Woven

2009-11-08T05:43:00.000-08:00

I can carry Taoist values, as reflected through certain martial arts - dichotomies often existing in harmony, not at the expense of one another.

I can learn the tranquility of the Buddhist, to let go of issues that cause stress, as there is a time and place for passivity.

I can value, revere, and worship the divine directly through Nature, paralleling paganism.

I am free to hold Christian and monotheistic metaphoric truths to further understand the incomprehensible and hope to love others better, without the trappings of literalism, tribalism and legalism.

I can appreciate and accept Catholicism’s veneration of the Virgin Mary as a manifestation of the much needed yet unaddressed divine-feminine.

I can see the symbolic power and beauty of Orthodox icons and not suffer from idolatry.

Because of the Gnostics, I hope to be free of the addictive nature of historicity and religiosity.

I need not abandon the open-eyed skepticism of the Humanist, Atheist, or Agnostic on watchful guard for liars, “words of knowledge”, cheats, spiritual frauds, “prophetic gifts”, and charlatans.

~

I am Woven; a living tapestry of identities, languages, cultures, and faiths.
A piece of burlap; Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty.
I am not a subject of the lowest common denominator. I am a gestalt. The unweaving of one part is the undoing of the whole.

What the Religionist must call purification – the purging of alien practices and ways – is to become unwoven. A single thread is easier to capture than a richly woven tapestry.

The lost, the forgotten, the abused, the broken, the abandoned, the common, and the mundane; we are woven.

Evaginatical Christians

2009-10-31T21:04:00.000-07:00

”…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

I cannot say I know for certain what this actually means. Fear as in, being frightened? Are we talking about a servile fear of a slave or a “fear” as a son?…And trembling?! What, seriously? Shivering with fear? Frightened to the point of convulsing?

I understand this better in terms of what it doesn’t mean. It means we are not to explore or search out our “salvation” with pride and arrogance. Ignorance and arrogance go hand-in-hand so I think there should be a degree of awe and wonder – like a child’s – as well as humility and open-mindedness. The only way around ignorance is education – not indoctrination – and the only way to become successfully educated is at the abandonment of arrogance.

Although many Christians have honed their Humility down to an art form, when it comes to issues of Belief that humility and open-mindedness are replaced with a knowledge-filled arrogance. These rigidly-denominational Christians are the modern day Gnostics. Those that unswervingly and unquestionably follow their denomination’s teaching and swear that it is the truth and the right way.

And although I’ve just labeled it ”rigidly-denominational Christians” it manifests itself in other ways also. My favourite are the self-titled ”Bible Christians” who don’t follow denominations or traditions but only the bible… please! They are not different; just a little bit more creative and a little bit more dishonest.

At the end of the day the one thing nearly all Christians have in common is that they believe in the bible. Where they all differ is what it says and means. With so many interpretations and numerous “proper” hermeneutics, and various doctrines and heretical views accepted and denied, it should become obvious that the “answer”, the truth, isn’t so obvious.

In time it become a private issue of being right over pursuing the (T)truth. Then we enter the realm of ulterior agendas and the Evaginatical Christian emerges. (And no, I didn't mistype Evangelical but specifically meant to type Evaginatical from the word "evaginate").

Something else is being sold, either instead of, or alongside of, or on condition of the truth. They have done worse than turn it inside-out. They have evaginated it; they have turned it outside-in. There are those on the outside and there are those clearly on the inside.

A real church should be composed of the dregs and miscreants of society; the true sinners. It should include non-believers and those that question and struggle and fight and doubt.

You know what? Maybe the church of “True Believers” sitting in their pews, singing their hymns, safely tucked between their church’s walls, bound by their unspoken rules and regulations of what you should and shouldn’t do and can and cannot be, is a great idea!

Maybe they should be quarantined off. I can’t think of a better way of stopping the spread of this evagination; of this marketed corporate mentality.

I don’t mean to advocate being an Agnostic Christian (in the sense that ”we can never attain the truth so let’s just give up” - to be perpetually ignorant) but that we should strive to be a Disciple, and by that I mean a perpetual student. Always learning, our focus on continual growth, not continual stagnation.

The real questions we much each individually and before God ask ourselves are, Am I only following what I’ve been taught but never questioned it? Am I following my priest, or minister, or pastor? Have I looked outside of my quarantined world? Am I following my belief-mechanism or God?

Am I spiritually in motion in my faith, or am I static in my belief?

Am I a member of The Quarantined Church?

If not, then what are you? Are you a fringe-dweller, existing on the outer frayed edge? Are you a mouse living between the walls of the rooms we call Denominations within God’s house? Or are you living in a spiritual wilderness?

Are you a Wanderer, and if so, are you lost or on a quest?

…or are you an Evaginatical Christian?

Are you turning Christianity inside-out?

If anything, this would be a false gospel.

”…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

The Nature of Grace

2007-11-19T17:25:00.003-08:00

Grace Before Sin

I feel that I am going to fail to properly articulate my point. The truth of it is so simple, yet so profound. I feel like a great weight has been lifted, but I can't say why. This is an issue I'd like to further "unpackage" and explore. It is not an issue I wish to debate and argue over. I need to explore this issue, not hear why it’s wrong.

I've always entertained the idea that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity could, potentially, all be wrong. Well, "wrong" isn't the word: incomplete. But let's not be pretentious. Let me be brutally honest:
I've never believed Islam or Judaism were complete.
I've always believed Islam and Judaism were incomplete.
I've only ever entertained the idea that Christianity might be incomplete.

On Monday, November 20th, 2006, at 6:16am I crossed a threshold. I stopped entertaining that idea.

Christianity is incomplete. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Christianity is wrong. Well, at least its methodology is wrong.

The Religion of Christianity teaches that we begin, or start out, fallen. Our human condition's default is Sin. We need to have or accept the "bad news" before we can accept the "good news". Our goal becomes salvation through Grace and therefore Grace is the prize; it is the goal that must be attained! The division of denominations come about with the questions of "How do we attain grace?" or "How do we exit this state of sin?"

One side of Christianity acknowledges Original Sin as tainting and condemning all of humanity! Thus is introduced Infant Baptism. But this fails to address the conscious choice of the believer. It allows exceptions or conditions for a lack of understanding between Sin & Grace.

The other side of Christianity acknowledges the conscious choice of the believer, and introduces Believer's Baptism, but makes exceptions or conditions to rectify infant death with a non-scriptural formula of "Age of Accountability".

Both sides struggle and make exceptions to "biblical rules" and insert non-biblical conditions because of the assumption that we always have Sin, but we don't always have Grace.

What happens to a newborn that dies shortly after birth? What happens to an aboriginal heathen who has never seen a white man, let alone hears the gospel or of Christ, dies? Are they condemned to hell? Christian theology must compromise itself with “footnotes” and “exceptions to the rules” to explain these things. I’ve always been skeptical of rules or theories that contain “yeah, but…” statements.

God hates Sin, but loves Sinners. That was the reason why He died on the cross: because He hates Sin, but loves Sinners. If this weren't true then His death was - for - absolutely - no - reason. Let me repeat myself: God hates Sin, but loves Sinners. It makes no sense the other way around: Jesus died on the cross because He loves sinners, not because He hates sinners.

I dearly love my children. I wish I could say that about their behaviour at times too. There are times I could honestly say that I hate their behavior. But I never hate them. Would I lay my life down and die for my children? Definitely, and that’s because I love them. But would l lay my life down and die for someone I hated? Absolutely not!

The Flood was an example of the opposite of the Crucifixion. God hated the sinners and killed them all off, yet Sin survived, thrived, and continued! No Grace was given in this equation, and the outcome failed to destroy Sin (which is not to say God failed because we don’t know if that was His goal).

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is yet another example of the attempted cleansing of Sin without Grace. No Grace was given to the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah. They themselves (not Sin) were outright destroyed. Even Abraham missed this point! Abraham attempts to barter or negotiate with God. Abraham seems to think God's Grace can be earned or bought! What if there are 50 righteous people? What about 45? 40? 30? Do I hear 20? What about 10? Even if it is only one, Grace cannot be bought! Jesus’ parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Mat. 20:1-16) is a clear lesson that Grace doesn’t work on any sort of economic system. It isn’t mathematical.

God condemns a complete generation of Israelites during their 40-year exodus through the wilderness, promising only their children - their next generation - will see the Promised Land. Again we see an attempt to cleanse Sin without Grace, and again we see Sin's eradication incomplete.

The most difficult issue we struggle with in the book of Job is that Job is upright and blameless! (Even God admits it!) Job doesn't deserve what he's inflicted with. But isn't that the whole point? Isn't that what Job misses? Isn't that the lesson we miss? It's about Grace. It isn't that Job deserves what he's inflicted with, but that he doesn't not deserve it! That's Job's flaw. It's not that he's committed some sin and is being punished for it. It's that he believes that he somehow earned the Grace he is enjoying – that the Grace was his. He was coveting his exclusivity to Grace, where Grace isn't exclusive. Even at the end when Job "confronts" God in the storm, he pleads his case and maintains his innocence, God does not accuse nor reveals Job's sin - for Job is still blameless. It is only after Job acknowledges God absolute sovereignty and unquestionability does Job again enjoys God's Grace.

I walked through Zellers on the weekend and someone working there offered me a nice expensive pen for free! Well, that caught my attention! I'm then told that, if I apply for a Zeller's Credit Card, the pen's mine for free! Well...it's not free. Granted, it's a very good deal, but it isn't free. Not only is this paradigm wrong and doesn't work, it's an outright lie: We begin (default) in Sin and can attain salvation and grace by simply saying the "Sinner's Prayer" (for example). Hey! Wait a second! That is a great deal, but IT ISN'T FREE!

If this is Christianity, then I'm out. I'll hand in my W.W.J.D. bracelet, my "Admit One, Eschatological Pass/Soteriological Coupon", and my Club J.C. Card.

Jesus died on the cross for ALL PEOPLE. This is Grace incarnate. We don't start in a state of Sin and climb into a state of Grace. We begin in a state of Grace. Grace is not a transaction or an exchange. Grace must by definition be free and must be for everyone - and when I say everyone, I don't mean every Christian. No sir! I mean everyone: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, you name it! Grace for ALL. Grace can't be earned and can't be attained by our own methods. GRACE IS A FREE GIFT !!

A newborn isn't a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or an Agnostic, or a Buddhist, or an Atheist! But a newborn already has God's Grace. We begin our journey with it.

And the Religion of Christianity voices in with, "But this is Universalism! The bible doesn't teach that 'all will be saved'!" No, this is not Universalism. And no, there is no longer Original Sin. And there is an Age of Accountability, but it is to opt out of Grace, not into it. No, this isn't Universalism because people can and do opt out of grace. It is a free ride for all, but not all accept it.

One denomination, in an official publication concerning its belief, makes the following statement:
“Some people inconsiderately accuse us of rejecting the atonement of Christ entirely because we dissent from the view that the atonement was made upon the cross as is generally held. But we do nothing of the kind. We object to the view that the atonement was made upon the cross, because it inevitably leads to one of two great errors, thus, Christ on the cross bore the sins of all the world. John said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away (margin, ‘beareth’) the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). Peter tells us how Christ thus bore the sins of the world. ‘Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24). Paul says that ‘He died for all’ (2 Cor. 5:14,15). That which Christ did on the cross, therefore, was done indiscriminately and unconditionally for all the world, and if this was the atonement, then all the sins of the world have been atoned for and all will be saved – but all men will not be saved; hence the sins of all were not atoned for upon the cross.”

Little comment needs to be made about this quotation except to point out that the writer sees clearly that, if the usual understanding of the cross of Christ is accepted, all men will be saved. Hence, in order to maintain that not all will be saved, as he thinks, he claims that the atonement was not made upon the cross. ..
Through the centuries the Christian understanding has been that when Jesus hung on the cross and cried, “It is finished”, the problem of atonement was settled for all time. We do not have, therefore, a gospel of chance, either first chance or many chances. We have a gospel of grace.

Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace

"Grace tells us... we are already in unless we want to be out." (Spencer Burk, A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, pg. 61)

These two paradigms are in conflict and is an extremely dangerous path to follow. If we can understand that Grace by definition is a free gift paid for and given by Jesus on the cross, then we must also admit we all begin with it. So now we have an apparent contradiction of facts: We always have Sin and we always have Grace. They must both be defaults to the human condition. If Adam and Eve brought Sin into the world - caused the problem - “broke it”, as the case may be – and Christ resolved the problem - cleansed it - “fix it”, then the problem must actually be fixed. If we are still born into Sin, then the problem isn’t fixed. We are, and the world is, still “broken”. Christ has failed. Paul argues this very point in Romans 5:18,

“…just as the result of one trespass[Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [Jesus] was justification that brings life for all men.”

We know that Grace can trump Sin. But the Religion of Christianity teaches Sin first and then Grace (maybe). In this scenario Sin can trump Grace because we’ve been kept in the dark about the Grace we already have. It comes down to a question of which default/fact do we choose to embrace, Sin or Grace? If we are to believe the lie Religion teaches, that we have Sin but need to attain the gift of Grace, we're in a lot of trouble!

The Religion of Christianity teaches that Damnation is the rule and Salvation is the exception. Christ's Crucifixion allows that Salvation is the rule and Damnation is the exception.

We all have Free Will. But the question is, what is the choice? Christ's death and Crucifixion on the cross is God's Grace. I think "Christ" and "God's Grace" are synonymous. I think Religion even asks the wrong question: "Do we accept Christ, or deny Him?" Whereas the real question should be, "Do we accept the Grace we've already have been given?” or "Do we hope to attain a Grace we don't have?" Grace is not something we can attain. It is only something we can lose.

Marcus J. Borg articulates this exact point very accurately when he states

“Of course, the earlier paradigm [a more Traditional Christianity] uses the language of God’s grace and compassion and love, but its own internal logic turns being Christian into a life of requirement and rewards, thereby compromising the notice of grace. Indeed, it nullifies grace, for grace that has conditions attached is no longer grace.”

Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 11

No other perspective works.

The Born Again Problem

It is at this point when some people – most especially the Evangelical or Born Again Christians – will state that this idea doesn't biblically align itself with being “Born Again”.

“Born Again” = Adult Baptism = “Saved” = Salvation is an erroneous assumption.

Jesus didn't tell Nicodemus that he needed to be born again to get to heaven. What He did say was that everyone – Nicodemus included – needs to be born again - born from above - in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Adult baptism is often assumed to be synonymous with being “born again”. Another, seemingly unrelated topic, is the assumption that the Heaven of the Afterlife is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

However, Luke 17:20-21 describes the advent of the Kingdom of God in some particular details: Our Lord says it comes not with observation; that is hasn't a geographical locale (“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo, there!”); and that “...behold the kingdom of God is within you”. It may not be abundantly clear what the Kingdom of God is, but it is clear that it is not the Heaven of the afterlife, and therefore cannot be referring to salvation.

So, if Nicodemus must be “born again” to enter the Kingdom of God, then Jesus is not referring to adult baptism, being “born again” (as it is commonly understood today), or being saved. To be born again, according to Jesus, is to dedicate oneself to the Kingdom of God and it's purposes. It is to begin a journey with God in order to make the world a place of grace.

The pharisee Nicodemus' perception of an exclusive religious community or institution which dispenses salvation was in fact not only ignorant of the truth of the matter, but in conflict with God's plan and his Kingdom. This flies in the face of Pre-Vatican II Catholicism's salvation only through the Church as well as certain “Born Again” Christians' beliefs/theology (Adult Baptism only, to be saved.)

The Spirit is like the wind, Jesus tells Nicodemus “The wind bloweth where it listeth”. We can hear the wind and see it's effects, but we have no idea where it comes from or where's it going.
“...and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth.” (John 3:8)

God's Spirit – like the wind – is not something we're meant to control. The Spirit as a wind starts us on a journey. The Spirit now resides within us and inundates us. We now learn to live, breathe, and walk in the way – in the way of the Spirit and in the method of the wind.

We become a new creature.
We are renewed.
We are reborn.

Grace and Mercy

Grace: Getting something you have not earned or deserved (in a positive manner, i.e. a gift).

Mercy: Not getting what you do deserve (in a negative manner, i.e. a punishment).

When either Grace or Mercy are present without the other they can successfully be identified.
When both Grace and Mercy are present they can still be successfully identified.

For example: I steal $100 from you. You catch me and I stand before a judge in a court of law. Before the judge passes sentence you say that you wish to drop the charges against me. That is an act of Mercy. I was guilty and deserved punishment, but you showed mercy. Mercy is present but Grace is not.
Now after withdrawing the charges of theft against me you add that since I obviously need that $100 more than you do that I may keep the money as well. That is Grace. I didn’t earn the money, and I don’t deserve it either.

However, when both Grace and Mercy are absent they become blurred and indistinguishable.

For example: When I say the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah shows no Grace, some might say that I am confusing Grace with Mercy. Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty and had that punishment owed to them. Judgment was passed and justice was served. God simply didn’t show Mercy. But He also didn’t show Grace because He didn’t give them what they didn’t deserve; namely forgiveness and exemption.

Is the absence of Grace or Mercy the same as their opposites?
What are Grace and Mercy’s opposites?
The opposite of Grace must be not getting something you haven’t earned or deserve, which would be fair and just.
The opposite of Mercy must be getting what you deserve, which would be harvesting what you sow, which would also be fair and just.
So we can say that both Grace and Mercy’s opposites are the same thing: Justice through Righteous Judgment.
Therefore if one can opt out of Grace (and Mercy) you are faced with Justice through Righteous Judgment. So, if God chooses to pass judgment and justice, He also chooses not to show Grace or Mercy. Thus the example of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of showing no Grace.

