In the early Spring of 2025 a friend and I found ourselves sharing thoughts on what might be considered some of the deepest issues in faith, specifically Christian faith. I found my friend's questions and reflections to be personal, sharply-reasoned, yet universal. Perhaps you've had similar thoughts. With their permission, questions from my friend, my responses, and their replies to my responses are shared here. I suspect there will more installments. As always, this blog reflects only my personal convictions.
1. Questioner
Thank you for inviting me to tune in to the livestream from your church. I have a thought about your pastor’s livestream question on goodness...Isn't much of what makes something good simply our choice to see it as such? Perhaps not everything is overwhelmingly good, but there is always some goodness if we look hard enough. Goodness is also subjective. The phrase, "One man's trash is another man's treasure," comes to mind. So even things that are perceived as rotten to the core by some, may be perceived as salvageable and valuable to another.
1. Response to questioner
I’d expect no less philosophically difficult question from you, my friend!
As our pastor said in his talk, the likes of Plato and Augustine were wrestling with this issue centuries ago.
I think much of the issue is about vocabulary and language and the question of what things are arguably absolute and what things are relative, and how we can know the difference.
As you rightly point out, “good” can be very much a relative term. That’s how I think of it most of the time, just like your examples.
There is an interesting Bible passage relevant to this point, and it is a bit mysterious. It is in the gospel account attributed to Mark, chapter 10, starting at verse 17. The Message translation puts it:
“As Jesus went out into the street, a man came running up, greeted him with great reverence, and asked, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to get eternal life?’
Jesus said, ‘Why are you calling me good? No one is good, only God.’”
The conversation then goes on to illuminate the ironic need to surrender in order to win, an idea we have discussed, and an idea central to the message of Christianity.
But, the point was that in this exchange, Jesus chose to illustrate the word “good’ as an absolute, not a relative, and an absolute defined by the character of the one God of the universe, a character not equaled by any other being. [Christian theology of the trinity, of course, holds that Christ, God, and God’s Spirit are co-equal and of one substance, so in essence Jesus’ question was rhetorical and he was pointing out that by calling Jesus “good” and Jesus saying that only God is truly “good”, the man was correct in calling Jesus “good”, affirming that he was the Messiah – God with us.]
So, of course you are right that “good” is generally a relative term, and I agree with that. My point here is that Jesus argued that ultimately the word “good” can be said to be reserved only as a description for the God of the universe, and by that absolute definition, no one else is good. I would agree that if the “good” standard is God, and his son when he was with us on earth in the flesh, nobody else is good. I’m sure not. Recognizing that I cannot live up to my own standards, let alone God’ standards, created the guilt problem that originally led me to accept in 1978 that Jesus had already paid for all my faults forever. When I accepted that, I became absolutely “good” in God’s eyes. That is the core message of Christianity. It is the message that God sees Jesus when he sees me.
It is interesting that I often have a similar discussion about the word “truth.” In many ways “truth” can be relative in that creative expressions in art and music can be said to be “true” and reflect “truth”, and I often apply that kind of definition of “true” to the many kinds of literature collected in the Bible. I have blogged about this because it is important to understand the ways that the words of the Bible can be understood as being true. In my blog post
https://jim-maher.blogspot.com/2021/12/words.html
I talk about being cautious in our understanding of the Bible, recognizing that its truth is very often in the sense that art or music is true. That is different from the way that mathematics are “true” and 2+2 absolutely equals 4. On the other hand, there are sections of biblical narrative that purport to be eyewitness accounts and are intended to be taken as true in an absolute way different from creative artistic expression. Thus, like the word “good”, the word “truth” can be both relative and absolute. As you can tell, I think it is important to think hard about relative and absolute for both words.
What do you think?
2. Questioner
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my question. I'm sure it's just the scientist in me, but for every question to which I find a satisfying answer, twenty new questions arise. For a long time, my skepticism (which believers would more likely call pessimism), prevented me from exploring religion in a meaningful way. When I first reached out to you many months ago about it, I nearly quit my exploration early on, because there were so many points I didn't agree with, couldn't find an acceptable answer to, etc. I thought of you, whose skepticism I greatly admire, and realized your faith may not be so different from science in your eyes.
In science, we have far more questions than answers, often disagree as a community, discover our data and the subsequent interpretations were flawed, etc., but that doesn't mean we no longer believe in science... We accept with grace and humility that we know very little about science in the grand scheme of things, but that we shall remain faithful to it as a concept nonetheless. Our lack of understanding, frequent doubts, and mistakes don't hinder our trust in it as a field. Science is simply a foundation; each new discovery is a brick we add. Sometimes, the entire thing seems to collapse, but even when that occurs, the foundation is still standing, ready to be built upon again and again. I kept going with the idea that perhaps faith is similar, a foundation that many build their lives on. Sometimes all the bricks topple over, but the foundation remains, like science. I am glad I've kept going thus far.
Regarding your thoughts on what "good" truly means in the context of today, I think we are on the same wavelength as fellow writers. I'm sure more than one person has been annoyed at my fixation on semantics. I learned from a young age that words hold great power, both to hurt and to help, and that created a sense of responsibility to find the best word, whenever possible.
I appreciate the verse from Mark you shared. I can see how the interpretation by readers, and those in the story, could vary. The man may not even have been calling Jesus good... "Good Teacher" could be interpreted at least three ways:
The man is indeed calling Jesus both good and a teacher, with "good" not being an adjective of "teacher" here. They are independent. In this case, the man is expressing that he knows Jesus to be both good and a teacher.
The man is calling Jesus a "good teacher", with "good" being the adjective of teacher. In this case, the man is implying that Jesus is simply good at his job, teaching.
The man is calling Jesus a good teacher, a teacher of good. In the same way you would call someone a science teacher, math teacher, etc. In this case, the man may not be implying that Jesus IS good, but that he is a teacher OF good.
Your thoughts on truth really resonate with me, as I have had many of the same questions regarding the Bible. In science, we publish papers, groundbreaking ones, that turn out to be incorrect... We make discoveries that rock the field, that turn out to be incorrect. At the time, we view them as fact, because we have not yet looked at the problem through the correct lens and have not interpreted the data correctly. What if we have done the same thing with religious texts? What if our interpretations are yet to be correct and are only getting more off base as time progresses? What if elements of the Bible we interpret as fact are not and elements we interpret as analogies, hyperbole, etc. are indeed fact? I certainly agree that for nearly every word, both a relative and an absolute interpretation can be held.
As always, I never mean to inundate you with questions or offend. Just too curious for my own good.
One of the concepts with which I have struggled most, which probably won't come as a surprise, is the concept of God's role in human suffering. Particularly in the context of diseases that result in great pain and/or are ultimately fatal, I have struggled to understand why an all-powerful God would allow such an experience. What I most struggle with is what seems like contradictory claims about God on the topic. It's my understanding that God is all-powerful, meaning He has the ability to prevent or heal certain ailments, but as we both know, he doesn't do that. I struggle to understand why God would allow a young child to suffer and die of cancer. I've also frequently heard that we are each designed exactly as God intended and that God does not make mistakes. While I certainly don't believe God "gives" people cancer out of spite or punishment, if God's design of you includes multiple genetic mutations that make it certain you will get cancer... did he not have a hand in it? Could he not have prevented it? I struggle to understand why God's answer to some pleas for help is “no.” I also don't understand the concept of God giving someone an ailment in order for His light to shine through them. The story of the blind man in the Bible comes to mind…that he was born blind so that others will come to know Jesus through Him. This seems selfish on God's part. While some may not mind being blind, others find it immensely difficult to cope with their blindness. It seems selfish to bestow upon someone a disease, disability, or immense hardship simply so others may come to have faith.
People who often mean well will say things like “God wouldn't allow you to go through this trial if He did not know you could handle it” or, “it's all part of God's plan.” I feel those things are very easy to say when you are not the one suffering. Those phrases don't feel helpful when your pain and exhaustion cause you to cry every day. In summary, since my thoughts were probably a mess here, I don't understand what God's role in disease and suffering truly is. If He is all-powerful and everything is according to His plan, does He determine whether one gets sick and whether they are "healed"? If not, if He has no role in whether someone becomes ill, then everything we experience is NOT according to His plan, correct?
2. Response to questioner
My friend, you have restated, eloquently, among the very deepest questions that challenge any philosophy that is based on faith in one or more powerful deities – the problem of suffering, especially what I might call “innocent’ suffering. This is the kind of suffering experienced by animals and by those who inherited genetic disease predisposition, including the youngest or even unborn children
How can I have faith in, and love for, a God who apparently superintends a universe where there is at least one planet full of messes, obviously unfair suffering, and pain shared by so many living creatures, including us humans?
The great philosophers and apologists have devoted lifetimes to struggle toward some way to make sense of this paradox….and it is a paradox.
C.S. Lewis wrote a lengthy, thoughtful, complex, and dense book The Problem of Pain on this subject. I wish it were an easier read. Lewis was a university professor and his writing can be complex. What is unique about Lewis, like Tolkien, however, is that they both loved to write fantasy fiction that embodied some of their deep theology. In fact, as you may have read, it was challenges from Tolkien (a Roman Catholic and friend of Lewis) that formed a main impetus for Lewis to re-examine what had become his atheism, and return not just to a belief in God, but specifically to a belief in the Christian God. I honestly would have loved to have heard those conversations over pints of beer at the Oxford pub that my wife and I happened by last spring at a science conference.
Sometimes I think I most appreciate the way CS Lewis approached his thoughts about Christianity through my reading to my daughters of The Chronicles of Narnia, especially The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, where Lewis retells the ancient Christian story by analogy, with Aslan the lion showing us both Christ and God himself. I admit that Lewis’ story of the death of Aslan on the stone table, and Aslan’s resurrection with the help of tiny mice, touches me as deeply as the actual story of Jesus’ death and resurrection reported in the Bible.
I mention this because of its relation to the problem of understanding pain and struggle and imperfection in our world. Lewis’ famously writes about Aslan: Lucy asks, "Is He safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
Mr. Tumnus later says, "He's wild, you know. Not a tame lion."
Lewis is speaking to our expectations of what God “should” be like, what we want him to be like, and what we think would be fair and just. Lewis is challenging the idea that we get to decide if God’s patterns in creation, and the way he relates to his creation, are fair and beautiful (and tame) enough to earn our faith. Your thoughtful note amounts to honestly saying that your perceptions of God’s patterns in creation, and the way he relates to his creation are NOT fair, and NOT beautiful enough to earn your faith. I get it. We don’t like a God who is not tame.
That is an incredibly honest position, and I respect it.
So what would I say?
I think of time and space and our tiny planet in this universe we inhabit (probably just one universe in a blindingly complex multi-dimensional multiverse) as the stage for an epic story, authored by God in a mysterious way where free will is a central attribute given to humans. This free will has resulted in catastrophe after catastrophe. No, I don’t blame inherited mutations on bad human free will choices, but I see all of the mess on this planet as part and parcel to a disaster playing out as part of the epic plot.
Sounds pessimistic, doesn’t it?
But there in the middle of this disaster has been placed a rescue story. THE one most fantastic rescue story
The whole plot of the whole epic story has been written for one reason: to point to this rescue story.
In fact, I believe our timeless God wrote the epic to be played out in time and space in order that the rescue story could be told. To me, this fallen world where children suffer innocently, and wars are fought selfishly, and pride grows ever greater in me is a story line written from the very beginning to set the stage for the rescue story.
In my view, our God is first and foremost the great rescuer.
I have argued that the peacefulness of the Garden of Eden was never intended to be the plot of this epic story. It was boring. God endowed us with free will knowing that our pride would trigger catastrophe after catastrophe. He knew full well before time began that what would unfold on this planet would involve unfairness and animals suffering and dying and children (and young women) crying in pain every day because of disease that is no fault of their own.
He knew where the mess and suffering would lead, yet he still set it all in motion.
He set it all in motion because in the plot there is something that is so unsurpassingly beautiful that awaits us all in the end.
The rescue story is so transcendently beautiful that it is capable of drowning out and even erasing all the screams, all the tears, all the anguish, all the suffering ever experienced –silencing it. Making it nothing.
We live in a story of disaster written because it sets the stage for a rescue that would make no sense without the full depths of this hopeless mess.
You thoughtfully quoted Jesus reminding his followers that human suffering (in the case of the blind man) is not always attributable to punishment for, or consequences of, human pride. Sometimes blindness is just part of this mess. Like germline chromosomal deletions.
I would offer that the greater insight about God’s relationship to his creation comes from two aspects reported in the Gospels in the Bible recording his time with us when he, effectively the author of the epic story, briefly wrote himself into the plot as Jesus.
The first aspect is that Jesus loved to heal people. The Gospels are filled with those stories as you well know. He was fully capable of healing and he loved to do it. Physical healing is a small taste of the real relationship healing Jesus ultimately came to accomplish. He still is capable of physical healing, which is why I pray for his physical healing in your life.
But the second, more powerful aspect of God’s relationship with his creation is seen in the Gospel of John, chapter 11, verse 35. Here Jesus is confronted with the anguish and suffering and pain of his friends Martha and Mary, and their whole village, at the death of their brother, Lazarus. Jesus did not prevent Lazarus’ death. We are told that Jesus, the author of the epic story himself written into its pages briefly, broke down and cried to see and experience the rawness of the mess of creation so poignantly displayed in the agony of these friends.
He cried.
He cried because of the suffering. He cried with the sufferers. He cried to experience the mess of his creation. He cried with us.
May I dare say it – my friend, when you are alone and frightened, hopeless, in pain in the dark, crying…
…Jesus is crying with you.
In those tears is a message to me that the terrible pain and sorrow and suffering of this messy world hurt God every bit as much as they hurt us. They represent the core of the necessary disaster that set the stage for the epic rescue, a rescue that is and will be so awesome as to drown out all memories of what came before.
God wrote the story outside of time, and I take solace and joy in believing that he has always known that it is such a wonderful, beautiful story...in the end. It always has been. The ending is so amazing that all else will drop away in insignificance. He would not have started time had he not known the beauty of its culmination.
That makes me the ultimate optimist, perhaps.
I write this with all attempts at due respect for the unfair and inexplicable suffering you experience that I cannot imagine.
Yet I remind us both that God chose to write his rescue story ironically, because the rescue involved God’s own decision to willingly suffer in our place, once and for all, on the cross, unjustly, even meaninglessly, to erase all of the debts and imperfections of everything that has ever or will ever have lived. That rescue has now been accomplished in principle, but we experience just a hint of it on this side of eternity.
The real rescue is just on the other side waiting for us.
I would not doubt that you may have countless objections to my view and may even find that it is sadistic to justify a beautiful ending by creating such catastrophic and meaningless suffering by so many for so long. I have no convincing answer to such an objection.
I will leave you with another quote from Lewis before I go:
“Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
These emails are evidence that you have been well roused.
3. Questioner
In my search for God's role in disease and suffering, it also occurred to me that His allowing such things to occur or even ordaining them would not render Him unworthy of devotion in my eyes; it would not necessarily turn me away from faith. I could accept and understand His justification if I found it to be reasonable. In my eyes, God does not have to earn my devotion. I simply feel the devotion must be justified. As you pointed out, His justification for the suffering we experience may be that it will all be irrelevant to us in the end due to the reward being so great once our journey on earth is complete. If that's true, I suppose it's not dissimilar to how countless mothers feel after the discomfort of pregnancy and pain of childbirth. Even those who have miserable pregnancies followed by complicated, painful births, frequently express that the stress and memory of it all became so small and insignificant the moment they held their child for the first time.
In the case of children, mothers likely don't doubt that the journey will be worth it, even in the worst moments, because they know what they are receiving at its conclusion. They know they will receive something beautiful and tangible for their effort. Maybe we struggle to see the painful aspects of human life because we are not capable of truly understanding the reward, or as you put it, rescue, that occurs in the end. We hope and we speculate, but we don't truly understand. If that's true, it seems obvious why it is called "faith". One must trust that all will be well in the end. I'm reminded of the phrase, "Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end."
I am familiar with CS Lewis and know the titles of many of his works, but I have not read them myself. They certainly sound intriguing from your descriptions of them and from the excerpts you shared.
In regards to healing and the concept of miracles, I also don't believe that a physical cure, which would be an obvious miracle, should be our only definition of the word. Thinking back to our discussion on whether good is absolute, relative, or both, I think we have come to only perceive events as miracles if they are grand. It must be bigger and better than anything we could have imagined in order for us to consider it a miracle. To me, that is flawed and robs us of seeing the beauty and grace that fill our everyday lives. To me, meeting you was a miracle. Meeting other dear friends was a miracle. Ending up at this institution just a few months before diagnosis was a miracle. Being able to comfort a young child before their brain surgery by letting them touch my own scars was a miracle. So many stars had to align for each of those events to occur. Despite having a physical battle that seems to deliver a new horror daily, I am incapable of seeing my circumstances as unfortunate or unfair. I feel my life has been full of miracles, so even if, for argument's sake, we want to call the entire experience of cancer all bad, one bad apple does not spoil the barrel.
I have also wondered what Christianity's view on achieving eternal life is for people who will never have the opportunity to even learn about Jesus. I imagine this is a question everyone has. If the fabric of one's life never affords the opportunity to learn about Jesus and become a follower, how is possible that they may not be afforded eternal life, if God Himself controlled the circumstances of their life? If someone is raised in a different culture with a different religion, and they live an honest life in which they are a devoted parent, a faithful spouse, and a loyal friend, how is it possible that they may not be granted eternal life simply because Christianity was not the faith they chose? Given how many religions there are, it also seems statistically impossible (nearly) that one could pick the "right" one. So, how does one find the conviction to feel and say that they were lucky enough to find the one true path to salvation? Of course, I know the argument would be that it is not "luck", but again, why would God not ensure that all paths lead to Him? If above all, God is a rescuer, let's picture Him as a life raft. Stick with me. Let's say that life raft is the one and only one capable of rescuing us from the storm in the end. If every religion believes the same to be true for themselves, they also have their own life rafts. If that is true, each religion asserts that the life raft of every other religion has a hole in it. It will sink and a rescue will not be successful. How do we pick the one life raft (religion) that doesn't have a hole in it when they all appear to be similar. They make similar promises, preach similar principles, etc. By the time we would discover that we picked the wrong raft, it may be too late. Does God extend grace in those circumstances?
3. Response to questioner
My answer to your deep and appropriate question about how God’s rescue can extend to all of our planet, and all its creatures, and all human souls that will ever have lived, past, present, and future, is probably a different answer than you might hear from other Christians or Christian teachers. It doesn’t make me right or wrong, it means that there is a wide range of opinion on how God’s rescue works. Much of the range of opinion depends, unsurprisingly, on how we understand the concept that that Bible is inspired, and what it means to say that it is inspired.
I believe that God’s mercy, love, and patience with his creation vastly exceed anything we can imagine. I believe that all souls and beings, human, and animals to the extent that animals have self-awareness will meet Jesus Christ at their death and, whether they have met Jesus Christ in this life or not, they will meet him then and be enabled to understand the free rescue gift that he offers based on his death and resurrection. I don’t take literally Bible passages that tend to suggest that accepting Christ’s death and resurrection as payment for our imperfections must occur before death or else the deal is void.
The verse from St. Paul that is read at the end of every worship service at our church says:
“One man died for everyone. That puts everyone in the same boat. He included everyone in his death so that everyone could also be included in his life, a resurrection life, a far better life than people ever lived on their own.”
I can’t help but note the repetition of the word everyone in this translation. Jesus’ death and resurrection are sufficient to pay for the imperfections of all souls who will ever have lived. I believe his offer of grace is made evident to every soul that has ever lived, regardless of culture or timing (whether their life is before or after the actual life and death of Christ) and regardless of whether that soul heard the message here on this side of death and accepted it or not.
I choose to believe that all will ultimately be offered the opportunity to freely accept Jesus’ gift of rescue.
Some of us will recognize our savior at the moment of death, others will need to be introduced for the first time to him and the rescue he offers. Those who have not previously understood or accepted his gift will then have the choice. God’s grace is far deeper than we can imagine. His love and patience far beyond anything humans have experienced.
Our friend CS Lewis argues that even if my aspiration is true, there may still be some whose pride and self-satisfaction would make them miserable accepting the rescue offered by Jesus. Lewis believed that some souls will choose to go it alone in the next life. He didn’t believe in a hell based on torment, rather a hell of grey separation and boredom inhabited by souls disinterested in acknowledging a king of the universe and his offer of redemption. Of course, I have a hard time imagining those whose stubbornness would be that great, but Lewis felt that those with such a rebellious attitude would never enjoy heaven with Jesus anyway, and Jesus would not impose it on them.
I am not a “universalist” in that I don’t hold that all souls automatically end up forever with God in heaven at death. Rather, I believe that all souls will be given the opportunity to understand the free gift offered by Jesus, and the chance to accept it once and for all, either here on this side, or on the other side of death. It will be a free gift, offered not because we are good, but because he is good. The concept of free will – that each soul can and must decide for herself whether to accept, and that God will not force himself on anyone, appears the central concept in the epic story God has written for this planet in this universe.
Take some time to think about these ideas and let me know what you think.
4. Questioner
I have had some time to reflect on your response to my question on the extent of God's grace in the end. First, I will admit that I got a chill reading the quote from St. Paul due to the use of the word 'boat'. Maybe my boat analogy was not as crazy as I thought!
I found your explanation to be far kinder and more reasonable than simply saying, "All who were not believers at the time of death do not earn a spot in heaven," which seems to be the claim of many. I will admit that this left me with additional questions of the process. If one is given a choice after their death to join Jesus Christ for eternity, and they choose not to, are they allowed to leave without consequence? For example, if someone is raised to believe in a different God and, upon dying, still wishes to join "their" God rather than Jesus, what sort of ramifications would/could there be for that? I fully expect I am asking questions that are both overly specific and not widely discussed in most churches.
My tendency to ask such questions stems from having the stereotypical analytic mind of a scientist. Much of my hesitancy to believe in not just Jesus, but any god, stems from a series of what appear to be glaring mathematical improbabilities. For example, about 150,000 people die each day. If each of them meet Jesus upon their passing, this means each person is allotted approximately 0.0096 seconds to meet him, hear his message, and make a decision... This urges me to ask questions that would unfortunately come across flippant rather than genuine to most people of faith. In trying to solve the math problem, I have questions like:
Is it a one on one meeting? Groups would be more efficient, so how would that work? How long does he get to deliver his elevator pitch of eternity? Who's watching over everyone on earth while he's tending to the recently departed? Who is listening to prayers and orchestrating the events of our lives while he is occupied with other responsibilities. My understanding is that God is said to be omnipresent, which would explain how he could be in two places at once, but it doesn't explain the timing issue.
I realize the concept of time may not exist in heaven, so 0.0096 seconds for us is not the same for them, but I hope you can make sense of my thought process.
As my presentation on stubbornness nears, CS Lewis' thoughts gave me pause. I highly doubt the following statement will elicit any shock. I am a stubborn person. I do not bend in pursuit of my goals or in my desire to continue fighting. Though daily life is more painful and exhausting than I ever imagined possible, I will continue fighting, because my grit, like my humor, is the core of who I am. I am not willing to lay down my sword simply because the victor has already been decided. When my battle is over, I do not want anyone to say or feel I lost. I certainly did not.
