An Apology

You may have noticed there have been no new posts in quite a long time.

The reason for this is that I haven't been in the right frame of mind to prepare them. To write a good post, I have to be really involved with the question, and troubled about it myself, and at the moment I'm not questioning things in the same way. I could try to write things to keep the blog going, but it would be a chore, and I doubt they would be very good. I expect that sometime I will get back into it, so do check back occasionally, or send me an email (gregornewton(at)gmail(dot)com) and I'll let you know when I get back into it.

For the time being, I hope you have been enriched by what I've written, and that you continue to question everything that's at the heart of Christianity, as I have been doing and continue to do daily.

I hope to be writing more soon!

Where's the new posts?

Alas, it's true. There have been no new posts here for a couple of weeks now. I confess I have been busy, and have not had the time and commitment to prepare anything of a sufficient standard to post here. I have drafts, and I have ideas, but if I wasn't fully committed to writing them it's better that they don't go up until they're right.

Having said that, I really want to get back into it, so check here next week and hopefully by then, or at the worst the week after, you will see some new material.

Sorry to keep you waiting!

Walking the Line

Different people read the Bible differently, sometimes with literal readings, other times metaphorical. Some pay more attention to some bits than others. But where do you draw the line?

There’s always a huge debate about how Scriptures should be read. Some argue for a completely literal reading, that the Bible says exactly what is written – there’s no metaphors, no shades of meaning to be questioned. They hold that the Genesis story of creation tells exactly how the world was made, and take Paul’s words (eg in 1 Timothy 2:12) to mean that women should not have leadership roles in the Church. More liberal interpreters of the Bible may see the creation story as a metaphor explaining that God was behind creation, and may say that Paul’s instructions regarding women were relevant to his context and time, and are not so applicable now.

My thoughts on where to draw the line are pretty well summed up by a particular verse. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work”. That is the basis of what I believe, understanding that God has directly influenced the Bible, and it has come from God through men. Because it is penned by fallible humans it may not be perfect and free from human error (this is one of the very debates this post is concerned with), but regardless of this, it first and foremost reflects God in this world.

As for literal or metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, I would say that to a large extent it really doesn’t matter. For many of the issues where this arises the actual difference is not a core matter of faith. We may actively and passionately debate whether the story of creation is metaphorical or literal, but in the end it doesn’t really matter, as it’s still recognising God as creator. Some churches ordain women as ministers and priests and others don’t, but this doesn’t make a huge difference to who God is, or why people believe in Him. Even with contentious issues like homosexuality, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong, I would argue that it really doesn’t change the core belief of a person. The fundamental issue here is that these things are all about how we live out our faith, not whether we have faith. Of course it is important to live out our faith as close to God’s plans as possible, and to constantly seek out what God wants of us by reading what the Bible has to say, but we will all inevitably have mistaken understandings.

However, I also think it’s essential to combine this view with a couple of other ideas. Firstly, I don’t believe the Church should intervene too much in individuals’ lives. Of course the Church has a role in advising the people under its care, but I don’t believe this extends as far as the whole of society conforming to the Church’s ideas. Jesus in no way tried to change the way of the Romans who governed his country, he instead cared for and taught those who came to Him. Thus I believe that it is inappropriate for anyone, fundamentalist, liberal or otherwise, to say that the Bible says this and therefore everyone must live in this way, regardless of faith, or to try to force it on other Christians either. We have a role in advising others around us, but never forcing our readings upon them. Its so easy to criticise others’ interpretations, forgetting that we have similar issues in our own understandings, much like Jesus’ parable of removing the log from our own eye before attending to the splinter in somebody else’s (Luke 6:41-42). There’s a fine line between guiding others to what the Bible has to say in its raw form, and pushing our own readings on them.