What is the absence of Grace and Mercy? I don’t think their absence is the same as their opposite. Grace is active, while Mercy is passive. Grace is an action while Mercy is inaction. Their opposites – Justice through Righteous Judgment – are also active. Their absence must not be active but passive.
If Grace and Mercy’s opposites are Justice through Righteous Judgment (active), their absence must be the lack of justice (injustice).

Grace in the Evangelical

Evangelical Christians say we are called to evangelize. That statement is a little too simple I think.
What does ‘evangelize’ mean, and why are we called to do it? What are the reasoning and the drives behind it?
There are only 3 reasons why Evangelical Christians believe they should evangelize.

A) Because we are told to
B) Because we are commissioned by the Lord to make converts
C) Because so many people will be damned to hell without evangelizing.

Realistically, most Evangelical Christians are a combination of these 3 points, but we’ll address them one point at a time.

1) “Because we are told to.”

The problem with this reasoning is that we don’t know what we’re doing. We can’t answer the question ‘why evangelize’? If we cannot answer why then we also cannot answer how? If we aren’t sure why then we aren’t sure how. If we’re not sure how to evangelize then the margin for error becomes enormous because we’re not sure what the goal is.

2) “Because we were commissioned by the Lord to make converts.”

I don’t believe we were commissioned to make converts. We were told to make disciples, which are pupils or students. This is another topic worth discussing, as to what exactly making disciples, or students, or pupils, means, but suffice it to say that for our intent and purpose now it does not mean to make converts.

3) “Because so many people will be damned to hell without evangelizing.”

This point may manifest itself in different expressions: The positive being, “Who goes to heaven?” and the negative being, “Who gets condemned to hell?”
This is the most complicated answer of the three. What does the Evangelical Christian say happens to a newborn baby who dies directly after birth? Do they go to heaven or hell? We know what scripture says the “criteria” of receiving salvation is, and a newborn clearly doesn’t meet these “requirements”. But the thought of an innocent newborn infant suffering eternal conscious torture at the hands, or will of God seems inconceivable! Most will answer and say that this innocent will go to heaven because God’s Grace is large enough (which I personally agree with). They will generally answer that it has to do with the formula of “Age of Accountability”, which isn’t scriptural, but is an attempt to better understand and systemize salvation (which I also agree with). I don’t have a problem with this belief, but with this methodology.

Grace vs. Accountability

The Age of Accountability says that under a certain age (and I’m not interested in debating what that age is) the child lacks the proper facilities or tools to make a proper choice or decision. Therefore they cannot be responsible for that choice and they cannot be accountable. Responsibility and accountability have everything to do with harvesting what one sows.

Accountability means we can be judged on it. Either we are accountable or we are not. Either we are guilty or we are innocent. Accountability belongs in the realm of judgment and justice. Grace is an all together different creature! There is no guilty or innocent in Grace. The question of guilt isn’t even asked.

For someone under the ‘Age of Accountability’ God really cannot show Grace but can only show Mercy. The infant is tainted and guilty of Original Sin. Being guilty of sin is punishable by death (‘the wages of sin are death’). If the newborn lives, it is a sign of God’s Mercy (not getting what it deserves because it deserved death). If the infant dies, which is the ‘wages of sin’, it is God’s Righteous Judgment and Justice (which is the opposite of Grace and Mercy, which means no Grace and no Mercy). So, when the Evangelical Christian evokes the ‘Age of Accountability’ and God’s Grace in the same breath, I’m forced to ask, “Well? Which one is it? Grace or Accountability?” I can’t see where or how – in this context – Grace could be applied. But I do believe God’s Grace can be and is applied!

Regardless of whether the newborn infant lives (Mercy) or dies (Judgment) Grace has already been gifted freely! Grace cannot have anything to do with guilt or innocence. It cannot have anything to do with what you’ve earned or deserve. It cannot exist in the realm of analysis or judgment. It is free. Grace is boundless. The only limiting or controlling feature on Grace is God’s will. It is His to give freely and I believe He did so on the cross.

They are willing to allow the Grace of God to be large enough to make exceptions, but I can’t help but think this is not an actual belief, but rather an intellectual exercise. Because once it is applied to others (Jews, Muslims, non-believers, agnostics, homosexuals, etc.) suddenly God’s Grace dries up! Where God’s Grace was once large and overflowing suddenly has become finite and very limited.

Now, I realize I am making generalizations of all Evangelical Christians. Before you accuse me of creating straw men to knock down allow me to continue; There is another type of Evangelical Christian who does honestly allow for God’s big Grace and acknowledges and accepts that we don’t know who “makes it” into heaven. They do allow and entertain the concept of others receiving salvation. This theology or belief puts salvation and damnation into God’s hands exclusively (where I believe it belongs). And when who is and who isn’t saved ceases to be an issue, then the focus must also shift away from the Afterlife.

But it is here that this option becomes plagued with a problem. If the question is “Why do we evangelize?” and the answer is, “Because so many people will be condemned to hell without evangelization” they cannot shift that focus away from the Afterlife, while not defuncting their very own definition. It creates a conundrum. It removes their reason, motivations, and impetus to evangelize. Ultimately we are led back to attempting to answer the question, “What does ‘evangelism’ mean?” This option has begun with spreading the “bad news” (you are a sinner) followed by spreading the “good news” (there is hope in Christ). If the “bad news” is removed from the equation and if we are left with only the “good news”, what does that look like? And, more importantly, are we ready to accept it?

“In a very real way, they don’t even hope for universal salvation. After all, without the fear of their unsaved loved ones’ eternal damnation, how would they motivate one another for outreach and missionary service?”

Bart Campolo, The Limits of God’s Grace

“…many [Christians]…evangelical in attitude…insist that they want to see the wicked saved, nevertheless tend to anger if they are told that God is going to do just that for all the wicked. They are not willing for God to save the lost ultimately, unless He does it according to their theological scheme. They are like Jonah, who was angry because God spared the wicked city of Nineveh.”

Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace

If we are only focusing on accepting God’s Grace that has already been gifted to us, ‘evangelizing’ becomes an open invitation to a celebration and a joyous exploration. The paradigm shifts. There ceases to be a “them” and “us”, the focus leaves the Afterlife and centers on the Now. The kingdom of God begins to grow and nurture here and now! Orthodoxy bows to Orthopraxy. Proper Doctrine takes a back seat to proper practice. Doctrine and Orthodoxy define the distinctions of denominations. Denominational lines blur…unity begins…we enter a post-denominational age. No longer are we focused on gaining converts to our religion. No longer must things be only our way: Fundamentalism dies. No longer must we amass our numbers. Our control stops mattering: nobody can claim exclusivity. There is no fear in our “sales tactics”: we don’t need to “sell” our faith with “hell and damnation”. No longer can we condemn the non-believers: the words infidel and heathen are removed from our vocabulary. There stops being a “them” and “us”. The only reason we have left to knock on someone’s door is to say hello! We can all hold hands with a bottle of Coka-Cola and sing “I’d like to teach the world to Sing”. Well… that might be taking it a little too far, but you get the idea. We can stop focusing on the hereafter and begin focusing on the Now!

I believe the Kingdom of God can be here now. That it is in us (Luke 17:20-21). It is attainable! So why are we so obsessed with making it heaven?

The Gnostic Escape

In “The Purpose Driven Life”, Rick Warren says, “This life is a preparation for the next” (pg. 36), and “…earth is only a temporary residence” (pg. 47). The whole of chapter 4 has this theme. “Earth is a staging area”. To me, this is really saying we were not made for this world, but for another. If we weren’t made for this world, then what are we doing here? Are we just passing through? I’m sure many Christians believe and teach this. I also believe it is wrong. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying, “Be passersby” (Thomas 42)

This world = bad.
Next world = good.
This reality (physical) = bad.
Next reality (spiritual) = good.

Our focus is to either ignore or gloss over this world and its problems (because this world doesn’t really count, does it? Its just a practice run!), or to focus on the next world and the escape from this one! Salvation, being “born again”, and being “saved” have the risk of, not being about making it into heaven, but about getting the ticket out of this world and it’s problems! This is Gnosticism.

I think Qui-Gon Jinn gave excellent advice to a young Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: “But I thought Master Yoda said to be mindful of the future?”

Qui-Gon Jinn: “Yes, but not at the expense of the moment: You must be mindful of the Living Force.”

One of the greatest pieces of wisdom I’ve heard comes from the Rabbi Israel Salanter.

“Normally, we worry about our own material well-being and our neighbours’ souls; let us rather worry about our neighbours’ material well-being and our own souls.”

Words for a Christian to live by. Interesting that they would come from a Jew. I think the Evangelical perspective sees things backwards. Last year I took a course at a Baptist Church and had a man named “Jack” introduce himself. “Hi! My name is ‘Jack’.” He said while extending his hand, “I’ve been saved since March [3 months ago]. How long have you’ve been saved?”

I shook his hand in stunned silence. I didn’t know whether to laugh out loud or cry. He then proceeded to discuss his and his fiancé’s concern about proper methods of prayer.

“Jack” was speaking English. I speak English too and I’d like to think I have the same size vocabulary as most people. I understood every word he spoke and used. But he wasn’t speaking English. I had to think fast! I had to switch my internal-language-button over to the “Christianese” setting.

Not only was “Jack” speaking a language the vast majority of people don’t understand, he was asking all the wrong questions, and making all the wrong statements. The paradigm’s all wrong. And this was a product of Evangelical Christianity! What? Is he supposed to go out into the world and evangelize and ‘witness’ to people? Yikes! What is he really saying? And more importantly, What are people really hearing? “I’ve got my one-way ticket out of this ‘dump’ and the Good News is you can buy a ticket out of here too!” That’s the message I got loud and clear.

“Well, I’m not quite ready to leave this ’dump’ because this ‘dump’ is my home and I belong here. And as far as buying one of your tickets out of here…well, I’m not sure I like the brand name you’re selling. No thanks, I think I’ll pass.”

What would the Evangelical Christian thoughts or response be to that be? Some would think that I’m lost. The bolder ones would say I’ve rejected Christ at the risk of eternal damnation. Some might “shake the dust off their feet.”

I’ve always had a difficult time identifying the moment you are ‘saved’. I’m entertaining the idea more and more that we’re born ‘saved’. As I’ve said before, Grace tells us we are already in unless we want out. From this perspective the question is never “How long have you been saved?” The only applicable question is – and it’s a dark path to travel – “At what point did you opt out?”

Forfeit

Once we realize and accept that we have always had the gift of God’s Grace – that we’ve never had to attain it – how do we live this life of Grace? This question takes on a very different dimension once we realize that it applies to the believer, the non-believer, and people of other belief systems as well. We’ve transcended the bounds of Religion and entered into the realm of the Spiritual.

What would a person’s actions/thoughts look like to reject the grace of God that was already given? How exactly would one do that? Is there any biblical indication to support this? To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

“…but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” Mark 3:29, ASV

If we forfeit Grace - if we opt out of God’s Grace - we are choosing Righteous Judgment and Justice in its stead. Luke 18:17 says, “I tell the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it” (NIV).

This is an interesting verse. It seems to confirm that the kingdom of God already is a child’s. It also puts things in the context of “who will not receive” rather than “who will accept”, again reinforcing that it is a denial of something already in existence rather than the acceptance of something new.

But what does this rejection look like? Traditionally the Religion of Christianity would say that it is specifically rejecting Christ, and then would go on to apply this to Jews and Muslims, and nearly every other faith. Again, attempting to reinforce their exclusivity. I believe Christ is God’s Grace incarnate. I think it isn’t so much rejecting Christ as it is rejecting God’s Grace.

I recently got into a conversation with a Christian Fundamentalist friend of mine about whether or not a homosexual could really be a Christian. I had never really even considered this an issue before. “Of course!” was my train of thought. But apparently not. I was told in clear and concise terms that homosexuality was abhorred and loathsome to God. It said so in the bible – most especially in the Old Testament. He then proceeded to quote the actual verses to me. I won’t bother you with these references.

“Well, I’m damned to hell too,” I said, “because I have tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 clearly forbids it.”

As he began to explain why this didn’t apply to me I continued, “And so are you because you’re clean shaven! Leviticus 19:27 forbids it!”

He continued by explaining that we are freed from the Law by faith in Christ. We are ‘covered’ by God’s Grace...we are seeing the impossible concept of a conditional grace rising it's ugly head again.

Jesus said,

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2 (NIV)

I think this is clear. If you are to judge and condemn a homosexual according to the Law, then you too will be judged and condemned according to the law. You can choose Grace, or you can opt out and choose justice through Righteous Judgment. To me, judging others is one possible method of rejecting God’s Grace, or at least showing contempt towards it. In romans 2:1-4 Paul is clearly making the distinction between God's Righteous Judgment (Justice) and man's judgment (Injustice).

I’m not sure what rejecting Grace looks like. I suppose becoming an actual Atheist would do it. But how can we truly tell the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic? I am very hesitant at systemizing this. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. I really don’t think this is the point. In fact, if we begin to obsess about how do we reject Grace, or how do we opt out of it, we are returning to that old paradigm. It isn’t our place to judge. This is something between God and the individual. We have no business there. After all, we were called to make students. A student’s job is to learn. We learn by asking questions. Our job at evangelizing is an open invitation to celebration and exploration. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’re interested, then you are engaged. In you are engaged you have begun that journey. If you have begun that journey, you are a student. I think it’s as simple as that.

Mission: Impossible

In the movie Mission: Impossible 2, Tom Cruise answers Anthony Hopkin’s character, “This is going to be difficult.” Without missing a beat Anthony Hopkin answers, “Well this isn’t ‘Mission: Difficult’, this is ‘Mission: Impossible’; ‘Difficult’ should be a walk in the park for you Mr. Hunt.”

I love that line. And we as the movie viewer fully believe Ethan Hunt can pull it off! We have enormous faith in Tom cruise… so why don’t we have that kind of hope and faith in God?

“[God] …our Saviour… who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:4 (NIV)

If this is what God wants and hopes for, could we not say this is also the will of God? I have been told that I have misinterpreted 1 Timothy 2:4; that it means that God hopes, desires, and wishes for all to come to Him and be saved, but that in actual fact, not all will. Why not? Is this “Mission: Difficult” or “Mission: Impossible”?

"I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2 (NIV)

Job clearly states that God’s will and plans cannot be altered. Whose will is greater, man’s or God’s?

“This interpretation makes the will of man more mighty than the will of God. God wills (or wishes) all men to be saved, but His is not able to get His will (or wish) fulfilled. Man wills not to be saved, and he is perfectly able to have his will fulfilled! That deifies man, and dethrones God. Man is able to get his will done, but God is not.” Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace

Pope John Paul II focused on this very verse when addressing this same issue and problem,

"In Christ, God revealed to the world that He desires “everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). This phrase from the First Letter to Timothy is of fundamental importance for understanding and preaching the Last Things. If God desires this – if, for this reason, God has given His Son, who in turn is at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit – can man be damned, can he be rejected by God? … But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? … The Holy Scriptures include the concept of the purifying fire. The Eastern Church adopted it because it was biblical, while not receiving the Catholic doctrine on purgatory…. The “living flame of love”, of which Saint John [of the Cross] speaks, is above all a purifying fire". Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pg. 185-186

A Living Flame of Love

Most Protestants readily agree that, even though saved, they are still in sin. The fact of the matter is even more obvious: we still commit sin. We may be more aware of it, and we may put significantly more effort into trying to avoid sin, but we are still sinners. Catholics share this same belief. If they didn’t there would not exist the Sacrament of Confession.

Most Christians also believe that this process of becoming Christ-like is never accomplished – at least in this lifetime. We strive and hope to become more and more holy and pure. I would be very suspicious of anyone living who claimed to be sinless, Holy, pure, and perfectly Christ-like. It simply isn’t going to be accomplished in this world!

Most Christians also believe that God is absolutely Pure, absolutely Holy, and absolutely Perfect – so much so in fact that His very nature cannot abide the presence of Sin – or maybe, inversely, Sin cannot survive the presence of His Perfection.

But these beliefs create a problem. Somehow from the moment we are “saved” (whenever and however that works) to the moment we stand in God’s presence (whenever and however that happens) we absolutely must go through some sort of transformation or purification. And since we’ll readily agree that this transformation or purification “process” may only begin in this life – in this world – but is never completed here, then it must be completed after death. There is no way around this issue. If not, then Sin will be allowed to enter Heaven: We will carry all of our sin and problems with us.

Catholicism has the Doctrine of Purgatory, which is a bone of contention to most Protestants. Yes, in the past the Church used the Doctrine of Purgatory to make the abuses of Indulgences, and possibly still does today, but I’m not interested in the history of Purgatory or the abuses of Indulgences.

What I am talking about here really isn't Catholicism's Purgatory, but may be better referred to s the small “p” purgatory. The fact of the matter is, somewhere, somehow, after death this purification process must be made complete. For the moment I’m not interested in whether the process lasts for decades (like Catholicism’s Purgatory might suggest) or if it’s a near-instantaneous process of being ‘cleansed’ by fire, but only that this purification, or purgation, has to exist. In Mark 9:49, Jesus says “Everyone will be salted with fire” gives us some sort of suggestion of this.

Catholics cite 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as scriptural “evidence” of Purgatory. Protestantism has done away with the books of the Apocrypha and so have written off the authenticity of the 2 Maccabees reference. The Apocrypha are completely another topic that I don’t wish to explore at this time, so we’ll look at 1 Peter 3:19-20.

