doesn’t matter if God exists or not.
I cannot worship a God who allows this scenario. And I certainly can’t love him.
Those girls are just as real as my own daughters.
Anne Frank–go ahead and say it, you believe she’s in hell. You have to believe this; there’s no out for Christians.
If those horrible things happened to your own children, you tell me you would believe it was part of God’s plan.
I’ll tell you right now, if I did believe it, I certainly wouldn’t worship him after it happened. I would expect so much more from an all-powerful God.
In fact, I did. And I was let down.
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Marcia:
Have you ever seen the movie The Rapture with Mimi Rogers?
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Marcia~
Hmm… I understand. Truly. May I humbly request you read the “My Story” entries on my blog? I don’t have all the answers. I could not worship or love the God you describe, either. The God I know does not fit that description.
As to Anne Frank – no, I do not have to believe she’s in hell. And, in fact, I don’t. There’s no out for those who wish to live by the letter of the Law. I don’t. (2 Corinthians 3:6) There is an “out”. It is found, to name one place, in Romans 2:14-16 (Message)
“When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God’s yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.”
As to why prayers are not answered the way we want and believe they should be answered… I do not have the answer. I have had family members die of cancer while being prayed for. There is much I do not understand. But He is teaching me.
Katherine
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Marcia:
I’m not recommending The Rapture, but it in some ways deals with the points you raised – and has a somewhat shocking/disturbing ending, but I can’t say more about it without giving away too much. It has some sexual situations and nudity (R-rated).
But if God is not Love, and this is either all there is or is nothing but tribal warfare, and life is simply eat, spawn and die, and Richard Dawkins is right that it’s all about The Selfish Gene, then … what? And why?
Posted by m on June 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“But if God is not Love, and this is either all there is or is nothing but tribal warfare, and life is simply eat, spawn and die, and Richard Dawkins is right that it’s all about The Selfish Gene, then … what? And why?”
Well, atheists and agnostics don’t live in a separate world where all anyone does is eat, spawn, make war and die… so the “either/or” doesn’t really work. The world is as it is – with all of the bad thing and all of the good things. Whether or not there are any gods, and whatever the nature and degree of intervention of those gods might be – we already know that life is so much richer and more amazing then you’ve outlined. That there’s more to being human than hatred and bodily functions is a given.
Posted by E on June 26, 2008 at 8:26 pm
But if there is no God and life for us does not continue after our bodies die, the outline still stands, even if you color it inside as well as outside, and even if you color it with pretty and amazing colors and draw it in 4 dimensions.
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Marcia, friend.
I wish I could just sit and nurse a cup of coffee with you right now and just cry.
Much love,
Molly
Posted by molleth on June 26, 2008 at 9:25 pm
General comment (related to the original blog post on this thread), check this out, all, if interested:
http://kievasfargo2.blogspot.com/
I was over at a friend’s blog and just noticed this (sorry, Kievas, lol, guess this makes me a bad friend), the story of his own journey to God.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 26, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Went and read Kievas’ story. Wow. God does not give up on us and is not disturbed or angry with our bouts of doubt and fear and even anger. And the Word of God speaks… He has a still, small, persistent, gentle, ever present voice.
Posted by Plant . . . Water . . . Then WHO Makes Them Grow? « Joyfully Growing in Grace on June 27, 2008 at 3:46 am
[...] the current blogs’ posts mentioned above? Well, the Adventures in Mercy post was titled, “Those Who Leave Christ and My Own Story (Of Why I Could Not)”. Molly’s heartfelt post (wonderfully transparent, as usual) is an account of a key part [...]
Posted by joyfullygrowingingrace on June 27, 2008 at 5:02 am
Ok, so blog mechanics is not my strongpoint. How the above showed up on your comments I have no idea . . .
Posted by paisley3 a.k.a. My 2 cents on June 27, 2008 at 5:10 am
Molly et al, Thanks for visiting my site. I’m way behind in posting on yours. THANKS so much for posting these thoughts. I value the honesty in more ways than you can know. Being a spouse of a ministry person, I know what we have seen in others. I am no theologian, but I feel in my gut and heart of hearts that our Lord has a real plan for these folks that are honest enough to walk away from a broken system. There is a trueness to what they are expressing. I will honor God in praying for them and loving them as much as they will allow me to. It won’t ever be the system that ministers to them, it will be real people being raw and honest to the core. Thanks for this reminder and discussion. We send love from the midwest to friends this discussion list! I’ll be back for more after we figure out the move to our new ministry location. Houses and escrow stuff is burning on our minds and stuffed boxes right now.
My 2 cents…
Posted by My 2 cents on June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am
one other thing…I just want to say that in your “visiting” around to services, it may not be where you get bonked on the head in one service. My ministry spouse (hint, married clergy, therefore not R. Catholic), is not in the Roman Catholic church, but on occasion, I visit the R.Cath church with my sibling when I visit her. You don’t get the gist of the flow of the liturgy, etc. the first time you go. It comes after many times…it flows…and going to a funeral, then a wedding, then a first communion. Same with Episcopal or Anglican Mission in America…the flow may not come on one given day. Just My 2 Cents.
Enjoy the visits.
