Reader Question- Why the Violence?

Hey Dan, I'm really not comfortable with god. This is because all of the violence that god either commands or explicitly permits in the bible. I just don't like praying to someone who has so much blood on his hands. Can you help with this?   -Sjoerd

-------------------


Thanks for writing in, Sjoerd. You're not the first to have a problem with this.

Violence is very present in the Bible, and also very problematic. There are numerous commands against it, numerous other commands for it. The name of God (YHWH, translated LORD in most English Bible translations) refered (pre-monotheism) to the Hebrew God of Armies, the "Lord of Hosts" we hear so much about. 

Being uncomfortable with all the violence means you're doing something right. The Biblical authors were nervous about it, too.

For instance, take King David. Later in his life, the King gets the idea to build a Temple for God, but is told that he can't, because he has spilled blood. And this is true, David had been a warlord for most of his life. But given that most of those battles had been fought at God's command (and often with God's help) it seems odd that such a thing would disqualify him, right?

The lesson that I take from this is that violence is never ideal, though it is sometimes necessary. 

Now the obvious response to THAT is, "Well, isn't God supposed to be all-powerful? So why do a thing with violence if God is all-powerful and could just do it another way?"

A very valid question, rhetorical straw-Reader! Here is my take on it... there are different forms of Violence, and some are worse than others. Assuming the All-Powerful thing, how ELSE could God correct the behavior of large groups of people?

Though the reasons are never particularly clear, its pretty obvious that God puts a lot of stock in free will. God will take drastic measures to change someones mind; ("You really ought to leave." "But I don't want to!" "There's a bloodthirsty army coming." "Oh, uh, maybe a change of scenery would be a good idea...") but God never seems quite willing to take the step of changing it for you. 

(Possible exception to this: in the instance of Pharaoh and King Saul, God DOES seem willing to turn stubbornness up to 11.)

Would Mind Control be preferable to violence? Not sure.

The World is a very complicated place, and answers to complicated problems are rarely simple. I believe the Bible shows a stated preference towards non-violence, though God is willing to use violence when called for, such as to free the oppressed, remove a tyrant, protect from invaders, etc. 

When we read about the violence, if it makes us uncomfortable, I think it is supposed to. I think there is a reason that even the God-mandated violence that David took part in disqualified him as a Temple Builder, why Prophets always tried to warn even hated people about violence before it ensued (Like Jonah's message to Nineveh, one of the most hated powers of the time.)

For believers, I think it is important to never forget that Violence is condemned in the Bible, even while being sometimes used. Some think of it as hypocrisy and that is certainly their right. I can't explain it away, or show why it's "all fine," because the Bible itself makes it clear that it isn't. I think the goal is to, someday, be free of all violence. I applaud that goal. I think I would have a much bigger problem with God if I knew of a way to solve all the world's problems without the use of force. 

As it is, I don't. In the meantime, I will continue working for peace.

Reader Question- Spare the Rod

Why do Christians promote the idea of "spare the rod, spoil the child" and other forms of domestic violence?

-Disgusted

------------------

Thanks for writing in. 

"Spare the Rod, spoil the child" as a concept comes from Bible, specifically the book of Proverbs, chapter 13, verse 24. The exact text reads, in the NRSV translation, 

"Those who spare the rod hate their children,
   but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."

The idea of "spare the rod, spoil the child" is not in and of itself a bad one, nor does it command child abuse. This is not a prescribed punishment, merely a popular one in it's time. Discipline is the real point of the proverb, and it is hardly limited to the Bible. Our concepts on what kind of discipline are appropriate varies practically person to person (often based on their own childhood experience) but in general we agree that children need to be disciplined as part of socialization, and to not do so (to "spoil" the child, so to speak,) is actually neglect.

 As some readers may or may not be aware, the book of Proverbs is a collection of "wisdom sayings," or proverbs, truisms and generalities passed down by the Hebrew people until they were eventually collected and published together, eventually added to the Hebrew scriptures. Advice given in this book ranges from how much one should eat when dining with a king to the most admirable qualities one can find in a wife. (Spoiler: find a wise woman.) And as with all such sayings, these are things that are claimed to be "generally true," or rules of thumb. You know the sort of thing.

That sometimes doesn't jive well with how people are often taught to read the Bible, looking for commandments and hard truths, rather than truisms. So you have some people holding up "spare the rod, spoil the child" as a command, as if physical beatings with implements were the Biblically mandated form of punishment... but it's not. That isn't how the book of Proverbs was meant to work.