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” 1 Peter 3:19-20, (KJV)

Most Protestants do not interpret these verses as evidence of purgatory but meaning only that it was the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jesus, who completed and motivated Noah to preach to the pre-flood people (Antediluvians). The reference to “those in prison” is meant to mean those that are now in prison (awaiting judgment). That is definitely one interpretation. I cannot really argue with that. But it is 1 Corinthians 15:29 that really catches my attention.

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)

Taken as a historic fact, being baptized for the dead was indeed practiced in New Testament times, and apparently supported by the Apostles also. This cannot be ignored. If no postmortem state of purgation existed, then the dead are either saved and in heaven, or already condemned and in Hell and beyond hope.

What I’m going to propose is this: That there exists no Hell in the traditional sense of the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. That Hell is simply a state of non-existence (utter separation from God), or annihilation. For those who are not saved and ‘condemned’ to hell, there is no suffering but they are simply extinguished.

But to those who are not condemned to hell we are still faced with this problem of being impure before God. What I am proposing and exploring is that all (Believers and Non-believers alike) will be subjected to this Fire. This Living Flame of Love is not hell (although this process could potentially be hellish ). This Fire would best be compared to that of the Blacksmith’s – it is for the purpose of refinement and purification.

“Remove the dross from the silver, and out comes material for the silversmith” Proverbs 25:4 (NIV)

I think this is a very good analogy. This Fire burns off the dross and leaves only the pure and refined silver. I believe this is part of the process I am speaking of.

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine – the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth". Isaiah 25:6-9 (NIV)

This theme, however, seems to follow the idea of Universal Reconciliation, in that everybody would seem to be saved. However, verses like Ezekiel 22:18-22, Jeremiah 6: 29-30, Proverbs 27:21 and Zech. 13:9 (to name only a few) seem to very strongly suggest that not all will survive this process; not all will be saved – or that some are nothing more than only dross, and after the dross is ‘burnt’ away, there is nothing left. Again, we are revisiting the idea that “hell” (or a permanent separation from God) does not involve Eternal Conscious Torment, but annihilation. But this concept of hell makes it not so much of a place but more of a state of being (or in this case, non-being).

"…[Pope John Paul II] explained, heaven and hell and purgatory are not abstractions or physical places, at least in our experience of place. They are relationships, or lack of relationships, with the Holy Trinity". John J. Dietzen, Catholic Q & A, pg. 469

Pope John Paul II makes good sense when he relates these “states” in terms of one’s relationship to God. They are states of being rather than actual physical places or locals. For if heaven or hell (or even purgatory for that matter) were actual physical places then we would be subscribing to a pantheistic belief system, which I firmly do not belief Christianity or the bible supports.

God is described numerous times in the bible as being “up”, or “in heaven”, or “above”, or various terms suggesting anywhere but here. God is described as being, not natural (pantheistic), but Supernatural. But He is also described as being here amongst us. Paul describes Him as the medium in which we exist (Acts 17:28). What we have here is not a naturalistic or materialistic God (pantheistic), but a panentheistic God. He is both supernatural and pantheistic. All of the universe, all of reality, all of Creation and existence resides within Him, but yet God is still “more” and beyond.

But it is here that we run into a problem with the Traditionalist’s Hell and the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Christianity is definitely a panentheistic belief-system. As such, we can readily accept heaven as a “place” or state of being “within” God. But hell becomes much more difficult to accept. Either hell - within a panentheistic belief - is a permanent separation from God in a state of non-existence (annihilation) - since all that exists must exist “within” God. Or hell must be deliberately designed, ruled, and maintained by God for the explicit purpose of torture for no other reason than to inflict pain and punishment, but teach nothing. This hell truly has no hope.

There can be no argument that this possibility is within God’s power, right, and authority. However, is it within God’s nature? 1 John 4:16 says that “God is love”. It does not say that God is loving. It says that God is love itself, and love and hope are intricacy connected. 1 John 4:18, reads:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

And again, Psalm 103:13:

"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

Please don't miss my point here. Some Christians see "fearing God" as a judge or master and tremble in fear of punishment. However with the verses I've quoted this doesn't fit at all, especially 1 John 4:18.

There are two types of fear, servile fear and filial fear. I believe the only justified fear (for a Christian) is filial fear. Servile fear is the fear of a slave and has NOTHING to do with the type of fear that is the origin of wisdom. Filial fear (of the father-son kind) "drives out all fear" (1 John 4:18), it drives out servile fear - it drives out the fear of a slave - the fear of punishment, the fear of "holy terror".

I would say that filial fear really isn't fear at all. It is interesting because if these types of Christians are scared to death of what God thinks of you or what he may do to you to punish, then, as 1 John 4:18 says, "...because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

It kinda makes me wonder about these people. Sounds to me like they're more slaves than children. In short, the Traditionalist’s Hell and the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment fall clearly within the realms of a servile fear of God and what He, as a Slave Master, can or will do to you.

But for the Christian’s panentheistic belief-system, if we can understand and allow heaven and hell to be “states” of being rather than actual places, then we need to take a hard look at the concept of purgatory... or maybe the state of purgation.

… [Pope John Paul II] challenges us to take a fresh and thoughtful look at what we say we believe. When we hear key words of our faith, we often pay more attention to familiar and popular images than to the doctrines themselves. “Heaven”, “purgatory”, and “hell” are all strongly evocative words for Christians. A little reflection should warn us to be cautious, however, about the pictures and ideas these words inspire.

What Pope John Paul II has done is make explicit what has been implicit all the time. Does anyone really believe, for example, that heaven and hell are places in our ordinary sense of that term? Are they somewhere out in material creation on an unknown planet? In a galaxy on the other side of a distant black hole?

The same must be said of purgatory. It is not a “place”, he explained, but a “condition” of purification for the saved whereby Christ “frees them from their imperfections”. As the catechism says, purgatory is a process of purgation, of cleansing.

… we need to walk carefully here. When it says heaven is a “place”, it puts the word in quotation marks, indicating that, in this context, it does not have its usual meaning. Similarly, in the words of the catechism, the condition of self-exclusion from communion with God is what be call “hell”.

As for the graphic biblical descriptions of heaven and hell, John Paul II repeats the best long-standing Scripture scholarship when he says the symbolic and metaphorical language we find in the New Testament attempts to put into human words the reality of eternal “joyful communion with God”, or “the complete frustration and emptiness of a life without God”.

Far from downplaying the terrors of damnation, he contends that “the situation in which one finds himself after freely and definitively withdrawing from God, the source of life and joy”, can only be approached figuratively with images like “inextinguishable fire” and “the burning oven”. John J. Dietzen, Catholic Q & A, pg. 488-489

1 A parallel to this saying appears in an inscription from a mosque at Fatehpur Sikri, India: “Jesus said, ‘This world is a bridge. Pass over it, but do not build your dwelling there.’”

Abbaian

2007-11-19T17:25:00.001-08:00

The Ambivalence, Assumption, Manipulation, & Truth of John 14:6

Jesus Answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 NIV

This is probably one of the most direct statements Jesus made and also one of the most misunderstood and abused statements ever quoted from the Lord. Many people and many Christians make many assumptions and add their own interpretations and “spin” to this verse. A popular - and I believe incorrect understanding – of this verse is the belief that claiming Jesus as one’s Lord and the Christ is the Way to “come to the Father”, or achieve salvation, and no other way will do. You must acknowledge Him by name. However, if this belief is true and accurate then the following verse most definitely needs to be explained:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from ME, you who practice lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

Jesus clearly states that calling Him and acknowledging Him as Lord, and calling on His name and doing various activities in His name will not necessarily do. But what He does clearly state is that “he who does the will of My Father” will enter heaven. Once again, it is not about Jesus Himself, but about the Father. So what does He mean in John 14:6?

Jews have the 7 Noahide Laws which apply to non-Jews and allow a non-Jew to be righteous and enter Heaven (or achieve salvation). Muslims recognize and acknowledge what they call Sabians, or “people of the book”, which include Christians and Jews, and as such must be treated with preference to all other non-Muslims. However, Christians are an extreme bunch. There is no quarter given to either Jew or Muslim. To the Christian, it is a “my way or the highway”. For a belief whose core is supposed to hinge on tolerance, love, and forgiveness, it sounds awful intolerant and vengeful, and I believe this has been based on the abuse of John 14:6.

Many Christians interpret John 14:6 as a “my way or the highway” kind of statement. “Like it or lump it”. But this belief is still reading more into the verse than is actually there. Jesus continues in the next verse saying,

If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7 (NIV)

The implication is massive! In my opinion He is unequivocally saying that He is the Father. God the Father incarnate in flesh. If we revisit John 14:6 with this in mind it paints an entirely new and different picture. It would be like me saying, “No one speaks to me unless they speak to me!” It seems almost redundant. No one may get to the Father without Him, because He isthe Father. If one does not realize that fact the statement is not redundant but critically important.

Another important point with the statement of this verse is again what is actually being said and what many believe is being said. C.S. Lewis makes this point very nicely.

We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis

So we cannot honestly say we know if He saves those who do not know him. We are brought back to this question. What is the way of a truly catholic or universal Christianity? How do we discover and follow - not the God of a single people - but the God of all people? How do we know and follow the Most High God? As Jesus Christ is an absolute reflection of the Father?

But here is the important distinction: If we are to follow the will and the way of the Father, should we specifically and exclusively, by definition, be aligning ourselves with Jesus by calling ourselves Christians? Ultimately the answer is yes. But history shows us that this technicality has lost us and led us astray. I’ll make a statement that will have more shock value than anything else will. It is really more of a technicality, but with an important distinction. I don’t want necessarily to follow Jesus Christ. I want to follow the will of the Father.

Christ’s house did not have drywall divisions or partitions in it, yet here we exist with near countless denominations of Christianity. I hear people – no, not people, Christians – use the expression Christians, with a capital “C”, and christians with a small “c”. Generally these “Christians” are implying that they themselves – of course – are capital “C” Christian and that whatever they choose to define a small “c” christians as, is someone less, lower, or of some kind of derogatory status – generally not of their denomination, their exact beliefs, their peer group, their friends, their family, their nationality, their religion, their own race…their, their, their Be absolutely clear on this issue. This is the act and sin of Pride. You need to ask the question, How do you define “neighbour”, as in “love your neighbour as yourself”? Do these “Capital-C-Christians” truly believe they can pick and choose which definition of “neighbour” they prefer or fits their agenda best? In the name of Jesus Christ, they are breaking His second most important commandment. There is no gray area. There is no neutral. There is no impartial. There is no indifference. It is black and white. Either you are a part of this, or apart from this. It reminds me of the disciples arguing who is the greatest among themselves - which one was the greatest (Mark 9:33-35). Why they were so much better then the other. Why you’re only a small “c” christian. The message, the Word, the point of Christianity has been lost.

To be Christian does not mean being a member of the Jesus-fan-club (which many act out and do believe) but an adherent and follower of Jesus’ teachings and Jesus’ “way”. To be a member of the Jesus-fan-club is no different than being a drug addict or an alcoholic. Your substance of abuse is “Jesus-juice”. This is not to say there cannot be feelings of reverence and respect (and indeed, even worship) allowed, but it is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to follow “the way” and the way is that of the Father. That is why I made use of the word “Abbaian”. Now, let’s make this point clear: this is not an attempt to create a new religion, or even worse, yet another Christian denomination. “Abbaian” is to make a point. We are to be followers of the Father. I feel comfortable in saying that I believe even Jesus would make this distinction.

But what is “the way” of the “Abbaian”? We can accept that both Melchizedek and Jesus were priests, not of the Jewish Yahweh, but of the “Most High God” and therefore the God of all people. Mosaic Law was only for one people – the Israelites. Mosaic Law was not exclusively the Law of God, but was inundated by Man (Moses) for all too human reasons, and reflecting their incomplete and incorrect perception of the “Most High God”. The way of the “Abbaian” would most definitely be antinomian. Many Christian denominations, most especially Roman Catholicism and High Anglicanism, would appear to be a merger of what Jesus actually taught and of the near defunct Mosaic Law, rituals, traditions, and customs. Although Christ did say He had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, the Law is also referred to as the Ministry of Death (2 Corinthians 3:17), meaning it's purpose was to convince people of their condemnation. I would go so far as to suggest that many of the writings of the New Testament outside of the Gospels themselves also suffer from this merger of religions. Paul uses many of the Mosaic Laws in his writings and letters, which I don’t believe is necessarily correct, because ultimately this is not “Christianity” but some hybrid of Judeo-Christian “Laws”, which permeate the faith to this very day. We should question in detail exactly what Jesus meant by his analogy of the wineskins.

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins Mark 2:22

The most striking part of this verse is “…and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined”. In this analogy we must ask and define what or who is the wine and what are the wineskins? If Jesus is the wine and the “church” or the religion is the wineskin, then the implications are disastrous. What have we done? We, as modern Christians, have put new wine into old wineskins. This is not the way of the Father.
If “the way” is to follow the path of the Father then we need to explore possible paths or faiths that follow the Father, perhaps unknowningly so.

For example, the Jews pray to and acknowledge God the Father (although not by that name or title, but by the name Yahweh). Although they do not acknowledge Jesus, if Jesus is the Father then salvation is still through Christ, but unknowingly so. Muslims also pray to and acknowledge God, but again, not by that title, but by the name Allah. On a superficial level the only difference between Jews, Muslims, and Christians – in regards to salvation – is the realization and acceptance of being spiritually bankrupt. We cannot earn our salvation. That is Christ's fulfillment of the Law's Ministry of Death. Where we can say that Jews and Muslims obey laws and attempt to be good enough to earn their way into heaven (a minimum-passing grade of 50% rather than a perfect score of 100%, which is unattainable) this may also be said of many Christians. This may sound like a shocking statement but it is the truth. A Christian’s realization of their personal spiritual bankruptcy is part of one’s journey. Now, I am not talking about understanding the theory or theology or saying or reciting the words. I’m talking about actually encountering it in oneself and realizing it. Many Christians have not gotten there and some may never get there in their lifetimes. And I am not trying to be pretentious and suggest that I have gotten there.

Is the realization of one’s own spiritual bankruptcy a prerequisite for salvation? No it isn’t because then we are returning to earning or achieving it ourselves. So if this is true to the Christian who has not acknowledged their own bankruptcy and who legitimately tries to carry out the will of the Father and be good, then why can’t this also be true to the Jew or the Muslim? Neither the Christian, the Jew, nor the Muslim will 100% successfully carry out the will of the Father. Not any of these faiths will claim to. The Jew and the Muslim will only accept a degree of spiritual bankruptcy - maybe “corruption” or “infection” are better words for them because there cannot be degrees of bankruptcy – because they try and hope to be good enough. So too do many Christians. Is this the correct path? No. But is it the path to damnation and destruction? No, not necessarily. Is it needlessly knocking your head against the wall? Most definitely. Is the way of Jesus and God the Father the “easiest” path? Definitely, but is it the only path?

Can this "philosophy" be taken to an extreme and applied to the New Age movement of cults and paganism in all its various forms? I don't' think so. show me a pagan religion that acknowledges the Father (and not their own contrived form or definition of the Father) and actively attempts to follow His will. I do not believe you'll find one. This begins to sound a lot like Unitarianism.

Unitarianism may seem to be synonymous with this concept of the Abbaian on the surface, but after the slightest analysis they are not one in the same. The Abbaian is not a Unitarian. A Unitarian believes (and accepts) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (amongst others). Ultimately it is about political correctness. “They’re all right!” the Unitarian says. Where as the Abbaian is the belief that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all legitimate attempts to discover and seek out God, but are all incorrect, or mistaken, or “off the path”.

Unitarians say all are right. Abbaians say all are wrong.

Ultimately it is all about paths to “the Way”. Often you’ll hear Christians say that if we are “right” with God (Jesus’ first greatest commandment) then we will naturally become “right” with our fellow-creatures or neighbours. (Jesus’ second greatest commandment). It stands to reason that this is also true in reverse. If we are not perfectly “right” with our fellow-creatures or neighbours, then we are also not perfectly “right” with God. I feel confident to say that most, if not all Christians would say that the Jews and Muslims are not perfectly “right” with God. But neither are Christians perfectly “right” with God. If we were we would also be perfectly “right” with our fellow-creatures and neighbours, which we are not, just like the Jews and Muslims.

But we all have one thing in common. We are all trying to follow the Fathers’ will. We are all attempting to follow the right path. Ultimately the “Way of the Father”, in my beliefs as a Rogue Christian an Abbaian, the Kingdom of God includes Jews and Muslims.

I do not miss the fact that even the Qur’an states

[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him”M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s translation of the Qur’an, 29:46, bold added.

* * *

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:15-23, KJV

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them [false prophets]. Jesus gives direct instruction as to how to identify “false prophets”. Ultimately it is not by their words or teachings but by their actions and the results (fruits) of their actions. This forces us to carefully examine certain issues:

Islam has produced the Islamic extremist terrorists (who do not even follow the Quran 2:178 and 2:190. These verses clearly states that God does not love those who overstep the limits and that grievous suffering awaits those who do). So can we therefore say that Islam has produced “evil fruit” and condemn it to the realms of false prophets? There is some truth to this but it is somewhat of a blanket statement. The Islamic extremist terrorists are really not true Muslims, but nevertheless are still “evil fruit” of Islam. If we are to adhere to Jesus’ definition of “false prophets” and apply it to Islam, then by these same definitions we must begin looking at other religions.

