Letter to M_____

February, 2003

Years ago, I had a neighbor who was of a very similar Christian faith as the one I grew up with (and rejected). Shortly before he and his family moved to another state, we had dinner and talked about religion. After they moved, he sent me a book making the case for his views. I wrote the following letter in response.

Dear M______

Thank you forthe book (and the dinner and conversation last time we saw you). I regret that you and I never spent more time sitting around onlawn chairs halfway into the summer night, talking about the universe. I'm sure there would be a lot of things we would disagree about,but it is always nice to find someone you can have a nice time disagreeing with.

I haven'texactly read this book cover to cover yet -- and I probably won't. But it is well organized for browsing different topics, and I'm sureI will see what he has to say on various issues from time to time. I'm always glad to see an effort to talk about religious mattersin a logical way. Obviously, you can't prove by logic that"God is" anymore than you can prove "God is not," but I think it is importantfor people to be able to support their religious views with some reasoning. Since God gave us brains, we should presume He expectsus to use them. We should be able to distinguish right fromwrong, justice from injustice, even if there is no Bible verse for that particularsituation. And too, I think he would want us to ask toughquestions when it seems that something unjust is being done in His name.

I've beenthinking about religious questions all my life, but not everyone likes to talkabout them. Non-religious people don't particularly care,and religious people tend not to be very open to discussion when it strays outsidetheir own beliefs. You're a bit different than most peoplebecause even though you hold strong to your own beliefs, you aren't afraidto consider other ideas and to hold your own beliefs up to the scrutiny ofcommon sense. And that is also what Josh McDowell is doingin this book.

So, I willwarn you that my letter probably won't be brief, but since you sent me a756-page book, I figure you probably won't mind if I write a bit long.

* * * * *

I want to start off by tackling the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. Churches teach that homosexuality is immoral and againstGod's word -- and they can point to several passages in the Bible as proofof this. If we accept the Bible as God's word, we are told,there can be no doubt on this because the Bible is so very clear. And Christians tell homosexuals, with this authority, the only waythey can reconcile themselves with God, and be spared eternal damnation,would be either to change their orientation or to remain celibate the restof their lives. And some do change, or so it seems. Under fear of eternal torture and the yearning for God's acceptance,many people who feel naturally oriented towards the same gender make a tremendouseffort to suppress those feelings and seek a union that God and the churchwill accept.

One can imaginehow difficult this would be. Most homosexuals feel as naturallyattracted to people of the same gender as you and I feel naturally attractedto the opposite genders. If the circumstances were reversedand you were the one who was being told by everyone, including God, thatthe only way for you to be saved would be to marry a man, well, you can seeit would be no easy matter.

And althoughthe image often depicted of gay people -- especially gay men -- is one ofpromiscuous, sex-crazed people who have sex in alleys with people they don'tknow, that image only represents a small minority of homosexual people. (And some heterosexual people are just as promiscuous). But most gay people, like most straight people, settle downwith one mate just like the rest of us do. Most say thatnothing terrible ever happened to "turn them into" homosexuals, nor werethey "recruited." Most also say they have felt this waysince puberty and have never had any attraction to the opposite gender, andso they feel that if God made them at all, God made them this way.

But Christianswill say, look none of that matters. It is unfortunate,but the Bible is crystal clear on this, and there is no room for liberal interpretation.

And the Bible does seem pretty clear, starting with the famousverse in Leviticus 18:22, which is so widely preached that many people can,and often do, quote it from memory: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, aswith womankind: it is abomination." Then verse 20:13 adds,"they shall be put to death."

But, as hasbeen pointed out by others before me, the people who are so quick to quotethat verse never focus on the rest of the prohibitions in that same book. Leviticus 19:19 says, "thou shalt not sow thy field withmingled seed; neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come uponthee." Tattooing is absolutely forbidden in 19:26, and 21:17-21lists all of the various blemishes which would disqualify you from approachingthe altar, including "a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose . . . or a crookbackt ora dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye." And if youare looking for a remedy for skin ailments, Leviticus 14:1-9 goes into alot of detail about dipping a live bird into the blood of a slaughtered bird,sprinkling it on the afflicted person seven times, and then letting the livebird fly free into the countryside.

