Introducing My "Skeptics Believe" Website

Greetings:

If you are one of the readers/subscribers to this blog, you've noted I've not published any posts here since early March. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of which is that I'm posting exclusively now on my new(ish) website: https://skepticsbelieve.com/blog/

Here are some recent blogs on my website that you might find interesting:

• A Series on the book of Ecclesiastes (more to come)
• Qohelet 1: Stop Cherry Picking from Ecclesiastes
• Qohelet 2: Nerdy But Important–Who are What is Ecclesiastes
• Qohelet 3: "Cliffs Notes" on Ecclesiastes
• A Series on the first eleven chapters of Genesis (more to come)
• Biblical Beginnings 1: Order Out of Chaos
• Various miscellaneous article on whatever has peeked my interest (always more to come)
• Unhelpful Spiritual Cliches
• My Theology Doesn't Directly Impact My Reality
• "Aha" Concepts: Rethinking Biblical Inspiration

In addition I have posted recommendations of my favourite and spiritually helpful books, websites, podcasts and videos. I've also included a glossary of common words and phrases used in the study of all things biblical, with a special focus on the...

1. Hebrew Bible/Protestant Old Testament
2. Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books
3. Dead Sea Scrolls
4. New Testament
5. Second Temple Judaism
6. Origins of Christianity

Thank you for subscribing to this blog. Now, I hope you will frequently visit my website https://skepticsbelieve.com/ as I'm adding various materials to it as quickly as I am able, at least 2-3 times per week. 

Take Care and Stay Curious,

Brian

The Most Crucial "Aha" Concept: Practicing a Humble Faith

I don’t remember exactly when this idea sufficiently permeated my consciousness. I think it happened gradually, with ever increasing impact, over a period of five years or so in the mid-2000s. As I opened myself up to truly hearing those with whom I disagreed, I began to see that many other people were searching for understanding and even “truth” with as much energy and integrity as I had been doing and, in some cases, even more! While at the end of the class, lecture, article or book, I still disagreed, I neither felt threatened by that, nor saw their perspectives as entirely wrong and mine as entirely right. I still hold to many of the convictions I once had but with, I hope, a whole lot more humility than I did earlier in my life.

Learning from those with whom we disagree

This concept is so clearly expressed by Edwin M. Good (1928–2014) in his book, Genesis 1–11: Tales of the Earliest World. At the time he wrote this book he was 83 years old (2011). His Preface captures exactly what I am striving to have in my own personal faith journey moving forward, both in terms of having beliefs that I strive to live by and yet sharing them with humility for others to consider. Please read this quotation from Edwin Good; otherwise, my thoughts afterwards won’t make much sense.

If I read Genesis, chapters 1–11, with as much attention as I can, it may be one way to persuade those who read this discussion to do the same with their own eyes and minds. My point is not to set forth the Final Truth about these chapters. I am pretty well convinced that there is no Final Truth to them, which is not to say that they have no truth in them. But sometimes truth makes its way most persuasively by being unfamiliar. Or a proposal’s very unfamiliarity allows a reader to stop and ponder closely what she thinks—or has previously thought—is true. Then if she decides that she thinks something different from me, the thought may well be more precise, more focused, than it was before. One of my aims is to assist people to read with care and to make up their own minds more clearly. 

Early in a long career of teaching at Stanford University, working with the most amazing students and faculty colleagues in many fields of study, I had knocked out of me any notion that my duty was to turn them into my intellectual clones. That experience has spilled over into how I feel about readers of what I write, and this book is perhaps even more centered on that kind of presentation. Not that I will be shy about saying what I think. But I deeply desire readers to understand that my intention is not to provide them with a predigested “true perception” of these stories, but to show what in my own ways I have perceived. I have no difficulty with the idea that one outcome of that reading may be a level of disagreement with me. Fine. Use your own eyes and mind with all their capabilities and qualities and see what you see. And I hope you will notice how many of my sentences end with question marks. 

In fact, one of the surprises in pushing my way through the thickets of these chapters was how my perceptions have changed since I wrote earlier on the same material. There are some statements here that I could not have made twenty or thirty years ago. On the present trip through these texts, I saw a good many things that I simply never noticed before, and I think some of them were for me at those times unthinkable thoughts. Other things I thought back then prevented my seeing some of what I see now. I am grateful to whatever elements of life and experience have made possible such change.

Edwin M. Good. Genesis 1-11: Tales of the Earliest World. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. Kindle Edition.  

So many things in these three paragraphs resonate deeply with me, almost word-for-word, with regard to my life experiences, as well as my intentions for my blog and website. 

As I re-explore in detail specific aspects of all things biblical, I hope my example will encourage others to do the same. The conclusions I reach and the beliefs that I embrace through such a re-examination will not be “the Final Truth…which is not to say there is not truth in them.” The goal of my blog and website is “to assist people to read with care and to make up their own minds more clearly.” I spent way too many years of my life certain that I had found and understood “the Final Truth” about so many things. So, I put much of my energy into trying to convince people that my convictions were the ones they must adopt as their own. I gave precious little space for others to truly “make up their own minds more clearly.”  

Sadly, unlike Edwin Good, it was later, not earlier, in my rather long career as a teaching pastor before life’s experiences knocked out of me that it was my responsibility to turn my hearers into my spiritual clones. Unity meant uniformity until about 15 years ago, when gradually, I opened up to the idea that unity doesn’t require precise agreement but rather unity is the result of humility and mutual respect, especially when we see things differently. For several years now, thankfully and finally, I have striven not to give others “a predigested ‘true perception’” of all things biblical “but to show what in my own ways I have perceived.” My encouragement is for my readers “to use [their] own eyes and mind with all their capabilities and qualities and see what [they see].” And if that means they disagree with me, that is absolutely fine.

Some have asked, and others not doubt will ask, “Brian, why have your perceptions of many things biblical changed, especially in the last 15 years?” The reality is I could have not come to these changed perceptions 15 to 20 years ago. Why? There were things I simply did not notice because “other things I thought back then prevented my seeing some of what I see now.” And thus, like Edwin M. Good, “I am grateful to whatever elements of life and experience have made possible such change.”