Posted by Atlantic on June 27, 2008 at 9:24 am
“Anne Frank–go ahead and say it, you believe she’s in hell. You have to believe this; there’s no out for Christians.”
Marcia, the belief that all non-Christians go to Hell is not only not required for Christians, it’s a diabolical perversion of Christianity.
Regarding the existence of evil and suffering…I could write lots of words about this, but Molly’s response is better than that.
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 9:35 am
The God of the Bible is not necessarily the God of Fred Phelps, though many portray Him as such. Nor does the following necessarily accurately describe Him, though many are wont to think so, and even delight in so doing:
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.”
“Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins.”
Oh, really? Now how in heaven’s name can a finite creature be fairly and justly liable for an infinite punishment? Even men are more just than that portrayed perversion of justice, which is no justice at all.
My 3 cents or so….
Posted by TheNormalMiddle on June 27, 2008 at 9:39 am
Marcia, I’ve been exactly where you are and I have come thru it but it hasn’t been pretty or neat or nice.
I am not good at bearing my soul in writing, and it is so much easier for me to say things than write them, but I will try.
No, I don’t have to believe that Anne Frank is in hell, and I doubt (personally…) that she is. I realize that 99.9% of Christianity beats it over our heads that if we do not know Christ in the pray-a-prayer way that we have all been taught, we’ll go to hell. No in betweens, no outs, nada. Heaven for believers in Jesus, Hell for everyone else.
I don’t necessarily buy that. I know for some that is a complete deal-breaker to even be a Christian, and I even feel uncomfortable bearing my soul and thoughts here because I fear judgement of my own salvation.
Here’s the long and short of it for me:
I think there is a GREAT DEAL OF WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT GOD. Period.
Who is to say that Anne Frank is in hell? God alone knows one way or the other.
We can talk, read our Bibles, theologize, and make up all the rules and arguments we want to. But in the end, it is God who knows. I”m just blindly following some road map (aka the Bible) but can God do whatever He wants?
Yes.
I know that wasn’t a beaut]ifully written answer and I realize to many of you this is completely flawed theology but I will be first to stand in line and say that I am OKAY with saying I don’t know something, and I’m OKAY with leaving it in God’s hands.
otherwise, I drive myself crazy.
Posted by Atlantic on June 27, 2008 at 9:52 am
“I realize that 99.9% of Christianity beats it over our heads that if we do not know Christ in the pray-a-prayer way that we have all been taught, we’ll go to hell.”
I don’t know what the percentage actually is, but since Catholics, Orthodox (I’m pretty sure – E?), and quite a lot of Protestants don’t actually believe that, the percentage has to be way under 50%, mostly denominations that are new kids on the block.
And no matter what the numbers, it’s still a diabolical perversion.
Posted by molleth on June 27, 2008 at 10:05 am
Atlantic, E, and TNM, I am completely agreed.
Consider how much of hell is not actually a Biblical concept, but rather involves things that people *read into* Scripture. Just because I’ve been taught all my life that God predestined me to go to heaven but predestined MOST OF HUMANITY to burn forever in horrific eternal torment does NOT mean I have to believe it. In fact, I find the concept completely repugnant.
If God is love, then the concept Jonathan Edwards preached in “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is vile. A being who would purposely consign most of humanity to suffer eternal torture for being something that they could not help but be is *not* worthy of worship, but is rather the stuff that nightmares are made of.
I don’t care how pretty or fancy one wants to make the language, that kind of a god is of the Freddy Krueger variety, NOT a view that represents the God-Made-Flesh who walked among us.
I tend to fall in more with CS Lewis sort of thinking as explained in The Great Divorce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Divorce
and in The Last Battle (wtih the young man who believed in Tash, only to find out it was Aslan who he’d loved all along).
I also answer “the problem of evil” to a great degree based on the concepts presented in The Space Trilogy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy where the earth is described as “the dark planet,” the “bent” people, the one covered in a thick mist of darkness, the one where God’s voice is hardly hearable—-as opposed to the other planets.
To me, the way he presented those concepts rang true with a very deep part of me. This comment on Amazon sums up my thoughts about them:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/068483118X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?%5Fencoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R2SBJVLQXAE3OM
Hmmm, it’s funny, because I don’t consider myself a Lewis junkie, but apparently he’s been a major part of helping me exit some of the tenants of my childhood/Biblecollege doctrines.
Before someone beats me to it, I must say that CS Lewis was influenced by George MacDonald, who was a universalist (did not believe in Hell as it is commonly taught in conservative circles):
http://godquest.org/links.htm
I don’t officially consider myself a universalist—-I haven’t given this area as much thought as I would like to and/or plan to yet, however I do lean toward it in much the same way as Lewis.
Considering it in a Narnian analogy, how could you love Aslan if you were told He created 1% or less of Narnia to love Him, and the other 99% not only were designed INCAPABLE of loving Him, but that upon their death, He would subject them to eternal torment *because* they did not love Him, *because* of the way *He* made them…all so that we would know how “blessed” we were.
Is that an Aslan that you could love? Not me.
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 10:10 am
Has anyone here besides me read Harlan Ellison’s short story I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream?