And there’s a big difference between doing something according to a certain interpretation of the Bible, and deliberately ignoring certain parts, or twisting meanings. While it’s good to remember that different parts of the Bible had different purposes, and this affects how we should understand their meaning for us today, one thing I can be certain about here is that it is never appropriate to pick and choose bits of the Bible according to your liking. In the Christian faith, the Bible is a single unit. While different readings of the Scriptures may be acceptable, when these readings involve ignoring or twisting the Bible to suit a purpose, that is quite clearly not an honest approach to the Bible. Of course certain verses will be used to support an argument (as I do here), but it’s important that these are used in the context of the whole Bible, not ignoring other verses that suggest other ideas.

Also, I think there will always be different interpretations of many parts of the Bible. Naturally one will be right, and the other wrong in some way or another. But Jesus made quite clear that in the end, faith isn’t about following God’s rules to the letter, but instead to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength… and love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31) Some of us will have interpreted things wrongly. But if we always have the intention of being faithful to God’s word, and following it as far as we are able, then that’s what I believe God asks for. Naturally, faith involves following the Bible as closely as possible, but this is a result of faith, not a prerequisite.

So where do I draw the line? For me, as long as you understand the Bible is the word of God, then the nuances of interpretation matter little in how we live out our faith in God. I realise full well that it is the most debated and controversial book in existence, and that we will all have different opinions, probably even on what I’ve written here. I think that’s ok. But when anyone reads the Bible, I believe they need to approach it with an attitude that if it is believed to be true, then it is the word of God, and must be treated as such. There will still be differences in readings, naturally, but the focus is on recognising it as the word of God, and responding accordingly. As long as people try their hardest to live by the Bible the way God would have them live, then I’d say they’re on the right track.

Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: 2 Timothy 3:14-16; Mark 12:28-34; Hebrews 4:12-13.

Hell.

Why would a loving God send people to hell? Isn’t this against His very nature?

As far as I can see, the so-called ‘doctrine of hell’ is the biggest argument thrown against Christianity, and one of the worst defended aspects of the Christian faith. I was quite tentative about preparing a post on something so fundamental to many people’s questioning of faith. When it comes to issues of hell, I want to emphasise that this is my understanding of how works, tested against the Bible, and is what makes the most sense to me. The sole purpose of this argument is to look at how God and hell can go together without being a contradiction. There are other biblically-based theories, and I don’t mean to criticise them here, rather this is the way I see it to fit together, so that I can know that my faith does make sense. It’s also worth mentioning that there’s a reason the question of hell is so difficult – we simply don’t know enough. There are all sorts of mysteries surrounding the afterlife, and essentially we won’t know the real story till we get there.

The idea I see as most logical is known as annihilationism, and is based on the idea that a person who follows God is granted eternal life, while one who doesn’t suffers complete death in hell, they are destroyed. When I first looked over this idea I was somewhat sceptical, but on further research it actually makes quite a lot of sense and does work with the Biblical account of hell.

The Old Testament’s view on the afterlife is somewhat vague, and offers little more than an understanding of an afterlife existing, and different places for different people. It’s mainly in the New Testament that the well-known physical ideas of hell emerge, such as an eternal fire. But looking into it closely, most of the images likened to hell are those of fire, a force which consumes and destroys, or are terms like ‘destruction’, ‘perish’ and ‘death’. These images and words all speak to me of complete destruction, and this is what I see hell to involve. And it seems that this understanding of hell fits most closely with the images presented in the Bible, while considering God’s mercy.

This sounds to me like a very just and merciful treatment of humanity, which allows for salvation for those who ask it, while those who don’t are destroyed, they cease to exist. The well-known verse of John 3:16 seems to confirm this – “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”. There are many references of this type, only some of which I have noted below, but all seem to support this idea as a plausible understanding of hell.