I can still hold to my faith. Yet, I can do so with a humility that keeps my mind open and allows me to respectfully interact with, and even learn from, those who have reached conclusions different than my own. To grow we must not only truly dialogue with those with whom we agree, but also, and more importantly, with those with whom we currently disagree, while we continue to do our best to live out our presently held beliefs. 

An "Aha" Concept Has Resulted in Many "Aha" Moments

I honestly cannot nail this down to a moment or a specific time in my life, so maybe by definition it is not an "Aha" experience in the truest sense. However, once the dangers of proof texting became clear to me (gradually with ever deeper conviction), avoiding the practice of proof texting became an obsession for me. 

Identifying my own proof texting is a humbling process for sure. It is hard for me to admit (because of my pride) all the ways I supported my specific beliefs and practices by isolating texts from their contexts and then using them to try to convince others of the correctness of my beliefs and practices (often in opposition to theirs). Over the last fifteen years, I have become more aware of the ways that I abused and misused biblical passages. And it remains an ongoing process. One of the key ways of identifying my own proof texting is realizing when a specific word, clause, sentence or short passage is my only proof of my "correct" doctrine or practice. 

A key belief and practice of many restorationist denominations (or at least it used to be) had to do with recognizing the leadership role, and qualifications, of "elder" (aka "bishop," "overseer," and/or "shepherd" or "pastor"). In the restorationist denomination in which I was initially trained and in which I served in the full time ministry, the issue of who was qualified to be appointed as an elder was paramount, and one "qualification" in particular was crucial. As stated in Titus 1:6, "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."  For years, I believed and taught that the children of elders must be faithful Christians (i.e., baptized and actively following Jesus as Lord). If any of a man's children either hadn't ever made the decision to follow Jesus or had done so and then later "fell away," that man was not qualified to serve his local congregation as an elder. 

There are several problems with using Titus 1:6 as a proof text that an elder's children must be faithful followers of Jesus. First, this is the only passage that might possibly be interpreted in that way. There is no other passage of scripture that teaches or gives an example of this. Second, interpreting the phrase "τέκνα ἔχων πιστά" as "having believing children" is not the only way to translate this clause. It can, and I have concluded should, be translated as "having trustworthy children". The word "πιστά" from "πιστός" means "trusting, believing, full of faith, faithful, trustworthy, reliable, dependable." The clause that follows "τέκνα ἔχων πιστά" is translated as "not accused of debauchery and not rebellious" (NRSV) or "not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient" (NIV). This final clause defines, in this context, what the adjective "πιστά" means and thus how it should be understood and translated. Understood as "trustworthy/reliable/dependable children" makes more sense given the immediate context and is the more usual meaning of "πιστός." 

Fundamentalists and conservative evangelical denominations and their members, however, are not the only ones who proof text in order to support their beliefs and practices. The same can be, and sadly is, what progressive and liberal denominations do, often in response to the proof texting of fundamentalist and evangelicals. In those cases, all parties are guilty of abusing and misusing the scriptures. Hot topics that often rely on proof texting right now include issues related to LGBTQ, gender equality, and gender identity. Arguing about who has the better proof texts, in my opinion, proves nothing. Rather, a reasoned, mutually respectful discussion that honestly attempts to exegete these isolated texts with respect to their contexts (biblical, cultural, historical, etc.) has a much greater probability of leading to understanding, if not agreement. 

In my last year of formal graduate study, I wrote a paper titled, "What is Actually Prohibited by the Law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?" This is one of the passages that the LGBTQ community and supporters call, "clobber passages" because of their proof texting use by fundamentalist and evangelicals to prove that LGBTQ individuals are guilty of "abominable" or "utterly detestable" sin. Yet, after careful examination of the words and phrases used in these verses, and the contexts in which they laws are found, one of the conclusions I came to was...

...the numerous questions that arise from the close reading and various analyses of each verse are not insignificant and should give any interpreter reason to pause and thoughtfully try to provide reasonable answers. Those who insist that these laws clearly and unambiguously prohibit all same-gender sexuality for all people for all time, ignore or minimize the complexities/difficulties of the Hebrew text, misunderstand/misrepresent the meaning of תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה, [the Hebrew word for "abomination"] and/or refuse to take the immediate context into consideration.

Sadly, most proof texting is done arrogantly and self-righteously and is used to not only defend one's belief and practice, but to attack and delegitimize the belief and practice of those with whom the proof texter disagrees. Such an use of proof texts is often referred to as "weaponizing" scripture.

Bottom line: When one strives to avoid proof texting, and thus seeks to appreciate these passages in context, possibilities open up to other potentially valid, or at least reasonable, interpretations that support different beliefs and practices. That is, doing my best to dismantle and avoid proof texting has resulted in many "Aha" moments which have each impacted my spiritual journey.

[Note: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2016/04/the-spirituality-of-snoopy/479664/]

 

I Can See More Clearly Now—My "Aha" Moments

Just recently—like this week—I had my latest prescription lenses installed in my old frames. I hadn’t had my eyes checked in 3 years or more, and according my optometrist, my prescription changed rather significantly. Thus, was explained why everything had been quite blurry—duh! 

Because I didn’t need (or want) new frames (the ones I have are light, yet durable), then I spent more money on getting really good quality lenses with the “latest” technology. I was certainly hoping to see more clearly, but I wasn’t expecting the results to be so dramatic! From people, to nature, to screens, to print, etc., etc., everything was suddenly and dramatically clearer.  In fact, I can’t remember when I last saw my world in such fine and precise detail. I can now read the titles on books from across the room. I can read the small “print” on the TV screen. And I don’t even have to squint. I just didn’t realize how “off” my vision was until the moment I put on my new lenses. The difference is astounding.

This is a perfect analogy for those moments in our lives when we come to some realizations, insights, perspectives that help us make much more sense of our experiences in this world. People often refer to these as “Aha” or even “Eureka” moments: moments of sudden realization, inspiration, insight, recognition or comprehension.  

In a recent blog post, Peter Enns notes how some evangelical biblical scholars had their “Aha” moments that convinced them that they needed to find different ways of dealing with the biblical texts than how they had been taught. That led me to think about cataloguing, then describing, my own biblical “Aha” moments. Most of these happened in the last 15 years, with some being more significant than others in terms of their impact on the trajectory of my faith journey. In the series of blogs that follow, I will go into some detail about when these moments happened and how they changed my thinking and approach to “all things biblical.” In the first of this series, I will detail the “Aha” moments I had while taking an undergraduate course, RELG 306––Archaeology and the Bible, with the renowned Egyptologist, Dr. Thomas Schneider in 2008.