I plan to make a point about this in my upcoming presentation. I am not a resilient person. I am a stubborn person. A resilient person always recovers... in order to continue. A stubborn person always continues... even when they know they cannot recover.
What may surprise you is that I too cannot imagine someone stubborn enough to go it alone in the next life. I have not a shred of desire to take up this fight in the next life. Once will have been more than enough. My stubbornness will die with me. I don't know who I will be without it, but it will not serve me beyond this life.
4. Response to questioner
Your response is thoughtful and made me smile, my friend.
I’ll begin by affirming your “boat” analogy was indeed remarkable in its echo of Paul’s statement. Paul, at least in The Message translation, emphasizes that he sees all people, regardless of their past religious or cultural tradition or view of God, as being equally separated from a relationship with the one true God. This separation has come through their moral failings and inconsistencies, despite their best intentions, and most of all through their pride in thinking, as we all do, that we know best and that self-determination is the best path. In the narrative playing out on this planet, a narrative authored by God but allowing free will of all of us, it is our pride that separates us from God, who seeks our love and our dependence on the rescue he has provided. As I’ve said before, your admirable stubbornness, which can be a unique asset, can also touch on pride when it translates into self-sufficiency, independence, and the sense that you (and I) are equipped to go it alone such that our moral imperfections are overlooked in the grand scheme. The Christian message is that our moral imperfections are never overlooked and they separate us from God, but that God has created a perfect rescue through Jesus Christ, who paid for every imperfection. All we need do is accept that payment.
There are Bible passages that suggest that in order to be rescued, we must learn about Jesus’ rescue and accept it before death. As you can tell from my prior answer, I find this view narrow-minded and inconsistent with God’s tremendous dual characteristics of justice and mercy.
You have actually answered your own thoughtful questions about timing and mathematical improbabilities. I view this life as the play, scripted to take place in time, by a playwright who exists outside of time, i.e., outside of the timeline of the play he has written. This “play” analogy breaks down somewhat in that God endowed the characters (us) with free will, and, initiating the play outside of time, he knew how the story would come out without needing to control us characters like puppets on strings. He knew the huge mess inherent in his plot, and the price of suffering, all pointing to his rescue and to an unspeakably happy ending. The God of the universe invented time and enjoys, I think, creating within it, just as does any artist who creates a play or music or a painting that implies a timeline. The artist is not trapped in that created timeline, no matter how lovely it is. She is beyond it. That’s why I will not be surprised to learn that our God has countless other creative projects in other times and media.
So, in my view, meeting God at death takes place supernaturally and outside of time, and personally, and intimately, as if each person had been God’s only creation, and Christ’s sacrifice being willing, even if you or I were the only character ever to have walked the stage. In that meeting, the reality of our need will be clear, and the reality of the one prescribed rescue will be clear, and our choice will be clear, if we have not chosen in this life. “All being in the same boat” will be clear.
I think CS Lewis believed that the principle of free will in his creatures is an overriding principle in God’s creation. This is because love only has meaning when it is volunteered as a free choice, and not coerced or programmed. For some reason, God created a world where he seeks the free love of his created beings, and he won’t force it, even as each character exits the stage.
Having said all that, my prayer for you is that you choose to submit your admirable stubbornness to the one who made you and has watched with deepest love as you navigate your path in this world. I believe his rich love and acceptance and payment for you are worth experiencing here and now. Not deferring to later. It is like a love affair worth initiating as soon as possible, lest any moment of the precious relationship be missed.
As to the character of the next life, much has been imagined about it. I don’t have any special insight. I love two ideas about it. One comes from an interesting Bible passage where Jesus is confronted by members of the Sadducee religious sect of Judaism who did not believe in resurrection and a life on the other side. In fact, the Jewish scriptures say next to nothing about the idea of heaven, and my Jewish friends don’t tend to talk about heaven in their theology.
In Mark’s Gospel, chapter 12, there is this story:
Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
This passage suggests to me that the next life will not be an extension of this life. It will be unsurpassingly more beautiful and interesting. I take that to mean, for example, that if I meet my beloved pet bunny in the next life (and I long to), my love for him, and the best of our experiences in this life, will be amplified in a timeless way that is unimaginably more beautiful than what I experienced in this life. Our love will be subsumed in my relationship with God. The same for my relationship with my wife.
And you won’t have any battle in the next life.
My other favorite snippet about the next life is from CS Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia. I would love to have it read at my memorial service someday (along with my favorite poignant passage from Richard Adams’ epilogue of Watership Down that I have shared before).
The Narnia extract:
"Oh, Aslan," said Lucy. "Will you tell us how to get into your country from our world?"
"I shall be telling you all the time," said Aslan. "But I will not tell you how long or short the way will be; only that it lies across a river. But do not fear that, for I am the great Bridge Builder."
C.S. Lewis (1952)
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Ch. 14 : The Beginning of the End of the World
Thanks for your thoughts on stubborn vs. resilient. May you, in your admirable stubbornness, find meaning in a different kind of surrender.
What do you think?
5. Questioner
Your first point about stubbornness being intertwined with pride, self-sufficiency, etc. is actually exactly what I teach regarding stubbornness…It is not a personality trait in and of itself, but a tight cluster of intense self-reliance, self-efficacy, problem solving, conscientiousness, and stress management. In my search for what causes one to become so stubborn, to the extent that they cannot accept help and cannot listen to seemingly reasonable arguments to change their position, I settled on control. Control is a basic human need, and seeing as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and certain other forms of childhood adversity tend to create a stubborn adult, it seems obvious that stubbornness is simply an attempt to regain a sense of control that was lost. As you pointed out, it often works to our detriment, but we hang onto it because we have convinced ourselves it is essential for our survival. If it IS essential for survival, my stance on letting go of it in whatever may be after this makes even more sense.
I have no doubt there's a correlation between stubbornness and faith... stubborn people struggle to accept any form of help, much less the type of "payment" you describe. Full disclosure, and I say this with the utmost respect and not with intent to offend, I was raised to believe people who believe in God do so because they are not strong enough to rely on themselves. I was taught that they cling to their religion and its fantastical promise of beauty and eternal life out fear and denial; fear for what is or isn't after death and denial that this world is just a screwed-up place without a plan. The latter, I discovered some time ago, is called absurdism (key points below).
Tenets of absurdism:
•the universe is irrational and meaningless
•trying to find meaning leads to conflict with the universe
•humans are unable to find meaning because it doesn’t exist
•Absurdism doesn’t tell people the meaning of life, it states that there is no meaning.
•Absurdism empowers individuals to create their own meaning.
One needs not to believe in religion to see absurdism as an awful, ugly concept... In another life, I think would have enjoyed a career in philosophy. The theory of absurdism would have made for a very interesting thesis topic, but I digress.
My point in bringing up my previously held belief on why people cling to religion is that it has gone through an evolution. Initially, I subscribed to the belief that religiousness equated to weakness and denial. As I learned more, and maybe developed a little more empathy, my perspective changed to, "So what if they cling to a belief in a higher being? So what if they cling to the belief that life has a deeper meaning and a deeper origin? Life is hard for us all. If those beliefs help them get through the day, who am I to judge?" As I'm sure you will agree, there is a difference in non-judgment and acceptance. We can choose not to judge others, without truly accepting them. We can choose to not judge someone for their way of life, but that does not mean we accept them. That was the next evolution in my belief on religion; I shall not judge others for choosing to live a life of faith, but I don't accept it as ideal or their beliefs as truth. I am now in a new phase of the evolution, in which I am asking myself, "What if it IS truth...?"
Attempting to get back on track on with our earlier points, I sincerely appreciate your explanation of free will. This was a question I had early on in my current stage of evolution. I wondered why a god, who deeply desires the love, devotion, and acceptance of his creations, wouldn't just make that a factory setting that can't be changed. Why on earth (literally) would he create people with the ability to ignore him, doubt him, and make decisions against his wishes? It then occurred to me, exactly as you described, that the love and devotion we give him would not be meaningful if we had no choice in it. If we came preprogrammed with it, the love would be robotic, not remarkable. My conclusion was that perhaps god simply instills in us all the capacity to love him in the way he wishes, but only once we have chosen it.
Your passage from The Chronicles of Naria is beautiful. The song Bridge Over Troubled Waters by Simon & Garfunkel instantly came to mind... It has been one of my favorite songs since childhood. As I mentioned before, nearly all songs can be interpreted as worship songs if you're listening with an intentional ear. I know the lyrics by heart, but I will go listen to it again and listen for something new this time.
5. Response to questioner
I really appreciated two aspects of this latest exchange.
The first is an appreciation of absurdism (which I had not studied during my undergrad explorations of philosophy). I had studied the works of JP Sarte on existentialism (in French, believe it or not, back in those days), and I do see similarities between the principles of existentialism and those of absurdism. I also recognize how these notions contrast sharply with elements of the anthropic principle (i.e. the philosophy that we do recognize actual regularity and coherence and reproducibility in the physical properties of this universe only because this is the kind of universe that is necessary for the evolution of complex life capable of recognizing such coherent properties). Other universes lacking such properties would not be observable because they would not engender the development of self-aware observers. To me these all fit into the general concept of imagining the creative playwright choosing the properties of the stage for the story.
The second is your very honest and helpful disclosure of your personal “stages of evolution of perceptions of religion” (with Christianity, as an example). Your progression clearly shows the growth in your own independent thinking, through life experiences and perhaps through meeting people who challenge stereotypes.
If we limit our conversation to Christianity for a moment, the fact is that there is a bell curve of those who would call themselves Christians, and a wide range of motivations and understandings of faith. That is why stereotypes easily emerge, but are risky. I would like to think that our dialog in these emails has really been unpacking some stereotypes and introducing the idea that there is a place for Christian faith in the life of the intellectual scientist skeptic (i.e. you and me).
If your evolution of perceptions of Christianity is approaching this point, that is true progress, for which I am thankful (to God), and a tribute to your intellectual honesty.
Under the bell curve of self-proclaimed Christians are many who qualify for the stereotypical description you learned from wise parents and professors – religious people who seek to escape their sense of weakness and lack of agency and so wishfully turn to mythology and cling to the hope for something better someday, without any need to apply reason or logic or skepticism or discernment. Also under the curve are the many self-described Christians (I was once one of these) who missed the message that trying to earn God’s love through our behavior is hopeless because we inevitably fail. These folks live a life of “religion” based on effort and attempts at goodness to earn favor, hoping that their goodness might outweigh their badness just enough that some judgment scale is slightly tipped in their favor on an imagined judgment day. These folks missed the memo of Christianity that only zero badness is consistent with God, no matter how much goodness is piled on the other side of the scale. Then there are plenty of Christians uninterested in being self-critical, and who are too quick to believe that the Bible is a textbook (which it is not) rather than a scrapbook. Under the bell curve are other self-described Christians who want to believe that the United States is a Christian nation, that the earth is 10,000 years old, and that we should exploit natural resources, not steward them. It’s a big bell curve and there is plenty of unpleasant stuff under there…because it is made up of people and their messes and their pride and the stories we all tell ourselves to justify ourselves.
Hopefully this dialog is introducing you to others under the bell curve who don’t fit the stereotypes –people like CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien and Francis Collins (former NIH director) who were (or are) intellectuals and skeptics like yourself. They are also hiding under the bell curve and hopefully challenge the stereotypes that you properly detected in your first evolutionary phase.
I love that your second phase was a kind of indifferent acceptance without angry or annoyed judgement. That was a step of maturity.
I love even more the hint of your third phase, perhaps enabled by our conversational efforts to peel back stereotypes about faith, allowing for that key crucial question that you posed:
"What if it IS truth...?"
You will have to decide for yourself. Jesus will not force himself upon you, for exactly the reasons you clarified in your own wise words below. I am here to tell you that Christianity is the one truth. I believe that faith in Jesus Christ has changed my life because it has freed me from my tendency to guilt and shame for my constant failures. These failures are real but have been paid for. Already. I have been rescued. My aspirations for goodness now have nothing to do with earning anything, they are reflections of gratitude and an instinct to imitate the one who paid for me…and to share that sense of freedom with friends like you.
I’m also here to tell you that there is a reason that the music you love is often music that tells (or echoes) the story of redemption – the central Christian plot twist.
God made you to be stubborn. Without that trait I’m convinced we would not be having these email exchanges because I doubt you would have survived your epic health struggles. He loves you just the way you are. There is nothing you could do to be loved more by him. He died for you.
I perceive that your next evolutionary stage of Christian perception is in sight. Insofar as this intriguing dialog helps to clear away obstacles and unpack stereotypes, keep asking and challenging.
6. Questioner
I will respond in more detail tomorrow, but wanted to address your comment on hoping these emails have been helpful in my exploration. There are not words to express how much they have helped me. It has been a safe space to ask any and all questions without fear you will interpret them as intentionally obtuse or offensive. Thank you. I would say I owe you a debt I cannot repay, but I chuckle hearing what I imagine would be your returning quip; "Your debt has already been paid."
6. Response to questioner
As you can tell, my friend, these are some of my favorite topics for intellectual pursuit, and they rival my science, my music, and my family, for my attention. I believe that one of the reasons I’m here (just like one of the reasons you’re here) is to engage in dialogs like this with friends like you on such important topics as faith.
As I’ve often mentioned in my blog, I find that faith (and questions about it) are actually urgent and pressing subjects just below the surface for many (most?) advanced students I’ve met over the years. We’ve chosen you because you are a curious group. Too few take the time and extend the trust to formulate such coherent and honest questions and doubts as you have been sharing.
Happy to continue as you like.
(and yes, it has already been paid)
7. Questioner
I will write tomorrow with questions and thoughts regarding the patriarchal structure of many religions. I suspect there will be more stereotypes to unpack, as well as a reiteration that people's beliefs and practices exist on a bell curve! Your bell curve explanation was most helpful. You are spot on in suggesting much of what I understood of Christianity was learned from stereotypes or interaction with only a narrow section of the bell curve. For now, some additional thoughts...
Pertaining to my previous comments on the evolution of my beliefs about why people choose to live a life of faith, I left out one important thought. At some point between moving past the assumption that people choose faith simply because they are too weak to tackle life alone and the acceptance of whatever helps them get through the day, the following occurred to me. Even if, for argument's sake, we say a person chooses religion solely because they admit they cannot make it through life alone, is that really so terrible? In that case, I realized what I had previously considered to be a cardinal flaw in them was no more than a lack of pride... Hardly a fault at all, much less one worthy of castigating them for or questioning their intelligence...
Many of my misunderstandings about Christianity have their roots in my interactions with the Christians I knew growing up. I moved to a very small town of the Bible Belt in high school. Southern Baptism was the only acceptable practice of faith there. Having lived in a large, diverse city until that point, I attended an elementary school that was accepting of all religions and cultures. As you can imagine, my nonchalant disclosure of being an atheist did not earn me many friends in my new hometown. I did not say it to be rude or hurtful, but when asked by a peer which church in town I would be attending, I simply stated that I didn't go to church. When pressed on whether I believed in God, I said, "No, but I know lots of people do." That was enough to be ousted by many peers and even teachers. It didn't bother me much, nor does it now upon reflection. Kids follow the example of their parents, and even with parents who do not model unkind behavior, kids often have to learn for themselves that their words can be hurtful or inappropriate.
That being said, the "brand" of Christianity I witnessed living there turned me away entirely. Christianity seemed to be nothing more than a guise for unkind, often reprehensible behavior. The people who preached the loudest also sinned the loudest. This led to me associate Christianity and religion as a whole with hypocrisy.
I also stayed far away from religion because of the darkness it has been associated with time and time again. The sad reality is that any position of power provides an opportunity to abuse that power and harm others. The Catholic Church is infamous for such abuse of power... Islam is infamous for its terrible treatment of women (at least in countries that are predominantly Muslim). I stayed away from religion, because I said to myself, "Why would I ever want to be associated with something so terrible? Why would I endorse an entity that does not protect the innocent, does not value me as a woman, etc.?"
Only in the last couple of years have I come to acknowledge that it is not their faith that makes people hypocritical or harmful. Humans behave poorly because they are humans. I had to take inventory of the entities I DO support, and what did I find? Abuses of power, unkind behavior, and hypocrisy. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was one of the worst cases of medical racism and abuse in history. Yet, I still support medical research. Andrew Wakefield's intentionally fraudulent publications on a link between vaccines and autism have caused ripples in public trust and the care of young kids that I doubt we will ever see the end of. Yet, I still support medical research. Lance Armstrong all but killed the sport of road cycling entirely. Not simply because he used performance enhancing drugs and lied about it, but because of the reputations and livelihoods he intentionally ruined in order to keep his secret. In fact, cycling has long been one of the "dirtiest" sports there is, recording more doping violations than nearly every other sport. Yet, I still proudly call myself a cyclist. So much so that I'd write an essay about it... The number of doping scandals in track and field are too numerous to name. Yet, I proudly support the sport and it's what I most look forward to watching every Olympics. My point is, if I were to abandon every sport, profession, or religion associated with rottenness, I would have nothing left. Not even myself... because I am certainly not perfect. I have not made mistakes the magnitude of those mentioned above, but I am not without glaring faults of my own.
I don't doubt your speculation that many other curious graduate students have similar questions about faith and how it can co-exist with the beliefs they hold in science. I'm sure many, maybe even most, could articulate their questions and thought processes much better than I have in these emails. Surely all they lack is a trusted person to share them with. I am lucky to have found that in you.
Your ever so slightly less stubborn friend,
7. Response to questioner
Time for a brief response to pre-empt your next missive (to which I look forward) about historical (and modern) misogyny in world religions like Christianity. A great topic for discussion and you are right…the bell curve will be right there in my comments.
What you wrote yesterday floored me in its clarity of thought, from top to bottom. Your recognition that the failings of people are universal and contaminate even the most beautiful and purposeful human endeavors is exactly right, and beautifully stated, with some great examples. I don’t read many books, but just finished the new book Doctored by Charles Piller (Science magazine reporter) about the truly shocking streak of scientific misconduct involving dozens of labs in the history of Alzheimer’s Disease research. The implications for wasted money and time and the temptation to short-cuts and carelessness is stunning. Don’t get me started. It reminds me of my scientific mission in my responsible conduct of research course lectures hopefully admonishing impressionable students to exemplary science and data stewardship to prevent these disasters with self-discipline, and habits that thwart misconduct. But who am I kidding? It is as you imply, if humans are involved, so is temptation, selfishness, pride, laziness, all the mess that is part of the bigger mess when free will meets opportunity. In any case, you nailed it in your recognition that it is the people that ruin our worthy and honorable endeavors.
The remarkable thing at the center of Christianity is that God so loved the world (all of us failing messes) that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him will not die, but have everlasting life. I bet you recognize that Bible quote. It is amazing because it doesn’t say that God so loved the worthy and honorable endeavors and goals that he committed suicide as a rescue for them. No, his sacrifice was for us messes, the very ones that have contaminated and destroyed the purity of science and faith and sports. He didn’t offer himself to redeem the worthy concepts, his sacrifice was for what you well term the rottenness. Thus, your insight about rottenness (what is called total depravity in theology) allows us to recognize the unfathomable nature of God’s love.
In fact, it is this aesthetic of the hero dying for the villain that most attracts me to faith in Christianity. It’s not so much historical evidence or biblical mandates or examples of worthy people – it is this upside down ethic that attracts me at the very depth of my soul. It’s something I feel like I was made to long for. It is nothing like any other religion.
And that brings me to my second reaction to the brilliance of your note yesterday. In just a few sentences you made it perfectly clear how your views and response to a deeply toxic brand of Christianity had created a HUGE obstacle to ever being able to hear and feel and experience a different understanding of Christian faith. It makes me SO sad to think of the damage that is done when any of us knowingly or unknowingly creates obstacles that separate a seeking, curious person from God by creating scars that may never heal. I wish I could apologize for those that left those scars on you. I wish there were a Hippocratic mandate to at least “do no harm” among self-proclaimed Christians, but there isn’t. Your experience is all too common. Many of the people with whom I worship and serve tell similar stories and describe paths that involve rediscovery of a kind of relationship with God they had never imagined because of the toxicity of performance-based religion and sheer hypocrisy. I say this, mind you, as a hypocrite too, of course. Yes, you were exposed to a toxic brand of so-called Christianity that lives under that bell curve, masquerading as truth and purity, but accomplishing pretty much the opposite of what we see in the life of Jesus and what we read about in the letters of Paul (also mind you, I have issues with some of Paul’s words, as I imagine we’ll discuss very soon).
So your disclosures about toxic Christianity explain a very great deal to me about who you are, and why. My hope is that this dialog is helping to unpack the core truths of Christianity from the toxic cultures and rottenness that we have managed to superimpose. The beauty and uniqueness of the rescue story deserve to shine through, and I want to help you see and experience them. In fact, the pastor of our church grew up in toxic performance-based Christianity so his teaching often aims right at disarming that damage by explaining the real “gospel’, i.e., good news. It is the main theme of his current teaching series about the letter of Paul to the church at Galatia – not letting performance-based pseudo Christianity be confused for the genuine faith.
For some reason it is on my heart today, as I close this response to your disclosures of past damage, and your wise and kind description of an evolutionary stage where you recognized that dependence on faith may be evidence of humility overcoming pride, to explain explicitly the simplicity of accepting what Jesus did for you, thereby becoming a Christian. It really is as simple as a heartfelt prayer of surrender.
Lord, for all my life I have sought to be stubbornly independent, even in my suffering. I confess that I have a core of pride and yes, even rottenness. I confess now that I really do need you, that I carry a debt and a burden of imperfection and I can’t pay for it. I need you. I want to know you as you know me. Thank you for Jesus and for his death and suffering for me. Thank you for his rescue. Thank you for pursuing me with your gift. I accept it as payment for this suffering and struggling soul. I long to serve you now and know you forever on the other side.
8. Questioner
Thank you for taking time out of what was obviously a busy day to respond to my thoughts. I apologize for some of the typos in it and a late reply this evening. The stormy weather gave some peace throughout the day. I have always loved storms. The bigger the better. Hard rain, loud crackles of thunder, and heavy winds. They have always been soothing to me. Every night, I have my Alexa device play thunderstorm sounds or sounds of waves crashing in the ocean. I have often wondered if the reason I feel so at peace hearing storms is because I have always been in a storm myself. When the rain falls hard and the "boom" echoes far, it feels like I am not alone. It feels like having a friend to cry with or vent to...
What I most appreciated about your previous email was your acknowledgment that we are all flawed. We are all hypocritical. Even Christians. One of my many frustrations with the Christianity I observed growing up, and still now, is the tendency for Christians to assert that a person who did something terrible wasn't a "true Christian". For example, when someone who claims to be a Christian gets caught stealing, lying, harming another person, etc., many Christians will say, "They're not a Christian! Even if they say they are, they're not. A true Christian would never do that." This stance bothers me immensely, because how can you ever learn from the mistakes of your community and avoid them if you refuse to even acknowledge them? The scientists who commit grave misconduct are still scientists. They have a PhD just like you; they are no less of a scientist than you. They made a terrible mistake and acted in ways that certainly don't reflect your values as a scientist or those of the scientific community as a whole, but that does not mean they are not still a scientist. Commitment to a belief or system only when it is in the right does nothing for the believer or the system. Commitment only means something when you are in it for all its ugliness too... It only means something if you take accountability for the mistakes made in its name and vow to do better. This is why I find the claim that a Christian who sins a certain way is not a true Christian to be a form of denial. It also insinuates that true Christians are a perfect bunch, which not only isn't true but likely creates yet another barrier for curious people. If your impression is that people who make big mistakes can't be real Christians, you might write off the possibility that you could ever be one.