Christianity has produced the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the overall eradication of the Central and South American Indians and the warfare and “conversion” of the North American Indians. The sexual abuse and pedophilia of the modern day Roman Catholic Church. The embezzlement and lying of certain Christian televangelists. There is no shortage of “evil fruit” in Christianity. And before we use the excuse that these were acts of individuals and not reflective of Christianity as a whole we need to revisit our thoughts and opinions of the previously mentioned Islam Extremists. I believe Christianity has produced “evil fruit” . I also believe that Jesus had no intention of beginning a new religion. If asked the question, Was Jesus Christ Christian, the answer would be, no.

Atheism (as a belief-system) has produced the Nietzsche-like belief or philosophy of the Nazi-party whose fruition was a World War and The Holocaust. I would very much like to meet an individual who would seriously state that this was not “evil fruit” .

Judaism becomes an interesting religion when viewed from this point of view. As mentioned in The Flawed Priesthood , it is not incorrect to say that Jesus was Jewish, neither is it completely true. Jesus was a Jewish heretic. Jesus systematically “disassembled” the Jewish priesthood and threatened its very foundation. It is obvious that Judaism was “off course” and in need or correction.

The genocide that the Israelites committed under the leadership of Moses (primarily in the book of Numbers) is most definitely questionable. The “commissioning” and building of idols (Nehushtan), the practice of animal sacrifice, the very existence of an elitist priesthood, and the aforementioned genocide should be highly suspicious and questioned as the product of “evil fruit” .

By Jesus’ own teachings and definition of “false prophets” Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Atheism have all produced “evil fruit” . For that matter, most if not all religion has.

I believe this supports the hypothesis of the Abbaian: Unlike the Unitarian belief that all are correct, the Abbaian believes all religion is in error.

If all have produced “evil fruit” then what exactly is Jesus teaching? If none of these are correct or the truth, then what is the truth? The only conclusion I can come to is that Religion itself is “evil fruit” and as such Jesus’ teaching was not to create another religion, but to end all religion.

“If the cross is the sign of anything, it’s the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world’s problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of the fact that religion can’t do a thing about the world’s problems – that it never did work and it never will…” Robert Farrar Capon, “The Mystery of Christ…and Why We Don’t Get It”, pg. 62

A Mouse in God's House

2007-11-19T17:24:00.004-08:00

In a war torn land a generous landowner built an orphanage; a house for the children he would adopt. But like the spoiled children of luxury they were, they all wanted their own rooms, so they got lumber and drywall and built walls, partitions, divisions, and rooms.

Now, many of these adopted children believed that since the landowner built this house, then he was also all right with their internal renovations. But they were mistaken.

A mouse lives in the orphanage too and runs from room to room, scampers down the hallways and lives between the walls. Most of the orphans are aware of the mouse and they complain about how the mouse would eat their food. They complained about the tiny mouse droppings they would find.

Some of the orphans believe the mouse is harmless and of little consequence and tolerate its existence and allow it to live its life.

Other orphans believe it is an infestation and must be either exterminated or purged from the house.

And still others aren’t even aware of its existence at all.

None of the orphans are correct. There is not a mouse in the orphanage. There are mice! And these mice are also the landowner’s adopted children.

It is not until the orphans realize this that the true purpose of the orphanage can become apparent.

I must regretfully admit that I am not the first to use the house analogy for Christendom. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity had also used the house analogy, but to a slight different tangent:

It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. for that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?’

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are you enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

It is quite interesting. He is using the angle that once an individual becomes a Christian, they enter into the house but stand in the entrance foyer, where all other doors open from; or possibly float down several hallways visiting a few different rooms. It is an extremely good analogy, but I am not talking about new Christians, and he is making the assumption that the rooms in this house are rightfully there, or accepting the simple fact of the matter - right or wrong - they are there.

It is critically important to note that these various rooms within this house are there. Denominations exist. Whether we agree with it or not, whether they should or shouldn’t be, these divisions exist. I believe that C.S. Lewis’ angle in this quote is simply facing this “inevitable” fact and attempting to deal with it. However, the “A Mouse in God’s House” theory (can I really call it that?) is not accepting this fact as inevitable. Accepting this fact is practical but also following the path of least resistance. It would be the same as having a 13, 14, or 15-year old daughter, at an age when sex is becoming an issue. And deciding that a new house rule will be allow them to engage in sexual activity, but only within your house with you in the house (but in the privacy of their own room of course) and with proper protection (which you will provide, because you are a good and responsible parent). Your logic is that they are going to have sex one way or another, so you’ll give up on and accept (as “inevitable”) the lesser or two evils. I’m sorry to say this, but this is a cop out. You are not doing your job as even a mediocre parent, let alone a good and responsible one. In this difficult and awkward example there is no easy solution. The path(s) of least resistance are far too easy. Your job is not to be the friendly, buddy-buddy of you child. Your role is to be the authority figure and “lay down the law”, so to speak. However, this approach will more than likely drive your daughter out of the house and accomplish exactly what you wanted to avoid. It isn’t simple.

There are individual members of congregations (and I suppose an entire congregation is also an extreme possibility) which will go out of their way to “purge” or “exterminate” these mice. They will generally be conservative and justify their acts (of exclusion – or inclusion only through assimilation) as “keeping the faith” or maintaining the status quo. “If its not broken down fix it” is their motto.

It is a difficult situation because in moderation, they are completely correct. If we can jump analogies from the house to the human body (the Body of Christ) for a moment - in the human body there are white blood cells. They are, basically, our immune system. If a foreign particle, virus, or object enters our body (a particle they recognize as foreign) the white blood cell will arbitrarily and indifferently attack and destroy the foreign invader. It is what they do and rightfully so. They protect the body’s health, they maintain the “status quo”. Without white blood cells – or with “friendly” or very “inclusive” white blood cells – the body would become extremely sick and die.

I believe these self-appointed conservative “guardians of the faith” absolutely must be present. Without them, the Body of Christ would become extremely sick and die from external influences. However, in some disorders and diseases the human body produces too many white blood cells or white blood cells incapable of identifying foreign invaders. They eventually begin attacking the body. These disorders and diseases most often terminate in death. So, if these self-appointed “guardians of the faith” run amok they will overrun and kill the Body of Christ. If they are done away with altogether, then all sorts of foreign influences and invaders will inundate Christendom and kill it. So what is the answer? I’m not claiming to have a cut and dry answer to this problem. I don’t. It is my hope to identify this problem. I am not a pretentious man and I know all too well there are many people much better skilled and equipped to deal with finding this solution.

I believe the answer is tied in with the Mouse in God’s House. Now, bare in mind, I am not speaking necessarily of New Christians or Non-practicing Christians, or your typical Church-going Christians. I am speaking of another kind: the Rogue Christian - the mouse in God’s house.

We must understand that all analogies break down. The analogy of the white blood cell breaks down at the level of the human body is a near perfectly designed mechanism – or at least we, as Christians believe that. Although Christ may have initiated the “church”, the current state of it is by our own design

The Borg from Star Trek makes a fantastic analogy of what Christianity should not be. However, I believe for the most part Christianity has actually become very much like The Borg. You are completely welcome and invited to “Come to Jesus”, to be “born again”, and to “find God”, but it must be in the church’s way, in their tradition, by their standards. The expression “come as your are or don’t come at all” most definitely does not apply. You are welcome to “come as you are” but you must also be prepared to change, and I do not mean by the Holy Spirit. This is not acceptance, tolerance, and love. This is assimilation! Star Trek’s, The Borg have their “welcome” speech that leaves little to be guessed at. “You will be assimilated. Your uniqueness will be added to our Collective. You will service The Borg. Resistance is futile”. You will have to learn to speak “Christianese”. If you don’t care for “church-songs” or traditional hymns, then you will learn to like them – or if we’re very tolerant we might let you get away with only liking Christian music. If you don’t speak like we speak, we’ll teach you. If you don’t pray like we pray, or worship like we worship, we’ll show the right way. God has granted us all unique gifts and we will find and identify your gift to use to serve the church. You will service the church… Resistance is futile…

Judaism

2007-11-19T17:24:00.003-08:00

As mentioned earlier in The Flawed Priesthood it would most definitely be wrong to say that Jesus was not Jewish. However, I still stand by my statement that it is much more accurate to say that Jesus was a Jewish heretic. But neither confirming that Jesus was a Jew or a Jewish heretic successfully addresses the issue of Judaism today. Where do the Jewish people stand in “Christendom” today? Are they “in” or “out”? Most modern Christians would say that the Jews before Jesus’ time were actually saved because of Christ’s vicarious atonement. The presence of Moses in the Transfiguration on a mountainside very strongly suggests that Moses was saved by Christ’s vicarious atonement, and if that is the case then when Jesus paid for the sins of humanity that payment extended backwards through time as well.

I think Catholicism best describes these people as anonymous Christians. An anonymous Christian being a person who lacks knowledge of Christ and his teachings and doesn’t consciously, deliberately, and willingly reject Christ, so they’re not responsible for knowing the whole truth. It also includes non-Christians who live good, moral lives as if already Christians and through no fault of their own don’t know about Jesus Christ or they’ve never been shown by word or good example1. These kinds of people are considered to possess an implicit desire to be “in Christ”.

But the vicarious atonement extending back through time assumes that the event of the Transfiguration actually occurred in Jesus’ time frame. Another very real possibility is that Moses’ encounter with God in Exodus 24:15-18 and Elijah’s encounter with God in 1 Kings 19:8 were one and the same incident as Jesus’ Transfiguration. These three events could have occurred “outside” of time and simultaneously.

If we look at the woman from Rev. 12:1 who is clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars upon her head, I have to admit this whole image is extremely symbolic and cannot be taken literally. However, if the moon beneath her feet is representative of Jewish tradition and the Mosaic system of rites and ceremonies, then this woman supercedes them. Although the crown of 12 stars could represent the 12 apostles (and thus the Church of Christ) it could also represent the original 12 tribes of Judaism. Could this woman be the personification of the entire Jewish or Israelite people and nation who gives birth to the Messiah? Is this is all true then what does that mean for Jews today?

If we view the whole of Israel as a corporate entity then we have a very different perspective. I believe chapter 16 of the book of Ezekiel uses this exact personification. To paraphrase this chapter, the story goes like this:

God is walking and discovers a newborn baby girl, abandoned by her parents to die, struggling and kicking in her own blood of her afterbirth (Ezekiel 16:3-6). God picks up the baby girl, cleans her, wraps her in warm clothes and takes her as His daughter. He raises her, nurtures her, and adorns her with fine clothes, gifts, and jewels.

When the girl becomes a woman, God takes her as His wife (Ezekiel 16:8). It is at this point when the problems begin. The wife becomes unfaithful to God and whores herself out to others. God feels betrayed and abandoned by her prostitution (Ezekiel 16: 15, 20, 25-26, 28-29, 31-32). He then ends this personification with a promise to keep His covenant with her (Ezekiel 16:60-61) and, most interestingly and importantly, promises, “Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done.” (Ezekiel 16:63). Note, God doesn’t say, When you make atonement for all you have done. He says, when I make atonement for all you have done. This is a prelude to Ephesians 5:25-36. (“…and gave himself [Jesus] up for her [the church] to make her holy, cleansing her by washing with water through the word.”).

Thus ends Ezekiel’s personification, or corporate entity of Mother Israel. But this analogy may still continue.

Israel’s culture climaxes at Solomon’s construction of the Temple, which may be viewed as yet again their corporate entity of Mother Israel. In both the Tabernacle and the Temple it is said that God Himself “lived” or dwelled within. They were literally the house of God. Both structures had the Holy of Holies, which were reserved of the elite priesthood. It was within the Holy of Holies in which the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and it was the Ark of the Covenant that was where God was to actually dwell.

If the Temple has become the personification of Mother Israel and the Holy of Holies is her womb – in which God dwelt. This corporate entity, this Mother Israel, will give birth to God – to the Messiah, and like birth, the placenta and afterbirth becomes of no use and is discarded – the Temple and the old covenant.

This puts God in the position of Father to an adopted daughter (personified Israel), Husband to Israel, Son (Messiah) to Mother Israel, and He Himself, child of Mother Israel.

With Ephesians 5:23 & 25-30 we have the Son of God (Jesus) being the husband to the church, yet another female personification. The Child has become the husband yet again.

The concept of the “Body of Christ” is not an original idea of Jesus (or Paul). In fact it is borrowed from Ezekiel and at least 600 years older.

This makes for a very good analogy as to what exactly God is to us, humanity. He plays the rolls of adopted father, teacher, betrayed husband, child, son, and again, husband.

1 This is an important note because it puts the emphasis on Christians to show non-Christians the truth and good examples of it. It is not enough to simple “tell people the gospel”. You must show it.

The Flawed Priesthood

2007-11-19T17:24:00.001-08:00

“First, you must learn that the entire law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator, I mean, not by god alone; some commandments are Moses’, and some were given by men. The words of the savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to god himself and his legislating, the second to Moses – not in the sense that god legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas – and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the savior.
“In some discussion with those who disputed with the savior about divorce, which was permitted in the law, he said, “Because of your hardheartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for god made this marriage, and what the lord joined together man must not separate.” [Matthew 19:8, 6] In this way he shows that there is a law of god which prohibits the divorce of a wife from her husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hardheartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of god…therefore it is indisputable that here the law of Moses is different from the law of god, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.
“The savior also makes plain the fact that some traditions of the elders are interwoven with the law. “For god said”, he states, ‘“Honor you father and you mother, that it may be well with you.’ But you have declared,” he says, addressing the elders, “that what help you might have received from me is a gift to god; and you have nullified the law of god through the tradition of your elders.” “[Matthew 15:4-9]
The Gnostic Bible, Letter to Flora, pg. 302-303. This except is from Ptolemy, a disciple Valentinos, who apparently succeeded him after 160 AD. This letter was written sometime during the 3rd century.

This letter clearly states (as does Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:8) that Moses’ law (Mosaic Law), at least to some degree, was corrupted and contrary to God’s will. Could it actually be possible, as discussed in the previous chapter, that Moses was truly a nationalist? If he was willing to contradict God’s will and law (because of man’s hardheartedness) what is to say he didn’t go further? Is there any evidence of this? Could Moses (like so many rogue nations and terrorists today) have used God as his excuse and reason for invasion and genocide? (See throughout the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy.)

This does not necessarily make Moses guilty, but it does however throw a shadow of doubt upon him. Couple this with Moses’ condemnation of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1) and then his commissioning of the Bronze Snake (Numbers 21:8-9) makes him out to seem like a hypocrite. Does or does not the 2nd Commandment say, “Do not make idols of any kind, whether in the shape of birds or animals or fish” (Exodus 20:4). It is the bronze snake idol, Nehushta, [The Bronze Snake, Nehushtan, remained an idol to the Israelites up until King Hezekiah of Judah had it destroyed along with other religions’ altars and idols, nearly 800 years later. (See 2 Kings 18:4)], that is the damning evidence against Moses. If Moses had commissioned it then we could say that he was human, that he made a mistake. After all, isn’t that why we were given the Ten Commandments? Because we are prone to make mistakes? But Moses says that it was God who told him to do it. And what about his brother Aaron? What about the very origin of the Leviticus and Aaronic priesthood?

The verses from Isaiah 1:11-17 are an incredibly harsh statements which seem to completely undermine Moses’ teachings. It is important to note that this vision of the prophet Isaiah occurred during the reign of - amongst others – King Hezekiah, who broke Moses’ bronze snake Nehushtan.

“He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.”
2 Kings 18:4b (NIV)

This clearly states that the Israelites burnt incense to it (in worship) and that wasn’t its purpose or intent. It also states this was always done. This very strongly suggests that this was not a tradition that became corrupt, but was corrupt from its inception. However, even if we entertain the idea that Moses originally make the bronze snake for some other legitimate purpose and it became corrupt in time, we need to look at the second commandment:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
Exodus 20:4 (NIV)

The question hangs on the definition of “idol”. This verse does not mean that we cannot even make a statue of an animal or other creature. It states that we cannot make an idol of an animal or creature. I believe Moses’ bronze snake, Nehushtan was indeed an idol. The fact that he put it on a pole is disturbingly suggestive of the Asherah poles which were repeatedly torn down and destroyed in the Old Testament.

If we jump ahead of Moses’ time to that of Jesus Christ’s we know that worship and the Temple and the Pharisees was corrupt. But what was Jesus’ view on this?

”According to John Jesus went to Jerusalem five times and did so on feasts that attracted pilgrim: three Passovers (John 2:13, 23; 6:4, 11:25, 12:1), once for the feast of Tabernacles (7:2), and once for an un-named feast (5:1). This would seem to show great zeal for the Temple, but in reality it does not represent even a minimum. Every man – and to this day that means every male Jew from the completion of this thirteenth year – was bound to undertake the pilgrimage to Jerusalem three time a year: at Passover, at the feast of Weeks, and at the feast of Tabernacles (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16; “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God…They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed”) Jesus does not seem to have kept to this commandments: at all events his doing so is not mentioned in the Gospels…It is nowhere said that Jesus took part in these rites, and never that he took part in a Temple service of worship …Nor do we know what his attitude to the Passover was. Biblical experts argue over whether his last supper was a Passover meal or a simple farewell meal. The latter would seem to be probable.”
Herbert Haag, Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?, pg. 50-51.

