I am a member of various online theology and Bible discussion groups.
I have met some really interesting, educated and passionate people. I have also met people who informed me that my family and friends were going to hell because I didn't evangelise properly to them. Lovely.
One thing I have noticed over the years, is that most people value integrity of ideas. They don't hold a view unless they think it makes sense to them. This is true of most people, religious and non-religious. Debates can get quite fierce, as having someone tell you that your currently held view is wrong is very painful and can be pride-damaging.
This is why HOW we debate is so important. Creating a safe environment of respect for others can go a long way, along with holding an attitude of humility that shows an openness to changing our own opinion. I have my own confession to make - at times, when I meet someone so sure of their own opinion and so hostile towards others, I feel a mission to prove them wrong on some point, just for them to experience what it's like to be wrong and to show humility.*
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - words from the Apostle who wasn't always known for holding his tongue, in 1 Peter 3: 15.
(*it doesn't work, and I don't recommend it.)
Today I was musing on how I interpret my own ideas. When presented with a concept or a theory, how do I weigh it? What measure do I use?
Many in the various groups I belong to would answer that by saying "we believe what the Bible says." However, you don't have to go too far to find another person with a strongly held view, armed with their own Biblical arguments.
The problem with using the Bible to defend your views is that the Bible is such a diverse collection of works written over centuries and you have to select parts of the Bible to make your case, whereas another person will use different parts of the Bible to counter your claims. This might make it sound like the Bible is unreliable, but it's not so unusual if you were to make an analogy. My father died almost two decades ago. My memories of him are varied. Depending on my mood at the time, I can recall him as a gentle, kind man who loved music and had a sense of humour. On other days, I remember him as a man who struggled to show emotion, who frequently criticized and who didn't seem to understand me. This doesn't mean my father didn't exist or that some things I write about him are true and others false. It means that it is hard for me to be entirely objective, as all my evaluation is flavoured by how I feel and my own subjective experience.
I think many of us do this when we read the Bible. If you live under genuine persecution and fear for your life, as sadly many Christians do in this world, then seeing passages of God rescuing his people from oppressors, of restoring justice and of punishing those who harm you can bring words of hope into your life. It is easy for me to write about loving everyone when I haven't seen my wife, daughter, sister getting raped or my best friend being murdered for his beliefs.
In my own experience, while brought up in a loving home, I did often struggle to feel accepted and understood. For me, this is why I was drawn to a loving God who created me and rejoices in me. We all have our own needs, and our own experiences will always shape how we view God. Even atheists who don't believe in the likelihood of God existing can hold emotional views about how they would feel IF God DID exist. That can present a double barrier to belief. Again for me, this is why HOW we discuss is so important. It's not just about being right. It's also about being loving.
I want to share one of the lenses I use when evaluating different theological views. I am not a trained theologian, but I have talked with enough to know that each has their own deeply held views and each can use Scripture to make their case. We all need a framework to help us interpret and navigate ideas. Below is mine:
LOVE
"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God, and all who love are fathered by God and know God. The one who does not love has not known God, because God is love."
These words come from 1 John 4: 7-8. I heard a speaker once point out that this is not just a statement about God being loving (an adjective), but is a rare description of God as a noun. God IS love.
"You must love the Lord your God’, replied Jesus, ‘with all your heart, with all your life, and with all your mind. This is the first commandment, and it’s the one that really matters. The second is similar, and it’s this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. The entire law hangs on these two commandments – and that goes for the prophets, too.’"
"I’m giving you a new commandment, and it’s this: love one another! Just as I have loved you, so you must love one another. This is how everybody will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other.’" (John 13: 34-35)
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
(*it doesn't work, and I don't recommend it.)
Today I was musing on how I interpret my own ideas. When presented with a concept or a theory, how do I weigh it? What measure do I use?
Many in the various groups I belong to would answer that by saying "we believe what the Bible says." However, you don't have to go too far to find another person with a strongly held view, armed with their own Biblical arguments.
The problem with using the Bible to defend your views is that the Bible is such a diverse collection of works written over centuries and you have to select parts of the Bible to make your case, whereas another person will use different parts of the Bible to counter your claims. This might make it sound like the Bible is unreliable, but it's not so unusual if you were to make an analogy. My father died almost two decades ago. My memories of him are varied. Depending on my mood at the time, I can recall him as a gentle, kind man who loved music and had a sense of humour. On other days, I remember him as a man who struggled to show emotion, who frequently criticized and who didn't seem to understand me. This doesn't mean my father didn't exist or that some things I write about him are true and others false. It means that it is hard for me to be entirely objective, as all my evaluation is flavoured by how I feel and my own subjective experience.
I think many of us do this when we read the Bible. If you live under genuine persecution and fear for your life, as sadly many Christians do in this world, then seeing passages of God rescuing his people from oppressors, of restoring justice and of punishing those who harm you can bring words of hope into your life. It is easy for me to write about loving everyone when I haven't seen my wife, daughter, sister getting raped or my best friend being murdered for his beliefs.