“AM” is such a delightful character.
You can read it online here (warning – rated PG-13):
http://data.antonindanek.cz/Harlan%20Ellison-I%20hav%20no%20Mouth%20and%20I%20must%20scream.pdf
Posted by teachergirl on June 27, 2008 at 10:29 am
“Marcia, the belief that all non-Christians go to Hell is not only not required for Christians, it’s a diabolical perversion of Christianity.”
Okay, Atlantic, you’ve got my curiousity up. Would you mind elaborating?
This is a great discussion and I’m enjoying “listening.”
Posted by Andrea on June 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Considering it in a Narnian analogy, how could you love Aslan if you were told He created 1% or less of Narnia to love Him, and the other 99% not only were designed INCAPABLE of loving Him, but that upon their death, He would subject them to eternal torment *because* they did not love Him, *because* of the way *He* made them…all so that we would know how “blessed” we were.
Is that an Aslan that you could love? Not me.
Narnian analogy! *tackles Molly in many hugs* You have made my night!
My answer to that (mostly just to cheer that Aslan of the books is quite the opposite of the sort of Aslan you use for that example, and also to explore the possibility of Lewis’s having drawn from Romans 2:14-16 when writing this) would have to come in the form of a rather lengthy quote from The Last Battle. This quite possibly my favourite quote from the whole book, and it comes from a speech made by Emeth the Calormene after they have all gone through the stable door. Emeth first described to the Kings and Queens how he served the Calormene god Tash since he was a child, desiring to do all that was right and good for Tash’s sake, and how he was so saddened and enraged to realise that so many of his own compatriots were not true or faithful followers of Tash but rather murderers, cheats, liars, etc. Of course the readers know by this point that Tash is completely evil, but Emeth himself did not know this and is not evil himself; the following is his account of his meeting with Aslan. I didn’t indent or anything because it’s technically all one speaker … I am sorry if it’s a little hard to follow.
“So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable trees till lo! in a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”
(thank you, sorry, Narnia fangirl moment ending now)
Posted by molleth on June 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm
AAAahhh, that’s EXACTLY the quote I was referring to. Thank you so much, Ms. Narnia Fan Girl).
(Btw, I also love how Lewis let’s Emeth describe Aslan in the language of his *own* unique culture, in his *own* unique way).
Posted by Andrea on June 27, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Hee yes I figured that was the one you meant– it really is beautiful on so many different levels, and yes! I love that he tells it in his own way. Reading it always makes me think of what we learn in The Horse and His Boy, that in Calormen boys and girls are taught storytelling in the way that English children were taught essay writing. I was SO jealous of those fictional children, lol!
I also see in my above comment that I said this was my answer to your question but I actually meant my addendum
See what housecleaning for five hours straight will do to a person?! Changes my words all around.
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
http://www.dechurched.com/discuss.html
Interesting essay on universal salvation.
Posted by Light on June 28, 2008 at 11:12 am
Great essay. And all too true. If you want to watch a Christian teacher squirm, ask about universalism. Universalism – or, more precisely, universal reconciliation (the belief that ALL will come to Christ eventually, either in this life or the next) – vs universalism, which says any road will get you there – seems to be the verboten topic in many churches and among Christian groups. It’s quite the hot potato. I wouldn’t say I’m a definitive universalist, but I will say that I can see great merit in the arguments presented for it. When I read the NT, I see three distinct threads – arminian, calvinist, and universalist. For me, it all goes back to how we fundamentally understand the character of God.
What Normal said: “I think there is a GREAT DEAL OF WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT GOD. Period.”
Yes, Normal! Exactly!!
Molleth, have you read Thomas Talbott’s work, “The Inescapable Love of God”? An excellent book laying out a philosophical argument for universalism.
Posted by Scott on June 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Hi, I was just reading your blog…. it came to me via another blog. I get the feeling that you equate leaving ‘Christ’ with leaving God. If this is so, then I beg to differ. Many, like myself, have left the idea that Jesus is the ‘Christ’ yet, I strongly believe in a coming ‘Christ’ (Messiah) via the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
If I misunderstood, then I beg your pardon.
For me, I cannot intellectually deny the existance of God…. it does not make sense to me. Nor do I believe that it is impossible to even know God… as in the case of agnostics.
However, there is no way to ‘prove’ that God exists through either the bible or other texts that support the existence of God.
I hope I’m making sense here.
Peace to you,
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Scott,
You are totally making sense and your comment is similar to another commenter here (thanks, servetus), both of which make me wish I would have better clarified where *I* was coming from. Thank you so much for throwing in your point of view.
For me, Christ defines who God is and what God is like, in that Christ gives a human form to God (”What God would be like if bound to human flesh”).
Personally, I resonate deeply with the Christ presented in the four gospel accounts in the NT. I have also had my own, er, experience with Him (be it a few moments of insane visions or actual reality–*wince*).
For those two reasons I have chosen to be a follower of His way. My post should have better clarified that presupposition, though—that for me, God is Christ and vice versa, and so that when I talk about leaving God, I also mean Christ. I do, however, recognize that there are many who believe in God but do not equate Christ with God.
Warmly,
Molly
Light,
Thanks.