Disclaimer: If you’re content and confident with where you are at spiritually, especially in terms of your conviction that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you won’t be helped or encouraged by some, or any of the, things I will share. Again, for those who equate faith with certainty, I don’t want to introduce doubt or to oppose and/or irritate you. Rather, I’m sharing in an effort to offer support and encouragement to those whose doubts, questions and/or concerns are leading to a “faith crisis

Imagining the Ripple Effect of Love

The subject of love, especially in these pandemic times, is the single, most important, topic for us, as human beings, and especially as Christians, to talk about, study, discuss and most critically, put into practice in our lives. I find that many of my Christian friends want to ignore or minimize the impact of the pandemic, at least until they personally experience its effect. After all, God is in control, right? And God works together all things for the good of those who love him, right? So, God must be using this virus to teach humanity a lesson and help them see their need for salvation, right? Yet, it my experience and observation that everyone is being impacted, including your spouse, children, parents and closest friends.

I don’t care what your theology tells you about how to spiritually interpret the pandemic. The reality is that all people, including the people you know best, are being intensely challenged, and many are suffering, physically, emotionally, financially, and/or spiritually. What we need in the world right now is a whole lotta love for our fellow humans. This love can begin with those we care about the most and it will ripple out to everyone with whom we have the opportunity to interact and thus impact with acts of unconditional love, as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. 

But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

[1 Corinthians 12:31–13:8a]

So, did you actually read the above passage? If not, I urge you to go back and read it slowly and emphatically. 

There are lots of things that we can’t do to counter the impact of the pandemic, but there is one thing we can all do, even if we’re not scientists, front line workers, or health care professionals. We can love the people with whom we interact on a consistent basis. Imagine what it would be like to have people in each of our lives who act toward us consistently with patience, kindness, generosity, humility, encouragement, calmness and true forgiveness. This kind of love demonstrated in word and deed, help us all to bear, believe, hope and endure all things. This kind of love simply does not fail.   

No one of us can love to the whole world. We can SAY that we love the world and mean it, but in reality, we can’t demonstrate love to the 7.8 billion people. But what we can do is to show love to those people who are in our worlds. In fact, that is exactly how we show that we love humanity; by loving the humans that are in our immediate sphere of influence, right now. 

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 

[1 John 3:16–18] 

What is it that keeps us from loving those closest to us, in this way? Pride, self-righteousness, unforgiven wrongs, unresolved hurts, fear, selfishness, etc. Honestly, it is often easier to show more patience, kindness, generosity, humility, etc., to those with whom we have minimal contact. We know our family and friends better, which means we know their flaws, faults, and foibles, and they know us. So, in our pride and hurt, we can even feel justified in holding back from unconditionally and consistently loving. 

It is my conviction that love must begin at home! In passages such as Ephesians 5 & 6 and Colossians 3 & 4, the early Christians were given specific direction on how to love those who are in their lives on a day-to-day basis. I think it is hypocritical of us to be more patient, more kind, more forgiving, more trusting of people we barely know or don’t know than we are towards our spouses, children, other family and close friends.

Consistently and unconditionally loving those with whom we are closest is, at times, really hard and calls for a level of selflessness that can be really difficult to practice. But that’s why it is so powerful, so impacting, and so inspiring. It is what the world needs to see. It is what Jesus said would identify to all people those who are his disciples.  

In 1971, John Lennon recorded a song, “Imagine,” which the magazine “Rolling Stone” rated as the #3 greatest song of all time. In it Lennon imagines a world where there is global peace, equality and brotherhood. He ends the song with these words, “You might say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us and the world will live as one.” 

I want to invite you to imagine a slightly different world. It is one in which every person who follows Jesus as Lord make loving others the number one priority of daily life. Now imagine, not just one drop causing localized ripples but millions of drops causing tens of millions of ripples of love, 24/7/365 all over the world. Imagine what the cumulative and ongoing impact would be on the world! Like a Rainstorm on a pond.

And it starts as each one of us grows in expressing love to those with whom we have the closest relationships.

I read an inspiring and practical article this week titled, People Grow into the Finest Version of Themselves When They are Loved without an Agenda. So, let’s help those with whom we are closest to grow into the finest version of themselves; let us love them consistently and unconditionally in deed and in truth and let us imagine what God can do in us and through us.

Here is a prayer that I think is worth praying consistently… 

Dear God, who is Love, I commit today that I will not major in the minors of Christian faith, but I will listen to, and keep in step with the Holy Spirit so that the Spirit might inspire, motivate, challenge, call, and empower me to life a life of love, just as Christ loved me and gave himself up for me. And may that love ripple out from my closest relationships to touch all those with whom I interact today. Amen

Love is "Uncontrolling."

One of the key ways that an open and relational perspective on God has challenged, inspired and equipped me has to do with learning that the love of God is "uncontrolling." In other words, while God always wants what is best for his creation and is saddened when we make selfish decisions that lead to loss, hurt, violence, etc., God does not coerce, manipulate, or in any way force us to change. I'm confident that while God uses every method possible to encourage, inspire, motive and enable us to make decisions that result in the betterment of ourselves and others, God does not step in and control us.

I thought of God's "uncontrolling" love again just this morning when I came across an article with this rather long, but clear, title: People Grow into the Finest Version of Themselves When They are Loved Without an Agenda. God wants us to grow into the finest versions of ourselves and so, to that end, God does not coerce, bribe, manipulate, trick or any any way force us to become what God knows we can become. 

I have made a lot of bad decisions in my life. If you can't relate, and you are young, then come back and talk to me when you're about to turn 65––that is, if I'm still around to talk to. These bad decisions not only hurt others including, and especially, those closest to me, but they hurt me and held me back from becoming my best self. Because God does not coerce, control or manipulate, the only person I could hold responsible for these bad decisions was me. But also because God loves me without control, then I was free to learn from my mistakes and become a better version of myself. 