But let's moveon from the Old Testament and focus this argument only on the New Testament, where Paul is our main source. In the first chapter of Romans,Paul lists a number of things which he says are unnatural and corrupt. In the middle of this, he says, "and likewise also the men, leavingthe natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; menwith men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves thatrecompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:27)

That is the clearestverse I can find in the New Testament -- which actually surprised me becauseI had assumed, listening to people talk, that the New Testament was muchmore explicit on this. There are a couple of other vaguereferences to "unnatural flesh," but I believe this is the most straightforwardcondemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. I amnot going to try to dissect it or re-interpret it. It isawkwardly stated and a little bit vague, but I concede that Paul, in thispassage, is condemning homosexuality. And if Paul is speakingfor God, then God also condemns homosexuality.

But wait. Here is another quote from Paul, this one stated much more clearly but on a different topic:

"Let your womenkeep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak. .. If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a womanto speak in the church" (I Corinthians 14:35-36). This isnotone of those passages where Paul says he is just offering his own views,and this is clear because immediately afterwards, in verse 37, he clearlystates that "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of theLord."

Now personally, I do not think women should have to be silent in church (I'm not even sure it is possible), but Paul doessay it. I mention it to point out that here are two commentsmade by Paul. One of them gets preached from pulpits acrossAmerica -- and the other is rarely mentioned. Why wouldthis be?

But let's set Paul aside for the moment and look to our highestauthority. What does Jesus himself have to say about homosexuality?

He says nothing. That does not mean he approved of it; we just don't know. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuality. However, he seems tohave a great deal to say about several other matters and I am offering justtwo of these as illustrations to my argument.

Everyone is familiarwith the well-known quote, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eyeof a needle, than for a rich man to enter unto the kingdom of God." One reason this is so well-known is that Jesus is quoted as sayingit in three different books of the Bible. So that should give it more authority thananything Paul may have said, and this sounds like a pretty definitive statementto me. Consider: are there any camels that have ever livedthat could pass through the eye of a needle? Have you everseen a needle big enough for a camel to pass through its eye? (I suppose we could manufacture one that big, but I'm pretty sure that'snot what Jesus had in mind). If it is impossible for anyknown camel which has ever lived to pass through the eye of any needle onehas ever seen, then surely Jesus must be saying it is impossible for a rich man to enter Heaven. Surely we would not say that Jesus was "just exaggerating." Because, if we say Jesus was only exaggerating here, well then I think there are a whole lot of other quotes we ought to re-evaluate on the same basis.

Jesus is also quite clear on the topic of divorce and remarriage.All three synoptic gospels quote Jesus as saying, "whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt 19:9). Well, now THAT is what I call a clear condemnation. Andit comes from Jesus himself. In three different gospels. And it is a sin specifically listed in the Ten Commandments.

Of course, I realize that evangelical Christian churches certainly do not encourage or condone divorce. But if someone has been divorced and is re-married and desires to attend church, that person is NOT subjected to the same type of zero-tolerance as homosexuals. The remarried person is not told that the only way to reconcile with God would be to return to their original spouses or else to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. And while that old eye of the needle verse may be preached now and then, perhaps before the collection plate goes around, those members who are well-to-do are generally left to their own conscienceto decide how much wealth is too much in the eyes of God. These people are NOT told that the only way they can reconcile themselves to God would be to give away all of their money. Yet that is exactly what Jesus says -- three times.

And yet . . . basedmostly on a selective reading of the Old Testament, plus one comment by Pauland a few other vague references in the NT to "unnatural acts", the preacherstell us that the evidence against homosexuality is absolutely overwhelmingand irrefutable.

* * * * *

One of the passages in Josh McDowell's book that I turned to was his section on the "inerrancy" of the Bible, because any such claim first has to deal with the fact that there are a number of factual inconsistencies in the Bible, which skeptics have latched onto to make the opposite argument -- that if there are any mistakes at all in the Bible, then nothing in it can be believed with certainty.

Some of the discrepancies in the Bible that I am aware of include:

There are others of a similar nature, I imagine, but these are the ones Ijotted down long ago. McDowell avoids this issue in the sameway that others have done -- he asserts that the original writings of thesebooks were perfectly in agreement, but that copyists from the first few centuriesmade mistakes. It seems odd to me that God would go to suchtrouble to dictate all these books word-for-word and then allow copyiststo make those mistakes, but that is the argument. And forsome of those truly bizarre Old Testament passages, McDowell makes the distinctionbetween "what the Bible affirms and what it merely records" and that wholesections of Ecclesiastes and Job may be "a true record of false views." I'm not sure what he means by that, but he seems to be buildingin plenty of wiggle room for his argument.

But although McDowellstates his case for inerrancy, he cannot really explain -- nor can anyone-- why it MUST be so. You can quote any one of several Biblicalverses that assert themselves to be God's view, but no quotation can beproven true just because it declares itself to be.