I can also understand why the specifics of the sacrifice are so meaningful to you. A hero sacrificing themself for a villain is not a story we hear often, if ever. Though I don't want to speak for you, I can speculate as to why that particular aspect of Christianity appeals so much to you... You are a hopeful person. You are a believer of God, but you are also a believer of your fellow humans. God's message that he did not sacrifice himself for the honorable and righteous but the ordinary or even rotten too, suggests, to me at least, that he did so because he believed in every villain's ability to become a hero, should they choose the right path. Perhaps that is a belief you also hold; all people can change for the better and be the hero in someone's story, even if they have been a villain in others' stories...
Okay, I don't quite have it in me to bring up my next questions tonight, but I will try to do so tomorrow. Thank you as always for your brilliant thoughts.
And a final note ahead of tomorrow's thoughts. I wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for answering all my questions thus far. I will never run out of them, so at any time, please do not feel if you don't wish to answer any more. There are several reasons I've chosen to ask you all these questions and not a peer. My primary reason for not asking such questions to someone my age is that feel it would be irresponsible. Best case scenario, they may give me answers that aren't necessarily correct or complete, through no fault of their own. I would not expect anyone to have the same level of wisdom and knowledge regarding faith that someone a few decades their senior would. Worst case scenario, I find it entirely possible that my continuous questioning and arguments on the core aspects of their beliefs, though well-intentioned, may sway them negatively in their faith. I may ask questions they have not started thinking about themselves, and not being able to find those answers may turn them away from a god they had previously trusted and needed. We talked about faith being like a brick house, a home. I do not go demoing other people's homes for the sake of my own curiosity. I chose your house because I can see that it is sturdy. I know my constant winds and prodding at its bricks will not make it topple.
8. Response to questioner
Just a note that your concern for not wanting to challenge, question, or probe too deeply into the faith of a younger person is thoughtful, but I would not be concerned about it. The Bible teaches that iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), and this means that if Christianity is what it claims to be (the one ultimate truth) it must be able to stand up to challenges of logic and experience and science and other world views. Thinking about those challenges to Christian faith is important and not to be avoided.
I often meet families whose goal seems to be to protect their Christian children from being confronted by other claims of truth. Such children end up in home schooling, or in Christian schools, and then in Christian colleges where one goal seems to be to meet and marry (as early as possible) a like-minded Christian mate in order to create a Christian nest to raise more similarly-insulated and isolated Christian children.
I was raised in a mainline Episcopal (Anglican) tradition by a loving, church-going family. Though I memorized all the prayers and went through all the motions of baptism and confirmation and service in the congregation, I never understood the central message that Jesus died for me, not as some tragic accident of Roman history, but intentionally to rescue me. I didn’t hear that message clearly until I was a Junior in high school and it totally changed me when I accepted Jesus and his gift as real choices in my life.
When I first had this experience I was introduced to a culture that lacked skepticism and I was told to read the Bible as an infallible textbook, not a complex scrapbook of different kinds of literature with different purposes, and that evolution was an incorrect theory and I would need to set aside that part of science.
When I did my undergrad and PhD at UW–Madison I am so glad that while I continued to study the Bible, I also studied world history, biblical criticism, the history of science, and I was surrounded by students who were smarter than me, wiser than me, nicer than me, less judgmental and hypocritical than me, and who were not Christians. This disavowed me of the mistaken notion that Christians are better. We are not. The difference is that we are forgiven. This, and countless conversations with non-Christians and challenges to theology forced me to ask how my world view could compete in the marketplace of ideas that one encounters at a major public university. Frankly, that’s why I’m not a fan of the insulation and isolation of Christian schools. They can propagate a “we’re better than those evil non-Christians” mentality because the students are simply never confronted with knowing and appreciating, and loving, non-Christian friends. These experiences are, frankly, the purpose of a liberal education, in my opinion.
All that is to say that having similar conversations to this with other beloved Christian friends will not be a threat to their faith. Their brick houses actually are strengthened, like our own muscles, by challenges and provocations to rethink what are essentials of the Christian faith and what is unhelpful cultural baggage.
In fact, over the years since my conversion to faith in Jesus, the details of my belief and theology have changed. This has come both by reading the Bible closely and reading about the Bible closely. The changes have come also from life experiences and from listening to other theologies in order to distill the essential differences. They have comes from studying the life of Galileo, who taught us that God reveals truth about himself at least as much by what we see and measure in the universe, not just by what has been collected as writings in the Bible. I’ve come to be more thoughtful about how to understand the Bible, and which parts are and are not relevant and applicable to my life. I’ve come to see women and LGBTIQ+ people as fully eligible for all aspects of faith and rescue without needing to change or be changed, other than whatever changes God brings about in their lives.
So don’t hesitate to bring any earth-shattering and faith-shaking questions to your Christian peers. They may very well provide better, more thoughtful, and more relevant insights than me. The difference is that they will be the insights of a peer, not of a father (or grandfather?) figure. The other difference is that I am at a life stage where it is easier for me to make time for correspondence. Your peers are, like you, super busy learning to be amazing scientists.
You are welcome to my time and answers to your questions. That is a major part of what I’m here for. It is, however, worth always keeping in mind the distinction between an enjoyable tennis match of fascinating ideas vs. a process of actually getting closer to a sense of what is really true for you, and whether that personal truth is changing in light of the correspondence. I really sense that it is, and I am thankful for that. Your questions are also refreshing in provoking adjustments in my own world view, and a review of what is essential and what is cultural about my own evolving faith.
And as for your assessment that my attraction to God’s rescue story lies in me being a hopeful person, that is a kind thing to say. On reflection, I think my affinity for the rescue story is really based on my attraction to stories of redemption. These redemption stories come in many forms. Rescuing my pet bunny from a lonely life in a dark garage with minimal care or attention and a perpetually filthy cage, and treating him to more than a decade of pampering and love and care and physical bonding until his dying evening was a kind of redemption story. During the construction of our church, a volunteer offered to teach unskilled helpers to tile a commercial kitchen floor. Despite many hours of work, it didn’t go well and the result was not acceptable. The volunteer leader was embarrassed and humiliated. It would be expensive and difficult to redo the project to make the tile floor acceptable. Those of us in leadership discussed what to do. Rather than leave the story as one of failure and humiliation, we decided that all of the leadership team, professional architect and builder’s representatives, and the original volunteers would come together on a weekend to completely remove the floor, hundreds of tiles with mortar and grout already hardened on them, and manually chip away all those adhesives to reclaim the tiles. We all then got on our hands and knees and learned from the volunteer how to do commercial kitchen floor tiling, and we all together redid the job. It came out very well, and the confidence and satisfaction of the volunteer leader were restored. In fact, the result was better than had the problem not occurred in the first place. Every time I walk through that kitchen I think of that redemption story. I love redemption stories like that.
God wrote just such a story in this world. The redemption of fallen humanity is a better story than had humanity never fallen.
9. Questioner
Please forgive what won't be an articulate email here. I really appreciate your view on education and the often insular nature of faith. I had the opportunity to go to a boarding school for the blind as a kid. Ultimately, I decided against it as I didn't think I’d learn anything about the world if I only surrounded myself with other people who shared my experience. Your points about education remind me of that.
On tennis match vs. actually learning and making progress towards something, I would not continue to ask questions if I didn't feel my view was changing. I think there are just a few more key topics I need to understand better before I would feel convicted enough to accept the gift. To be fair, I am someone who never commits to anything until I feel I can fully understand it, justify it, and explain the concepts in my own words.
- I have trouble understanding the role of women in Christianity. It seems the most common view is that they are around to serve their husband, raise kids, be quiet, and not hold positions of leadership. I don't know how much of that view is based on scripture and how much is based on bell curve beliefs. I also don't understand how churches and Christianity determine certain acts are sinful or wrong if the Bible actually says nothing about such things. Christianity seems to be very vocal about reproductive rights and issues of children. I hear lots of condemnation for abortion, IVF, surrogacy, etc. but none of those were even around in Jesus' time. I think people are entitled to their opinions and not all of one's opinions have to be rooted in their faith. Someone can dislike a behavior without there being concrete biblical support of their opinion. It is just sometimes hard to tell what is personal belief and what is belief of the religion as a whole, especially if the church (like the Catholic Church for example) has an official statement on it.
- I have trouble understanding what Christianity's view on the LGBTQIA+ community is. Christians tend to be very vocal about it. I did read your blog post from many years ago about it, but thought I would still ask because I know one's insights change over several decades. I do agree with your take on even if it's not a lifestyle you understand or feel is perfect, you can still love the person and support them. I would only say that trying to change someone or convince them they need to be changed in that context could be hurtful. But that is also very different from the extremes of conversion therapy, being ousted by your family and the church, etc. My reason for asking is that I want to be part of something that loves and supports people of all backgrounds.
9. Response to questioner
Hi.
I am very glad that you brought these next two deep questions, because they have become very important, they divide the bell curve of those of us who describe ourselves as Christians, and the discussion illustrates the crucial need to understand what are central vs. peripheral issues to faith. The issues have become huge obstacles for those honestly seeking to understand the core message of Christian faith, vs. the cultural trappings. I count you among those wise seekers.
I think the bell curve concept really is a concept of different perceptions of what is central vs. peripheral to being a Christian, with fringe views at both extremes and a fat middle of believers who have mixed feelings, don’t care, or would rather focus on what we share in common than what separates us.
Example. My daughters are in the mid-30s and were raised in the evangelical faith tradition that my wife and I adopted after both being raised in mainline Protestant traditions (Anglican for me, Lutheran for my wife). The very largest obstacle to our kids remaining interested in organized Christianity, especially the brand of organized Christianity practiced by their parents, is the disgust our daughters feel for the kinds of things they see in social media postings by people we consider to be our church friends. This has driven them from much of any interest in evangelical Christianity (a descriptive term that really just originally meant the brand Christianity that feels it has a positive message worth spreading). Our girls have trouble with the bell curve and trouble believing that we could have friends based on areas of agreement without our disagreements (typically on politics, science, biblical interpretation) permanently alienating us from such friends. My wife and I have found that our job is to find common ground in the core agreement on God’s great rescue story in Jesus, and focus deep and shared effort there, rather than being distracted by the many opinions that may separate us from other Christian believers. Life under the bell curve.
1. Women in Christianity. You are absolutely correct that both Catholic and protestant churches have a history of suppressing women. The same is true, by the way, at least in America, for suppressing people of color. At the root of this is difference of opinion about how to understand the Bible – textbook, or 20+ century-old scrapbook of insights into God’s character and story, written in different forms of literature for different purposes, many of which don’t apply to us. For example, significant portions of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) are devoted to prescribing conduct for the Jewish priestly class (irrelevant to us), and to ceremonies underpinning animal sacrifice to symbolize the need for someone or something to pay for sin. As Christians understand that our sins have now been paid for (“atoned for”) once and for all through Jesus’ death and resurrection, those passages are interesting but not binding on us. What about the New Testament, and the letters of St. Paul to the early churches after Jesus’ death? These letters are a mixed bag. On one hand, Paul was the greatest interpreter of Jesus for the whole Roman world, extending the message of the rescue beyond Judaism where it was born, to everyone. None of us who are gentiles (not Jewish by birth) would have learned the Christian message except for Paul’s sense of calling to explain its universality. So Paul is a hero.
That said, Paul was a product of his culture 20+ centuries ago, and it is ignorant to apply blindly that cultural context to our context. We have to do serious thinking about what Paul may have meant in his writings, and I think (an opinion that separates me from others under the bell curve) that we must simply ignore some of Paul’s teachings that are not relevant, or that are culturally inappropriate today, or that are ignorant. Does that mean that I don’t think the Bible is worth studying? No. I advocate that the Bible is worth studying carefully because it is a beautiful and complex collection of documents. It is the best way of understanding God’s rescue, but it is not a trivial source of information.
This whole topic is, as you know, treated in one of my recent posts where I use the issue of women in the church to catalyze a clarification of how I have come to think that we are meant to understand the Bible. That post is:
https://jim-maher.blogspot.com/2021/12/words.html
To cut to the chase, St. Paul wrote two key things that affect perceptions of women in Christian churches. Under the bell curve, some have latched onto one verse, some to the other.
The first is a sublime and poetic verse from Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia. This statement was revolutionary and completely counter-cultural at its time (and it still is, actually). It is aspirational and freeing and I cling to it:
The Message translation of the original Greek is:
Gal 3:28-29
In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and
free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a
common relationship with Jesus Christ.
This verse wins the day in my book. The church should be equally represented in leadership and congregation by men and women and all classes of society.
Period.
But this same Paul was also trapped, somewhat understandably, in the culture of his day, despite his willingness to write revolutionary things as above. In a different, perhaps annoyed setting, Paul writes to his mentee, Timothy, and leaves this extremely unhelpful quote that has enabled gender suppression for 20+ centuries (again The Message translation):
1Tim 2:12
I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first-our pioneer in sin!-with Adam right on her heels. On the other hand, her childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve. But this salvation only comes to those who continue in faith, love, and holiness, gathering it all into maturity. You can depend on this.
I find this an unhelpful reference to what I presume was a local issue, emphasized unhelpfully by Paul from a context we don’t understand, and gladly generalized and made universal by most of the Christian church for generations, not to mention other quotes about hair styles and clothing (that we all ignore).
Thus, as you have pointed out about the rottenness of human nature, Christians under the bell curve of belief have latched onto Bible verses that support cultural trends they like, ignoring other verses. The problem is misunderstanding and misusing a complex scrapbook (the Bible) on culturally-changing matters, while losing sight of the central rescue story that must always take precedence.
In fact, I am sad to say that it wasn’t until last year that careful study of this issue led my own church to fully endorse the equality of women in all areas of leadership within the church. In 2024! And, I am sad to say, the decision was so uncomfortable for some, that they chose to worship elsewhere, in settings where different Bible verses are emphasized over others.
Thus, the major features that distinguish Christian sub-populations under the bell curve are, in my opinion, all based on different understandings of how the Bible is inspired, what it means to say that the Bible is inspired, and whether or not we admit to ourselves that we inevitably must pick and choose what passages do and do not apply to us.
I believe that men and women are equal in God’s eyes, equally flawed, equally in need of rescue, equally capable of humble service and leadership in Christian churches, equally vulnerable to stumbling and hypocrisy, equally gifted for all kinds of roles. 20+ centuries of science and cultural advancement make it crucial not to apply literal biblical quotations to this issue. We must do our homework before deciding what are the core principles.
And we must NEVER allow this peripheral issue create an obstacle to the understanding the central rescue story of Christianity.
Thus, because of the bell curve there is no one view of women in Christianity. There are many views. I personally think many of them are dead wrong, but I can still love and collaborate with those who disagree, as we address tasks that focus on the core message of the faith.
2. I love that you have scoured my blog thoroughly enough to recognize that in 1996 (29 years ago!!) I posted this reflection for a curious family member:
http://jim-maher.blogspot.com/1996/06/answering-question-about-homosexuality.html
It was my attempt to catalog everything I could find in the Bible about homosexual conduct, emphasizing that there is very little there. As you point out accurately, one would never guess this based on the shrill political discourse under the Christian bell curve. The same goes for all aspects of LGBTIQ+ life. Very little in the Bible, very much in modern political discourse. This is actually a pathetic diversion so that the modern message of Christianity seems mostly about limiting the behavior of a few rather than explaining the rescue story needed by literally everyone. A big section of the bell curve has essentially hidden and subverted the key message by creating hateful and distracting obstacles.
You are right about many things. The recognition of transgender characteristics, though ancient and intrinsic to a fraction of humanity, much like homosexuality, is not a topic given much of any recognition in the Bible. Intersex genitalia, gene variants in hormones and hormone receptors, different brain chemistries, DNA binding variation by the SRY protein, sequence variations at countless gene loci affecting behavior, chromosomal ploidy differences…not material to be expected in an ancient scrapbook.
In my lectures in the graduate school molecular genetics course on yeast (S. cerevisiae) sex determination (BTW, there are two sexes, a and α) I emphasize the beautiful molecular circuitry that determines yeast gender, and how the circuitry allows gender switching. I try to make the point that sex determination in a “simple” eukaryotic fungus is beautiful and complex, so we should not be surprised that sexual identify may be far more complex in H. sapiens !
This begs the question of whether non-binary humans are “broken” or “defective” or “diseased”, or whether these molecular variants should be understood as part of a normal continuum of humanity. Even if some variants can be thought of as based on molecular “defects”, are all defects meant to be shunned until corrected?
So, yes, my opinion has changed since 1996. I do not believe the few Bible passages discussing homosexuality apply to what we mean by modern same-sex relationships. Same-sex relationships in the ancient world were often associated with competing religions, and/or with abusive and controlling dynamics far from psychological health. The BTIQ+ letters are pretty much not addressed in the Bible. So what if in the creation myth in the Book of Genesis, God is described as creating a male and a female first? To me this does not mean that non-binary existence is forbidden.
My nephew is a married gay pastor in an Evangelical Lutheran church. So that’s under the bell curve too.
I will say that there are healthy principles that may apply to straight as well as LGBTIQ+ people, and these principles are around long-term committed relationships rather than promiscuity. The history of gay life in America has historically been in the closet, and this glorified (or depended on?) promiscuity and multiple partners without long-term commitment. This was a key factor in the AIDs epidemic (as an aside…I love playing in the band for the Broadway musical Rent and I once blogged about why: https://jim-maher.blogspot.com/2014/07/rent.html)
So, I will clarify my personal opinion. God loves single and binary and non-binary and LGBTIQ+ people. Our intrinsic tendencies to sin (fall short of our self-expectations, let alone God’s expectations) are identical. Their biology and their emotional trauma and their gifts and potential are all the same as for you and me. We all need Jesus. The Church needs committed LGBTIQ+ people in ministry and service and leadership. For those who have partners and have put their trust in Jesus, I would love to see them choose marriage, committing to each other for life, rather than suffering the emotional damage of promiscuity. The passages on homosexuality I listed in 1996 remain, and the possible responses I proposed in 1996 remain, but my understanding has changed. LGBTIQ+ people are part of the normal spectrum of humanity who need Jesus, and who, having found Jesus, should be part of Christian church culture and leadership being no more broken than any of us.
I do need to note that among both straight and LGBTIQ+ people there is plenty of emotional and mental pathology that needs healing. Is it possible that some sexual and gender characteristics are symptoms of inner damage and/or self-medication that could be treated by counseling and modern medical therapy? Sure. That’s just as true for straight people as for LGBTIQ+ people. The latter don’t have a monopoly on brokenness.
And totally missing from this discussion is the important and beautiful category of single people, who God loves just as much, who are not incomplete, and who are susceptible to sin and in need of rescue no more or less than the rest.
The pastor of our church will be starting a short series of teachings on tough questions, and I have no doubt that these issues of sexuality will be among them. My own church has its bell curve. I suspect I will disagree with a certain amount of the teaching I will hear, and I suspect most of the disagreement will come from my perspectives as a molecular biologist, and my view of the Bible as a scrapbook, not a textbook.
Regardless of what I hear, I will keep worshipping and serving with my friends, putting focus on my gratitude for what Jesus did for me.
Now that was a much longer pair of answers than your clear and cogent questions. I started it last night and finished this AM. I promise future responses won’t be so burdensome.
Take some time to digest it. Let me know what you think.
10. Questioner
Please never apologize for long emails. They make me smile and I am grateful for them. Please forgive me for another short email. Your email deserves a lot more than I can write tonight, but I really appreciate it. I had the same thoughts and conclusions regarding Paul. I assumed he was not terrible but that his words were certainly a product of his time or a particular experience. Lots of instances of this in the Bible (certain views and punishments that were acceptable then but obviously aren't now.) society can easily disagree with some punishments and views of the Bible that are outdated. (There are nearly 30 "crimes" in the Bible punishable by death). I think there is a tendency to interpret certain passages as literal and still applicable when one does not understand the person or act they are judging, how times have changed, etc.
I appreciate your points about science, yeast, etc. in the context of what was obviously not discovered or discussed back in the day. Above all, when we make new discoveries, if one has faith, I feel there is an obligation to interpret the data with love and not with the intention to bolster an unkind view of your neighbor. I feel if the entire world had made more of an effort to do so regarding the LGBTIQ+ community, they would never have fallen into the lives of pain and promiscuity you brought up. At least not to the extent that resulted in the AIDS epidemic, many suicides, hate crimes, etc. As you pointed out, straight people fall into the terribly damaging lifestyle of promiscuity too, but I believe it struck the LGBTIQ+ community so much harder because they were pariahs. They had no rights and their way of life was even a crime (and still is in many countries, punishable by death). I can see how it would foster the following thought process:
If society won't accept me at my best, why should I care about being my best? If society will not accept me wanting to marry someone of the same sex, why bother? if society says I am unworthy and going to hell no matter what I do, why bother?
The discrimination they faced in healthcare surely contributed to the epidemic too. They were not educated on the dangers of multiple partners, not treated with dignity once they became ill, etc. but I digress. My point is that I agree the best scenario for all genders, sexualities, etc. in the context of relationships is to find your person, one person, and commit. Until then, commit to yourself and your growth as a single person.
…And in the absence of a more in depth explanation of my next question, I will sum it up in a few short lines:
Does God truly forgive ALL sins? Is eternity truly possible for ALL? To forgive the small things seems fair enough, but regardless of remorse, it seems unfair that someone who takes an innocent life out of malice should be afforded eternity. It does not seem fair that the departed soul of a young child would inhabit the same space as the departed soul of the person who took their life...
10. Response to questioner
I will answer your question.
Yes.
Through acceptance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in our place, God forgives all sins, past, present, future, forever. Moreover, there is nothing we can do to lose this forgiveness because the analogy for this unique kind of forgiveness is an irreversible adoption: upon accepting the free gift of Jesus’ death in our place, we are adopted – we are seen by God as he sees his own son, Jesus. Perfectly loved and as if we are perfect. Indeed, we become perfect in God’s eyes. Our present and future conduct is defined as clean, and our past conduct erased, all because of the mighty power of the one perfect life sacrificed for us.
No, it is not fair at all.
Under the bell curve of Christian belief, especially for my Catholic friends (and plenty of evangelicals too), there are gradations of sin. Imperfections carry different scores and might require different degrees of penance (hence Catholic priests will prescribe different degrees of cleansing activities after Catholic confession).
The Bible tells a different story. Any imperfection and all imperfection are equally grievous evidence to God of our fallen character.
No point system.
As we noted in a recent text, “we’re all in the same boat.” Yes, that means the ‘innocent’ child as well has her abusive murderer.
Jesus made this point in multiple ways in his teachings. One example parable (story) is found in Luke’s gospel account, chapter 40:
Jesus said: "Two
men were in debt to a banker. One owed five hundred silver pieces, the other
fifty. Neither of them could pay up, and so the banker canceled both debts.
Which of the two would be more grateful?"
Simon answered, "I suppose the one who was forgiven the most."
"That's right," said Jesus.