There are those who would disagree with me––that is, that I have become a better version of myself––but so be it. Today, at almost 65 years of age, I am experiencing a responsibility and a desire to grow that is far greater and more authentic than at any time in the past when I felt pressured and manipulated and even held hostage by others to become what they thought I should become. 

Additionally, knowing that God's love is uncontrolling, I am striving to imitate that love in all of my relationships. I want others to become the finest versions of themselves, but for them to do that, I must discard my agenda and learn to love them unconditionally no matter what they choose to do or be. 

Here are some key quotes from the above linked article:

• [Having] an agenda [for others] creates distance between people since it is not vested in love or cooperation.
• If you want to help people grow into the finest version of themselves, nurture a spirit of compassion and empathy with them.
• Peace of mind comes from not wanting to change others, but by simply accepting them as they are. True acceptance is always without demands and expectations.
• We should greet others where they stand rather than expect them to align with us.
• We narrow the divide that separates us [when we] reach out to them in a shared space of humility, support and understanding.

I think you get the picture. My fellow human beings are capable of making decisions for their own lives. Even as a leader––and especially as a faith leader––the more I believe this and express that belief in the way I relate to those with whom I have influence, the greater will be the transformation that will occur as each person accepts and takes responsibility for their own life. 

I truly wish I had learned of God's uncontrolling love much earlier in my life, not only for my growth's sake, but for the sake of those whom I was entrusted to lead. But now that I have accepted God's non-manipulative love, I am able to imitate God and I can observe, with joy, as those whom I love are being transformed into the finest versions of themselves, because they are free to do so. 

[Note: I am so grateful for Thomas Jay Oord, that through his writings, teaching, example and friendship, I have had my understanding of the nature of God's αγαπη (agape) so radically transformed.]

An ORT God & the Pandemic

On April 2, 2020 in A Letter from Catherine Keller, the theologian shared her answers to four questions with regard to what God is doing in this Pandemic:

1. Is God punishing humanity?
2. Is God testing humanity?
3. Is God teaching humanity a lesson?
4. Is God fixing the world?

Keller wrote, 

For many folks who find solace and guidance from their biblical faith, those questions must somehow be answered ‘yes.’ And this sense of divine intervention may lead them to do good, moral things...I respect anyone’s sincere faith. But faith can get trapped in misguided interpretations.

It is important to note that on the date that she wrote her letter, globally, just over 1 million people had tested positive resulting in 50,000 deaths. In the U.S.A., 240,000 had tested positive and 5,000 had died. At the writing of this post: globally, 106 million have been infected and more than 2.3 million people have died. In the U.S.A. more than 27 million people have been infected by COVID-19 and 473,000 have died! Thus, the questions raised by Keller are even more pertinent for, and are in urgent need of answers from, people of faith. 

To say one believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent AND all-loving God while tens of millions of people have been infected and millions have died, as well as hundreds of millions suffering mentally, physically, emotionally and economically as a direct result of this pandemic, must be enough to make one question such a perception of God. 

Conservative evangelical theology had stopped working for me well before the pandemic, specifically due to a whole series of personal experiences from 2016 to 2018. My choices boiled down to three: (1) God either doesn't exist or isn't engaged in the universe; (2) God is cruel and sadistic; or (3) God is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent AND all-loving. The standard answers from proponents of conservative theology no longer made any sense – that is, (1) God moves in mysterious ways, (2) God works for the good of those who love him, and/or (3) God is in control. So, yes, I was longing and hoping to be able to see God from a different perspective as the cognitive dissonance became unbearable. Then, in steps ORT, and specifically and initially, Thomas Jay Oord. 

The question is: Could not an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent AND all-loving God find another way to bring about justice, test and teach us, and/or fix the world? Could God not have found a way that didn't involve the very real, intense and ongoing suffering of hundreds of millions and the deaths of tens of millions, most of whom are among the poorest, most disadvantaged, vulnerable, marginalized, and abused? But what if there is a God who, at the very core of God's nature, is love and thus who can't control those creatures whom God created with free will? What if God is at work in the universe for the good of creation but requires the cooperation of creation to bring about the most good? In other words, what if Oord (and others) are on to something theologically and that in reality God Can't?

I really appreciate that Catherine Keller answered each of the above questions with a resounding, "No!" So what is happening and why? Keller concludes,  

God did not create the pandemic in order to test any of us; God didn’t create the pandemic! But perhaps we are being tested. Not by the torments of a bully God, but by invitation to rise to the occasion. To find the courage and the care that will sustain us...But isn't the ultimate biblical test always and only love? If we rise to the occasion, it is because we grow in that dauntless love that casts out fear..

How do we think about such a God? How do we relate to such a God? How do we pray? I so appreciate this prayer, posted by Mark G. Karris (author of Divine Echoes and Religious Refugees). This is the God whom I seek to know better. This is the God with whom I long to cooperate, to be God's fellow worker, as I learn to love as God loves.

Open & Relational Theology (ORT): What is it?

[This is Part 2 of a few, inspired by Mark Karris' article, posted earlier in this blog. Also, these are my thoughts about a theological perspective that seems to be more consistent with my reading of Scripture, my experience and my observation. However,  after 65 years of life I am still striving–and always will be–to better who God is and how he works in the cosmos.]

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was introduced to the ideas of ORT when I was a Teaching Assistant (TA) at Trinity Western University (TWU) for the "Introduction to the Old Testament" course. At that time I had been a follower of Jesus and a student of all things biblical for forty years, and up to that point, I'd never heard of ORT. What I did know, however, was that the theodicy that I'd been taught and had embraced, had left me "wanting" in terms of my faith.  I had understood God to be omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (everywhere present at all times) and omnipotent (all powerful). Yet, God is also love––not that God is loving, but that God is love––that is, that love is God's nature, that love is at the very centre of who God is. Therefore, God can only act in ways that are loving, because God is love! 

However, that is not always the God I read  about in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. That is not what I experienced and observed in my world. I tried to convince myself that God was all those things: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and love, but the longer I live, the more I read, the more my conservative theology left me "wanting." However, I didn't want to acknowledge my doubts, so I just continued to push through for years and refused to consider any other views of who God is and how God works in this world. 