It seems highly questionable whether Jesus actually practiced Jewish law and Jewish worship. Although most people will freely tell you that, yes, Jesus was Jewish, I’m not too sure that is as correct as it could be. It would most definitely be wrong to say that Jesus was not Jewish, but I think it would be much more accurate to say that Jesus was a Jewish heretic.

”Jesus’ threats of the imminent destruction of the Temple…When Jesus announces that he will rebuild the Temple in three days, this can only mean the absolute end of the Jerusalem Temple and of any earthly temple at all, and indeed not just of the Temple as a building but of it as it functioned in the way Jesus had experienced it … “not made with hands” (Mark 14:58): it was of another order of being.”
Herbert Haag, Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?, pg. 52.

This clearly shows that Jesus was against the Temple as a physical location and place of worship. God is to no longer “live on a building” but within the hearts of man.

”…driving the traders out of the Temple…the expulsion of those selling animals and the action against the money-changers. That can only have been directed against the Temple practice of sacrifice …If Jesus drives out those buying and selling animals and overturns the tables of the money-changers – all of which was necessary for the conduct of sacrifices – then he makes the whole traditional ritual of sacrifice impossible, he proclaims it to be over and done with …One should indeed bear in mind “that the Temple ritual was genuinely for Israel a heavenly gift through which God wished to save his people from the consequences of their sins and trespasses …When Jesus started driving the traders and buyers out of the Temple and when he overturned the tables of the money-changers and of the pigeon-sellers, than he was offending against the only thing that could secure the continued existence of the people of God.”
Herbert Haag, Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?, pg. 52.

This summons up Jesus’ views on animal sacrifice. He was against it. Old Testament scripture backs up this view as well:

"The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”
Isaiah 1:11-17

So what part of Jewish law did He follow? These two facts seem to suggest that the whole idea of animal or blood sacrifices were wrong. God never wanted animal sacrifices. Isaiah’s message (prophesy) was to the Israelites who were not following God’s way. Yet previous Mosaic Law demands animal sacrifices. Once again we find these two seemingly different Gods: that of the Old Testament and that of the New. Was the concept of animal sacrifice a product of a old and corrupt (Mosaic) system?
There is evidence that the first Temple of Jerusalem was pagan and very likely polytheistic!

”When King Solomon built a Temple for Yahweh in Jerusalem, the city that his father, David, had captured from the Jebusites, it was similar to the temples of the Canaanite gods… Inside the Temple was a huge bronze basin, representing Yam, the primeval sea of Canaaite myth, and two forty-foot freestanding pillars, indicating the fertility cult of Asherah… The Temple soon became special, however, even though…there were some remarkably unorthodox activities there too. The Israelites began to see the Temple as a replica of Yahweh’s heavenly court. They had their own New Year Festival in the autumn, beginning with the scapegoat ceremony on the Day of Atonement, followed five days later by the harvest festival of the Feast of Tabernacles, which celebrated the beginning of the agricultural year. It has been suggested that some of the psalms celebrated the enthronement of Yahweh in his Temple on the Feast of Tabernacles, which, like the enthronement of Marduk, re-enacted his primal subjugation of chaos.”
Karen Armstrong, A History of God, pg. 25

Add to this the facts that Solomon’s many wives were themselves active pagans and that Solomon was tolerant and friendly with pagans and their worship, would seem to very strongly suggest Temple worship (and other activities such as animal sacrifices) had veered off on a tangent.

It is obvious that Jesus did not agree with their practices, be they worship, the Temple, sacrifice, or definitely the priesthood (most especially the Pharisees). It needed to be corrected; it needed to be changed! And this point is clearly stated in Mark 2:22,

”And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins".

Is Jesus telling us that the time of God (the old wine) “living in the Temple” (the old wineskins) is over and now a “new” God (Himself) will live in the hearts of men (the new wineskin)? Or is He meaning something else? He is clearly saying that the old way (of the Temple, the priesthood, worship, and sacrifice) cannot continue.

When we collect these points I believe we can safely state that something was most definitely wrong with worship, the priesthood, and man’s (Israel’s) relationship with God. The question is, how far back does it go? When did this corruption begin? Judaism in Jesus’ time had strayed off course. Jewish worship, its priesthood, the idea and apparent need for sacrifice, and the central and predominant place of the Temple had become corrupt. All these rituals, laws, and traditions originate with Moses and the establishment of the Leviticus and Aaronic priesthood.

Did the origin of the Leviticus and Aaronic priesthood and Moses begin correctly and “on track” and according to God’s will and plan, and at some later point become “de-railed” and corrupt? Or was it wrong and mistaken from it’s conception? This is the pivotal point! When we look back at Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora and Jesus’ discussion about divorce in Matthew 19:8, it becomes likely that this error and corruption was present from it’s conception.

The Order of Melchizedek

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does.”
John 8: 39-41 (NIV)

Jesus says that if they were Abraham’s children, then they would do the things Abraham did. What did Abraham do? He did a lot of things. What is Jesus talking about?! Jesus then says, As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. If we answer the question, What did Abraham do, by reversing the second statement (making the negative into a positive) we find that what Abraham did was “Not be determined to kill me (Jesus?)”, or possibly “Show me (Jesus?) respect”, and “Listen to the truth he heard from God”. So from the Book of Genesis, when did Abraham meet and pay respect to Jesus and when did Abraham listen to the truth from God? Although Abraham never did meet or pay respect to Jesus he did meet and pay respect to the King of Jerusalem.

“After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem [Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator (or Possessor) of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand. Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”
Genesis 14:17-19 (NIV)

So what Abraham did, to answer the question, was to pay honor and respect to Melchizedek. I believe this is what Jesus was talking about in John 8:39-41, especially when he says ‘”I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”’ (John 8:58). But why was that so important and can this reasonably be transferred to Jesus? I also believe it most definitely can be because of the following verses:

”You [Jesus Christ] are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”
Psalm 110: 4b (NIV)

”This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace”. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.”
Hebrews 7:1-3 (NIV)

Melchizedek is an extremely interesting biblical figure. He is probably the most enigmatic character in the Bible! Who was he? Who was he priest of?

The most interesting point I find with Melchizedek is that he significantly predates the Leviticus and Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek was king (of Salem) and High Priest of the “God Most High”, but what did that mean? Moses, Aaron, the Aaronic priesthood, the Levi’s, Israel, none of them would exist for nearly another three and a half centuries! What was he High Priest of? What did it mean to be a priest? Who did he lead in worship? What did it mean to worship without any known Laws? From what little we know, (between the brief encounter and worship between Abraham and Melchizedek) there was no sacrifice performed or needed. Jesus Christ is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”, yet Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi (and therefore could not be a Jewish priest). Combined with the apparent corruption of Moses and the origins of the Aaronic priesthood and Jesus’ disapproval of the Temple, worship, the priesthood, and sacrifice, His “office”, or ordination as “a priest forever” seems to have superseded the existing priesthood. So if the Aaronic priesthood had it wrong and was corrupted – or was at least incomplete - then the “order of Melchizedek” must have had it right, correct, and fulfilled.

There is, again, a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus. Melchizedek makes the first reference to God as “God Most High”, rather than the standard “God Almighty”, “Lord Almighty”, or the “Lord God”. Jesus also repeats this habit. God is called or referred to as King or Lord throughout the Old Testament but Jesus repeatedly calls God the Father, or His Father. Here we have Melchizedek and Jesus both calling God a title not commonly used.

”The concept of God as father is central to the life and teaching of Jesus as presented in the gospels … However, “father” is much less common in the Hebrew Bible than other descriptions and title of God, whereas Jesus employs “Father” almost without exception….Conversely, although “king” is a frequent title for God in the Judaism of the time – and despite the fact that the kingdom of God is another constant theme of Jesus’ teaching – only once does Jesus refer to God as king (Matt. 5:35), and even this instance is questionable. There can be little doubt, then, that the notion of God as father is an authentic element of Jesus’ thought.”
J. R. Porter, The New Illustrated Companion to the Bible, 2003, pg. 276

Another odd fact with Melchizedek is that he gave Abraham bread and wine (thus, according to some Christian scholars, prefiguring the Eucharist) and in return received a tithe of Abraham’s booty (which he was not obligated to give). This in itself isn’t so peculiar, but it’s only in conjunction with Leviticus 10:8-9 that it truly takes on its odd nature. Leviticus 10:8-9 says that you must never drink wine (or alcohol) before going into the Tabernacle. If you do you will die. Now Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek was before God’s covenant with Moses (and even predates Mosaic Law). So why would this “law” be given in the book of Leviticus? It could be taken to appear that Moses’ “God” did not want people to drink or partake of the wine. This is consistent with Genesis 3:22

”And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

The Lord God did not want man (Adam) to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life. If the fruit of the Tree of Life is Jesus Christ, and if the sharing of the bread and wine between Melchizedek and Abraham was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist and if the Lord God gave Moses the law not to drink wine before the Tabernacle…what does this all mean?

Could Melchizedek, High Priest of the “God Most High”, and also Jesus, “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”, be not only of another order, but also of another god? The true god? The True Father? What significance does this title “God Most High” hold?

“Abram gave a tenth to this priest-king [Melchizedek], not the other way around… This was Abram’s response to Melchizedek’s offer of bread and wine and the blessing which Melchizedek had offered – a blessing which normally comes from the greater person to the lesser. Strangely enough, as the author of Hebrews points out (Hebrews 7:10), in this sense Levi paid tithes and recognized a priesthood which would supersede his own line even before he was born, because “Levi was still in the body of his ancestor” when Abram offered the tithes to Melchizedek.”
from Hard Sayings of the Bible, © 1996, by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, published by InterVarcity Press.

“Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God; and consequently not of one people or nation, but of the universe. Aaron was priest of one people…Jesus is priest of all mankind.”
“Christ, being the priest of the Most High God, must also be the priest for and over all whom this most high God made and governs… the whole human race.”
from Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Biblesoft

Could Jesus be stating that the world couldn’t see or recognize the Father? This would suggest that the Father, or Jesus’ Father, is a previously unknown or incorrectly understood God.

”If you really know me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
John 14:7 (NIV)

”Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.”
John 14: 9-10 (NIV)

”And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.”
John 14: 16-17 (NIV)

If Melchizedek and Jesus are priests of the Most High God and the Most High God is god of all people, and if Aaron (and the Levitical priesthood) are priests of only one people (the Israelites), then God was “working” outside the Israelites as well – outside of, or beside, the Old Testament. Melchizedek was a Canaaite and Gentile, and most definitely not an Israelite.

“…out of the grossly pagan world of the Canaaites emerges not only one who shares beliefs and worship in the same God as the Semitic Abram but one who pronounces the blessings on the patriarch who God had already blessed… This situation is very similar to that of Jethro in Exodus 18. He too was a priest who worshipped the same God Moses did, yet he too was a Gentile Medianite (Exodus 2:16, 3:1 and 18:12). Evidently God was also calling out a people for his own name from among the Gentiles even though the text rarely pauses in its pursuit of the promise-plan of God through the Hebrew people to reflect on this phenomenon.”
from Hard Sayings of the Bible, © 1996, by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, published by InterVarcity Press.

The Jew’s God, Yahweh, is most definitely a part of Judaism, as shown in the first umbrella. Yahweh is under the influence or “authority” of Judaism. However, Judaism must be a part of the “Most High God”, since the “Most High God” is the God of all people. It is Melchizedek and Jesus which are priests not of the Jewish Yahweh, but of the “Most High God”. If the “Most High God” is the God of all people, then by definition, all of Christianity, Judaism, the Gentiles, and all people are His people. The question must be asked, what is His Way and how far off are we?

They wrote and spoke of the truth, they attempted to portray the truth (through their own biases), but the only absolute truth lies in the mysterious Order of Melchizedek (which we know so little) and in the teachings and example of Jesus Christ (not necessarily in their interpretations!) He is an absolute reflection of the Father.

What we find is an evolutionary family tree of Christianity

What is this next stage?
How do we find out what this is?
This is what I want to be a part of; a truly catholic Christianity,
a truly universal Christianity.

Most High God

2007-11-19T17:22:00.003-08:00

Abraham is the father of three major world religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Could these “children” be related? Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God. Who is the Most High God? Could this Most High God be the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What happens when a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim all pray to God? Do they all pray to the same God, and does He hear all their prayers? God undoubtedly does hear all their prayers. However, that does not necessarily mean they all pray to the same God.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus only met the messianic criterion of Priest by being of the order of Melchizedek and thus a priest of the same Most High God – not a priest of one people, the Israelites, but a priest of all people. I believe many Christians fail miserably in recognizing this point, believing they have a monopoly on God.

But how does that put Jews - God’s chosen people - in His eyes? Has He abandoned them like yesterday’s garbage for something newer and more exciting, like a new and flashy sports car? I believe the Jews and Hebrews and Israelites of the Old Testament should have a very symbolic attachment to the Virgin Mary. Israel gave birth to the Messiah. That was “God’s chosen people’s” roll. They were to usher Him into the world.

Most Christians will tell you that the “Jews” (Hebrews or Israelites of the Old Testament) were saved by Jesus’ atoning death in a kind of temporal retribution that extended backwards through time… but this does not count for the Jews today. After all, the Jews today have the choice to accept Christ (and salvation) or to reject Him. Is not our job to be Christ’s ambassadors? Is not our job to “sell” this? Maybe it isn’t the Jews we should be worried about. Maybe we should be more worried about the security of our “jobs” as “salesmen”. Are we like stereotypical bad used car salesmen? Are we using very poor sales techniques? Are we guilt of using the “my way or the highway” line? Are we looking to completely assimilate others rather than accept them? Are we using fear tactics? You’ll burn in hell unless you believe and do things my way? C.S. Lewis made an incredibly good point in Mere Christianity when he stated:

We know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

We may very well be off the mark. In Luke 2:29-32 it clearly states that this Saviour is not exclusively for Israel only, but for all people – again tying into the idea of Jesus being a priest of the order of Melchizedek – a priest for all people.

Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for the glory to your people Israel.

But this passage from Luke also states that He is to be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” which is showing them the correct way and not necessarily representing them. However in John 10:11-18 (specifically 16) Jesus states something interesting:

”I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will leave the sheep because they aren't his and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he is merely hired and has no real concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and there will be one flock with one shepherd. The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again. No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."

This most definitely states that Jesus’ purpose is beyond that of only the Jews (and beyond that of what will become only the Christians). He is not just the Son of God, but the Son of the Most High God. Like Melchizedek, He is a priest (representative and mediator) of the “Most High God” – the God of all humanity. (Hebrews 7:1-28)

However the story of Jesus and the Faith of the Cananite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) would seem to suggest quite the opposite. In verse 24 Jesus quite specifically states that “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Which would seem to contradict this. How can we make sense of these statements? I find that in the analogy of the vine (John 15:1-2) can we make some sense:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. “

“…while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” The use of the word “every” is more than suggesting a plurality. Is Jesus saying that there could be more than one branch? Most definitely, but is He saying that these are individual people or possibly various “ways” or beliefs? Is He identifying multiple faiths and religions? Again, this is not clear. However, if we take this vine analogy and view it in the context of a family tree we find some interesting results.

When we view the “family tree” of Israel, Jesus’ statement from Matthew 15:24 (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”) takes on new meaning. The “lost sheep” of Israel becomes Jews (and eventually Christians) as both are from the “branch” of Israel. However, with this train of thought Muslims are not of the “branch” of Israel, but of Ishmael. But are not both children of Abraham? Could this be the “other sheep not of this sheepfold” (John 10:16)? It must also be noted that Muhammad’s revelation, the Qur’an, and Islam were more than 600 years into the future. The same may be said of Christianity. At the time of this saying Christianity did not yet exist. And as discussed in The Evolution of the Logos Jesus may not have known what the future would hold.

Ultimately it becomes an issue of whether the importance lies with a “religion” or faith being of “Israel” or of Abraham. There would seem to be evidence to support the value of being a monotheistic Abrahamic “faith”. Jesus cannot meet the criteria of the Messiah being Priest within the Jewish faith. Jesus was not of the Tribe of Levi and could not be a Leviticus (Aaronic) priest. He however met this messianic criterion by being a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), yet Melchizedek only encountered, dealt with, and blessed Abraham, not Jacob (Israel).
I believe Jesus, being a priest of the order of Melchizedek and representing man to the Most High God includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. That does not necessarily mean I believe these three religions are all okay and all correct. I believe all have suffered serious corruption by the hand of man over the centuries. Islam believes in the Torah and the Gospel but also states that they are not the absolute Word of God but have been corrupted by man. This I would agree with. Islam believes that the Qur’an was given to Muhammad to clarify what was true and what was man’s corruption – that only the Qur’an is absolutely the Word of God. This I would not agree with. The very fact that Muhammad incorporated parts of the Torah and Jewish history into his writings as he became aware of them strongly suggests he was attempting to create a religion.

Is this enough evidence to disown Islam, throw out the Qur’an, and completely write off Muslims? Let’s be very careful here. In 1 John 5:7 (NLT)

”So we have these three witnesses in heaven – the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,
and these three are one. “

It is the only scriptural reference that most specifically states the Triune nature of God, yet this is not found in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century. It is recognized as being inserted by the Church and all recent versions of the Bible (RSV, NRSV, NAS, NEB, NLT, NIV, etc.) have footnoted this or expunged it. So why was it there? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:

This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.

If we are to disapprove of the Qur’an, Islam, and Muslims, then by this same standard of judgement we must also disapprove of the Bible. Biblio-odoltry (a literal and exclusive interpretation of God within the Bible only) is a blatant form of idolatry to me.