The issue is always with us but has been brought back into light with the situation surrounding Adrian Peterson. One of the more telling things to me, in this case, is that Peterson, by all accounts normally a very stand up guy, told the truthful account of what happened. He isn't denying anything, gave a complete account to authorities when demanded. and seems confused at the reaction. 

This is not standard abusive behavior. Normally an abuser hides the abuse, will deny it, threaten people to keep quiet. Peterson has followed none of these behaviors, This isn't to exonerate him... clearly, hitting a child with a switch so that you leave horrible sores all over their body is going far too far. But I don't think that with Peterson we have a classic abuse case. We have a case of poorly education on discipline, and it is likely that with Peterson, a deeply religious person, heard the Proverb above taught the wrong way, and came to believe that violence was the important part, rather than the discipline.

Peterson has a great deal of education ahead of him in that matter, and hopefully, in time, he can come to grips with what he did wrong and recognize that while a loving parent does discipline their child, the circumstances of what that discipline looks like can vary, and should vary, between what his parents did to him, and what he can do to his child, that the point is not to hurt them, but to teach them. 

I think that Peterson and his family will be okay, in the end, and that this whole ordeal will be a great learning experience for quite a lot of people. My disgust is reserved, not for Adrian Peterson, but for a lot of the people backing him up.

The next person I hear say; "My parents beat the tar out of me and I turned out all right..." well, I probably won't actually DO anything to them but I will be quite irritated. Peterson may very likely have meant well... all his behaviors suggest that to me. But he was still in the WRONG. Punishment with intent to hurt is completely unacceptable. It crosses the line from a switching to a caning, from a spanking to a beating, from punishment to violence, from discipline to abuse. And that had to be his goal, because there is no way that he couldn't have noticed what was happening. 

Child abuse is against the law, and even so, is rampant in the world. And even if Peterson did mean well, his misunderstanding of the nature of discipline was criminally negligent on his part, and given that the charge against him is negligence, I think the law is getting it right. HE will probably figure it out. He's a smart guy, and by most accounts, a caring guy. He seemed to be horrified at the idea of being a child abuser and once he learns that how he was treated was not an appropriate method of discipline, I think he will do what it takes to learn a right way, and likely become a great ally of the movement to educate families on proper methods of child discipline.

But to those who, even after knowing the facts, clamor that he was in the right? Who continue to misuse the Proverb to say that parents MUST use violence against their children, who downplay or hide the obvious injuries, who hide behind tradition and patriarchy rather than face the fact that the way they were treated, and indeed, the way they are treating others, is and was never justified? That DOES follow the abuse pattern.

Which is why we still need to keep paying attention to these things. Discipline is very, very important. And when done wrong, (either through neglect or going too far) it can harm a child, and the generations that follow.

Reader Question: Have you seen...

Hey Pastor Dan! Have you seen God is Not Dead/Heaven is Real/Son of God yet? What did you think of it?   -Quite a lot of people

---------------------

I've been getting questions like these for YEARS now, and finally have a forum in which to answer it once and for all. I am even considering carrying around a link to this page (maybe a card with a QR code) so I can just send people to it and save everyone the time. If you are going to ask me if I have watched one of the overtly Christian movies out there, especially if that movie is advertised with terms like; "Really will affirm your faith!" or "I went with my whole Youth Group!" or, "I can't wait to show my non-believing family," then unless I got roped into going for professional reasons (and that is FAR easier to avoid as a Pastor than it was as a Youth Group leader,) then the answer is probably no.

Let's run the Questions that this answer usually leads to.

But you work in the church! AND you love movies! 

Those aren't technically questions, Mr "I love exclamation points waaaay too much Guy." But I'll roll with them. Yes, I am a Church Worker and a movie aficionado, and that means I enjoy faith projects and movies when they are done well. And experience has taught me that movies like those done above almost NEVER are.

You see, it takes a lot of money to make a movie that will merit a theatrical release. This is why Hollywood movies so often come off as committee driven and safe... because a group of bureaucrats who represent the money all put in their opinions on what exactly the movie should be like, which tends to lead to a watered down creative process unless you have someone who can steer the project decisively.

When these (Faith Driven) projects get made, this process is not changed, except that some of the money comes in the form of "Donations" or from Christian publishers. So you still get a community driven project, only now they are using religion buzzwords. "Not a prudent risk" gets replaced with "not theologically sound" and as most of the money is from conservative Evangelical sources, the theology being preserved tends to be the sort of thing that makes me crazy. So you end up with a product that is neither artistically compelling nor theologically challenging.