I realize that thisis one of the essential beliefs within evangelical Christianity, and thatit is your view. But for my part, I have not found it possibleto believe in that doctrine and still believe in God also.

* * * * *

I grew up in a churchin the Pilgrim Holiness denomination, and I believed myself to have been savedfrom eternal damnation because I had accepted Christ as my savior. I made the trip back to the altar a number of times, frequentlyfor that most common of sins for a boy going through puberty -- "lust ofthe flesh" But I did not drink or smoke or fornicate (I was much too shywith girls to get any actual opportunities to fornicate). There were other times when I was not quite sure what exactly I had donewrong, like when it was the third night of Revival on a sweltering July nightand the preacher was going on about how God would come like a thief in thenight, and would we be ready to face him? I would look out the open windowthrough which no breeze came and into the black night sky, and I would imagineJesus suddenly flying over the horizon with a flaming sword in his hand asdepicted in the Revelation of John, and as we sang "Pass Me Not Oh GentleSavior," or some other hymn, I would hurry to the altar to plead for forgivenessfor whatever it was that made me so unworthy. And afterwardsI would feel clean and marginally worthy again, for a little while.

As I got olderand thought more about it, much of this just did not seem to add up. I started getting into debates with my friends at church over thewhole concept of going to Hell -- especially for good people who happenedto have a different religion than us. At the time, I feltreasonably confident that I would make it into Heaven myself (provided Icould control those lustful thoughts about the preacher's twin daughters,who were just one year older than me), but it bothered me immensely thatGod was apparently prepared to send billions of people to the torment ofHell -- not for being evil people doing harmful, hateful things to others,but just because they did not convert to Christianity -- and even a lot of"so-called Christians" of other denominations would go to Hell because they had not truly been savedas the Bible clearly taught.

This whole thingabout Hell seemed plainly wrong. I could understand if themessage had been: if you accept Jesus, you will go to Heaven, but if you donot, you will simply cease to exist when you die. It wouldbe one thing for God to say "you have free will and may worship me or notas you choose", but he apparently went on to say "and by the way, if youelect notto worship me, I will torture you for all eternity. But don'tlet that influence you -- make your choice freely."

My friends made the argument that "God doesn't send people to Hell, they choose it," but that seemed to be pretty lame semantics to me since the entire Universewas at God's command, and these events were all supposedly playing out accordingto His Plan. He did not have to permit Hell to exist, norwould he have to allow non-Christians to end up there. Heclearly chose to do this. Would not God Himself bethe one on Judgment Day who would stand before countless souls lined up beforeHim, and would not He Himself point His finger and send billions of peopleto the bowels of Hell where they would face eternal torment? Surely the Almighty God who Stands In Judgment and Orders the Universe wouldnot hide behind the semantic that He did not "send" them.

I remember sayingto my friends, suppose someone came up to you with a can of gasoline anda match. He says, "You have a choice. Youcan either join my religion, or else you can decline, and I will use this gasolineto set you on fire." If your response is "yikes, okay, I'lljoin!" can we say you truly did that out of free will? (Inan Earthly court of law, any claim that an agreement was "consensual" isvoid if a threat was involved). If you decline and the mandoes what he threatened and sets you on fire, can we say he did a good andnoble thing? Do we admire that? Do we callthis just? If God does something equally horrible, doesthat somehow become "good" just because God is the one who did it? If God wants an honest choice, why would he express it in this way?

My friends saidGod is God and can take life away if he wants. True, butthat just means He is powerful, not that He is good.

They saidI should trust in God's Mysterious Plan, which our puny brains cannot fathom. Well, I may have a puny brain, I thought, but that wouldhave to be one heck of a good Plan to be worth all the misery and devastationwhich it evidently required.

I tried to imagineus all in heaven crowding around a big table as God unrolled his master planlike a set of intricate blueprints. However marvelous thisplan might turn out to be, would we conclude that its sweeping grandeur wastherefore worth all the human suffering which God has steadfastly declinedto alleviate because it did not fit in with his Plan? Willwe conclude that it is so fine a Plan that it is worth the eternal sufferingof billions of non-Christians -- suffering that will be continuing even aswe view in our amazement this great plan?

It seemedself-evident to me that no matter how far beyond my comprehension this Planmay be, it could not be just, and also do this. And if theend result of this Plan was merely our " personal salvation," what kindof people would we be to accept such a gift if it came at so great a price?