But once again, let’s be very careful here. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. These points are not to say everything is corrupt. This is not to say we can trust nothing. It is to say that we must be intelligent, open-minded, and tolerant. We (Christians) must seek and search out the truth wherever it lies. We do not have all the answers. We do not know all of the truth. We do not own God.

He [Celsus, a pagan philosopher] found it appalling that the Christians should claim a special revelation of their own: God was available to all human beings, yet the Christians huddled together in a sordid little group, asserting: “God has even deserted the whole world and the motions of the heavens and disregarded the vast earth to give attention to us alone.”
Karen Armstrong, The History of God

I cannot help but agree with this pagan philosopher. Many Christians even today erroneously believe that God is exclusively ours.

A Pauline Synthesis

2007-11-19T17:22:00.001-08:00

The Trinity

2007-11-19T17:21:00.004-08:00

I believe in one God, eternally existent in two persons, Father and Holy Spirit. It is the Jesus-aspect that I have a difficult time with.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father incarnate in flesh and bone, and in such a state, eternal.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in His physical ascension to heaven and assimilation, or return, to the Father. However I cannot say with certainty whether I believe in Christ Jesus as being truly eternal. It is a difficult issue. To me it is a paradox. I know the Father is eternal: having no beginning and no end. He is omnipotent (infinite power), omniscient (infinite knowledge), and omnipresent (He is everywhere). I believe He became incarnate in flesh and bone in Jesus, and in that state was a temporal being (bound by the laws of physics and time). Yet He was both perfect Man and perfect God. In essence He “stepped into the time-stream”, exiting his state of infiniteness. But on the same note, even if you remove a small piece of an infinitely large being, you are not left with fractions. You are still left with infinite sums.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
John 1:1-2 (NIV)

These verses would seem to answer my dilemma. But I can’t help but think that the author of the book of John was attempting to make an addition to the book of Genesis. As far as being a Gospel - and I’ll define “gospel” as being a testament to the life and teaching of Christ – this opening chapter is not something the author of the book of John could have witnessed. This is a statement of belief. Yet the very nature of an eternal being is not bound by the constraints of time. If it ever existed then it always existed. I could potentially “chase my tail” in circles until I’ve spun myself silly! I suppose it is nothing more than an academic issue. It isn’t really relevant in practical faith and day to day living.

There has to be another belief or doctrine than the Trinity. It is my belief that the Trinity is a man-made explanation to attempt to explain, or define, the nature of God. It is a useful tool to help a finite mind grasp an infinite entity and concept, but is, at its core, flawed. If fact, there is some evidence of a very human, ulterior and political motives present.

"…a great ecclesiastical council held in Nicea in Asia Minor (325 CE), at which the Church settled on the nonscriptural formula that Jesus was “of one substance with the Father” – that is, they shared the same essential being."
J. R. Porter, The New Illustrated Companion to the Bible, 2001, pg. 328

"Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons – Father, son, and Holy Spirit – who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariable refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person."
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99

Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. 318 of the 1800 Bishops who were invited actually attended. We do not know what the final actual vote was, but even if it was unanimous, 318 of 1800 only constitute 17 2/3 %, hardly a majority! It must also be noted that this was not a subjective issue, but an objective one. Even if all 1800 Bishops (even if every single solitary human being on this planet) voted in favour, wouldn’t make a difference. Now add to this that there was a potential political threat from Bishop Arius, and the possibility of the Arian movement attaining too much power and control, effectively wrestling it from the Church’s authority, and we have an all too human political motive. The end result was that after making the “of one substance with the Father” orthodox Church doctrine, Bishop Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled; the Arian crisis was resolved, and the “orthodox” Church remained just the way they wanted it to remain – theirs.

It is difficult to explain these ideas and beliefs without using the words and terms of the Trinity, so, if you’ll allow me, I’ll continue with this terminology:

God the Father became incarnate in flesh as God the Son. He chose to exit His “natural” state of eternalness and enter our universe of four dimensions: to enter the time-stream He would do this by submitting Himself to the governing rules of this universe by becoming fully human, completely under the ruling power of death. He would be Jesus Christ. (God the Son) And it would be through the controlling power of death that the Father would accomplish the impossible. He would be resurrected from the dead by His own will and power and forever break the control of this world’s ruler. [Hebrews 2:14-15] He would free mankind forever of sin by carrying the burden completely upon Himself. He would pay this final price. He would reveal His true nature and identity to us [John 14:7] and adopt us into His family. Where we would become extinguished in death, we would now live forever through the power of the Father – through the Tree of Life (the Father) and the Fruit of the Tree of Life (the Son). [John 14:6]

The Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God I see more as the active hand of God within our world and our lives. It is that aspect of Him that exists within each of us. I believe, since the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, that the entire of mankind (and the universe for that matter) was inundated by His essence. We all carry Him within us – He has chosen to live within us. Whether we successfully identify, acknowledge, and accept this is completely another matter. For those who do not acknowledge and accept this gift, it becomes dormant within us, a potential seed waiting a watering. For those who discover it and embrace it, allow the Father in live with us, work through us and become, quite literally, our Father.

I have never found a distinction between these three aspects of the Trinity. It is only during the actual 33 year life span of Jesus that I can make (the only) distinction between the Father and the Son. Were they two entities during this time? No, I don’t belief so. If we can view the Father as an all-powerful and infinite entity and He chose to exit this state of timelessness and enter our time-stream, so to speak, then we must consider how. If you take a piece off an infinite object you are not left with a fraction of infinity. It is a mathematical impossibility. The piece that you took of the infinite object is also not a smaller fraction of that original infinite piece. However, since He also chose to be perfect man as well as perfect God, He also had to choose to limit Himself to some degree. Jesus was not all knowing (see Matthew 24:36) because of this self-imposed limitation, otherwise He could not be human. This is clearly stated in Philippians 2:5-8:

“God in Christ voluntarily and consciously limiting the independent exercise of his divine attributes.”

The issue comes down to whose will are we following? Jesus tells us we are to follow the will of the Father, yet often, it is not the Father that we are trying to appease. But are we to follow the Father or the Triune God? The understanding and defining attribrutes must lie in the understanding or interpretations of the Trinity.

God Outside Time

2007-11-19T17:21:00.003-08:00

The Egg

One analogy of the Trinity I was given was that of an egg. The egg has three components: the shell, the white, and the yoke, all of which on their own can still be called an egg.

This analogy however does not address what the whole or unified egg is. What, or who, is the Triune God?

The Gnostics believed this whole, or Godhead, was the Pleroma (“fullness”) or the source of ALL: the Unknown Father, the Alien God. This perfectly describes the invisible God who dwells in inaccessible light and eternal glory. Yet, it is this same inaccessible, infinite, invisible God who presents Himself to us face to face in the incarnation of Jesus Christ – very accessible, very finite, very visible, and very human.

Needless to say I subscribe to the author of the book of John’s view of Jesus – God the Father incarnate in flesh. It is the understanding or definition of the Father that applies and is important.
The egg illustration succeeds on one level yet fails miserably on another. If this is the Trinity then it is hidden in a mysterious inaccessible realm beyond our understanding. It is completely without relationship to humanity or Creation, which poses serious problems. The Holy Spirit has nothing to interact (have relations) with and the Son can play the roll of mediator (or priest) to the Father with nothing and nobody. Ultimately this analogy of the Trinity functions only in the sense of God’s inter-relationships – His relationship with Himself – which is of very little or no use to us. It is an aspect, which we can never know, never discover, and will never reveal itself.
This illustration does succeed in the fact that it makes the presence of the Triune God obvious and very important. If we entertain the idea of the Trinity as being only three distinct persons who share this “God-hood” then we are ultimately polytheistic. If we are to truly claim to be monotheistic then we absolutely must acknowledge a single God – the Triune God, which the Egg illustration very successfully points out – the whole and unified egg. It doesn’t however label or identify what it is.

It is the understanding of the Triune God’s extra-relationships – His relationship with Creation (and humanity) – that is the only relevant and most important aspect and understanding of the nature of the Trinity. To understand the Triune God’s relationship with Creation really is all about His actions and the functions of the persons of the Trinity. It is about interactions.
I feel the following three diagrams best show these interactions, revealing a more accurate view of the Trinity and a critical hidden part of it.

The Flashlight

In this illustration of the flashlight, it could be said that the Batteries represent God the Father, the Lightbulb represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Light itself as God the Holy Spirit. The Seeing Eye is humanity, Creation, or us.

If we remove the Seeing Eye from the diagram the whole function of the flashlight becomes redundant. The light is not revealing anything nor viewed by anyone. It serves no purpose. If we were to remove Creation from the Trinity it too becomes redundant. Most especially with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are about relationships.

The Bicycle Wheel

In the Bicycle Wheel illustration it could be said that the Crank Shaft is God the Father, the Chain is the Holy Spirit, and the Gear is God the Son. Ultimately all these mechanisms are the drive, or propel the Wheel, which, once again is Creation, or humanity.
This mechanism works quite well. God the Father is the guiding force. The crank shaft is the “engine” or power source of the bicycle. The power generated by the crank shaft is channeled along and through the chain – the Holy Spirit – to the gear, God the Son. The gear (God the Son) plays mediator to mankind and guides it and propels it, the wheel.

If we remove the wheel from this machine what we have left is incomplete at best and pathetically silly and without purpose at worst – a machine that serves no function, a bicycle that goes nowhere. The wheel is not only important, it is critical.

Celestial Bodies

The Sun represents God the Father. The Moon represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) the Sunlight is the Holy Spirit (and interestingly enough, the Reflected Sunlight is the perfect reflection or representation of the Father). The planet Earth yet again represents Creation or humanity.
Once again, if we remove the planet earth from this illustration all would seem to be for naught. There is again no function and redundancy.

All three illustrations include Creation as a critical part of understanding the Trinity and it’s extra-relationality. However, this does in no way describe in detail Creation’s roll.

When dealing with Creation we inevitably come across some very difficult and legitimate questions. Why did God cause Creation if there is absolutely nothing that can be added to God’s perfection? What was His motive? How could an omnipotent and good God created a flawed world? Who was the Creator? These questions can become more and more complex and complicated, and near impossible to answer. They are however all based on one simple assumption:

Creation was a deliberate act.

After hearing a statement like that the first response will be to assume that is was an accident. Then if Creation was an accident we reintroduce the question of God’s omnipotence (an omnipotent being can’t or at least shouldn’t) be making accidents. After all, how could an all-powerful being make a mistake or accidentally cause Creation? But this question too is based on an assumption. The assumption that if something was not a deliberate act then it must have been an accidental act. But incidences or events do not have to be either a deliberate act or an accident. Creation could be a byproduct of the nature of God – it could have been inevitable.

We must begin to look at the nature of God. The nature of God is goodness. What is goodness in its simplest form? Goodness by its nature gives itself, communicates itself. One cannot be good and utterly isolated or in an eternal or perpetual “social” vacuum. Since goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself, it must have a recipient to give itself to and to communicate with.

Creation – although absolutely not God’s purpose – is a byproduct of the state of Godhood. Creation is a byproduct of God’s goodness. Creation and its creatures add nothing to God nor is God dependant on Creation or its creatures in any way or form, but Creation (even as a byproduct) is completely dependant on its Creator. It is something that simply and naturally pours out of God. This answers the question “Why does God create?” It also addresses many of the more difficult questions: Why did God cause Creation? What was His motive? He didn’t choose to cause Creation and He had no motive. “Why did God create a flawed world (or allow it to fall)” becomes a little trickier to answer, but still easy. Once again, God did not, as an act, cause Creation. Why a fallen world? To not have introduced Free Will would again contradict God’s nature. Goodness gives itself and communicates itself. To have recipients without Free Will is to have robots or automatons, which ultimately make communication, and giving impossible. Free Will was a necessity of Creation: a byproduct of a byproduct.

It is an aspect of God, which brings us back to the actual nature of God. There are 5 elements to the nature of God:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Creation (as a byproduct) in which to give Himself to and communicate with, &
The unified or whole God (The Triune God), which the three persons of the Trinity compose.

But what or who is the Triune God? Who is God the Father? It is clear who the Son is and what roll He plays. It is also clear who the Holy Spirit is and what roll the Spirit plays. It is not however clear what roll the Father plays. Even in the naming of the theologies it isn’t clear. Christology is the study of the divine nature of Christ. Pnumatology is the study of the nature and actions of the Holy Spirit. Why is there not a “study of the Father”; Father-ology, if you will?
Could the Father be the Triune God, this unified and Whole God?

As the diagram to the left shows, could the Father actually be the basis, or foundation, of the Triune God, or the Trinity?

If forced to answer the question, “Trinitarian or Unitarian?” I’d have to say both. A serious flaw and hypocrisy of most Christians is their claim to be monotheistic yet their practice of never acknowledging or addressing the unified Triune God.

I really cannot blame Jews and Muslims for accusing Christians of being pagan and polytheistic. Most Christians openly and freely acknowledge the three persons of the Trinity in worship but never the singular Triune Deity. But when faced with the accusation of being polytheistic they are the first to state that they do believe in one God, which has three persons. When pushed to define the Trinity many resort to some lame excuse of “the mystery of the Trinity” with a follow-up of not being able to know the true nature of God. A statement which dangerously toes the line of being agnostic, because one aspect of agnosticism is the belief that God is unknowable (or incomprehensible) to the human mind. So what does this make Christians who make this claim? Are they Christian Agnostics?

Is this “mystery of the Trinity” claim really another less direct way of saying “I don’t know”? I believe in the Concept of the Trinity, but not the Doctrine of the Trinity. At the end of the day I think the Doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made construct.

The Gestalt God

We need to look at the concepts of the “Unity God” or the Triune God, or possibly – a better description – a Gestalt God. The concept of a Gestalt God has some presumptions, which should be looked at first. The word gestalt means an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. Simply put, a gestalt says that 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (not 3).

To apply this to the state or nature of God presumes that God is like a cut gem or a diamond - having facets. These facets are the only direct aspects of God that we as humans can perceive or be aware of – not the diamond itself. These facets, when combined, would form the whole, or Unity God, or Triune God, whose nature and being is utterly incomprehensible and alien.
It is interesting to note that what we today define the word “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word for holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.

It is only the echoes of this deity’s actions that we can perceive. If the natural universe, or all Creation, were a pond and God places His foot into the waters we could not possibly see or even comprehend His foot but only the ripples of water that emanate from it.

If God is represented by this blue triangle then He is One God and only One God and the only One God. (The triangle shape is not to signify the Trinity but a spear or arrow like device, which we’ll see later). He is independent and non-reliant upon anything: He requires nothing else and is completely whole, perfect, and self-sufficient. In this state there is neither Triune God nor Trinity.
Certain aspects of God are dependent on the Created Universe, while the Created Universe is dependent on One aspect of God. The Created Universe is dependent on God the Father, while God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are dependent on the Created Universe.

Before you grab your torches and begin sharpening your pitchforks, please read on. Creation is a byproduct of God’s Goodness (as discussed earlier). If we can agree that God’s nature is goodness, then goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself. Creation becomes a byproduct of God’s Goodness because the very nature of goodness cannot exist in an isolated vacuum. It must give itself and communicate itself to someone or something! Thus the Created Universe comes into being. The only two arguments I’ve heard against this idea do not hold water when thought through.

In the following diagram we represent the entire Created Universe as a red circle, God (still the blue triangle) is still external, alien, and independent: He does not need Creation. It is important to note in this representation that the red circle is the entire Created universe of 4 dimensions. This circle would have height, depth, length, and time. Time, history, and anything temporal would only exist within the circle’s boundaries. Anything outside the circle’s boundaries – most specifically God – would be eternal and timeless.

The first argument states that since the Created Universe is a temporal thing (it has a beginning and it will also have an end) and God’s nature is eternal, there are vast amounts of time before Creation and after our universe’s end. During these times God would not have this byproduct of His Goodness. The flaw in this argument however is in its very question. Time only exists within our Created Universe. Our Created Universe is 4-dimensional (if not more!) and God is outside of it. There is no time before or after our universe! Our universe is Time. If this weren’t true – if time did exist before and after Creation – then God Himself would be subjected to time and a chronological chain of events as well as aging. From God’s point(s) of view, the Created Universe –as a self-contained 4-dimensional universe – would always exist.
The second argument agrees that God’s nature is Goodness and Goodness must give and communicate itself to another. However, this argument does not agree that Creation must be that other. Before Creation God existed in a Triune state – three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself. There is no need or place for Creation.

This idea of the Trinity is flawed and even polytheistic. It does not recognize the Triune God as a whole but only as three persons. Trinitarian Christians here must exercise great care.
Lee Strobel’s interview with William Lane Craig, Ph.D., Th.D., in his book The Case For A Creator, talk about the necessity of a single Creator and Ockham’s razor principle.

At that point, another objection popped into my mind. “Why does it have
to
be one Creator?” I asked. “Why couldn’t multiple Creators have been
involved?”
“My opinion,” Craig answered, “is that Ockham’s razor would shave
away any
additional creators.”
“What’s Ockham’s razor?”
“It’s a
scientific
principle that says we should not multiply causes beyond what’s
necessary to
explain the effect. Since one Creator is sufficient to explain
the effect, you
would be unwarranted in going beyond the evidence to posit
plurality.”1

Basically Lee Strobel is asking if it is possible that there were more than one Creator – a pantheon of deities. Dr. Craig answers that it is not impossible, but highly unlikely because of the proper scientific methodology of the Ockham razor principle. He then goes on the give a simple explanation of what this principle is. He ends by stating that it is “unwarranted” to create a “plurality” of deities. One is the simplest answer, so One it should be.