I suppose eventually one of them might beat that process and actually be good, but it's sort of like video game movie adaptations... eventually, the track record speaks for itself.

But what about all those testimonials?

For starters, even the worst movie in the world can find some radio DJ who said they liked it on the air, and that quote will find its way into the marketing. But then there comes this little wrinkle with this sort of project. While corporate manipulation in your standard Hollywood project only extends to the creative process and marketing, Religious Movies have an advantage that is only now starting to be matched by certain geek properties, the "But you gotta like it," factor.

Remember the "theologically sound" comment I went above? The same voices that strong-armed the creative process can likewise be used in sermons and religious literature. Suddenly, the movie becomes not a mission tool but a mission, and Christians are exhorted to make sure the project is a financial success "for the sake of the Gospel." Whether or not you saw it and loved it becomes a sort of litmus test.

The biggest comic fanboys in the world can only dream of that kind of leverage on their fellow enthusiasts.

But at least they are getting the message out there, right?

That's the worst part... well, not really. The gross manipulation above was actually the WORST part, but a pretty bad part is the fact that the intention of the movies is almost NEVER evangelism. It may be a stated goal (important for the marketing) but other than "being a Christian thing in a place non-Christians sometimes go" there is rarely anything actually Evangelical about these Evangelical projects. Instead, you get movies that spend their time preaching to the choir, with language and imagery geared near specifically to people who already believe in Jesus Christ in a very particular way.

How do I know that? Simple. Watch one sometime and imagine yourself as an atheist. (Or, to my atheists, if you wish to participate, just watch them.) Atheists are practically NEVER sympathetic characters. Inevitably they play villains, degenerates, or the clueless victims of whatever Divine plot is afoot, made to look evil or antic, depending on the movie.

Christian Films like this are no more designed to convince an Atheist to try faith than "Red Dawn" was to get communists to give capitalism the ol' college try.

So faith has no place in the movies, then?

Whoa, whoa! I never said THAT. There is plenty of room for faith in movies, plenty of lessons that can be gleaned for believer and non-believer alike. There are plenty of people of faith in the movie business who get projects made that are powerfully informed by their faith. But you'll rarely see those movies espoused by Saddleback or Mars Hill.

Sometimes the attempt is more overt than others (see the Chronicles of Narnia) but at least these were made as movies, with stories and plot in mind. I think even more can be found in movies where questions are asked even by non-believers. I have run several Bible Studies based on movies, and I always encourage people who look to me for spiritual leadership to glean truth wherever they find it.

So no, I probably haven't watched that movie you're talking about, and if I did, I probably wasn't happy about it. Hey, if you enjoyed it, that's great, and completely your right. But as a whole, that "school of movies" pushes a message I don't support through means I find morally reprehensible. So I'll pass.

Reader Question- How do you save someone from themselves?

Hey Dan, I know a lot of people who have been hurt by the church (myself included). My question is how can you save someone who doesn't know that they're drowning, or how can I save Christians from themselves?  -Joey

---------------

Thanks for writing in, Joey!

Well, there's only one sure-fire method I know of, and it involves dying on a cross. A bunch of people have tried this method, and only one actually succeeded that I have heard of, but that one time was a DOOZY.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me, here. One way of reading it would be, how do you convince a Christian that the church they are in is hurting them? I'll give that one a swing. 

The first step here is to be sure it's actually hurting them, as opposed to offending you. While the second can certainly lead to the first, you can't always assume the first from experiencing the second. I have known plenty of churches that I would have considered harmful, and that would have been to me, but provided homes and communities for people who desperately needed them.

Churches are a LOT like families, and a person can put up with a lot coming from their family. It's very rare that a family is completely healthy, since families are, on the whole, made up almost entirely of humans. So there will always be problems. And the problem that is so glaring, so hurtful, so (dare I say it) triggering to you, may simply not be to them. I know some people who are crushed emotionally by the barest hint of sarcasm. In my family, it was practically a love language. That said, like other families, some churches go beyond foibles and are truly abusive.

So step two... once you have established that the problem is that the church is abusive, rather than just not for you. If the abuse is criminal (physical or sexual abuse) you don't hesitate, but get the authorities involved. That is NOT the time to dilly-dally trying to convince your friend that they are being hurt. Force the issue yourself before things get worse. 

If things aren't quite so clear-cut and simple, then you try to show your friend how they are being hurt, and that there are alternatives. This will not be easy. Again, think of a family. This person has likely put a lot of energy into trying to make things with this church work, and when rationalizations that strong are in place, they're not likely to let them go just because you point out some problems.