In a second example, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 20, Jesus explains that God’s sense of fairness and justice is beyond our reasoning:
Jesus said: “God's kingdom is like an estate manager who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. They agreed on a wage of a dollar a day, and went to work. "Later, about nine o'clock, the manager saw some other men hanging around the town square unemployed. He told them to go to work in his vineyard and he would pay them a fair wage. They went.
"He did the same thing at noon, and again at three o'clock. At five
o'clock he went back and found still others standing around. He said, 'Why are
you standing around all day doing nothing?'
"They said, 'Because no one hired us.'
"He told them to go to work in his vineyard.
"When the day's work was over, the owner of the vineyard instructed his
foreman, 'Call the workers in and pay them their wages. Start with the last
hired and go on to the first.'
"Those hired at five o'clock came up and were each given a dollar. When
those who were hired first saw that, they assumed they would get far more. But
they got the same, each of them one dollar. Taking the dollar, they groused
angrily to the manager, 'These last workers put in only one easy hour, and you
just made them equal to us, who slaved all day under a scorching sun.'
"He replied to the one speaking for the rest, 'Friend, I haven't been unfair. We agreed on the wage of a dollar, didn't we? So take it and go. I decided to give to the one who came last the same as you. Can't I do what I want with my own money? Are you going to get stingy because I am generous?'
Finally (at least for this short email) there is important Bible teaching in the letter attributed to James. (As an aside, Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, believed that different Bible books have different degrees of merit and were differently inspired and differently accurate, and he wasn’t such a fan of the book of James for various reasons. I’ve written about this in my blog post on “words.”)
Nonetheless, James writes (Message translation):
You do well when you complete the Royal Rule of the Scriptures: "Love others as you love yourself." But if you play up to these so-called important people, you go against the Rule and stand convicted by it. You can't pick and choose in these things, specializing in keeping one or two things in God's law and ignoring others. The same God who said, "Don't commit adultery," also said, "Don't murder." If you don't commit adultery but go ahead and murder, do you think your non-adultery will cancel out your murder? No, you're a murderer, period.
A different translation of the same passage is even more plain and simple to understand:
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
Thus, in Christian teaching based on these passages, sins don’t come in shades of grey – they are all black because they all simply represent imperfection, the ultimate obstacle to enjoying a restored relationship with God.
The central plot twist irony is that God himself offers to pay for our imperfection, no matter how flagrant or minor.
And God’s sense of ‘fairness’ seems to be God’s business as the playwright, not ours to judge as the characters endowed with free will.
Happy to hear your thoughts on my answer when your time allows.
11. Questioner
I'm not sure my stubbornness warrants any praise or admiration at this point, but your words are kind nonetheless.
The concept that a murderer receives eternity is a hard pill to swallow. God may not grade sins, but as humans, we obviously do. The laws we govern ourselves by reflect that. One who commits murder does not receive the prison sentence as someone who steals a car. A person who steals a car inflicts far less pain than the person who takes an innocent life...
In trying to understand, I somewhat recognize my own double standard of God. On one hand, I stated that I did not think it fair at all for a good person to go to hell, simply because they worshipped a different god on earth. My view being that God MUST extend forgiveness in that circumstance or he would not be an all forgiving, kind God. At the same time, I am demanding he MUST condemn a murderer to hell, or he would not be a righteous, kind God. I suppose it is not entirely fair to bestow upon God MY opinions of how and who he should punish or forgive. If it were place, I would be the savior of him, not the other way around.
If all sins are forgiven, it does make me question what reason anyone has to NOT commit terrible acts. If God is willing to wash away all crimes against ourselves, others, and Him, what reason does one really have for living an upstanding life. I can speculate that part of your answer will draw a comparison between wanting to please, respect, and honor someone who you know loves you deeply and who you love in return. Your daughters, even if there would be no repercussions, would likely not intentionally do something to hurt you or disappoint you, because they love you and know you love them. Since God is said to be a father figure, I can understand that this would be reason enough to do the right thing when nobody is watching (though I know the other point may be that God is always watching). I suspect another aspect of your answer may be that if God went around condemning people to hell for a wide range of sins, the desire to be a "Christian" or call yourself a believer would be based on fear, something that is not the foundation of any healthy relationship.
If God does not want devotion out of fear, where does the phrase, "A God fearing man/woman" come from, and what does it mean? It is always said in a praising manner.
If all can be forgiven and all can be granted eternity, where does the whole concept of a judgement day come from? I often here Christians say they're not concerned about judging or people and not bothered that someone did not get caught or punished appropriately for their crime on earth, the insinuation being that God will hand down a heftier punishment after death (e.g., hell).
I mostly struggle to accept that someone who did not suffer any consequences for a terrible crime on earth would still not suffer a consequence after death... in particular, I am referring to people who do grave harm to others and never get caught. They live long, healthy lives, untouched by disease, the law, etc. There is no justice for the victim of their crime, and it feels as though the victim would not receive any justice in death either. They would, in fact, inhabit the same sacred space for eternity... How can a god who loves a child of His, a child who devoted their entire life to Him, offer a place to a lifelong nonbeliever who killed that devoted child?
11. Response to questioner
So, you are now asking the kinds of questions that continue to justify calling this thread “deep.” Plenty of important theology, and you have already made clear that you have great insights of your own about the answers.
In order.
First. No. God is not ‘fair’ in human terms. It’s a little bit like the statement by CS Lewis that Aslan the lion, the Jesus character in The Chronicles of Narnia, is not a tame Lion. The parables I shared this morning teach over and over that God’s benevolence is illogical and incomprehensible to us.
It is important to remember that God’s character is one of benevolence but also of justice. Every shortcoming deserves punishment, and every sin must be paid for. This requirement for justice is very much the central teaching of the Old Testament. Somebody has to pay for wrongs…maybe the blood of innocent animals…maybe the perpetrator herself…but someone has to pay. God is just and doesn’t just turn a blind eye.
The Christian message is that someone did pay…it just wasn’t the perpetrator, nor the blood of a sacrificed animal.
Jesus paid.
So yes, we are confronted by a God who may not measure up to our sense of justice. I totally agree.
Second. Great question! Why shouldn’t Christians revel in their eternal forgiveness and just bask in the pleasures of sin with a perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card to show? This was/is such an important theological question that Paul taught on the subject in several of his letters to new churches full of new, confused Christians. Paul’s most cogent comments are in the 6th chapter of his letter to the church at Rome. Forgive the slightly longer text quote, but it addresses the question directly.
“ So what do we do? Keep on sinning so God can keep on forgiving? I should hope not! If we've left the country where sin is sovereign, how can we still live in our old house there? Or didn't you realize we packed up and left there for good? That is what happened in baptism. When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace-a new life in a new land!
That's what baptism into the life of Jesus means. When we are lowered into the
water, it is like the burial of Jesus; when we are raised up out of the water,
it is like the resurrection of Jesus. Each of us is raised into a light-filled
world by our Father so that we can see where we're going in our new
grace-sovereign country.
Could it be any clearer? Our old way of life was nailed to the cross with
Christ, a decisive end to that sin-miserable life-no longer at sin's every beck
and call! What we believe is this: If we get included in Christ's
sin-conquering death, we also get included in his life-saving resurrection. We
know that when Jesus was raised from the dead it was a signal of the end of
death-as-the-end. Never again will death have the last word. When Jesus died,
he took sin down with him, but alive he brings God down to us. From now on,
think of it this way: Sin speaks a dead language that means nothing to you; God
speaks your mother tongue, and you hang on every word. You are dead to sin and
alive to God. That's what Jesus did.”
And just let me clarify that Paul is not saying that one must be baptized to accept Jesus’ gift. He is remarking on the significance of the symbolism of baptism for those who choose to be baptized after they believe.
Your analogy of my daughters relating to me in love, not with contempt, is a beautiful way to express the answer as well. With that said, all Christians constantly struggle with remembering that (as Paul says) we have a new address. We tend to keep heading to that old house and (as Paul remarks elsewhere) insist on putting on our old clothes and forgetting that we are new people. We continue to stumble and we find ever more elegant ways to demonstrate hypocrisy. I find that the Christian life is one of gratitude, attempts at self-discipline, prayers for God’s spirit to influence my behavior, and then lots more gratitude for undeserved forgiveness.
Third. I find the concept embodied in the archaic expression “God-fearing” to be unhelpful. It tends to promote the mistaken Christian world view based on earning and punishment for failing, and the concept that our behavior determines our eternal destiny.
I do not believe that our behavior determines our eternal destiny.
I believe that what determines our eternal destiny when we meet God will be our relationship with him as defined by whether we accept that Jesus paid for us, and that our only merit before God is our dependence on what Jesus did. As we have discussed, I choose to believe that, in his benevolence, God will allow every soul to understand the availability of this gift of substitution, whether they met Jesus on this side or death or not. To me that means that we can imagine a “judgement” day in the sense that all of our lifetime of thoughts and actions matter to God, but/and that we are given the opportunity to exchange them all for the perfect goodness and sacrifice of Jesus. Whatever “judgement” day is, it need not be a fearful time. In my own mind I imagine falling down in tears, seeing and knowing all my life’s failings revealed, and then being able to say “I come confidently to live forever with you, God, not because of, or in spite of, any of this, but simply because I choose to accept that Jesus paid for all of it.”
You may be familiar with the remarkable anecdote (which actually happened to be in my morning devotional Bible reading today) when Jesus and two thieves were dying side-by-side on three crosses on Good Friday. One of the two criminals, while dying in agony, expresses recognition of Jesus as savior. Jesus responds with a phrase that implies that the criminal’s faith, even at that moment, was sufficient for eternal forgiveness. I guess, if pressed, I’d say that within a few hours the other (unrepentant) criminal was meeting God and understanding the magnitude of Jesus’ offer and being given a chance to choose it.
Not fair if we insist on personal accountability and personal punishment (your sense of justice, and mine).
Totally fair if we understand that God insists on accountability and justice and punishment, but he takes it on himself as an unimaginable act of love.
And because there aren’t shades of grey in sin, the most horrific and violent and sadistic acts of evil of the serial murderer are no worse than my selfish and proud excuses for not serving others.
To sum up. Becoming a Christian is ultimately about surrender to the God who is the great bridge builder. The width and strength of that bridge, and its availability to every soul is not comprehensible to our scientific minds.
I think that is what is meant by surrender, and part of the meaning of the word ‘faith.’
Eager, as always, for your thoughts.
12. Questioner
Thank you as always. I found the letter Paul wrote that you shared to be very helpful, as was your explanation that we tend to fall into old, unhealthy habits (same house, same clothes). I also love the song "You Matter to Me" by Sara.
Do you think it's possible that God encourages us
not to judge others, grade their sins, dole out personal justice, etc. because
he believes the following to be true:
- For all our goodness, our judgment is unavoidably driven by the hurt we experience at the hands of others and by the hurt we see inflicted on the innocent. We act out of emotion and a false sense of justice when we seek judgment and vengeance. For as much as we strive to "love our neighbor", we do not love our neighbors as our children. We cannot love our neighbors unconditionally the way we often love our children unconditionally. And on that note, many parents DO defend their children who are convicted of crimes like murder. They do not stop loving them. Perhaps that love, though incomprehensible, is closer to God's love than the way we love our non-blood neighbors.
- God knows what a terrible mental and spiritual burden "justice" and judgment are for people. Was the forgiveness and payment he extended to us with his sacrifice not just a gift of forgiveness and payment for our sins but also a gift of absolving us of the requirement to grade and forgive the multitude of sins he knew we would all continue to commit?
One additional question on the concept of all being offered forgiveness and eternity if we accept God for all he is (whether in this life or after death), what is to stop someone from seeing the alternative of hell presented to them upon their death and just saying the words God wants to hear? People with antisocial personality disorder for example can be incredibly skilled manipulators... charming on the surface, affable, and capable of mimicking the necessary human emotions to hide their lack of them. What would stop such a person from convincing God upon death that they accept him and are sorry for what they've done in order to gain eternal life? This obviously stirs up additional questions. On one hand, I would say God would be most aware of the manipulation tactics of such a person and therefore could not be "duped". I would also question why God would allow such a disorder to manifest in a person. Anyhow, I will morph into a full-blown armchair psychologist with any further speculations on personality disorders, so I'll refrain. In summary, what prevents God from being tricked by an unkind nonbeliever?
A final thought on the topic of God being all powerful in this context: I have always thought what makes god all powerful and the "final decision maker" if you will, was his ability to make final judgments, send others to hell, etc. I'm sure most of that is due to the Christianity I witnessed growing up. I think I am starting to understand that what makes God all powerful and special is not his ability to ruin, but his ability to forgive... even the worst of us.
12. Response to questioner
It is certainly true that Jesus taught that judging others is a mistake. There are plenty of his teachings on this subject. A classic is a quotation attributed to Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew (The Message) version:
“Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults- unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.”
As to your interesting conjectures on why God discourages a judgmental attitude, I think both are reasonable and are consistent with his loving character. I particularly like your second idea. In fact, the transformation (the ‘moving to a new house in a new country with new clothes’ described by Paul) changes our entire attitude from fear, behavior management, pride, and the tendency to judge, to an attitude 100% saturated with gratitude and a sense of freedom. I find this in my life all the time (not that I never slip into my old clothes as a bad habit). Whereas I spent my teenage years bargaining with God, hoping that good behavior would be rewarded (my desired reward in those days was female companionship, by the way), the bargaining disappeared when I trusted in Jesus and saw that every good thing in my life, and the promise of an eternal loving and accepting relationship from my heavenly father, was 100% the result of what Jesus had done for me despite what I deserved. So yes, when we have been set free from behavior management, we tend not to focus on the behavior of others either (at least that should be a natural consequence). I find myself focusing on sharing what Jesus as done for me. Behavior is a symptom. Transformation is a more interesting goal.
When you see highly toxic and judgmental Christians, as you have, you may rightly ask how genuine is the transformation they have experienced, and/or how well they are studying Paul’s teaching about their new country, house, and clothes.
Now as to the possibility of duplicitousness before God when the offer of Jesus’s substitutionary death is explained, I agree with you that God is omniscient and will not be fooled by insincerity. The Old Testament book of 1 Samuel has a classic quote where God is said to have told Samuel (presumably supernaturally):
But God told Samuel, "Looks aren't everything. Don't be impressed with his looks and stature… God judges persons differently than humans do. Men and women look at the face; God looks into the heart."
Thus, I have no doubt that the truth will be laid bare in every respect at that time when we exit the stage and depart from the timeline.
CS Lewis might note that the soul bent on deception and uninterested in surrender to the great love of God would be unhappy living with God in heaven, and God would not compel such an eternal struggle for such a proud soul. Lewis imagines that there is a place of eternal separation for God, where he does not force a relationship on the proud soul. Rather than a place of fiery torment, Lewis imagined a place that would perhaps be worse, but would be in accord with the wishes of the proud soul – a place a grey boredom and repetition. A sort of eternal Ground Hog’s Day experience, consistent with the aspirations of the proud soul.
I personally find it difficult to imagine that a soul made fully aware of the truth of their life’s burden of sin and God’s offer of eternal companionship through Jesus’ gift would cling stubbornly to their prideful independence, but free will appears to be a fundamental principle on the stage, so it is imagined to still be operative in that transition to timelessness as each soul exits the stage into the wings where the playwright greets his created souls and reveals to them the dimensions of reality that he inhabits. That is when we will understand that we have been occupying a 2-dimensional static picture of a 3-dimensional place not constrained by time.
That does emphasize another point that we have touched on. It is my contention that Jesus’ substitutionary life, death, and resurrection is somehow offered to every soul that will ever have lived. That is a challenging idea, because I don’t know when babies develop souls, and we all know that developmentally damaged or genetically defective individuals may not be capable of what we see externally as independent and rational agency. What about them? They are on the opposite pole from those that concerned you – souls that might seek to deceive God. I am talking about souls too innocent to know anything in the sense that we think of knowing.
My sense of God’s unimaginable goodness is that he will communicate with those souls the offer of Jesus through mechanisms we cannot imagine. It may even be that for unborn souls and those emanating from brains so damaged or developmentally limited that the soul had never sinned through pride or selfishness at all, God’s offer of grace will still stand, and heaven with Jesus will be a natural offer.
Are those ideas helpful? Let me know your thoughts and more questions you find pressing and urgent, or even just curiosities. I can only promise my continued attempts at thoughtful answers.
13. Questioner
These ideas are helpful, as always. In fact, you answered one of my next questions towards the end of your email. Not all humans are capable of making the complex decision of accepting Jesus, in this life or the next. Some people never reach a point developmentally or psychologically, due to age or disability, that would enable rational thought on the matter. To me, this would fall under the same category as the person who did not accept Jesus in this life because they were never given the opportunity to even hear His name. That lack of opportunity would not be their fault.
As you pointed out, many people with disabilities/disorders are too innocent to have sinned at all. One obviously does not go driving under the influence if one cannot drive at all. One does not go taking the Lord's name in vain if one has no idea what a "Lord" even is. For some, the only life they will know is the comfort of their home with their caregivers. I do not say that with pity... To live a life in which the only thing achieved is the love and warmth of others is far from a meaningless, sad life. In those cases, I imagine God would, as you say, communicate with them in a way they can understand and potentially determine they never sinned at all.
In my attempt to understand what sins God would and wouldn't forgive, I also had to consider the real existence of a person who is both disabled AND harmful... "guilty by reason of insanity" or "not fit to stand trial" is how we usually phrase that. We recognize that not all sins (crimes) are committed with a sound mind. So, even if a person intentionally commits murder, if they were suffering from a severe mental illness and were not grounded in reality, that changes how we view their crime. They are guilty of the crime, but are they blameworthy? This is actually a fascinating debate in neuroscience, the concept of blameworthiness. A famous example is Charles Whitman, a young man who shot and killed nearly a dozen University of Texas students from the clock tower on campus. Upon autopsy, he was found to have a glioblastoma compressing his amygdala (a region associated with the emotions of fear, aggression, and anxiety). He was unaware of the tumor, but his diaries revealed many entries expressing his dismay at his suddenly erratic emotional state. He shared feeling sudden rushes of extreme anger and violence, intense sadness, etc. but could not understand what events could have precipitated those emotions. He was reported by others to have been a quiet, kind young man his entire life until several months prior to his crime. It is assumed that his drastic behavioral changes and act of violence was, at least in part, due to the tumor. So, was he guilty of the crime? Sure. But was he blameworthy? Grey area, at best. I tried to work out how God would handle forgiveness or eternity for such a person, and ultimately settled on your idea that the forgiveness does not have to be "fair" to be granted... whether the tumor had anything to do with it or not, he could still be forgiven by God. To summarize far too long of a thought process, I settled on your conviction that even if one DOES sin out of pride or selfishness, that does not bar them from forgiveness and eternity.
13. Response to questioner
Hi, my friend.
That is a fascinating case, and it points to the complexity of the human brain, both electrically and chemically. It also touches on the issue of personal responsibility, and what is meant by the idea of just consequences. I agree with your conclusions and think they are consistent with the theological themes in this thread so far.
You have previously used the analogy of a loving parent remaining committed to their child in a criminal trial, with a depth of love that does not depend on the facts of the case, or whether or not the child is guilty. That parental love is unconditional. There is nothing the child could do to gain more of that love, or to lose any of it. We always used words of this kind as we raised our daughters. We told them often that if they ever found themselves in trouble – even if it were terrible trouble (fill in the blank…unplanned pregnancy, killing someone due to inattentive driving, drug addiction) we wanted them to know they could always come to us and we would never judge them, but would help them– and love them. And in the criminal court analogy, the judge might well pronounce judgement of “guilty” on one of my daughters at the end of their trial, with a prescribed penalty that could be dire. In this analogy, my wife or or I would step forward and one of us would take the penalty instead, taking the place of my daughter…and not just paying the price for this crime or misdeed, but paying for any and all penalties she will ever owe.
I think that kind of unconditional love touches on God’s depth of love even for a personal with a ‘criminal mind’. I long to believe that even at death God’s offer of mercy would be extended to that soul.
And here is where us scientists need to pause and reflect on the possibility that brain, mind, and soul are different things, and it is the soul that ultimately relates to God, communicating with him eternally. I have blogged about this idea in the past, raising the possibility that the soul is an emergent property of the physical mind…but the truth is, I have no idea what souls are! I just make the point that the soul need not be equivalent to the mind or the physical brain.
To conclude our shared affirmation (since I think we agree on the answer to your question), perhaps the best way to complete my response is using the story Jesus used when he was trying to convey the unconditionality (I love that word, even if I just made it up) of his love and willingness to forgive. The parable is in the Gospel attributed to Luke, chapter 15. You know it as the parable of the prodigal son.
Jesus said, "There was once a man who had two sons. The younger said to his father, 'Father, I want right now what's coming to me.'
"So the father divided the property between them. It wasn't long before
the younger son packed his bags and left for a distant country. There,
undisciplined and dissipated, he wasted everything he had. After he had gone
through all his money, there was a bad famine all through that country and he
began to hurt. He signed on with a citizen there who assigned him to his fields
to slop the pigs. He was so hungry he would have eaten the corncobs in the pig
slop, but no one would give him any.
"That brought him to his senses. He said, 'All those farmhands working for
my father sit down to three meals a day, and here I am starving to death. I'm
going back to my father. I'll say to him, Father, I've sinned against God, I've
sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son. Take me on as a hired
hand.' He got right up and went home to his father.
"When he was still a long way off, his father saw him. His heart pounding,
he ran out, embraced him, and kissed him. The son started his speech: 'Father,
I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called
your son ever again.'
"But the father wasn't listening. He was calling to the servants, 'Quick.
Bring a clean set of clothes and dress him. Put the family ring on his finger
and sandals on his feet. Then get a grain-fed heifer and roast it. We're going
to feast! We're going to have a wonderful time! My son is here-given up for
dead and now alive! Given up for lost and now found!' And they began to have a
wonderful time.
"All this time his older son was out in the field. When the day's work was
done he came in. As he approached the house, he heard the music and dancing.
Calling over one of the houseboys, he asked what was going on. He told him,
'Your brother came home. Your father has ordered a feast-barbecued
beef!-because he has him home safe and sound.'
"The older brother stalked off in an angry sulk and refused to join in.
His father came out and tried to talk to him, but he wouldn't listen. The son
said, 'Look how many years I've stayed here serving you, never giving you one
moment of grief, but have you ever thrown a party for me and my friends? Then
this son of yours who has thrown away your money on whores shows up and you go
all out with a feast!'
"His father said, 'Son, you don't understand. You're with me all the time,
and everything that is mine is yours-but this is a wonderful time, and we had
to celebrate. This brother of yours was dead, and he's alive! He was lost, and
he's found!'"
There are many details to notice in the story. Two always touch me. The first is that it is the father that comes running to the offending son, not the other way around. The second is that the father wasn’t even listening to the son’s apology as he celebrated his return.
Unconditional love and forgiveness.
Watching for your next fascinating discussion point and will try to respond tomorrow.
14. Questioner
A short note to say I had the exact same thought on a parent being willing to take the punishment for a crime committed by their child... I imagined that exact scenario of you being willing to pay the price for something one of your daughters did. It does not matter how grown a child is; they will always be their parents' baby. I imagined God feeling this way. Because we are all his children, regardless of what we do wrong, he will pay the price for it and still love us. When we are young, our parents protect us from undue punishment when we misstep. They say, "Do not condemn my kid for something I can correct at home. They can be taught. As a parent, I will teach them." Perhaps God sees every misstep as something he can correct at home, in his kingdom.