Looks like another book just went on my “need to read” list.
Posted by Beatrice on July 1, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Yes! My computer finally let me into the comments. I don’t know what is wrong with it. (If anyone could pray that I could keep coming here, that would be great, because I need this place.)
(gives Molly a bear hug)
Thank you for this eloquent post. It’s just where I am at.
Oh, Marcia. *struck*
I know almost nothing, and I’ve never been through suffering like yours, and I’m a lot younger than you, so if you could read this as maybe not responding directly to you, just rambling for anyone here that wants to see it, that I had to get out, after the emotional experience of reading your post.
I am currently forced to go to a hyper-Calvinist church where they drill into me over and over how we must submit to God’s sovereignty, even to the point of being resigned to His will if He decides not to elect a dying family member. Because of course (from their perspective) if someone doesn’t choose to follow God it was God’s choice to send them to Hell all along in the first place. Last Sunday I was told, over and over again, by the man preaching, that we do not have the right to tell practicing homosexuals (for an example of anyone living in sin) that God loves them. I’ve seen the horrible fruit that these beliefs work in the lives of my friends and family and I’m told that these beliefs are the core of true Christianity. And I’ve felt myself at times gag and wonder if I was vomiting away everything I ever believed.
But somehow, for some reason, I still keep on believing in God. He’s fuzzier and dimmer, more a mystery than the God I’m shown, but He’s also realer. He’s a God of shadow, and that is why we can’t prove Him and strangely, that is also why we can believe that He is with us in all of our darkness.
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that only those He chose before the foundation of the world and before they had any say-so in the matter might be saved of no volition of their own, while the rest of mankind might be damned for no other reason than that God had a bad hair day.”
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Sorry for the long delay, I’ve been away for a few days. I’ll break this up into a couple of posts because there are several links.
E, you want Greek in the Latin Rite liturgy? Fine.
Here’s some Greek.
BTW, the SF story about Hell that I like best is “And Her Smoke Rose Up Forever”, by James Tiptree, Jr. I don’t think it’s online anywhere.
Teachergirl, it’s a subject about which a lot can be said, so here’s a start at elaborating. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all are called to Christ through the Church. “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (Emphasis added. Source.)That is, being a member of Christ’s Body, the Church, is the normative means that Christ has instituted for our salvation.
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm
However, the Church also says, “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Emphasis added. Source.)
Similarly, “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments….Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.” (Emphasis as in original. Source.)
In other words, we don’t know exactly how God unites those who are His but not formally part of the Church, but we trust that God will take care of this. The Catholic Church has never definitely declared that any particular person is in Hell, the way saints are canonised by a definite declaration that they are in Heaven (Judas is a prime contender for Hell, given Mark 14:21, but even he hasn’t been “anti-canonised”).
This is all closely related to the doctrine in Catholicism that genuine ignorance through no fault of one’s own – known as invincible ignorance – does partially or entirely mitigate one’s culpability for sin.
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm
There are lots of articles around on the internet that go into the apologetics side of the issue of salvation outside the church, both scripture and tradition – for example, here, here, hereand here.
The reason that I believe that the teaching that only baptised Christians can be saved is a diabolical perversion of Christianity is…well, to begin, all untruths come from the Father of Lies in the first place. Secondly, because most people intuit through the natural law engraved on our hearts, that there is a contradiction between a God who is perfectly good and perfectly just, and a God who will condemn people to an eternity of Hell through no fault of their own. (You can see this over and over again in the essay Molly linked to at dechurched.com, which is really about this issue rather than universalism.) It is a teaching designed to drive people away from Christianity.
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Somehow I have messed up every link – there is an extra double quote on every one.
In particular, the Greek one is bad because it defaults to somewhere else. <a href=”http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/benedict-xvi-and-bartholomew-i-together-the-creed-in-greek/”Here it is again – let’s see if that works.
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:24 pm
(Sigh.)
<a href=”http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/benedict-xvi-and-bartholomew-i-together-the-creed-in-greek/”Greek.
Posted by Atlantic on July 1, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Never mind, I’m going home to bed now. I think my intended URLs are relatively obvious. Apologies.
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Link fixed, I think: Ben & Bart Say the Creed
I can! I can! (In Greek, that is, not Latin)
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm
And … it’s obvious that the lower-pitched voice is Met. Bartholomew, because he pronounces the Creed with a Modern Greek pronunciation, which is likely how it was read/pronounced during the time it was formulated, whereas the louder, higher-pitched reader must be Pope Ben., because he is using a Classical Greek-style pronunciation, which follows the “Erasmian” pronunciation in a lot of ways, and pronounces the Theta, Chi, and Phi as hard T, K, and P, respectively, instead of th (this), ch (Bach), and ph. He pronounces the “rough breathing.” which was no longer being pronounced by NT times, and he pronounces nu-tau as “nt” instead of “nd.” Etc.
So … to answer the fifth question: I would hope a local priest or seminary instructor would do a better and more correct job of pronouncing the Creed than Pope Benedict did – i.e., would pronounce it the way Greeks have pronounced it for 1,500 years, and still pronounce it today.
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 3:47 pm
correction: That should be “th (thing)” for Theta, not “th (this).”