Be kind, be patient, be honest, and be there for them when they need you.

"Saving someone from themselves" sounds great, but is rarely successful. As nearly any addiction center will tell you, in the end, people have to be willing to save themselves. If they're not, in the end, there won't be much you can do besides walk the journey with them. 

Saturday Ramble- I never believed in Santa Claus. (Not actually a Christmas post.)

So I woke up about fifteen minutes ago with this idea for a ramble, so, why not. Yeah, it's a bit early to talk about Christmas stuff, but years of writing has taught me to act on inspiration when it hits, not when it's convenient, and so here we go.

I never believed in Santa Claus as a kid.

This wasn't due to higher thinking or anything like that. My parents just never really brought him up. Every year, when I would open my presents, I would know that they were from my parents, or my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

When I went to school I slowly became aware that other kids got their gifts from Santa, at least, according to them. I think I remember asking my Mom about it, and she simply shrugged and said she didn't know who got them their presents, just who got my brother and I ours. It was a pretty neat idea on their part, a way to raise me the way they wanted without spoiling anyone else's gameplan, either.

Only once in my life was a gift under my tree labeled "From Santa," a VCR for the family (our first) and labeled as such only because my parents didn't really want to set the precedent of self gift buying at the holidays. By that time, I was old enough to know have put the "truth" of Santa together, and got the point.

Mom always said that the reasons behind this were twofold. A) She didn't want some guy in a suit getting credit for the gifts she got for me, and B) She didn't want me to learn the truth and feel betrayed that she had lied to me.

Now here I am, years later, blogging about faith on the internet. Anyone who talks faith on the internet has had the Santa Claus comparison made in their presence at least once, and what inspired me to write this in the wee hours was some thinking I did about that. I never had the Santa/God analogue.

In pop culture, the moment when a kid stops believing in Santa Claus is seen as a time of abrupt maturity, a loss of innocence that parents will go to extravagant lengths to delay. To this day, being the one who "breaks" the truth about Santa to a kid is seen as a cause of shame and yet... and yet I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to cut Santa from his starring role entirely.

Not because he is an idol, or anything you will occasionally hear religious conservatives complain about. Not even necessarily to avoid the uncomfortable parallels between Santa and God as far as existence concerned. (Sure, your parents told you God is real. They said the same about Santa.) It's the morality behind Santa that worries me.

When I received presents, I knew they were from my parents, or other friends and family. I also knew that I had received those gifts because they loved me. I NEVER saw them as a reward for good behavior, dependent on my placement on the naughty or nice lists.

I sometimes wonder if Santa is part of the reason Prosperity Gospel is so popular. I mean, here we have a myth that transcends religion about a jolly figure giving good toys to those who deserve them. It's not a big leap from their to figure that the kids who got the nicest toys were better than those who got toys less nice, and of course then imagine the kids who never got any at all!

I knew when I asked for a Nintendo, and didn't get one, that it was because we couldn't afford one. That's not to say I was HAPPY about this state of affairs, but I never felt as if it's lack was a punishment, or a judgement on my character. Several of my friends had them, and it was clear to see the difference hadn't just been a matter of behavior. No offense, Josh or Mark, but you were kings of the naughty list.

But what if I hadn't had that distinction? What if I had believed in Santa Claus? What if I thought all gifts had the same genesis, brought by a jolly old elf who weighed who got what based on (hopefully) what you wanted, combined with how good you were? What if that kind of morality judgement was trained in me early on? How different would I be now?

Now, don't take this as too alarmist. Plenty of kids grow up believing in Santa and manage to come out of the experience without becoming proponents of prosperity gospel. But still, I wonder. Especially when inspiration strikes me in the middle of the night.

I wonder if some of the difficulty we have these days with Prosperity Gospel has it's roots in seemingly innocuous childhood tradition, and if the Joel Osteen's of the world don't get their start by weighing who is "naughty" or "nice" based on who received the nicest toys. What if some of our attitudes towards the poor come from our understanding of Santa Clause, namely that people, by definition, receive what they deserved to have?

Reader Question- What is Sin? How is it different from Evil?

Christians talk a lot about "sin." What exactly is that? What's the difference between "sin" and "evil?"   -Joseph

----------------------

This question has been in the queue for weeks. I have been dodging it but now I feel like if I keep dodging it I'll dodge it forever, so I'll just give it the ol' Seminary try. Thanks for writing in, Joseph. Now, stop complicating my life.