As a hard working TA, I believed that I needed to explore ORT more; after all, it was part of the course material for which I was responsible. And what I read, started to gradually, make much more sense to me than what I had held to for four decades. Through my research, I stumbled upon the writings of Thomas Jay Oord. I read (and I listened to) his book, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). Later I read his less academic version, God Can't: How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse and Other Evils (Grassmere, ID: SacraSage Press, 2019). Then I attended a week-long workshop hosted by the Vancouver School of Theology (VST), where Oord explained his theology in greater detail and where we had the opportunity to get to know the person. 

While I won't try to explain his take on ORT in detail, here are some key quotes from his book, Uncontrolling Love, page 107:

Open and relational theology embraces the reality of randomness and regularity, freedom and necessity, good and evil. It asserts that God exists and that God acts objectively and responsively in the world. This theology usually embraces at least these three ideas: 

1. God and creatures relate to one another. God makes a real difference to creation, and creation makes a real difference to God. God is relational.
2. The future is not set because it has not yet been determined. Neither God nor creatures know with certainty all that will actually occur. The future is open.
3. Love is God's chief attribute. Love is the primary lens through which we best understand God's relation with creatures and the relations creatures should have with God and others. Love matters most. 

Oord acknowledges that there are ways in which advocates of ORT disagree and that ORT is a rather large umbrella under which its advocates interact, discuss and even debate (in love, of course). 

Since God is love (1 John 4:7–12), God can do nothing other that what is loving. It is God's nature. To make it clear––though it is terrible grammatically––God can't not love, or God can only act in ways that are loving! The portrayals of God in Scripture (and elsewhere) that demonstrate that God is anything but loving are, in my opinion, incorrect because they are inconsistent and even contradictory to the life, teaching, deeds, death, resurrection and high-priesthood of the Logos (the Word) who became flesh and pitched his tent among us; aka, Jesus Christ (John 1:1–18). I cannot prove that Jesus is the Word become flesh, but I have my reasons for choosing to believe that claim. 

And because I believe that claim, I cannot believe that his Father––to whom he prayed and whose will he came to accomplish––commands, commits or condones the mass murders of men, women, children and all other creatures, as depicted and described so clearly throughout the Old Testament and referenced in parts of the New Testament. I also cannot believe that God, who is love, if God could intervene, would ignore the desperate pleas and petitions of human beings who strive to live by faith––and even those who don't, because we are all God's children, Acts 17:28––in the face of intense and ongoing suffering caused by genuine evil. These portrayals of God are written records of how those humans conceived of God and God's work in the world, and in their lives. They got some of it right, and they got some of it wrong––just like I do––and you, too, I'm guessing. What they are to be commended for––and I hope that I am as well––is that they continued in their search to know God better and to make sense of who God is and how God works in the world, to the best of their ability.  

[My Next Post: 'ORT and the Present Pandemic' in which I will be sharing some of my thoughts on A Letter from Catherine Keller, dated April 2, 2020]

Re-examining the Nature of God

[This is part 1 of 2 (and maybe more) of my reaction and response to Mark Karris' post: see Feb. 2 post -- Pandemic Prayers and the Nature of God.]

Of all the ways my faith has evolved, especially over the last 15 years, this post will be, for most people who know me, my most radical departure from conservative evangelical theology.  

However, once (1) I saw the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as indefensible, (2) I accepted Jesus as the best revelation of the unseen God (John 1:18, etc) and (3) I replaced sola scriptura with a Wesleyan-like quadrilateral basis for my theology, I was free to consider other theological perspectives. 

I used to believe that my understanding of God based on sola scriptura was best because I thought it was “objective.” I believed that those people who relied on experience were “subjective” and thus they could create God in whatever image was pleasing to them. But what I came to realize was that we can never eliminate subjectivity when it comes to understanding God. When we claim that we are holding to sola scriptura we still have to interpret scripture, and interpretation is never 100% objective no matter how much we try. In order to try to better understand God's nature and how he works in the universe (and in my life), I now start with scripture but also consider experience (and observation), tradition and reason. I no longer fear the theoretical "slippery slope" since the quadrilateral provides the necessary checks and balances that control my rate of descent into the abyss [That's a bit of joke, OK?]

While working as a Teaching Assistant at Trinity Western University (a conservative evangelical post-secondary institution) for their introductory Old Testament course, I was introduced to the concept of Open and Relational Theology (ORT). What I initially read appealed to me because so much of my theological cognitive dissonance had to do with the inconsistencies I saw between the nature and working of Yahweh in the Tanakh as compared to the nature of Jesus as portrayed through the Gospel accounts, both in word and deed.

According to the Gospels' authors, Jesus taught that God truly loves all humanity (i.e., the world) to such an extent that God voluntarily sent the one and only Son of God into the world to save as many as possible. As we read later in the NT, God does not want any to perish but all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.  

For most of my Christian life, I'd been troubled by the violence in the Tanakh (i.e., Christian Old Testament) which was either commanded or condoned by God.  As well, so much of this violence, which was reputedly perpetrated by those men and women who are upheld as faith heroes, was either praised for its zeal or, at the very least, was not condemned or corrected. I simply could not see that aspect of God’s nature and will to be, in any way at all, consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus. 

In addition to many violent portrayals in scripture, I was also troubled by the genuine evil that has existed in the world for all of human history. If God is truly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent AND loving how could he allow genuine evil to be perpetrated, especially against the innocent, the vulnerable, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the abused, etc. and not intervene? For me, the portions of the Tanakh (and the New Testament) that call upon God’s people to care for, provide for and protect all such people are the most convicting, challenging, motivating and hopeful passages in all of scripture. Yet, if indeed God has the power to intervene and protect the most vulnerable humans and doesn’t do so, that is deeply troubling to me. Add to that, is my experience and observation that the sincere and desperate prayers of literally billions of people of faith (as now evidences in this pandemic) don’t seem to move the reputedly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent AND loving God to act on behalf of those for whom they are praying (often with unceasing loud cries and tears)! 

Two million and counting! That's the global death toll from COVID-19 in its first year. And who has suffered the most and greatest losses, if not the poor, the vulnerable, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the abused, and other helpless innocents? Yet, these are the very humans scripture challenges God's people to provide for, take care of and protect. Their unwillingness to do so is given by the prophets as the reason why God rejected Israelite worship and sacrifices. [E.g., the often quoted Isaiah 59:1–2 is preceded by infrequently referenced Isaiah 58 which clearly lists the sins that separated the Israelites from God. Please read it.]