My mind could nothold all of that together and defer judgment on things that seemed patently,undeniably, obviously wrong. My entire understanding of"God" was based on these presumptions -- because after all, they were "inthe Bible" and therefore must be so if God is so. And thatlogic went both ways, and so at age 17 ... I lost my faith altogether. EventuallyI would begin to find it again, but it took me 20 years.

* * * * *

Even after I became agnostic, I remained interested in theology, and I read the Bible -- not as a believer and yet not as a skeptic either. I read it because I knew it was important in some way, even if I could still not reconcile myself to the arguments that had led to my loss of faith.

I also read "historicalJesus" books, including some by authors associated with the Jesus Seminar-- which Josh McDowell in this book refers to as "the so-called Jesus Seminar." He dismisses these historians because their works do notsupport his own beliefs. Some of these people, such as JohnDominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, are quite religious men and have writtenautobiographical books on their own faith. But they arehistorians, and they employ objective historical methodology to their studyof Jesus of Nazareth.

Although I respectwhat McDowell is doing, even he would not describe his book as objective. The admitted purpose of his book is to provide argumentsto support his beliefs. To the extent that he uses any argumentsto the contrary, it is to set up his own counter-argument. By contrast, Crossan and Borg make a conscious effort to separate their religiousviews from their historical writings.

In the preface"The Historical Jesus," Crossan explains that his book would be to look atall writings of the period concerning Jesus, including religious writingsnot accepted as canon, secular histories such as Tacitus and Josephus, andthe New Testament itself. His methodology was to focus only on sayings appearingin more than one work, and then to rank them based on how many works eachsaying appeared in. From a historian's point of view, if a particularsaying attributed to any historical figure is found to appear many timesin multiple sources -- "multiple attestation" -- it would be astrong indication that the historical figure actually said it. Not proof,but an indication.

Incidentally, the Jesus quote he found appearing most often in and most widely was "this is the Kingdom of God."

But Crossan and otherhistorians associated with the Jesus Seminar are dismissed by McDowell notbecause of their research methods, but -- as McDowell himself says -- because their conclusions did not happen to support his own faith. Therefore, he says, they are "so-called scholars." Yet hefreely admits that his own research effort is not objective. His purpose is to prove what he believes, not to discover any new truthwhich may conflict with his preconceptions. So he reallyis in no position to look down his nose at someone else's scholarship.

It is also worth pointing out that McDowell calls upon science and sectarian history only when it supports his argument and neverwhen it contradicts him. He is quick to list archaeologicalscholarship that supports the historicity of Biblical events, but when scienceor history disagree, he dismisses them. If he thinks scienceis so misguided and unreliable, why does he quote it at all?

* * * * *

Sometimes it seems that Christians are in a battle against science because too often, science seems to be threatening vital beliefs. I don't think science threatens faith at all -- but I do think we need to be willing to reconsider the nuts & bolts of what we believe. By "nuts & bolts" I mean the specific details we envision when trying to understand how God put Creation into place. People once thought that the stars were pin-holes through which you glimpsed Heaven -- because that's what it looked like to them. Now we know that those tiny twinkling lights are actually huge stars larger than our ownsun! What an amazing thing! There is no way our primitive ancestors couldever have guessed that just by looking at the sky at night. But now that we know that the stars are not pinholes, does that mean thereis no Heaven? Not at all, but we had to re-think our nuts& bolts conception of how and where Heaven was actually constructed. The essential belief did not have to change, but there is a tendency for people to defend to the death any of their previous assumptions about the underlying mechanics of how exactly God made a particular thing happen. I think it is unfortunate that we tend to become stubbornly fixated on "exactly how God did this" instead of simply focusing on the fundamental faith at the heart of the story.

Throughout thehistory of Christianity, there were many times when scientific discoveriesclashed with religious beliefs. Usually, the people livingin that era stubbornly refused to accept the new science -- as for exampleGalileo's discovery that Earth was not the center of the universe as hadbeen presumed. This seemed to threaten the very foundationof our understanding of God, and religious people refused to believe it. But after a few more generations, it no longer seemed thatacceptance of that scientific fact necessarily contradicted religious belief. God was still God and we were still His Creation -- evenif the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around.

We saw the samething when dinosaur bones were first being discovered in the 19th Century. To a lot of religious thinkers of the day, this seemedan impossible contradiction to what they thought they knew about the historyof the Earth. The presumption at that time was that allof the animals currently alive were the same types of animals as had everpreviously existed. God did not tell Noah to collect "some"of the animals, but all living creatures. The existenceof dinosaurs seemed to contradict Christianity. Nowadays,we shrug that off and don't think it is a problem. But itwas certainly seen as a problem then.