My next question pertains to mission trips. I will preface it by stating that I am certainly open to changing my mind and that much of my opinion is based on the Christianity I witnessed growing it.
What does Christianity truly say about the importance of mission trips? Growing up, my small town did tons of them. However, they never sat well with me, because they seemed, for lack of a better word, predatory.... The church in town took my peers to severely underprivileged areas of the world for them. All the trips seemed to go a bit like this:
- Sell lots of cookies, candy bars, solicit other donations, etc. to fund the trip.
- Travel to a country in Africa, specifically, a village with children who were mostly starving, had no opportunities to get an education, etc.
- Take pictures of yourself with the cute, smiling kids. You will be in $250 Nike sneakers, a $75 pair of Buckle jeans, and a $40 Aeropostale t-shirt. The combined total of which would feed an entire village for a year.
The reason this upset me so much is because it seemed very much like performative Christianity. The people made no attempt to learn the culture, language, or deep heartache of the local people. They simply showed up, informed everyone that Jesus loved them, handed them a Bible, and boarded their business class flight back to comfy southern America. I do not say any of this to sound bitter or accusatory, so I sincerely hope it doesn't come across that way. I am genuinely curious how your section of the bell curve views mission trips. The reason they have always seemed cruel to me is that the people on the receiving end are barely surviving. So, to convince them there is a God overseeing their hardship and allowing it to continue seemed terrible... even worse, it seemed like providing them with a false sense of hope. I had trouble shaking the image of a young child, newly introduced to Jesus and living in painful circumstances, praying each night to be rescued from their environment. Praying to be allowed to attend school. Praying for their country not to be torn apart by another war.
Knowing what I know now, if all you say of Jesus is true, I can see the reasoning for the trips being that faith is the only sustainable, guaranteed comfort and hope we can provide to people in those conditions. Water will only last so long. Donations will only last so long. The gift of a loving god in an inexhaustible resource. I can understand that thought process. I just hope there is more to it than that. I hope there is some additional effort to help ease their daily worries like building houses, building a water filter system, etc.
As always, all questions and comments are made with love and curiosity.
14. Response to questioner
OK- your note nailed this topic and was a LOL moment for me. It would be hilarious if it weren’t such a painfully accurate description of what are typically called “student ministries mission trips.”
Yes, this format is celebrated within evangelical slices of the bell curve of modern Christianity, especially in the conservative Bible belt version of Southern Baptist traditions, and I’ve seen it advocated, promoted, and glorified in many evangelical churches.
I have nothing to say to defend the practice, but I will at least devote a few lines to analyzing it.
I have to admit that the practice is motivated by good intentions, especially for those who adhere to a strict theology that the only chance to come to know Jesus and accept his gift of eternal forgiveness is before death. In this framework, it is incredibly urgent to explain this gospel message to everyone who has not heard it – arguably a more important task than providing sustenance, medical care, safety or anything else on the foundation of Maslov’s hierarchy of needs.
In that view, saving a soul from eternity in hell separated from God is a higher priority than anything else.
So the only positive things that can be said about these good intentions is that they seem consistent with this urgency theology…and they motivate lots of bake sales.
But.
As you point out with painful accuracy, there are so many damaging and hypocritical and misplaced aspects of missions work in the kinds of settings you describe, typically serving impoverished people. We have to also admit that this kind of outreach has historically been a throw-back to colonial exploitation with complete disrespect (or even contempt) for the indigenous target culture. The activities have been characterized by a paternalistic and unsustainable strategy where dependence is the goal.
So, to flip the script and make this positive, let me tell you about other approaches under the Christian bell curve that exist to serve the underserved with different strategies. These approaches attempt to balance three fundamental directives in the Bible:
– that we must love God with all our heart soul, mind, and strength
–that we must love our neighbor as ourself
– that we must present the story of Jesus’ gift to the whole world and encourage people to become Christ-followers.
The balance is the thing.
In my personal theology where all will eventually hear and choose, the urgency is wrapped up more in loving people who have severe deprivation, as we would love ourselves. The urgency of sharing the message of Jesus’ sacrifice and love as soon as possible is so people can enjoy an understanding of that loving relationship and freedom from guilt now, whether they will have the choice later or not. My previous analogy explained this urgency as wanting to introduce someone now to the greatest lover they will ever know, lest they miss any moments in that perfect love affair.
Thus, in a different part of the bell curve, the goals are service and relationship building, not making us feel good about ourselves.
Let me share some (hopefully) refreshing real examples. These typify the kinds of outreach my wife and I support through our church.
-Supporting the training and work of indigenous Christians serving their own cultures in sustainable ways, rather than through ‘hit-and-run’ mission trips by wealthy Americans
-Promoting long-term education, the creation of sustainable economic standards, public health, and sources of sustainable food
-Respecting indigenous culture without indiscriminate westernizing
-Working with indigenous Christian leaders to start their own Christian churches in their own culture and language, translating the Bible as necessary
-Avoiding “evange-tourism” that is mostly designed to boost the ego of the short-term visitor
-Avoiding paternalism
-Providing both higher-technology western medical care but also training of indigenous people in modern medicine and inexpensive public health practices that save lives and enhance healthspan. For example, our church supports an entire hospital in west Africa staffed by African nationals who have been trained by western physicians and nurses. All patients are served free-of-charge or on an ability-pay basis. The hospital is in a Muslim country but is known and respected and welcomed as a Christian hospital. All patients, during their recovery, are gently presented with an age-appropriate introduction to the message of Jesus Christ.
-Just serving with no strings attached. One of our favorite examples is local service through our church designed to simply meet needs with zero Christian overtones. Church members annually provide thousands of pounds of food supplies and school supplies and clothing to Rochester public school students and families facing deprivation and need. Crucially, the aid is not identified as coming from our church or from Christians but is distributed discretely through the public school social workers who know which families are in need, or through the “free stores” available to needy students in each school. Equally importantly, the aid, especially at holiday times is typically provided discretely to the adults in the recipient family, preserving their dignity as they are enabled to give gifts and support to their own children in need without the sense that paternalistic ‘sponsors’ are responsible and deserve credit. My wife and I love the decision to hide the source of the giving in order to suppress any sense of quid pro quo. This is consistent with one of Jesus less popular teachings from the Gospel of Matthew:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
I admire our church leadership for taking this principle to heart. In fact, the initial impact has been on the school social workers, who do know the full story, and become increasingly curious what kinds of people would be motivated to give selflessly in this way. This removes an obstacle to the social workers gaining interest in the beliefs of this congregation.
Our church also hosts a massive fall festival that is completely free of charge to everyone in the community, based on games, activities, free food, family-centered candy give-aways, music, and fun. It is hosted at our church for a full day each fall and something like 5,000 people have been coming each year. The church says nothing about Christianity or our worship services, distributes no literature, says nothing about Jesus Christ in any formal or programmed way. Our guests learn about our facilities, see the spaces where kids are served and where worship takes place, they may see a poster advertising a class about personal finance management or an upcoming concert by a national artist, but the goals are i) relationship building and ii) removing the kinds of obstacles that scarred you in the toxic Christian culture you experienced elsewhere under the bell curve.
Does our congregation support career missionaries, especially medical missionaries who train indigenous Christians to serve their communities? Yes.
Does our congregation organize some summer student missions trips? Yes, but less and less for all the reasons described above. More often the trips have a target project, such a construction of an element of community infrastructure.
Our slice of the Christian bell curve is slowly recognizing the hypocrisy and toxicity of unsustainable, self-centered, paternalistic ‘service’ and evangelism.
That doesn’t mean that the student mission trips you describe aren’t promoted elsewhere under the bell curve. This note was to broaden your view of what else is under there
By the way, I am certainly not trying to glorify one particular Christian congregation. Just providing examples.
Does that help?
15. Questioner
I somehow knew the cut-to-the-point 3-step mission trip itinerary would make you laugh. Your descriptions of how you and your wife and your church help others make me feel much better. In particular, I appreciate that much of it is done without anyone knowing you have done it. To me, that is what makes serving others meaningful, not posting on social media every time for praise from others. My generation is especially prone to doing this and it always feels exploitative to take a picture of a homeless person receiving a sandwich and then post the picture on social media, without their consent, to show others you are a good person. The last thing I would want if I were struggling to the extent that I was homeless would be for images of my hardship to be all over the internet. Again, I much prefer the forms of help you mentioned.
Okay, please forgive me if this question on eternity is a little redundant. In most descriptions of eternity/heaven, people describe everyone being whole again (or for the first time, if they never were). I know what people mean by this is that the wheelchair-bound will walk; the blind will see; the pain will be gone, etc. However, how much of this is wishful thinking and how much of this is presumably true? The scientist in me finds it hard to believe I will be physically restored. I feel whole as I am, so I wonder how much of the claims of being whole in heaven are actually based on society's view of disability... Even if we accept people with disabilities wholeheartedly, we still tend to see them as not quite whole. I have come across depictions of a soul going to heaven, in which the person is headed towards the sky, wheelchair broken and on its side on the ground. The symbolism obviously being that the person is whole and will not need the wheelchair in heaven. Sure, it's lovely to think of that person running around without pain or struggle, but the depiction just mentioned feels... insensitive. I am by no means easily offended, as you probably know by now, but canes, wheelchairs, hearing aids, guide dogs, etc. are not symbolic of struggle and misfortune. They are symbols of independence and opportunity.
15. Response to questioner
Hi.
I love this question, and its very personal and appropriate origin. I hope you don’t mind, but my wife and I discussed it at dinner last night. Your questions are worth sharing. I also love your personal disclosures. They are so enlightening.
My first answer is that “I don’t know.”
That’s honest – how can any of us on this side know about life after death? What I will say is that all attempts to contemplate what is beyond are, by nature, constrained by our imagination and our past experience and the fact that we are characters trapped on a timeline. Our brains are limited. So, at times like this, we turn to analogies that are, by definition, inadequate.
There are many analogies about heaven. I’ll share a couple of my own and then share a few from the Bible. They are all wholly inadequate to answer your question. The biblical texts from 20+ centuries ago used analogies available to the minds of the writers, just as we do.
I think eternity is simply unimaginably beautiful because it amounts to oneness with the most loving being, combined with timelessness. Even the deletion of the time dimension that traps us now is inconceivable to us, let along thoughts about physical bodies and interactions.
In my playwright/stage analogy, eternity is when the characters exit the scripted stage where the play was trapped in time, and meet the playwright backstage in his or her creative world of imagining and implementing other wonderful stories. We staged characters are swept back up into the imagination of the playwright, once again parts of his imagination and thoughts, outside of the time that dictated the prior staged drama.
In a heaven analogy I used with my younger daughter years ago when she asked about heaven (see my blog post, The Ant), I reminded my daughter of an experience we had visiting Oslo and walking across a vast flat world map that occupied an entire parking lot. It was large and totally flat and disorienting because the full map was beyond view. We discussed how a tiny ant would experience standing on that surface and trying to contemplate its meaning (an analogy with our current sense of reality as humans trapped in time on this planet). My response to one of her questions:
"I think it's even
more amazing than that." I said softly, and sat next to her, holding her
small hand. "If the ant couldn't even understand that it was walking
across a beautiful, colorful map of the world, it could never even try to understand
that the flat map was actually just a picture of something real that is much
bigger and more beautiful."
"Our whole world…"
"Yes."
"And we're like the ant."
"Yes."
My point to my daughter was that the ant’s two-dimensional experience of a map could not prepare it to imagine life on the actual earth that is depicted, inadequately, by that map. The ant’s imagination is not up to the task, nor is ours up to the task of imagining heaven.
Now to the biblical writers, who were similarly constrained by analogy in their descriptions of a state beyond description.
I previously shared Jesus’ answer about resurrection to the members of the skeptical Sadducee sect. There is a particularly lovely translation of Jesus’ answer that I share here, to convey how he challenged his listeners to get beyond preoccupation with the future status of our bodies.
This translation puts Jesus’ response in Mark 12:24 as:
“As it is with the angels now, all our ecstasies and intimacies will then be with God.”
I think that is a potent statement because of the implications of the translator’s words “ecstasies and intimacies.”
Our friend, St. Paul, also anticipated your question 20 centuries ago. Forgive this longer extract from the 15th chapter of his first letter to the church at Corinth:
“Some skeptic [I think he means you] is sure to ask, "Show me how resurrection works. Give me a diagram; draw me a picture. What does this 'resurrection body' look like?" If you look at this question closely, you realize how absurd it is. There are no diagrams for this kind of thing.
We do have a parallel experience in gardening. You plant a "dead" seed; soon there is a flourishing plant. There is no visual likeness between seed and plant. You could never guess what a tomato would look like by looking at a tomato seed. What we plant in the soil and what grows out of it don't look anything alike. The dead body that we bury in the ground and the resurrection body that comes from it will be dramatically different.
You will notice that the variety of bodies is stunning. Just as there are
different kinds of seeds, there are different kinds of bodies-humans, animals,
birds, fish – each unprecedented in its form. You get a hint at the diversity
of resurrection glory by looking at the diversity of bodies not only on earth
but in the skies-sun, moon, stars-all these varieties of beauty and brightness.
And we're only looking at pre-resurrection "seeds"-who can imagine
what the resurrection "plants" will be like!
This image of planting a dead seed and raising a live plant is a mere sketch at
best, but perhaps it will help in approaching the mystery of the resurrection
body – but only if you keep in mind that when we're raised, we're raised for
good, alive forever! The corpse that's planted is no beauty, but when it's
raised, it's glorious. Put in the ground weak, it comes up powerful. The seed
sown is natural; the seed grown is supernatural-same seed, same body, but what
a difference from when it goes down in physical mortality to when it is raised
up in spiritual immortality!
…but let me tell you something wonderful, a mystery I'll probably never fully understand. We're not all going to die-but we are all going to be changed. You hear a blast to end all blasts from a trumpet, and in the time that you look up and blink your eyes-it's over. On signal from that trumpet from heaven, the dead will be up and out of their graves, beyond the reach of death, never to die again. At the same moment and in the same way, we'll all be changed. In the resurrection scheme of things, this has to happen: everything perishable taken off the shelves and replaced by the imperishable, this mortal replaced by the immortal. Then the saying will come true:
Death swallowed by triumphant Life!
Who got the last word, oh, Death?
Oh, Death, who's afraid of you now?
It was sin that made death so frightening and law-code guilt that gave sin its
leverage, its destructive power. But now in a single victorious stroke of Life,
all three-sin, guilt, death-are gone, the gift of our Master, Jesus Christ.
Thank God!”
So even Paul likes analogies, just as we do. To be plain, he is saying that heaven is not a place where dirty, scuffed and damaged seeds get to live as fresh, washed, and polished seeds. It is a place where seeds live as beautiful plants that are absolutely nothing like seeds at all. Maybe his analogy is better than any of mine. It makes sense coming from a writer in agriculturally-based Roman society.
As you may recall, I worked with friends to create an entirely original dramatic musical video based on the universal aspiration for a heaven where we experience lost loved ones again. That’s the name of the 38-minute video – Again. It is linked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Czrow9-3k
The script and songs are built around three vignettes based on real people (and animals) in my life. I have to say that Charles Dickens probably also influenced me, I think. The first vignette imagines an aging couple briefly meeting their resurrected daughter who had died in a tragic accident as a toddler. The second vignette was inspired by my bunny, Kyle. The third was inspired by one of my best friends who lost her mother to cancer when my friend was only in her twenties. You are not obligated to listen to the piece, but I concluded it with a compilation of short Bible readings that provide other attempts at describing heaven:
“We dream that we would experience again every lost child, every beloved companion, and every lost parent. We dream that we would enjoy them again. When asked about this, Jesus responded amazingly. He responded about a transcendent again – an again far beyond our ability to imagine. Jesus responded that in that day, and in that time when there is no time, all of our intimacies and ecstasies will be with God. All of the joys that we can remember and imagine will one day be subsumed in knowing him – again.
For it is written: "I saw heaven and earth new-created. Gone the first heaven, gone the first earth, gone the sea...I heard a voice thunder from the throne "Look! Look! God has moved into the neighborhood, making his home with men and women! They're his people, he's their God.
Jesus said: I am, right now, resurrection and life. The one who believes in me, even though he or she dies, will live. And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all. Do you believe this?
The wolf will romp with the lamb, the leopard will sleep with the baby goat, calf and lion will eat from the same trough.
"God will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death is gone for good – tears gone, crying gone, pain gone – all the first order of things…gone."
I chose to finish the narrative with those passages.
So you see, my take on heaven transcends our ability to contemplate bodily restoration or interpersonal interactions. It is infinitely more beautiful than anything we have experienced, yet I believe it doesn’t extinguish our most beloved experiences on this side.
If God’s character and personality and goodness are not inconceivable beyond our most joyful and ecstatic experiences on stage, he isn’t the God of the universe.
I think the single biggest obstacle to conceiving eternity is that it need not involve a time dimension. Maybe it can include episodes bound in time, but I don’t believe God is a being who lives in time. He created time as a tool for storytelling, but he only briefly chose to join us in that created dimension as Emanuel: God with us.
Too metaphysical? It’s the best I have been able to do and, believe me I have been working on analogies for many years.
Open, as always, to your thoughts and insights.
[For a period of several weeks, my friend was hospitalized an intensive care unit for very serious and life-threatening medical conditions that required sedation, intubation, and artificial ventilation.]
I can tell...
…that these are really tough days.
Know that you are loved and I am praying for you.
Whenever you come to mind.
Which is often.
16. Questioner
I am very sorry for such a delayed response. I hope you know how much your kind words and thoughtfulness mean to me. I took nearly a month-long vacation to the ICU from sepsis caused by bacterial pneumonia among other issues. I was ventilated and sedated enough to not be lucid enough to communicate that I was still in pain... a terrible experience I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I don't have the energy to type it all out now, but in an effort to escape the battle, my brain cooked up some very interesting "dreams". I'm sure the dissociative anesthetics used for sedation helped create those scenarios. I had many chats with you about faith in them... In the final one, I shared with you that I wasn't sure I wanted to "come back" and continue on. You shared that nobody would blame me for letting go, but that there was a way to come back and begin again, rather than continuing the previous journey. You echoed a sentiment I had intended to share about your essay titled Inhibitions. After reading it, I had planned to write to you with an additional explanation for the lackluster/inhibited emotional response to worship services you observe.
There is a phenomenon in neuroscience we refer to as "repetition suppression". Repeated presentation of a stimulus leads to a diminished neural response in the brain areas responsible for processing said stimulus. It is a form of sensory adaptation. It is why you barely remember the drive from your home to work. You simply seem to arrive. It is why you get full on your pasta dinner but somehow have the desire and room for dessert. It is why people may seem to just go through the motions in church services. The brain becomes bored of our most familiar experiences and goes on autopilot. The brain loves novelty.
In my dream, you shared that a journey that includes God would be an entirely new one, not a continuation of previous pain and struggle. "The pain and struggle will still be felt, but your spirit will not be exhausted from it as it is now... Like you said, the brain loves novelty. Every experience you have, if you decide to come back and accept the gift I've described, will be brand new."
I came back. I accepted the gift.
16. Response to questioner
My friend.
I'm frankly thankful and a bit dumbfounded that you are alive. I can tell it's you by the refreshing teaching approach on repetition suppression.
I hope your acute pain has been managed a bit.
More to the point, the tears in my eyes are tears of joy that you have entered a path with a relationship you were designed to have–a fresh walk with the author of your life, and the one who died for you and ever runs to you with open arms.
Your maturity comes through with the lovely phrase from your dream...
"The pain and struggle will still be felt, but your spirit will not be exhausted from it as it is now...
So be it, my friend.
I will write more soon. Can I just ask for now that you share your decision and new relationship with your best friend.
No need to respond until your energy allows.
Rest.
[then a few days later…]
Hi my friend-
I can only imagine that you are slowly recovering from your hospitalization. I remain incredibly thankful for whatever medications allowed your mind to sift our written dialog and even add to it, subconsciously. That is the scientist in me speaking. The Christian in me imagines that God worked through his Holy Spirit during those hours and days of pain and self-preservation to communicate his love in sublime ways beyond simple explanation.
Whatever was the case, I am deeply thankful for your decision to pursue knowing him better, having surrendered to his forgiveness.
And it is important to get to know him better. There will be many ways. Meanwhile, I have just a few suggestions.
I have been asked many times how I draw closer to Jesus. I can suggest four habits (disciplines?) that I have made part of my life.
-reading the Bible. I read a chapter each day and have been through the Bible many times this way. See below for some guidance on how to understand complex or confusing or annoying passages. Although it is not a word-for-word translation, my favorite English language version of the Bible is The Message, written by the late Eugene Peterson. This author made a translation in ~modern English intended to convey the tone and impact of the Bible’s words as they might have been perceived by its original readers. I find it refreshing.
-Understanding the Bible. I have come to appreciate a book (Making sense of the Bible, by Adam Hamilton) that does a nice job conveying the reality that the Bible is an ancient and complex document comprised of various kinds of literature written for different reasons by different people. I recommend this book.
-Being inspired by admirable Christian thinkers. We have discussed CS Lewis, and many of his writing would be worthy for free time study. That said, Dr. Francis Collin’s book, “the Language of God” is, I think, inspiring to us scientists because Collins is a molecular geneticist and theistic evolutionist Christian whose book is helpful to read.
-Finally, daily prayer. I’ve been asked about simple approaches to communicating with God, and I try to set aside a few dedicated minutes after my morning Bible reading. I engage in a conversational prayer life, imagining God as my father. I often try to use the acronym ACTS to structure my conversational prayers, A being acknowledgment of God as worthy of my praise for countless reasons, C being confession of the particulars of my unworthiness to approach given all my flaws, but my joy in knowing I have been made acceptable through what Jesus did on my behalf, T being thanksgiving, itemizing the gifts of people and circumstances that come to mind, and S being supplication, an archaic word for honestly sharing requests for myself and others and our world. I actually think “supplication” was chosen just to make a memorable acronym. It is not at all wrong to share our desires and selfish requests on behalf of ourself and less selfish requests for others, knowing that God knows them before we voice them. Jesus himself modeled this when he honestly asked his father if there was any way to avoid the horrors of the crucifixion, knowing the answer, and then surrendering his preferences to the preferences of his father. This is recorded in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 22, verse 42. It is a remarkable, confusing, beautiful, and epic exchange between father and son – the author of the story existing out of time hearing his own voice from the stage within time as a character he had written into the play, briefly. Remarkable.
Sorry if there is a “teaching” tone to this email. It’s intended to be an encouragement, but it got a bit long :-0
17. Questioner
Hi Friend,
I finally have a moment to respond to your email with at least some of the energy it deserves. Unfortunately, there is no time for a slow recovery. With a public presentation for school scheduled soon, it has been a packed schedule of physical therapy, respiratory therapy, round the clock tube feeds, etc. I am wiped out, but I know I will get there. I have a trusted group of nurses who, whenever I end up in ICU unable to respond to messages or emails, cancel/reschedule any upcoming appointments on my outlook calendar. When I finally came off sedation and started improving, they shared the new date of the presentation with me. In their words, “We knew anything less than a ridiculous timeline for recovery would upset you. Picking a later date was our way of showing we believed in you.” So, it is not really “unfortunate” at all.