Most monotheists would absolutely agree with this and may even use Ockham’s razor in an argument. But let’s go back to the original argument: God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself, as the three persons of the Trinity. There is no need or place for Creation.

If we apply Ockham’s razor to this comment we find a redundancy. Why have more than one, when only one is necessary? God’s Goodness needs only to give and communicate to one receiver, not two. That one receiver is Creation. These other two aspects of the Trinity (the Son and the Holy Spirit) only come into play when God interacts with Creation. In fact, they are part of God’s Goodness. The Son and the Holy Spirit are the Giving and the Communicating actions themselves. They are God’s presence within and among His Creation. They are in fact, personifications of the Jew’s Shekinah (see below). They are “begotten” beings only because they exist only as God’s Goodness “gives”, “communicates”, and interacts within our Created Universe. They are the ripples that emanate from God’s foot dipping into the pond we call our universe.

However, if God “steps” into our natural universe from His external, supernatural (holy – kaddosh) state, we could only see the “ripples” of His steps in the pond. This is the part of the triangle (now purple) that enters Creation, the only aspect of God we can perceive. This is God’s echo or ripple or emanation. This aspect of God is very much dependent on our Created Universe for it would not - could not - exist without our universe.
This aspect of God (echo, ripple, emanation, etc.) is what the Wisdom or Reason of God is (see Proverbs 8:12). Sophia and the Logos is this facet. One is God’s “ripple” and activity within Creation – God’s Wisdom, Sophia, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, while the other is God’s echo and activity within men’s hearts and souls – God’s Reason, Word, Logos, or Son.

Certain Rabbis spoke about the Spirit of God brooding over creation and they compared it to a rider of a horse. While the rider is on the horse the rider depends on the horse but the rider is never the less superior to it and has control over it. The term Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word shakan that means to pitch one’s tent. The Shekinah was not a conceived, separate divine being, but the presence of God in our world. This was the Jewish rabbinical concept of the Shekinah, which I believe is just as applicable in this representation as any of the Christian nomenclature is.

While we have now identified the purple overlap within the blue triangle of God (call it Sophia, the Logos, Wisdom, God the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the Shekinah). God’s presence within our world, His footsteps if you will. The remaining part of the blue triangle (still blue and still external) is that third aspect of God, the alien (holy), unknowable, incomprehensible, and supernatural aspect – constant and external – the foot that causes the ripple in the pond.
These examples and diagrams are all very symbolic, an attempt to explain something extremely abstract. I however believe certain groups of ancient Jewish Gnostics understood this much better than we give them credit for.

If we use the same diagrams but change the circle of the Created Universe to another red triangle (its point representing man’s reaching out to God) we find some interesting results:

The final symbolic result is a Star of David. The Star of David itself is an ancient figure. Scholars do not know when it became a widespread symbol of Judaism, but as far as is known, it first appeared on a Jewish holy seal in Sidon in c. 600 BC.

This star is also a Gnostic symbol.

The upward pointing triangle is the physical realm (fire) reaching up towards
the spiritual and the downward pointing triangle is the spiritual realm of the
waters of life reaching towards the Earth in order to lift it upwards. The
symbol was first popularized by Kabbalists (Jewish mystics)…2

The very fact that, again, it is linked to an older Jewish group, the Kabbalists, maintains it’s Jewish heritage. Ultimately it can be said to mean that it is all of Creation’s desire to search and seek out God, and God’s love to reach out to mankind. The symbolism is significant. There are three ways to discover God. Revelation (prophecy), Reason or logic (philosophically), and Imagination or Symbolism (mysticism). Reason (logic) and Imagination (symbolism) are man reaching out to God, while Revelation is God reaching out to man.

This strongly suggests that older non-Christian groups acknowledged – to some degree – various facets or aspects of God. They may not actively have identified a Triune nature of God, but they were most definitely aware of this nature. This God reached out to us!

Ultimately I would have to agree with the Jew and Muslim’s concept of an undivided and Unified God more so than the Christian’s three deities of the Trinity. Either we are monotheistic or we are polytheistic. You cannot be both. This really isn’t an issue with one faith being right and the other wrong; this is an issue of perception. Much of the debate and arguments between these faiths come from nomenclature (and the egotistic desire to be right as opposed to finding the truth).

The best illustration I can think of is sunlight. God is sunlight. It touches everything we see. We cannot see anything without sunlight. Everything we see is because of sunlight. However, we cannot see the sunlight itself. We can see its effects. We can feel its warmth. We can see the objects it illuminates. But we cannot see the sunlight. When we see rays of sunlight peeking through a cloud we are only seeing the atmosphere and airborne particles being lit up by the sunlight, but not the sunlight itself. When we see all the various colours of the flowers we are only seeing parts of the sunlight that are being reflected – but not the sunlight. When we stare directly at the sun we are seeing the nuclear fires that cause the sunlight, but not the sunlight. Yet everything we see is because of the sunlight. Nobody debates or denies the existence of sunlight, yet nobody has seen it. What we do see is its effects on our world around us. It is not a localized phenomenon, but permeates every aspect of the world around us. Sunlight does not have an agenda or purpose. It defines everything’s purpose. Sunlight did not have a reason why it is letting us see everything. It did not choose to allow us to see everything. We see everything because of it. Our sight and vision is a byproduct of it.

God is the unseen sunlight. We cannot see or be aware of God, just as we will never scientifically prove God’s existence. We can see and be aware of God’s effects. We can see these reflections of God. These reflections of God are the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God is never the less a very real and living aspect of God. Existence is a byproduct of God’s nature just as vision is a byproduct of the existence of sunlight. And just as shadows are a necessary byproduct of sunlight, so too is evil a byproduct of our existence – Free will. Can it be said that sunlight created shadows? No, not purposely. But is sunlight responsible for shadows? Yes, definitely. Can God be said to have created evil? No, not deliberately. But is God responsible for evil? This successfully addresses the problem with Isaiah 45:7, KJV. Is this god the author of evil? Yes God is the author of evil yet is Himself absolutely not evil.

Creation’s Cascade to Sin

There is a cascade effect from God’s Goodness. A byproduct of God’s Goodness is Creation. A byproduct of Creation is Free Will. A byproduct of Free Will is Evil, or Sin. The byproducts of Evil or Sin, are pain, misery, and suffering. This cascade effect is the out-flowing of God’s Goodness or Love. It permeates everything but can potentially be stopped by Free Will. Sin therefore is not really the absence of God’s will, but the blockage of it.

If we return to the analogy of sunlight we’ll find that the Sun in the diagram is God. The Sunlight is God’s Goodness, which naturally flows from Him. The windows are humanity - or us - and the blinds of the windows represent our Free Will. We have the ability to choose whether the blinds remain open or closed. If we choose to keep our blinds open, then this cascade effect continues into and through us bringing us sunlight (God’s Love). If we choose to keep our blinds closed (which is sin and the blockage of God) then the result is shadows and darkness, which is sin. Now the consequences of shadows or darkness are as follows. When we attempt to walk around our house in the dark we are relatively successful because we know our own homes. However when we stub our toe on the bed’s leg and break it – which is the consequence of walking in the dark - we suffer pain and misery. Now although God can be said to be responsible for all of this cascade effect, He cannot be blamed for it, because it wasn’t a deliberate act. It is all a byproduct of His nature. I feel this properly addresses the problem of God being the author of evil as Isaiah 45:7 states. It is also interesting to look at various translations of this verse. Most translate it as something more akin to “I create darkness”, or “disaster” rather than “I create evil.” The translation of “I create darkness” matches this “Creation’s Cascade to Sin” very well. Darkness or shadows being a byproduct of God’s out-pouring light.

I feel we have established that God is responsible for the existence of evil but He is not to be blamed for it – as a fault - as it wasn’t a deliberate act. However, what is a direct, conscientious, and deliberate act is His intervention to free us from stubbing our toes. He entered our universe and became one of us. He would stub His toe once and for all and show us how to avoid breaking our toes. He would make the point known that we absolutely do not know our own houses as well as we believe we do – we cannot walk around in the dark without getting hurt. Jesus’ redefining of the Commandments is evidence of this. Before Christ most people could say, “at least I never committed adultery!” Jesus’ redefining of adultery to include even lust in your heart would seem to set us all up for a fall. It’s a command we cannot obey and a standard we cannot live up to! His point was not to suggest that we are all useless failures but to say that we need God – we need sunlight to navigate through our houses – regardless if we think we know our homes well enough or not.

Eternity

What is Eternity? Some would answer that Eternity is forever. I would only partially agree with that answer. That answer is only half-correct. Let’s look at the word “forever”. Forever is in a temporal and historical context. The “fore-“ is similar to “forward” signifying direction - from here onward. It is measurable. The same can be said of forever. Starting from this point in time and endlessly onwards. However, “endlessness” is absolutely not the same as eternal. They are not the same. “Endlessness” may not have an end but it can have a beginning. Endlessness and Eternal are not the same. If we enter some sort of state of forever we can say that at this one (measurable) point in time and history we became endless. We can’t measure anything beyond that point because it’s a different state, but we can mark down on our calendars that one point in time. Something that is Eternal cannot be measured, cannot have a measurable point in time or history. To enter a state of Eternalness may only be recorded historically as an exit point. We exited this state and entered another state.

We must be very aware of two very different realms or states of being - the Infinite and the Finite - the Temporal and the Non-temporal. There exist two continuums. Our world exists within a time-stream. We have history. We can record when things happen. We exist within a time-stream, a Temporal Continuum. When we die our souls go dormant and wait for the End Time (again, another historical point in time yet to come). We are judged, and for those who receive eternal life (salvation) pass into Heaven and the presence of God. But this is critically important! We pass into eternal life. We exit this state or temporal world and enter another non-temporal state or world. We exit the time-stream and the implication is significant. We cease to be time-orientated beings. Even though our death, judgement and salvation may all have a chronological, measurable, and recorded sequence, our eternal lives do not. They exist eternally. They exist outside this time-space continuum, and to exist outside of time-stream is to be immeasurable, and timeless. It creates somewhat of a paradox. If an individual receives salvation within (or at the end of) our world, then in this other state of being, they have already and forever have received it. We (our “future” spiritual selves) could potentially co-exist side-by-side with our current very physical, very temporal selves.

Let us look at this from another point of view; from our own living point of view: We live our lives. At some point in our lives we die. In the grave we enter soul-sleep – in which we have no awareness. From our own perspective we would die and then open our eyes to be greeted by Christ and immediately stand before God for judgement. Although hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years may have passed we would have no recollection of it. We receive salvation (hopefully) and enter eternal life, exiting this temporal state. In this newly acquired eternal life we would now have access to all existence, which would include the historical time of our physical and temporal lives.

Therefore if we will receive salvation then we already have. We currently exist in our eternal lives. Granted we may not recognize ourselves or no have access, but we would co-exist. I believe this is exactly what Paul was speaking of when he said

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of
his Son, that he might be the firstborn among his brothers. And those he
predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
justified, he also glorified."
Romans 8:29-30 NIV

So, to say that eternity means forever is only half-correct. Eternity more correctly is not forever, but for always. (It applies both forward and backwards in time).

This theory is interesting because it readily accepts two seemingly contradictory points of view or beliefs.

One school of thought is that upon death judgement is immediate and the saved soul passes immediately to Heaven and the presence of God. The other school of thought is that upon death the soul goes into a soul-sleep and waits for Judgement Day. Both can be correct. From the deceased point of view judgement and salvation would be immediate. Upon entering this new eternal-life state of being their existence would cover their perceived “now”.

It is interesting to note that certain sects of Gnostics believed that it was crucially important to find one’s divine, or heavenly, counter-part. It was only through the discovery (and potential joining) of their heavenly or spiritual “twin” could they become enlightened and receive gnosis (knowledge). The interpreted assumption was that our world mirrored the divine world. But if this idea is applied it takes on a completely new perspective. Only those “chosen” or “saved” have the potential to find or discover their “divine” counter-parts, having already been saved. This could potentially be the fusion of three radically different beliefs. I believe it also offers an alternative to the Arminian-Calvinist theological debate. This is neither one nor the other.

An Eternally Existent Finite Universe:
God’s Glass Marble

Imagine a glass marble. Within its center is a bright light with various rays or beams of light streaking out to its outer edge. This glass ball represents the whole of Creation; our entire created universe. The smooth outer surface of this ball is the end of our universe. The very center of the bright light in its center is the birth or creation of our universe – the Big Bang if you will. The rays or beams of light streaking out are galaxies, stars, and planets travelling through space and forward through time. Time would be represented as the distance from the center, similar to counting rings on a tree stump. The further away from the center, the further into this universe’s finite history you would find yourself – the outer edge being the end of the universe and the end of time. Although the universe is finite (having both a beginning and an end), viewed like a glass ball, this whole could exist eternally. God could carry this glass ball around in His pocket like a young boy carries a marble. It would always exist and would always accompany Him. In this “state” it would be completely static. Time would not flow.

History would be laid out in plain view from the beginning to the end, from Alpha to Omega.
However, the analogy of the boy and his marble must end here because God can do something the boy can never do. God can dip His finger into the glass marble! As He enters, Time ceases to be frozen and static and become a stream - history. God can enter the Time-stream, thus exiting His “state” of eternalness.
Other Implications of a God Outside of Time.

1 Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, pg. 109
2 Bernard Simon, The Essence of the Gnostics, pg. 147

The Evolution of the Logos

2007-11-19T17:21:00.001-08:00

Jesus had gone through 3 “baptisms”. There was the baptism by water, the baptism by the Holy Spirit (fire), and finally the “baptism” of the crucifixion, of blood or death. After the resurrection He then passed into the state of ascension. It is interesting to note that the frequency if not the powers themselves grew in accordance of these “stages”.

Pre-birth

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2

John 1:1-5 and Proverbs 8:22-31 are the only references to any sort of Pre-birth state of Jesus. I would tend to make a distinction between the divine Logos and the Son of God.

Pre-baptism

He had demonstrated some abilities as a youth. His knowledge of scripture (Luke 2:46-47)(It is also interesting to note that the boy Jesus was in the temple courts for 3 days) is a good example. But far from being miraculous.

Post-baptism / Pre-resurrection: The Ministry of Jesus

After John baptizes Jesus, marking the commencement of His 3-year ministry, the frequency and degree of His “powers” seems to drastically increase. Yet Jesus Himself admits that He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

Post-resurrection / Pre-Ascension

After Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection His “powers” and abilities seem to increase even more so. Having the (apparent) ability to mask or hide His identity (Luke 24:15-16) on the road to Emmaus and the ability to simply appear within a locked and enclosed room (John 20:19).

Post-Ascension

We know nothing about the Ascended Jesus, but can only assume this “power” still increases. It is here that the situation becomes interesting and critical. It is at this point that I believe the post-resurrection Jesus, as the Son of God, truly becomes the Logos, reaching His absolute and full divine potential, returning to His pre-birth status.

We should come to see that this really isn’t the evolution of “power” or omnipotence, but just the opposite. The act of entering our created universe of 4 dimensions (stepping into the time-stream ) was a de-evolution of the divine.

Another point of interest is the seemingly recurrent number of 3. From birth to the beginning of His ministry was 30 years, or three decades. Jesus’ ministry itself only lasted three years. From his crucifixion to His resurrection was three days. And, as noted above from Luke 2:46-47, when Jesus was left behind in the Temple Courts it was again for three days. Also, the three final hours of Jesus’ life, darkness fell across the land (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, & Luke 23:44). I cannot help but take notice of the symbolism here. We really don’t need to ask whether this was something manmade or specifically designed by God – a seemingly coincidence. If we allow ourselves to get bogged down by this we truly miss the point. The point being that this symbolism is present. It would be a bit of a step to argue this in defense of the Trinity, but it would also be a large step to outright ignore it too.

Ultimately, in my attempts to understand the Trinity, I would be more inclined to believe that the Logos, more than the Son, is one of the persons of the Trinity. The Son is an aspect of the Logos – a watered down, or un-evolved form of it – or “contained” within the Logos. I could accept the Logos aspect of God as the Creator, but not specifically Jesus. As we have already noted, the pre-resurrection Jesus was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. So how could He have been the Creator? However the post-resurrection or post-ascension Jesus really is more closely resembling the Logos. The Logos aspect or facet of God could very easily – and in all likelihood - be the Creator.

The Nature of the Heavenly Realms

2007-11-19T16:58:00.000-08:00

I think it is good to begin with some common assumptions. Most people assume that Heaven is “where” we go to enjoy “eternal life”, and that eternal life is the manifestation of salvation. That would necessarily make Heaven eternal. However, if we make this assumption then certain passages become difficult to explain, interpret, and understand. Daniel 10:12 is a good example of this. If Heaven is eternal along with God and His angels, then how could an angel be detained for 21 days?

Daniel 10:12 is a strange and difficult passage. First of all we need to identify the "players". They are

Daniel
Speaker (angel)
Michael (archangel)
Prince of Persia

Second of all we need to identify what’s happening. Daniel made a prayer for his people. The speakers (an angel) heard the prayer or was "commissioned" to act upon it. Somehow, the prince of Persia was critical to how Daniel’s people were in their persecution/plight and had to be persuaded to change. The angel (the Speaker) could not accomplish this task and was "tied-up" for 21-days until the Archangel Michael became involved, to successfully "persuade" the prince of Persia .