The main challenge brought against this idea is that annihilation isn’t really a punishment. I think that’s possibly more a matter of opinion, as I would argue that ceasing to exist would be a huge punishment, especially compared with an eternal life with God. It may not be seen as the same sort of punishment envisioned by those used to the fire-and-brimstone idea of hell, but at the same time this form of torture doesn’t seem to fit with God’s loving nature. Regardless, the thought of taking away the gift of life, and particularly eternal life, could be seen as a severe punishment, especially from the perspective of a person of faith. If you say to a child “you’ll get no dessert if you don’t finish your veges”, it’s definitely considered a punishment, and I see it to be the same with taking away the privilege of eternal life. I should also add that there is significant suggestion in the Bible that there may be two ‘stages’ of afterlife, one which involves a ‘waiting place’, Sheol or Hades, and a second stage (after the second coming), which is where I see complete destruction to come in. It may be that this waiting place involves separation from God, a torment in itself, and this may be where ideas of more tangible punishment come into things. The important thing to note here is that there’s no guarantee there will be no consequences other than being destroyed, and so the idea of faith remains very important.

I also know that this argument takes a bit of the sting out of Christianity. The idea of endless torture and suffering has long been used as a reason for becoming a Christian, and maybe that’s why the traditional views of hell have stood the test of time. I don’t mean to devalue faith at all, or to pretend that ‘hell’ is any less worse than it really is. I still hold my Christian beliefs about the need for salvation and faith as essential, but I also needed to reconcile ideas about Hell with the nature of God. I think I’ve managed that here, and I hope it doesn’t discourage any from the need for faith. For me, this doesn’t mean belief is any less important. And besides, I don’t think faith is something that comes from simply being scared of the possibility of hell.

This has been a particularly difficult post to put together, and it has been hard to prepare some thoughts that I can actually live by. As always I looked at this as a question of my own faith as much as something for others to read, trying to understand how basic Biblical teachings on hell actually work, and that it all makes sense and is worthy of my faith. The theology of hell is a complex one, and different people have different ideas about it. But as always the crucial factor in my opinion is seeing that the Biblical teachings on hell fit in with the nature of God, and understanding that it all fits together in the big picture of Christianity.

I want to finish by saying that many will disagree with my ideas here (including my editors), and I am prepared to accept that I may well be wrong. Probably the majority of people accept the standard idea of hell, where non-believers will suffer in hell and so forth, and I can’t say that it’s an impossible scenario. If the more standard ideas make sense to you, or it’s something you just don’t need to question, that’s great. But the ideas here are very much biblically tested, and are possibly aimed more at those who struggle with the Christian idea of hell, and it is a major questioning point in their faith. Please, by all means leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10; Matthew 10:28; John 3:16; Matthew 7:13; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 18:7-9; Mark 9:42-49.

Unforgivable sin

What is the unforgivable sin?

In Mark 3:28 Jesus says “all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin”. When I first read this quite a while back I struggled with it, as it seemed at odds with the rest of what Jesus taught, and I struggled to see how this blasphemy was different to any other.

However I think there’s a lot of sense in this verse; I see it as looking at a lot more than what we commonly think of as blasphemy. I don’t see this as literally speaking against the Holy Spirit through “oh my God” type expressions. Sure, that is also a form of blasphemy, but I don’t think it’s related to this concept.

The Holy Spirit is God’s hand at work in the world today (see “Holy Spirit”), and He is understood to be responsible for speaking to people and convicting them of God’s truth. For many people (though not all) they have experiences where they believe the Holy Spirit has literally filled them with His power, or have in some other way seen Him. Others simply see God’s handiwork in creation, or are convinced by the Bible. And some people just seem to know. But it is the calling of the Holy Spirit that leads people to faith, and makes a calling on the lives of everyone, religious or not.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a confusing concept, and it has taken a while to work through what I think it is. At its most basic level, I see blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a person hardening their heart to God, and rejecting Him throughout their life despite seeing the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. By not accepting this calling of the Holy Spirit, the person “speaks against” the Spirit, thus giving blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This isn’t a one-off rejection of God’s purpose in our lives, as I’m sure we all do that from time to time, but an ongoing and continual rejection of God, despite seeing His glory. It’s arguable what exactly seeing the glory of God is, as some may say seeing creation is enough, while others may go as far as to say that it involves facing Christ Himself, but the essential point as I see it is that it is a rejection of God when recognising His presence in some way. And I believe that the Spirit makes a deliberate and specific calling on everyone’s life, and thus in some way I think everyone sees the glory of God, making this something relevant to everyone.