For some, the two words are nearly synonymous, and that's not a completely terrible way to go. In that case, evil is an adjective or noun, while sin is a noun or verb. If you do an evil thing, then you are sinning. It's quick, sweet, and easy, and that's good enough for most people to get along with.

But I don't think it's exactly that simple. And so now I am going to complicate it. Or, more precisely, reveal a possible complication.

I tend to think of evil, at least how we view it as a culture today, as a constant, a baseline, a moral absolute. Evil acts are evil, regardless of context.

Sin, however, I believe to be contextual. I feel that sin is the act of rebelling against the will of God. As God's will can change based on circumstance, an act that is sinful in one context might not be in another.

I know that this infuriates some people, but I do believe it is true to the world we see around us. Step into any college ethics class and watch the debate splinter as people name the thousands of details that might tip the scales in one direction or another. Any set of ethical rules inevitably devolve into guidelines, because hard and fast laws simply do not work in our world.

So here is my bombshell... I don't think Evil, as understood in my description above, really exists. I don't think there is a knowable moral absolute, an easy to describe rubric for actions to describe them as either evil or good. Our world has few true blacks and whites, but is filled near to bursting with shades of grey.

Here is a Biblical example of what I am talking about. In the books of Samuel, King David decides that he wants to build a Temple to God. He is told, however, that he can't, because he has taken so much life.

Now, in those wars David fought, he fought at God's command and with God's help. So surely, David wasn't sinning when he did so. If a moral absolute did exist, and was synonymous with God's will, that wouldn't be a problem. But apparently it was, and so something else was at work.

Maybe there is a moral absolute out there, but if there is, it is clear the human mind isn't capable of fathoming it. Despite all of our attempts to divide the world into Red and Blue, we live in shades of purple.

That said, there are good guidelines out there, rules of thumb that will nearly always apply. I think the ten commandments are good examples of this. Sure, sometimes killing is necessary, to protect others, for example. But in general, don't do it. Same with stealing, or lying, or coveting, etc.

So, to the difference. This will likely rile people up and that's okay. But if you want to know the difference, Evil is the (perhaps illusory) moral absolute of wrongness. The concept of sin, however, recognizes the moral complexity of the world around us, and rather than giving us quick and easy answers in questions of ethics, demands thought and discernment. 

Reader Question- Finding a Gay Friendly Church

How do I determine if a church is queer-friendly? I'm moving to a new community, and would love to find a place of worship where I (a bisexual woman of faith) could feel welcome worshipping and serving with a partner of any gender.

I'm familiar with Gaychurch.org and other online registries, but I don't know how up to date they are. Should I just email and ask (and if so, what?) Should I scope it out and go up to the pastor after and chat? Is there a certain shrub welcoming churches plant?

I'm ecstatic to start looking for a church home, but I don't want to get invested in a place just to find out I'm not allowed to serve if the person I end up spending my life with happens to not be a man.
-Marie

-----------------

Marie, there is not, to my knowledge, a queer-friendly church shrub. But Good Lord Almighty, there OUGHT to be. Thanks for writing in!

No, seriously, I'm all about this. What would it look like? It should probably be rare (so some whacko-fundo church doesn't plant it by accident.) Would it be secret? What would it look like? (Just as an FYI, I don't recommend googling an image for "queer bush" at work. Especially if you work at a church.)

Anyway, to your question. Church shopping is always a difficult proposition, and the need to make sure you would be permitted to serve with a partner is just another item you'd have to add to the list.

For the record, I am going to start off assuming you are looking for a specifically Christian experience. If not, the UU (Unitarian Universalists) would certainly be welcoming.

To start with, paying attention to name brands (denominations) can go a long way in. Your best bet out of the gate is an MCC church. The MCC, or Metropolitan Community Church, was actually founded around the idea of being a pro-LGBTQ Christian Experience, and so you know, walking in, they will be gay-friendly. (While this doesn't necessarily mean you'll jive with the congregation or theology, it's not a bad place to start.) Unfortunately, they're not very big, and so sometimes hard to find.

Any other denomination will be more of a mixed bag. For example, my own denomination, the PC(USA) has recently allowed its ministers to perform gay marriages, and has some gay pastors. That said, any individual church might be less welcoming. So while the name brand is helpful, it's not an assurance. The denominations I have in mind here that are definitely worth checking out  are the Presbyterian Church (USA), The United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

I would, in general, avoid non-denominational churches, as they tend to skew quite conservative. So unless a local non-denom has a rep as being LGBTQ friendly, I'd look elsewhere.