In our own day,there is the issue of Creation. Many Christians feel thatevolution is completely at odds with the Bible and cannot be so, despitethe fact that year after year, the scientific evidence continues to pointto the long-term evolutionary development from simple life forms to morecomplex life forms. I don't know your opinion of this, butI know that for many conservative Christians, this is an extremely importantissue, and they feel that acceptance of the science of evolution would underminethe belief in Divine Creation.

Personally, I donot see why this must be so. I believe that God createdus and that God is the energy source within all Life. Itis no conflict for me to think that God performed this act of creation througha slow, evolutionary process -- guiding our development into beings who canthink and be aware and make decisions, and therefore to be responsible stewardsof the Earth He has given us.

I don't even seeit as a conflict with the Adam and Eve story -- unless you insist that thestory must be interpreted as being about two specific historical persons. I think that this story reflects the ancient Israelites'belief that God created all life, particularly humans -- and that He didso intentionally and with a purpose. That is where the Truthis, not in whether Creation happened instantly or over a long period of time.

The fact that Genesis presents this as a story as being about two people does not mean those two individuals had to be historical. After all, Jesus often starts off a story saying something like: "once there was a man who owned a vineyard and he had three sons .. ." Shouldwe get into a debate over whether the man and his three sons were actuallyhistorical persons, or should we pay attention to whatever point Jesus ismaking with the story?

You may say, well,the Bible clearly states that Jesus spoke in parables. Whatif it didn't explicitly say that? Wouldn't we still understand that Jesus probably wasn't referring to historical people. Would we even CARE whether they were historical or not?

I think the sameholds true of the story of the Flood. Christians make aherculean effort to scrape together bits and shards of science that mightpossibly support those ideas, but they avert their eyes from the much moreextensive body of science that says there is no geologic evidence supportinga worldwide flood. There were lots of localized floods, and it must have seemed to those living in those areas as if the water coveredthe whole world -- but they could not know that.

The story of a devastatingflood would have passed down from generation to generation in an oral tradition,and you can easily imagine eager listeners hearing the story and asking questions.

"But if God wiped out the world, why are we here?"

"Well, there wereprobably a small number of people whom God spared because they had remainedfaithful, while all others were corrupt."

"Yes, but how about the animals -- how did they survive?"

"Well, God wouldprobably have told the people he spared to build a boat big enough to saveone pair of each type of animal, so that they could all start fresh afterthe flood."

To the person whofinally wrote down this story a few thousand years ago, the dimensions ofNoah's ark probably seemed plenty large -- about the size of a footballfield, including the end zones -- especially since it could have had severallevels. But now we know that this would have been far toosmall. According to a recent National Geographic article,taxonomists have identified about 2 million species currently on the earth,most of them animals and birds, and they believe this is only a portion ofthe total number not yet catalogued. Noah's ark was justnot big enough to have saved two each of every animal currently living onearth -- not to mention those which have since become extinct.

And what did all of these animals eatduring their many weeks at sea? In nature, many of these animals would eateach other -- but that would have been a problem. Did Noah bring along extragazelles and zebras to feed the lions? Did God suspend hunger for the duration? And if He were going to go to that much trouble, why not just start fromscratch with some newly created animals after the Flood?

* * * * *

The Old Testament is full of images of God causing harvests to succeed or fail, and being appeased by burnt offerings. He is even depictedhelping the Israelites win battles against their enemies -- even instructing them to leave no one alive, not even babies. This makes sense if we are reading what the ancient Hebrewsthought God was like. But if God is basically dictating thestory, then it does not make sense.

In the early historyof the Hebrews, they were like other primitive people who thought that a badharvest meant God was angry with them. When I say they were"primitive" I don't mean they had less intelligence than people living today,but only that they had very limited information available to them with whichto interpret the world. They spent all their lives in asmall geographic area, they were dependent on the weather, and they couldnot turn on CNN to see what was happening on the other side of the world. So when the Spring rains did not come at the right time(which as we know, they often do not), or a disease wiped out the crops, orthere was a flood or drought, it was a devastating thing to them, and as faras they could tell, this same thing was happening "everywhere" since the knownworld to them was pretty small. So naturally, they wouldthink "God is angry with us; we have displeased Him in some way. " And they would try to demonstrate to God their faith so He wouldbring the rains again.