I don't think the "prince of Persia" is any sort of human governor, prince, king, etc. In fact, I think the prince of Persia is some sort of fallen or evil angel - for all intent and purposes, a demon. This demon-prince of Persia does not rule in a political sense, but rules and effects (affects?) the minds of Persia's human rulers. Now this will inevitably lead us back to hell (or in this case, Hell). Does Satan and his fallen angels and/or demons reside in Hell? Not yet, as it only come into existence at the End Times. Extremely few today would honestly say they believe in a Hell with a physical, geographical location. The point I'm getting to is that we are completely dealing with the Spiritual Realm, or the "Heavenly Realms".

We have the issue of an angel being "detained" for 21-days. This is making the assumption that the "heavenly realms" are eternal which I don’t believe the bible supports.

Genesis 1:1 clearly states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" thus making "the heavens" a created thing. Now it could be debated whether this was meant to mean the sky and heavens as in space and outer space, but Genesis 1:16 clearly makes this distinction, specifying the sun, the moon, and stars. So, Genesis 1:16 is not talking about the "heavenly" or spiritual realms. Also, Genesis 1:6-8 refers to "the waters" of the earth (the raw materials of the universe) being divided and organized. The earth is formed (the physical universe) and the heavens are also created (the spiritual universe) during this "parting of the waters/filaments".

Revelations 21:1 and Isaiah 65:17 speak of a new heaven and earth. The Greek word used for new is καινός (kainos), which does not mean "new" in a chronological sense, but "new" as to be fresh or refreshed – like hitting the refresh button on your internet explorer’s toolbar – what was previously there is simply gone, overwritten.

So we can safely say that these "heavenly realms" have a definite beginning (Gen. 1:6-8) and also a definite end (Rev. 21:1). This "heaven" exists within the context of history. It is a temporal thing (which Daniel 10:12 also confirms).

Now, many assume that this "heavenly realm" is the Heaven we like to teach our young children about (We’ll have to make some sort of distinction here, so I’ll refer to this heaven with a capital “H”) – a place of clouds, pearly gates, good angels, Saints, and where God "lives". (Hell, being somewhere else). This assumption is wrong.

Ephesians 6:12 confirms that there are spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Thus the "heavenly realms" are not a Holy and Good place. It is not where God the Father "resides". These "heavenly realms" are part of the Created Universe and God the Father "resides" somewhere "outside" of Creation (in His truly eternal state). This is not "Heaven" where we go when we die (that Heaven – eternal life – is only after the End Times), but would most definitely be more correctly called a "spiritual realm".

So it is very conceivable for an angel to be detained for 21-days in either our physical world or the spiritual world. Both these compose our Created Universe and both are subjected to time.

However, bearing in mind that this is all a dream or a kind of vision to Daniel, all these "truths" and revelations could well be put into a context, or use imagery that a very human Daniel can comprehend. So, there could be strong symbolism used here too.

I believe these passages

Gen.1:1,
Gen.1:6-8,
Gen.1:16,
Isaiah 65:17,
Daniel 10:12,
Eph.6:12, &
Rev. 21:1

spell out that the "spiritual realms" (heavenly realms) are very much bound by time (they are not eternal) and are neither Heaven nor Hell.

Also, if we apply the Kalam Argument we find the same results. The Kalam Argument makes 3 simple statements:

1) If something had a beginning it had a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) The universe was caused.

If we use the inverse argument we’ll discover that only something that is eternal has no cause and no beginning. Since these "heavenly realms" has both a cause and a beginning they cannot be eternal. If they are not eternal then they are bound by time.

Conclusion: The “Heavenly Realms” are not Heaven proper, but an active Spiritual Realm where both good and evil are active. When Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-7 speak of Satan sitting in the presence of God and His angels also ties into and confirms this conclusion: the “heavenly realms” are really a time-bound aspect of our Created Universe – a spiritual realm, and possibly Sheol.

So we are left with the question, What does happen to us when we die? I believe the answer to that question lies with Sheol. Is this “heavenly”/spiritual realm Sheol?

Sheol, Soul-Sleep, & Purgatory

Often Sheol is freely translated into Hell and Hades. Although Hades is Greek and Sheol is Hebrew, ultimately, beyond the language issue, I don’t believe they are the same thing as “Hell”. The translators of the King James Version translate the name Sheol into “hell” 31 times, “the grave” 31 times and “the pit” 3 times. These translations are in error, most especially “hell”. Sheol is the common fate of all mortals. It is not a place of punishment. In Psalm 16:9-11 the author acknowledges that he will not be left in “hell” after death but that God will show him the path to life. The use of the word “hell” should actually have been left as the original Sheol for they do not suggest the same thing.

The Hebrew word Sheol (or sheh-ole) means Hades or the world of the dead, as in a subterranean retreat – the grave. However, when the word Sheol got translated into the Greek Hades in inevitably introduced various Pagan-Greek beliefs and assumptions about the nature of Hades. In Greek Mythology, Hades was not only the place of the dead, but more closely resembles, in its nature, the traditionalist’s Hell. The Hebrew’s Sheol is none of these things. There are ample passages from both the Old Testament and New Testament (as well as from Intertestamental writings) that refer to the dead sleeping or being in some sort of state of hibernation – but not punishment and suffering. The dead do not ascend to Heaven nor or descend Hell. The dead go down into “sleep”. There are many and various passages that state this. To cite a few for example from the Old Testament there are Jeremiah 51:39, Job 14:12, Psalms 17:15, Daniel 12:2, 1 Samuel 28:11-20.

From the New Testament there are Acts 7:60, Acts 13:36, 1 Corinthians 15:6, 1 Corinthians 15:18, 1 Corinthians 15:51, 1 Thess. 4:13-15, and 2 Peter 3:4.

From the Inter-testament writings we have Tobit 14:6-8 and 2 Maccabees 12:43-45. However, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 is an interesting passage:

“He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

2 Maccabees 12:43-45 (RSV)

2 Maccabees 12:43-45 does more than just confirm (with the addition of other passages) that the dead are in some sort of soul-sleep or spiritual hibernation. It also strongly suggests that even after death (and before the End Times) that there is still hope for salvation. It suggests that those who have died “unsaved” still have a chance for salvation.

Now - and we must be careful here - it implies these things but does not directly state nor teach it. However, having said that, this passage does introduce the possibility of some sort of Purgatory, or the potential of Sheol actually being Purgatory, a place or state of possible purification. So the question must be asked, do the “unsaved” dead have any hope for salvation? 2 Macc. 12:43-45 definitely confirms “soul-sleep” and possibly some sort of purgatory. However, if Jesus taught that the opportunity to repent was cut off at death then this isn’t a possible interpretation.

Are the Spiritual Realms (a place of activity) and Sheol (a place of the dead and inactivity) the same? No, there is no scriptural indication or reason to believe so. Sheol is a place of waiting and rest, a place of “soul-sleep” or spiritual hibernation. So the “spiritual realms” (or “heavenly realms”) are not Sheol. But is Sheol and Purgatory the same? Does Jesus teach that the voluntary opportunity to repent is cut off at death? Does He teach that an external intervention after death is impossible – a posthumous intervention towards salvation?

The Sleep of Sheol vs. Direct Bodily Ascension

If the dead go down into the sleep of Sheol, then how can we explain those figures that directly bodily ascended to Heaven? How do we explain Enoch (Gen. 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Jesus?

In 1 Samuel 28:11-20, Samuel was “called up” from his “sleep” in Sheol by the Witch of Endor; confirming both Sheol and “soul-sleep”.

However, in the Transfiguration (Mat. 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, & Luke 9:28-36) both Moses and Elijah were present which seems to be a contradiction. Elijah did not go down into “the sleep of Sheol”, but was ascended directly and bodily into Heaven. How could he have been present at the Transfiguration? We know that the dead may be “called up” from their “sleep in Sheol” from 1 Samuel 28:11-20. But can someone who was directly ascended into Heaven (not the “heavenly realms) be “called up” or “summoned”?

In the Transfiguration if both Moses and Elijah were called up from the dead (which is the common interpretation), what could Jesus be talking to them about? If Moses was called up from Sheol (a place of no activity, no interaction – of rest, waiting, and sleep) what could possibly be the point of a conversation? Jesus – especially in His Transfiguration, (which I feel is more closely approaching that state of the Divine Logos ) is “shedding” His self-imposed limitedness, has absolutely nothing to gain or learn from Moses. In fact, the conversation’s only purpose could be for revelation to Moses. But again, revelation for what purpose considering where Moses was “summoned” from and returning to.

If Elijah was called from Heaven (or his “eternal life”, not Sheol) then he has effectively seen the “other” side of eternity. What possible good could revelation be to him?

This interpretation of the Transfiguration becomes riddled with problems. The assumption in the interpretation is a chronological one. It is assumed that on the mountaintop Jesus encountered both Moses (who has been long since dead) and Elijah (who has also been long since dead) and that both of them somehow were called up. Scripture tells us very little about what they talked about. It is only in Luke 9:31which mention anything of the topic matter. “…and spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” (KJV)

“His Decease” – literally, his “exit” or “departure”. The word translated here “decease” – that is, exit, or “going out” – is elsewhere used to denote death. See 2 Peter 1:15. Death is a departure or going out from this life. In "this" word there may be an allusion to the “departure” of the children of Israel from Egypt. As that was going out from “bondage,” pain, and humiliation, so death, to a saint, is but going forth from a land of captivity and thralldom to one of plenty and freedom; to the land of promise, the Canaan in the skies.

Barnes Notes

Is it possible that the Transfiguration was something else entirely?

In Exodus 24:15-18 it talks about Moses on the mount and the mount being covered with a cloud and the cloud covering it for 6 days and on the 7th day the Lord spoke to Moses. The sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire. Moses was on the mount for 40 days and 40 nights. There is also mention in Exodus 34:29 that Moses’ face shone as the sun, with a special brightness.

In 1 Kings 19:8 Elijah went to Mount Horeb for 40 days and 40 nights (similar to the amount of time Moses was on the mount), and the word of the Lord came to him.

The Synoptic Gospels accounts of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, & Luke 9:28-36) say that after 6 days (which is the same amount of time Moses was forced to wait before God spoke to him) Jesus brought Peter, James, and John up to a high mountain and was transfigured before them and that His face shone like the sun and His clothes were like light, and He was talking to Moses and Elijah. And as they talked a bright cloud overshadowed them.

Could these three incidents have actually occurred "outside" of time and simultaneously, within both Moses’ and Elijah’s lifetimes? What was Jesus talking about to Moses and Elijah? We know He was talking about His death and an achievement in Jerusalem. This can only mean his Crucifixion and ultimately the vicarious atonement – Salvation. But could there have been more? Could the actual conversations be recorded in Exodus 24:15-18 and 1 Kings 19:8? Could these three events have actually been only one event? Could it have been Jesus - in His Transfigured state - that spoke to Moses on the mount? Could it have been that it was a Transfigured Jesus who spoke to Elijah in the cave on Mount Horeb?

The common assumption is that Jesus is talking to a posthumous Moses and Elijah. We do not know this to be true we only assume it.

Economic Business Model

2007-11-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

I think "church" should be who we are and what we do more than where and how we do it.

I believe when somethings become an industry their core principle and purpose becomes compromised. I believe the institutional church has become an industry.

I don't believe church should be based upon an economic business model, and I believe "church" as we traditionally/generally understand it today is. Church has been based upon an economic business model. Church has ceased to be what it's original purpose was and has become an industry. One key element in any viable industry is that it must be self-supporting or self-renewing.

I've been accused by some of taking the easiest way - the path of least resistance- of following a belief-system yet not committing to the burden and responsibility of a church and the obligations that go with it. Kinda like going out with a girl but not committing to marriage - trying to have the best of both worlds.

But I would disagree. In fact, my path leaves me very vulnerable and is far from the path of least resistance. Since I haven't supported that church I shouldn't rely upon it's services. Since I haven't invested in that church I shouldn't become one of it's services' consumers.

I run another real risk because I also know how supportive a caring community can be in difficult times. I am also aware that if or when those times befall me and my family (and I pray they won't) that I can expect little or no support. After all, I chose not to pay into this system - I chose not to pay my "spiritual insurance premiums". Is that why we're to go to and support our local churches? Is it really nothing more than a disguised insurance company? I know it shouldn't be.

I believe in the business of church.
I just don't believe in Church as Business.

The institutional church needs to abandon the Economic Business Model.

What are some of the more practical and mundane “tools of the trade” (for pastors/church leaders)? A cell phone, a computer with Internet, an email account, a telephone, an office, and a vehicle. What would the monthly expense for these things be? How do you afford these things? (And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that you also need to pay your mortgage and feed your family). In a word, parishioners. There exists a very real, very practical aspect of church today that necessitates a Business Model. It’s a simply fact of economics. Bills need to be paid. Money needs to be made. Take away the money and the bills don’t get paid. Take away parishioners and you take away the numbers. Take away the numbers and the money goes away.

I find this disturbing. I hear talk about trying to emulate church leadership after the New Testament times with its pastors and elders, and presbyters, etc., but what I repeatedly see is the Economic Business Model. I don’t believe Jesus and His Disciples’ ministry was based upon this model.

Before we can even begin to entertain how church is “done” and before we can begin even asking the question, we must first look at changing how the most basic, practical, and mundane issues of how it is managed is done. How do we pay the rent? Or, maybe, even that’s asking the wrong question. Should we even be paying rent? The church does not need a roof over her head. The church is a Corporate Entity, but it is not a person like you and me.

But church, as this Corporate Entity, has a roof over her head while individual people are left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness. And I don’t believe this is what the Lord had ever intended.

Jesus said that He had sheep of other folds (John 10:16). He also repeatedly told Peter to “Feed my lambs”. “Take care of my sheep”. “Feed my sheep”. (John 21:15-17). So the question begs to be asked: Why does the church have a roof over her head while there are people left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness?

Anti-theory

2004-12-12T05:33:00.000-08:00

A theory may only ever be proven wrong. The potential for it being proven wrong always remains.

An Anti-theory may only ever be proven correct. It is based upon evidence not yet discovered, known, or found. It is perpetually waiting for the “final evidence”, regardless of whether it will ever be found or not. It is based upon a yet undiscovered evidence that will actually prove itself. This is simply a poor and self-serving methodology.

Waiting, as a perennial solution to a given problem, becomes an Anti-theory.

The Anti-theory can never be proven wrong, while the Theory can only ever be proven wrong.

Mu

2004-12-12T05:32:00.000-08:00

In English it is more famously used as a response to certain koans (A koan is a story, question, or statement generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet may be accessible to intuition. “Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?” is a good example) and other questions intending to indicate that the question itself was wrong.

Bibliolatry

2004-12-12T05:31:00.000-08:00

Bibliolatry is the worship of a particular book. In the case of Christianity, the term bibliolatry is used in a derogatory sense toward those who either have an extreme devotion to the Bible, or hold to a high view of biblical inerrancy However Historic Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible itself, as worship is explicitly reserved only for God Himself. Also Biblical authority is derived from God the author of the text, not the text itself. So the term is not a reference to an actual belief, but is often used as a pejorative term to negatively label perceived practices of theological opponents. The groups to whom the term is most often applied are Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background who hold to Biblical inerrancy and Scripture as the only divine authority. So most of those who level the charge either reject Biblical inerrancy (such as much of mainline Protestantism does) or uphold divine authority that includes Apostolic Tradition in concert with Scripture rather than Scripture alone (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, many within Anglicanism, & the vast majority of Christianity worldwide).

The Chronological Old Testament

2004-12-12T05:26:00.000-08:00

I don't pretend to be an Old Testament expert by any means, but to my limited knowledge the categorizing method of organizing the books of the Old Testament is chronological for the most part.

Bear in mind that very few of the dates these books were written are absolutely known:

The Pentateuch:
Genesis (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Exodus ( c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Leviticus ( c. 1445 – 1444 B.C.)
Numbers (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Deuteronomy (c. 1407 – 1406 B.C.)

The Historic Books:
Joshua (c. 1380 B.C.)
Judges ( unknown, c. 1000 B.C.?)
Ruth (c. 1375 – 1050 B.C. ?)
1 Samuel (unknown, c. 1000 B.C. ?)
2 Samuel (c. 1050 – 970 B.C.)
1 Kings (c. 562 B.C. ?)
2 Kings ( c. 562 B.C.)
1 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 1000 – 960])
2 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 970 – 586])
Ezra (430 [referring to events c. 538 – 430])
Nehemiah (420 B.C.)
Esther (c. 470 B.C. ?)

Books of Poetry:
Job (unknown, est. 2000 – 1800 B.C.)
Psalms (c. 1440 – 586 B.C.)
Proverbs (c. 960 B.C. ?)
Ecclesiastes (935 B.C. ?)
Song of Songs (960 B.C. ?)

Major Prophets:
Isaiah (700 – 681 B.C.)
Jeremiah (627 – 586 B.C.)
Lamentations (c. 586 B.C.)
Daniel (c. 535 B.C. [referring to events c. 605-535])

Minor Prophets:
*Hosea (c. 715 B.C. [referring to events c. 753-715])
Joel (835 – 796 B.C.)
Amos (c. 760 – 750 B.C.)
*Obadiah (c. 586 B.C.)
Jonah (785 – 760 B.C.)
Micah (742 – 687 B.C.)
Nahum (663-654 B.C.)
Habakkuk (612 – 589 B.C.)
Zephaniah (640 – 621B.C.)
Haggai (520 B.C.)
Zechariah (520 – 480 B.C.)
Malachi (430 B.C.)

With the apparent exceptions of Hosea and Obediah I would say it is in chronological order.

Other Rogue Articles