In my own experience, while brought up in a loving home, I did often struggle to feel accepted and understood. For me, this is why I was drawn to a loving God who created me and rejoices in me. We all have our own needs, and our own experiences will always shape how we view God. Even atheists who don't believe in the likelihood of God existing can hold emotional views about how they would feel IF God DID exist. That can present a double barrier to belief. Again for me, this is why HOW we discuss is so important. It's not just about being right. It's also about being loving.
I want to share one of the lenses I use when evaluating different theological views. I am not a trained theologian, but I have talked with enough to know that each has their own deeply held views and each can use Scripture to make their case. We all need a framework to help us interpret and navigate ideas. Below is mine:
LOVE
"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God, and all who love are fathered by God and know God. The one who does not love has not known God, because God is love."
These words come from 1 John 4: 7-8. I heard a speaker once point out that this is not just a statement about God being loving (an adjective), but is a rare description of God as a noun. God IS love.
Jesus was famously asked by a Teacher of the Law to say what the most important commandment was. His reply (Matt 22: 37-40) is incredibly powerful:
The Apostle Paul also refers to this (and Paul had not been a follower of Jesus during his life and had not read the gospels as they hadn't been written - meaning that he had the same logic as Jesus, had heard it from Jesus in a vision himself, or the early Church leaders clearly taught this).
He writes in his letter to the Galatians (5: 14) "for the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.'"
When leaving his disciples, Jesus gave clear instructions... even a command:
Now, these aren't just conveniently cherry-picked verses to suit my own theology. These are foundational statements that I believe summarise the entire Christian faith movement. Both Jesus and Paul describe the ENTIRE law being summed up by love. Not just parts of it. God isn't just loving, he IS love.
Now, normally these statements would suffice, but I have even found people argue over the definition of love. Some find loopholes in any argument - you have to be cruel to be kind. How can it be loving if you don't tell someone they are wrong? If someone is in danger, is the loving thing not to shout at them? I don't think it takes much discernment to spot an attempt to justify behaviour. But even if we need a little help to define love, Paul does that very thing in the famous passage 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8
When encountering a theological view, I find this framework helps in evaluating it.
Take for example the 3 classic views of hell/judgement (with simplified descriptions).
1. Eternal Conscious Torment. Those who reject Jesus/God are sent to a hell of eternal conscious torment as a place of judgement. This reflects the justice of God.
2. Merciful Annihilation. Those who reject Jesus/God are sent to a period of punishment, but as God is merciful, they will cease to exist and their suffering will end. This reflects the love of God that gives free will, but also the mercy of God.
3. Universal Reconciliation. One day all creation will be reconciled to God. The broken relationship between man and God will be restored.
If you are new to these concepts, you will find that each has Biblical support. Supporters of each model tends to say theirs has the most Biblical support and they have ways of understanding passages differently that seem to disagree on the surface. I don't have time here to go over this here (hurrah, the reader cries!) but they are well-established views and well debated. What is interesting is that most western agnostics or atheists probably assume all believers hold to the first model, largely thanks to the influence of Dante and Michelangelo and the medieval church.
But what happens if you read each of these 3 ideas through the lens of 1 Corinthians 13?
Which is patient, kind, not envying, not boasting, not proud, not dishonouring of others, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, doesn't delight in evil, rejoices in truth, protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres and never fails?
Many 21st Century atheists have been told that if they don't repent of their sins and declare Jesus as Lord/believe in him, then they will go to hell. Then they are told that God loves them so much that God sent his son to take their punishment, but only if they believe. Sadly many Christians proclaim this also (and do so loudly). If this is what I had been told, I am sure I would have been an atheist too. That god is not patient or kind. He is easily angered, definitely keeps records of wrongs and only perseveres in punishing.
Realising that the Biblical authors and early Church didn't believe this model either was such a revelation.
My leaning is towards the third model, that of Universal Reconciliation. Critics of this model often point to the issue of justice. How is this fair? And yet, the heart of God and his scandalous grace and mercy is clearly on display in some of the well known stories Jesus told. The Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, the Workers in the Vineyard.
However, I have noticed that when many criticise this model, they often do so in shortening the term to "Universalism" and protray it as "everyone is saved" no matter what they do or believe. This then begs the question of what was the point in Jesus and his life, death and ressurection? Where is justice? Does God force people to love him?
Those questions are valid and fair, but to me they point to the second model rather than the first. They also work on the assumption that hell is a future destination and not a current man-made reality (I recommend the work of Tim Mackie at the Bible Project. If you haven't seen this, please watch it! https://youtu.be/ykH8E9wTCcQ)
They also show a clear misunderstanding of reconciliation. Reconcililation is a process that is painful and involves sacrifice on both sides. Love must be the driver. Forgiveness is not cheap. Pain, loss, pride, all must be dealt with. Reconciliation also often takes part in community. We adopt a very individualistic western view of salvation that pits one individual against God. But Jesus declared God's Kingdom to be in our midst and promised that wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, then he would be among them. I believe reconciliation begins in loving communities. This is why Jesus commands love to be at the centre of all we do. We cannot force people to love us back, but we can choose the path of patience, not keeping records of wrongs, always hoping and always persevering.
May we know that love in our hearts today.