Now, once you have picked out a church, call it up and ask the pastor if he can meet with you. Usually, we can, if you call up during the week. Then you can chat with him about his church and their views and ask him, point blank, if you as a sexually active Bi woman would be welcomed. Ask specific questions, like; "What if I come with a partner? What if we wanted to join? Would we be permitted on leadership?"

Now, in some situations, like an MCC congregation, your answer will be a big enthusiastic YES! Others will have a tempered reaction. Don't throw them out straight away. They are likely recognizing the fact that while you will be MOSTLY accepted, there may be a member or two who has issues. This is generally going to be true of nearly any church. She isn't saying you will be hated or ridiculed, but she also doesn't want to present the picture as rosier than it is.

Then, check out worship. If it feels right, if you like the people, if they are fun and welcoming, enjoy! Often, those people the pastor might have been worried about pull a complete 180 when the conversation shifts from "gay people" to specific people they have met.

In the end, church shopping always takes some homework, and we haven't mastered yet how to make shrubbery take the drudgery out of it. But now you've given me the idea, I'll get to work on it!

Pastor Dan*

*Queershrub approved.

Sermon: Don't be a Judger!

The scripture readings for this one were Exodus 12:1-14, and Romans 14:1-12. And yes, I did enjoy the way that lined up.

http://revdmc247.podbean.com/

Reader Question- The Virgin Birth

What do you think about the Virgin Birth?

-Mary

---------------------------

For starters, I don't think I'm qualified to lecture Mary about the virgin birth. Ok, I kid, I kid. Thanks for writing in!

The Virgin Birth is the part of Jesus' story that claims that Jesus did not have a human father, but rather was conceived by God with the Virgin Mary. It's also very interesting how it's importance varies from person to person. For some, it's SUPER important, an issue they're willing to fight over. For others, it's just a metaphor of... something or other. 

You asked for my thoughts so I'm just going to write them as they come to me, in no particular order.

First off, I always have found it interesting that with four accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, only two felt the need to discuss how he was born. Neither the Gospel of Mark nor the Gospel of John feel the need to discuss it. Mark starts in medias res and John goes all the way back to before the beginning, but neither are interested in the circumstances of Jesus' birth, miraculous or otherwise. 

Skipping the birth also essentially involves skipping Jesus' parents. We hear a lot about Mary but not as much about Joseph. The implications of the virgin birth for Joseph are particularly interesting, because whenever the Royal Line is discussed in the gospels, it's always traced through Joseph. This means that, if you assume a virgin birth, then Jesus is born in the line of David by adoption.

If we discard the idea of a Virgin Birth as a fact and approach it as a metaphor or lesson, but retain a Christian theology (as the gospels would) what is the intended lesson? Why would it be important for Jesus to be a Virgin Birth? Some possible reasons the authors might have had...

1) God moment, WHOA!

2) No Sex in making Jesus, because we know sex is naughty.

3) The whole "Son of God" thing isn't just a clever title.

4) If he had parents like everyone else, he'd just be a regular guy.

None of the above really hold water for me. Jesus would have plenty of God Moments that didn't involve his birth (see the gospels that skip it entirely). The anti-sex message would have been very out of place with the initial authors, if not with the greek interpreters who would later get a hold of it. The Incarnation is all about Jesus being fully human and fully God. That isn't really complicated any more by having a human father, nor does removing the father make it easier.

So what do I think of it?

I think the idea behind the virgin birth is fascinating, but not particularly important. Whether it is the honest to God truth or some kind of tortured metaphor, I don't think it's a vital issue. However, it does open some fun lessons that we today can run with.

1) It's really hard to get too excited about the superiority of men when they had nothing to do with the birth of the Messiah.

2) It's probably important to mention that God declares this plan to Mary, who accepts it in advance. So despite countless internet memes, in the case of the Virgin Birth being legit, God got consent before making a baby in Mary. 

3) There are worse things in the world than having a Woman who even Muslims and Christians can agree was pretty darn great by all accounts.

So what do YOU all think of the Virgin Birth?

Reader Questions- Other Religions

What's your view on other religions? Do you think they are all different but equally acceptable paths to God? I have been feeling like the Christian church is not the right place for me anymore and that maybe I should look for another path. But people keep telling me that Jesus is the only way to salvation. I do accept Christ as a master or teacher but honestly, I have never grasped the whole resurrection business. And what is "salvation" anyway? Is it wrong to believe in reincarnation of the spirit?   -Lucy 

---------------------

Whew! I ask for questions and I get them. You've given me a boatload, so thanks, Lucy! I've spent a few minutes staring at the screen thinking about how I want to go about answering you and I think I'll just take your questions in the order you asked them.