Nowadays, we understanda lot more about weather patterns, and we can turn on the TV and see thatthe weather elsewhere is always either better or worse than our weather. Floods and famine and earthquakes are happening someplacealmost all the time. Should we believe, as our forebearsdid, that God is angry with those specific people and pleased with otherpeople based on the weather pattern? And if we do not believethat is happening today, why do we believe it happened then? If God CAN control the weather when He chooses, why does he permit extremeweather events to cause such devastation? Or are we to supposethat Hurricanes are the direct result of our sins?

The Old Testament is also filled with depictions of God that may have made sense at one time, but which make him seem like a murderous, petty tyrant. That'sone thing if these stories were written by humans, but pretty scary if Godis supposed to have actually conveyed these messages.

The Book of Jobmakes sense if it was written by some ancient theologian, illustrating a philosophicalpoint about whether we love God for noble reasons or self-centered reasons. But if God wrote this story, then it is a horror. We are supposed to accept that God would kill Job's wife and children just to win a wager ? Although the story ends "happily" with God giving back toJob all he had and more, it does not say God raised Job's wife and childrenfrom the dead; just that he gave him new ones. Would hisgrief for his first family be gone?

Or consider the story of Abrahamand Isaac. The message is that if I feel convinced thatGod wants me to kill someone, I should do that without questioning whetherit is a good or bad thing to do. It must be good becauseGod commanded it, and no matter what the command, we must obey -- for Godvalues our obedience more than he values our compassion or our thoughtfulness.

The fact that in the story God stays Abraham's hand does not matter. Abraham raised the knife and was ready to slice his own child's throat. And though God spares Isaac, He praises Abraham for being willing to committhe act. I have heard preachers tell this story and sumup by solemnly asking if we would have the faith and courage shown by Abraham.

Well, I sure knowMY answer. I would not for a second consider such an act,no matter what God said he wanted or what the consequences of my refusalwould be. God should want followers who are not so obedientthat they would commit atrocities in his name. In our owntime, we have recently seen what a religion like this produces.If Abraham would kill his son for God, would he fly a plane into a building? What is the limit of our supposed obedience to AlmightyGod?

But if a human beingwrote this story -- a sincere, faithful, devout human being who was justputting down on paper the stories he had heard passed down by word of mouthgeneration to generation, expressing the Israelites' conception of their God-- then it makes sense.

* * * * *

Kathy has always retained a strong faith in God, even though she had some of the same questions I did. Like a lot of young people, shehad drifted away from the church of her youth, but she had never rejected it entirely as I had. About the time we moved to Dayton, shebegan a quest to find a new church, and she visited dozens of them in alldifferent denominations. She was not looking for theological creeds, but for a congregation that was a true community, and a church which felt it had a lot of work to do -- not saving souls but alleviating suffering. After working her way through most of the churches of Dayton, she hit upon St. Agnes, a tiny Catholic church which had quitedeliberately placed itself in the poorest neighborhood in Dayton. When she joined St. Agnes, she was, technically, convertingto Catholicism also, but she had no interest in the Pope or whatever the officialRoman Catholic Church may have pronounced on this subject or that. She was joining the St. Agnes community, which wasmade up of 40 or 50 individual people who are remarkable in their spirituality,open in their acceptance of others, and dedicated to serving the poor whomthey found all around them.

I started goingto St. Agnes also. But I did not say the Creed because I did not believe in what it said. And when everyone lined up for the Eucharist, I kept my seat. They would have given it to me, but I did not feel it would be right forme to participate -- even though I longed to do so.

But as I continuedto attend, participating in what I could, and mostly being a spectator, Ibegan to experience waves of emotion at serendipitous moments during church. Little moments would present themselves to me, almost cinematically. The clear voice of a woman singing in the pew behind me. The sunlight coming through the stained glass windows. Looking through an open doorway into the sunny outdoors,where I could see across the street a dilapidated house with several talland bold sunflowers bowing their heavy heads in front of it.

One day, Kathy hadtaken Helen downstairs to the restroom and I sat alone, and just then someonetapped me on the shoulder and it was the church member who each Sunday pickssomeone different to carry the wine and bread to the priest. It is a small ceremony, a simple act, and yet it meant so much to me --I, who could not allow myself to participate in the mass itself. So I played my small role, carrying a plate of homemade bread someparishioner had baked, and I handed it to the priest, and just as I turned to go back to myseat, Helen appeared out of nowhere and ran up to me and hugged my leg, andeveryone in the congregation smiled at us as we went back to our seats. It was a small thing, but somehow very important to me. Each time we were in church, there would be moments in which I wouldfeel such emotion, such joy, filling me as if I were a dry and dusty oldbottle that someone took off the shelf where it had sat untouched for years,and held under the faucet, filling it to overflowing.