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Sorry if I come across as rather pedantic and crabby about this, but I’m part of a tiny little club whose goal is to see NT Greek properly pronounced by seminarians, and to see “Erasmian” become a forgotten system of pronunciation. See Chrys C. Caragounis The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission and Randall Buth’s webpage: Biblical Ulpan. Click on Courses – Greek Demo Lesson for sample audio and the further link to his paper on Koine Greek pronunciation.
Posted by K on July 1, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“The reason that I believe that the teaching that only baptised Christians can be saved is a diabolical perversion of Christianity is…well, to begin, all untruths come from the Father of Lies in the first place.”
I recently got into a discussion on infant baptism with friends who are Lutheran. I really didn’t want to discuss it but the husband kept pushing it and I was trapped at their house while the wife cut my daughter’s hair. They believe an infant will go to hell if it dies as a baby and hasn’t been baptized (which I knew they believed) but when I pointed out this meant the works of the parent are what is saving the baby they said oh no, it’s the Holy Spirit that saves.
but if the parent doesn’t baptize the baby?
Then it would go to hell
So it’s the parents actions that prevented the baby from going to heaven, if they’d baptized they would have saved it from hell
No, no, it’s the work of the HS not what the parent does
Hello???
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
So, Lutherans don’t even make provision for “limbo” like the Catholic Church does? I.e., unbaptized infants suffer the fate of infidels and evil people?
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 1, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Hmm… what about the thief on the cross?
Posted by joyfullygrowingingrace on July 2, 2008 at 2:57 am
From what I understand, baptism is a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ. By the believer.
It is not required for salvation, simply a matter of obedience, kind of letting the world know “This is who I am and what I believe now”.
If it were required for salvation, then, as Katherine Gunn said above, “Hmm . . . what about the thief on the cross?” He would have been in a pickle if baptism was indeed a requirement for salvation. And Jesus would be a liar, saying “today you will be with me in paradise”. Kind of sinks the infant baptism concept, in my opinion.
As for the heart-wrenching issue of what happens to infants and children when they die, check out a 2-part article by John MacArthur (I know, he may be a bit on the conservative side for some of you out there, but take a look anyway . . . it’s a very thought-provoking article) http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm (part 1) and http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-243.htm (part 2).
Posted by Marcia on July 2, 2008 at 6:56 am
Thanks for listening and responding, you guys. I appreciate your thoughts.
Kievas got into my head when he wrote this in the post Molly linked:
“At the lowest point of my existence—or so it seemed—was a personal crisis that occasioned a vehement retreat into secularism, bordering on the agnostic. I can’t really call it atheism, because at no time did I ever really deny that God existed, just that he gave a damn. He was a distant God, aloof and uncaring.”
That’s me, in a vehement retreat. Where TNM is okay with having unanswered questions, I can’t be content with mine.
Some of this stems from my job; I don’t understand the suffering of innocent babies, and for the Bible to say we are all born into sin bugs me. I understand it, but I don’t like it.
At the same time, God won’t freakin’ let go of me. I have to figure all this out, but it’s making me crazy.
Posted by Lyn on July 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm
has anyone ever read Madeleine L’Engle’s journal series?
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Marcia~
No, He won’t let go of you. But He will help you figure it out. He has me.
Hugs,
Katherine
Lyn,
No, I haven’t read that one…
Posted by K on July 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“So, Lutherans don’t even make provision for “limbo” like the Catholic Church does? I.e., unbaptized infants suffer the fate of infidels and evil people?”
As far as I know Lutherans don’t believe in any limbo.
“Hmm… what about the thief on the cross?”
I asked about that. They said an adult can make a profession of faith and be saved because they are then made clean by the Holy Spirit, but because of original sin all infants are born with sin that must be washed away. Since an infant can’t make a profession of faith the only way to be saved would be baptism which would also be baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The really interesting thing in this is that I’m good friends with the pastor’s wife from this couple’s church (and they all believe the same on this issue) and they (pastor and his wife) won’t let their children listen to contemporary Christian music, in large part, because there is often a message of making a decision for Christ or similar themes which sounds as though we can actively choose God rather than God choosing us. As explained to me, if we choose then it is our works that get us into heaven.
So, there’s some inconsistency there.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” 1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)
Hmm… I wonder what they make of this?
Posted by E on July 3, 2008 at 3:35 am
Your Lutheran friends ought to do some reading on the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine’s origin, its philosophical and scriptural basis, and the alternative views that the church has held.
Posted by Marcia on July 3, 2008 at 5:42 am
Conservative Lutherans don’t believe in thinking all that much, E. I was raised one; I would know.
Posted by molleth on July 3, 2008 at 8:56 am
We had some WELS Lutherans over a while back and got into the discussion on baptising infants lest they go to Hell. They did say that they were taught that there waaaaaas a “you never know” factor in there somewhere. That though you were supposed to baptise your infant, if you didn’t and the unthinkable happened before you got around to it, God was a good God and so Hell wasn’t necessarily a 100% sure thing…
I don’t know if those were the views of their particular leader, though, or of WELS Lutherans across the board. Personally, I don’t have a problem wtih the concept of infant baptism, provided it’s a “ceremonial washing” of sorts, a symbolic gesture. I do really wince at a teaching that says that all my children are going to hell because I didn’t have them baptised in the Lutheran church.