The scriptural portrayal of God who commands and condones violence, combined with God's perceived unwillingness to protect the most vulnerable humans from the ravages of genuine evil, created in me such a degree of cognitive dissonance that I could no longer ignore it and still claim I had an authentic faith. 

How ORT significantly reduced my cognitive dissonance and calmed my inner atheist, will be the subject of my next post [or two, or more].

Pandemic Prayers & the Nature of God

[Mark G. Karris gave his permission for his FaceBook post to be copied and posted. I will post my reaction to his article in the next few days.]

Over a year has gone by and millions of prayers have gone up to the hazy sky to beg an all-powerful and controlling God to snap His fingers to make this pandemic go away. Am I really to believe that God has the power to instantly eradicate the microscopic virus, but has chosen not to? Am I to believe that God could have saved the 2.24 million people who died from it in the past year, but said, “I could have, but I simply chose not to. However, I will speak a word or snap my finger and instantly give this person a parking space, this person the job they always wanted, and this person healing for their back pain.” Don’t you feel the cognitive dissonance?

I have seen many prayer requests, such as "So and so died from Covid. Please pray for their family."

Hold on a second. There were over a hundred people praying for that precious person to live and God had the power to instantly heal them but chose not to, and they died. And now, you want me to beg God for their family for comfort, or finances, or whatever else we should pray for, and expect God to give it to them? So, I am supposed to trust that God, who devastated us by simply watching the slow death unfold and allowed our friend or family member to die, would open up His stingy hands and unfold His arms to miraculously provide comfort or finances to their family members? Is that what God does anyway? Is God really standing idly by as a person is grieving the loss of their loved one and doesn’t comfort them until someone else miles away begs God to do so? Or, better yet, God would only do so if 49 people prayed for God to comfort them? And, if 48 people on the prayer chain prayed, then tough luck? Don’t you feel the dissonance?

Our prayers to this kind of fickle God must be reminiscent of how our fear-ridden ancient ancestors prayed as they anxiously begged the Gods for rain or sunshine for their crops. Some things really do not change much.

I don’t want to just engage in another deconstruction post. So, let me offer you an alternative view of God. Certainly, God is a God of the dead and the living; of deconstruction and reconstruction.

Perhaps God is Love. And, love doesn’t force its way into our lives. Perhaps, God can’t singlehandedly control the outcome like a Puppeteer because that would be what a controlling authoritarian deity would do? I mean, is God NOT being able to do certain things out of the question? It seems that even from a biblical perspective, God can’t do a lot of things. God can’t lie. God can’t sin. God can’t cease to exist. God can’t tempt others. God can’t be prejudiced. Etc. Therefore, is it also possible that God whose nature is LOVE cannot singlehandedly and forcefully intervene in human and creaturely events but CAN only do so through cooperation? Perhaps God can’t stop evil or Covid like a divine Whack-A-Mole because we are freer, and all the elements in existence are freer, than we ever imagined. I agree, that thought can conjure up existential dread and is a scary thought. However, just because it is anxiety-provoking doesn’t make it any less true.

I don’t have all the answers. I am trying to figure it out like everyone else. But, this whole idea of God having the power to stop evil and senseless death but chooses not to, at least a whole lot of time, but chooses to do so some of the time, is just untenable for me. This idea of begging what appears to be a fickle, moody, tribal God is just unfathomable. If I had the cure to my son’s illness you can rest assure he wouldn’t have to repeatedly beg me or have ten of his friends beg me to give it to him. What kind of narcissistic monster would that make me?

I have said before, at the end of this pandemic, we will not have experienced a magic act, where God poofs Covid out of existence. There will have been countless doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who heeded the call to love and who sacrificially gave their lives for the sake of others. There will have been thousands of hours of research, testing, and the manufacturing of mitigating products by those who are using their God-given faculties and who cooperate with a God who values human flourishing. There will have been people like you and me—those who cooperated with Love and made sure we were keeping ourselves, our loved ones, and our neighbours healthy, safe, and well-resourced.

So, by all means, let us pray. Let us share our lament, anguish, and heartfelt desires before God. Contrary to popular opinion, I am not suggesting we don’t talk with God. I am for prayer and intimacy with God. I am just suggesting that perhaps God can’t control us like puppets and control viruses like microscopic robots. Perhaps God is more loving than we imagined? Perhaps God’s arms are not folded, and they are perpetually unfolded, in each moment, loving to the extent that God is able given the sheer freedom of creaturely existence? Perhaps God wants the eradication of the virus more than we do? Perhaps God is comforting and healing to the extent that God can—before we even pray. Perhaps we should talk with God, listen to God’s heartbeat, AND be the hands and feet of God on the earth, doing our part to make this beautiful chaos a little bit more livable for each other.

––Mark G. Karris (reprint with permission)

Addendum: Mark Karris Video

Your Inner Atheist

 I like what Daniel Taylor has to say about doubt and faith:

“The Skeptical Believer. No, it’s not a contradiction in terms. It’s a simple, everyday reality for many people of faith” ("The Skeptical Believer: Telling Stories to Your Inner Atheist")

As one reviewer wrote, "It’s struggling with faith and in the midst of faith, not denying faith. It’s seeking to make sense of faith."

I was an atheist for several years before coming face to face with the good news of Jesus. After choosing to believe, I spent years trying to either ignore or silence my inner atheist, but about 15 years ago, I started to listen once again and to engage in that internal dialogue. I now face my inner atheist with humility, honesty and respect. It challenges me and I challenge it. Sometimes, it is a dialogue, but can easily move into a discussion and even a debate.  

There are believers who honestly think that true faith never doubts, but for me, faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in my search for an authentic faith, I must acknowledge my inner atheist which, in reality, has inspired and energized me. 

If you can relate, and you know you also have an inner atheist, I hope what I post on my new website ("The Musings of a Skeptical Believer") will help you in some small way to acknowledge that questioning voice and grow from authentically engaging with your doubts, questions and concerns. 

IMO, being a faithful follower is not like being pregnant; that is, either you are or you're not. Faith is a journey with many twists and turns, highs and lows, joys and disappointments, convictions and doubts. To pretend otherwise is to not live in the real world and to miss the blessing of having a truly authentic faith. 