Back at the churchof my youth, they would call this "receiving a blessing," and although I witnessedmany of these I never knew what that felt like until more than 20 years later. Even my experiences at the altar, though certainly emotional,did not compare with this. Perhaps that was because my motivationin those days was really just fear. I was afraid Jesus wasgoing to come back any moment and cast me into Hell, and I was so gratefuleach time He accepted me back, even though I often still did not quite knowwhat I had done wrong.

I admit that I amnot very far along in my rediscovery of faith, and I cannot tell you whatit "means" in terms of theology. I do believe I am feelingthe presence of God, but I have no idea how to define "God," except to saythat God is good and God permeates all life and makes everyone on Earth connected,whether they recognize it or not. My modest newfound faithdoes not, however, make me conclude that the Bible therefore must be theword of God. In fact, it is more clear to me now than everthat many of the beliefs expressed in God's name must be mistaken. God is not mean-spirited and selfish, and surely God would wantus to have higher aspirations for the gift of our time here on this planetthan simply being blindly obedient in order to secure our own selfish "salvation."

* * * * *

Christian teaching, based on the Bible, asserts that Jesus was God's only son and that God sent Jesus to earth for the specific purpose of dying on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, and that by doing so, he gave us all the opportunity to go to Heaven by accepting him as our savior. People who do not accept Jesus as their savior therefore must go to Hell,where we are taught that they suffer such agony as being burned alive andthat they experience this for all eternity.

Jesus was crucified-- a horrible way to die, and a form of execution practiced widely by theRomans during that time. Thousands of people were crucifiedas Jesus was. Jesus probably lingered in pain for hoursand hours -- perhaps round the clock for an entire day, and died. And then -- as he knew would happen -- he rose again, and ascendedinto Heaven to sit at God's right hand where he remains to this day.

Meanwhile, we aretold, during the course of these past 2,000 years, many billions of peoplehave lived and died. A huge number of these people did notaccept Jesus as their savior and therefore must be in Hell, burning evennow. The average Chinese Buddhist who lived around the year1,000 AD has therefore been experiencing the sensation of having his fleshburned off of his bones for the past 365,000 days, and he will continue experiencingthis for all eternity. Countless others have been experiencingthe same thing for thousands upon thousands of days over and over again. Their crime? They were not Christians.

By contrast, Jesusexperienced ONE DAY of torment, and as he endured his pain, he had the comfortof knowing it would only last that relatively brief period of time, afterwhich he would be able to rejoin his Holy Father in Heaven and live forever.

Those who believein the Doctrine of Hell must therefore ask themselves, how much did Jesussuffer compared to these people whose only crime was not accepting Him astheir personal savior?

I truly do not meantto trivialize Jesus' suffering and death, but I believe that the Doctrineof Hell does exactly that. It makes Jesus' death on the cross pale by comparison. Because, if you believe in the Doctrine of Hell, then you must believe inthat Buddhist who has been burning continuously for the past 1,000 years. And you must ask yourself whether this Buddhist would be impressedby Jesus' one night of suffering on the cross.

I say again:it is not my intention to trivialize Jesus' suffering. ButI assert that it is the Christian belief in Hell which trivializes Jesus'pain. For how can we say God "sacrificed" His son if Jesuswas only away from His side for that relatively brief moment -- a blink ofan eye compared to the eternity faced by that Buddhist and billions uponbillions upon billions of others just like him.

* * * * *

If I do not believe in the Bible and what it says about salvation and Hell, what do I believe? I honestly cannotsay, at least not in much detail. I aspire to believe that if God exists, He is good. I aspire to believe God is the source of life. I aspire to believe there is a Spirit which connects all living things to each otherand to God. I do believe that the Earth is a holy place anda worthy place.

I believe that any just God speaks to all peoples and that He does not require Moslems and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus to all convert to Christianity. I believe that the Bible was written by ordinary people who had faith inGod and were trying to understand God and who did their best to explain thetraditions that had been passed down within their communities.

I believethat Jesus probably lived and that perhaps he was closer to God than any person who ever lived. I don't know if he was "the only son of God" and I haveno idea if he performed miracles or rose from the dead -- but I suspect thesethings are not so central to God's intention as we have interpreted them tobe.