Also, the WELS Lutherans boast (humbly) of having the most educated pastors in the field. They said you pretty much have to be a full-on scholar in order to “graduate” from WELS seminaries…well versed in Biblical languages, etc. So they would likely argue the thinking comment.
On a personal level, it’s been my experience that Lutherans are pretty much like any other denomination/group—some individual churches are amazingly (vibrantly!) alive, some seem dead as doornails and nothing more than a glorified (and terribly boring) Elks club, and then there are a whole lot of in-betweens…
Posted by Lyn on July 3, 2008 at 10:13 am
I mention Madeleine because I read her journal series last year. She talks about the moments of unbelief and doubt. She talks about so much that was in my head.
She didn’t seem to care what church/denomination she went to. At her country home it was something totally different than the city.
I think we have to come to a place in life where we quit defining ourselves by the labels. I may attend a reformed presby church, I may homeschool, I may not mind if God gives me a baby every 2-3 years, I may agree that the men are where the buck stops, but that does not make me a long dress, long hair, person. We are not the cover picture for Homeschooling Today. LOL
Deciding what our family definitions are up to first God, then my dh and me. My dh listens to my views–most often he agrees, sometimes he says no–he does not abuse his role as head of household.
I haven’t been to your blog in so long so I do not know what all has happened. I am sorry for the pain you have obviously felt. I hope you find your place, Molly, soon. And find peace with it.
Posted by Marcia on July 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Okay, Molly, you mention the few times you’ve believed you actually heard from God.
So, basically, you’re basing your life on a few random experiences?
I don’t mean that critically; I genuinely want to know I’ve pinned down some of the most spiritual people I know, and when it comes down to it, the whole “having a relationship with Jesus” etc. etc. doesn’t mean hearing from him on a day-to-day basis.
And, you know, what about being in his presence? I mean, is this concept truly real? If so, what does it mean? Because, again, what I’ve heard when I’ve really pinned people down is that there isn’t, exactly, such a literal experience.
Posted by Marcia on July 5, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Grr. I’m missing a period after “I genuinely want to know.”
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 5, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Marcia~
I can’t speak for Molly – I’ll let her speak for herself.
As for me, Jesus – God – are a part of my daily life. I talk to them daily – they answer, sometimes immediately – sometimes later. For me, it is not a few random experiences, it is my life.
As to ‘being in His presence,’ there is is a lot of religious cliche attached to that phrase, so it is hard to pin down what people are talking about. I have been in His presence where I could see Him – I have felt His presence so strong at times that I just wanted to curl up and lie at His feet – everything else just fades away. I feel His presence nearly every time we have a conversation. But there is no formula – it is a relationship, just like the one you have with your best friend or your husband. It is not the same for everyone – though there will be similarities. It is a relationship that grows. And as it grows, it changes – how you interact shifts from someone you’ve heard about, but don’t know; to an acquaintance that you are unsure of but you want to know more about; to a friend that you begin to relax around and talk to; to a best friend/Father/Brother that you talk about everything with and spend your life entwined with.
Love,
Katherine
Posted by E on July 5, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I just read your story, Katherine Gunn.
Wow.
Thanks for sharing it on your blog.
Posted by molleth on July 5, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I know, E—it’s pretty intense! Thanks, Katherine, for being so open.
Okay, Molly, you mention the few times you’ve believed you actually heard from God.
So, basically, you’re basing your life on a few random experiences?
I don’t mean that critically; I genuinely want to know./i>
Marcia,
I don’t really know how to explain it. When I was a little girl, I experienced God. I’m not really sure how that can be explained, other than to say there was this warmth in my heart about Him. I knew Him to be good, whatever that means. Circumstances weren’t always good…my family life was pretty rough at times…but there was this sense that there was this Other, in the midst of all the brokeness of the now.
As a young adult and even today, I experience God…er, I’m not really sure how to explain that. Usually that “experience” is in a deep-inner-place-in-the-very-center-of-me. A very quiet place. My heart, I guess is what I probably think of it as.
Usually that’s the place. There have been “supernatural” experiences, but they are sort of the lesser proofs that I personally have—meaning those supernatural things have been a lot less likely to help me choose to believe than I would have thought they would have been…
Despite the “miracle-like-ishness” of them, they are the lowest item on the totem pole when it comes to what informs my faith. Probably the only exception to that, and this is admittedly weird, are the few times I’ve had actual encounters with evil/demons, which certainly has helped me believe in God at times when I’ve wondered if the whole thing is poppycock. I can wonder up and down if the miracles were actually miracles, but the experiences with true evil are very convincing to me, even to this day. I know that’s wierd, but I’m just being really honest here.
I guess where I’m at is that Jesus, the one in the Gospels, claims He’s God and Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Jesus is the “embodiment” of God—that if we ever wondered what the etherial Spirit Being would be like if a human, now we need not wonder, since that’s what Jesus is… And…I really like Jesus. If Jesus is God, then I like God.