I am a monotheist, which means that, in my worldview, I am not worshiping one God in exclusion of others, but rather worshiping the one God who exists. This also means that I believe that all divine revelation, regardless of who receives it, comes from my God. I believe that the God I worship accepts the worship and prayer of religions around the world, regardless of the names or titles that they use.

Here is where that worldview comes from: when I was a freshman in High School, my family adopted my little sister, Katya, from an orphanage in Kazan, which is a city in the nation of Russia. A while after Katya came to live with us, she was visited by a woman she knew as Babulya (Grandmother) who had cared for her and a group of other girls in the orphanage, and who was pleased to announce that all of her girls had been adopted into God-fearing homes, as she had prayed for them every day.

This woman is a Muslim. I believe, with all my heart, that God answered her prayer.

The language of "different but equally acceptable" is slightly problematic for ME. I am not Unitarian Universalist. I have studied other faiths an chose Christianity over them. I believe that Christianity offers something specifically wonderful to the world, something I feel has lacked in other faiths I have studied. 

That said, I am a universalist, so if you are talking about "acceptable to God," I believe that everyone is, regardless of the name they use for God when they pray. You can see why the language is problematic... I have chosen Christianity over other faiths, but I don't think God excludes the ones who worship in them, so maybe they are equally acceptable and I just have hang ups. For instance, I agree that Jesus is the key to salvation... but I think he's gonna get you there, and being on the path does not necessitate knowing its name.

Based on what you have been saying to me here, you may want to do a little church shopping. One Christian church can be very different from another, and your spiritual home may be out there, waiting for you. If you really feel you want to branch out from the specifically Christian (as it feels like you may) then you may also want to look into Universalist Unitarian options in your area.  Their ideals are close to what you seem to be leaning towards in your question.

I'll shelve your question about resurrection and salvation for now... they're pretty big concepts that deserve their own entries. And while reincarnation of the spirit is also huge to the faiths that espouse it, I am not necessarily the best to give it the answer it deserves, except in so far as why it rang false to me. 

Quite a few religions (some aspects of Christianity included) have created a dichotomy of the spirit and the body. This dichotomy often seems to be very close to the dual aspects of the Force, the spirit, or light side, embracing quiet reflection, study, and peace, while the body, or dark side, leans towards temptation, anger, quick gratification, and passion.

Meaning no offence to George Lucas, I reject that dichotomy. I believe that we are embodied creatures, that our bodies shape our identities and personalities equally with our spirit, and that one cannot be said to exist without the other. We were made in the image of God, beautiful and complicated and WONDERFUL, and that our passions and physical desires are also a part of this wonderful thing that makes us, well, US, rather than impediments to our enlightened spirits which need to be left behind. 

Maybe, nutshell version, that is the point of resurrection... that death cannot destroy you. When Jesus was resurrected, he still had the scars of his life. Resurrection says that not only is death not the final word for us, but when we come back our full persons, nature and nurture, will be healed and perfected, and yes, embodied.

So I don't believe in spirit reincarnation. That certainly doesn't make it wrong to do so, however. Good luck as you search for your spiritual home!

Reader Question- The Perfection of Christ

I listened to your podcast that you posted recently about Jesus + racism. From what you said, it sounds like Jesus was in the wrong in that circumstance. But how could that be? Wasn't Jesus perfect? If he was, how do you explain the inconsistency? If he wasn't, then how can he be Savior?   -Sarah

--------------------------

GREAT question, Sarah, and thanks! 

I'm gonna open this one by announcing pretty much straight up that there are going to be some confusing lines of thought in this one, because this question gets both into the concept of perfection and incarnation, or the idea that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine.

Put bluntly, it means that some of this won't make immediate sense.

That's because I am going to be talking mysteries, here. If this were a Da Vinci code story, that would mean I would be about to have some Vatican agents attack me to keep the secret, but mysteries in the Christian faith are not secrets, just concepts where the metaphysical gears aren't fully understood. Some of my Atheists will read them and say, "Well, yeah, this is part of why I don't believe," and that's fine. This is a leap of faith type situation.

So, Jesus Christ. Between four gospels and numerous letters describing him, we know two things about his Biblical Identity for certain. First, that he is human, and second, that he is God. 