I suspectthat the "Jesus as Savior" theology came from Paul and the author of Johnand other theologians of the first century who struggled to understand whyJesus would leave (in whatever manner he left) and leave the Earth the same,the Romans still in charge, and why Jesus did not behave more like the David-likemessiah they had expected. It seems likely to me that the two Jewish traditions of thepure Passover lamb one sacrifices to God, together with the Yom Kippur traditionof the "scapegoat" which carried away sins -- which would have been deeplyingrained in the religious lives of first-century jews -- provided a basisfor this new theology, which was the best effort by sincere followers ofJesus to explain to themselves why he had been here, and how he could be goneagain, leaving everything as it was.

I suspect thatthe main message of Jesus had more to do with this Earth than it had to dowith Heaven. I tend to believe that Jesus was trying to tell us: "this Earth is the Kingdom of God -- open your eyes, don't you see it??"If we wash our hands of "this world" and focus only on the hereafter, I thinkwe fail God. Because I don't think he put us here just sowe could pass some test and get to go to Paradise. I thinkwe are here because this is where we belong, and it is a wonderful placeand could be a Paradise if only we would treat it that way -- and treat eachother that way. Maybe God wants us to grow up, to maturein our ability to understand and to come closer to understanding him. Maybe God does not want us to just obey and follow the rules withoutquestion. Maybe God does not want us to be so focused on our own precioussalvation that we do not challenge things that are plainly unjust.

I aspire to believethere is an afterlife, but I don't believe in Hell and Heaven as they havebeen commonly described. I believe that I am weak and terriblyimperfect and that I have many sins. But I don't think I inherited Adam'ssins or my own father's sins. My sins are my own, and they are enough. Mychief sin is that I don't do enough with the hands God gave me to help others. Oh, I volunteer a little here and there, and I am generous and a good samaritanwhen I directly cross paths with someone in need. But I do not go out ofmy way, rolling up my sleeves and devoting large chunks of my free time tohelp make God's Kingdom better for those whom Jesus blessed his inheritanceupon. A Catholic lay minister I know once said from the pulpit, "We searchand search and search for God, and the moment we succeed, God turns to usand says: I have a job for you."

If God decidesto choose the most worthy of mankind to go on to some greater level afterthis life is through, I suspect I may not make the cut. Butwhile I may not have earned anything more than this life I have been blessedwith, I still think it is a great gift. But whatever my sins may be, theydo not warrant eternal torture. An all-powerful God mayin his mighty wrath do whatever He may choose with my soul. But not even He could make that be "Just. "

* * * * *

But what if all this vain "logic" is just a trick of Satan? Whatif Satan is fooling me with his clever lies so that I depart from the truepath God has shown in the Bible, and in so doing, I die without being saved?

To that Ican only say: why on Earth would God do something like that? Why would hepermit the possibility of our being "tricked" into Hell by using the brainshe gave us and the free will he entrusted us with? Why would God rewardintentional ignorance -- for what else can you call it if you close yourmind and refuse to question anything lest it cost you your Heavenly reward?

Would God send to eternal perdition all those billions of non-Christians we have discussed ANDalso allow the Devil to spin logical lies to entrap foolish persons who woulddare challenge this apparent injustice? To what end? So that those few whomanage to keep their minds clean of such thoughts "win" and get eternal life,while most are sent to suffer.

If thatis what is true, then I decline. If God's offer to me of"personal salvation" comes at the price of all those tormented souls, thenI sincerely would prefer to go with them and not happily step through thegates of Heaven with the elite who passed the test and avoided the pitfallsof logic and justice. The price of my ticket would comeat too dear a price.

* * * * *

Well, my friend . . . thatwas a bit of a tirade near the end, wasn't it? I guess I should thank youif you have made it all this way. Too bad we didn't havethose summer-night conversations out under the stars -- we would have beenable to discuss this in smaller parts.

I am sure I said some things whichseem shocking or foolish or terribly wrong to you. I hopeI did not offend you in any of it -- and at least you got to see my collectionof God Cartoons

Seriously,I respect your intelligence and your thoughtful approach to your own faith. I am not trying to insult you, nor to "recruit" you to myview. I just wanted to explain where I am in my own journey. I may be wrong about a lot of things, but I am sincere inmy approach, and I do not fear that God will punish me for it.

If you would liketo continue this conversation -- I'm sure you can think of a few challengesto my arguments -- we might want to switch to e-mail and take it on in smallerbits. If you'd like to do so, my home e-mail address is"jesse_indpls@hotmail.com".

Thank you for yourfriendship, which I hope will continue even though there is now a greater physicaldistance. I hope you and your family are well and that wewill see you again before long.

-- Jesse

 

Although my evangelical friend responded that he had been impressed by the letter, he made no effort to debate any of my points. When we later talked, he would only say that we cannot comprehend God and that he trusted that God did things for a reason.