I like what it seems Jesus stood for. I like how He messed with the establishment of religous knowledge. I like how He saved a bride’s family from being shamed at her wedding. I like how He touched the leper. I like how He told a bunch of stories instead of gave pat answers. I like how He hung out with the low-life’s of the town. I really like Him a lot. I see Him and I, a.) see someone that I could really stand to be more like and, b.) someone that I want to be near.
So as far as defining God goes, I really like the way that Jesus defines Him. I don’t understand a lot of the mess in this world and I’m not pretending to. The suffering and death here are not pretty. The pain is horrible. This world is a beautiful twisted mess.
So the story makes sense to me in that way too, in the same way that all the fairy tales strike this deep chord inside of me, in that it’s all so simple: Things were good. Very good. But then a great evil came and made everything bad. In steps a hero, having suffered through a long and dangerous journey, and defeats the witch at great cost. Things grew good again.
Maybe that’s making it way too simple, but I guess to me, there is something about the evil here that seems wrong. I don’t feel the urge to passively submissively accept sin and death, but to fight against them. They’re “not right,” but why? In the same way, I don’t feel the urge to accept tyranny and oppression as what is, but to struggle against it. Why?
Because something deep inside of me says that this place was *meant* to be good, and that something is horribly wrong, horribly UNnatural about the way things are. That we’ve got it all wrong. That it’s really screwed up, that it’s not the way it’s supposed to be.
I don’t have lofty theological answers for this. This is dirt-level theology going on here. Nice sounding theories and pontifications and “facts” are great for books, but not for when a heart is wondering if a God even is or if He is just a fairy tale.
For me, my heart feels at home with Him, because when I shut everything off and hunker down in the deep center of things (which admittedly sometimes I do often, and at other times, *years* will go by before I “go there”), there He is… down in the core of me, this Being who just Is, who is all things Good.
I can’t really explain it any better than that, but to say that if I didn’t believe in Him, I don’t think I could believe in my own self. It’s a very gut-level thing, I guess, with no systematic set of proofs. I can’t say I understand it very well. So I’m guessing I haven’t explained it very well.
*big Alaskan hug*
Molly
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm
E~
Thanks for reading it.
Molly/Marcia~
Molly made clear something I did not. When God talks to me (most of the time) it is in that deep place – the heart. From the outside, if I am not mindful, it will look like I am talking to myself. I have, on a few occasions, heard His audible (soft – gentle – firm – overpowering) voice. But mostly, it is just deep within the very core of me.
I would also like to agree with Molly about the encounters with pure evil solidifying the belief in God. I have had face to face encounters with evil – both coming at me and harassing a friend. Hmm… I know that Jesus is for real, not just because I believe and hope and sense and feel. I have seen Him. And that is an whole other story.
And, when finding myself unexpectedly in the middle of a couple dozen demons, I told them to leave in Jesus’ name. And they did, not grudgingly – they scattered at the Light that poured forth from the speaking of that name. They were darkness and shadows. When Jesus name was spoken against them, they scattered like bugs when the light is turned on. And there was visibly discernible Light and I have rarely felt such power. And I was no where near being part of an institutional church at the time – I wasn’t all prayed up – I hadn’t fasted in my life, so it was not anything about me that had anything to do with it.
Hmm… well, hopefully that isn’t too much information….
One more thought. Evil brings with it fear. But fear is not from God – perfect Love drives fear out. (1 John 4:18, 2 Timothy 1:7)
Love,
Katherine
Posted by Holly on July 5, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Marcia -
I’m so glad to see that you have spoken. My heart has hurt for you so much.
And you know that I don’t have any answers to the things you see every day. I wish that I did.
I *can* tell you that I have relationship with Jesus/God/the Holy Spirit every day. I talk with Him, and hear His answers in my spirit. That’s why sometimes I get so frustrated with people who say that I can’t have a relationship with Jesus…can’t know him…unless I spend one hour staring at my Bible every morning before my children get up. Unmistakenly…that would be good…but you know what? I want the RELATIONSHIP with Him too! The talking, the give and take…me asking questions, and sensing His presence. It is almost never when I am separated and all quiet (because that never happens with 8 kids) but just as I go about my day…all day…every day.
There are admittedly SO many things I don’t understand about God, Jesus, History, things that happen now. For me…that has drawn me closer to Him in trust. I have to say, “I don’t get this. I’m choosing to trust that you have answers, that you have a purpose, that there is a LOT that I can’t see that is going on here, Jesus.” The darker things get around me, the more I want to be close to Him. Like Molly said, I don’t think all of the pain and suffering are the way things are supposed to be. I am trusting him for the time when He will make all things good, all things new.
But I have not experienced the pain that you have nor have I seen what you see. I do not know how I might feel if I had.
I have been praying for you, Marcia, that he would not let you go…that he would keep calling you back to his side. I have been praying that he would reveal himself to you.
Posted by Holly on July 5, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Friends,
Could I ask you a question?
(Hope so.)
Do most (any?) of you still believe that HE enters the human soul and that HE transforms, radically?
(This is meant sincerely, no ulterior motives. It’s just hard to tell…)
I don’t mean in a “say a prayer, so I’m saved” sort of a way. Nor do I mean it in a “I was raised this way, or my church makes me believe this stuff” sort of way.