"The Musings of a Skeptical Believer" Website Launch Today!

I am a long-time student, teacher, writer and skeptical believer when it comes to all things biblical. All things biblical certainly include the texts themselves but also the historical, cultural and linguistic contexts in which the biblical texts were composed, preserved, edited, compiled and canonized. When it comes to understanding the biblical texts, context is everything! I have both a B.A. and an M.A. from the Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies department at the University of British Columbia. My study/research specialities include Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Tanakh) and ancient Judaism.

I approach the biblical texts for what they are––written in times long, long ago, by and for humans who lived in cultures far, far away. For any modern readers, these times and cultures are so very different from our own. For this reason, even when the biblical texts are read as honestly and objectively as possible, questions and concerns arise that can inhibit, or even reverse, a decision to believe their messages.

However, my experience of four plus decades of faith and thirty-five years serving as a pastor has made it clear to me that faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is my conviction that a truly authentic faith must exist in tension with, and can be energized by, acknowledging doubts.

My website has a very clear purpose:

I have created the content on this website with the intention of providing support, encouragement, resources and recommendations for other skeptical believers as they strive to live out their faith. To do that, we need a safe place where we can explore, learn and question. Having the courage to do that can be overwhelmingly difficult especially if the faith community, of which we are part, tends to equate true faith with certainty and doubt with weakness or even sin.

I want this website to be that safe place where we can both trust and doubt, discuss beliefs and ask difficult questions.

Please feel free to let me know what kind of content helps, or you think would help, you the most. Also, I enjoy hearing about how other skeptical believers are navigating their faith journeys. Please use the form on the “Ask” page to contact me and I will be happy to respond to all respectful communication.

There are lots of "Coming Soon" notices throughout the website right now. I have done that on purpose, so that visitors to the website can see, specifically, what I am preparing and, generally, the kinds of topics that have been helpful for me to consider as a skeptical believer. 

I hope you find it helpful in some way on your faith journey: https://skepticsbelieve.com

  

Charles Darwin's Deathbed Repentant Conversion

HEADLINE: Charles Darwin regrets publishing his theory of evolution and accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour on his deathbed!

Have you heard the story of Charles Darwin's death bed renunciation of his theory of evolution and his conversion to Christianity?

If you have, you should know that it is completely unsubstantiated and was thoroughly and consistently denied by his family. That is, it has no basis of truth whatsoever. See https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/

I note this example, because it is so easy for people of faith to embrace any story, carte blanche, that either puts those they perceive as enemies of the faith in a bad light or that substantiates their own beliefs and practices. Unsubstantiated rumours, false stories, etc., are not just a 21st century, social media, phenomenon. Just because a story has been around for centuries, has been repeated by leaders within our own faith communities and may even be found in older written works does not mean that it is true.

If we say we are interested in truth, then we are self-obligated to check out our sources, no matter from whom we've heard or read such tantalizing, faith confirming stories. Remember: a lie repeated consistently is often accepted as truth.

Understanding the Judaism(s) of Jesus' Day

Most Christians I know are sadly unaware of the literature of the Second Temple period and thus are ignorant of the Judaism(s) of the 1st century CE. I highly recommend Matthias Henze's book, Mind the Gap: How the Jewish Writings between the Old and New Testament Help Us Understand Jesus. 

It is highly readable, concise (just over 200 pages) yet highly effective in communicating the author's message. Henze is a renowned scholar in his own right and thus this book has received recommendations from other world class scholars of ancient Judaism such as John J. Collins, George W. E. Nickelsburg and Loren Stuckenbruck.

Here is an explanatory quote:

"Jesus was deeply immersed in the Jewish world of his time. Most Christian readers of the New Testament today cannot understand that world, because what is described in the Old Testament is not the Judaism of Jesus...By the time of Jesus Judaism had evolved in many significant ways...Old ideas had progressed, new ideas had been introduced, other religious movements and Jewish sects had formed, different kinds of religious institutions had been set up, new literary expressions that we do not find in the [Protestant] Old Testament flourished and many new books had been written. The Jewish world of Jesus was not the religion of the Old Testament, it was the Judaism of first-century Israel." (p. 3–4)

What is "the Bible?"

The Bible is an anthology of texts that were authored, copied, and edited over a period of hundreds of years. Much later these texts were brought together as an authoritative collection—a process called ‘canonization.’ In fact, there is no “the Bible.” The Jewish Bible, which is known by most as the Tanakh, is a collection of 24 texts in three sections: Torah (Instruction or Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). In content it is basically equivalent to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. However, the order of the books are different, which is quite purposeful when it comes to the Protestant Bible. 

The Protestant Bible is comprised of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. The Catholic Bible and the various Orthodox Bibles have the same 27 New Testament books, and the same 39 Old Testament books, plus the addition of various texts known either as the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books. 

Many Jews and Christians consider the books of their Bible to be the word of God as they hold to some view of inspiration. However, for many, “inspiration” does not mean that these texts are inerrant (that is, without error). So, the basic answer to “What is the Bible?” depends entirely upon whom you ask. For a chart that clearly shows the variety of Bibles that exist, see: https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

Decency & Dignity toward All

 Well, it’s done; a new administration is working out of the White House now! I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I have no party affiliation whether in the U.S. or Canada (i.e., Conservative, NDP or Liberal). I care about politics and politicians because what is done in our nations’ capitals impacts me, my family, and my country and has a direct impact on the world I will leave behind for my children and grandchildren (their children to come). 

I don’t know how it will all work out with President Biden as leader of the still most influential democratic nation in the world. But one thing I hope he and his administration will hold to unswervingly is to treat all people, regardless of differences and disagreement, with "decency and dignity!" We all need to feel and to give respect. We need to believe we are heard, even if what we present is not implemented. And we need to hear disagreement that is communicated without judging our motives. We all want a “more perfect union” but we have varying and even opposing ideas as to what that means and what is involved in working toward that goal. 

What is true politically is also true religiously. I hold to certain beliefs and convictions about God, Jesus, the Bible and the church. Also, as a Religious Studies graduate (M.A. from UBC), I have certain understandings even of those religions that I do not personally embrace. However, I don’t know everything and I know almost nothing with absolute certainty about my own faith or that of other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.  Therefore, it is my responsibility to communicate my beliefs with humility and listen to the beliefs of others respectfully and with genuine curiosity and without any hint of judgement or condemnation. I may disagree, even strongly, but I can, and I must, treat all others, regardless of differences and disagreement, with the decency and dignity I would want to feel from them. 