As for its nature as the unforgivable sin, I see it to be because once this decision has been made, and once a person dies, that’s it. Whatever we do in our life is forgiven if we ask it, but if we turn away from God and ignore or reject His presence in our life, that’s the one thing that puts us apart from God, forever. An important verse comes to mind that reads “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1John 1:9). A person who rejects God their entire life has never asked for forgiveness, and I think that this in itself is a large part of why it is the unforgivable sin. Forgiveness is something that comes as much through us bringing our sins to God and asking for forgiveness, a gift of grace to those who want it. I think blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, because it is our decision not to want God’s forgiveness. There can be no forgiveness, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a rejection of this very forgiveness.

To me, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is no small thing. It’s not throwing around a few stray words, nor forgetting about God once in a while. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit speaks to me of someone who doesn’t want to be forgiven, and thus in this very act creates the unforgivable sin for themselves. It’s no quick mistake or period of weakness, but saying blatantly to God “I don’t want your forgiveness” by not accepting or searching for Him. After all, if we don’t want God in our lives in any way at all, why would we want His forgiveness?

Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: Mark 3:28-29; Matthew 12:31-32; John 3:19-21.

Why believe?

What’s the point in believing in God?

I sort of struggle with this question, not because it’s hard to answer, but because it comes from a completely different point of view to mine.

If you come to Christianity asking “what can I get out of it” there are obvious answers. The biggest one of course is salvation. The Bible makes it quite clear that salvation and eternal life come through faith. So I would say that that’s a pretty good thing to ‘get out of’ Christianity. And then there are things that come with faith, like peace in your heart and a trust in a higher being watching over you. It gives you stability and hope.

But that’s where I stop, because these things all come at a price. God asks us to give up our lives to him. Luke 14:27 reads “Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple”. That’s a big call.

I can’t come at Christianity asking what I get out of it. I come asking what I can give. If the ‘answer’ to this question was that you get nothing but pain and suffering, I would still say it like it is. And for some, the answer is pretty close to that. Yes, they do have the promise of salvation. But for a life lived in suffering, that can seem a small consolation at the time.

I don’t see faith as something you get something out of. Naturally there are ‘benefits’, but that’s not what my faith is about. People seem to assume quite often that Christians follow God because they want salvation, or as it’s often seen, some false hope that there’s something better coming later. My faith isn’t about me. My faith is about God.

It’s sad that Christianity has been softened up a lot, to become something that’s a comfort factor, strength in times of struggle, and an endless source of love. Of course these things come from faith. But being a Christian isn’t just about us. Jesus was hung on a cross. All his disciples except John were martyred for their faith. Each year around the world, thousands die because they believe in God, and stand up for their faith. That doesn’t speak to me of ‘getting something out of’ Christianity. But the very fact that they continue to stand for their faith says something to me. It speaks of a faith that sees beyond our wants and desires, a faith that isn’t about us. For these people, at the height of suffering and persecution, there is nothing in it for them. Sorry to dash your hopes, I’d love to say that you become a Christian, and everything is fine and dandy. But life isn’t always great, regardless of faith. For many, faith makes it harder. And I say that here without hesitation.

So why are people Christians then? I think, and sincerely hope, that it’s because people love their God, and want to worship Him. I’ve used the analogy of parents a lot in these posts, but it continues to serve me well. Why do people continue to love their parents (or other family or friends)? Not because they ‘get something out of it’, although they may, but because they have a personal relationship and love for them, formed and shaped through love, trust and so much more. God is frequently referred to as our father, and embodies that same love and trust that we have from parents. And being God, He’s given so much more too. We don’t love our parents in the hope of getting something more out of them, and it’s the same with God.