I mean – that we ask, “Holy Spirit, come into my life. Clean out all of the junk. Wash me. Change me. Transform me.”
I am not sure why I’m asking, exactly…other than I can’t tell where some of my dear friends (known and unknown) stand on this.
I DO believe in this sort of transformation, complete with growth through days and weeks and months and years – where we are changed to become more like Him both through an initial cleansing and through daily growth. His blood, spilled because of love for us, has the power to effect (and affect) our earthly lives, not just our eternal lives. When we know him, we are no longer the same people we were before. We don’t have to live in bondage to all of this…”junk”…the different camps, the differing theologies, the pleasing of people over pleasing God, fundamentalism, patriarchy, evangelicalism…whatever. We live to please God and fulfill his plan for our lives. (For me, right now that is as a stay at home mom with a bunch of kiddos who home-educates and loves every minute of it!) We don’t have to live in bitterness, or anger, or malice toward the institutions we have come out of. (That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about them, nor expose them…but they don’t have to hurt us every day of our lives. We can just…walk away from the bondage and experience joy and love and freedom and growing in relationship with Jesus Christ!)
So…I was just wondering….(!)
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Holly~
I was raised to believe this to. I hadn’t thought about it until you brought it up. I have questioned most everything I was taught growing up in the last year and a half. There has often been a major disconnect between what I was taught and what I have experienced. So, I don’t know exactly what I believe about this right now. That He comes in and lives in the inner most part of us – yes. I know that to be true.
But right now, I’m not sure if ‘radically transforms’ is the term I would use so much as cleans off debris and untwists and re-aligns – restores. Of course, I was raised to believe that the soul and spirit are two different things – it is the spirit that is reborn and indwelled – and the soul is restored…. not everyone believes there is a difference….
I don’t know. I will have to think about it some more.
Love,
Katherine
Posted by normalmiddle on July 6, 2008 at 5:38 am
Holly…yes, and no.
I personally DO believe it for myself, but I don’t think it is an absolute necessity for one to be a Christian (in the pray a prayer whamo-slamo you are saved way that is so commonly taught). I do believe that some people meet God in other ways. I think of the thief on the cross. All he had to do was BELIEVE. And that very day he was with Jesus in Paradise, right?
I keep my theology very, very simple. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Ye Shall Be Saved. And anything above and beyond that is just frosting, for me….anyway.
Marcia, something that has helped me greatly is the 90/10 principle. This isn’t biblical, but it makes sense. I hope you’ll hear me out.
90% of life is made up of the everyday things. The boring things. The ritual things. For instance, our jobs, laundry, changing diapers, taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, and so on.
10% of life is the fluff…the “fun” stuff. The miracles. The beautiful, truly different, extra-ordinary things. Vacations. Babies being born. Weddings. Miracle healings. And so on.
If we base our perception of God solely on the 10% of fluff, we will wander around most of the time discontent and frustrated with our faith. If we can learn to see God in the 90% of ordinary, mundane life, I think we live a little easier and less frustrated. Too often we want the 10% of fluff ALL the time or most of the time, and we think it isn’t fair, or that God doesn’t exist because we can’t see those types of examples all the time.
I know it is hard to understand how God is still on the throne when babies die, marriages fall apart, and violence runs rampant in the world. I question all of these things too. Two of my own babies died before their time. It made me very angry and made me question everything I had been taught.
I have no pretty answers except to say I know somehow, some way, God is bigger than I am, and one day I will know more. Until then I just have to live my life, trying to find God in the 90%.
Posted by molleth on July 6, 2008 at 8:41 am
Do most (any?) of you still believe that HE enters the human soul and that HE transforms, radically?
Absolutely.
Posted by Catherine on July 6, 2008 at 10:43 pm
don’t know if this threat is still active or not (i’m a frequent reader, infrequent commenter…)
i have never been able to completely leave Christ (although i have wanted to – nonbelief would make it so much easier to blend into my atheist family…) because i *know* i am a sinner. i believe in my own sinfulness as much as i believe that the earth is round, or that gravity exists. this isn’t a self-esteem issue – i don’t go around thinking that i’m worthless or that i can’t do anything right. rather, it involves a belief that no matter how much i try on my own strength, no matter how moral or righteous i may be, i will still cause harm and wound others, deeply – and without God’s grace – irrevocably. it’s not enough for me to explain away this state of affairs by saying that i’m imperfect and i shouldn’t give myself a hard time about what is a natural part of life. for whatever reason, i have always believed that i am called to care much more substantially than that – and that i cannot care more without Someone – God – to open my heart and show me the way.
i have an atheist friend who believes that humanity is working towards ever more progress and justice. i believe that we humans are as sinful as ever – that in every age, we do make progress, but we also regress in any number of ways. i believe that we cannot break free of this cycle on our own – that we must call on Someone to radically change our hearts, minds, and actions.
to me, Christianity is the only religion that truly addresses the futility of our attempts to save ourselves. it is the only religion that says we cannot become holy through good works or good intentions – that we must fall on our knees and ask God to intercede for us and transform us.