We call that the golden rule: Do to others what you want them to do to you (see Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). Almost every religion has some version of that “rule.” And to take it one step further, as President Bush said yesterday in regard to achieving greater unity that it comes down to “loving our neighbour as we love ourselves.” And it’s not a unity of sameness that we are striving to achieve, but unity in the midst of diversity. 

Christians, are we listening at all to what the Spirit is saying? Will we rise to the challenge of treating all other human beings with the decency and dignity, with which we all want to be treated? Are we willing to truly strive to love all other human beings (our neighbours in the globalized community), especially those in our immediate sphere of interaction and influence? For most of us it is relatively easy to love those with whom we share more in common. The real test of our commitment to the golden rule is whether we can treat those with whom we share less (and maybe very little) in common, whether politically, culturally, philosophically, or religiously. 

Am I willing to embrace my fellow human beings––figuratively and literally (post COVID)–– and inject large measures of decency and dignity into all of my relationships and even casual interactions? If we can do that, we will go a long way to ending (or at least keeping at bay) the “uncivil war” that is going on, not just in the U.S.A., but in every country around the world. However, my fellow Christians, if we can’t do that with each other, regardless of different denominational and/or personal beliefs and practices, then we are part of the problem and not part of the solution. If we can only love those with whom we agree, and we discount the rest as unworthy, then we are perpetrating the “uncivil war.” We are each either part of the solution or we are part of the problem. Which am I? Which are you?

“From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, O God of truth, deliver me.” (Mishkan T’Filah)

“Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out, and the only people I fear are those who never have doubts. Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for. I’m must not that sure anymore.” (Billy Joel)

It's true: Love is Verb!

 "Love" isn't a feeling you're feeling when you're feeling a feeling like you've never felt before. As one of my earliest mentors (but I can't remember who) said, "That's probably just indigestion." 

Instead, love is an action; purposeful, intentional, often self-denying or even sacrificial, directed toward meeting the needs of another human being. Love is giving of oneself without the expectation, and certainly without the demand, of anything in return. If there is a "quid pro quo" whatever is done for the other is not love, no matter what needs it meets.

Love comes with and produces emotions within us. We do "feel" good when we act in loving ways toward others. However, the positive feelings associated with love are not the goal, but rather are serendipity––something positive you experience without looking for it. 

"This is how we know what love is--he laid down his life for us and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. But how does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Dear children, let us love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3:16–18).

To "lay down one's life" for another does not necessarily (and probably for most of us, won't) mean actually dying for another. But "laying down one's life" for another does involve acts of self-denial, where we consciously put the needs of another ahead of our own. 

None of us loves perfectly every day, but we can always intentionally work toward being more loving, by being less selfish. That's what the most loving people, whom I have had to privilege to know, do. That's what I appreciate so much about Paul's encouragement to the church of the Thessalonians: 

"Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. 10 And in fact, you do love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more." (1 Thessalonians 4:9–10). 

What do you think success is?

 “What do you think success is? asked the boy. “To love,” said the mole.”*

Wow! What a simple, yet profoundly different way to evaluate my life than the standard criteria I have been conditioned/trained to use! These all have something to do with what I am accomplishing or have accomplished. Am I successful because I completed a graduate degree at a well-respected institution? Am I successful because I worked as a pastor in my faith community for more than 35 years? Am I successful because I earned enough money to own a house and invested enough money to support me in my later years? Am I successful because I have been married for 43 years, have two grown sons and six grandchildren? Etc. 

Nothing I’ve accomplished or will accomplish will amount to the proverbial “hill of beans” if I do not strive to live a life with as much love for others as I am capable of demonstrating. The only “success” criterion that matters is love. 

Even if you’ve read these passages a thousand times, I want to encourage every person who claims the name “Christian” to read them “again, for the first time.”

• One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28–31)

• I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35)

• But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 12:31–13:3)

• Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8–10)

• Little children let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God; and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us. (1 John 3:18–24)

Can I be so bold as to call upon all church leaders (evangelists, pastors, teachers, ministers, etc.) to accept and embrace wholeheartedly that “love” is the only criterion that is indispensable when evaluating the success of your ministry? 

Please give up your tallying of ministry numbers (attendance, contribution, members, conversions, etc.) as your criteria of success. Your church can have all these in increasing measure and yet if your community is not known, internally and externally, for its genuine love for one another and its fellow humans, it is only a “noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.” Don’t let your ministry training or your denomination’s hierarchy pressure you to focus on increasing your numbers, but let the Spirit lead you and strengthen you to increase your love (Philippians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9–10; etc.). Then, and only then, will your ministry numbers mean anything at all. 

* Mackesy, Charlie. The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse. London: Ebury Press, 2019.

Let Our Words Shine on Social Media

For those of us who call ourselves Christians, social media does not exempt us from acting, speaking and writing in ways that are consistent with the teaching and example of the One we claim to follow. Almost every book of our Bibles warns us to be very careful about what we say, how we say it, and to whom. How much more relevant are these warnings given that our words on social media are out there for all to read, over and over again! Thus words that are unkind, unwholesome, slanderous, judgmental, spoken in anger and/or self-righteousness, etc., can do even more damage to more people and bring shame on the Gospel.

As Christians, we are called by the One we confess as "Lord" to "Thus, let your light shine shine in the presence of people so they might see your good works and honour your Father who is in heaven."

Also, in the letter to the Ephesians, "Do not let any rotten word come out of your mouth, but only what is good for building up according to the need, so that it might give benefit to those who hear."

When those of us who call ourselves Christians attack each other, we bring disgrace on the One we claim to follow. For those of us who are accused, slandered or in otherwise are verbally attacked, may we choose to imitate Jesus, as we are called to do in the letter of 1 Peter, "For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly."

Let us refresh our memory and restore our convictions to keep our tongues in check by reading and reflecting on the very direct challenge in James' letter, chapter 3. Please read all of it.

"1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh."

OK, I'll stop preaching now and do my best to put this into practice in my own life today.