As for whether where I drifted off to is owed to science or God, not long ago, I would have said it was one or the other; if it was the anesthetics, it was not God; if it was God, it was not the anesthetics. The conclusion I now hold is owed to you; it was likely both. You have taught me that the forces of science and God are not mutually exclusive. I now believe we live in a world where they help each other.
I was able to listen to your email regarding the last question I had asked you. It was most helpful, and I love your ant analogy. In fact, that is my favorite essay of yours… A reference to it made an appearance in one of my dreams. I asked you where we were and you said, “I’m not actually sure… I’m having an ‘ant on map’ moment. Wherever we are is a construction of your brain, not mine. If I tell you what I see, do you think you could figure it out?” I also enjoyed your words reflecting on Paul’s teaching that in heaven we will be like plants rather than seeds. I have often thought of myself as a plant during hard times. When everything feels dark and I feel like I have been buried, I remind myself that I haven’t been buried. I have been planted. :)
I also never mind if you share my questions or thoughts with your wife. I imagine that to be one of the most wonderful aspects of marriage, being able to share any and all deep conversations with someone you love and trust.
Thank you very much for outlining your recommended resources and guidelines for building my relationship with Him. Once I recover more, my friend and I are planning to start a daily devotional together. I am hoping to join you all for at church sometimes.
Please never apologize for your teaching tone. There is nothing I appreciate more than a good teacher. (A reference to one of my first emails on faith to you.)
Going forward, is it okay if I still send along some questions I have? We have answered enough of my questions for me to feel confident in my decision, but, like science, there are still concepts I would like to understand better.
Off for some much-needed rest. You should know that I was listening at 3 am to the gospel song “Thank you 1000x” by Bella Taylor Smith when I decided to accept the gift. I was restless from pain and exhausted. After making my decision I slept for nearly 3 hours without interruption. I’m rarely able to sleep for more than an hour and a half at a time, so it was quite wonderful.
17. Response to questioner:
Hi –
It is so great that you have a cadre of loving nurses who help manage your calendar when you are unable. That is priceless. We are all certainly looking forward to your public presentation, whenever the timing is right. We can be very patient :)
Thanks for your comments on my last response regarding thoughts on what resurrection might mean, and the various analogies mentioned. St. Paul’s seed analogy, as translated in The Message, is my favorite. I’m glad it was helpful. The ant analogy touches me because it grew from an interaction with a curious little girl trying to stall her father into a longer bedtime conversation – a privilege of parenthood.
I find it both informative and beautiful that you find solace both in thunderstorms and in envisioning yourself as a plant.
Let’s face it, my friend – you are a unique person across many dimensions.
The very best steps of faith are, as you and your friend are planning – taken in community with others who can walk in faith together with honesty and trust – no masks. I commend you for that plan, and it is, in itself, very much an answer to my prayers for you. As to suggestions for resources and activities to build understanding, thank you for not being put off by my prescriptive suggestions. The path ahead will be uniquely joyful for you, not because it will be any less daunting or painful as in the past (though I do pray for that) but, as you wisely say, that you will encounter new meaning and perspective in each step, because there is another seated on the throne of your life, a gentle partner who understands you better than you will ever understand yourself.
Yes, it will please me very much if we can continue our dialog on questions, especially challenging questions, about what it means to accept Jesus Christ as friend, savior, and surrender to his lordship (a truly archaic word for which I am constantly seeking a modern synonym – perhaps “intimacy”). Questions that speak to science and faith and interpersonal relationships (the essential purpose of my blog) will be specially fun to explore together, but anything goes. Your great questions stimulate my own thinking. This is actually a vital gift for a person who is 64 and has been walking with Jesus since I was a Junior in High School, but whose love for him is ever-evolving. So let’s keep the dialog going as it is helpful. Your friend will undoubtedly be a wise resource at every step.
There is something poignant about knowing that the catharsis that led to your acceptance of Jesus’ gift was followed by a few hours of peaceful sleep. May that be symbolic for the future of this life and the next.
I don’t know how you have developed such a rich and beautiful song library. I learned to fight off hospital psychosis during my most recent sleepless 20-day abdominal surgery by listening to music. My hospital experiences do not compare to yours. At. All. That said, your music finds are so beautiful. I had not heard 1000X from Bella Taylor Swift. My wife and I listened to it together last night and I confess that it made me cry – all the more so imaging its role in those moments of your personal decision early that morning.
18. Questioner
I have a bit of energy to respond to your hunt for a synonym. I will send some thoughts I had about free will and suffering soon, as well as a response to the rest of your thoughts.
I have a deep affection for learning foreign languages. Before I decided to pursue science, for a long time, I considered becoming an interpreter for the United Nations. It provides one the opportunity to learn multiple languages and see various parts of the world. I took German and Swedish during undergrad and studied other languages on my own time. One of my favorite things to do is learn songs in other languages. I have a long list of songs in French, German, Italian, Swedish, Afrikaans, Swahili, Spanish, etc. that I love to sing.
Though likely not the perfect synonym you’re looking for in place of “Lord”, I think the following Welsh word embodies many of your emotions and sentiments about Christ…
“Hiraeth”…
It’s a word that combines elements of homesickness, nostalgia, and longing. Interlaced, however, is the subtle acknowledgment of an irretrievable loss — a unique blend of place, time and people that can never be recreated.
The word sprung to mind, because for believers, I think there is certainly an element of homesickness, nostalgia, and longing to be as close to Him as possible, to see each of His acts clearly, to be reunited, etc. The “nostalgia” element of the word reminded me of your descriptions of the pleasures/intimacy of knowing Him. The latter, solemn aspect of the definition touches on an immense loss, the price Jesus paid for us. The loss of his only son that God suffered. Finally, they all represent a time, place, and people that will never be recreated…
It is not originally a religious word, but I think it fits here.
Shortly before I went into the hospital, I created a playlist of many of my favorite songs. I hope to play them for you and your wife over a dinner soon. Long before I accepted this wonderful gift, I enjoyed all these songs I’ve shared with you on my early morning bike rides. In fact, even during long phases of rolling my eyes at the mere mention of a God, there I was… playing songs about Him on my sunrise rides, feeling free.
18. Response to questioner
Hi-
I was unaware of your passion for languages, but this does not surprise me at all. I confess that having learned a lot of French over 7 years from junior high through part of college, and then forgetting most of it, the idea of trying to learn a new language now intimidates me!
Having said that, I do sometimes find myself thinking of the French equivalent of a word or phrase I’m seeking, before the best English equivalent comes to me. This is especially true when an idea is more compactly captured in French than in English. My Asian friends tell me, similarly, that equivalent words or ideas can be rendered in Mandarin using pictogram vs. phonetic characters, and there are beautifully subtle differences in the implication of the choice of which characters to use…a concept foreign to English (like every noun having gender in Romance languages, not English).
I love your Welsh word “Hiraeth”.
How beautiful. “Lordship” harkens back to monarchical and feudal and militaristic contexts that never suited my way of thinking of my God who is defined as much in my mind by servant love, self-sacrifice and intimacy rather than unapproachable glory, perfection, wrath, and authority (though all those words also describe him; Aslan is not a tame lion, after all). “Hiraeth” is a sweet word because it appropriately captures emotion. This is missing from “Lordship”.
I must tell you that your word sparked a poignant memory for me as one who grew up with parents that read stories to us each night, especially all the Tolkien books. But they also read us The Wind in the Willows, a magically sweet children’s book by Kenneth Grahame. Perhaps you know it. CS Lewis was a fan and analyzed the book in his own writing. I, in turn, read the book to my girls along with all the Tolkien books and Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia.
The story has a heartbreaking episode that is perfectly captured by your Welsh word, hiraeth, now that I know it. This section is captured in a blog commentary by Emily Finley that I found online:
There is another significant moment in the book when Mole and Rat make it into the Mole’s old home. They had left Badger and been traveling for some time when Mole detected something very familiar nearby. “It was one of these mysterious fairy calls from out the void that suddenly reached Mole in the darkness.” Suddenly, he placed what that mysterious something was: “Home!”
Mole had nearly forgotten it in his new life, but still it found him. He longed to go back to it, just to see it. He tried to tell Rat, but Rat brusquely dismissed him, so eager was he to return to his river. Rat did not understand the pleading in his friend’s voice until Mole sat down, entirely overcome with emotion and—through the sobs—explained how he had longed to see his little home once more.
“I see it all now! What a pig I have been! A pig - that’s me! Just a pig - a plain pig!” Rat said. He then got up and demanded that the two set off “to find that home of yours, old fellow.”
When they reached Mole’s old home, Mole was ashamed of its drab, dusty appearance, but “the Rat paid no heed to his doleful self-reproaches.”
“‘What a capital little house this is! . . . ‘so compact! So well planned! Everything here and everything in its place! We’ll make a jolly night of it.”
It is “just” a children’s book, but I remember struggling to read this sweet section to my own daughters, with tears in my eyes, thinking of poor mole suddenly overcome by the unexpected whiff of his long-lost, long-forgotten home nearby, and needing so badly to convince his friend not to rush on, but to let him see it one more time.
Hiraeth.
A wonderful word. Thank you for it.
19. Questioner
I am starting this now, though I am not entirely sure when it will be finished and sent. After our discussion on suffering, the conclusion to which I found mostly acceptable, I still wanted to pinpoint the true origin of suffering. I think, maybe arrogantly, that I may have found it...
Believers and non-believers alike demand a satisfactory explanation for suffering. A loving God could not possibly allow a young person to suffer terribly and die of cancer, right? Why would a loving God even allow such a horrible disease to occur? Why would a loving God allow thousands of people to perish on 9/11? Where was God then?
What if all suffering is simply a byproduct of our free will...? For example, had my parents never met and married, the genetic combination that is me would not exist. Had they CHOSEN any other partner, I would have been entirely different and may not ever have developed cancer. People choose, of their own free will, who to marry. Through countless decisions of free will by others, my parents met. So, in that light, it seems more accurate to describe my cancer as a byproduct of millions of free will decisions. This does make the suffering my fault, my parents' fault, or God's fault. It is just a byproduct of many, many decisions. I made the decision to come to this medical center. That decision has undoubtedly aided in my survival thus far. Had I CHOSEN to stay in a small town with no access to world-class healthcare, I would not still be alive, That would not be my "fault" or God's. It would be a byproduct of a series of decisions I made.
Many people share stories of evading disaster or tragedy because they engaged in a trivial change in routine. A man misses his bus to the World Trade Center the morning of 9/11 because he was tired. He stayed up too late playing with his kids and slept through his alarm. He CHOSE to stay up that late, which then made him too tired to arrive on time. A decision that ultimately saved his life.
So, is suffering not just a morally neutral experience for us all? It is not a punishment or a lack of intervention on God's part. It is a chaotic conundrum with too many free will variables to ever solve.
And despite that, there is ineffable beauty and love in the midst of it.
19. Response to questioner
Yes! I very much agree with your analysis and insights.
What you describe is consistent with a God who created a planet where the story line within the time dimension during the blink of an eye that includes human life would prioritize free will for human beings as a single guiding principle.
For some reason.
We have postulated that this prioritization of free will (“agency”) was for a solitary reason: so that the choice to love God would be meaningful.
Apparently, this free choice to love is of the utmost importance to our God. I don’t know why, but I can imagine why because we, being created in God’s image, understand that forced or programmed love is hollow and not love at all. You recognized this point earlier in our dialog.
I mention “blink of an eye” because there is something rich in realizing that the time duration of all of human civilization compared to the age of the universe is like the span of three seconds compared to an entire month. Likewise, the mass of this planet compared to the mass of the universe is like the mass of a single grain of sand compared to the mass of the entire earth. These realities make God’s storytelling in his relationship to humanity beyond our wildest imagination. The calculations remind me that God’s power allows for the possibility of countless stories (my bet is that they are all rescue stories) playing out past, present, and future on stages written across this and other universes. All created for the pleasure of our creative God who lives outside of time and who cherishes rescue narratives. He has created a huge timeline and room for many stages!
That’s my bet anyway. The cool thing is that it won’t be very long before we each find out.
In my view, God foreknew all these free choices, and he foreknew all the positive and negative consequences, and he foreknew the pride and arrogance and the misery and disease and mess that would come with these principles.
Yet he still created!
It’s that last part that gives me faith in an overwhelming happy ending, that not only will justify all of the mess, but will redeem all of the pain, cruelty, and apparent meaninglessness of suffering across this blink of an eye. By “redeem” I imply not “erase” but actually convert to purposefulness and meaningfulness. Just as the ant perceived meaningless colors under its feet that might have carried different impressions, we will then know the beautiful three-dimensional world only depicted in the static, confusing two dimensions where we now walk.
And we get to meet the author who rescued us.
So I agree with you that God’s prioritization of free will is baked into the plot of this story and is needed for the rescue gift to make sense.
I will note two things for further thought.
-It is not impossible for God to invade the plot either himself (as he did in his incarnation as Jesus), or through miracles. Using your analysis, we might say that miracles are moments when God sets aside the unique prioritization of human free will and its impacts, and scripts something uncaused. That will be fun to discuss.
-The biblical writers sometimes struggled with the concept of free will. There are occasions in the Bible where we are told that God “hardened the heart” of an individual, as if they would then had no choice but to disobey or resist a gracious opportunity. A classic example is the behavior attributed to Pharoah, king of Egypt at the time of the exodus of the enslaved Israelites under the unlikely leadership of Moses. There are multiple statements in the narrative describing God as hardening the heart of Pharoah (recorded in the Old Testament book of Exodus, chapters 4-10, for example). This has created a field day for theologians, as you might imagine. Under the bell curve of biblical scholarship and “exegesis” (how to understand a Bible text) there is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these statements in Exodus. Suffice it to say that, to the extent that the narrative is historically accurate, my view is that Pharoah was an arrogant and stubborn (and stupid) leader who acted as if God had hardened his heart. I think free will still was in action, but the Bible writers sought to amplify God’s power (or make sense of the stupidity) with this interpretation of Pharoah’s actions. How could the writer(s) know, anyway? That’s my take. This is another of many discussions of the implications of free will.
I suspect you will have many more insights.
20. Questioner
Hello,
I am grateful, as always, for all your kind words. I think you often give me more credit than I deserve, but I am grateful, nonetheless.
I am glad you enjoyed the song by Bella Taylor Smith. I found the lyrics, "for the way you love me, for the way you changed my life..." to be the most powerful ones in the moment of decision I described. Ironically, it was sitting on my bathroom floor at 3 a.m. feeling very unwell three and a half years ago, that I realized my cancer had returned. I knew a brain tumor would mean it had already metastasized. I knew in that moment my life had changed forever and would never be the same. Even then, though I have never shared it with anyone, I felt I already knew the ultimate prognosis.
Three and a half years later, there I sat on my bathroom floor, again. Feeling unwell and hoping it would pass soon, again. Turning to music for a little relief, again. Listening to those lyrics in 1000x, I knew I believed with all my heart that what you had said of Christ was true. I knew in that moment, my life had changed forever and would never be the same. This time for the better.
The Wind in the Willows sounds like a beautiful book. I would love to read it. Your mention of the rats and moles reminded me of one of my favorite books as a kid. It is called Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. It's a children's science fiction novel about a widowed field mouse whose youngest son becomes ill. They have to move before the farmer plows their field, so she seeks help from a colony of highly intelligent, escaped lab rats, the rats of NIMH. Come to think of it, many of my favorite books and movies as a child were about mice... The Tale of Desperaux is a beautiful book about love and goodness by Kate DiCamillo. Stuart Little and Ratatouille were two of my favorite movies.
20. Response to questioner
My wife has always said that she loves The Tale of Desperaux. I have not read it, but I guess now I should. And you can read The Wind in the Willows among all your other assignments.
The most powerful, poignant and beautiful stories have two things in common, in my opinion. One is rescue or redemption. The other is symmetry. Your bathroom floor stories nail them both, as does the way you phrase them.
Perfectly.
Strange as it may sound, I am thankful for your bathroom floor.
As I hinted earlier in our discussions, in the CS Lewis allegory of the crucifixion and resurrection of Aslan, the Christ figure in the Chronicles of Narnia, it is hundreds of tiny mice who Lewis describes as gnawing through the cruel bonds that held the great dead lion to the cold stone table where he was murdered by the evil queen simply to pay the price to rescue one selfish and disobedient boy….a boy who represents all of us. I love that Lewis endowed tiny rodents with that task of setting the very stage for the resurrection of the dead Lion. This power of resurrection is something that Lewis beautifully describes as the Deeper Magic.
There is something poignant and sweet about Lewis casting the role of the bond destroyers to tiny mice.
21. Questioner:
Hello,
I am making strides in the right direction. I am a bit embarrassed to admit that much of it is probably due to the high doses of sedatives I’ve been prescribed. When you can’t get comfortable, the only solution for some relief is artificial sleep. My current strategy is to get my therapies and work done as quickly as possible and then sleep the remainder of the time. I feel guilty, even lazy, for resting, but I don’t think I will get a sustainable second wind if I don’t rest for these couple weeks. I am trying to remember that Ecclesiastes 3 highlights the concept of there being a time for everything… including a season for healing and rest.
My next question pertains to the Devil. I have always found it immensely difficult to believe in such an entity. I still don’t. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that my beliefs on the subject once again reflect the brand of Christianity I witnessed growing up. I have always heard that the Devil tempts us to sin. When people steal, lie, murder, engage in extramarital affairs, etc., phrases like, “The Devil had hold of him/her.”, “The Devil is clever and sneaky. He exploits our weaknesses.”, etc.
To me, this seems, pardon my bluntness, laughable. It comes across as a way to avoid accountability. As we’ve spoken about several times, we all have free will. We choose to hurt others. We make poor decisions because we are, at our core, selfish, broken, hypocritical, humans. Our fallibility is baked into us from conception. I don’t believe we need any help from the Devil to wreak havoc in our lives and the lives of others. We are exceptionally capable of doing so all by ourselves. So, I have always wondered, is the Devil an actual being or just a convenient creation for the rottenness we all carry? I’m sure it’s more comforting for humans to say, “someone else made me do it!” than to own their rottenness. I have always wondered if the concept of the Devil was born out of our disdain for depths of depravity we are capable of… a nice scapegoat for actions that make it hard to look in the mirror…
Is there concrete evidence of the Devil? To the same extent there is evidence of God?
21. Response to questioner:
Hi, my sedated friend. Be comfortable and rest, guilt-free. I only note, with sadness, that it was the quest for elusive sleep that took the life of the brilliant Michael Jackson when he demanded propofol and his physician didn’t know what he was doing. May your sedation always be properly supervised.
Such an interesting question.
I immediately stepped to my bookshelf (an advantage of working from home most afternoons) and grabbed my copy of a favorite CS Lewis fiction story called “The Screwtape Letters”. It was written around 1942. You won’t be surprised to hear me say that it is another brilliant contribution from Lewis. It also makes light and interesting reading. I’ll tell you its premise, and then I’ll answer your question as Lewis would.
The book imagines an apprentice devil, Wormwood, is instructed by a more experienced devil, Screwtape, in the arts of causing a young man to stumble away from his path toward God. It is deliberately satirical and funny, but it has a serious vein. It is worth reading, though by no means a book of theology. It was dedicated to JRR Tolkien.
In the introduction, CS Lewis makes several things clear.
-Jesus refers to the devil and to demons and to angels as if he believed in them
-CS Lewis believed in devils and angels
-Importantly, to Lewis, devils are angels (whatever kind of heavenly beings angels may be) who, by free will, turned to the dark side. Thus, devils and angels are opposites.
-Lewis makes clear that “The Devil” (also called Satan in the Bible) is not the antithesis of God, but the antithesis of the most powerful angel, named Michael at some points in the Bible. That is a key point.
-Whoever/whatever he and his followers are, the Devil, and all devils have been overcome by what Jesus accomplished on the cross and are thus not to be feared.
Early in his book, Lewis offers this memorable quote:
“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight”.
Mind you, Lewis’ book is not the Bible, nor is he teaching theology. However, I have come to heed his advice and I honestly think almost nothing about devils (nor do I honestly think much about angels). We know little about them, whereas we know a LOT about Jesus. I think a LOT about him.
Having said all that, I certainly believe as a scientist that very much that was attributed to demonic (devilish) activity in Palestine in the first century gospel accounts was simply disease and mental illness misunderstood. This is totally understandable, and the biblical authors very often attributed negatives to the activity of devils or demons. Lewis would just remind us that perhaps not 100.0% of evil actions should be treated as non-demonic, just as perhaps not 100.0% of observable phenomena should be treated as non-miraculous Newtonian cause-effect responses (thus my comment yesterday about how we might even define miracles as rare times when free-will cause-effect is insufficient to describe what happened).
So, to sum up, I don’t spend much time or energy contemplating devils or worrying about what they might be up to, if they exist. We are reassured in the first letter of John, chapter 4, verse 4:
“He who is in you is more powerful than he who is in the world.”
In fact, I think a reasonable response to devils, whoever they may or may not be, is to laugh about them, just as you say of the whole concept. I agree that we need not invoke devils to explain our badness, and we needn’t fear them.
C.S. Lewis would just say that they aren’t helping any.
I hope you don’t find that to be a “C.S. Lewis copout.”
22. Questioner
Duly noted on the topic of sedation. :) I never take more sedatives or pain killers than the recommended dose, knowing I'm prone to the side effect of respiratory depression at a lower dose than most.
I don't consider your thoughtful answer a "C.S. Lewis copout" by any means. In fact, The Screwtape Letters has been on my future reading list for a long time. It's summary caught my attention, and I intended for it to be the first C.S. book I read. Your answer is evidence that it's worth the read.
I appreciate your answer and your conclusion that devils, satan, and other dark forces are not worth worrying about. As you said, nothing dark can overcome the light that is in each of us anyway. :)
[The questioner gave a successful public presentation]
22. Response to questioner
You did SUCH A GREAT JOB TODAY my friend!
We were all honestly just blown away by your preparation, delivery, poise, insights, and bravery. My wife continues to have difficulty even expressing her fascination with your life. She and I went to lunch afterwards and spent the time debriefing and analyzing our feelings about you and your message.
If I’m honest, it was mostly just about you.
I also had an impactful conversation with a friend after your departure. Your talk was undoubtedly a great catalyst for many important conversations. I was also able to share with a friend the link to this blog posting of our questions and answers. The dialog is a beautiful and honest walk through the deepest things.
I used the word miraculous above, and this word choice was on purpose. I used it after thinking a lot today about the self-disclosures you built into your talk, most especially the concept that a profoundly stubborn person (i.e. you) finds special challenge (threat?) in the concept of changing their identity, especially if it implies admission of a lack of self-sufficiency and the need for another…most especially if it implies the humility of surrender to receive a gift that comes with a new identity.
Yet, that is exactly what you did early on the 29th of April, 2025.
That was a miracle, my friend. I am even more convinced of it after your clear teaching about your personality today.
May your new identity never change your stubbornness, but may it transform that stubbornness into a story of redemption that shines ever clearly in your life.
Don’t ever worry. The umbrella remains open over you, even if you can’t tell sometimes. And it isn’t about my faithfulness. It is about Jesus’ faithfulness.
Well done today.