The first few centuries of Christian theology swirled around this idea, and many people had different ways of sorting it out. Some groups insisted that Christ was God masquerading as a human in a cunning disguise. Others placed Jesus in the "Really Great Guy" category. Sent by God, sure. Empowered by God, certainly. Maybe even conceived by God. But not actually GOD. 

Both of these created significant theological problems. If Christ was GOD, but not actually human, then how could he die? If the embodied Jesus of Nazareth was just a cunning disguise then what actually happened during the crucifixion event? Was it a big gag played on those who tried to kill him? Did the suffering really mean anything?

If Christ was not God, then who cared if he died? People are killed by other people brutally, even unjustly, all the time. How would this death be any more significant, any more meaningful? And what about all those God statements Christ made? Was he just crazy?

The answer found was that Christ was both human and divine. The cross event was not divine sleight of hand, but an actual physical living being suffering from beatings and torture and finally death by crucifixion. Likewise, Christ was God, and therefore capable of an act that would serve a purpose beyond a sad metaphor.

Which is all well and good for the cross event... but what about the life of that human body? To hear some Christians tell the story, the important parts of the Incarnation could have been duplicated by taking the baby Jesus out of the manger and nailing him to the cross, but the life actually was important.

Because God, timeless and perfect, became one with a human body, which is temporal and, initially, incomplete.

In the podcast you are referencing, Jesus makes a comment that is undeniably racist, but true based on his current worldview that divided the world into Jews and Gentiles. 

Have you ever heard someone you thought of as a Good Person make a racist comment? The kind where there is no hate, or venom, but simply an assumption of superiority of one facet of humanity over another based on race? I feel that is what is going on here. It's racism based on ignorance, not hatred.

So what happens? The woman responds in a way that amazes Jesus, and he changes his mind. He heals her daughter, as she has been asking him to, and from that point on Jesus no longer makes the distinction between Jew and Gentile. She cured him of his ignorance.

A lot of people like to talk about Jesus as perfect but I feel that is misleading, because while it remembers the God part of the Jesus equation, it forgets the human side. Human beings grow, and have to learn. We see the GOD here somewhat in how quickly Jesus learns and extrapolates the lesson.

So no, Jesus was not perfect, at least not in the concept of having reached any sort of Platonic ideal. Jesus Christ was a human being, so fully and completely that there was a point in his life when Mary and Joseph had to clean his bottom because babies aren't born potty trained. But he learned, and he learned fast. 

So yes, there was a time when Jesus had to learn that, despite all the religious people around him saying otherwise, that his role as God was bigger than the nation of Judah, even bigger than the tribes of Israel. It's fair to say that made him "not perfect."

Then again, maybe that was the point. Teaching us that we are ALL works in progress.

Reader Question- What Hope?

I've heard you say we should hold on to hope.  What exactly is the hope that Christianity offers?

-Rebecca

------------------------------

Thanks for writing in, Rebecca!

I'm gonna go all pastor on you here, which means I may not nail down your question in quite the way you want. I do often remind people to never give up hope, and so it is perfectly reasonable to ask what hope I am talking about. But here's the thing... it changes per person.

For instance, a typical, standard "Christian" answer to this question would be the hope of eternal life, or at least, salvation from hellfire. But said hellfire is also a facet of a specific form of Christianity, and so salvation from it isn't exactly a hope for anyone who doesn't subscribe to that particular worldview. 

So what IS the hope offered by Christianity? (It's probably important to point out that I am not claiming that these hopes are not EXCLUSIVE to Christianity, I am merely saying that it offers them.)

Well, to the American Slaves, the hope of Christianity was freedom. Even though the faith was usually taught to slaves as a pacifier or a weak justification for their treatment, slaves read the scriptures and saw the hope of freedom, and even used their religious songs as code toward that end. So that was A hope.

To many of the Suffragettes, the hope of Christianity was equality. They read texts that told them that was no "male nor female" and so refused to accept the second class citizenship pushed upon them, even when it was done by the preachers of that same faith. So that was A hope.

For the high powered businessman it might be that there is more to their life than what they are able to produce. To the criminal in prison it might be that there is a great judge who forgives, and the knowledge that all people are sinners. To the average person on the street it may be the concept that they are not just average, but are in fact made in the image of God.

That's the thing about hope... it can be really non-specific. Hope is what keeps us going, what convinces us to take that next step even though all the evidence available signifies that it is probably pointless.

The hope offered by Christianity is the hope that there is hope.