Having said that, as human beings we all still hope to receive rewards, and I don’t mean to criticise anyone for thinking that. Many people grow up in Christian environments, and sadly get the impression of an easy Christian life, expecting benefits and advantages. Even the disciples showed this way of thinking, with Peter saying to Jesus “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27) But the core of faith goes beyond our desires. When Peter spoke the words above, it’s worth noticing that he had already given up everything to follow Jesus.

So back to the question – what’s in it for me? Well, if you come looking to get something out of Christianity, not much. Yes, there are benefits to come out of Christianity, but if you come looking just for these you’ll be sorely disappointed. Faith is so much more than gratifying our own desires. I follow God because I love Him as my Creator, and want to worship Him. It may result in suffering, persecution, or any number of woes, but I accept that. In the end my faith is about God. No more, no less.

Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: Luke 14:25-33; Matthew 19:27-30; Colossians 1:24.

Jesus – man and God?

How could Jesus be both completely human and completely God? It doesn’t make sense!

Indeed, at first it doesn’t seem to make sense, how Jesus could be both human and divine! This is how I look at it, and reconcile the two parts.

Jesus came to earth in human form. He was born of a woman, and grew up in a common family of carpenters. He had to undergo all the usual experiences of childhood, learning in the Temple and probably learning carpentry from His father. Luke records a young Jesus at the temple eagerly asking questions of the church leaders. As such, Jesus would have experienced all humanity had to offer – joy, sadness, pain, suffering, hope, despair, temptation and so forth. There was no escaping this; it was a part of His very humanity.

But Jesus was different too, as He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus came from God, not from man. He wasn’t just a human being conceived of human genes and blood, but more a case of God in human form, or God incarnate.

Now this is where it gets interesting. All four gospels record that Jesus did nothing miraculous in his childhood, and that both His ministry and His miracles began only after His baptism by John the Baptist. It’s at this point where Jesus becomes radically different, taking on the identity of the Son of God.

As far as I understand it, in His baptism, Jesus had the Holy Spirit bestowed on Him by God (see Matthew 3:16). Because Jesus was fully God and sinless, while in human form, He was able to commune completely with God, and receive the full measure of the Holy Spirit, or God’s divine presence on earth (see “Holy Spirit”). He was able to be one with the Spirit, and thus perform miracles and healings in completeness by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are often held back in our abilities, because we are separated from God, but Jesus was God, and thus didn’t have this problem. The prophet Isaiah wrote of how Jesus would be empowered by the Holy Spirit – “The Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him – the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” (Isaiah 11:2).

It’s far more difficult to draw an analogy of this topic, but I hope this makes sense. Think of it like citizenship – some people can obtain dual citizenship, and as citizens of two countries they can draw on rights and privileges of each country. But while this person resides in one of the countries, they are subject to the citizenship requirements of that country. Jesus holds ‘dual citizenship’ as both man and God, but while residing on earth, He was subject to the ‘citizenship requirements’, or experiences, of human life, and thus had to call on the Holy Spirit for the power He displayed. In coming down to earth, Jesus took on human ‘citizenship’, but this doesn’t mean He’s no longer God, but that while He’s here, He’s constrained to the ‘citizenship requirements’ of humanity.

The core of this idea is that Jesus was God on earth in human form, and was empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform miracles and so forth. I realise completely that this is only a human understanding of something so far beyond our comprehension. The interrelatedness of the Trinity (God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) is the subject of intense theological research and discussion, and I can’t do the topic justice here. But seeing how the Spirit is an essential part of Jesus’ life and ministry allows me to understand how Jesus could be both man and God, and how he could have suffered and lived just as we humans did. There’s no illusion for me about Jesus in that respect. I have no doubt that Jesus experienced real pain on the cross, real grief at the death of John the Baptist, real anger at the commercialisation of the Temple, and real love for all of humanity. This humanity He had in abundance. But because He was the true Son of God, He could be in complete communion with God, and was thus able to do anything through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: Isaiah 11:1-2; Matthew 3:16-17; John 1:32-34.