23. Questioner:
Thank you for these beautiful words... I am always aware of your umbrella, by the way. I am so touched you caught the parallels regarding identity... the amygdala and insular cortex of stubborn people, which are responsible for processing intense, visceral fears and threats, appear to be overactive when presented with statements that conflict with their identity. It was exactly this insight that finally helped me fully understand why I couldn't accept the gift you had been describing. Faith, I realized, was an overwhelming threat to my identity as a capable, independent, problem solver. To identify as a Christian, I would also have to identify as someone who was not fully capable, not fully independent, and not a solver of all problems... an utter failure, I thought.
In those final moments leading to my decision on April 29th, I accepted all but the last sentiments of my new identity. I am not as capable as I thought I was. And that is okay. I am not as independent as I thought I was. And that is okay. I cannot solve every problem. And that is okay. But that does not make me a failure... it makes me forgiven.
Very few insights are ever gleaned by oneself. They are almost always a product of conversations and interactions with others much wiser than us. Many of my insights have been the result of what I have learned from you.
I plan to join you all for the livestream at church tomorrow. I had hoped to attend in person originally, but I was very naive on how much time it would take to recover from getting out for that hour to present publicly and starting a new cycle of chemo... I was not prepared for the pain and heavy crash and burn of the past 2 days. It seems obvious that topping off the warp speed comeback with sitting and standing for an hour would result that way, but it has caught me off guard. I've got a mild case of the sniffles and sore throat too, which are not a big deal, but understandably made me panic at the thought of another respiratory illness. It's best for me to isolate for this week and continue improving at a more sustainable pace. That being said, I certainly don't regret giving the presentation. Getting to hug you and your wife in person made it worth it all on its own.
I do have a question that has been rattling around recently. I will type it out with more clarity in the next couple days, but it pertains to God's planning and whether we think He changes his mind. As you pointed out, he can intervene in the play at any time and change its course. I have been thinking about this in the context of disease, making the choice to accept the gift of being forgiven, etc. I have wondered if, when one makes the decision to accept that gift, if He closes certain doors in their lives and opens others. I feel I've experienced a few instances of that since my own decision; the feeling that the trajectory of my life is not exactly as it was before. It was going in a very obvious, predictable direction. The experiences and curveballs along the way were not unusual for a trajectory of that nature. But things feel... different now. I will cook up a better analogy/description, but it almost feels as though my Kaplan Meier curve has been shaken up. Not in the obvious and plain survival outcome that is typically plotted on it, but in the events that have been added to it, the events that I now consider significant in my life. Events that I feel are contributing to a better prognosis, even if said events will have no effect on the overall survival time. Maybe what I'm trying to express is what feels like the inadequacy of the Kaplan Meier curve for me now... yet another inappropriate metric for the type of patient I am. The tests, biopsies, adverse events, and other objective measures that would tell you my disease is not improving feel like an inaccurate representation of the life, hope, and peace I have gained.
Apologies for my ramblings. The storms and high winds of the past few days have been comforting. I reflect more during storms.
23. Response to questioner
Hi-
In fact, the livestream was created and is maintained exactly for times and circumstances like this – when it is safer and better to participate from the convenience, safety and relative logistical comfort of home! No apologies are needed, ever. As we have reminded each other, there is a time for everything. Indeed, when the time is right, and your stamina and immune system allow, you’ll be with us. Until then, who knows, maybe friends can join at your place for a livestream now and then.
My wife and I often attend on Saturday evening when I’m not playing all three services. We enjoyed the sermon last night. I won’t give it away, but I trust you will appreciate it..
The Kaplan Meier curve.
A cold statistical statement based on population data. The ultimate reduction of many individual lives and stories and PEOPLE to dots forming a curve. It’s tragically audacious really. Wikipedia says that Kaplan and Meier came up with the idea separately, and seeing the similarity of their manuscript submissions, journal editor John Tukey (the famous statistician) convinced them to combine their submissions into one paper. Admirable.
I occasionally talk to now-retired Mayo oncologist Charles Loprinzi, a breast cancer doctor who I’ve known since my grad school days in Madison. Charles studied and quantified quality of life in cancer patients and edited an annual compendium in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, starting 25 years ago, called “The art of oncology: when the tumor is not the target.” It has contained a thoughtful series of contributions teaching oncologists that their field is not a Kaplan-Meier curve. It is something richer and it is about serving patients, not tumors. I had this series in mind in my response to your question at your public presentation about the definition of treatment success.
Kaplan Meier curves are appropriately one-dimensional and black & white.
Life and death are not.
It seems to me that your new identity as perfectly forgiven and surrendered to Jesus Christ for this life and the next adds a sense of color and new dimensions to any kind of Kaplan-Meier thinking about your life.
To reflect on your questions I return to the unfathomable reality that God, the great author of this play, exists outside of time. In that sense he was/is/will be aware of every free-will choice of all of the characters on stage before the play was set in motion. Good. Bad. Selfless. Self-destructive. Loving. Surrendering.
There are no surprises for this author, though biblical writers struggled with this notion and sometimes endowed God with human characteristics such as indecision, regret, reconsideration. In my theology (speaking, as always, for myself without formal theological training) these attributions to God are exactly what we would expect when time-bound human writers are confronted with trying to understand and describe a timeless personality: confusion and the understandable desire to anthropomorphize.
What I sense in your changed perception of your path is the joyful inklings of realization that there is one who loves you more deeply than you can imagine, who you now are learning to know, and who you can access openly and honestly in prayer, just as a father who is ever-present and ever loving, ever listening, and who cares about your every thought and fear and terror…and joy. A father who made himself flesh and blood to experience what you are experiencing. You have full access. Cry out all your emotions to him. Jesus did just that.
Jesus is the great miraculous healer. That can mean physical healing, and it can also mean adding brilliant, vibrant color to one of the dots on a Kaplan-Meier curve even without changing the shape of the curve. Truth be told, I pray constantly that the curve for your rare condition be miraculously disturbed by the story of your life on this side. But there is a grander prayer, and your note shows me that you are already living it out. It is the addition of glorious, beautiful, vibrant color to your point that will eventually be added to the Kaplan-Meier curve for your rare condition – you!
As you further formulate your self-perceptions, perhaps consider some wonderful Bible passages that speak of how color is added to points on a Kaplan-Meier curve, even if the curve doesn’t end up shifting. These words speak to that most threatening thing for a stubborn person–the thing you overcame–accepting a new identify.
In the Gospel of John, 10:10, Jesus taught:
“A thief is only there to steal and kill and destroy. I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life than they ever dreamed of.”
In my analogy, the thief is a complex cancer due to the systemic loss of multiple tumor suppressor genes. Jesus describes his response. May your new self-perception be a realization of what it means to live a “real and eternal life, more and better than they ever dreamed of”.
And the Bible has more.
In Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15, verse 55, he writes very poetically:
“At the same moment and in the same way, we'll all be changed. In the resurrection scheme of things, this has to happen: everything perishable taken off the shelves and replaced by the imperishable, this mortal replaced by the immortal.
Then the saying will
come true:
Death swallowed by
triumphant Life!
Who got the last
word, oh, Death?
Oh, Death, who's
afraid of you now?
It was sin that made death so frightening and law-code guilt that gave sin its leverage, its destructive power.
But now in a single victorious stroke of Life, all three – sin, guilt, death – are gone, the gift of our Master, Jesus Christ.
Thank God!”
In the archaic King James translation, the central verse is translated, in a splendidly mocking tone:
“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”
These words apply directly and perfectly to you now, my friend.
I pray that God, in his power, wrote the play knowing your free will, in such a way that your beautiful pending Kaplan-Meier dot will miraculously distort the graph. I suspect he is already answering that prayer. But, more importantly, I pray that your dot, whenever it is time to place it, finally, on the curve, will be no conventional dot, but rather a brilliant, colorful dot, blazing in glory, impossibly bright, burning a hole right through the plane of the graph into the real dimensions that lie beyond it.
Enjoy the livestream!
24. Questioner
Hi Friend
Your insights on the Kaplan Meier curve perfectly captured my own feelings. It has its place and is not a useless tool, but it is one-dimensional. It once again reminds me of the “microdot” we have previously discussed. It is plain and ordinary at first glance, but there is an incalculable collection of experiences, love, loss, fear, joy, and every emotion in between embedded in it. Perhaps subconsciously, I was thinking of my own Kaplan Meier dot when I made the decision to make the final period in my polka dot essay red… As you beautifully described in a way that brought tears to my eyes, maybe that is what I desire most: a Kaplan Meier dot that is not easily camouflaged, but instead is a vibrant, red, outlier. One that looks entirely out of place on the page, almost as if it was the result of a printing error.
For me, one of the greatest comforts of this journey has been knowing that in my own way, I will be a scientist and a steward for my fellow humans, long after I am gone. The details of my case, my treatment decisions, my tumor samples, my leg (which I donated to research), etc. will all live on to help someone else. Someday, I will exist only as a deidentified patient in the chronicles of PubMed and as a footnote in the chart of a stranger, whose disease is similar enough to mine to have warranted the case reference. What an extraordinary privilege…
I thoroughly enjoyed the pastor’s sermon. It was on a topic I had intended to broach with you next, having doubts. I had intended to ask you how much doubt is expected and reasonable for a follower of Christ. Growing up in my small town, anyone who breathed a word of doubt about God’s teachings, plans, etc. was met with swift judgement. To me, this always seemed unfair and terribly unrealistic.
If you made a claim of scientific fact to me, I would be interested to know where you learned it and what evidence you had to believe it was true. I would not question your credibility out of disrespect; I would question the validity of your source out of curiosity and diligence, knowing with confidence you would be able to answer those questions. The same should be fair for questions about God. We should be able to ask those wiser than us why they believe something about God to be true. I have doubts and questions about concepts in faith. I have doubts and questions about concepts in science. Questioning either does not mean I am not a firm believer in both God and science. It means I am a healthy skeptic. To never doubt would be the mark of a woefully uncurious mind… a tragedy that, to me, would be worse than incurable cancer. The day I blindly accept anything that is told to me will be the day I no longer wish to be here.
I do not consider my doubts and questions about God to be a threat to my newfound faith, because the burden of proof has been met. In the same way, my doubts and questions about science are not a threat to my belief in it as a discipline, because the burden of proof has been met.
P.S. I need to read The Art of Oncology… it sounds right up my alley. As always, I appreciated your thoughtful participation on that question about treatment success.
24. Response to questioner
Hi
You were created to be curious, skeptical, prone to doubt and suspicion, and stubborn. These are characteristics that make you a good scientist, and that explains why we met – our graduate program seeks out people with those characteristics. I always advise students that the top three qualities we seek during admission are curiosity, tenacity, and skepticism. The other one I don’t usually mention, but that I learned in college is mistrust of authority. I guess that fits within skepticism.
God built you that way. These are neutral characteristics that can become positives or negatives, like so many other aspects of personality.
These traits lead to healthy doubt, especially about decisions that require a deliberate choice when reproducibly evidence is scant or absent. My decision to trust my life to Jesus Christ was ultimately based on a deep need for forgiveness of my sense of guilt and shame, together with my aesthetic attraction to the beauty of a selfless love so strong that it would sacrifice unimaginably to rescue me. My decision was not based on reproducible scientific evidence. It was, like yours, a choice of free will. A choice that I believe God knew about before he let his story unfold in time. So I chose to suspend skepticism in order to choose faith. Perhaps that is one definition of faith, the conscious choice to set aside skepticism at a point of decision.
But I don’t think a life of faith, and a relationship with Jesus should ever imply a permanent suspension of skepticism or doubt. My skepticism and doubt now simply occur within the context of my relationship with Jesus. I have used the analogy that the turbulence that inevitably occurs in my relationship with my wife is undeniable at times, but it occurs within the context of a relationship we have committed to preserve against all threats.
So, doubt and skepticism are healthy in our relationships with Jesus. Importantly, often skepticism and doubt motivate us to better study the way we and others interpret the Bible, because interpretations can be wrong and translations can be open to further analysis. Bible authors were the products of their times and circumstances, so, in my opinion, God chose to allow his message to us to be brought to us through fallible vehicles. We sometimes need to roll up our sleeves and study to filter the essential message from confusion.
Although our pastor used John the Baptist has the exemplary “doubter” in their teaching. The classic example is Jesus’ disciple named Thomas, recorded in the Gospel of John, chapter 20. Here the resurrected Christ speaks directly to the issues of doubt and faith:
‘Later on that day, the disciples had gathered together, but, fearful of the Jews, had locked all the doors in the house. Jesus entered, stood among them, and said, "Peace to you." Then he showed them his hands and side. The disciples, seeing the Master with their own eyes, were exuberant. Jesus repeated his greeting: "Peace to you. Just as the Father sent me, I send you."
Then he took a deep breath and breathed into them. "Receive the Holy Spirit," he said. "If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"
But Thomas, sometimes called the Twin, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples told him, "We saw the Master."
But he said, "Unless I see the nail holes in his hands, put my finger in
the nail holes, and stick my hand in his side, I won't believe
it." Eight days later, his disciples were again in the room. This
time Thomas was with them. Jesus came through the locked doors, stood among
them, and said, "Peace to you."
Then he focused his attention on Thomas. "Take your finger and examine my hands. Take your hand and stick it in my side. Don't be unbelieving. Believe."
Thomas said, "My Master! My God!"
Jesus said, "So, you believe because you've seen with your own eyes. Even better blessings are in store for those who believe without seeing."’
Here, at the time of the birth of Christianity, the transition begins from those whose belief was rooted in experiencing miracles to those whose belief was rooted in a choice to believe a compelling message promising a saving relationship with God through Jesus. In this story, Jesus endorses the validity of the choice of faith through temporary suspension of skepticism. That is a powerful endorsement.
This doesn’t mean that God never writes into the play moments when free will cause-and-effect are inadequate to explain the action on stage (what we call miracles). It just means that the free will we have been gifted by God, our agency, becomes the mechanism of our choice to have faith.
So be skeptical and honest about doubts. Ask questions. Challenge authority. I do all the time, though I try my best to do so with humility.
Jesus himself challenged his father’s authority when Jesus questioned in the garden of Gethsemane if there was any other way to accomplish his redemption task than to complete it on the cross. Yet, within the same breath, Jesus somehow humbled himself in obedience and resignation. In fact, one of my favorite passages of the New Testament is in Paul’s letter to the church at Phillipi, chapter 2, starting at verse 5:
“Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn't claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death-and the worst kind of death at that – a crucifixion.”
What do you think?
25. Questioner
I used to never understand why people, upon someone's passing, would proclaim that they were in a better place now. It always seemed insensitive, incorrect, and cliche. The latter adjective may still be a little true, but I now understand why it is said so often and felt so deeply. I have likened the experience of cancer to that of being stuck in a chrysalis. Terribly uncomfortable, accompanied by a desperate desire to escape and breathe fresh air. In my discussions with my good friend about life and death, I shared with them that I did not want her to feel sad when I'm gone someday. I told them that right now, I am a caterpillar. I love my life, but I am still a caterpillar. Death will be a happy occasion, a metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. I shared those sentiments before I believed there was anything after death. At the time, I could not bring myself to believe in God or eternity, but I took great comfort (and confidence) in my future fate as a butterfly, visiting the office windowsills of my few dear friends in their lab building.
Regarding your thoughts on doubt/skepticism, I wholeheartedly agree. Skepticism and doubt are healthy, but one must suspend a certain degree of them, or at least redirect them, in order to sustain a meaningful long-term relationship. In the last, my skepticism and doubt were always directed at proving or disproving the existence of God. Each new discovery and thought led back to me deciding whether it supported or refuted the existence of God. This was helpful for awhile, but once I felt the burden of proof for His existence had been met, I knew I needed to redirect my skepticism and doubts. Now, it all centers on exactly what you highlighted: our interpretation of the Bible. I find myself frequently questioning whether we as believers have interpreted a lesson or passage correctly, which I find to be more helpful than my previous crusade of ruthlessly "fact checking" every sentence to prove or disprove a singular point. Like you said, the commitment to making the relationship thrive at all costs is reflected in the types of questions we ask.
I will do my best to capture my thoughts on this succinctly. If I run out of steam or miss a few points, I'll follow up later.
At risk of boring you with more talk of death (as you might imagine, it's a topic I think of often), I had a revelation on why accepting Christ has brought me such a profound sense of peace. It was, in its own unique way, a death of me.
Upon reflection, I believe the driving force of my unwavering commitment to partaking in every invasive, painful procedure was my stubbornness. To step away from the fight at any point would require me to relinquish the most prized piece of my identity. To do so would mean I failed. I gave up. I met my match. To sacrifice an ounce of my self-efficacy, self-reliance, or problem solving would rob me of any chance at dying with peace in my heart.
To accept "the gift" (a phrasing of yours I am very fond of), I had to let go of the person I once was. I said goodbye to her aloud just before accepting the gift. I thanked them for getting me this far and thanked them for all the lessons, pleasant and painful, they taught me. I told them that while I was eternally grateful for them, I could not complete the rest of my journey with them. I knew in my heart if I held onto them, I would be attempting to serve two masters: God and the stubborn, unyielding, perfectionist. I felt any attempt to do so would result in the disapproval and disappointment of them both.
So, I said goodbye to them. I died. And it was, as we suspected, a happy occasion. I have all the peace I need, because I have survived the death of what I once viewed as all I had: my pride, my stubbornness, my need for control, my desperation to "win" the fight at all costs... I will always remember them, but I will not grieve them.
I will still partake in every invasive, painful procedure and treatment until the very end, but not because I believe doing so will bring me peace. I am at peace. I will do so to maximize the time I have left here to tell others about Him. I will do so to continue our discussions... on all things Deep.
25. Response to questioner
My friend, you truly never cease to amaze me.
In the midst of your birthday recovery, you are replete with a song of joy and praise, and then you share such a poignant and beautiful analysis of your spiritual transformation that touches on the very deepest heart of Christian theology. I found your e-mail note from last night, honestly, breathtaking.
I want to explain why.
Your touching tribute to the death of your old self represents the recognition of part of what I think CS Lewis would include in what he called the Deep Magic. Very many (most?) Christians take years to come to the understanding that you shared yesterday. Some (too many? never do). Without detracting in any way from your poetic and deadly (pun intended) accurate self-assessment, I wanted to share three points of biblical theology you echo.
Some essential verses of our faith.
First, the words of Paul to the church at Galatia. In the words of the Message translation:
What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and it didn’t work. [This was Paul’s ‘laundry list’ phase, and your stubborn pride phase]. So I quit being a “law man” so that I could be God’s man. Christ’s life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.
The phrasing in the New International Version translation is even more cogent:
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Does this sound familiar? If it does, it is because I think it is exactly what you confessed in your note below, echoing this deep truth in your own lovely words.
And this metaphor of dying to live anew is found over and over in the New Testament. For a second example:
Paul teaches his followers to think about the metaphor of an “old man” and a “new man” with reference to the concepts you illuminated in your note. [I regret the perpetual masculine gender in the Greek]. He uses this metaphor in his teachings four times at least. The one that reminded of your ode to the death of your old self is in his letter to the church at Rome, chapter 6, verse 6:
Could it be any clearer? Our old way of life was nailed to the cross with Christ, a decisive end to that sin-miserable life – no longer at sin’s every beck and call! What we believe is this: If we get included in Christ’s sin-conquering death, we also get included in his life-saving resurrection. We know that when Jesus was raised from the dead it was a signal of the end of death-as-the-end. Never again will death have the last word…you are dead to sin and live to God. That’s what Jesus did.
My friend, as you accurately point out, what separated you from God was not a life of crime or evil. It was more subtle – a pride in self-sufficiency that you proved and re-proved over and over. You enjoyed celebrating it. This truly defined you in your own mind and for many of us who know you. Pride and self-efficacy sound admirable indeed. But, as you so accurately deduce, they represent the desire for (demand for? addiction to?) self-determination rather than what has always seemed to you the most terrible alternative – surrender. The Bible narrative, in fact, paints a picture that it is ultimately pride that separates us from Jesus, and it is surrender to his gift that rescues us. Your confession of faith below beautifully captures that transformative recognition. You have put to death the old you, recognizing that they were crucified with Christ. This is an amazingly mature recognition.
Finally, in Paul’s letter to the Roman church, he provides another metaphor for the death you describe. In church theology, ‘sacraments’ are visible symbols of invisible truths. The early church adopted the tradition, based on Jesus’ teaching, that the peculiar ceremony of baptism (most commonly immersion under water followed by rising out of the water) was a picture proclaiming the death and fresh start you described – the very picture of conversion by accepting Jesus’ gift. In Paul’s letter to the Roman church, chapter 6, starting at verse 3 (The Message version) Paul states:
That’s what baptism into the life of Jesus means. When we are lowered into the water, it is like the burial of Jesus; when we are raised up out of the water, it is like the resurrection of Jesus. Each of us is raised into a light-filled world by our Father so that we can see where we’re going in our grace-sovereign country.
I emphasize that accepting Jesus’ gift does not require this baptism symbol. The baptism tradition is simply a celebratory response, a kind of public mini-memorial service to the old me and a rising to declare the new me, the me that will live for Christ, and in Christ, and with Christ, forever.
So, perhaps forgiving this morning’s lengthy tripartite theology exposition, your much more succinct confession of faith is a deeply beautiful statement that I will not soon forget. It represents a profound letting go and a profound recognition of new purpose. It is a declaration of freedom, purchased for you by Jesus, not because you are good, but because he is good and loves you more dearly than any of us can imagine.
Last night when I read your confession of faith, I was deeply touched. It left tears in my eyes. It is beautifully composed. Truth be told, after reading it on my phone, I walked outside on the beautiful warm evening, surrounded by a magnificent chorus of breeding amphibians (an odd heavenly choir) in the wetland surrounding our home, and re-read your note out loud to take it in.
You wrote it remarkably. In essence, you have set aside a lonely solo mission to be embraced by your loving creator on a fresh mission that you need not undertake alone any more. Jesus died for you and now walks with you and gladly carries you when needed. He cries with you, smiles with you, inspires your songs, and will share eternity with you.
May you be granted many hours, days, weeks, months, and years to live out and tell your story to a world that so needs it.
At least two of us (I think many more) will be watching with great joy.
26. Questioner
Hello,
I am continuously impressed by your ability to recall such pertinent and powerful passages from the Bible. Each of them you have shared seem to answer a question, spark a new one, or connect a series of dots in my own analyses. Some of the passages you have shared do all three. 🙂 The ones you shared today brought to mind another part of Paul's letter you previously shared when we were discussing the tendency to fall into old, unhelpful behaviors that do not glorify God, our tendency to put on our old clothes, return to our old home, etc. Understanding that accepting the gift should entail the death of one's prior self, perhaps a lack of doing so contributes significantly to one's tendency to engage in their old habits... If one believes accepting Christ to be a purchase rather than an exchange, old habits are easily reverted to, because the recognition of their death has not occurred... I did an exchange! I did not purchase a new, shinier, Christian me. I cannot go into my closet and clad myself in the old, cynical, stubborn armor of my prior self, because I no longer own it. I exchanged it, because I did not believe having both versions of myself was permitted in the agreement.
If one does not consciously relinquish their prior self, if one does not consciously decide it is not worth grieving over, if one doesn't commit to never repurchasing it or going to try it on in the store for nostalgia, it seems obvious why returning to the old home and trying on the old clothes would be a mistake repeated in perpetuity. It is an attractive, comfortable, option because the person still owns it. I hope you will forgive what may have come across as an obscure analogy.
Paul's letter to Galatia that you shared today perfectly captured my thoughts and brought tears to my eyes. This part especially:
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
That sums up how I feel to a T: I live because I have died.
I am still processing the series of events that unfolded on my birthday. As if being alive wasn't rewarding enough, I experienced a beautiful and meaningful hallucination as I was waking up from the anesthesia.
Hypnopompic hallucinations, which occur during the transition between sleep and wakefulness, are relatively common and typically harmless. They aren't usually a sign of an underlying disease or disorder, but they are more common in people who do not sleep well, those who take certain medications, etc. For the majority of people who experience them, the hallucinations are visual, but they don't tell a story the way a dream does. Interestingly, animals are the most frequent hypnopompic hallucination, more specifically, an animal the person is frightened of. I started having them about 2 years ago, likely due to my poor sleep habits, medications, tumor locations, etc.
Mine are tactile and auditory rather than visual, and they are typically of rats, snakes, spiders, or insects crawling on me. I am embarrassed to admit that I am frightened of nearly every creature that isn't a dog, cat, or bunny. As someone who can't see, any creature that moves unpredictably startles me. Insects jump and fly, rats scurry, snakes bite, etc. It took me several years as a child to overcome my fear of bunnies, since they hop. In hindsight, that fear was a bit comical, considering they are prey animals. I'm certain every bunny I interacted with was more frightened of me, so it's funny I found such a sweet, harmless creature so threatening.
I digress, but the background information was necessary to understand why this hallucination was unique. Since they are normally an unpleasant experience, I was delighted to wake up after my surgery to the sensation of a wonderfully soft animal under my right hand. I assumed it was one of the hospital’s Caring Canines, though I did find it abnormal to be visited by one immediately after surgery, before I had even been settled into a room. I stroked its fur a few times and then realized it was not a dog... it was a bunny. ❤️
Everyone has a spirit animal, and in my mind, yours is a rabbit. Initially, I thought the bunny at my bedside was you coming to visit, so I said, "Hi Jim!" Then, I wondered if it was you... or your beloved Kyle. Both possibilities made me smile for the minute or two my furry friend sat with me.
I purchased the books you recommended, and my friend and I selected a daily devotional to start together. We begin Monday, and though it will be via phone for a while to avoid infection while I heal up from this surgery and my next one, I am looking forward to it more than I can express.
26. Response to questioner
Happy June.
I want to return to what I consider your truly brilliant and beautiful email from yesterday, May 31. In it you write, “I hope you will forgive what may have come across as an obscure analogy.”
Au contraire, my friend. Your contrast of purchasing vs. exchanging analogies is extremely perceptive, and perfectly insightful. This example illustrates your gift for seeing to the heart of an issue and expressing it freshly. As I said, too few Christians comprehend the difference between acquiring Jesus as another in a collection of life purposes, vs. surrendering to him as one’s defining life purpose. The former leads to a kind of syncretism where one collects world views and philosophies indiscriminately. This tradition is a cultural feature of Japanese life, where Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and even Christianity are all collected into a culture of rituals lacking a sense that there could be one singular truth. Syncretism, though seemingly the epitome of political correctness, has thwarted generations of Christian apologists in Japan.
Your analogy of purchasing yet another world view, without exchanging the old one, is perfect.
I can’t imagine a better one, and it harks back to Paul’s picture of the temptation of returning to an old closet in an old house to put on old clothes. If the old house is gone and the old closet empty, problem solved.
A beautiful analogy.
Since we’re on a roll with your insights echoing Bible truths, allow me to share another.
We have discussed Paul’s analogy of heaven being a timeless place of beautiful flowers, not washed and polished seeds [your analogy would be butterflies, not primped caterpillars], I wanted to draw your attention to an earlier agricultural seed-oriented passage taught by Jesus himself. It is a slightly complex passage because Jesus is likely to be referring to two ideas at once, based on context. The passage is recorded in the Gospel of John, chapter 12, verse 24. Jesus is teaching his friends at a time when it is becoming obvious that his earthly mission to be sacrificed for us is impending, yet he still seeks to convey principles of new life to his friends.
Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
In the Message translation (which I love), the passage is rendered: "Listen carefully: Unless a grain of wheat is buried in the ground, dead to the world, it is never any more than a grain of wheat. But if it is buried, it sprouts and reproduces itself many times over. In the same way, anyone who holds on to life just as it is destroys that life. But if you let it go, reckless in your love, you'll have it forever, real and eternal.”
The passage has overtones seemingly referring to both the necessity of Jesus death, but also the necessity of our own deaths to our old selves.
I bring this up because of your lovely writing on the subject of the death of the original you, with all of your determination, pride, stubbornness, making way for the new birth of a new you in which the best of these characteristics have been re-cast in Jesus.
Jesus’ teaching suggests that, whether referencing his own sacrificial death, or our own mini-sacrificial deaths, the results are not limited to selfish individual self-actualization. These deaths trigger untold impacts in other lives – because of the brilliance and irresistible nature of the transformation when it is perceived by others, through observation, contrast with previous motivations, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
So seeds needing to be hidden in the soil (a picture of death) is a necessary step in their transformation. Not unlike dying to self, acknowledging and then burying the old self without grief, and exchanging, not purchasing, a new self in Christ, are all solid themes taught with similar analogies by Jesus and Paul
…and you.
I am excited that you may be able to make time for exploring some of the readings materials by admirable authors, designed to enrich and inform and strengthen your faith. I am so grateful to your friend for their incomparable and eternal investment in your friendship 😊. They are indeed a priceless friend.
27. Questioner
As you have thoughtfully explained to me a few times, pride separates us from God. My pride in being a stubborn, cynical warrior separated me from Him my entire life. But... so did my intellectual pride. Intelligence is almost always accompanied by a ruinous dose of pride. I don't need your help. I can solve the problem myself. I don't need your answers. I can find my own. I don't need your umbrella to weather this storm. I have my own. I don't need to rely your guidance and planning. I can plan my own life and sail my own ship. I can do all those things, so I have no need to believe in the fantastical promises of a religion.
I have interacted with countless people throughout my life whose intelligence I appreciated and admired greatly. Nearly all of them were staunch atheists who believed the above sentiments about religion. To them, religiosity was a tell-tale sign that the person possessed little if any critical thinking skills or mental fortitude. Upon finding out someone my family/inner circle interacted with was religious, the disappointment, expressed behind the person's back, was phrased as follows:
"Ugh... I really thought they were too smart for religion."
This, of course, deterred me from even entertaining the idea of religion. God forbid (literally) that I sacrifice any of my intelligence. To be thought of as stupid was a fate worse than death in my mind. I absorbed their viewpoint and am sad to say that in my younger years, I lost a bit of respect for many brilliant, wonderful people, simply because they were Christian.
Having just sent you my thoughts on the death of my former self just now, I realize an amendment is required to a statement I made shortly after my presentation on stubbornness. The red text reflects the additional viewpoint of my new identity.
I am not as capable as I thought I was. And that is okay. I am not as independent as I thought I was. And that is okay. I cannot solve every problem. And that is okay. I am not as intelligent as I thought I was. And that is okay. But that does not make me a failure... it makes me forgiven.
Sitting here, I asked myself how I would react if someone from my inner circle, upon hearing of my newfound faith, told me they thought I was too smart for religion... Not long ago, I can honestly say the comment would probably have made me cry in private. But now? I surprised even myself, realizing I would feel almost... gleeful! I would be thrilled at the challenge and opportunity to start a conversation about my journey to Christ. I would not take their words as a personal attack, nor would I care if they were never swayed from their new opinion of my lackluster intelligence.
My theory is this: intelligent people who are religious are so because they have put their pride to death. Intelligent people who roll their eyes at the concept of God (as I did for most of my life) do so out their pride-driven decisions. In that way, what intelligent people pride themselves most (being superior critical thinkers) is not even true... it is a greater fallacy than every religious principle they criticize. Pride is a glaring bias. It makes it impossible engage in effective critical thinking. They are unaware that they are their own worst confounding variable. "Too smart for your own good," is actually a compliment in the eyes of a stubborn, prideful, intelligent person. But when you're too smart for your own good, you're also too smart for His good, which is no victory.
So... if I soon find myself on the receiving end of the phrase, "I really thought you were too smart for religion," I can honestly say I will crack a big smile and reply with, "I did too... that was my problem."
I think this topic could be especially relevant for scientists and physicians, because what do we all pride ourselves on? Our intelligence. The acceptance of Christ may be viewed by many in our field as the erosion of the trait they've built their entire life on.
I mentioned in one of our first discussions on the topic that I found Jesus' justification for the man's blindness to be selfish. Even though he healed the man, he still allowed the man to suffer so that others would see his work. For some reason, that passage from John came to mind after a recent surgery. I have surmised that God may often face a version of the "trolley dilemma" and what we see as a lack of his intervention for one sufferer, may actually be an act of mercy for countless others....
I'm sure you're familiar with the trolley dilemma, but for readers of your blog who may not be, I'll summarize it in a few sentences. The trolley dilemma is a widely discussed series of thought experiments in psychology and ethics. The question it poses is this: Is it morally/ethically preferable to sacrifice one person to save multiple others? In the scenario, a runaway train is on course to hit and kill 5 people. Would you pull a lever, which would divert the train to a nearby track, to kill the one person on that track instead of the 5 people on the other? Most people, despite admitting they would feel guilty for killing the initially "safe" person, agree they would pull the lever. Better to let one die than five.
How does this relate to suffering and God's intervention? Well, we know humans are inherently selfish, stubborn, and poor at noticing subtle hints/cues. That means we aren't always great learners, hence why we often must learn lessons the hard way. Unless the teaching method is dramatic, drastic, and impossible to ignore, and unless the person experiences it themself, some lessons are never learned. Suffering is dramatic, drastic, and impossible to ignore. I have learned so many lessons from the worst of cancer... What if God knows that being a close witness to another's suffering is the only way many people will learn a certain lesson, other than experiencing it themselves? If he knows that, then he "sacrifices" one, knowing it will save countless others... If even two people learn a vital lesson from witnessing someone's battle with cancer, and as a result, they will not have to experience cancer themselves, then God's pulling of the lever to divert the train makes perfect sense. Even better, he knows the person struck by the train will soon end up with him anyway... so it's actually not a sacrifice at all... it is an expedited ticket to eternity. It is an act of mercy, both for the person hit by the train and for those who witness it from the safe side of the tracks.
And finally, on the topic of his intervention, I recognize that just because you cannot see how God has intervened in a particular circumstance, doesn't mean he hasn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In science, medicine, and every other discipline, we often don't know exactly how something works, forms, persists, etc., but we know it does, nonetheless. For example, we often can't prove exactly what is driving a disease, but we make note of common features among cases and formulate a strong hypothesis on what drives it. We may believe a mutation in a particular gene drives it, but without the technology and techniques necessary to investigate it, we just have to assume, have faith, that we are correct. Then, the technology and techniques become available, and what do you know? We can now prove that we were correct all along about the mutation. I think God's interventions are similar. His mechanisms of action are far beyond what we're capable of comprehending or investigating earth side. We are rudimentary thinkers on the subject, so the best argument we can come up with is: if we're not cured, he's not real! Pretty unimaginative of us I would say... I think we are poor at seeing the subtleties of his work.
Being healed of cancer would be only one form of a miracle. As I've shared with you before, I have been blessed with countless miracles throughout this battle. If I choose to ignore them all, then yes, God has not intervened. If I choose to use my creativity for good, if I allow myself to accept that his intervention may not come in the form of a cure, then I am overwhelmed with all he has done for me.
Anyhow, this was my attempt to add another response to the common question, "How can a loving God let people suffer." The TLDR (too long didn't read) answer would be: one man's suffering is another's salvation.
27. Response to questioner
Good rainy morning, my friend. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, even during a difficult recovery. I am praying for your patience and rapid improvement!
As I write this, I am watching a mother duck just outside my window, leading her six tiny ducklings to glean for spilled sunflower seed fragments in the landscape rock below the bird feeder outside my office. Baby ducklings are remarkably cute and miniature and survive by imprinting and obedience. They alternate hanging out in a wetland puddle at the base of our yard, and heading back up the hill to clean up spilled seed on cue from mom. Precious.
I appreciated your, as usual, thoughtful analysis and exposition of challenges of making sense of justice in an unjust world, and the very important biblical concept of substitution. As I was reading your thoughts, I immediately considered several biblical examples of substitution, motivated a bit by the trolley dilemma. Truth be told, as a Trekkie, I first thought of a classic quote from the Star Trek movie franchise: In “The Wrath of Kahn” with the Enterprise in imminent danger of destruction, Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s drive so the crew can escape danger. Spock quickly perishes, and, with his final breaths, says to Kirk, “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock replies, “Or the one.”
One biblical example comes in the scheming of Jewish officials to preserve the Jews in Jerusalem under Roman occupation from maximal abuse and oppression. Caiaphas, the designated chief priest that year (who later plays a reluctant role in turning Jesus over to the Roman authorities for torture and crucifixion) is quoted in the Gospel of John 11:50: as saying
“Don’t you know anything? Can’t you see that it is to our advantage that one man dies for the people rather than the whole nation being destroyed?”
A second familiar example of substitution comes in the odd tradition of symbolic substitutionary champion combat in the ancient middle east. This tradition also crops up elsewhere in history. Rather than two assembled armies entering mortal combat, risking massive casualties, single representative “champions” were chosen by each side to enter one-on-one combat, substituting the prowess of the champions for their entire armies. You may recognize this from the classic Bible story of the Philistine champion, Goliath, pitting himself against the Israelite army representative, with the unlikely result that the youthful shepherd, David (later to become the flawed king of Israel) becomes the unlikely hero by felling Goliath with a single stone cast with a sling. I suppose the rationale for champion combat was preserving precious resources in small armies. Maybe some of the civilian terrors and genocides of modern warfare could be eliminated if we reverted to the champion warfare model (?).
Finally, a sublime biblical example from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth:
“There is a nice symmetry in this: Death initially came by a man, and resurrection from death came by a man. Everybody dies in Adam; everybody comes alive in Christ”
These examples of substitution were all inspired by your thoughts.
I think you would agree that the propagation of life lessons from the one sufferer to the many spared suffering is gracious from God’s perspective, but requires a suffering servant and a story-telling mechanism to amplify the story and lessons to many hearers. I think again of the poignant 2010 TED talk by Stacey Kramer
https://www.ted.com/talks/stacey_kramer_the_best_gift_i_ever_survived?language=en
Here the TED mechanism let her tell her story. The You Tube counter suggests her 3-minute parable has been watched more than 4.5 million times.
Probably the oldest piece of literature in the Bible is the Book of Job, where one man suffers unjustly, then further suffers though endless philosophical debates from his friends, only, in the end, to surrender to the will of his heavenly Father and accept that, in essence, “Aslan is not a tame lion” and there are larger purposes and grander perspectives at play than his one life. In my theology, this mounts to coming to terms with the reality of the unimaginable happy ending that will mark the end of time. In your note above, you acknowledge a similar larger purpose, even a grace, in individual substitutionary suffering.
This episode of dialog fits nicely into my encouragement that you continue to share your cancer lessons and insights at every opportunity, not seeking attention or sympathy (as you NEVER do), but sharing the ways you have been brought to personal maturity in such an accelerated way, and how this set the scene for your recognition that the self-defining pride to which you clung ultimately was an obstacle that needed to be set aside to accept Christ’s gift in your life.
This is among the reasons that I would love for you to be able to compose and share your faith story in a public way, when the time and mechanism are correct.
May you have an unexpectedly peaceful day with rest and, perhaps, both music and humor.
28. Questioner
back-to-back surgeries @ moment. if things should go sideways, my small handmade gift will still make its way to u. note that goes w/ it is below. praying u smiled today
Metamorphosis is possible for us all, but only if we surrender to the process. The chrysalis stage is more painful and protracted for some, but even so, a caterpillar who surrenders can draw a full breath, despite its confines.
Thank you for helping me see the value of surrender. In doing so, my chrysalis has become more habitable. Its walls are no longer opaque; I see the beauty within them, just outside them, and far beyond them.
…Multiple weeks pass…
Please forgive the brevity. I will respond to your recent, thoughtful emails fully as soon as energy and strength permit. Hopefully trending in the right direction now. Apologies for the typo-laden intros, too. Your mention of sunflower seeds... Not sure if you knew, but the sunflower is the awareness symbol for one of my cancers. It symbolizes hope and brighter days ahead for those affected by the disease.
28. Response to questioner
My friend!
It is actually hard to overstate the emotional impact when I see one of your emails in my in-box after a deeply concerning care episode that carries such significant mortal risk. It’s not the first, nor the last for this experience. Though I know you are in eternal hands, it brings me a huge smile when I know that you have stubbornly and graciously persisted to recover and share more of this life with us who have come to love you. I am deeply thankful when I receive these ‘evidence of survival’ emails and sense your personality shining through.
Be ever assured of our prayers for you – certainly (and selfishly) for physical healing, but more for what is best for you.
A quick thought for today.
I was realizing that when it comes to our foray into the concept of substitution, perhaps the most precious biblical passage was missed in my prior correspondence. It is a beautiful section from the first letter attributed to the apostle Peter in the New Testament, chapter 2, near verse 23. Here Peter describes the ultimate example of substitution, that of Jesus substituting his life for your life and for my life:
“He used his servant body to carry our sins to the Cross so we could be rid of sin, free to live the right way. His wounds became your healing. You were lost sheep with no idea who you were or where you were going. Now you're named and kept for good by the Shepherd of your souls.”
That opening phrase “He used his servant body to carry our sins to the Cross” epitomizes a concept of God unique to this faith that we call Christianity.
Rest and gather your strength, friend.
29. Questioner
believe it or not, I'm equally relieved to make it through the hairier moments. it means the pause in our wonderful dialogue needed only a comma, not a period. rest assured, I knew you had already thought of the ultimate example of substitution, God sending Jesus to die for us all. It was exactly this that made me wonder if substitution was a core element of human suffering, knowing God clearly wasn't averse to the practice. U gave some touching additional examples. It seems logical, because even if neither the sufferer nor the spared see the suffering as merciful, the lessons are still learned. Maybe not right away, maybe not for a long, long time... but if "time heals all", perhaps that is because time is an exceptional teacher. I like to think God gives us all just enough time to learn the lessons we were each meant to learn. If so, no suffering is in vain.
[several weeks pass]
I finally turned a corner early this morning. 5 surgeries in 4 weeks is a bit overwhelming for a caterpillar, but I am accustomed to heavy storms. When it rains, it pours.
As always, I am grateful for your prayers and as always, I feel they are answered. My most recent insight, albeit an obvious one that may not warrant being called an 'insight' at all, pertains to the frequent storms brought on by cancer. As a stubborn, self-reliant, competitive person, surviving the more harrowing storms of the journey has always felt like an active fight. There has been little if any rest or peace during said storms. For every raindrop cancer dealt, I did my best to hurl a hailstone in retaliation. Doing so felt like the only way to survive.
Since my most daunting recent episode, and more specifically, since accepting this wonderful gift, I have learned that retaliation is not necessarily the most effective or sustainable battle tactic, mentally or physically. I am not alone, nor am I in control of the ultimate outcome, so I am no longer hellbent on leading the counter assault. When the storm hits, I take refuge in Christ. I don't need to empty all my ammunition to emerge victorious. I just need to shelter in place and trust that we can ride it out, and as we wait, I can enjoy the rest and peace other strategies could not provide me.
Psalm 57:1 captures this sentiment well:
I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.
So, a battle tactic you will not see listed in any military manual or credited with winning any war other than my own... refuge.
29. Response to questioner
May It be just as you have said, my friend.
I am overjoyed, as ever, just to receive your correspondence and sense your amazing maturity.
I have often been told by oncologists that the ‘battle’ metaphor may not be as helpful as it is instinctive for many cancer patients.
The biological insight that our tumors are composed of our own confused cells, simply doing the grand evolution thing writ small, reminds us that it is essentially us that is growing out of control as our tumors, and, in fact, versions of us that are more like our developing selves that we thought we had left behind long ago, now reanimated in an unhelpfully disorganized manner…yet still “us.”
May great wish for you continues to be….rest.
Write when you can. I’ll also keep you posted on occasional insights.
30. Questioner
As you said, "battle" is a natural metaphor. Battles are long, arduous, and unfair. Oncologists/patients may find the framing problematic because it often results in negative remarks from others when the patient doesn't "win". People don't mean to be hurtful, but it's exasperating to read headlines or obituaries stating someone "lost their battle with cancer." It makes many patients feel shame and guilt for foregoing harsh, potentially curative treatments in favor of strictly palliative ones. Doing so is seen as waving the white flag, a sad surrender. As I've shared, I have a newfound, deep affection for surrender, however it manifests for each person.
I now liken my experience to a bike ride more than a battle. It's a tough mountain stage, but The Tour will come to an end eventually, and the joy of crossing the finish line will dwarf the struggle. I will have my God, my polka dots, and my few friends to watch over. What more could I ask for?
Like you said, cancer is simply our own confused cells. That has prevented me from ever asking, "Why me?" Why not me? Why would I be immune to a disease that over 20 million people are diagnosed with each year? Over 40 million people are blind. Why wouldn't I be one of them? My disease and disability are merely cellular rebellion, neither a punishment nor a rare experience.
Wanted to share these lyrics. I'm sure the original storyline is a woman accepting the end of a romantic relationship, but with a few tweaks, it holds a very different meaning for me.
To me, it's a farewell song to my former self, an expression of how I felt when saying goodbye to the old me. It's a song about the realization that the person I had become, the believer, couldn't make it work with the old, stubborn, deeply cynical me. I was grateful for the time I had with them, but I had known for a while that the relationship was over. I just had to tell them. The beginning describes how I gave everything, my heart and soul, to that stubborn young person. We made it through some of the hardest parts and healed some of the scars. They gave my heart a "home", but love (God) finally had His say and now the old me and I were moving apart. I knew I had a long way to go and hanging onto them wouldn't get either of us closer to Him. I'll keep the old me in my mirror but won't take my eyes off the road. (I'll remember them but won't grieve them.) I need to tweak the lyrics a little more, but here's what I've come up with thus far. Not a "belt it to the congregation" worship song, but rather a soulful, intimate song for a porch swing on a rainy evening...
Lyric changes underlined.
You took my heart
And gave it a home
We made it through the aching parts
And I gave you my soul
Oh we tried to kill the pain
And heal these scars
But now love has had His say
And we're moving apart
Well we're chasing time
Gotta find peace of mind
And understand that
I'm leaving you behind
I'll keep you in my mirror
But won't take my eyes off the road
Holding on won't get us any nearer
'Cause I got a long way to go
Sometimes it's hard to see
That some things just won't be
Now we both know
But we act so unaware
It just goes to show
Our love isn't fair
Tomorrow's never promised
Only yesterday's a guarantee
And if I'm being honest, that's the only thing that carried me
Oh, we're out of time
We gotta find peace of mind
And understand that
I'm leaving you behind
I'll keep you in my mirror
But won't take my eyes off the road
Holding on won't get us any nearer
'Cause I got a long way to go
Sometimes it's hard to see
That some things just won't be
6.2025
No comments:
Post a Comment